Suddenly we must get rid of Billionaires

[Red Front]

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

High technology = communism. You might as well become a communist now.

 

[Indeependent]

High technology = communism. You might as well become a communist now.

We are in a state where the state knows everything.
Would you prefer we taper what we have?

 

[MarathonMike]

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.

If you've read any of my posts you know I am no fan of the GOP. But this is no longer about idealogical differences between two American parties. The Democrats for the last decade have gone off the rails and are actively working to establish perpetual One Party Rule and undermine America every way they can. The Open border, green energy, refusal to acknowledge the Chinese WMD attack via Fentanyl, weaponizing the FBI....etc etc.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Politicians aren't spending a penny, it's the government that employs them, that spends trillions in managing our country.

Politicians don't write bills that spend trillions? Politicians don't create laws and regulations that impact huge portions of the economy?

What the heck does that have to do with campaign finance reform?

Why do people want to bribe politicians?

 

[Red Front]

We are in a state where the state knows everything.
Would you prefer we taper what we have?

Technology will eventually reduce the size of the state significantly. Our best bet for reducing the size of government is investing heavily in production automation, giving as much power as possible to the consumer. Imagine living in a high-tech, modern society, where technology allows you to produce everything that you consume without the need for a business enterprise or anybody else. So you will either have the high-tech machinery (i.e. robots, AI, autonomic precision manufacturing machines, nanotechnology) in your home or it will all be accessible to you in a local community production center, and you will have everything you need and want. As technology advances, the consumer will have more control over the means of production, producing everything that he or she consumes and uses without anyone else's participation or help. So we will create the conditions for every adult human relationship and interaction to be one that is 100% voluntary, free of coercion and fear. The path to that world is through high-communism.

Your progeny will live in this new world, created by technology, that will provide them with the freedom to live wherever they want to live and have access to whatever they need and want to consume and use. This is the Marxist definition of high-communism:


"Communist society also involves the absence of private property,[1] social classes, money,[9] and the state.[10][11][12] Communists often seek a voluntary state of self-governance, but disagree on the means to this end. This reflects a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more vanguardist or communist party-driven approach through the development of a constitutional socialist state followed by the withering away of the state.[13] "

Source: Communism - Wikipedia


A stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money. The only way for us to achieve that is through a process that empowers the consumer. You and I are consumers. We need to consume, air, water, food, housing..etc. There are resources that we need to use in order to live. Through technology we will acquire the ability to produce everything that we consume, without the need to depend on a privately owned business, a rich guy that owns the machines, a government or state that manages the machines for us..etc. We will eventually, through a socioeconomic procress, which I can explain to you on another post, attain complete control, sovereignty over the production of everything that we consume. Power over the production of goods that we need to live. No more will you depend upon somene employing, much less exploiting you, or controlling what you do, who you associate with, where you live, all of that will be a social and economic condition of a primitive past, due to lack of technology.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Our country once publicly funded all of its presidential campaigns.

When?

 

[Red Front]

Politicians aren't spending a penny, it's the government that employs them, that spends trillions in managing our country.

Politicians don't write bills that spend trillions? Politicians don't create laws and regulations that impact huge portions of the economy?

What the heck does that have to do with campaign finance reform?

Why do people want to bribe politicians?

Elected officials write the laws and those laws should be for the public good, not to serve vested interests at everyone else's expense and detriment. The economy does need the government but that is irrelevant to the fact that bribery should be illegal. It doesn't matter why certain people want to bribe politicians, it should be stopped.

 

[Red Front]

Our country once publicly funded all of its presidential campaigns.

When?

Let me rephrase that because that was indeed a mistake and exaggeration. Presidential candidates can and have in the past been funded by the government. The government is in a position to fund campaigns. I do believe candidates should have the right to receive donations from the public, but there should be limits to that, especially when it's corporate donations. There are loopholes in the law that currently allow large sums of money to be donated to politicians and that should be eliminated.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Elected officials write the laws and those laws should be for the public good, not to serve vested interests at everyone else's expense.

You write a bill that controls an industry, you create winners and losers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me rephrase that because that was indeed a mistake and exaggeration. Presidential candidates can and have in the past been funded by the government. The government is in a position to fund campaigns. I do believe candidates should have the right to receive donations from the public, but there should be limits to that, especially when it's corporate donations. There are loopholes in the law that currently allow large sums of money to be donated to politicians and that should be eliminated.

There are loopholes in the law that currently allow large sums of money to be donated to politicians and that should be eliminated.

What loopholes?

 

[Red Front]

You write a bill that controls an industry, you create winners and losers.

There are necessary laws and regulations, like child labor laws and the ordinances that regulate restaurants to make sure their kitchens meet a high standard of cleanliness and they're not feeding you dog meat when you order sweet and sour pork..etc. The government protects patents, and property rights and provides commerce with courts of law, and law enforcement. Yeah? You can't have modern industry or a capitalist market economy at a national scale, without the government.

 

[Red Front]

There are loopholes in the law that currently allow large sums of money to be donated to politicians and that should be eliminated.

What loopholes?

Close the 3 Loopholes that Are Harming the 2020 Election

We can do it with H.R. 1, a historic bill that would make it easier to vote, transform campaign financing, and ban partisan gerrymandering.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Close the 3 Loopholes that Are Harming the 2020 Election

We can do it with H.R. 1, a historic bill that would make it easier to vote, transform campaign financing, and ban partisan gerrymandering.

www.brennancenter.org

Thanks for the link.
What are the three loopholes?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are necessary laws and regulations, like child labor laws and the ordinances that regulate restaurants to make sure their kitchens meet a high standard of cleanliness and they're not feeding you dog meat when you order sweet and sour pork..etc. The government protects patents, and property rights and provides commerce with courts of law, and law enforcement. Yeah? You can't have modern industry or a capitalist market economy at a national scale, without the government.

Right. And there are also unnecessary laws and regulations.

Which create winners and losers. Both are interested in getting the attention of politicians.

 

[Red Front]

If you've read any of my posts you know I am no fan of the GOP. But this is no longer about idealogical differences between two American parties. The Democrats for the last decade have gone off the rails and are actively working to establish perpetual One Party Rule and undermine America every way they can. The Open border, green energy, refusal to acknowledge the Chinese WMD attack via Fentanyl, weaponizing the FBI....etc etc.

You're just regurgitating GOP, far-right rhetoric, and conspiracy theories against the Democrats. Both parties are for open borders because both Republicans and Democrats benefit from cheap immigrant labor or the Hispanic vote. The Democrats under Obama orchestrated a coup in Honduras that led to the present horrible conditions in that country that drive tens of thousands of Hondurans out of their country and into ours. However, the Republicans like imposing economic sanctions on third-world countries, including nations in Central and South America that don't "toe the line" with the vested interests of our American ruling elite.

Both parties are responsible for all of the problems we have in this country, not just one.

​

 

[Red Front]

Right. And there are also unnecessary laws and regulations.

Which create winners and losers. Both are interested in getting the attention of politicians.

Yes, I agree, there might be unnecessary laws and regulations that undermine commerce. If we have a capitalist market-run economy then those laws and regulations should be eliminated. We may not agree as to what those laws and regulations are, but I can agree with you on the fact that there are unnecessary laws and regulations that could be eliminated. The fact that capitalists are interested in bribing, influencing, and controlling the government doesn't justify their bribery. Actually some of those laws and regulations you're critical of might be on the books due to bribery. One group of capitalists bribing politicians to pass laws that serve their interests at the expense of their competitors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The fact that both are interested in bribing, influencing, and controlling the government doesn't justify their bribery.

Both are interested in influencing the regulations.
Which can be done by spending money outside of bribery.

 

[Red Front]

Thanks for the link.
What are the three loopholes?

You can ignore the link others will go there and look at the loopholes. One of the categories of loopholes is economic and it allows the rich to pour vast amounts of money into the pockets of politicians. That has to be stopped. If you want a certain piece of legislation passed through congress then you should get signatures from the public, convince people to want that piece of legislation passed, and get it enacted. What can I say against a right-wing effort to get public approval of a certain piece of legislation that successfully meets its objectives? Is that bribery or corruption? No. 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.

Any group whether it's comprised of billionaires, the rich, or the working class can start an organization, a movement, in order to advance its political objectives, ideology, interests, vision, and views. etc. I'm not against that. 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. It's self-evident Todd, that bribery undermines our Republic, it doesn't positively contribute to it, to its "health" or our freedoms. The rich capitalists, don't really care about our freedoms, they care about profits. Money and power, that's it. If the shit hits the fan here in America, they hop on their 70 million dollar mega-yachts or Learjets and fly away to Singapore or to their private Island in the Caribbean, while you and I are here bearing the destructive chaos and living in the ruins of their bribery (the bad laws they passed through our Congress that undermine our health, finances, our children's future. etc).

 

[Red Front]

Both are interested in influencing the regulations.
Which can be done by spending money outside of bribery.

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can ignore the link others will go there and look at the loopholes. One of the categories of loopholes is economic and it allows the rich to pour vast amounts of money into the pockets of politicians. That has to be stopped. If you want a certain piece of legislation passed through congress then you should get signatures from the public, convince people to want that piece of legislation passed, and get it enacted. What can I say against a right-wing effort to get public approval of a certain piece of legislation that successfully meets its objectives? Is that bribery or corruption? No. 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.

Any group whether it's comprised of billionaires, the rich, or the working class can start an organization, a movement, in order to advance its political objectives, ideology, interests, vision, and views. etc. I'm not against that. 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. It's self-evident Todd, that bribery undermines our Republic, it doesn't positively contribute to it, to its "health" or our freedoms. The rich capitalists, don't really care about our freedoms, they care about profits. Money and power, that's it. If the shit hits the fan here in America, they hop on their 70 million dollar mega-yachts or Learjets and fly away to Singapore or to their private Island in the Caribbean, while you and I are here bearing the destructive chaos and living in the ruins of their bribery (the bad laws they passed through our Congress that undermine our health, finances, our children's future. etc).

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.