Suddenly we must get rid of Billionaires

[Toddsterpatriot]

That's fine, under our present capitalist-run market economy, the best we can do is not have our politicians supporting legislation because they got paid some money or they invested in a certain company's stocks. Politicians should never pass laws to serve vested interests at the expense of the public good. That's just common sense. So that's why bribery should be illegal. You can't hand a politician millions of dollars directly nor should politicians be allowed to play in the Wall Street casino, while they're serving in office. Can we stop billionaires from funding political ads? No. We can have transparency, where everyone knows who or what organization is paying for the ad, that way the public can inform itself as to what or who might be advancing that idea or law. Let people judge for themselves. There's a lot we can't do, but there are a few things we can do to reduce corruption in our present government.

I believe in the not-too-distant future, we're going to have to adopt a whole new socioeconomic, and political order, due to advance automation technology. In that system, there are no more markets, no more capitalism, capitalists, or politicians receiving money, because there won't be a need for money. Those are the conditions created by advanced automation technology and computing.

So that's why bribery should be illegal. You can't hand a politician millions of dollars directly

You can't. Did you think they could?

 

[Red Front]

So that's why bribery should be illegal. You can't hand a politician millions of dollars directly

You can't. Did you think they could?

They can fund much of his campaign.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

They can fund much of his campaign.

Yes, without handing him money directly.
Happy to help you understand.

 

[Pete7469]

Liberals bleed green.....with envy.

They ooze stupidity.

 

[Red Front]

You can ignore the link others will go there and look at the loopholes.

You posted a link that claimed 3 loopholes, without listing 3 loopholes. Try again?

They didn't hand money to a politician, they didn't try to bribe anyone, they invested their money in ads, online media, a website, they had volunteers and people working for them, informing and educating the public on the bill/s that they wanted to be passed through Congress. They had lobbyists in Washington, but none of them were handing money to politicians or doing anything that would constitute bribery.

Rich guys influenced an election?
I thought that had to be stopped at all cost?

What I am against is giving politicians large sums of money in order to essentially control them and have laws passed through Congress that are more often than not, not in the best interests of the American public.

But they did "essentially control them" in your above example.

You can ignore the link others will go there and look at the loopholes.

You posted a link that claimed 3 loopholes, without listing 3 loopholes. Try again?

They didn't hand money to a politician, they didn't try to bribe anyone, they invested their money in ads, online media, a website, they had volunteers and people working for them, informing and educating the public on the bill/s that they wanted to be passed through Congress. They had lobbyists in Washington, but none of them were handing money to politicians or doing anything that would constitute bribery.

Rich guys influenced an election?
I thought that had to be stopped at all cost?

What I am against is giving politicians large sums of money in order to essentially control them and have laws passed through Congress that are more often than not, not in the best interests of the American public.

But they did "essentially control them" in your above example.

Correct, and that's why we live in a plutocracy. The wealthy will always have the capital to bribe politicians by spending millions of dollars in ads.etc, for a particular candidate, that serves their interests, often to the detriment of the public. More reason to discard capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Correct, and that's why we live in a plutocracy. The wealthy will always have the capital to bribe politicians by spending millions of dollars in ads.etc, for a particular candidate, that serves their interests, often to the detriment of the public. More reason to discard capitalism.

You gave phony examples that you admit would never work.

Sounds like Marxism.

 

[Red Front]

You gave phony examples that you admit would never work.

Sounds like Marxism.

How were my examples phony?

 

[Red Front]

​

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dissects America's 'fundamentally broken' campaign finance laws​

​

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How were my examples phony?

Closing "3 loopholes" and limiting donations to $250 wouldn't stop billionaires
from advancing their agendas.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

​

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez dissects America's 'fundamentally broken' campaign finance laws​

​

She's cute. And a moron.
What is her district spending their $3 billion in savings on?
You know, since she beat Amazon........

 

[Red Front]

She's cute. And a moron.
What is her district spending their $3 billion in savings on?
You know, since she beat Amazon........

Every district gets money from the federal government, including hers. You're just deflecting and being evasive. She makes some great points in that video, showing how corrupt our government is and the role that corporate money has in that corruption. Calling her a moron or mentioning how much money her district gets is irrelevant to the video. Hopefully, that money you mentioned will be used for the public good and not the benefit of the rich and powerful, to the detriment and great expense of working-class people (i.e. 94% of the population)).

 

[Red Front]

Closing "3 loopholes" and limiting donations to $250 wouldn't stop billionaires
from advancing their agendas.

You're right, there's no real way of stopping billionaires, the wealthy elite, from screwing us with their money, under our current capitalist-run system. There's no practical way to do it. Eventually due to unemployment and the cost of living, among other serious social problems, the American public will adopt high-communism, taking control of their government and economy i.e. forces of production. Money, markets, for-profit production, will be eliminated in the not-too-distant future.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every district gets money from the federal government, including hers. You're just deflecting and being evasive. She makes some great points in that video, showing how corrupt our government is and the role that corporate money has in that corruption. Calling her a moron or mentioning how much money her district gets is irrelevant to the video. Hopefully, that money you mentioned will be used for the public good and not the benefit of the rich and powerful, to the detriment and great expense of working-class people (i.e. 94% of the population)).

Every district gets money from the federal government, including hers.

That's not what she was talking about. She saved $3 billion.........



She's so dumb, she makes you sound smart.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're right, there's no real way of stopping billionaires, the wealthy elite, from screwing us with their money, under our current capitalist-run system. There's no practical way to do it. Eventually due to unemployment and the cost of living, among other serious social problems, the American public will adopt high-communism, taking control of their government and economy i.e. forces of production. Money, markets, for-profit production, will be eliminated in the not-too-distant future.

View attachment 746905​

I'm glad you've realized your error.

 

[Red Front]

I'm glad you've realized your error.

I pointed out earlier that everything that I was saying only applied under a capitalist-run system and may not really do much to eliminate corruption. I made that pretty clear when I was offering some possible "solutions" to limiting the power of billionaires and corporations. I was just trying to be generous by not simply throwing the whole capitalist system down the latrine, which would be the more appropriate course of action. But yes trying to find ways to mitigate the problem isn't a real solution, so I admit my error. I do that whenever I'm clearly wrong, you however don't, when you're wrong. That's one of the distinctions between both of us. I concede when I'm clearly wrong, whereas you don't.

In a way, my error on this issue strengthens the case for America to adopt socialism ASAP.

 

[Red Front]

Every district gets money from the federal government, including hers.

That's not what she was talking about. She saved $3 billion.........



She's so dumb, she makes you sound smart.

You don't clearly explain your points, in order not to commit to anything that can be examined and perhaps refuted. So you just throw things at your opponent and let them guess or create a point for you. Elaborate on the contradiction or "aha!" point you're alluding to with this video.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't clearly explain your points, in order not to commit to anything that can be examined and perhaps refuted. So you just throw things at your opponent and let them guess or create a point for you. Elaborate on the contradiction or "aha!" point you're alluding to with this video.

Amazon wanted to build a new HQ in her district. As part of the deal, they would get a
$3 billion discount on their expected tax bill. Not a $3 billion check from the government.
They would still pay taxes, just $3 billion less. The added revenue, jobs, infrastructure after the $3 billion would still be a huge benefit to the area. Something like $27 billion in new revenue over the next 25 years.

Room temperature IQ AOC thought that by stopping the new HQ, she was saving $3 billion
that could be invested in the community.

Because, like most commies, she's a fucking idiot.

 

[Cellblock2429]

to save our demockracy, well maybe not all just one uppity one probably would do right libs.

Outlaw billionaires to save democracy: MSNBC analyst

MSNBC political analyst Anand Giridharadas suggested on Monday that it was only a “policy choice” that allows billionaires like Elon Musk to flourish in the United States.

www.foxnews.com

/---/ Then outlaw multimillionaires, then millionaires, then those with $500k all the way down the food chain till we are all dirt poor like in Venezuela. Of course, our dear leaders will retain their wealth.

 

[Red Front]

Amazon wanted to build a new HQ in her district. As part of the deal, they would get a
$3 billion discount on their expected tax bill. Not a $3 billion check from the government.
They would still pay taxes, just $3 billion less. The added revenue, jobs, infrastructure after the $3 billion would still be a huge benefit to the area. Something like $27 billion in new revenue over the next 25 years.

Room temperature IQ AOC thought that by stopping the new HQ, she was saving $3 billion
that could be invested in the community.

Because, like most commies, she's a fucking idiot.

She's not a commie, she's just an American, MSNBC liberal. Do you actually believe she's a Marxist? I don't see a problem with giving Amazon a tax break if it creates jobs and generates the amount of money that you mentioned. That sounds like a good deal to me and I'm the actual "commie".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

She's not a commie, she's just an American, MSNBC liberal. Do you actually believe she's a Marxist? I don't see a problem with giving Amazon a tax break if it creates jobs and generates the amount of money that you mentioned. That sounds like a good deal to me and I'm the actual "commie".

She was "recruited" by the Justice Democrats.