How is austerity doing in Europe

[RKMBrown]

Honestly, me boy. We all know what you said. It is ok. Congenital Idiocy entails massive ignorance. It is a mental illness. And really not your fault.

Serious question, are you mentally handicapped? You were talking about the CU decision and quoting to McCain's attack on the CU decision as proof that republicans were against the CU decision. I said and I quote, .."That CU law was McCain's baby." You said I was making shit up. Now you say I'm right. The issue you are having is you are just to stupid to understand an extremely simple sentence. That CU law is a reference TO YOUR COMMENTS. It's right up there for you to read again. Maybe this time you'll understand it now that you've read the wiki and can understand why McCain was against the CU decision.

You really need to stop trying to dig your way out. I am not a mccain fan. Nor a fan of politicians in general. But even a clock is right twice per day. And he was correct then. In my opinion. and in the opinion of around 80% of the american public, and most of the rest of the world. So, I know exactly what I was saying. I know exactly what cu was about, and what the supremes did to it when they took it on. And actually, I could care less what mccain had to say. What is more important is what the people feel is correct. because, you see, I believe in the corny democracy concept. You know, everyone gets the same say in our political system. And money can not buy elections. Because corporate money has only one purpose: To gain access and favors from politicians. And because those favors are not going to be for the people, but rather for the corporations spending the money, we should all oppose it.

If you believe otherwise, good for you. Few of us do. The great majority want to take down cu. And there are organizations that exist now trying to do so. But, there is not a single repub politician in those organizations. Which leads me to a conclusion. Those who benefit from cu are not going to allow it to go away if they can help it.
By the way, republican citizens oppose cu by a fairly wide margin. If we make it uncomfortable, maybe more politicians will come around. If not, and they want to simply follow the party line, then we are stuck with something that the vast majority of the public does not want.

Yeah well I'm not a democrat or a republican. You can spend a trillion dollars on advertising and it won't sway me one bit.

 

[Rshermr]

Serious question, are you mentally handicapped? You were talking about the CU decision and quoting to McCain's attack on the CU decision as proof that republicans were against the CU decision. I said and I quote, .."That CU law was McCain's baby." You said I was making shit up. Now you say I'm right. The issue you are having is you are just to stupid to understand an extremely simple sentence. That CU law is a reference TO YOUR COMMENTS. It's right up there for you to read again. Maybe this time you'll understand it now that you've read the wiki and can understand why McCain was against the CU decision.

You really need to stop trying to dig your way out. I am not a mccain fan. Nor a fan of politicians in general. But even a clock is right twice per day. And he was correct then. In my opinion. and in the opinion of around 80% of the american public, and most of the rest of the world. So, I know exactly what I was saying. I know exactly what cu was about, and what the supremes did to it when they took it on. And actually, I could care less what mccain had to say. What is more important is what the people feel is correct. because, you see, I believe in the corny democracy concept. You know, everyone gets the same say in our political system. And money can not buy elections. Because corporate money has only one purpose: To gain access and favors from politicians. And because those favors are not going to be for the people, but rather for the corporations spending the money, we should all oppose it.

If you believe otherwise, good for you. Few of us do. The great majority want to take down cu. And there are organizations that exist now trying to do so. But, there is not a single repub politician in those organizations. Which leads me to a conclusion. Those who benefit from cu are not going to allow it to go away if they can help it.
By the way, republican citizens oppose cu by a fairly wide margin. If we make it uncomfortable, maybe more politicians will come around. If not, and they want to simply follow the party line, then we are stuck with something that the vast majority of the public does not want.

Yeah well I'm not a democrat or a republican. You can spend a trillion dollars on advertising and it won't sway me one bit.

Good for you.

 

[Kimura]

I've read it in the past and do not recall any law declaring that money is speech. No corporation has unlimited money. I have no idea where you got that idea from. What I remember reading was that the very unconstitutional law that prohibited people from spending their own damn money while exercising lawful free speech, simply because they are using money from a corporate account, was thrown out.

That would be because that is what you choose to think. Good for you. Perhaps ignorance is bliss. Then you will have, me boy, bliss in spades.
Here is a quote from a republican you may have heard of:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) continued his harsh criticism of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling this week, calling it the bench's "worst decision ever."

“They said money is free speech. Since when is money free speech?” McCain asked a crowd at an event put on by the Oxford Union at the University of Oxford, according to the Oxonian Globalist. “Money is money.”

The Supreme Court's 2010 ruling, which allowed corporations, unions and individuals to pour unlimited amounts of money into elections through super PACs, has elicited strong responses from McCain in the past. Earlier this year he predicted that the unfettered influx of money, often from undisclosed sources, would lead to "huge scandals" in upcoming elections.
John McCain: Citizens United Is 'Worst Decision Ever' ... 'Money Is Money,' Not Free Speech

Yeah well McCain bless his socialist soul, is not a conservative. And he has no problem restricting our rights. That CU law was his baby. No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.

McCain needs to be in a nursing home. Seriously, he's one these dinosaurs that just won't go away. Ever.

 

[Kimura]

You really need to stop trying to dig your way out. I am not a mccain fan. Nor a fan of politicians in general. But even a clock is right twice per day. And he was correct then. In my opinion. and in the opinion of around 80% of the american public, and most of the rest of the world. So, I know exactly what I was saying. I know exactly what cu was about, and what the supremes did to it when they took it on. And actually, I could care less what mccain had to say. What is more important is what the people feel is correct. because, you see, I believe in the corny democracy concept. You know, everyone gets the same say in our political system. And money can not buy elections. Because corporate money has only one purpose: To gain access and favors from politicians. And because those favors are not going to be for the people, but rather for the corporations spending the money, we should all oppose it.

If you believe otherwise, good for you. Few of us do. The great majority want to take down cu. And there are organizations that exist now trying to do so. But, there is not a single repub politician in those organizations. Which leads me to a conclusion. Those who benefit from cu are not going to allow it to go away if they can help it.
By the way, republican citizens oppose cu by a fairly wide margin. If we make it uncomfortable, maybe more politicians will come around. If not, and they want to simply follow the party line, then we are stuck with something that the vast majority of the public does not want.

Yeah well I'm not a democrat or a republican. You can spend a trillion dollars on advertising and it won't sway me one bit.

Good for you.

We need some type of campaign finance reform. The goal should be to eliminate all money from politics and the political process.

I think campaign contributions can be unlimited so to speak, but only sixty percent of individual donations should go towards a particular candidate. The other forty percent would go toward the opponent.

This would handicap huge donors from giving millions to a single candidate, which would create a financial advantage.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nah.. We need to reform how the voting system works. Our voting system is ludicrous.

 

[Kimura]

Nah.. We need to reform how the voting system works. Our voting system is ludicrous.

How so?

I'd ultimately like to see money out of politics, unless you approve of the current conditions. Our political class is bought and paid for by the highest bidder. They're all a bunch of cocksuckers in my estimation, minus a few decent human beings on both sides of the aisle, which is a rarity.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nah.. We need to reform how the voting system works. Our voting system is ludicrous.

How so?

I'd ultimately like to see money out of politics, unless you approve of the current conditions. Our political class is bought and paid for by the highest bidder. They're all a bunch of cocksuckers in my estimation, minus a few decent human beings on both sides of the aisle, which is a rarity.

Simple. In a vote that comprises selecting one of three people, the voting system should at least allow one to select their first and second selections. In this way one gets to express his desire for the election. Allowing people to only vote for ONE person in a vote with THREE people allows for a tyranny of two parties where the best candidate favored by the people may not be selected based on fear of the other party winning. Ok, the problem is not simple, but the solution is.

This problem is magnified in the primaries. For example, in the last two conservative races the winner was the guy that was determined to be the "least" conservative. How did that happen? Easy. The votes going for the "conservative" candidates were watered down among the conservative candidates. Where the least conservative candidate got all of the votes from the opposing party and independents that desired to make sure the election was between two socialists.

Romney would likely not have been the candidate if the conservatives had been allowed to order the vote by their list of favorites.

 

[AmazonTania]

That would be because that is what you choose to think. Good for you. Perhaps ignorance is bliss. Then you will have, me boy, bliss in spades.
Here is a quote from a republican you may have heard of:

Yeah well McCain bless his socialist soul, is not a conservative. And he has no problem restricting our rights. That CU law was his baby. No surprise then that he was upset they flushed it down the toilet where it belonged.

McCain needs to be in a nursing home. Seriously, he's one these dinosaurs that just won't go away. Ever.

McCain will outlive us all...

 

[bripat9643]

Yeah well I'm not a democrat or a republican. You can spend a trillion dollars on advertising and it won't sway me one bit.

Good for you.

We need some type of campaign finance reform. The goal should be to eliminate all money from politics and the political process.

I think campaign contributions can be unlimited so to speak, but only sixty percent of individual donations should go towards a particular candidate. The other forty percent would go toward the opponent.

This would handicap huge donors from giving millions to a single candidate, which would create a financial advantage.

That has to be one of the dumbest ideas ever posted in this forum. The reason people donate to political campaigns is to help the guy they want to win and to help him defeat the other guy. I couldn't donate a red cent if I know 40% of it was going to the candidate I despise.

Furthermore, your plan violates the First Amendment. Of course, I know you don't give a shit about that.

 

[bripat9643]

Nah.. We need to reform how the voting system works. Our voting system is ludicrous.

How so?

I'd ultimately like to see money out of politics, unless you approve of the current conditions. Our political class is bought and paid for by the highest bidder. They're all a bunch of cocksuckers in my estimation, minus a few decent human beings on both sides of the aisle, which is a rarity.

Taking money out of politics is like taking tomatoes out of spaghetti sauce. What you're left with isn't worth putting on the spaghetti. That would just give government more control than it has now. Of course, that's exactly what bootlickers like you want.

Politics simply can't be reformed. It's inherently a dirty business. Reforming it would be like reforming armed robbery. Mencken described an auction as a present auction on future goods. In other words, it's an exercise in organized plunder. How do you "reform" that?

 

[AmazonTania]

People are often concerned when money and politics mix, but don't really seem to understand for the most part of American History money and politics have been unregulated. Sure, you have certain limits put into place in the beginning of the 20th century, but as I have said before, these regulations were virtually unenforceable and just plain ol' unenforced. This changed with the Federal Elections Campaign Act in 1974, when people thought if they could just regulate more it would bring more political equality. How has this worked? Not so well, I think.

Incumbency spending advantage has gone from 1.5 to 1, to 4 to 1. We also find that incumbents win reelections at ever higher rates with fewer viable challenges. It is also very difficult for a true Grassroots organisation to form. There are over hundreds of different regulations one has to know in order to determine what their obligations are in particular situations. It wasn't that long ago where campaign start ups were very easy. A candidate would say a few words, and then after a speech was finished a candidate would just ask for donations afterwards. If anyone tried this today, they would break all kinds of campaign finance laws.

Maybe it's time for a new approach when it comes to politics, which just happens to be an old approach: The First Amendment. It says that anyone can participate in politics. All anyone has to do is just start speaking. We've managed to do pretty well under that system until the 1970's.

 

[Kimura]

Good for you.

We need some type of campaign finance reform. The goal should be to eliminate all money from politics and the political process.

I think campaign contributions can be unlimited so to speak, but only sixty percent of individual donations should go towards a particular candidate. The other forty percent would go toward the opponent.

This would handicap huge donors from giving millions to a single candidate, which would create a financial advantage.

That has to be one of the dumbest ideas ever posted in this forum. The reason people donate to political campaigns is to help the guy they want to win and to help him defeat the other guy. I couldn't donate a red cent if I know 40% of it was going to the candidate I despise.

Furthermore, your plan violates the First Amendment. Of course, I know you don't give a shit about that.

Yeah, the 1st Amendment, I sure do hate it. Do you listen to yourself? I'm talking about corporations and outfits like the Saudi lobby and AIPAC.

 

[Rshermr]

Nah.. We need to reform how the voting system works. Our voting system is ludicrous.

How so?

I'd ultimately like to see money out of politics, unless you approve of the current conditions. Our political class is bought and paid for by the highest bidder. They're all a bunch of cocksuckers in my estimation, minus a few decent human beings on both sides of the aisle, which is a rarity.

Taking money out of politics is like taking tomatoes out of spaghetti sauce. What you're left with isn't worth putting on the spaghetti. That would just give government more control than it has now. Of course, that's exactly what bootlickers like you want.

Politics simply can't be reformed. It's inherently a dirty business. Reforming it would be like reforming armed robbery. Mencken described an auction as a present auction on future goods. In other words, it's an exercise in organized plunder. How do you "reform" that?

Perfect. Just leave the money in politics. Don't try to stop those with big bucks from buying our politicians. Why try. Let it be a cespool. Because Bripat loves it. Got it.

 

[Kimura]

Taking money out of politics is like taking tomatoes out of spaghetti sauce. What you're left with isn't worth putting on the spaghetti. That would just give government more control than it has now. Of course, that's exactly what bootlickers like you want.

Yeah, god forbid we have elected officials held accountable for the public interest, as opposed to the various special interests.

Politics simply can't be reformed. It's inherently a dirty business. Reforming it would be like reforming armed robbery. Mencken described an auction as a present auction on future goods. In other words, it's an exercise in organized plunder. How do you "reform" that?

Sure, quote a proponent of elitism like Menken. What's next? Nozick, Lord Acton, Rothbard, lol

Government isn't organized plunder. I see we're going with Bastiat now.

Yeah, God forbid we have politicians focusing on the national interest as opposed to fundraising. We can't have all of our citizens, regardless of wealth or social status, participating in every part of the democratic process.

I suggest you put down the bong and get out of your parents basement.

 

[Rshermr]

People are often concerned when money and politics mix, but don't really seem to understand for the most part of American History money and politics have been unregulated. Sure, you have certain limits put into place in the beginning of the 20th century, but as I have said before, these regulations were virtually unenforceable and just plain ol' unenforced. This changed with the Federal Elections Campaign Act in 1974, when people thought if they could just regulate more it would bring more political equality. How has this worked? Not so well, I think.

Incumbency spending advantage has gone from 1.5 to 1, to 4 to 1. We also find that incumbents win reelections at ever higher rates with fewer viable challenges. It is also very difficult for a true Grassroots organisation to form. There are over hundreds of different regulations one has to know in order to determine what their obligations are in particular situations. It wasn't that long ago where campaign start ups were very easy. A candidate would say a few words, and then after a speech was finished a candidate would just ask for donations afterwards. If anyone tried this today, they would break all kinds of campaign finance laws.

Maybe it's time for a new approach when it comes to politics, which just happens to be an old approach: The First Amendment. It says that anyone can participate in politics. All anyone has to do is just start speaking. We've managed to do pretty well under that system until the 1970's.

Yup. You have already made it clear you believe in Citizens United, and have no problem with unlimited corporate contributions. Most do.
Seems to me that we are just involved with opinion. We have seen it proven that corporate money can but our politicians and the supreme court. If you like it, you would be for letting it alone. If not, you would want to do something about it.
Maybe we should try to be like the rest of the world, and NOT allow corporations to make unlimited contributions and buy our politics.

 

[Rshermr]

Taking money out of politics is like taking tomatoes out of spaghetti sauce. What you're left with isn't worth putting on the spaghetti. That would just give government more control than it has now. Of course, that's exactly what bootlickers like you want.

Politics simply can't be reformed. It's inherently a dirty business. Reforming it would be like reforming armed robbery. Mencken described an auction as a present auction on future goods. In other words, it's an exercise in organized plunder. How do you "reform" that?

Perfect. Just leave the money in politics. Don't try to stop those with big bucks from buying our politicians. Why try. Let it be a cespool. Because Bripat loves it. Got it.

He busy taking a bong rip and jerking off to a picture of von Mises on his wall.

Nothing new there. I have a theory that he is just one of those trying to get Ed's old position as the board troll. Though there are a few competing for that position.

 

[Kimura]

Perfect. Just leave the money in politics. Don't try to stop those with big bucks from buying our politicians. Why try. Let it be a cespool. Because Bripat loves it. Got it.

He busy taking a bong rip and jerking off to a picture of von Mises on his wall.

Nothing new there. I have a theory that he is just one of those trying to get Ed's old position as the board troll. Though there are a few competing for that position.

I deleted that post because I thought it was douchy. Upon further reflection, I've changed my mind.

 

[AmazonTania]

Yup. You have already made it clear you believe in Citizens United, and have no problem with unlimited corporate contributions. Most do.

As you have already learned (or rather not learned), there is already a limit on what Corporations and Unions can donate. The only difference is that Corporations and Unions can donate unlimited funds to Super PACs. The reason why corporations and unions can give unlimited funds to Super PACs is because Super PACs are prohibited from donating directly to candidates. They spend the money they receive in contributions on their own. Regular PACs cannot take Union or Corporate money at all...

Seems to me that we are just involved with opinion. We have seen it proven that corporate money can but our politicians and the supreme court. If you like it, you would be for letting it alone. If not, you would want to do something about it.

Your only alternative is to migrate to a country where your individual rights are very limited. As long as we live in a Free Society, everyone should be allowed to participate in the electoral process. You cannot have rights for some, and limited rights for others. Democracy doesn't work that way.

Maybe we should try to be like the rest of the world, and NOT allow corporations to make unlimited contributions and buy our politics.

Even in Super Pacs where Corporations are allowed to make unlimited amount of contributions, they make up a very small demographic of the amount of donations. You have zero idea of exactly what you are suppose to be angry or concerned about. Preventing 'Corporations from Buying Our Politics' just sounds cool to you, so you'll say it repeatedly.

 

[Rshermr]

Yup. You have already made it clear you believe in Citizens United, and have no problem with unlimited corporate contributions. Most do.

As you have already learned (or rather not learned), there is already a limit on what Corporations and Unions can donate. The only difference is that Corporations and Unions can donate unlimited funds to Super PACs. The reason why corporations and unions can give unlimited funds to Super PACs is because Super PACs are prohibited from donating directly to candidates. They spend the money they receive in contributions on their own. Regular PACs cannot take Union or Corporate money at all...

Seems to me that we are just involved with opinion. We have seen it proven that corporate money can but our politicians and the supreme court. If you like it, you would be for letting it alone. If not, you would want to do something about it.

Your only alternative is to migrate to a country where your individual rights are very limited. As long as we live in a Free Society, everyone should be allowed to participate in the electoral process. You cannot have rights for some, and limited rights for others. Democracy doesn't work that way.

Maybe we should try to be like the rest of the world, and NOT allow corporations to make unlimited contributions and buy our politics.

Even in Super Pacs where Corporations are allowed to make unlimited amount of contributions, they make up a very small demographic of the amount of donations. You have zero idea of exactly what you are suppose to be angry or concerned about. Preventing 'Corporations from Buying Our Politics' just sounds cool to you, so you'll say it repeatedly.

Relative to what I know of Citizens United, that would be your opinion.
Relative to what options I have, there are very few. Once the supreme court rules, there is nothing you or I singularly can do.
Relative to what I know about what makes up corporate contributions, again, that would be your opinion.

I do know that this last election cost over $7B, by far a new record for election costs. I also know it will grow. As corporations learn that backlash over their contributions are low, as those contributions are unknown to the population. Corporate contributions to super PAC's was over $629M.
I also know that polls show over 80% of the people think that the Citizens United decision is wrong, and should be overturned.
I also know that no developed nation in the world allows unlimited corporate donation for politics.

I also know that, like that large majority that disagrees with citizens united, I do not for an instant believe that my individual rights were helped by citizens united. That is a true bit of nonsense. Believed by very, very few. And like those in that large majority, I do know that corporations are buying our politics. I also know that anyone believing that corporate money going to politics has any other reason is either highly naive, or just pushing an agenda.

 

[AmazonTania]

Yup. You have already made it clear you believe in Citizens United, and have no problem with unlimited corporate contributions. Most do.

As you have already learned (or rather not learned), there is already a limit on what Corporations and Unions can donate. The only difference is that Corporations and Unions can donate unlimited funds to Super PACs. The reason why corporations and unions can give unlimited funds to Super PACs is because Super PACs are prohibited from donating directly to candidates. They spend the money they receive in contributions on their own. Regular PACs cannot take Union or Corporate money at all...

Your only alternative is to migrate to a country where your individual rights are very limited. As long as we live in a Free Society, everyone should be allowed to participate in the electoral process. You cannot have rights for some, and limited rights for others. Democracy doesn't work that way.

Maybe we should try to be like the rest of the world, and NOT allow corporations to make unlimited contributions and buy our politics.

Even in Super Pacs where Corporations are allowed to make unlimited amount of contributions, they make up a very small demographic of the amount of donations. You have zero idea of exactly what you are suppose to be angry or concerned about. Preventing 'Corporations from Buying Our Politics' just sounds cool to you, so you'll say it repeatedly.

Relative to what I know of Citizens United, that would be your opinion.
Relative to what options I have, there are very few. Once the supreme court rules, there is nothing you or I singularly can do.
Relative to what I know about what makes up corporate contributions, again, that would be your opinion.

It is not an opinion what the demographic makes up Corporate Contributions. All of this information is disclosed on the FEC website for everyone to see. Everyone can see which Committee or Organisation received the contribution, but in support or opposition of which candidate, which office the candidate is seeking, the individual/organisation making the contribution, the purpose of said contribution, when the contribution was received and the amount of which was contributed. This is all very detailed for anyone to see.

Interesting bit of trivia the liberty fanatics might appreciate: Facebook and Google have given tonnes and tonnes of contributions to PACs and Super Pacs all throughout 2010 - 2012 to candidates in support of Ron Paul. These Corporations has also given plenty of money to Super PACs in opposition against Barack Obama.

I do know that this last election cost over $7B, by far a new record for election costs. I also know it will grow. As corporations learn that backlash over their contributions are low, as those contributions are unknown to the population. Corporate contributions to super PAC's was over $629M.

Again, as you have already learned (or rather didn't learn) those anonymous contributions to anyone (including Super PACs) are limited to $50 dollars. Any contributions excess $50 dollars must be promptly disposed of and cannot be used on anything related to Campaigning, Elections or the Candidate in question. This means that this money cannot be used on anything political. At all. Why you believe Corporations are contributing millions of dollars a year just so only a very small port of those contributes can actually be used in for political advocacy is beyond me, but no one knowledgeable in Corporate Finance believes corporations are allocating their Treasury Funds so poorly.

The FEC gives a complete detail of who is donating and why. We already know the Corporations who are donating and to whom. If you believe Corporations are concerned about who they publicly support, then I'm afraid you don't know as much as you profess. Also, if you are so concerned about anonymous donations, you shouldn't be looking towards Corporations anyway. You should be looking towards 501(c)4 Non-Profit Organisations. These non-profits don't have to disclose their donors, unless someone gives the money to the non-profit specifically to run political ads, then these donors MUST be reported to the Federal Election Commission.

And I don't know where you got that $629 Million Corporate Contributions figure. As far as I can see only $71.8 Million Super PAC funds were raised by businesses in the 2012 election cycle. Not going to even bother digging deeper to see how much was raised since Citizens United was repealed.

Regardless, Corporations and Unions can only spend unlimited funds on Super PACs and this system has helped level the playing field in American politics.

I also know that polls show over 80% of the people think that the Citizens United decision is wrong, and should be overturned.

It's not about what majority of individuals want. It's about individual liberties. If majority of people want to limit the rights of other people, and that’s just not going to work. Democracy must protect individuals rights, regardless of what the majority wants.

I also know that, like that large majority that disagrees with citizens united, I do not for an instant believe that my individual rights were helped by citizens united. That is a true bit of nonsense. Believed by very, very few. And like those in that large majority, I do know that corporations are buying our politics. I also know that anyone believing that corporate money going to politics has any other reason is either highly naive, or just pushing an agenda.

Again, the Supreme Court held that Corporations and Unions have the right to spend their money on Treasury Funds to advocate elections for the defeat of candidates. Not to give money directly to those candidates or to those campaigns, but to spend money to say that those people should be reelected or defeated in their runs for political office. Supreme Court precedent establishes a clear line of segregation between expenditures for a campaign and independent expenditures. If you think this hasn't helped you at all, you really don't know as much as you claim.

If the Government can control any amount of money you are willing to use to express your opinion, then it abridge your right to Freedom of Speech. If you don't believe Freedom of Speech is important to you, then I know plenty of nations where you can migrate to. The right to criticise our government and it's elected officials is a highly concentrated part of our democracy and way of life. The only naivety I am hearing are the people who believe Government will use its power to restrict speech benevolently, when it's already been shown in the past that the same Central government is not above infringing on your individual liberties.