Presidential Debates....only 3

[Foxfyre]

I hope the Tea Party does go after campaign finance reform. Flat tax has nothing to do with it. We need to get big money and patronage out of campaign financing. Let the government finance campaigns....only way to keep them honest

As long as 50% of Americans don't have to pay essentially any federal income taxes, the next 25% pay only a tiny percentage of federal income taxes, I'm not going to worry about who is financing campaigns so long as they are Americans. I figure the big money donors will have my interests much more in mind than will the free loaders who want all the benefits but will vote for those who will keep them on a free ride. And I figure there are more honorable, smart thinking Americans with deep pockets than there are those who promote more authoritarian government.

Put in a much more flat system with everybody being required to share in the collective burden, however, and you will see a much different situation. When everybody realizes the benefits and/or the negative consequences of tax policy, they all are much more likely to be careful who they vote for and why they vote.

I figure the big money donors will have my interests much more in mind than will the free loaders who want all the benefits but will vote for those who will keep them on a free ride. And I figure there are more honorable, smart thinking Americans with deep pockets than there are those who promote more authoritarian government.

Wow! Thats fucking scary

Yes it is. The current system is rushing us headlong off the cliff into bankruptcy and perpetual economic stagnation. And we have an administration telling us that all we have to do is soak the rich, aka job producers and tax payers, more in order to correct that problem. That should scare the pants off any American of normal intelligence.

We have others who think the people who pay little or no taxes should have the power to call the shots for those who do pay taxes. And that those who pay the taxes should not be allowed to contribute more to campaigns than those who pay little or no federal income taxes.

It is positively nuts.

The Romney/Ryan economic plans are by no means perfect but either and/or both will help. Nothing our current Fearless Leader has put out there has done anything but make things worse for the past three years.

 

[rightwinger]

If Romney and Ryan can just rachet down the runaway train back to normal speed, the Tea Partiers will have a better chance to focus on fixes for things such as campaign finance reform. And the best way to have campaign finance reform is to have much more fair and equitable flat tax system coupled with limitations on how Congress can use our money. An acknowledgement that the money is ours and not the government's would be a good starting place.

I'm hoping Romney and Ryan will show me that they understand this. Obama sure as hell hasn't.

I hope the Tea Party does go after campaign finance reform. Flat tax has nothing to do with it. We need to get big money and patronage out of campaign financing. Let the government finance campaigns....only way to keep them honest

Right! Obama agreed to that with McCain...then opted for the dishonest way.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The candidate with the most money will always decline

That's why it needs to be mandatory. You get so much in federal funds and that is it. No more fund raising, no hidden benefactors, no corporate ownership

 

[Foxfyre]

I hope the Tea Party does go after campaign finance reform. Flat tax has nothing to do with it. We need to get big money and patronage out of campaign financing. Let the government finance campaigns....only way to keep them honest

Right! Obama agreed to that with McCain...then opted for the dishonest way.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

The candidate with the most money will always decline

That's why it needs to be mandatory. You get so much in federal funds and that is it. No more fund raising, no hidden benefactors, no corporate ownership

Meaning that the candidate with the most 'sex appeal' or name recognition will win every single time and to hell with his credential, experience, or intent.

 

[there4eyeM]

If only the two dictatorial parties are allowed time, it isn't a real debate.

What is wrong with the voting public that they permit this charade to pass for political process?

 

[georgephillip]

If your definition of political equality provides equal citizenship to all members of the state, how is equality served by allowing the rich to use campaign donations to determine our "choices" on election day?

Why lie ? A superpac isnt campaign donations.

It is a collective producing media materials w/ protection of the 1st Am as upheld by SCOTUS in Citizens United V FEC.

And corporations are people, too.

"Outside spending by organizations that aggregate unlimited contributions from wealthy individuals and institutions is playing a significant role in the 2012 election cycle, and much of it is not disclosed..."

"But, because of gaps in reporting requirements, spending reported to the FEC is only part of the picture. When all types of outside spending on television ads related to the presidential race are taken into account, just over 50% of the spending has been by 'dark money' groups that do not disclose their donors.

"According to Kantar CMAG data, the top four 501(c)(4) spenders on the presidential race have spent $43.3 million through July 1st on advertising in the presidential race alone, but our analysis shows these same groups have only reported $418,920 in spending collectively on all races to the FEC through June 30th.

"This means that these groups are currently reporting less than 1% of their total spending."

Million-Dollar Megaphones: Super PACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections | Demos

Citizens United was authorization for how corporations to produce "...media materials w/protection of the !st Amendment" without having to reveal where their money comes from. On January 21, 2010 four reactionary judicial activists gave a thumbs up to Thomas Ferguson's "investment theory of politics" whereby elections are opportunities for private sector power to invest to control the state.

It's hard to find any equality or Democracy in that "collective."

 

[georgephillip]

Are you saying that all of those in the 50% that pay little or no taxes are poor, infirm, or elderly? Should that 50% be the ones to choose how much in taxes the rest of us will pay?

I am saying that everybody should have a stake in the game. Everybody should be paying some taxes and should experience the consequences of a tax increase or a tax decrease and proportionately feel the effects of the laws passed by those they vote for. The rich would still pay much more than the less affluent. But if the rich are going to be expected to pay all or most of the taxes while others get pretty much a free ride, then the rich should be the ones to set the rules.

The rich have been setting the rules for the last 5000 years, and one thing they've learned is that every penny saved from taxation becomes available for more "productive" uses, like bribing elected officials for "liberal" trade policies and lower tax rates.

"Just over 57% of the $230 million raised by Super PACs from individuals came from just 47 people giving at least $1 million. Just over 1,000 donors giving $10,000 or more were responsible for 94% of this fundraising.

"Sheldon and Miriam Adelson have given a combined $36.3 million to Super PACs in the 2012 cycle. It would take more than 321,000 average American families donating an equivalent share of their wealth to match the Adelsons’ giving."

Million-Dollar Megaphones: Super PACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections | Demos

If your definition of political equality provides equal citizenship to all members of the state, how is equality served by allowing the rich to use campaign donations to determine our "choices" on election day?

Should not equal citizenship imply also equal responsibility? If everybody took equal responsibility, proportionately of course depending on ability, the millions of voters out there would overwhelm those 1000 donors. So don't cry to me that some are putting their money and reputations on the line for what they believe while others whine that they do it.

And if I think it is wrong for the free ride people to have all the power to tell me how much I have to pay in order for them to have that free ride, I just can't find anything wrong with my point of view about that. The problem is not what the rich give or what the rich pay in taxes. The problem is what the bottom 75% don't give and don't pay in taxes.

Why don't you define what you mean by "responsibility" and "free ride?"

If someone working full time doesn't earn enough money to pay Federal Income Taxes, is she getting a "free ride" or is she merely irresponsible?

If 321,000 average American families can't afford to donate an equivalent share of their wealth to match Sheldon and Miriam Adelson's $36.3 million contribution to Super Pacs in the 2012 cycle, are those families shirking their "responsibilities"?

Million-Dollar Megaphones: Super PACs and Unlimited Outside Spending in the 2012 Elections | Demos

When you say "(t)he problem is the bottom 75% don't give and don't pay in taxes" are you saying three out of four US workers are free riders and should have no political input on tax issues?

 

[copsnrobbers]

I can't wait to see them head to head face to face........

I appears to be America vs Communism (the end game)........ My monies on America.

 

[georgephillip]

I can't wait to see them head to head face to face........

I appears to be America vs Communism (the end game)........ My monies on America.

Looks more like the 1% v the 99% with Mitt and Barry siding with the rich, to me.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Same number of debates we have had for thirty years

Romney needs to spend as little time in front of the public as possible. His human robot act wears thin very fast

Do you think by the time the debates come around maybe we can address Obama's dismal record? Or is that asking too much? You Obamabots have nothing positive to say about Obama's record in the last three and a half years... All you have is disdain and contempt for Romney, and that isn't going to win over the Independents come November.

It sure seems winning is more important to Democrats than the economic health and well being of the country.