AVG-JOE's Thread on Politics - Check your insult arsenal at the door before entering.

[Oddball]

Shaddap and name it.

Oh yeah....There ain't one.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Constitution does not make life fair.

No, but it can eliinate inequality in the system itself without taking away a single freedom from anybody.

All we need is a constitutional amendment prohibiting Congress or anybody in the federal government from passing any law or using the people's money to benefit any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not equally benefit everybody else regardless of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or demographics. With that simple action:

1. You take career politicans out of the equation and reinstall true public servants.
2. You take corporate money out of elections because government can no longer repay corporations.
3. You take most of the lobbyists out of the system.
4. You rein in the unions who won't be able to use the government to keep them in power.
5. And you take ability to buy votes out of the system so that the people have incentive to elect those who will do the right things for the country again instead of just voting for those who will keep the freebies coming.

There is so much there. But lets start here.

Blacks are on welfare by about a 3-to-1 ratio more than white people.

Do welfare laws 'unequally' benefit the black 'demographic'? Do you count mulattos as half a person in making such determination.


Do you REALLY want your Federal government picking winners an losers?

Read the list again. If the government must give a dollar to EVERY PERSON if it allocates a dollar to a black person or any other person for any reason, then THAT is fair and equitable and picks no winners or losers at all. And since it would require taking a dollar from every person in order to allocate a dollar to every person, there would be no point in allocating it to anybody.

Yes, that would require any welfare programs that exist to be transferred to the states to manage as they saw fit and however they saw fit.

It would eliminate the ability of the federal government to pick winners and losers which it does with the welfare system now on a large scale.

 

[thanatos144]

You cant be a free nation when you wish to censor people by denying them the ability to support their candidate.

 

[Foxfyre]

You cant be a free nation when you wish to censor people by denying them the ability to support their candidate.

I agree 100%. And if somebody wants to give a candidate a billion dollars, that should be his right to do so. It still doesn't force the rest of us to vote for that candidate. And if that candidate is not able to reward the billionaire or any one of us more than anybody else, we will likely judge and vote for him/her or not based on his/her vision, expertise, ability, and track record rather than on what s/he promises to do for us personally.

 

[thanatos144]

You cant be a free nation when you wish to censor people by denying them the ability to support their candidate.

I agree 100%. And if somebody wants to give a candidate a billion dollars, that should be his right to do so. It still doesn't force the rest of us to vote for that candidate. And if that candidate is not able to reward the billionaire or any one of us more than anybody else, we will likely judge and vote for him/her or not based on his/her vision, expertise, ability, and track record rather than on what s/he promises to do for us personally.

Campaign finance reform is the elites on both sides telling us we are to stupid to understand how to make our own choices.

 

[Wiseacre]

A Constitutional amendment wouldn't be constitutional? Nobody's abridging anyone's speech, just where they're getting the money

What would they tempt them with? If they take a bribe, they're risking jail.

You'd oppose using tax dollars, even if it saved money in the long run? I don't see where the problem lies, since your candidate would have the same opportunity as anyone else.

I am not understanding your argument at all. What're you saying, you would ban private campaign donations or super PACs? Even if you could get it through Congress, I suspect the SCOTUS would throw it out, 9-0. They've already said individuals and corps have the right to contribute money to the candidate or party of their choice, or form super PACS and run independent political ads under the 1st amendment. You wanna take away that right? I don't think so, money is speech according to the SCOTUS.

You're gonna have to explain to me how your idea saves any money. Ain't saving any of my money, I don't give squat to any of 'em.

Do you keep bleeping over CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT?!?!

It would save you money, because politicians wouldn't be making backdoor deals that raise the budget and taxes.

Wouldn't it be great if that were true. But it ain't. Deals are going to get made one way or another, even if private campaign donations and PACs were illegal.

I'm kind of glossing over the CA, cuz it just ain't going to happen. There's no way the pols in DC, both sides, are ever going to pass that. And even if they did the SCOTUS would declare it to be unconstitutional. You don't think somebody is not going to challenge it? They ruled in Citizens v United that money is speech. Get over it.

 

[Foxfyre]

You cant be a free nation when you wish to censor people by denying them the ability to support their candidate.

I agree 100%. And if somebody wants to give a candidate a billion dollars, that should be his right to do so. It still doesn't force the rest of us to vote for that candidate. And if that candidate is not able to reward the billionaire or any one of us more than anybody else, we will likely judge and vote for him/her or not based on his/her vision, expertise, ability, and track record rather than on what s/he promises to do for us personally.

Campaign finance reform is the elites on both sides telling us we are to stupid to understand how to make our own choices.

That is part of the uglier side of it. The other sinister motive is to disadvantage the opposition as much as possible without disadvantaging yourself. McCain/Feingold was the last well publicized attempt at campaign finance reform, but when you look under the covers, both gentlemen and others who signed onto it made darn sure it would not hamstring their own campaign contributions in any way.

Campaign financing is not the problem. To correct the problem you limit what politicians and bureaucrats can use the people's money for. But will the now 50% Americans who are dependent in some way on government freebies ever find the courage to give up those freebies to effectively reform the system?

 

[AVG-JOE]

i think our current situation is the direct result of stupid voters...americans do not care to be good citizens....look how easily votes are purchased....we all remember the tax rebates under bush...it was a total waste...300 bucks a person....just a give away....and then obama....i love a president who tells the people they must suffer and give ...while he lives the lifestyle of the ****** rich....(o bitch and neg, its the truth and we all know it)

citizens that have allowed ourselves to be divided by what? perceived images? there are simply too many issues of distraction and the american voter is too stupid to see thru them.

You're really close to the truth here. The valve system directing the rivers of cash-flow running through our economy were carefully constructed by those with influence.

Influence in all it's corruptible forms. The unique thing about the American valve system is the multiplicity of layers, created by the changes, both sudden and steady, in the membership of 'those with influence'.

The Federal government needs a tax rate for individuals and a tax rate for commerce.

The state level is where negotiating "tax incentives" to businesses should be handled. If a chemical company is required to strike a deal with the locals who will live in the shadow of a new plant, they're more likely to get the project off the ground and more likely to be good neighbors when production begins.

That kind of thinking will give us a bit more variety in our market too, I'll bet. Having Golden Arches, Starbucks and Wal-mart at every exit on the freeway is boring.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The Constitution says: Congress shall make no laws abridging the freedom of speech.


The Constitution does not say “Congress shall permit the government to abridge the speech of people and associations that the majority does not like.”

Do you REALLY believe that Congress should be able to squash the revenue-supported voice of the New York Times Corporation or MSNBC?

It is simply common sense.


“I am comfortable with dirty politics. I fear living with less free speech.”
- Richard Cohen

Accountability and transparency is the answer, not speech restrictions.

 

[Care4all]

so, 50% are 'freeloaders'' in the USA? And 50% would rather take gvt help than to get their old job back that paid well, where they need no gvt assistance?

I don't think so Firefox...I think most people that have hit a low and get gvt help, since the 2008 crash and bubble bust, would GLADLY take their well paying jobs back and not take gvt assistance.

I can't imagine those hurt recently by the recession being content with a gvt handout in assistance....truly, I can't.

Unless this is not what you are saying or implying, I disagree Foxy?

 

[AVG-JOE]

If I am running a business or my household, or anything else that deals with cash flow, I must properly manage that cash flow - regardless of what I would like that cash flow to be some day - else my operation goes broke.


It is simply common sense.

Cash flow has two components, income and outgo. Cutting income while boosting outgo can only work in the short term, and for specific goals. If we wish to balance the Federal budget we must both increase income and decrease spending. That will require a national debate on where and what we should be spending on. And one concerning taxes. Taxes are the only source of income for the government. To increase income you have to increase taxes.

The first step in increasing taxes would be to simply let all the Bush tax cuts expire. The second would be eliminating some deductions above a certain level. Another tax increase, that would actually result in an income increase for some of us, would be a National Universal Health Care System funded out of a percentage increase on all taxes. That would eliminate MediCare and MediAid, and would fund health care for all Americans. From what we have seen in other nations, that would result in a lower cost per capita, also.

One of the biggest savings could be from cuts in military. There is simply no reason why only spending as much as the next seven nations combined should not be adaquete for our defense. That would be a substancial savings right there.

I say scrap the fucker and start over. There is NOTHING about our current tax code that's worth saving.

 

[AVG-JOE]

so, 50% are 'freeloaders'' in the USA? And 50% would rather take gvt help than to get their old job back that paid well, where they need no gvt assistance?

I don't think so Firefox...I think most people that have hit a low and get gvt help, since the 2008 crash and bubble bust, would GLADLY take their well paying jobs back and not take gvt assistance.

I can't imagine those hurt recently by the recession being content with a gvt handout in assistance....truly, I can't.

Unless this is not what you are saying or implying, I disagree Foxy?

I agree. I think the vast majority of Americans would prefer work to welfare and education to subsidies. There are a few cheaters and free-loaders to be sure, but most folks would prefer work.

America needs to look at incarceration rates world-wide and ask a few questions at home, too.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How is it possible for a free people to be restricted in how much they can spend on politics? The only answer is for those spending the money to be accountable by name, and not allowed to hide behind corporate paper. Restricting the resources one can spend on speech is tantamount to restricting speech outright.

Well over 90% of elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money.

Unless you can make an argument that there is no cause and effect in there, you have to acknowledge that those who possess the most money have wildly disproportionate power in our government.

What we end up with in place of a democratic system is a wealth-based hierarchy.

The idea that defending the principle 'free speech' should trump defending the principle of a democratic system is absurd.

The Constitution does not make life fair.

The primary purpose of the Constitution is to make life as fair as possible.

 

[thanatos144]

Well over 90% of elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money.

Unless you can make an argument that there is no cause and effect in there, you have to acknowledge that those who possess the most money have wildly disproportionate power in our government.

What we end up with in place of a democratic system is a wealth-based hierarchy.

The idea that defending the principle 'free speech' should trump defending the principle of a democratic system is absurd.

The Constitution does not make life fair.

The primary purpose of the Constitution is to make life as fair as possible.

NO it is not it is there to restrict government from stealing our liberties.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

" The idea that defending the principle 'free speech' should trump defending the principle of a democratic system is absurd. "


If you don't have free speech, you don't have a democracy.

You don't have a democracy if the rich can control or heavily influence the outcome of elections.

Free speech has never been unlimited, btw.

 

[thanatos144]

" The idea that defending the principle 'free speech' should trump defending the principle of a democratic system is absurd. "


If you don't have free speech, you don't have a democracy.

You don't have a democracy if the rich can control or heavily influence the outcome of elections.

Free speech has never been unlimited, btw.

We are not a democracy we are a republic.

 

[Foxfyre]

so, 50% are 'freeloaders'' in the USA? And 50% would rather take gvt help than to get their old job back that paid well, where they need no gvt assistance?

I don't think so Firefox...I think most people that have hit a low and get gvt help, since the 2008 crash and bubble bust, would GLADLY take their well paying jobs back and not take gvt assistance.

I can't imagine those hurt recently by the recession being content with a gvt handout in assistance....truly, I can't.

Unless this is not what you are saying or implying, I disagree Foxy?

There is a difference between being a freeloader and being dependent on freebies. The problem is the entitlement mentality and dependency on government freebies. Once people get used to getting them, they resist any reform or new system that would reduce or restrict them. To wit you have riots in Greece when the government tried to rein in some of the benefits the people were used to getting--the people demand reform, so long as it doesn't affect them in any way. You see the same phenomenon in Wisconsin. Adjustment had to be made to balance the budget and put the state back on solid financial footing and the people tried to recall the governor who approved it. They want him to keep his campaign promises to fix what ails the state, but not if it is going to affect them in any way.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution does not make life fair.

The primary purpose of the Constitution is to make life as fair as possible.

NO it is not it is there to restrict government from stealing our liberties.....

A government that can be bought by the country's money interests can pretty much steal anything it wants.

 

[thanatos144]

The primary purpose of the Constitution is to make life as fair as possible.

NO it is not it is there to restrict government from stealing our liberties.....

A government that can be bought by the country's money interests can pretty much steal anything it wants.

Thats free speech....I am smart enough to make up my own mind and dont need commercials to show me what to think.

 

[NYcarbineer]

NO it is not it is there to restrict government from stealing our liberties.....

A government that can be bought by the country's money interests can pretty much steal anything it wants.

Thats free speech....I am smart enough to make up my own mind and dont need commercials to show me what to think.

Is passing out Hustler magazines to children free speech?