Suddenly we must get rid of Billionaires

[Toddsterpatriot]

How do you figure that the federal government that is the exclusive issuer of the dollar i.e. a sovereign fiat currency, needs you to have dollars?

Under this capitalist system, the best we can do is take money out of politics, in the way that I explained in my previous posts. Limit monetary donations to a few hundred dollars per person. If people are allowed to be billionaires in our society then there will be billionaires trying to co-op, take-over grassroots movements, without a doubt. If the people participating in a grassroots political movement, are committed to the cause and the billionaires are trying to undermine or disrupt their efforts, by steering the movement in a different direction, that would have to be identified and dealt with, by the people who are in that movement. At least the billionaires won't be directly, legally bribing politicians as they do today. It would be a lot more complicated for them to do that. That's the best we can do under a capitalist system where individuals are permitted to be billionaires or even multi-millionaires.

Under this capitalist system, the best we can do is take money out of politics, in the way that I explained in my previous posts. Limit monetary donations to a few hundred dollars per person.

We can't take money out of politics, because politics is so deep into our economy.
Trying is a fool's errand and will require violating the constitution.

If people are allowed to be billionaires in our society then there will be billionaires trying to co-op, take-over grassroots movements,

Or millionaires or thousandaires.

At least the billionaires won't be directly, legally bribing politicians as they do today.

They'd be indirectly legally bribing politicians. Or indirectly supporting politicians they agree with.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Marx, in the end of XIX c. already saw the phenomenon of transformed forms in the economy of capitalism -the strengthening of fictitious capital, unrelated to material production.

By the end of the 1980s, fictitious capital had crushed everything under itself, it began to consist of 99% empty wrappers. Financial alchemists have learned to carve pseudo-wealth out of the "void".

Financial capitalism has made the planet believe that his increasingly sophisticated exploitation of future labor is a great boon. In fact, the most grandiose financial pyramid in the world was created when the work of many future generations was eaten up in the present. The slag of $300 trillion in debt does not allow you to live on. Look at the wild acceleration of the "feast during the plague" in recent years. It's a premonition of the end.
A vivid illustration - global debts have reached $ 250 trillion, this is more than three of the planet's GDP (which is already found by fin.cap with all sorts of mirage shit and in 10 years debts have increased by $80 trillion.

A vivid illustration - global debts have reached $ 250 trillion,

That's awful! What are global assets?

 

[Red Front]

Under this capitalist system, the best we can do is take money out of politics, in the way that I explained in my previous posts. Limit monetary donations to a few hundred dollars per person.

We can't take money out of politics, because politics is so deep into our economy.
Trying is a fool's errand and will require violating the constitution.

If people are allowed to be billionaires in our society then there will be billionaires trying to co-op, take-over grassroots movements,

Or millionaires or thousandaires.

At least the billionaires won't be directly, legally bribing politicians as they do today.

They'd be indirectly legally bribing politicians. Or indirectly supporting politicians they agree with.

We can limit the size of all donations to a few hundred dollars and eliminate much of the corruption.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We can limit the size of all donations to a few hundred dollars and eliminate much of the corruption.

You really can't. Not when trillions of dollars of federal spending, taxes and regulations are at stake.

 

[Red Front]

You really can't. Not when trillions of dollars of federal spending, taxes and regulations are at stake.

How are they at stake if election donations are limited to $250? What does election finance have to do with taxes and government regulations in general?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How are they at stake if election donations are limited to $250? What does election finance have to do with taxes and government regulations in general?

How are they at stake

The government collects trillions in revenue, spends trillions and regulates trillions of GDP.
That is what's at stake.
You think if you say, "No campaign contributions above $250" that people will say,
"I guess I can't influence lawmakers in any way now"?

Is it that simple?

 

[Red Front]

How are they at stake

The government collects trillions in revenue, spends trillions and regulates trillions of GDP.
That is what's at stake.
You think if you say, "No campaign contributions above $250" that people will say,
"I guess I can't influence lawmakers in any way now"?

Is it that simple?

You haven't explained how limiting the amount of money that can be donated to an elected official undermines the government's ability to tax or have a budget (campaign finance reform has nothing to do with the aforementioned functions of government).

Politicians are public servants and they're supposed to hear through various means the concerns and grievances of their constituents, i.e. the electorate, addressing and serving those needs and interests, provided it's not at the expense or to the detriment of the public good. No one is obligated to give an elected official a monetary donation or any form of compensation to receive services from an elected official whose job is to serve the public in the capacity of their office. The amount of money they're receiving in donations from a particular individual or interest group should never influence the support, viability, or probability of a proposed piece of legislation being passed through Congress or any legislative body in the United States.

How much money a politician receives in donations from a particular source, should not determine whether that source gets its interests and requests approved and supported by a member of Congress. The determining factor of approving or rejecting a bill proposal or piece of legislation should be whether it is in the public interest to enact such a policy or law. Is it in the public good, to pass such a law through Congress? That is what should be considered not how much money a certain individual or interest group donated toward an elected official's run for office. There is no legal obligation for a member of Congress to do what you want him or her to do for you on the basis of any monetary donation you gave them. What should be eliminated is the possibility of the wealthy buying a politician's allegiance by bribing them with large sums of money or benefits. That can easily be done by limiting the amount of money that anyone can donate to a politician and making any benefits that could be given to a politician restricted or completely prohibited.

Politicians should also be barred from investing in the stock market, buying any company stocks, while they're in office.

House Speaker Pelosi on whether members of Congress should be allowed to trade individual stocks

#shorts #NancyPelosistocks #PelosistocksHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi addresses whether she believes that members of congress should be allowed to take part in ...

www.youtube.com

Members of the Congressional Security Committee and the US Congress in general, know if we're going to fight a war or support a certain country with weapons and intelligence, allowing them to invest in companies that support that effort or operation, making a lucrative return on their investments. They're also much more likely to support certain military actions and pro-war policies if they're heavily invested in companies that profit from war and weapons sales.etc. This is just common sense but Todd pretends not to see it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You haven't explained how limiting the amount of money that can be donated to an elected official undermines the government's ability to tax or have a budget. Politicians are public servants and they're supposed to hear through various means the concerns and grievances of their constituents, i.e. the electorate, addressing and serving those needs and interests, provided it's not at the expense or to the detriment of the public good. No one is obligated to give an elected official a monetary donation or any form of compensation to receive services from an elected official whose job is to serve the public in the capacity of their office. The amount of money they're receiving in donations from a particular individual or interest group should never influence the support, viability, or probability of a proposed piece of legislation being passed through Congress or any legislative body in the United States.

How much money a politician receives in donations from a particular source, should not determine whether that source gets its interests and requests approved and supported by a member of Congress. The determining factor of approving or rejecting a bill proposal or piece of legislation should be whether it is in the public interest to enact such a policy or law. Is it in the public good, to pass such a law through Congress? That is what should be considered not how much money a certain individual or interest group donated toward an elected official's run for office. There is no legal obligation for a member of Congress to do what you want him or her to do for you on the basis of any monetary donation you gave them. What should be eliminated is the possibility of the wealthy buying a politician's allegiance by bribing them with large sums of money or benefits. That can easily be done by limiting the amount of money that anyone can donate to a politician and making any benefits that could be given to a politician restricted or completely prohibited.

Politicians should also be barred from investing in the stock market, buying any stocks, while they're in office.

You haven't explained how limiting the amount of money that can be donated to an elected official undermines the government's ability to tax or have a budget.

I never made that claim.

Politicians are public servants and they're supposed to hear through various means the concerns and grievances of their constituents.

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Can billionaires petition the government?

What should be eliminated is the possibility of the wealthy buying a politician's allegiance by bribing them with large sums of money or benefits. That can easily be done by limiting the amount of money that anyone can donate to a politician and making any benefits that could be given to a politician restricted or completely prohibited.

If I can't donate a million dollars to a politician to get his support for my proposed factory that will create thousands of jobs in his district, I can take out a full page ad in the local paper explaining the benefits to the local community. Urging his constituents to call his office. Right?

 

[Red Front]

You haven't explained how limiting the amount of money that can be donated to an elected official undermines the government's ability to tax or have a budget.

I never made that claim.

Politicians are public servants and they're supposed to hear through various means the concerns and grievances of their constituents.

"the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Can billionaires petition the government?

What should be eliminated is the possibility of the wealthy buying a politician's allegiance by bribing them with large sums of money or benefits. That can easily be done by limiting the amount of money that anyone can donate to a politician and making any benefits that could be given to a politician restricted or completely prohibited.

If I can't donate a million dollars to a politician to get his support for my proposed factory that will create thousands of jobs in his district, I can take out a full page ad in the local paper explaining the benefits to the local community. Urging his constituents to call his office. Right?

What was your claim then? You keep mentioning taxes and trillion-dollar federal budgets. What the heck does that have to do with campaign finance reform?

Sure, I never claimed that billionaires can't visit their local, state, and federal government representatives to discuss their concerns and interests, all that was said is that politicians should not be in the position to receive any direct compensation in the form of money or any other direct benefit like a high paying job in a particular company immediately after leaving office. The so-called "revolving door" between the private and public sectors has to be assessed and restrictions applied where needed. Not necessarily outright bans but certain restrictions, as in, for example, not being able to get a job as a lobbyist in Washington for five years, after leaving office. This curtails corruption, it doesn't completely eliminate it, but it makes it more difficult for politicians to serve vested interests at the expense of the public.

Billionaires have the right to place ads, nonetheless, when it comes to politics, whatever political ads anyone places, especially when they're for an electoral campaign, have to be transparent as to who placed the ad. Transparency is important in the effort to eliminate corruption. Will we completely eliminate corruption in government? No. Wherever there are human beings, there is a certain degree of corruption. But we can reduce it as much as possible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What was your claim then? You keep mentioning taxes and trillion-dollar federal budgets. What the heck does that have to do with campaign finance reform?

Sure, I never claimed that billionaires can't visit their local, state, and federal government representatives to discuss their concerns and interests, all that was said is that politicians should not be in the position to receive any direct compensation in the form of money or any other direct benefit like a high paying job in a particular company immediately after leaving office. The so-called "revolving door" between the private and public sectors has to be assessed and restrictions applied where needed. Not necessarily outright bans but certain restrictions, as in, for example, not being able to get a job as a lobbyist in Washington for five years, after leaving office. This curtails corruption, it doesn't completely eliminate it, but it makes it more difficult for politicians to serve vested interests at the expense of the public.

Billionaires have the right to place ads, nonetheless, when it comes to politics, whatever political ads anyone places, especially when they're for an electoral campaign, have to be transparent as to who placed the ad. Transparency is important in the effort to eliminate corruption. Will we completely eliminate corruption in government? No. Wherever there are human beings, there is a certain degree of corruption. But we can reduce it as much as possible.

What was your claim then? You keep mentioning taxes and trillion-dollar federal budgets. What the heck does that have to do with campaign finance reform?

You want people to stop trying to influence politicians with money.
Politicians are spending trillions every year. Do know what an incentive is?

Billionaires have the right to place ads, nonetheless, when it comes to politics, whatever political ads anyone places, especially when they're for an electoral campaign, have to be transparent as to who placed the ad.

So billionaires can spend as much as they want on ads, as long as they are transparent?

 

[Red Front]

What was your claim then? You keep mentioning taxes and trillion-dollar federal budgets. What the heck does that have to do with campaign finance reform?

You want people to stop trying to influence politicians with money.
Politicians are spending trillions every year. Do know what an incentive is?

Billionaires have the right to place ads, nonetheless, when it comes to politics, whatever political ads anyone places, especially when they're for an electoral campaign, have to be transparent as to who placed the ad.

So billionaires can spend as much as they want on ads, as long as they are transparent?

Politicians aren't spending a penny, it's the government that employs them, that spends trillions in managing our country. What the heck does that have to do with campaign finance reform? The fact our government spends trillions yearly is irrelevant to the fact that politicians shouldn't be bribed by the rich or anyone else for that matter. Prohibiting what amounts to legal bribery, by limiting the amount of money anyone can donate to an electoral candidate's campaign has nothing to do with taxation or yearly federal government budgets. Again, you're not making much sense.

Billionaires and everybody else that places a political ad, especially if its for or against someone running for office, should be transparent. Not hide who they are but divulge to the public who they are and what they represent.

 

[Indeependent]

Politicians aren't spending a penny, it's the government that employs them, that spends trillions in managing our country. What the heck does that have to do with campaign finance reform? The fact our government spends trillions yearly is irrelevant to the fact that politicians shouldn't be bribed by the rich or anyone else for that matter. Prohibiting what amounts to legal bribery, by limiting the amount of money anyone can donate to an electoral candidate's campaign has nothing to do with taxation or yearly federal government budgets. Again, you're not making much sense.

Billionaires and everybody else that places a political ad, especially if its for or against someone running for office, should be transparent. Not hide who they are but divulge to the public who they are and what they represent.

List the nations that have implemented your idea successfully?

 

[Red Front]

List the nations that have implemented your idea successfully?

Our country once publicly funded all of its presidential campaigns. But your request is a bit disingenuous and irrational, because even if I couldn't off the top of my head provide you with a list of countries that publicly fund their electoral process and have taken a strong stance against government corruption (I could probably google it and find some countries) it doesn't invalidate the premise that politicians shouldn't be in a position to receive large sums of money in donations from the public they're obligated to serve. Politicians receiving large sums of cash and other benefits from their constituents for the purpose of influencing the legislative process should be made illegal. That's called bribery and is the epidemy of government corruption. When a government serves certain individuals or vested interests at the expense of the public good. This is self-evident but you and Todd pretend not to see it.

 

[Indeependent]

Our country once publicly funded all of its presidential campaigns. But your request is a bit disingenuous and irrational, because even if I couldn't off the top of my head provide you with a list of countries that publicly fund their electoral process and have taken a strong stance against government corruption (I could probably google it and find some countries) it doesn't invalidate the premise that politicians shouldn't be in a position to receive large sums of money in donations from the public they're obligated to serve. Politicians receiving large sums of cash and other benefits from their constituents for the purpose of influencing the legislative process should be made illegal. That's called bribery and is the epidemy of government corruption. When a government serves certain individuals or vested interests at the expense of the public good. This is self-evident but you and Todd pretend not to see it.

You can take your time and do research.

 

[Red Front]

You can take your time and do research.

I don't have to, because it's self-evident that bribing politicians is detrimental to any democracy.

 

[Indeependent]

I don't have to, because it's self-evident that bribing politicians is detrimental to any democracy.

It's also self-evident that communism doesn't truly work because those with higher aspirations want too much.

 

[MarathonMike]

Our country once publicly funded all of its presidential campaigns. But your request is a bit disingenuous and irrational, because even if I couldn't off the top of my head provide you with a list of countries that publicly fund their electoral process and have taken a strong stance against government corruption (I could probably google it and find some countries) it doesn't invalidate the premise that politicians shouldn't be in a position to receive large sums of money in donations from the public they're obligated to serve. Politicians receiving large sums of cash and other benefits from their constituents for the purpose of influencing the legislative process should be made illegal. That's called bribery and is the epidemy of government corruption. When a government serves certain individuals or vested interests at the expense of the public good. This is self-evident but you and Todd pretend not to see it.

You are doing a fine job of deflecting attention away from the rampant corruption that exists within the Democratic Party and their alliance with big tech, nearly all TV and social media, the entertainment industry, and and the DOJ. There will always be corrupt individuals in politics, it goes with the territory. But if you have proper checks, balances, oversight and watchdog groups (journalists?) doing their jobs, the system functions properly. We have NONE of that now which is why our system is dysfunctional.

 

[Red Front]

It's also self-evident that communism doesn't truly work because those with higher aspirations want too much.

What does communism have to do with the topic we were discussing? You want to debate communism now? You're justifying bribery because of communism's supposed flaws? You're not making any sense.

As far as communism, when technology replaces a significant % of wage-labor it will become a necessity. So whatever silly objections you might have against it are pretty much moot and of no value. High technology = communism.

 

[Red Front]

You are doing a fine job of deflecting attention away from the rampant corruption that exists within the Democratic Party and their alliance with big tech, nearly all TV and social media, the entertainment industry, and and the DOJ. There will always be corrupt individuals in politics, it goes with the territory. But if you have proper checks, balances, oversight and watchdog groups (journalists?) doing their jobs, the system functions properly. We have NONE of that now which is why our system is dysfunctional.

I agree with you, that's what we need. Proper, sufficient checks and balances. Corruption exists in both parties, not just in the Democratic party. Look at the link I posted a couple of posts back and you'll find Pelosi defending her supposed right to invest in company stocks when she's serving in congress. I could've posted a Republican politician, but I posted a Democrat. Both parties are two sides of the same turd.

 

[Indeependent]

What does communism have to do with the topic we were discussing? You want to debate communism now? You're justifying bribery because of communism's supposed flaws? You're not making any sense.


As far as communism, when technology replaces a significant % of wage-labor it will become a necessity. So whatever silly objections you might have against it are pretty much moot and of no value. High technology = communism.

Communism is not necessarily bad as human desire for more can be somewhat quelled until those without skills can receive a good education.