Legalized extortion

Any other time the Republicans would be on here saying how great this system is. And what is really grrrrreat is that corporations are people to now. And if good money can be extorted from a powerful CEO, think how much money can be extorted from a powerful corporation.

Anybody want to tell me again why Citizens United was such a great thing for the rest of us?
Because CU has NOTHING to do with this situation at all. You missed the KEY component here that is the problem. It is NOT the fact that companies can donate to politicians – that is something that is going to exist no matter what law you pass to prevent it. The problem is the fact that they MUST donate in order to do business in the first place.

The power is not located within the company, it is within the politician. The sooner that we eliminate that the sooner we can start to address the rank corruption within the system.
Any other time the Republicans would be on here saying how great this system is. And what is really grrrrreat is that corporations are people to now. And if good money can be extorted from a powerful CEO, think how much money can be extorted from a powerful corporation.

Anybody want to tell me again why Citizens United was such a great thing for the rest of us?

Do I have to point out, again, that I am not a Republican? Or that the "nationalize the oil industry" comment that the article is talking about happened when Bush was the fucking President of the United States?

As for Citizens United, it helps you by allowing you to donate as much money as you want to any 501(c)(3) group you want, and it doesn't let congresscritters solicit donations for those groups.

On the one hand you think it not good that Congresscritters beg for money, but it is somehow better if groups working for Congresscritters are able to beg for money. But instead of an individual, they beg the corporation.

Who is it in a corporation that you think has the power to make the decision to make a contribution to a political action group. Would it be the CEO or a janitor.

If the CEO shouldn't be shaken down personally, why would it be OK to shake down the corporation via the CEO?

And you have written a few things lately that made me read them through. That's a good thing I think. You sound more "moderate" or something. Meds regulated? jk jk.
Again, misses the real problem and the whole point. As long as congress has the power to make these companies BILLIONS of dollars, those companies are going to exercise great influence over congressmen. That is simple reality. You cannot make this a one way street. The only answer is to get the government out of the business of choosing winners and losers, out of the business of granting multi-billion dollar tax kickbacks to major companies (or any entity for that matter) and granting MASSIVE contracts to political allies. The source of the corruption lies there – not in the donations to congressmen but in the REASON THAT THOSE DONATIONS ARE MADE IN THE FIRST PLACE!


Campaign finance reform does nothing but address a symptom. YOU cannot kill the disease while only addressing the symptoms.
 
I didn't think you'd be a campaign finance reformer, QW. Gotta say I'm surprised.

So what's your solution?

This has less to do with campaign finance than anything else.

The solution is simple, restrict the power of government to threaten corporations with regulations.

That's like saying the solution to an increase in people getting murdered for their iPods is to ban iPods.

As long as Congress has any power at all, people will do what they can to buy it - and as long as re-election continues to cost millions of dollars, Congressmen will sell that power to the highest bidder.

False.

As long as congressmen have the ability to make a company billions, those companies will spend millions ensuring that they are the benefactors of that power.

Remove the ability for congress to enrich companies and voila, companies will no longer see it as a valuable investment to make.

That is the bottom dollar here. Congress does not need to lose the power that it is meant to have but it sure as hell needs to lose the power to enrich others – a power that was never EVER supposed to be in congress.
 
This has less to do with campaign finance than anything else.

The solution is simple, restrict the power of government to threaten corporations with regulations.

That's like saying the solution to an increase in people getting murdered for their iPods is to ban iPods.

As long as Congress has any power at all, people will do what they can to buy it - and as long as re-election continues to cost millions of dollars, Congressmen will sell that power to the highest bidder.

False.

As long as congressmen have the ability to make a company billions, those companies will spend millions ensuring that they are the benefactors of that power.

Remove the ability for congress to enrich companies and voila, companies will no longer see it as a valuable investment to make.

That is the bottom dollar here. Congress does not need to lose the power that it is meant to have but it sure as hell needs to lose the power to enrich others – a power that was never EVER supposed to be in congress.

As long as Congress has it's Constitutionally-given power to write laws, they will have the ability to enrich companies and people.

The "regulations" that you guys scream about are only a tiny piece of what's for sale in DC.
 
That's like saying the solution to an increase in people getting murdered for their iPods is to ban iPods.

As long as Congress has any power at all, people will do what they can to buy it - and as long as re-election continues to cost millions of dollars, Congressmen will sell that power to the highest bidder.

False.

As long as congressmen have the ability to make a company billions, those companies will spend millions ensuring that they are the benefactors of that power.

Remove the ability for congress to enrich companies and voila, companies will no longer see it as a valuable investment to make.

That is the bottom dollar here. Congress does not need to lose the power that it is meant to have but it sure as hell needs to lose the power to enrich others – a power that was never EVER supposed to be in congress.

As long as Congress has it's Constitutionally-given power to write laws, they will have the ability to enrich companies and people.

The "regulations" that you guys scream about are only a tiny piece of what's for sale in DC.

Again, false. Just because you are writing law does not mean that you, by default, make companies billions of dollars. It is not basic law that creates this insanity. It is a bullshit tax code that allows major corperations to get out of taxes entirely while mom and pop shops can’t. It is a convoluted and asinine contracting system that would have you feeling sick if you actually looked into how contracts are set up. It is the ability to tell a company what type of light bulb or how big a soda can be. It is in the power to completely deny a company the ability to sell a product unless they bother to authorize it.

We can start with one MASSIVE change – a simplified tax code that does not allow ANYONE to escape taxes owed. We can bicker all day over the details but in the end, no company should EVER pay a different rate than another company. Period.

That is the single largest factor involved here and it is not just in cooperate taxes either. It is in personal taxes when you get to write off that new water heater as long as it is purchased through an ‘approved’ vendor. It is everywhere.


If we take your approach we might as well just say fuck it and give up then because what you are basically saying is that the problem is insurmountable. I find that a rather asinine position to take tbh. It can be addressed and eventually it WILL be or this nation will crumble as fewer and fewer consolidate more and more power.


I understand that a less pervasive and controlling government that does its job might seem impossible and freighting because we have lived with this behemoth for so long but I do not believe that such a goal is out of reach. It just requires that people realize freedom is a better solution to our problems than government in most cases.
 
False.

As long as congressmen have the ability to make a company billions, those companies will spend millions ensuring that they are the benefactors of that power.

Remove the ability for congress to enrich companies and voila, companies will no longer see it as a valuable investment to make.

That is the bottom dollar here. Congress does not need to lose the power that it is meant to have but it sure as hell needs to lose the power to enrich others – a power that was never EVER supposed to be in congress.

As long as Congress has it's Constitutionally-given power to write laws, they will have the ability to enrich companies and people.

The "regulations" that you guys scream about are only a tiny piece of what's for sale in DC.

Again, false. Just because you are writing law does not mean that you, by default, make companies billions of dollars. It is not basic law that creates this insanity. It is a bullshit tax code that allows major corperations to get out of taxes entirely while mom and pop shops can’t. It is a convoluted and asinine contracting system that would have you feeling sick if you actually looked into how contracts are set up. It is the ability to tell a company what type of light bulb or how big a soda can be. It is in the power to completely deny a company the ability to sell a product unless they bother to authorize it.

We can start with one MASSIVE change – a simplified tax code that does not allow ANYONE to escape taxes owed. We can bicker all day over the details but in the end, no company should EVER pay a different rate than another company. Period.

That is the single largest factor involved here and it is not just in cooperate taxes either. It is in personal taxes when you get to write off that new water heater as long as it is purchased through an ‘approved’ vendor. It is everywhere.


If we take your approach we might as well just say fuck it and give up then because what you are basically saying is that the problem is insurmountable. I find that a rather asinine position to take tbh. It can be addressed and eventually it WILL be or this nation will crumble as fewer and fewer consolidate more and more power.


I understand that a less pervasive and controlling government that does its job might seem impossible and freighting because we have lived with this behemoth for so long but I do not believe that such a goal is out of reach. It just requires that people realize freedom is a better solution to our problems than government in most cases.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I don't think I really understand your argument.

Can you explain how you'd solve the problem of politicians being bought, in a simple way? What specific changes would you make to the system - other than the tax code issue.

How do you solve the problem of companies fighting over government contracts?
 
Hey, we have a long and dishonorable tradition of allowing industry and finance to buy our politicians. And from our pork barrel days we have politicians bringing home the bacon to the companies in their district. Why, these are American traditions you are talking about changing.

And why shouldn't I be able to ask (and expect to receive if my donation was sufficient) my Congrescritter for business. Somebody is gonna get that business from the government.

You really think those things are gonna change today? LMAO. Ain't happening. Ever.
 
This has less to do with campaign finance than anything else.

The solution is simple, restrict the power of government to threaten corporations with regulations.

yes less regulations get you bad water in W. virgina.
yay for stupidity

Are you saying that the regulations would have prevented the spill?

I am willing to bet you right here and now that there were plenty of regulations in effect, but it still happened. I am also willing to bet that, even if they make up new regulations, it will happen again.

yeah good chance it would have.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/u...ights-lax-west-virginia-regulations.html?_r=0

Ms. Rosser and others noted that the site of the spill has not been subject to a state or federal inspection since 1991. West Virginia law does not require inspections for chemical storage facilities — only for production facilities.

So yeah i do
The Charleston Gazette-Mail reported Sunday that a team of experts from the United States Chemical Safety Board asked the state three years ago to create a new program to prevent accidents and releases in the Kanawha Valley, known as Chemical Valley.
yeah i do
That came after investigation of the August 2008 explosion and fire that killed two workers at the Bayer CropScience plant in Institute, W.Va. No program was produced, and another team from the same board is expected to arrive Monday to investigate this accident.

yeah i do

so they wont even enforce whats there and twice in the past few years we have had issues.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top