What do liberals want the US to be?

[mudwhistle]

Because you might possibly learn something in the process.

We should never think ourselves to be too intelligent to hear opposing viewpoints.

Mindless drivel that only acts to divide has precious little value no matter the political orientation.

If you need that sense of validation that comes with being part of a tribe, however, don't let me get in you way. I happen to think the world is a whole lot more complex than these extremely simple-minded dichotomies people like to foist, but I do realize some derive comfort from such simplification. The world must seem less scary to you when you only have to engage it this way.

The article wasn't attempting to define the complexities of true liberalism, but instead point out the utter fallacious vomit that Democrats and their media cohorts spew upon us on a regular basis.

 

[Redfish]

It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives have twisted "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" into a JFK condemnation of social programs

JFK was making a plea for public service in advance of his Peace Corps initiative. JFK fought hard for social programs that became LBJs war on poverty

JFK also believed in trickled down economics. He felt if the filthy government taxed the people less everybody would be better off. Libtards nowadays hate the idea of less taxes and putting more money into the hands of the people that earned it.

Kennedy was on his way in Dallas to give a speech about further reducing taxes in the US when he was assassinated, by the way. That is ironic. An avowed Marxist whacked a President that wanted to reduce taxes in America.

Another rightwing myth

During WWII we raised income taxes on the rich to 90% at the highest level. 15 years after the war, JFK advocated lowering the upper tax rate from 90% down to 70%.
The current upper tax rate is 39%

Rightwing claims that JFK was a supply side economist are ridiculous. Are you willing to return to the 70% tax rate that JFK wanted?

Bullshit. during those times the tax code was full of loopholes, deductions, and exemptions, no one paid 90% of his income to the govt. Most of those tax dodges have been eliminated now, so the actual amounts paid are very nearly the same.

 

[Flash]

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

You get every thing wrong don't you?

The wealthy pay more simply by the fact that they earn more. A progressive tax rate where they pay at a higher rate than the less productive is not only thievery but is a disincentive to be productive. Dumbass system.

The fair market of labor should be the determination of wages not interference by the government.

It is absurdity is we have a Federal government that spends $4 trillion a year and is $18 trillion in debt and we have allowed this out of control government to tax us so much and to do stupid things like force an employer to pay more money for labor than the labor market demands.

 

[Mathbud1]

this is a serious question, please only reply with serious comments.

what specifically do liberals want the US to become?
Tell us exactly what you want changed, and why.

Seriously?

Liberals want a country that provides a level playing field for all people regardless of race, sex, sexuality or social class
Liberals want to help those who need helping

We pretty much have this... what you guys want though, is equality if outcome; which of course will never happen.

It could happen though. Equality of outcome can be ensured if you lower the possible high outcome to a sufficiently low level that you can raise anyone to that level. Of course that requires punishing achievement and success. It requires rewarding need and inability. This doesn't lead to the imagined utopia where everyone's wants and needs are spontaneously met. It leads to failure and stagnation. It leads to a grey mediocrity where nobody succeeds because everyone can't.

 

[rightwinger]

Seriously?

Liberals want a country that provides a level playing field for all people regardless of race, sex, sexuality or social class
Liberals want to help those who need helping

We pretty much have this... what you guys want though, is equality if outcome; which of course will never happen.

Again you rant about the "equality of outcome" conservative myth

You have yet to provide a single source where anyone is requesting equality of outcome

What exactly do you have in mind then when you say things like the rich need to pay more? What are your rants about minimum wage about if not equalizing income?

of course you libs want equality of outcome, every post from a lib in this thread validates that that is one of your goals.

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

How much income is too much?
How much income is too little?

Does Oprah make too much? How about Beyonce? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? The clintons? How much of their incomes should they be allowed to keep? Give us the answer as a %.

How much income is too little?
I would say that if someone works fulltime to support his family that he should be able to support his family without government assistance. Low skilled workers used to be able to do that

I don't care how much Oprah, Beyonce or Pelosi make as long as they are contributing back to our society. At a 39% upper tax rate, I do not believe thay are
Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and Obama are all willing to increase that upper tax rate

 

[rightwinger]

Seriously?

Liberals want a country that provides a level playing field for all people regardless of race, sex, sexuality or social class
Liberals want to help those who need helping

We pretty much have this... what you guys want though, is equality if outcome; which of course will never happen.

Again you rant about the "equality of outcome" conservative myth

You have yet to provide a single source where anyone is requesting equality of outcome

What exactly do you have in mind then when you say things like the rich need to pay more? What are your rants about minimum wage about if not equalizing income?

of course you libs want equality of outcome, every post from a lib in this thread validates that that is one of your goals.

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

Second question: what do you propose that the government do with the "slightly more" that would be taken from the wealthy?

You think I am going to say give cash handouts to the poor? No way

I would use the additional revenue to fund more healthcare for poor and working poor. Provide more assistance in education. Provide low rate small business loans. Invest in Americas infrastructure that will provide more jobs

 

[Dogmaphobe]

So you see the Fairness Doctrine as a method for reducing the influence that wealthy people have on the legislative process.

Is that because you see it as a method for reducing the influence that wealthy station owners have on the message being broadcast? The hope being that a more balanced message will lead to a more informed voting population?That this will then change who the voters elect? That the legislators will then be more free from the influence of wealthy people?

Sorry just trying to follow your train of thought.

Back in the 50s and 60s, people were wise enough to realize that since A.M. bandwidth is limited, that in order to avoid monopolization, it was necessary to implement certain requirements that ensured it served the public interests instead of merely the interests of those owning the stations. The fairness doctrine was the way to preserve that long-standing American tradition of free speech and access to a wide range of ideas so as to enable an informed electorate rather than having such ideas hand-selected for us.

The influence of money as it relates to radio should be obvious. It takes a lot of the stuff to broadcast, and in the years since the 60s, the trend has been towards conglomeration. There are fewer and fewer independent radio stations all the time, having been replaced by giants such as clear channel and cumulus, which have now merged, thus allowing for the monopolization of opinion even further.

The re-implementation of this doctrine that acted to conserve our American valuesin regards to free speech would certainly not end the ability of enormous corporations to control the political climate of this country, but it would at least provide for a little balance in the way this media operates.

 

[Redfish]

We pretty much have this... what you guys want though, is equality if outcome; which of course will never happen.

Again you rant about the "equality of outcome" conservative myth

You have yet to provide a single source where anyone is requesting equality of outcome

What exactly do you have in mind then when you say things like the rich need to pay more? What are your rants about minimum wage about if not equalizing income?

of course you libs want equality of outcome, every post from a lib in this thread validates that that is one of your goals.

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

How much income is too much?
How much income is too little?

Does Oprah make too much? How about Beyonce? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? The clintons? How much of their incomes should they be allowed to keep? Give us the answer as a %.

How much income is too little?
I would say that if someone works fulltime to support his family that he should be able to support his family without government assistance. Low skilled workers used to be able to do that

I don't care how much Oprah, Beyonce or Pelosi make as long as they are contributing back to our society. At a 39% upper tax rate, I do not believe thay are
Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and Obama are all willing to increase that upper tax rate

throughout the history of this great nation, people who had trouble making ends meet either got a second job, more education, more training, learned a skill or somehow made their labor more valuable to an employer. Instead or trying to buy a house or live in an expensive apartment, find a boarding house or rent a room from a relative. Damn, you libs want a free ride. I say **** that.

It is not the role of government to ensure that everyone has an income from a single job to support the lifestyle that he chooses for himself.

 

[Mathbud1]

Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?

Or do you want to eliminate legislation?

Or something else?

Why do you guys always come back with such stupid responses?

How does advocating policies that don't directly make the rich wealthier equate to "eliminate all wealth"?

How is that a stupid response?

You said that the wealthy class has a " disproportional say in how legislation is crafted and who it helps."

I assumed that you meant they had such a say because they are able to spend their money to influence legislators.

How would you stop that?

I gave you two options that would stop that influence: eliminating wealth, or eliminating legislation. I also gave you the all-important third option: something else. A free pass to explain in your own words what you actually meant.

So?

Your response:
Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?

Totally unrelated to what I posted

What about it is unrelated?

"We have a wealthy class who get a disproportional say..." -> "Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?"

"in how legislation is crafted and who it helps." - > "Or do you want to eliminate legislation?"

I addressed two aspects of your complaint and invited you to explain your own resolution if neither of the ones I suggested fit your point of view.

Again, what about that is at all unrelated to what you posted?

What would you do to eliminate the "disproportional say" that the "wealthy class" has in our legislative process?

Eliminating wealth is not what you had in mind. Eliminating the legislative process is not what you had in mind. Ok. What did you have in mind?

"We have a wealthy class who get a disproportional say..." -> "Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?"

Your turn

How does advocating the wealthy have less political clout result in elimination of all wealth?

You did not say that you wanted to lessen their political clout. You said that they have too much political clout. Yes, that could be seen as implying that you want to lessen their political clout, but does not at all address how you would like to see that done. Since wealth contributes to their clout, eliminating that wealth would be a method for reducing their clout. Again, if you have some other method in mind for reducing their clout, you have been repeatedly invited to state it.

Will you?

 

[Redfish]

We pretty much have this... what you guys want though, is equality if outcome; which of course will never happen.

Again you rant about the "equality of outcome" conservative myth

You have yet to provide a single source where anyone is requesting equality of outcome

What exactly do you have in mind then when you say things like the rich need to pay more? What are your rants about minimum wage about if not equalizing income?

of course you libs want equality of outcome, every post from a lib in this thread validates that that is one of your goals.

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

Second question: what do you propose that the government do with the "slightly more" that would be taken from the wealthy?

You think I am going to say give cash handouts to the poor? No way

I would use the additional revenue to fund more healthcare for poor and working poor. Provide more assistance in education. Provide low rate small business loans. Invest in Americas infrastructure that will provide more jobs

How about paying down the debt first? "invest" to you libs means "spend". We do not "invest" in infrastructure, we "spend" tax collections on it. Yes, in creates jobs, but you libs don't want that now do you?

Can you say Keystone?

 

[Disir]

Again you rant about the "equality of outcome" conservative myth

You have yet to provide a single source where anyone is requesting equality of outcome

What exactly do you have in mind then when you say things like the rich need to pay more? What are your rants about minimum wage about if not equalizing income?

of course you libs want equality of outcome, every post from a lib in this thread validates that that is one of your goals.

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

Second question: what do you propose that the government do with the "slightly more" that would be taken from the wealthy?

You think I am going to say give cash handouts to the poor? No way

I would use the additional revenue to fund more healthcare for poor and working poor. Provide more assistance in education. Provide low rate small business loans. Invest in Americas infrastructure that will provide more jobs

How about paying down the debt first? "invest" to you libs means "spend". We do not "invest" in infrastructure, we "spend" tax collections on it. Yes, in creates jobs, but you libs don't want that now do you?

Can you say Keystone?

That's about 35 full time jobs. Which we have known since the Cornell study.

 

[SAYIT]

These midterms were losses on historic levels. You can write them off if you like without dealing with that, please do.

These midterms were apathy on historic levels. The lowest voter participation rate since 1942. Winning because no one showed up to vote is not a mandate.

It wasn't just apathy but rather people voting with their feet. It was a repudiation of Obama's policies as his base gave him and the Dems a big .

 

[Disir]

The biggest mistake you can make is thinking that it was some how for "your team".

 

[rightwinger]

Again you rant about the "equality of outcome" conservative myth

You have yet to provide a single source where anyone is requesting equality of outcome

What exactly do you have in mind then when you say things like the rich need to pay more? What are your rants about minimum wage about if not equalizing income?

of course you libs want equality of outcome, every post from a lib in this thread validates that that is one of your goals.

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

How much income is too much?
How much income is too little?

Does Oprah make too much? How about Beyonce? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? The clintons? How much of their incomes should they be allowed to keep? Give us the answer as a %.

How much income is too little?
I would say that if someone works fulltime to support his family that he should be able to support his family without government assistance. Low skilled workers used to be able to do that

I don't care how much Oprah, Beyonce or Pelosi make as long as they are contributing back to our society. At a 39% upper tax rate, I do not believe thay are
Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and Obama are all willing to increase that upper tax rate

throughout the history of this great nation, people who had trouble making ends meet either got a second job, more education, more training, learned a skill or somehow made their labor more valuable to an employer. Instead or trying to buy a house or live in an expensive apartment, find a boarding house or rent a room from a relative. Damn, you libs want a free ride. I say **** that.

It is not the role of government to ensure that everyone has an income from a single job to support the lifestyle that he chooses for himself.

Once again you are offering up second jobs and better paying jobs that our current job market is unable to provide. There are 30 million working Americans that need government assistance to support their families. There are nowhere close to 30 million second jobs out there
Boarding houses, low rent apartments, renting a room, living with relatives....where do you think our working poor live? Park Avenue?

 

[kaz]

We are parasites, not wanting government money. LOL. you are a tool.

Yeah, I just love that "logic." Of course, it's just another example of the liberal propaganda technique where they accuse their critics of everything they are guilty of.

Libertarians are frauds and parasites but unfortunately have been successful in hiding their dangerous disease under war hating, and freedom loving. Sadly their freedom isn't freedom, it is chaos and opens the door to a real loss of democracy.



They unwittingly use the protections, benefits and accomplishments government has to offer to create their fortunes, while pompously declaring they did it all on their own.

Clueless igets, everyone.

LOL, the idea of government not taking care of you is just pure terror, isn't it?

I should be able to take care of myself, but if god forbid, something were to happen to me I like the idea that the government is there to take care of me

Your family should take care of you, not the rest of us. If you have no family then look to a church or other charity. The government is not your caretaker.

Yes: Charity should be:

1) Oneself
2) Family
3) Community/Church
4) Charities
5) Government, and as local as possible
-) Federal government, never

Instead liberals wipe out the first 5 and run to the feds.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do you guys always come back with such stupid responses?

How does advocating policies that don't directly make the rich wealthier equate to "eliminate all wealth"?

How is that a stupid response?

You said that the wealthy class has a " disproportional say in how legislation is crafted and who it helps."

I assumed that you meant they had such a say because they are able to spend their money to influence legislators.

How would you stop that?

I gave you two options that would stop that influence: eliminating wealth, or eliminating legislation. I also gave you the all-important third option: something else. A free pass to explain in your own words what you actually meant.

So?

Your response:
Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?

Totally unrelated to what I posted

What about it is unrelated?

"We have a wealthy class who get a disproportional say..." -> "Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?"

"in how legislation is crafted and who it helps." - > "Or do you want to eliminate legislation?"

I addressed two aspects of your complaint and invited you to explain your own resolution if neither of the ones I suggested fit your point of view.

Again, what about that is at all unrelated to what you posted?

What would you do to eliminate the "disproportional say" that the "wealthy class" has in our legislative process?

Eliminating wealth is not what you had in mind. Eliminating the legislative process is not what you had in mind. Ok. What did you have in mind?

"We have a wealthy class who get a disproportional say..." -> "Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?"

Your turn

How does advocating the wealthy have less political clout result in elimination of all wealth?

You did not say that you wanted to lessen their political clout. You said that they have too much political clout. Yes, that could be seen as implying that you want to lessen their political clout, but does not at all address how you would like to see that done. Since wealth contributes to their clout, eliminating that wealth would be a method for reducing their clout. Again, if you have some other method in mind for reducing their clout, you have been repeatedly invited to state it.

Will you?

I would start with campaign contributions. End them
Go with taxpayer funded campaigns. Everyone receives the same amount
This relieves elected politicians from the pressures of coming up with the money to fund their next election

 

[Redfish]

What exactly do you have in mind then when you say things like the rich need to pay more? What are your rants about minimum wage about if not equalizing income?

of course you libs want equality of outcome, every post from a lib in this thread validates that that is one of your goals.

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

How much income is too much?
How much income is too little?

Does Oprah make too much? How about Beyonce? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? The clintons? How much of their incomes should they be allowed to keep? Give us the answer as a %.

How much income is too little?
I would say that if someone works fulltime to support his family that he should be able to support his family without government assistance. Low skilled workers used to be able to do that

I don't care how much Oprah, Beyonce or Pelosi make as long as they are contributing back to our society. At a 39% upper tax rate, I do not believe thay are
Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and Obama are all willing to increase that upper tax rate

throughout the history of this great nation, people who had trouble making ends meet either got a second job, more education, more training, learned a skill or somehow made their labor more valuable to an employer. Instead or trying to buy a house or live in an expensive apartment, find a boarding house or rent a room from a relative. Damn, you libs want a free ride. I say **** that.

It is not the role of government to ensure that everyone has an income from a single job to support the lifestyle that he chooses for himself.

Once again you are offering up second jobs and better paying jobs that our current job market is unable to provide. There are 30 million working Americans that need government assistance to support their families. There are nowhere close to 30 million second jobs out there
Boarding houses, low rent apartments, renting a room, living with relatives....where do you think our working poor live? Park Avenue?

Its called being responsible for your own life. Being a slave creates obligations that you may not like.

 

[bripat9643]

What exactly do you have in mind then when you say things like the rich need to pay more? What are your rants about minimum wage about if not equalizing income?

of course you libs want equality of outcome, every post from a lib in this thread validates that that is one of your goals.

OK lets look at "equality of outcome"
That means everyone receives the same outcome

How does advocating that the wealthy pay slightly more force the rich to a level where they end up with the same as everyone else?
How does increasing a minimum wage by a few dollars move these workers up to a point where they are making the same as every other worker?

You are talking in absurdity and hyperbole

How much income is too much?
How much income is too little?

Does Oprah make too much? How about Beyonce? Pelosi? Reid? Obama? The clintons? How much of their incomes should they be allowed to keep? Give us the answer as a %.

How much income is too little?
I would say that if someone works fulltime to support his family that he should be able to support his family without government assistance. Low skilled workers used to be able to do that

I don't care how much Oprah, Beyonce or Pelosi make as long as they are contributing back to our society. At a 39% upper tax rate, I do not believe thay are
Pelosi, Reid, Clinton and Obama are all willing to increase that upper tax rate

throughout the history of this great nation, people who had trouble making ends meet either got a second job, more education, more training, learned a skill or somehow made their labor more valuable to an employer. Instead or trying to buy a house or live in an expensive apartment, find a boarding house or rent a room from a relative. Damn, you libs want a free ride. I say **** that.

It is not the role of government to ensure that everyone has an income from a single job to support the lifestyle that he chooses for himself.

Once again you are offering up second jobs and better paying jobs that our current job market is unable to provide. There are 30 million working Americans that need government assistance to support their families. There are nowhere close to 30 million second jobs out there
Boarding houses, low rent apartments, renting a room, living with relatives....where do you think our working poor live? Park Avenue?

Apparently they are earning a living wage then.

 

[Mathbud1]

So you see the Fairness Doctrine as a method for reducing the influence that wealthy people have on the legislative process.

Is that because you see it as a method for reducing the influence that wealthy station owners have on the message being broadcast? The hope being that a more balanced message will lead to a more informed voting population?That this will then change who the voters elect? That the legislators will then be more free from the influence of wealthy people?

Sorry just trying to follow your train of thought.

Back in the 50s and 60s, people were wise enough to realize that since A.M. bandwidth is limited, that in order to avoid monopolization, it was necessary to implement certain requirements that ensured it served the public interests instead of merely the interests of those owning the stations. The fairness doctrine was the way to preserve that long-standing American tradition of free speech and access to a wide range of ideas so as to enable an informed electorate rather than having such ideas hand-selected for us.

The influence of money as it relates to radio should be obvious. It takes a lot of the stuff to broadcast, and in the years since the 60s, the trend has been towards conglomeration. There are fewer and fewer independent radio stations all the time, having been replaced by giants such as clear channel and cumulus, which have now merged, thus allowing for the monopolization of opinion even further.

The re-implementation of this doctrine that acted to conserve our American valuesin regards to free speech would certainly not end the ability of enormous corporations to control the political climate of this country, but it would at least provide for a little balance in the way this media operates.

That would assume that broadcast is the method of choice for Americans in receiving their news and other content. I would argue that in this day and age that is no longer remotely accurate. I NEVER listen to radio and I am far from alone in that. I much more likely to listen to streaming media, podcasts, etc even in the car. I read news online.

As you said yourself, the Fairness Doctrine was about the limitations on available bandwidth and the avoidance of monopolization. There has been a significant increase in the available means of transmitting and receiving information since that time. Do you still see it as expedient for the government to mandate the content that is broadcast in the current situation?

 

[Redfish]

How is that a stupid response?

You said that the wealthy class has a " disproportional say in how legislation is crafted and who it helps."

I assumed that you meant they had such a say because they are able to spend their money to influence legislators.

How would you stop that?

I gave you two options that would stop that influence: eliminating wealth, or eliminating legislation. I also gave you the all-important third option: something else. A free pass to explain in your own words what you actually meant.

So?

Your response:
Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?

Totally unrelated to what I posted

What about it is unrelated?

"We have a wealthy class who get a disproportional say..." -> "Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?"

"in how legislation is crafted and who it helps." - > "Or do you want to eliminate legislation?"

I addressed two aspects of your complaint and invited you to explain your own resolution if neither of the ones I suggested fit your point of view.

Again, what about that is at all unrelated to what you posted?

What would you do to eliminate the "disproportional say" that the "wealthy class" has in our legislative process?

Eliminating wealth is not what you had in mind. Eliminating the legislative process is not what you had in mind. Ok. What did you have in mind?

"We have a wealthy class who get a disproportional say..." -> "Does that mean you want to eliminate all wealth?"

Your turn

How does advocating the wealthy have less political clout result in elimination of all wealth?

You did not say that you wanted to lessen their political clout. You said that they have too much political clout. Yes, that could be seen as implying that you want to lessen their political clout, but does not at all address how you would like to see that done. Since wealth contributes to their clout, eliminating that wealth would be a method for reducing their clout. Again, if you have some other method in mind for reducing their clout, you have been repeatedly invited to state it.

Will you?

I would start with campaign contributions. End them
Go with taxpayer funded campaigns. Everyone receives the same amount
This relieves elected politicians from the pressures of coming up with the money to fund their next election

who gets the money? anyone who puts their name on the ballot? primaries and general? how does the govt decide which candidates to fund?