I imagine there is a standard response to this issue that goes something like "Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed".
I don't think this is accurate though - something HAS changed. The USSC in several decisions has fundamentally altered in a real and practical sense how democracy works in the US, and done so in a manner that I expect really means that democracy simply does not work in the US anymore.
We still have elections, we still have bitter partisan fighting over everything (if anything this is worse than ever), but I am becoming more and more convinced that even the bitter partisanship is mostly all smoke and flash, without any real effect when it comes to the things that have been subverted by money.
It feels like we mostly fight over the outlying issues, the ones that are left after the fundamental ones have been removed from the table. Should we have more or less troops in Iraq? Afghanistan? More of less money for public health care?
But why isn't there any real debate about finance reform? Why don't any national politicians even try to address income and wealth inequality? It is obvious that actual campaign finance reform is a complete dead issues - the USSC has basically said that not only is it "working as intended", even suggesting that it could be reformed is unconstitutional.
So we are left with what feels a lot like a fake choice. You can pick between various political options, every single one of which is bought and owned by the ultra-wealthy corporations and entities that are absolutely required to fund modern political campaigns. You cannot be elected, nor can you be re-elected, unless you have access to incredible amounts of money, and now that corporations are people, and money is speech, the outcome is pretty much obvious, inevitable even. You cannot even really blame the politicians - they are playing by the rules of the game as they exist, and those rules say that re-election and securing the funds necessary for that trump any and all other concerns.
I cannot influence my representatives in any fashion in this regard. I can choose to vote among a set of choices all of which are utterly beholden to those who fund them. So of course there is no choice that can or will go against their interests when the set of people capable of funding them are all those same corporations. It is beyond naive to think that this current system can work any other way.
And this is NOT same old same old. This is new. We have argued for a long time about private versus public funding of elections, but now it isn't private funding of elections, rather it is corporate funding of elections. How can that possibly be workable in anything that we would call a representative democracy that represents anything other than corporations?
Democrat/Republican? It seems to be to be a false choice. It doesn't matter which you choose - either way you are getting political figures beholden to those who put them there.
Okay but I think there's a counter trend of roughly Dean-Obama (08)-Paul-Tea Partiers which is more interesting and possibly more like the future.
I'd add that from a British perspective, despite lower turn-out, the US seems to have healthier mass parties.
Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 15, 2014, 10:24:34 AM
Okay but I think there's a counter trend of roughly Dean-Obama (08)-Paul-Tea Partiers which is more interesting and possibly more like the future.
Disagree.
Dean was a flash in the pan and his next act was to figure out how to shovel as much corporate money into the Democratic trough as possible.
Obama is far more problem than solution. He is Exhibit 1 of the permanent fund-raising presidency. I realize you hedged with the "(08)" designation - but that just underscores the stark difference between promise and reality.
Rand Paul?? He is one of the loudest shills for loosening any restrictions on campaign fianance. And his very existence as a political force is essentially parasitical on decades of propaganda spewed forth by corporate funded liberatarian "think tanks".
The tea partiers are an unorganized force that basically stand for nothing coherent beyond anger and ignorance. Their role over the past 5 years has been to be alternatively used as dupes or foils.
There is no counter-trend. You are kidding yourself.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 10:37:49 AM
Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed.
Nonsense. This is not more of the same. We did not have the majority of the corruption occurring form international corps and foreign nations. I mean sure the Roman Republic was corrupt for almost its entire history but there is a marked difference between a system with some corruption and a corrupt system. The system as it is currently operating puts the politicians beholden to people other than the voters almost entirely. That is not how it is supposed to work. Now our system can tolerate a bit of that, we have always had a bit of that with corrupt political machines and so forth. But things can reach a critical mass where it becomes a corrupt system. With the inflow of money from largely internationalist sources over the past forty years we have reached that point.
Besides the idea because we have had a functional government with some amount of corruption at all times in our history means that no amount of corruption can ever become a problem is illogical. Furthermore the people of the past regarded the corruption as a problem and were in favor of steps to correct it, why don't you?
Gotcha! :punk:
I dunno, seems like the democracy of Tammany Hall/Mayor Daley/Governor Huey Long might be a tad more corrupt than today.
I think that if anything, there's probably less corruption among elected officials now than in say, the 1880's or 1920's.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 15, 2014, 11:04:17 AM
I dunno, seems like the democracy of Tammany Hall/Mayor Daley/Governor Huey Long might be a tad more corrupt than today.
I think today is far worse, because it is actually "legal" corruption. It isn't "Here is a bag of money, please vote as such" but it is "Here is a funding stream, and as long as you represent us, it will remain in place". This is far worse, IMO, than overt corruption.
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2014, 11:05:14 AM
I think that if anything, there's probably less corruption among elected officials now than in say, the 1880's or 1920's.
Of course - the USSC has defined what is happening now as not corruption, hence there is less corruption.
It has the added bonus that overt "Corruption" isn't even necessary or desirable. You can't buy off a politician retail who is already been bought off wholesale.
I think it's not quite that straightforward. Bald faced outright corruption for massive personal gain is a lot more difficult now than it used to be, but soft "the peanut conglomerate financed your campaign, we'd prefer you to oppose anti-peanut legislation" is almost guaranteed. We've lopped off the extremes of massively corrupt/free of influence to leave us with a group of politicians beholden to all sorts of interests.
All of it.
Corporations are somehow people, that's insane.
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2014, 11:07:58 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 15, 2014, 11:04:17 AM
I dunno, seems like the democracy of Tammany Hall/Mayor Daley/Governor Huey Long might be a tad more corrupt than today.
I think today is far worse, because it is actually "legal" corruption. It isn't "Here is a bag of money, please vote as such" but it is "Here is a funding stream, and as long as you represent us, it will remain in place". This is far worse, IMO, than overt corruption.
Politicians have always relied on donations to fund their campaigns. The only real change is that limits on individual contributions have shifted a good bit of the source of those funds from wealthy individuals to organizations.
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 10:37:49 AM
Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed.
The issue is less corruption, but a very high bar to anyone who wants to enter politics.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2014, 11:24:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 10:37:49 AM
Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed.
The issue is less corruption, but a very high bar to anyone who wants to enter politics.
If you're planning to jump right in with a bid for Congress, yeah. But that's probably always been true. And it's not really true if you're running for your local city council or board of education or the like, at least in the vast majority of cases.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 10:46:10 AM
We did not have the majority of the corruption occurring form international corps and foreign nations. [...] With the inflow of money from largely internationalist sources over the past forty years we have reached that point.
Never heard about that particular angle to campaign financing in the USA before. Is that really the case and can be quantified as a percentage of campaign finance?
I think you are correct Berkut. And the problem is exacerbated by the extreme concentration of wealth in the US (and other countries but particularly the US). If income distribution was more equitable then at least politicians would have to appeal to a wider base. But now, and particularly in the US, fund raising strategies and therefore policy can be targeted at a very small group.
Quote from: Zanza on July 15, 2014, 11:32:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 10:46:10 AM
We did not have the majority of the corruption occurring form international corps and foreign nations. [...] With the inflow of money from largely internationalist sources over the past forty years we have reached that point.
Never heard about that particular angle to campaign financing in the USA before. Is that really the case and can be quantified as a percentage of campaign finance?
Certainly a lot of corporate campaign donations come from multinational corporations (which I assume is what Berkut meant by "international corps"), but then again, most major corporations nowdays are multinationals. Not sure about the foreign nations part. And I'm sure there are numbers available somewhere if anyone cares to hunt them out.
Berkut lists a list of things that he believes money is paralyzing the US regarding, but what he skips over is that when he talks about income inequality or health care (for instance) not being addressed, is that the US really isn't a dramatic outlier when it comes to the rest of the western world, and to the extent it is that difference hasn't corresponded to the USSC decisions. And if anything we seem to be converging with places like Western Europe.
Even with Obamacare, the US is an outlier on health care. And there does appear to be a connection between the odd design of Obamacare and the fact that the legislation involved an explicit bargain with the pharma industry and an implicit one with the insurance industry.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2014, 11:47:20 AM
Even with Obamacare, the US is an outlier on health care. And there does appear to be a connection between the odd design of Obamacare and the fact that the legislation involved an explicit bargain with the pharma industry and an implicit one with the insurance industry.
Mandatory insurance is a model used in other countries. I agree we are still an outlier, but less of an outlier than we were than pre Obamacare.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 15, 2014, 11:45:10 AM
Berkut lists a list of things that he believes money is paralyzing the US regarding, but what he skips over is that when he talks about income inequality or health care (for instance) not being addressed, is that the US really isn't a dramatic outlier when it comes to the rest of the western world,
Ah no. The majority of the Western world has single payor (government) health care models. In the US you have made primary private health insurance mandatory. The reason the US is not able to reform its medical system to one that is more rational and efficient is exactly because of the reasons Berkut has stated.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2014, 11:59:44 AM
Ah no. The majority of the Western world has single payor (government) health care models. In the US you have made primary private health insurance mandatory. The reason the US is not able to reform its medical system to one that is more rational and efficient is exactly because of the reasons Berkut has stated.
You are disagreeing with me on terms regarding whether the US is an "outlier", but then talking about what the majority is doing? Either we don't have a common understanding of the word "outlier", or your post is something of a non sequitor.
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2014, 11:24:21 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2014, 11:07:58 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 15, 2014, 11:04:17 AM
I dunno, seems like the democracy of Tammany Hall/Mayor Daley/Governor Huey Long might be a tad more corrupt than today.
I think today is far worse, because it is actually "legal" corruption. It isn't "Here is a bag of money, please vote as such" but it is "Here is a funding stream, and as long as you represent us, it will remain in place". This is far worse, IMO, than overt corruption.
Politicians have always relied on donations to fund their campaigns. The only real change is that limits on individual contributions have shifted a good bit of the source of those funds from wealthy individuals to organizations.
Of course, but the scale matters. It matters a lot.
When it costs some amount of money to run a campaign, then you of course need to find that money, and of course you will be, in some measure beholden to those who get you that money. This is how the system was intended to work. You have politicians soliciting funds largely from the same people who are going to vote for them.
Now the voters don't matter - they cannot provide funds in any meaningful amount that will make any difference at all. The 2010 midterms saw $300 million dollars spent, almost all of that through superPacs and corporate sources. That is more than all the midterms elections from 1990-2010 combined.
The system can handle some amount of this - but the system doesn't even exist anymore. It is completely driven by corporations - corporations now fund political campaigns exclusively in a practical sense. You get whatever politicians corporate money wants to fund.
This is not "business as usual".
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2014, 11:34:04 AM
I think you are correct Berkut. And the problem is exacerbated by the extreme concentration of wealth in the US (and other countries but particularly the US). If income distribution was more equitable then at least politicians would have to appeal to a wider base. But now, and particularly in the US, fund raising strategies and therefore policy can be targeted at a very small group.
Well of course - there is a rather obvious feedback loop here, right?
The super wealthy fund politicians, and surprise surprise, the super wealthy become even more super wealthy, which lets them funnel more money to politicians, rinse and repeat. The cycle is starkly obvious, IMO.
Why didn't any bankers end up in jail? Why hasn't there been obvious financial system reform? Duh, how could there be, when the people who would need to do that reform are funded by the corporations who would be harmed by that reform?
Like I said, I cannot even really blame the politicians - they are creatures of the system. They cannot be other than what they are.
I cannot even blame the corporations. If their competition is buying politicians than they need to as well to compete. The system needs to be reformed.
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2014, 11:26:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2014, 11:24:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 10:37:49 AM
Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed.
The issue is less corruption, but a very high bar to anyone who wants to enter politics.
If you're planning to jump right in with a bid for Congress, yeah. But that's probably always been true. And it's not really true if you're running for your local city council or board of education or the like, at least in the vast majority of cases.
Times they are a-changing:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn0.vox-cdn.com%2Fassets%2F4244041%2FScreen_Shot_2014-04-04_at_6.19.40_PM.png&hash=37c564f3fbdbdb911ec9239e786e07221687e9c1)
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2014, 12:17:29 PM
Why didn't any bankers end up in jail? Why hasn't there been obvious financial system reform? Duh, how could there be, when the people who would need to do that reform are funded by the corporations who would be harmed by that reform?
You know what I love about this? The presumption that the bankers broke the law and that reform would do any good.
Take the Enron / Arthur Anderson scandal. The world turned upside down for that one with a while. Arthur Anderson was effectively shut down, and massive reforms passed.
You know what happened to the partner at Arthur Anderson actually at the center of the situation? The government went after him, and he initially received a criminal conviction. However, it effectively was overturned on appeal, he settled the civil charges, and is now the CFO of an oil company, probably making more than he ever did at Arthur Anderson.
As for the reforms passed over the howls of the business lobby, which created a whole new accounting oversight board and tons of regulations, I think any accountant involved will tell you that the vast majority of effort is not going into work that will prevent the next Enron. But it is without a doubt helping my career as an accountant, so by all means bring on the next scandal and even more reforms.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 12:21:55 PM
I cannot even blame the corporations. If their competition is buying politicians than they need to as well to compete. The system needs to be reformed.
Of course.
The basic problem with corporations is that even thought the SC pretends they are people, they are not people.
They are legally and market bound to pursue only one goal - profits for their shareholders. So of course they are going to do so in whatever manner the system allows them to achieve that and only that goal.
I mean, if I knew someone who acted in that manner, some person who said "The only thing I care about at all, EVER, is maximizing my personal profits over and above ANY other concern" I would not much care for that person, right? I wouldn't trust them to watch my kids, I wouldn't trust them to be in charge of my school, I wouldn't ask them to really do much of anything other than make money.
And the "people" that the USSC has decided should be allowed to be the primary and effectively only source of funds for getting politicians elected to office are "people" who by the very nature of their construction are only motivated by profit for their shareholders - it is the very basis for how a corporation is designed.
And that is who now funds the election of politicians in America.
DPS pointed out that this was mostly still just federal, which is kind of true, but you know this trend only moves one way - it's not like it isn't inevitably going to continue to trickle down and throughout our entire political spectrum. Why wouldn't it?
The change in just the last 20 years has been breathtaking and dramatic. It isn't going to stop.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 15, 2014, 12:28:38 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2014, 12:17:29 PM
Why didn't any bankers end up in jail? Why hasn't there been obvious financial system reform? Duh, how could there be, when the people who would need to do that reform are funded by the corporations who would be harmed by that reform?
You know what I love about this? The presumption that the bankers broke the law and that reform would do any good.
Take the Enron / Arthur Anderson scandal. The world turned upside down for that one with a while. Arthur Anderson was effectively shut down, and massive reforms passed.
You know what happened to the partner at Arthur Anderson actually at the center of the situation? The government went after him, and he initially received a criminal conviction. However, it effectively was overturned on appeal, he settled the civil charges, and is now the CFO of an oil company, probably making more than he ever did at Arthur Anderson.
As for the reforms passed over the howls of the business lobby, which created a whole new accounting oversight board and tons of regulations, I think any accountant involved will tell you that the vast majority of effort is not going into work that will prevent the next Enron. But it is without a doubt helping my career as an accountant, so by all means bring on the next scandal and even more reforms.
Your right. All reform is impossible and futile. We should just give up.
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2014, 12:31:15 PM
Your right. All reform is impossible and futile. We should just give up.
I know you are being sarcastic, but I think the system is too dysfunctional to address the more complex topics.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 15, 2014, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2014, 12:31:15 PM
Your right. All reform is impossible and futile. We should just give up.
I know you are being sarcastic, but I think the system is too dysfunctional to address the more complex topics.
If the system is incapable of addressing the more complex topics then it is bound to collapse. I don't think that's true.
Quote from: frunk on July 15, 2014, 12:40:09 PM
If the system is incapable of addressing the more complex topics then it is bound to collapse. I don't think that's true.
I don't think slow and incremental change to the status quo is impossible, but significant real and positive reform probably is. That doesn't leave us in danger of collapse though. The USSR had one of the worst systems ever and still muddled through for a really long time, and if it wasn't for the presence of a better example of how to do things might still be going.
Just my opinion.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 15, 2014, 12:36:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2014, 12:31:15 PM
Your right. All reform is impossible and futile. We should just give up.
I know you are being sarcastic, but I think the system is too dysfunctional to address the more complex topics.
The system is not dysfunctional, it functions exactly as it was designed.
The problem is not that the system doesn't work, the problem is that the system works to purposes that do not serve the interests of 99.6% of Americans.
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2014, 12:46:36 PM
The system is not dysfunctional, it functions exactly as it was designed.
The problem is not that the system doesn't work, the problem is that the system works to purposes that do not serve the interests of 99.6% of Americans.
I guess that is why that other great western financial center, London, has a government that has passed all sorts of the effective financial reforms that we haven't. It all comes back to campaign finance reform. :(
Quote from: alfred russel on July 15, 2014, 12:09:44 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2014, 11:59:44 AM
Ah no. The majority of the Western world has single payor (government) health care models. In the US you have made primary private health insurance mandatory. The reason the US is not able to reform its medical system to one that is more rational and efficient is exactly because of the reasons Berkut has stated.
You are disagreeing with me on terms regarding whether the US is an "outlier", but then talking about what the majority is doing? Either we don't have a common understanding of the word "outlier", or your post is something of a non sequitor.
I have no idea what you are trying to say. Your claim that the US medical system "isn't a dramatic outlier when it comes to the rest of the western world" is absurd.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 15, 2014, 11:45:10 AM
Berkut lists a list of things that he believes money is paralyzing the US regarding, but what he skips over is that when he talks about income inequality or health care (for instance) not being addressed, is that the US really isn't a dramatic outlier when it comes to the rest of the western world, and to the extent it is that difference hasn't corresponded to the USSC decisions. And if anything we seem to be converging with places like Western Europe.
Based on the the discussions on income inequality, I would agree that the US Gini coefficient is in general not such a big outlier. I got the impression (that I can't tie to any data) that while maybe the Gini coefficient for 100% of the population is comparable, there is still a more extreme concentration of wealth among the 0.001% or whatever that is not significantly influencing the Gini coefficient for the entire population, but still creates a very small group of hyper-rich people that have extreme influence on campaign financing and policy. Not sure if that makes any sense from a statistics perspective, but if e.g. the 1000 richest Americans are hyper rich, that wouldn't influence the Gini coefficient for 300 million too much, right?
Similar to Russia. :P
Quote from: Zanza on July 15, 2014, 12:54:32 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 15, 2014, 11:45:10 AM
Berkut lists a list of things that he believes money is paralyzing the US regarding, but what he skips over is that when he talks about income inequality or health care (for instance) not being addressed, is that the US really isn't a dramatic outlier when it comes to the rest of the western world, and to the extent it is that difference hasn't corresponded to the USSC decisions. And if anything we seem to be converging with places like Western Europe.
Based on the the discussions on income inequality, I would agree that the US Gini coefficient is in general not such a big outlier. I got the impression (that I can't tie to any data) that while maybe the Gini coefficient for 100% of the population is comparable, there is still a more extreme concentration of wealth among the 0.001% or whatever that is not significantly influencing the Gini coefficient for the entire population, but still creates a very small group of hyper-rich people that have extreme influence on campaign financing and policy. Not sure if that makes any sense from a statistics perspective, but if e.g. the 1000 richest Americans are hyper rich, that wouldn't influence the Gini coefficient for 300 million too much, right?
Similar to Russia. :P
In his book Piketty does a good job analyzing the concentration of wealth in a number of nations. He identifies the US as an outlier in regard to that concentration both in terms of capital and wages. The rise of what he terms the "supermanagers" who have obtained dramatically increased wages is particularly acute in the US. He also notes that in the US went from a nation which had significantly less concentration of wealth than Europe in the 19th and early 20th centuries to a country that has more concentration than Europe did in the 19th century. I particularly like his style of writing as he often uses pieces of literature from the applicable periods of time. It is striking to think that the US has gone beyond the concentration of wealth and income disparity which marked the English novels written in the 19th Century.
He also makes the point that the Gini coefficient is a crude measure at best but I am no economist and so my explanation of his point would be weak at best. But your intuition is confirmed by picketty. He breaks down the top percentile into smaller groups for analysis and the concentration of wealth in the top of the US 1% is truly astounding.
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2014, 11:07:58 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 15, 2014, 11:04:17 AM
I dunno, seems like the democracy of Tammany Hall/Mayor Daley/Governor Huey Long might be a tad more corrupt than today.
I think today is far worse, because it is actually "legal" corruption. It isn't "Here is a bag of money, please vote as such" but it is "Here is a funding stream, and as long as you represent us, it will remain in place". This is far worse, IMO, than overt corruption.
Agreed on that. Systemic corruption, legal and all, but the system is corrupted so that it best serves the interests of the connected, big business, unions, other large entities, and politicians will work within certain guidelines so as to gain influence for their party or for certain of these interests. I had never thought that way, been more of an establishment type, but I've been of the view that the US system has become quite corrupt for a while now.
Quote from: dps on July 15, 2014, 11:26:58 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 15, 2014, 11:24:28 AM
Quote from: derspiess on July 15, 2014, 10:37:49 AM
Oh please, people have been bitching about corruption in the US pretty much since the moment we had a nation. This is just more of the same, and nothing has really changed.
The issue is less corruption, but a very high bar to anyone who wants to enter politics.
If you're planning to jump right in with a bid for Congress, yeah. But that's probably always been true. And it's not really true if you're running for your local city council or board of education or the like, at least in the vast majority of cases.
It takes a surprising amount of money to run for lower offices. You need to be raising funds constantly. For instance the average amount of money raised for a state representative race was 66,000 bucks. That's a lot of cash to raise on your own for a fairly low office.
Hey Berkut, I just came across this which might be grounds for a bit of mild optimism: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/us/politics/left-and-libertarians-unite-to-amend-house-spending-bills.html
Cats and dogs lying together! Or rather, libertarian inclined Republicans working with the left wing of the Democrats in Congress to pass mutually acceptable amendments.
That has been my straw to grasp. That a few who are still motivated by ideology will band together.
But ultimately what we need is an amendment to the Constitution that will take the money out of the elections. How people are supposed to run for office I guess needs to be addressed but we have the internet now so perhaps we can find a low rate way to campaign that will allow it to be more about the ideas, and how those ideas appeal to the voters, and less about fund raising.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2014, 11:59:44 AM
The reason the US is not able to reform its medical system to one that is more rational and efficient is exactly because of the reasons Berkut has stated.
and that has changed in Canada... how exactly? What reforms have we done since the 60s?
Quote from: viper37 on July 15, 2014, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2014, 11:59:44 AM
The reason the US is not able to reform its medical system to one that is more rational and efficient is exactly because of the reasons Berkut has stated.
and that has changed in Canada... how exactly? What reforms have we done since the 60s?
:huh:
In this province alone there have been considerable reforms over the last ten years.
I am not sure what you have in mind.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2014, 01:57:04 PM
Quote from: viper37 on July 15, 2014, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2014, 11:59:44 AM
The reason the US is not able to reform its medical system to one that is more rational and efficient is exactly because of the reasons Berkut has stated.
and that has changed in Canada... how exactly? What reforms have we done since the 60s?
:huh:
In this province alone there have been considerable reforms over the last ten years.
I am not sure what you have in mind.
Viper37, the museum of civilization has a pretty good interactive timeline of the history of healthcare here: http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/medicare/medic-5h01e.shtml
French version here: http://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/hist/medicare/medic-5h01f.shtml
... it seems to me, just browsing the pull down menus for each time period, that lots of things have changed and been reformed since the 60s.
It seems there has been continual adjustment to priorities, to funding models and implementation, to where the decision making lies, to addressing coverage in different communities, to integrating new technologies.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 01:43:03 PM
That has been my straw to grasp. That a few who are still motivated by ideology will band together.
But ultimately what we need is an amendment to the Constitution that will take the money out of the elections. How people are supposed to run for office I guess needs to be addressed but we have the internet now so perhaps we can find a low rate way to campaign that will allow it to be more about the ideas, and how those ideas appeal to the voters, and less about fund raising.
The thing is, politicians still need to convince people to actually vote for them. Money, at least campaign money, only goes so far in that. Campaign finance is one head of the hydra, but just one. Whacking it off won't do much; in fact, you may get shit like the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act that simply reinforces the other heads under the fig leaf of slaying this one.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 15, 2014, 02:11:26 PM
The thing is, politicians still need to convince people to actually vote for them.
Sure. That is a factor. But the gate keepers to getting on the ballots are corrupted by money so while they will be looking for electable people it does not have much to do with the underlying problem.
QuoteMoney, at least campaign money, only goes so far in that.
Sure the other guy, also controlled by the money, might also win.
QuoteCampaign finance is one head of the hydra, but just one.
What are the other heads?
QuoteWhacking it off won't do much; in fact, you may get shit like the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act that simply reinforces the other heads under the fig leaf of slaying this one.
While I appreciate the use of metaphors and poetic language here I am not sure what you are going on about.
Nonsense. Well ok sure but they are running against some other person who is also bought so sure the individual politician needs to look good on TV and hit all the talking points and so forth to win. But they have lots of people trained to help them with that.
Immensely, when one party exists solely to promise the 99%er more money, that party will win elections more and more (you're seeing this now), and eventually the country will collapse as the productive members of society are plundered by the minorities and po folk that are given fat by the "people's" party. The Founder's recognized this and in their time all States had a limited franchise, which is what leads to the correct members of society making important societal decisions.
It amazes me people who think women who can't figure out how to avoid having 8 unwanted kids by 3 different fathers, men who can't figure out how to stay employed or refrain from punching their baby momma's heads in, people who can't earn more than minimum wage and etc should have a vote in our polity and effectively a say in public policy. People who cannot even manage their own lives have way too big a seat at the table.
It's not clear to me whether the rich are playing the politicians or vice versa.
Don't really see what the rich are getting for their money. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the civilized world. The US is unique in that it taxes income earned overseas (which presumably skews rich). Congress a couple years ago passed a repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the highest bracket only. Before that they passed Obamacare, which was half funded by a lifting of the Medicare payroll tax.
Oh Otto, you're such a card.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2014, 06:29:05 PM
The US is unique in that it taxes income earned overseas (which presumably skews rich).
I believe you have to be making something like 100k overseas in order to be required to pay taxes on said income.
When I was working in Korea back in the 80s the rule was you got a deduction for foreign taxes paid. So if you were in a country with higher taxes than the US you owed nothing to Tio Samuel.
So here's what I found.
https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/General-Tax-Tips/Filing-Taxes-While-Overseas/INF19130.html
QuoteForeign earned income exclusion
One tax break for expatriates is the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. If an American moves abroad, he or she can exclude foreign-earned income up to $97,600 as of 2013 from U.S. taxation. To qualify, that person must have lived outside the United States for 330 days in 12 consecutive months, said Wilson, a partner in the Denver law firm of Holland & Hart.
That means an expatriate making $75,000 overseas would pay no taxes, although he or she still must file IRS Form 1040 and claim the exclusion. If the expatriate makes $100,000, tax must be paid on the difference between his or her salary and $97,600, or $2,400. But if the expatriate visits the United States for more than 35 days in that period, the benefit is lost.
If there's no government where the expatriate is living, the exclusion can't be claimed. Wilson recalled a case in which Americans tried without success to claim the exclusion because they were living in Antarctica. The exclusion also can't be claimed on the high seas, he said.
Foreign tax credit
Once you've been overseas for an extended time -- usually at least half a year, Wilson said -- you become subject to taxes in your country of residence.
If you're also paying taxes in the United States, that would be double taxation. So the U.S. tax code allows you to take a foreign tax credit. Under this section of the tax code, you subtract the lower of the tax rates from the higher. In effect, you pay only the higher of the two tax rates, split between the two countries.
Wilson gave this example:
Say you lived and worked in London in 2013 and made $180,000 a year. You can use the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion to exclude $97,600 of that income from taxes. The remainder -- $82,400 -- is subject to U.S. and U.K. tax. Your income tax rate in the United Kingdom could be 20 percent and your American rate 30 percent. You pay the British tax, and subtract that rate from the American tax, so you pay just 10 percent of the $82,400 in American taxes.
Quote from: Jacob on July 15, 2014, 06:29:31 PM
Oh Otto, you're such a card.
It's funny, Dguller and I were having just this discussion last week when I brought out Hans old quote saying essentially the same thing.
I didn't always agree with Hans, but he was right about a lot more than this pack of mongrels gave him credit for; most specifically anytime he agreed with me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2014, 06:29:05 PM
It's not clear to me whether the rich are playing the politicians or vice versa.
We are not talking about the rich. Unless individuals are buying lobbyists and dumping huge amounts of money on politicians. I suppose the rich may be contributing to those super Pacs for some reason.
And while I live in the real world where liberal democracy is here to say, I think smart people have known since the time of the ancients that an enlightened elite are far better at running things than the masses. It stands to reason that so too should the process of selecting members of the elite class to govern should be restricted in some way. There's really no evidence a universal electorate is desirable or beneficial, the only thing it is, ideally, is equitable. But there's a difference between "equitable" and "best for all", albeit a subtle one most will miss. And of course rule by elites frequently became familial, which often enough leads to rule by imbeciles who are not part of the elite class due to any intrinsic worth or ability, and not an easy problem to fix.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2014, 06:09:37 PM
Immensely, when one party exists solely to promise the 99%er more money, that party will win elections more and more (you're seeing this now).
True but that party is completely corrupt. And this is really just a matter of campaign tactics anyway.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2014, 06:09:37 PM
Immensely, when one party exists solely to promise the 99%er more money, that party will win elections
That would be true if the 99% vote for policies that would actually benefit them. But that is not actually what happens. As we discussed in another thread, for a number of reasons, low income workers dont approve of better benefits. Also, for some reason, particularly in the US, voters to support taxation policy (or at least political parties who propose such policies) that really only assists the 1%. For example in what way did the 99% benefit by a reduction in the top rates of income tax which are only paid by the 1%?
In what way do the 99% benefit from capital gains exemptions that will only really be enjoyed by the 1%?
One can go on of course.
Yi, in answer to your question about corporate tax the answer is easy, taxation polices which allow corporations to pay tax in low tax jurisdictions so the tax paid in the US is avoided or signficantly reduced so as to provide the facade of a progressive tax system.
Berkut, I think you will find this passage from Picketty's book discussing tax policy in the US interesting. He is, in part, attempting to find an explanation for why wage disparity is so much greater in the US than in any other nation. "the decrease in the top marginal income tax rate led to an explosion of very high incomes, which then increased the political influence of the beneficiaries of the change in the tax laws, who had an interest in keeping top tax rates low or even decreasing them futher and who could use their windfall to finance political parties, pressure groups, and think tanks." (p. 335).
Quote from: Zanza on July 15, 2014, 12:54:32 PM
Based on the the discussions on income inequality, I would agree that the US Gini coefficient is in general not such a big outlier. I got the impression (that I can't tie to any data) that while maybe the Gini coefficient for 100% of the population is comparable, there is still a more extreme concentration of wealth among the 0.001% or whatever that is not significantly influencing the Gini coefficient for the entire population, but still creates a very small group of hyper-rich people that have extreme influence on campaign financing and policy. Not sure if that makes any sense from a statistics perspective, but if e.g. the 1000 richest Americans are hyper rich, that wouldn't influence the Gini coefficient for 300 million too much, right?
:huh: Yes, yes it would. Dramatically. Gini is something that applies to the whole population, it can't be split up like income. Any individual's Gini coefficient is 0.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2014, 07:16:40 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2014, 06:09:37 PM
Immensely, when one party exists solely to promise the 99%er more money, that party will win elections
That would be true if the 99% vote for policies that would actually benefit them. But that is not actually what happens. As we discussed in another thread, for a number of reasons, low income workers dont approve of better benefits. Also, for some reason, particularly in the US, voters to support taxation policy (or at least political parties who propose such policies) that really only assists the 1%. For example in what way did the 99% benefit by a reduction in the top rates of income tax which are only paid by the 1%?
Indeed. The question in the United States is to what extent has the distribution of money been subverted by democracy. And the extent is "a lot," due to people who basically share OvB's beliefs but not his wife's income.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2014, 07:21:20 PM
Indeed. The question in the United States is to what extent has the distribution of money been subverted by democracy. And the extent is "a lot," due to people who basically share OvB's beliefs but not his wife's income.
huh?
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2014, 07:16:40 PM
That would be true if the 99% vote for policies that would actually benefit them. But that is not actually what happens. As we discussed in another thread, for a number of reasons, low income workers dont approve of better benefits. Also, for some reason, particularly in the US, voters to support taxation policy (or at least political parties who propose such policies) that really only assists the 1%. For example in what way did the 99% benefit by a reduction in the top rates of income tax which are only paid by the 1%?
A theory I have read somewhere explains it this way. People place great emphasis on relative wealth. Those who are just above the worst-off in society "enjoy" the fact that they are still better off than somebody else. If the government enact policies that benefit the worst-off, this will close the gap between the two groups. So the working class won't approve policies that reduce their relative well-being over the worst-off.
I certainly won't support policies that increase welfare. Not sure if that is how I subconsciously feel though. Sure, the taxes on the middle class and the rich won't affect me, but I buy the narrative that we should all be self-reliant.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2014, 07:38:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2014, 07:21:20 PM
Indeed. The question in the United States is to what extent has the distribution of money been subverted by democracy. And the extent is "a lot," due to people who basically share OvB's beliefs but not his wife's income.
huh?
The peculiarly American ideology that everyone is a potential winner leads people to make seriously bad choices at the ballot. This is best exemplified by "small government" types who fear "tyranny" and imagine themselves one day to be subject to severe taxation.
Quote from: garbon on July 15, 2014, 06:33:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2014, 06:29:05 PM
The US is unique in that it taxes income earned overseas (which presumably skews rich).
I believe you have to be making something like 100k overseas in order to be required to pay taxes on said income.
Depends on what you consider income.
I got boned by this rule. I was in the internal audit department of a company, that had several auditors that traveled 100% internationally. I would have loved to transfer to that group, but Americans are generally excluded. International employees have to pay taxes on all sorts of food, lodging, and travel perks, and because these people were constantly in hotels and having all sorts of expenses covered by the company (as you would expect), their taxable income was several hundred thousand a year and a son of a bitch to compute (requiring professional assistance). Obviously the company would have to reimburse for this tax expense, and the result was a simple rule: with rare exceptions no americans. None of those auditors really made $100k.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2014, 08:14:52 PM
The peculiarly American ideology that everyone is a potential winner leads people to make seriously bad choices at the ballot. This is best exemplified by "small government" types who fear "tyranny" and imagine themselves one day to be subject to severe taxation.
The part that puzzled me was the subversion of the distribution of money.
I went back and looked for another passage I thought Berkut would find interesting:
"In the late nineteenth century, in the period known as the Gilded Age, when some US industrialists and financiers... accumulated unprecedented wealth, many US observers were alarmed by the thought that the country was losing its pionering egalitarian spirit. To be sure that spirit was partly a myth, but it was also partly justified by comparison with the concentration of wealth in Europe... this fear of growing to resemble Europe was part of the reason why the United States in 1910-1920 pioneered a very progressive estate tax on large fortunes, which were deemed to be incompatible with US values, as well as a progressive income tax on incomes thought to be excessive. Perceptions of inequality, redistribution, and national identity changed a great deal over the course of the twentieth century, to put it mildly." (p.349)
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2014, 10:18:32 AM
I don't think this is accurate though - something HAS changed. The USSC in several decisions has fundamentally altered in a real and practical sense how democracy works in the US, and done so in a manner that I expect really means that democracy simply does not work in the US anymore.
We still have elections, we still have bitter partisan fighting over everything (if anything this is worse than ever), but I am becoming more and more convinced that even the bitter partisanship is mostly all smoke and flash, without any real effect when it comes to the things that have been subverted by money.
It feels like we mostly fight over the outlying issues, the ones that are left after the fundamental ones have been removed from the table. Should we have more or less troops in Iraq? Afghanistan? More of less money for public health care?
But why isn't there any real debate about finance reform? Why don't any national politicians even try to address income and wealth inequality? It is obvious that actual campaign finance reform is a complete dead issues - the USSC has basically said that not only is it "working as intended", even suggesting that it could be reformed is unconstitutional.
So we are left with what feels a lot like a fake choice. You can pick between various political options, every single one of which is bought and owned by the ultra-wealthy corporations and entities that are absolutely required to fund modern political campaigns. You cannot be elected, nor can you be re-elected, unless you have access to incredible amounts of money, and now that corporations are people, and money is speech, the outcome is pretty much obvious, inevitable even. You cannot even really blame the politicians - they are playing by the rules of the game as they exist, and those rules say that re-election and securing the funds necessary for that trump any and all other concerns.
I cannot influence my representatives in any fashion in this regard. I can choose to vote among a set of choices all of which are utterly beholden to those who fund them. So of course there is no choice that can or will go against their interests when the set of people capable of funding them are all those same corporations. It is beyond naive to think that this current system can work any other way.
And this is NOT same old same old. This is new. We have argued for a long time about private versus public funding of elections, but now it isn't private funding of elections, rather it is corporate funding of elections. How can that possibly be workable in anything that we would call a representative democracy that represents anything other than corporations?
Democrat/Republican? It seems to be to be a false choice. It doesn't matter which you choose - either way you are getting political figures beholden to those who put them there.
:hmm:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMwc1c0HRQ
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2014, 08:14:52 PMThe peculiarly American ideology that everyone is a potential winner leads people to make seriously bad choices at the ballot. This is best exemplified by "small government" types who fear "tyranny" and imagine themselves one day to be subject to severe taxation.
Actually that doesn't represent my beliefs at all. I believe a great many people will never "win", and for many of the same reasons they shouldn't be voting. But there are some middling types that just never get lucky, obviously. But I don't have to worry about being a potential winner, I've made many wise investments--dating a girl in medical school when I was in the Army and earning McWages being one of many.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2014, 10:29:13 PM
I went back and looked for another passage I thought Berkut would find interesting:
"In the late nineteenth century, in the period known as the Gilded Age, when some US industrialists and financiers... accumulated unprecedented wealth, many US observers were alarmed by the thought that the country was losing its pionering egalitarian spirit. To be sure that spirit was partly a myth, but it was also partly justified by comparison with the concentration of wealth in Europe... this fear of growing to resemble Europe was part of the reason why the United States in 1910-1920 pioneered a very progressive estate tax on large fortunes, which were deemed to be incompatible with US values, as well as a progressive income tax on incomes thought to be excessive. Perceptions of inequality, redistribution, and national identity changed a great deal over the course of the twentieth century, to put it mildly." (p.349)
:huh: A wonderful yarn, but I think the rates back then--both for income tax and estate--were significantly less than they are now. How that can be squared with "Perceptions of inequality, redistribution, and national identity changed a great deal over the course of the twentieth century, to put it mildly", with the point of view that somehow we live in the more conservative time seems difficult.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2014, 07:38:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2014, 07:21:20 PM
Indeed. The question in the United States is to what extent has the distribution of money been subverted by democracy. And the extent is "a lot," due to people who basically share OvB's beliefs but not his wife's income.
huh?
Poor people voting as if they had the same interests as Otto.
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2014, 07:18:19 PM
:huh: Yes, yes it would. Dramatically. Gini is something that applies to the whole population, it can't be split up like income. Any individual's Gini coefficient is 0.
Looking at the definition of the Gini coefficient shows that it wouldn't have a big impact to have a few extreme incomes among a huge population of 300 million. Even the top 1000 ultra high income earners do not command a statistically significant proportion of income when seen as part of the general population of the USA. However, they do earn so much money that they can influence campaign financing significantly.
Quote from: Jacob on July 16, 2014, 12:26:18 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2014, 07:38:54 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2014, 07:21:20 PM
Indeed. The question in the United States is to what extent has the distribution of money been subverted by democracy. And the extent is "a lot," due to people who basically share OvB's beliefs but not his wife's income.
huh?
Poor people voting as if they had the same interests as Otto.
If you're poor it's your fault. Hence, if you're a proper hard-working and deserving individual - and almost everybody thinks of himself as such - you will eventually be wealthy, and should vote with those interests in mind.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2014, 06:09:37 PM
Immensely, when one party exists solely to promise the 99%er more money, that party will win elections more and more (you're seeing this now), and eventually the country will collapse as the productive members of society are plundered by the minorities and po folk that are given fat by the "people's" party. The Founder's recognized this and in their time all States had a limited franchise, which is what leads to the correct members of society making important societal decisions.
It amazes me people who think women who can't figure out how to avoid having 8 unwanted kids by 3 different fathers, men who can't figure out how to stay employed or refrain from punching their baby momma's heads in, people who can't earn more than minimum wage and etc should have a vote in our polity and effectively a say in public policy. People who cannot even manage their own lives have way too big a seat at the table.
:hmm: Not sure if serious.
If you are serious, maybe it's because the "haves" have an inflated sense of their ability to manage- being good at managing their own situation doesn't necessarily make them better at managing the situation of, say, a single mother of 8 by 3 different fathers in a dating relationship with the future #4.
Also, I'm with Berkut. The only reason our system is becoming less "corrupt" is because what was formerly considered corruption is being codified as now acceptable. Citizens United was bad enough, but the new rules about religious objections could easily lead to a runaway where corporations are ungovernable.
Quote from: Ideologue on July 15, 2014, 08:14:52 PM
The peculiarly American ideology that everyone is a potential winner leads people to make seriously bad choices at the ballot. This is best exemplified by "small government" types who fear "tyranny" and imagine themselves one day to be subject to severe taxation.
'Fortunately there are not enough men of property in America to dictate policy'
'Perhaps not. But don't forget that most men without property would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor. And that is why they shall follow us to the right! Always to the right! Never to the left but forever to the right!'
Quote from: alfred russel on July 15, 2014, 11:59:21 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 15, 2014, 10:29:13 PM
I went back and looked for another passage I thought Berkut would find interesting:
"In the late nineteenth century, in the period known as the Gilded Age, when some US industrialists and financiers... accumulated unprecedented wealth, many US observers were alarmed by the thought that the country was losing its pionering egalitarian spirit. To be sure that spirit was partly a myth, but it was also partly justified by comparison with the concentration of wealth in Europe... this fear of growing to resemble Europe was part of the reason why the United States in 1910-1920 pioneered a very progressive estate tax on large fortunes, which were deemed to be incompatible with US values, as well as a progressive income tax on incomes thought to be excessive. Perceptions of inequality, redistribution, and national identity changed a great deal over the course of the twentieth century, to put it mildly." (p.349)
:huh: A wonderful yarn, but I think the rates back then--both for income tax and estate--were significantly less than they are now. How that can be squared with "Perceptions of inequality, redistribution, and national identity changed a great deal over the course of the twentieth century, to put it mildly", with the point of view that somehow we live in the more conservative time seems difficult.
I think you missed the point. The legislative reforms he is talking about were an attempt keep the US more egalitarian than Europe. As the 20th century progressed the US completely abandoned that notion and began cutting taxes for the most wealthy and even reduced estate taxes to the point of abolishing them. iirc estate taxes in the US were just recently reintroduced (and as I understand it would be abolished again if the Republicans got their way). As a result wealth concentration in the upper 1% has become extreme and inequality in the US has become greater than it was in 19th century Europe.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 09:19:30 AM
I think you missed the point. The legislative reforms he is talking about were an attempt keep the US more egalitarian than Europe. As the 20th century progressed the US completely abandoned that notion and began cutting taxes for the most wealthy and even reduced estate taxes to the point of abolishing them. iirc estate taxes in the US were just recently reintroduced (and as I understand it would be abolished again if the Republicans got their way). As a result wealth concentration in the upper 1% has become extreme and inequality in the US has become greater than it was in 19th century Europe.
This is so factually wrong...
Most estate taxes are levied by the state, not the federal government. The exception is the federal inheritance tax, which was never actually abolished. In 2010, there was zero federal inheritance tax because of a ten-year phaseout, but since there was no supermajority to seal the abolishment, a sunset clause kicked in and reinstated it in 2011 (in fact, it was significantly increased in 2011- from 45% to 55%). It was actually more of a scandal that for 2010, it was gone- look up the controversy around the George Steinbrenner estate (the feds lost millions of dollars in revenue on that loophole).
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 16, 2014, 09:35:03 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 09:19:30 AM
I think you missed the point. The legislative reforms he is talking about were an attempt keep the US more egalitarian than Europe. As the 20th century progressed the US completely abandoned that notion and began cutting taxes for the most wealthy and even reduced estate taxes to the point of abolishing them. iirc estate taxes in the US were just recently reintroduced (and as I understand it would be abolished again if the Republicans got their way). As a result wealth concentration in the upper 1% has become extreme and inequality in the US has become greater than it was in 19th century Europe.
This is so factually wrong...
Most estate taxes are levied by the state, not the federal government. The exception is the federal inheritance tax, which was never actually abolished. In 2010, there was zero federal inheritance tax because of a ten-year phaseout, but since there was no supermajority to seal the abolishment, a sunset clause kicked in and reinstated it in 2011 (in fact, it was significantly increased in 2011- from 45% to 55%). It was actually more of a scandal that for 2010, it was gone- look up the controversy around the George Steinbrenner estate (the feds lost millions of dollars in revenue on that loophole).
Ok you win. Reducing a tax to 0 insnt abolishing in some odd legal sense of that word that only an American can truly appreciate.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 09:37:15 AM
Ok you win. Reducing a tax to 0 insnt abolishing in some odd legal sense of that word that only an American can truly appreciate.
The point was it ended up temporarily lessened between 2000 and 2010, not abolished. And again, the majority of estate taxes are levied by the state, not the federal government. I would argue that 45% liability in 2009, 0% liability in 2010, and 55% liability in 2011 is a far cry from "abolishing estate taxes."
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 09:37:15 AM
Ok you win. Reducing a tax to 0 insnt abolishing in some odd legal sense of that word that only an American can truly appreciate.
Reducing a tax to 0 for a single tax period without the intent to do so permanently is not abolishing anything.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 15, 2014, 06:50:10 PM
an enlightened elite
I've heard tell of such creatures, along with unicorns, fairies, and sensible Republicans.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2014, 06:29:05 PM
Don't really see what the rich are getting for their money.
carried interest, for example
QuoteThe US has the highest corporate tax rate in the civilized world. The US is unique in that it taxes income earned overseas (which presumably skews rich). Congress a couple years ago passed a repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the highest bracket only. Before that they passed Obamacare, which was half funded by a lifting of the Medicare payroll tax.
The taxes corporations actually pay are not necessarily correlated with headline rates. Congress didn't repeal the Bush tax cuts; those cuts were due to sunset and what Congress actually did is selectively preserve some of them. As someone who worked overseas, that is rarely a huge issue since most often the overseas rates are higher.
Anyways, I don't think Berkut's point is necessarily that "THE RICH" are some unified conspiracy that are systematically extracting benefits as a class. Rather particular monied interests are in a strong position to extract particularized or special treatment. See carried interest, above.
Quote from: Valmy on July 15, 2014, 02:21:17 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 15, 2014, 02:11:26 PM
The thing is, politicians still need to convince people to actually vote for them.
Sure. That is a factor. But the gate keepers to getting on the ballots are corrupted by money so while they will be looking for electable people it does not have much to do with the underlying problem.
Who are these gatekeepers? The two main parties? That is a much bigger issue than campaign donations to candidates, and that was my point. I can get on the ballot in any jurisdiction I am qualified to run in. However, if I don't have the right letter after my name I am not getting elected, regardless of the amount of money I raise.
QuoteQuoteMoney, at least campaign money, only goes so far in that.
Sure the other guy, also controlled by the money, might also win.
See above. That there is only one other guy is a problem that goes beyond campaign finance.
QuoteQuoteCampaign finance is one head of the hydra, but just one.
What are the other heads?
- Large, organizational influencers and voting blocks (unions, the NRA, etc.)
- A political system designed to only support two parties
- An appropriations system where companies that do business with the government can manipulate politicians via their desire to be re-elected
QuoteQuoteWhacking it off won't do much; in fact, you may get shit like the McCain-Feingold Incumbent Protection Act that simply reinforces the other heads under the fig leaf of slaying this one.
While I appreciate the use of metaphors and poetic language here I am not sure what you are going on about.
Nonsense. Well ok sure but they are running against some other person who is also bought so sure the individual politician needs to look good on TV and hit all the talking points and so forth to win. But they have lots of people trained to help them with that.
The fundamental problem is a political system controlled by two massive, corporate-funded political machines that manipulate the rules of the system to squeeze out everyone else. Its very.... monopolistic.
Don't worry, OvB's enlightened elites will, um, make sure they stay enlightened by preserving their eliteness.
Quote from: Zanza on July 16, 2014, 03:12:48 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 15, 2014, 07:18:19 PM
:huh: Yes, yes it would. Dramatically. Gini is something that applies to the whole population, it can't be split up like income. Any individual's Gini coefficient is 0.
Looking at the definition of the Gini coefficient shows that it wouldn't have a big impact to have a few extreme incomes among a huge population of 300 million. Even the top 1000 ultra high income earners do not command a statistically significant proportion of income when seen as part of the general population of the USA. However, they do earn so much money that they can influence campaign financing significantly.
The way Gini is defined, one person out of 300 million can move it from 0 to 0.99999. I was responding to the claim that a mere thousand people can't possibly move the Gini much in a nation of 300 million.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2014, 09:47:45 AMI've heard tell of such creatures, along with unicorns, fairies, and sensible Republicans.
No system is perfect, but elites are far more enlightened than white trash and welfare queens--simple fact.
Of all the possible responses, I guess "Yeah, you are right Berkut, and thank god it is happening!" is not one I can say I really expected.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2014, 11:17:12 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2014, 09:47:45 AMI've heard tell of such creatures, along with unicorns, fairies, and sensible Republicans.
No system is perfect, but elites are far more enlightened than white trash and welfare queens--simple fact.
I'd rather be ruled by the intellectual elite than the corporate elite.
Given the choice, though, I'll rather rely on the stupidity of the masses.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 16, 2014, 09:44:17 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 09:37:15 AM
Ok you win. Reducing a tax to 0 insnt abolishing in some odd legal sense of that word that only an American can truly appreciate.
Reducing a tax to 0 for a single tax period without the intent to do so permanently is not abolishing anything.
I am not sure what intent has to do with it. This isnt the only piece of taxation leglislation that has sunset provisions within American law. It seems to be the way you folks do things rather than a specific intent to reinstate the tax.
In any event I am struggling to understand the distinction quibble being raised in relation to the observation that American tax policy over the course of the 20th Century and particularly the later decades lead to American becoming the most inegalitarian nation in the Western world, and particularly in the context of the shift in attitude toward such issues.
Quote from: frunk on July 16, 2014, 10:00:40 AM
Don't worry, OvB's enlightened elites will, um, make sure they stay enlightened by preserving their eliteness.
Trickle down works, dammit! Its just not that obvious. :Embarrass:
Quote from: Berkut on July 15, 2014, 10:18:32 AM
We still have elections, we still have bitter partisan fighting over everything (if anything this is worse than ever), but I am becoming more and more convinced that even the bitter partisanship is mostly all smoke and flash, without any real effect when it comes to the things that have been subverted by money.
....
Democrat/Republican? It seems to be to be a false choice. It doesn't matter which you choose - either way you are getting political figures beholden to those who put them there.
I think you are very right to be concerned, but your over-riding desire to not ever appear partisan, just for its own sake, renders your points about as insightful as KRonn's typical bellyaching. You can indeed do something about this situation, but not if you want to be this cool kid who "sees through the partisan charade".
No, partisan infighting is not just all smoke and flash. The very issue you are decrying, of the moneyed few removing barriers to corruption, are championed 80-20 by Republicans (and if Wall Street wasn't in New York, it would be 90-10 or worse). Think back to all the decisions to further empower plutocrats; they're all driven by the ideology espoused by Republicans, and almost always enacted by Republicans, in Congress or in Supreme Court. Clinton may be an exception, as he was plutocrats' best friend, but I think it was part political strategy and part being misguided (a lot of people were in Greenspan era).
The reason this strategy of empowering plutocrats been successful is not because shadowy wealthy man have created a sideshow Democrat/Republican fight to cover up their power grab. The reason that push has been successful is because Republicans have been very successful at pushing the hot button issues to rile up the masses, get them fired up beyond a point where they're still rational, and then convince them that more power and more money for the people with the most power and money is good for them.
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 12:07:03 PM
I think you are very right to be concerned, but your over-riding desire to not ever appear partisan, just for its own sake, renders your points about as insightful as KRonn's typical bellyaching. You can indeed do something about this situation, but not if you want to be this cool kid who "sees through the partisan charade".
No, partisan infighting is not just all smoke and flash. The very issue you are decrying, of the moneyed few removing barriers to corruption, are championed 80-20 by Republicans (and if Wall Street wasn't in New York, it would be 90-10 or worse). Think back to all the decisions to further empower plutocrats; they're all driven by the ideology espoused by Republicans, and almost always enacted by Republicans, in Congress or in Supreme Court. Clinton may be an exception, as he was plutocrats' best friend, but I think it was part political strategy and part being misguided (a lot of people were in Greenspan era).
The reason this strategy of empowering plutocrats been successful is not because shadowy wealthy man have created a sideshow Democrat/Republican fight to cover up their power grab. The reason that push has been successful is because Republicans have been very successful at pushing the hot button issues to rile up the masses, get them fired up beyond a point where they're still rational, and then convince them that more power and more money for the people with the most power and money is good for them.
This sounds a lot like the socialists' defense of Soviet history: there is a bad guy, who is bad because he is just a bad guy, and it is the Republican. This is partisan hackery at its hackiest.
The Democrats in 2008-2010 controlled a majority in the House, 60 seats in the Senate, and the White House. They passed no legislation to curb the growth of the plutocracy, and in fact created a massive government boondoggle, the Affordable Care Act, that vastly increased the profitability of major health care corporations under the guise of increasing health care coverage.
There may be a slight degree in difference between the approach taken towards wealth by the Democratic Party and the Republican party, but it is a far cry from the 80-20 split you claim.
Normally I would agree with DG. But this is really one of the few issues where both parties have dirty hands. The greater tendency of Democrats to back reform in theory is undermined by their practice - it is the classic "do as I say, not as I do."
I don't disagree with the basic of what you are saying DG, but I don't think it matters - even if you are right to the extent you claim, what have the Dems done about it? Nothing - literally nothing. Instead they have just bellief on up to the trough and played the game. I don't blame them per se - they pretty much have to do it, but at the same time, so what?
I really don't think there is any useful insight to standing around blaming it on the Republicans. How is that useful, other than to further your tribal feeling of smugness? The Dems aren't going to fix it, aren't even going to try to fix it, because no matter who started the slide, they are all at the bottom together NOW.
QuoteThe reason this strategy of empowering plutocrats been successful is not because shadowy wealthy man have created a sideshow Democrat/Republican fight to cover up their power grab. The reason that push has been successful is because Republicans have been very successful at pushing the hot button issues to rile up the masses, get them fired up beyond a point where they're still rational, and then convince them that more power and more money for the people with the most power and money is good for them.
That is just bullshit. This didn't happen because a bunch of the "masses" all got mislead and accidentally asked for it to happen. The masses did not drive USSC decisions that made corporations into people. And honestly, I don't even care all that much HOW it happened, I care a lot more that people recognize that it has happened, and that it is a crisis that MUST be fixed.
And standing up on your soapbox going on about Evol Republicans will just turn it into yet another partisan pissing contest, which maybe you will feel awesome about because you are so certain how right this was all the Green Drazi's fault, but it isn't going to help convince the Green Drazi that they should work with the Purple Drazi to actually fix the fucking problem.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2014, 12:27:15 PM
Normally I would agree with DG. But this is really one of the few issues where both parties have dirty hands. The greater tendency of Democrats to back reform in theory is undermined by their practice - it is the classic "do as I say, not as I do."
Democrats definitely do not have clean hands, but at the very least they do not actively set out to make the problem worse. If you really are concerned about this problem, then it seems logical to vote for Democrats rather than throw up your hands in despair, until Republicans offer an even less corrupt alternative.
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 12:37:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2014, 12:27:15 PM
Normally I would agree with DG. But this is really one of the few issues where both parties have dirty hands. The greater tendency of Democrats to back reform in theory is undermined by their practice - it is the classic "do as I say, not as I do."
Democrats definitely do not have clean hands, but at the very least they do not actively set out to make the problem worse. If you really are concerned about this problem, then it seems logical to vote for Democrats rather than throw up your hands in despair, until Republicans offer an even less corrupt alternative.
What happens if there is no party that will deal with the problem because of the issue Berkut has identified?
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 12:37:29 PM
Democrats definitely do not have clean hands, but at the very least they do not actively set out to make the problem worse. If you really are concerned about this problem, then it seems logical to vote for Democrats rather than throw up your hands in despair, until Republicans offer an even less corrupt alternative.
If you look beyond taxation and include subsidies/pork spending then the Democrats really aren't that much better.
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 12:28:39 PM
And standing up on your soapbox going on about Evol Republicans will just turn it into yet another partisan pissing contest, which maybe you will feel awesome about because you are so certain how right this was all the Green Drazi's fault, but it isn't going to help convince the Green Drazi that they should work with the Purple Drazi to actually fix the fucking problem.
How is it different from standing on a soapbox of congratulating yourself on lack of partisanship?
And, for the record, I'm not a Democrat partisan, regardless of what you want to believe. I am an extreme anti-Republican, precisely because I perceived them to be a very real danger to effective democracy. There is a difference between these two things. I have to side with Democrats, because we live in a two-party system, but my alliance with Democrats is about as happy as the alliance of Ukrainian partisans with the Red Army.
I don't know what we can do to fix the problem, but I know what we can do to at least arrest the slide. Not vote for Republicans for any federal spot. Ever. Not until they change their priorities. I think that's a far more effective strategy than whining about the broken system. The system isn't that broken, the voters are, and not just the partisan ones.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 12:39:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 12:37:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2014, 12:27:15 PM
Normally I would agree with DG. But this is really one of the few issues where both parties have dirty hands. The greater tendency of Democrats to back reform in theory is undermined by their practice - it is the classic "do as I say, not as I do."
Democrats definitely do not have clean hands, but at the very least they do not actively set out to make the problem worse. If you really are concerned about this problem, then it seems logical to vote for Democrats rather than throw up your hands in despair, until Republicans offer an even less corrupt alternative.
What happens if there is no party that will deal with the problem because of the issue Berkut has identified?
What for the 99% corrupt party as opposed to 100% corrupt party, until the other party decides to bid down to 98%.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 11:48:46 AM
I am not sure what intent has to do with it. This isnt the only piece of taxation leglislation that has sunset provisions within American law. It seems to be the way you folks do things rather than a specific intent to reinstate the tax.
Many states have annual sales tax holidays on school-related items. Would you call such legislation a partial repeal of the sales tax?
QuoteIn any event I am struggling to understand the distinction quibble being raised in relation to the observation that American tax policy over the course of the 20th Century and particularly the later decades lead to American becoming the most inegalitarian nation in the Western world, and particularly in the context of the shift in attitude toward such issues.
I'm just being pedantic. :P
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 12:44:55 PM
... I have to side with Democrats, because we live in a two-party system ... The system isn't that broken, the voters are, and not just the partisan ones.
The system is fundamentally broken.
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 12:45:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 12:39:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 12:37:29 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2014, 12:27:15 PM
Normally I would agree with DG. But this is really one of the few issues where both parties have dirty hands. The greater tendency of Democrats to back reform in theory is undermined by their practice - it is the classic "do as I say, not as I do."
Democrats definitely do not have clean hands, but at the very least they do not actively set out to make the problem worse. If you really are concerned about this problem, then it seems logical to vote for Democrats rather than throw up your hands in despair, until Republicans offer an even less corrupt alternative.
What happens if there is no party that will deal with the problem because of the issue Berkut has identified?
What for the 99% corrupt party as opposed to 100% corrupt party, until the other party decides to bid down to 98%.
It seems to me the American public should attempt to push for real reform of the political system (including the way it is funded).
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 16, 2014, 12:58:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 12:44:55 PM
... I have to side with Democrats, because we live in a two-party system ... The system isn't that broken, the voters are, and not just the partisan ones.
The system is fundamentally broken.
First past the post system, which essentially leads to having two significant parties at any one time, is definitely not the most efficient system, and not one that maximizes the voters' franchise. But we had it for 200+ years and it seems to work well enough. It may be part of the problem, but not really THE problem.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 01:00:53 PM
It seems to me the American public should attempt to push for real reform of the political system (including the way it is funded).
The Bill of Rights gives us the means. We can amend the Constitution using a convention of states and bypass Congress and the Feds altogether. Of course this has never been done in the history of the nation but, you know, theoretically possible.
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 01:01:23 PM
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on July 16, 2014, 12:58:46 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 12:44:55 PM
... I have to side with Democrats, because we live in a two-party system ... The system isn't that broken, the voters are, and not just the partisan ones.
The system is fundamentally broken.
First past the post system, which essentially leads to having two significant parties at any one time, is definitely not the most efficient system, and not one that maximizes the voters' franchise. But we had it for 200+ years and it seems to work well enough. It may be part of the problem, but not really THE problem.
Given the way the two parties have entrenched themselves I am not sure moving to a different way of determining the winner would make much difference. Also a first past the post system does not inevitably lead to only a two party system. You need only look North for confirmation of that. Although the NDP have never formed a Federal government they have managed to develop many policy initiatives which have been adoped by the other two parties and in that way they have had a signficant impact on the governing of Canada.
The Brits have also had the odd third party kicking around for most of their history. But generally he is right.
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 12:28:39 PM
And standing up on your soapbox going on about Evol Republicans will just turn it into yet another partisan pissing contest, which maybe you will feel awesome about because you are so certain how right this was all the Green Drazi's fault, but it isn't going to help convince the Green Drazi that they should work with the Purple Drazi to actually fix the fucking problem.
How is it different from standing on a soapbox of congratulating yourself on lack of partisanship?
I haven't done that.
Just because I haven't started ranting and raving in your oh so typical partisan manner does not mean I am congratulating myself on my lack thereof.
I don't think there is a partisan solution, so I haven't been talking about it.
You seem to not care about the problem nearly as much as you care about your ability to blame it on the other tribe. I cannot say I am surprised, but I can say I am not interested.
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2014, 01:03:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 01:00:53 PM
It seems to me the American public should attempt to push for real reform of the political system (including the way it is funded).
The Bill of Rights gives us the means. We can amend the Constitution using a convention of states and bypass Congress and the Feds altogether. Of course this has never been done in the history of the nation but, you know, theoretically possible.
I have pretty much arrived at the conclusion that this is the only possible recourse.
Congress certainly isn't going to fix it.
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 01:10:12 PM
You seem to not care about the problem nearly as much as you care about your ability to blame it on the other tribe. I cannot say I am surprised, but I can say I am not interested.
No, I very much care about the problem. I care enough about it that I'm actually interested in really figuring out where we went wrong, and what the realistic least worst option available to us is. You're the one that seems to be hesitant to make an judgment calls, and just spout platitudes, so out of the two of us, I would argue that you're the one less ready to act on the problem we're both perceiving.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2014, 09:53:43 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 15, 2014, 06:29:05 PM
Don't really see what the rich are getting for their money.
carried interest, for example
QuoteThe US has the highest corporate tax rate in the civilized world. The US is unique in that it taxes income earned overseas (which presumably skews rich). Congress a couple years ago passed a repeal of the Bush tax cuts on the highest bracket only. Before that they passed Obamacare, which was half funded by a lifting of the Medicare payroll tax.
The taxes corporations actually pay are not necessarily correlated with headline rates. Congress didn't repeal the Bush tax cuts; those cuts were due to sunset and what Congress actually did is selectively preserve some of them. As someone who worked overseas, that is rarely a huge issue since most often the overseas rates are higher.
Anyways, I don't think Berkut's point is necessarily that "THE RICH" are some unified conspiracy that are systematically extracting benefits as a class. Rather particular monied interests are in a strong position to extract particularized or special treatment. See carried interest, above.
So particular monied interests spent 100 billion in the last election cycle, and the only thing you can come up with is carried interest, which is what, 20 years old?
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2014, 01:03:03 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 01:00:53 PM
It seems to me the American public should attempt to push for real reform of the political system (including the way it is funded).
The Bill of Rights gives us the means. We can amend the Constitution using a convention of states and bypass Congress and the Feds altogether. Of course this has never been done in the history of the nation but, you know, theoretically possible.
Yes, we have the procedural means. The problem isn't procedural, the problem is with the people.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2014, 01:18:30 PM
So particular monied interests spent 100 billion in the last election cycle, and the only thing you can come up with is carried interest, which is what, 20 years old?
Really? You don't see how, for example, Unions buying off Democratic politicians have corrupted politicians in those areas? Not at all? That does not happen? They get nothing in return?
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 01:20:07 PM
Yes, we have the procedural means. The problem isn't procedural, the problem is with the people.
What is your plan to get different people?
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2014, 01:20:54 PM
Really? You don't see how, for example, Unions buying off Democratic politicians have corrupted politicians in those areas? Not at all? That does not happen? They get nothing in return?
Conceded. My mind was still stuck on the rich and corporations.
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2014, 01:22:13 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 01:20:07 PM
Yes, we have the procedural means. The problem isn't procedural, the problem is with the people.
What is your plan to get different people?
Good question. I have no plan. But you shouldn't point your finger at something that's not a problem, because you don't know how to fix something that is a problem.
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 01:27:16 PM
Good question. I have no plan. But you shouldn't point your finger at something that's not a problem, because you don't know how to fix something that is a problem.
I guess I don't understand the problem with the people. We were just as shitty a hundred years ago when the system functioned much better. In fact we were far worse. So if the people have not gotten worse and the system has become more corrupt how can you point your finger at the people?
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2014, 01:29:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 01:27:16 PM
Good question. I have no plan. But you shouldn't point your finger at something that's not a problem, because you don't know how to fix something that is a problem.
I guess I don't understand the problem with the people. We were just as shitty a hundred years ago when the system functioned much better. In fact we were far worse. So if the people have not gotten worse and the system has become more corrupt how can you point your finger at the people?
Worse in what way? Certainly not when it comes to partisanship, and tailoring your views on all issues to match the views of the party you favor more. Look at presidential election maps from the beginning of 20th century to now. Notice how they become incredibly more predictable as you get to 21st century?
I think that the brave new world of media is really damaging to democracy, ironically enough. Media by its nature is extremely biased, in that it needs to report things that rile people up. When you have much more of that media, you have much more of riling up. Eventually you put people in echo chambers that way.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2014, 01:18:30 PM
So particular monied interests spent 100 billion in the last election cycle, and the only thing you can come up with is carried interest, which is what, 20 years old?
Check the meaning of the word "example"
I also don't see how the age matters. It comes up every year a budget is to be passed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2014, 01:46:14 PM
I also don't see how the age matters. It comes up every year a budget is to be passed.
Age matters as presumably they didn't suddenly need billions to keep that around now. Yi had been asking what it was that the rich were getting with the increase in money they have spent, so a good example would not be something they have had for decades unless it was something that is at risk.
Quote from: garbon on July 16, 2014, 01:59:14 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2014, 01:46:14 PM
I also don't see how the age matters. It comes up every year a budget is to be passed.
Age matters as presumably they didn't suddenly need billions to keep that around now. Yi had been asking what it was that the rich were getting with the increase in money they have spent, so a good example would not be something they have had for decades unless it was something that is at risk.
Yi's argument is almost amazing in it's stubborn obstinance.
He is basically arguing that the rich spend hundreds of millions of dollars, but get nothing in return. He would have us believe that they are basically morons, who throw their money into contributions to politicians, and expect and get no return on that investment.
Oh? And the fact that those same rich corporations are getting richer and richer all the time while the political system does nothing to address the issue? And the USSC comes out and states definitively that this is all working just as intended?
Coincidence.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 11:50:04 AMTrickle down works, dammit! Its just not that obvious. :Embarrass:
I've never argued for trickle down. If your goal is more equality of result the best method to achieve that is income redistribution. I simply don't see it as a problem for a small portion of society to get manifestly wealthy as long as the quality of life and standard of living is acceptable and even improving for the rest (and it has been, despite liberal propaganda.)
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 01:12:04 PMI have pretty much arrived at the conclusion that this is the only possible recourse.
Congress certainly isn't going to fix it.
And how would it be fixed in Berkut-land?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2014, 02:28:28 PM
I've never argued for trickle down. If your goal is more equality of result the best method to achieve that is income redistribution. I simply don't see it as a problem for a small portion of society to get manifestly wealthy as long as the quality of life and standard of living is acceptable and even improving for the rest (and it has been, despite liberal propaganda.)
I have never heard liberal propaganda that our standard of living is falling. But you seem to miss the point. It is no big deal if the elite of society are managing things, they always did in the past. But those people are not really doing so. We are talking about huge interest groups and foreign governments advancing their interests which are not those of the country at large. The problem is how the government is run not that people are starving in the streets or whatever. Surely people can have a decent quality of life and the government still have problems that need correcting.
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2014, 02:31:32 PMI have never heard liberal propaganda that our standard of living is falling. But you seem to miss the point. It is no big deal if the elite of society are managing things, they always did in the past. But those people are not really doing so. We are talking about huge interest groups and foreign governments advancing their interests which are not those of the country at large.
Oh I see, the myth that if more than one person acts for the same cause they become a strange alien intellect bent on world domination. I'm glad there was never anything like that from the moment the ink was dry on the constitution.
Foreign governments are not meaningfully controlling our democracy, that's mostly a recreational outrage type claim based on relatively minor Chinese money filtering in here and there.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2014, 02:28:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 11:50:04 AMTrickle down works, dammit! Its just not that obvious. :Embarrass:
I've never argued for trickle down. If your goal is more equality of result the best method to achieve that is income redistribution. I simply don't see it as a problem for a small portion of society to get manifestly wealthy as long as the quality of life and standard of living is acceptable and even improving for the rest (and it has been, despite liberal propaganda.)
Quality of life is generally improving, primarily due to cheaper commodities and easy credit. It is not improving due to better paying jobs for the bulk of the population, or more savings/wealth.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2014, 02:30:57 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 01:12:04 PMI have pretty much arrived at the conclusion that this is the only possible recourse.
Congress certainly isn't going to fix it.
And how would it be fixed in Berkut-land?
Amendment to the Constitution specifying that corporations and unions are not people, and do not have the rights of people.
Followed by meaningful campaign finance reform.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2014, 02:33:39 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2014, 02:31:32 PMI have never heard liberal propaganda that our standard of living is falling. But you seem to miss the point. It is no big deal if the elite of society are managing things, they always did in the past. But those people are not really doing so. We are talking about huge interest groups and foreign governments advancing their interests which are not those of the country at large.
Oh I see, the myth that if more than one person acts for the same cause they become a strange alien intellect bent on world domination. I'm glad there was never anything like that from the moment the ink was dry on the constitution.
Foreign governments are not meaningfully controlling our democracy, that's mostly a recreational outrage type claim based on relatively minor Chinese money filtering in here and there.
Foreign governments probably are not controlling our democracy, but mostly because we don't have a democracy, since the people are not controlling things either, and the politicians are no longer acting in the interests of the people who elect them, but rather in the interests of the "people" who fund them.
Quote from: garbon on July 16, 2014, 01:59:14 PM
Age matters as presumably they didn't suddenly need billions to keep that around now. Yi had been asking what it was that the rich were getting with the increase in money they have spent, so a good example would not be something they have had for decades unless it was something that is at risk.
When the preferential treatment of CI first began, the PE industry was pretty small and the amounts not significant. But it has grown to become much bigger. The issue never even reached the attention of Congress until around 2007. Since that time there have been legislative initiatives raised virtually every year and every time they get tanked.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2014, 02:28:28 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 11:50:04 AMTrickle down works, dammit! Its just not that obvious. :Embarrass:
I've never argued for trickle down. If your goal is more equality of result the best method to achieve that is income redistribution. I simply don't see it as a problem for a small portion of society to get manifestly wealthy as long as the quality of life and standard of living is acceptable and even improving for the rest (and it has been, despite liberal propaganda.)
My comment wasn't directed at you. :)
I agree with you. The issue becomes one of degree of concentration of wealth and the lack of social mobility. The goal isnt to dismantle the capitalist system (sorry Ide). The goal is to make it function in a manner that provides social mobility based on merit not whether one is born into a family who has the resouces to fund a successful trajectory for their children.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2014, 02:33:39 PM
Oh I see, the myth that if more than one person acts for the same cause they become a strange alien intellect bent on world domination. I'm glad there was never anything like that from the moment the ink was dry on the constitution.
Um no. I am not attacking any of these entities at all. They are not evil and are doing nothing wrong, they are acting in their interests in a way they should be expected. I am not going to waste my time being angry at dogs for barking.
QuoteForeign governments are not meaningfully controlling our democracy, that's mostly a recreational outrage type claim based on relatively minor Chinese money filtering in here and there.
I am not outraged by it at all. They have an easy way to advance their interests, of course they are going to use it. It is the system that is outrageous not the players.
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 02:36:30 PMAmendment to the Constitution specifying that corporations and unions are not people, and do not have the rights of people.
How do you feel corporations should be structured? Should they have property rights, contract rights?
QuoteFollowed by meaningful campaign finance reform.
Why not do something effective instead of nonsense laws that will never work?
I'm just curious, there's a website that actually breaks down all the PAC spending and such in the 2012 election cycle. How many of you have actually looked at it, and how many of you have any conception of where the real money is coming from? I'm guessing not many of you--because it's really not corporations. Corporations do a lot of small potatoes lobbying in very specific areas relative to their business. But this is primarily to influence persons already elected, and isn't in the form of big campaign contributions or PAC donations. The vast majority of that money comes from individuals, and PAC money a few large donors are disproportionately represented.
There's a difference to me between trying to influence the outcome of a campaign versus trying to influence persons already elected, which is primarily the type of political activity corporations are involved in. The latter is very hard to prevent, because lobbying money is consumed in meetings, "events" to which persons of influence are invited to that happen to serve $200 plates of food and $500 bottles of wine etc. You have to actually pass some pretty draconian freedom of movement/association/etc laws directed at public officials to restrict that stuff.
And when I say small potatoes, I've seen some Fortune 500 companies on the very top of the lobbying dollars amount who spend less than 1% of their total profits on lobbying (GE from 2008-2012 for example was the biggest lobbyist, and spent 0.4% of its profits on lobbying over that period.) Wal-Mart might spend a few million dollars a year on lobbying. It's really not as much as you guys make it out to be.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 16, 2014, 09:19:30 AM
I think you missed the point. The legislative reforms he is talking about were an attempt keep the US more egalitarian than Europe. As the 20th century progressed the US completely abandoned that notion and began cutting taxes for the most wealthy and even reduced estate taxes to the point of abolishing them. iirc estate taxes in the US were just recently reintroduced (and as I understand it would be abolished again if the Republicans got their way). As a result wealth concentration in the upper 1% has become extreme and inequality in the US has become greater than it was in 19th century Europe.
Over the past 100 years, taxes have gone both up and down, but the overwhelming trend has been to increase them.
Also, the comparison to Europe really significantly changed after the world wars and communism. Those were very effective mechanisms to reduce old money and promote egalitarianism in europe.
Otto - PACs tend to be a vehicle for wealthy individuals, not corps. You wouldn't expect to find lots of corporate donors in the PAC contribution records.
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 02:10:56 PM
Yi's argument is almost amazing in it's stubborn obstinance.
He is basically arguing that the rich spend hundreds of millions of dollars, but get nothing in return. He would have us believe that they are basically morons, who throw their money into contributions to politicians, and expect and get no return on that investment.
Oh? And the fact that those same rich corporations are getting richer and richer all the time while the political system does nothing to address the issue? And the USSC comes out and states definitively that this is all working just as intended?
Coincidence.
Berkut's argument is perfectly circular. We know that political donations are corrupting the system because they are buying special favors with it. How do know they are getting special favors? Because they must be if they are spending so much money.
A very strong case can be made for the argument that the rich old coots who pour money into campaigns are indeed morons. The rich old Jew who bankrolled Gingrich had no chance of getting any return on this money. Same with the rich old goy who bankrolled Santorum.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2014, 03:08:35 PM
Otto - PACs tend to be a vehicle for wealthy individuals, not corps. You wouldn't expect to find lots of corporate donors in the PAC contribution records.
No you wouldn't, which was my point sweetheart. Berkut is talking about campaign finance reform, in terms of influencing campaigns directly the two biggest money funneling vehicles are the actual campaigns themselves (both candidate and DNC/RNC), and Super PACs ("regular" PACs tend to be more narrowly focused industry lobbying efforts, often specific to individual corporations.) If Berk is talking campaign finance reform, his primary concern is who is influencing
elections. Since corporate donations aren't actually that prominent in elections, I argue corporations don't impact those much, and campaign finance laws would thus have little impact on current corporate lobbying spend.
Corporate spending on traditional lobbying (which is influencing elected officials, not trying to influence elections) would / is much harder to control, and is hard to control as it's been something we've been trying to get a grasp on for decades.
I do find it interesting when people excoriate companies that spend "more on lobbying than they pay in taxes", because all of these companies pay negative net taxes because they
take advantage of tax credits. Tax credits exist solely because government has decided to incentivize certain behaviors. It's weird to me people then get mad when corporations engage in the very behaviors government policy is designed to encourage.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2014, 03:09:30 PM
Berkut's argument is perfectly circular. We know that political donations are corrupting the system because they are buying special favors with it. How do know they are getting special favors? Because they must be if they are spending so much money.
A very strong case can be made for the argument that the rich old coots who pour money into campaigns are indeed morons. The rich old Jew who bankrolled Gingrich had no chance of getting any return on this money. Same with the rich old goy who bankrolled Santorum.
Corporations spend tons of money they shouldn't. I should also note some Fortune 500 companies barely pay anything for lobbying as they've decided they get nothing out of it. The ones who seem to engage in the most lobbying are the ones who benefit the most from government tax credits--largely energy and manufacturing firms; but that's all tied into the "bring back our 1970s manufacturing jobs where I can make high middle class salary, with uber benefits and a full pension!!!!" mania. You can't lay money on the table for companies on the theory of "making more jobs, yea!!' and then get mad when they take the money.
One corporation a year or so ago made the news because it decided to pull all facebook advertising. Their reason? They found no compelling evidence or marketing research to support it as advertisement, yes, their ads got tons of views, but from what they determined no one was actually buying their shit because of the Facebook ads. Some people speculated it could be the beginning of the (financial) end for Facebook as more and more companies would start giving their ad spending on the social network a hard eye to see if it really added any value, but nope, Facebook's generally done very well since then and that was just one blip. I suspect the reason is probably more that some companies spend money stupidly on advertising because they view it all as a crapshoot so they might as well do the full spectrum of ad buying versus any actual evidence Facebook ads are effective for your business.
Yi
Why does the code give special treatment to oil and gas royalties? Because the oil and gas companies wanted it and fight to keep it.
Why after a crisis in which one of the few points of near consensus was that Fannie and Freddie needed to be phased out are they still alive and kicking with no sunset in sight? Because the hedge funds blocked the reform bill unless they got a big payout and the securitization industry wants to keep them alive.
There are no shortage of examples. We can play this game all day. Agribusiness gets their subsidies and supports, yacht and corporate jet builders get their favorable depreciation schedules, pretty much any monied interest with a half-decent lobbying operation can get a good shot of desired language into a bill.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 16, 2014, 03:03:01 PM
Also, the comparison to Europe really significantly changed after the world wars and communism. Those were very effective mechanisms to reduce old money and promote egalitarianism in europe.
Yes, but fortunately, or unfortunately depending on your point of view, no such calamity is in sight to fix the problem of wealth accumulation which has now occur in the US.
Also:
It's important to keep in mind that corporate influence can result in the absence of legislation as well as the presence. A lot of lobbying revolves around issues where different monied interests have contradictory agendas and so effort is expended simply to block movement. For example, some powerful companies want strong and broad patent rights, some want weaker and narrower rights. This dynamic has played out pretty obviously in the various patent reform initiatives on the Hill. One could argue this works out OK because the monied interests simply cancel each other out but it doesn't really work that way. What really happens is that a public interest perspective vanishes from legislative analysis except to the extent one powerful interest can adopt it as a cudgel for its own agenda.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 16, 2014, 03:21:46 PM
Yi
Why does the code give special treatment to oil and gas royalties? Because the oil and gas companies wanted it and fight to keep it.
Why after a crisis in which one of the few points of near consensus was that Fannie and Freddie needed to be phased out are they still alive and kicking with no sunset in sight? Because the hedge funds blocked the reform bill unless they got a big payout and the securitization industry wants to keep them alive.
There are no shortage of examples. We can play this game all day. Agribusiness gets their subsidies and supports, yacht and corporate jet builders get their favorable depreciation schedules, pretty much any monied interest with a half-decent lobbying operation can get a good shot of desired language into a bill.
The rationale I heard at the time was that accelerated depreciation was a means to incentivize additional exploration in a bid to lessen dependency on imported oil. The rationale I heard for the continuation of Freddie and Fannie was that Obama wanted to pump up demand for housing.
As Biscuit mentioned, virtually any economic policy you can name has an ostensible legitimate goal. Then you have pure rent extraction, like the ethanol subsidies, which, though it hasn't been mentioned much recently, appears to be dying. If the thesis is correct, shouldn't there be more examples of pure rent extraction achieved through campaign bribery?
So given that context, how does one disaggregate the rent-extraction aspect from the public policy aspect?
Furthermore, how does one analyze the money spent trying to dissuade Congress from enacting injurious populist regulations on business? Should we consider that subversion of the process?
I was mostly just trying to distinguish influencing campaigns from what I view as "traditional" K Street lobbying where you're trying to influence elected officials. They are actually different things and require different approaches/reasoning.
For campaigns, my favored approach is a simple one. Simply ban the airing of televised campaign ads. Right away that reduces the influence of money in elections, as television campaigns represent an inordinate amount of the campaign spending.
In lieu of the campaign ads, I'd say the broadcast networks (which have control of a public resource and thus can be made to do stuff) would be required to give any candidate in the general election representing a party that received 5% or more of the vote in the previous Presidential election, 30 minutes of air time where that candidate could appear on TV to talk in whatever format they please to espouse their ideas to the public.
That, plus the conventions, debates, and any interviews various media outlets choose to have with the candidates are more than enough television exposure. I'm going off memory but I believe both the Obama and Romney campaigns, the single biggest spend was on media buys for TV ads (I think Obamas may have been > 60%.) Romney was odd I believe in that his media buy was a smaller portion of his spend than is typical, and he spent like 35% on consultants of various types which is insane.
Aside: Actually some of the GOP narrative I'm privy to that claims "we" (the party collectively) sand bagged Romney because out primary format kept him fighting other guys for so long and it left him unable to spend as effectively on TV as Obama was before and even right after the convention is undermined in part by the fact the Romney campaign chose to spend money on stuff that no other campaign spends that kind of money on. My personal intuition for what it's worth is enough moderate Americans were "meh" on the economy and Obama that Romney could have beat him with a campaign that was properly ran. The "culture war" explanation that Romney lost because he pissed off women and minorities and poor people I think is a part of it, but not as big as the mismanagement. The percentages by which Romney were lost could have been bridged in many places with proper campaign organization, and even some of his problems he did have with the poor, women, and minorities were actually the result of campaign mismanagement as well. Some of it was the result of the GOP being intrinsically offensive ATM to those constituencies but that's always been something the GOP has been capable of overcoming if it says the right things.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2014, 03:39:05 PM
The rationale I heard at the time was that accelerated depreciation was a means to incentivize additional exploration in a bid to lessen dependency on imported oil. The rationale I heard for the continuation of Freddie and Fannie was that Obama wanted to pump up demand for housing.
As Biscuit mentioned, virtually any economic policy you can name has an ostensible legitimate goal.
The key word is "ostensible".
Of course there is always a rationale given, there is no lobbying operation so unsophisticated as to forget to add a fig leaf covering. But is possible to look at the interests involved and the merits of the rationale and reach the obvious conclusion. I.e. is the policy rationale a priori and driving the policy choice or is it an ex post justification for a money grab.
Using the two examples above for illustration:
"The rationale I heard at the time was that accelerated depreciation was a means to incentivize additional exploration in a bid to lessen dependency on imported oil."
1) That is actually the same rationale used to support the ethanol program.
2) The rationale is an argument that the government has to tilt the field for exploration because otherwise there would be market failure in that the free market fails to internalize the value of "energy independence". But if that is so, we would expect for consistency's sake that the proponents of the rule would also support fixing other obvious market fails relating to oil and gas. And on the biggest ones that comes in mind is one that has very broad support from economists - Pigouvian taxation of carbon output to correct the externalities of burning fossil fuels. So for consistency's sake, we should expect the proponents of depletion credits to support carbon taxation. Is that what we see? Of course the question is rhetorical . . .
+ "The rationale I heard for the continuation of Freddie and Fannie was that Obama wanted to pump up demand for housing."
I don't know where you get this from. Reform efforts are dying in Congress and not because of a veto threat. It is because Ackman, Icahn, and all sorts of other hedge fund types came out very strongly against. Some on the grounds that they would oppose any bill that wouldn't pay them off for their old equity investment, some because *they* were happy keeping housing prices propped up and the securitization market humming. This isn't some secret weirdo conspiracy theory; the relevant players have been very public about their views - a couple of Google searches can easily confirm.
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 01:12:04 PM
I have pretty much arrived at the conclusion that this is the only possible recourse.
Congress certainly isn't going to fix it.
I don't think a constitutional convention wuld solve anything, and would likely make such matters worse. Who would get elected to such a convention? Those who are so full of passion that they'd go to any lengths to get chosen.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensitySad though it is to say, I think that the only near-term solution will come from a man on a white horse, and we already know what the chances are that that cure will be worse than the disease. In the longer-term a solution could come from a reformed educational system that produces thinking citizens, but I don't think that the teachers' unions will allow that to happen until the system crashes.
It's a conundrum. I agree with you that, in the interim, calling attention to the problem is better than just being a loyal purple Drazi.
Quote from: grumbler on July 16, 2014, 05:15:20 PM
Quote from: Berkut on July 16, 2014, 01:12:04 PM
I have pretty much arrived at the conclusion that this is the only possible recourse.
Congress certainly isn't going to fix it.
I don't think a constitutional convention wuld solve anything, and would likely make such matters worse. Who would get elected to such a convention? Those who are so full of passion that they'd go to any lengths to get chosen.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity
I don't see that as an issue - setting up the convention can be done in a fashion so as to limit its scope and make the process somewhat rational.
Of course, it could be done poorly, in which case that won't happen, in which case whatever the outcome it, it would still have to be ratified by 41 states, right? So anything too crazy won't go anywhere anyway, in which case we are no worse off than we are now.
And now is pretty bad.
More likely, perhaps the process of trying to create such a convention might mobilize people to push for reform through more traditional means - simply the threat of an Article 5 convention might even get Congress to act.
Sad though it is to say, I think that the only near-term solution will come from a man on a white horse, and we already know what the chances are that that cure will be worse than the disease. In the longer-term a solution could come from a reformed educational system that produces thinking citizens, but I don't think that the teachers' unions will allow that to happen until the system crashes.
It's a conundrum. I agree with you that, in the interim, calling attention to the problem is better than just being a loyal purple Drazi.
[/quote]
The amount of corruption in government will always be directly proportionate to the amount of power of government, so trying to address the first without addressing the latter is a fool's errant.
That's why African countries are known for their incorruptibility. They lack the power to be corrupt.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 16, 2014, 07:01:23 PM
The amount of corruption in government will always be directly proportionate to the amount of power of government, so trying to address the first without addressing the latter is a fool's errant.
:lol: This is the kind of Republican idiocy that led to our mess. Don't bother creating persuasive arguments to support your desire to further empower the rich and powerful; make it an axiom.
In real world, outside of groupthink tanks, the Western governments tend to be both the most powerful and the least corrupt. True, they're not as powerful as the North Korean government, but they have an impressive monopoly on power that few other countries can manage.
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 07:12:21 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 16, 2014, 07:01:23 PM
The amount of corruption in government will always be directly proportionate to the amount of power of government, so trying to address the first without addressing the latter is a fool's errant.
:lol: This is the kind of Republican idiocy that led to our mess. Don't bother creating persuasive arguments to support your desire to further empower the rich and powerful; make it an axiom.
In real world, outside of groupthink tanks, the Western governments tend to be both the most powerful and the least corrupt. True, they're not as powerful as the North Korean government, but they have an impressive monopoly on power that few other countries can manage.
:rolleyes:
We have laws and separation of power that constrain government (or at least we used to have before the rise of the administrative state), compared to corrupt third world hellholes were government power tends to be absolute in its arbitrariness. The more discretionary power our government amasses the more corrupt it invariably becomes. I don't expect a stupid leftist to understand that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 16, 2014, 04:22:19 PM
For campaigns, my favored approach is a simple one. Simply ban the airing of televised campaign ads. Right away that reduces the influence of money in elections, as television campaigns represent an inordinate amount of the campaign spending.
In lieu of the campaign ads, I'd say the broadcast networks (which have control of a public resource and thus can be made to do stuff) would be required to give any candidate in the general election representing a party that received 5% or more of the vote in the previous Presidential election, 30 minutes of air time where that candidate could appear on TV to talk in whatever format they please to espouse their ideas to the public.
While I think that's a not unreasonable approach--I certainly agree that a large part of the reason campaigns cost so much nowdays is the need to buy expensive air time--do you think there is really any chance of a ban on televised campaign ads would pass Constitutional muster?
I'd say that what you need is a law that says that no one who cannot vote for a given candidate can contribute to that candidate. Make all donations public, and lift all limits on individual donations. Sure, you'd have rich people giving the vast majority of the money, but you'd also have everyone knowing exactly which people are giving what money to whom, and you wouldn't have outsiders funding local elections. Combine that with a modification of OvB's idea, and require broadcast media to give some set number of slots to candidates at a reduced or no charge, and you'd allow candidates to run campaigns on less money. If they want to buy additional ads at full price, they can.
My solution gets rid of the anonymity of the current funding system, which I think is a major step forward; require candidates to justify why they are getting so much money from a given donor or set of donors, if that is how they are funded.
Quote from: grumbler on July 17, 2014, 07:39:25 AM
I'd say that what you need is a law that says that no one who cannot vote for a given candidate can contribute to that candidate. Make all donations public, and lift all limits on individual donations. Sure, you'd have rich people giving the vast majority of the money, but you'd also have everyone knowing exactly which people are giving what money to whom, and you wouldn't have outsiders funding local elections. Combine that with a modification of OvB's idea, and require broadcast media to give some set number of slots to candidates at a reduced or no charge, and you'd allow candidates to run campaigns on less money. If they want to buy additional ads at full price, they can.
My solution gets rid of the anonymity of the current funding system, which I think is a major step forward; require candidates to justify why they are getting so much money from a given donor or set of donors, if that is how they are funded.
How do you propose to get around the "free speech of corporations" issue?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 17, 2014, 08:09:15 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 17, 2014, 07:39:25 AM
I'd say that what you need is a law that says that no one who cannot vote for a given candidate can contribute to that candidate. Make all donations public, and lift all limits on individual donations. Sure, you'd have rich people giving the vast majority of the money, but you'd also have everyone knowing exactly which people are giving what money to whom, and you wouldn't have outsiders funding local elections. Combine that with a modification of OvB's idea, and require broadcast media to give some set number of slots to candidates at a reduced or no charge, and you'd allow candidates to run campaigns on less money. If they want to buy additional ads at full price, they can.
My solution gets rid of the anonymity of the current funding system, which I think is a major step forward; require candidates to justify why they are getting so much money from a given donor or set of donors, if that is how they are funded.
How do you propose to get around the "free speech of corporations" issue?
Presumably by violence. Because let's face it: Violence is the only thing that is going to work.
Quote from: dps on July 17, 2014, 12:16:09 AMWhile I think that's a not unreasonable approach--I certainly agree that a large part of the reason campaigns cost so much nowdays is the need to buy expensive air time--do you think there is really any chance of a ban on televised campaign ads would pass Constitutional muster?
Well it's essentially a fact that media buys are the lion's share of spending, and they probably drive some of the other categories too. That 35% of his campaign spending Romney spent on "consultants", I'm assuming at least some of that was people who specialize in deciding what ads to air, where to air them etc.
But no, I do not believe my proposal would pass constitutional muster, not with the present Supreme Court. But I should note this wasn't an original idea. It's simply how it works in many other countries. Britain (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22238582) has long banned political advertising on TV, and it was hotly contested in the ECHR (the British government narrowly won and the ban persisted.)
Britain is a good place to find lots of good ideas, since most meaningful reforms can be fairly easily implemented with a simple Parliamentary majority (especially after House of Lords reforms throughout the 20th century) a lot of common sense things that would have been law here decades ago are long standing statute in the UK. Now it isn't all peaches and cream, as I'd argue the British have passed some supremely ignorant laws for much the same reason--but then again, the U.S. Congress does that all the time and at least in Britain it's easier to overturn past laws that are bad than it is here.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 16, 2014, 10:47:43 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 07:12:21 PM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 16, 2014, 07:01:23 PM
The amount of corruption in government will always be directly proportionate to the amount of power of government, so trying to address the first without addressing the latter is a fool's errant.
:lol: This is the kind of Republican idiocy that led to our mess. Don't bother creating persuasive arguments to support your desire to further empower the rich and powerful; make it an axiom.
In real world, outside of groupthink tanks, the Western governments tend to be both the most powerful and the least corrupt. True, they're not as powerful as the North Korean government, but they have an impressive monopoly on power that few other countries can manage.
:rolleyes:
We have laws and separation of power that constrain government (or at least we used to have before the rise of the administrative state), compared to corrupt third world hellholes were government power tends to be absolute in its arbitrariness. The more discretionary power our government amasses the more corrupt it invariably becomes. I don't expect a stupid leftist to understand that.
Oh we understand it, it's just that we reject it on both historical and logical grounds.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 17, 2014, 08:09:15 AMHow do you propose to get around the "free speech of corporations" issue?
The problem with both mine and grumbler's idea (especially mine as it's a blanket ban) would also be free speech rights of individuals. The U.S. First Amendment is one of the broadest (I've argue broadest) rights to public expression in the Western world, to the point of allowing lots of things it probably shouldn't and that are routinely prohibited elsewhere.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2014, 08:37:45 AM
The problem with both mine and grumbler's idea (especially mine as it's a blanket ban) would also be free speech rights of individuals. The U.S. First Amendment is one of the broadest (I've argue broadest) rights to public expression in the Western world, to the point of allowing lots of things it probably shouldn't and that are routinely prohibited elsewhere.
Actually, your blanket ban might be the better option in this case: we have restricted tobacco advertising, despite it being for legal products: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_advertising#United_States
Grumbler's restrictions might fail on due process claims, rather than free speech claims.
The case just needs to be made that A) it's sufficiently in the public interest to curb excessive campaign advertising, and B) sufficient alternative advertising methods exist that removing the avenue isn't stifling their free speech.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2014, 08:35:32 AM
Quote from: dps on July 17, 2014, 12:16:09 AMWhile I think that's a not unreasonable approach--I certainly agree that a large part of the reason campaigns cost so much nowdays is the need to buy expensive air time--do you think there is really any chance of a ban on televised campaign ads would pass Constitutional muster?
Well it's essentially a fact that media buys are the lion's share of spending, and they probably drive some of the other categories too. That 35% of his campaign spending Romney spent on "consultants", I'm assuming at least some of that was people who specialize in deciding what ads to air, where to air them etc.
But no, I do not believe my proposal would pass constitutional muster, not with the present Supreme Court. But I should note this wasn't an original idea. It's simply how it works in many other countries. Britain (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22238582) has long banned political advertising on TV, and it was hotly contested in the ECHR (the British government narrowly won and the ban persisted.)
Britain is a good place to find lots of good ideas, since most meaningful reforms can be fairly easily implemented with a simple Parliamentary majority (especially after House of Lords reforms throughout the 20th century) a lot of common sense things that would have been law here decades ago are long standing statute in the UK. Now it isn't all peaches and cream, as I'd argue the British have passed some supremely ignorant laws for much the same reason--but then again, the U.S. Congress does that all the time and at least in Britain it's easier to overturn past laws that are bad than it is here.
My point here is to discuss options in the reality of a world where the USSC has already stated quite clearly that any such attempts like this are not acceptable.
I think that was perhaps one of the most damaging, stupid, and short sighted decisions ever made by a judicial body in the history of manking, but make it they did.
I would, of course, MUCH rather have the opportunity to deal with this without the need for an amendment, since the idea that corporations and unions are people + the idea that any and all spending on political campaigns is "free speech" except insofar as it is "CORRUPTION" (very narrowly defined) are both stunningly stupid.
I'm glad you at least said "+ Unions" as it shows you haven't fully transformed into a Daily Kos reading de Money, but you're 95% of the way there. Interestingly union political spending was far higher than corporate or "rich guy" political spending over the past few election cycles. The WSJ put together an interesting comparison of just how little the Kochs, for example, had spent when compared to the literal mountain of money that had rolled in from Unions.
Like most legal infants who don't understand what a corporation actually is though, I note that when I asked what rights and privileges should a corporation have you had no response. I wonder if that means they shouldn't have say, property rights, or the right to enter into contracts? Should we be able to sue corporations in court, or should they provide no liability shield for their investors and officers? The legal fiction of corporate person hood is centuries old and very essential for the proper functioning of capitalism. Daily Kos types like yourself want to throw the baby out with the bath water, mostly because you seem deeply ignorant of what corporate person hood really is.
There is no point in even talking to you - I never said anything about property rights of corporations, because they aren't relevant to the discussion. Noting that corporations are not people, and hence should not have the rights of people in regards to "free speech" has nothing to do with the utility of corporations in other legal processes. I won't use the term "right" because it is, IMO, kind of stupid to reference "rights" as they pertain to a corporation in any fashion. "Rights" in this context are things that *people* have.
I have no problem with corporations in general of course, and it feels idiotic to have to state that no, I don't think corporations should be dissolved or no longer be allowed to own property or fill any of the myriad of functions they currently fill under the terms of their legal definitions as legal entities. It is moronic to even suggest that this has anything to do with the corporate liability shield, for example.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2014, 09:13:08 AM
I'm glad you at least said "+ Unions" as it shows you haven't fully transformed into a Daily Kos reading de Money, but you're 95% of the way there. Interestingly union political spending was far higher than corporate or "rich guy" political spending over the past few election cycles. The WSJ put together an interesting comparison of just how little the Kochs, for example, had spent when compared to the literal mountain of money that had rolled in from Unions.
Unions are no more people than corporations are.
However, I think your numbers are completely bullshit, which of course, is why Republitards are so in favor of this rise of the super wealthy as the funders of election campaigns - they think the super wealthy mostly support their tribe, so they figure that subverting the democratic process is a small price to pay for "winning".
Super-Pac spending in 2012 was VASTLY in favor of Republican candidates/opposed to democrats. And most super-pac funding comes from corporations and rich individuals, to speak nothing of dark money spending.
I don't really care what the union/corporation/rich individual breakdown might be, since it is immaterial to my basic point. It doesn't really matter unless you care about partisan cock measuring. You and DGuller are welcome to fight that one out.
What I do care about is that the amount of money being spent has crushed the relevance of the actual political process.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2014, 09:13:08 AMLike most legal infants who don't understand what a corporation actually is though, I note that when I asked what rights and privileges should a corporation have you had no response. I wonder if that means they shouldn't have say, property rights, or the right to enter into contracts? Should we be able to sue corporations in court, or should they provide no liability shield for their investors and officers? The legal fiction of corporate person hood is centuries old and very essential for the proper functioning of capitalism. Daily Kos types like yourself want to throw the baby out with the bath water, mostly because you seem deeply ignorant of what corporate person hood really is.
That's quite a straw man you've thrashed there.
Can't speak for Mr. Kos, but the answer is: of course corporations have the power to enter into contracts, to hold and dispose of property, to sue and be sued, and so on. They have those powers because
the state statutes that provide for corporate existence in the first place grant them those powers . For example, the Delaware code, provides explicitly for all the things you mentioned: rights to acquire, hold and dispose of property (122(4)), to enter into contracts (122(13)), to sue and be sued (122(2)), along with many other powers you didn't list, such as perpetual succession, making of charitable donations, participation in partnerships and joint ventures, provision of insurance, and the catch-all power to exercise any incidental powers necessarily or convenient to carry out its business purpose.
The vast ensemble of powers of privileges that a state legislature chooses to confer upon corporations is what lawyers and jurists are referring to when they use the term "legal personhood" or "legal personality" in reference to corporations. Corporate "personhood" is thus just a term used as a convenient stand-in for what otherwise would be a long and complex list. It is a metaphorical shorthand to describe certain characteristics of an instrumentality that is been fabricated by a legislature, it is not a reification of a creature of state law into a living, breathing subject.
The "legal infants" here are those that would take the metaphorical concept of corporate personhood - which was created and exists solely for utilitarian purposes - and transform the fictitious person into an actual constitutional subject. Simply because the state of Delaware (or Maryland or California or [insert here]) has elected to define a legal concept of something called a corporation and imbue that construct with certain powers normally exercised by individual humans, doesn't make that construct a member of "we the people" who are the subjects of the constitution. It doesn't require us to accept that a piece of paper filed in Wilmington is endowed with the right to vote, to exercise religion, or to bear arms. That is an absurdity.
Of course it is also true that given the existence and ubiquity of the corporate form, the enjoyment of individual rights may require careful analysis of whether state action, as applied to corporations, unduly cabins the effective exercise of those rights by individuals. But that is a very different proposition from saying that the mere entities have those rights in and of themselves.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2014, 09:13:08 AM
Like most legal infants who don't understand what a corporation actually is though, I note that when I asked what rights and privileges should a corporation have you had no response. I wonder if that means they shouldn't have say, property rights, or the right to enter into contracts? Should we be able to sue corporations in court, or should they provide no liability shield for their investors and officers? The legal fiction of corporate person hood is centuries old and very essential for the proper functioning of capitalism. Daily Kos types like yourself want to throw the baby out with the bath water, mostly because you seem deeply ignorant of what corporate person hood really is.
You missed the most important and fundamental aspect of a corporation. Limited liablity for its shareholders. That is what makes a corporation so important to an economy. An investor's exposure to liability is limited the amount they invest to purchase shares in the company. If those shares become worthless the investor loses that investment. No one can go after the investor for any greater amount. In return for that limited liability the investor also accepts that they have a separate identity from the company. That fundamental principle was ignored by recent rulings of the US Supreme Court which has conflated the rights of shareholders and the rights of corporations.
Corporations were never intended to have full personhood. Instead that have the legal fiction of an individual for certain limited purposes. They have always been creatures of statute and the common law which give prescribed rights. Unfortunately we live in a world of legal infants who have given corporations more status, rights and authority than was ever intended because of ideological zeal.
Imo the US has started down a very precarious path as has been discussed at some length in other threads. But Berkut's point nicely illustrates another problem of viewing corporations in this way.
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 09:35:45 AM
Super-Pac spending in 2012 was VASTLY in favor of Republican candidates/opposed to democrats. And most super-pac funding comes from corporations and rich individuals, to speak nothing of dark money spending.
All that spending and yet they got a Dem president, continued Dem control of Senate (+increase in Dem seat holders). I guess positive for those spenders was that Republicans kept onto House, though even there Dems saw gains.
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2014, 10:12:35 AM
All that spending and yet they got a Dem president, continued Dem control of Senate (+increase in Dem seat holders). I guess positive for those spenders was that Republicans kept onto House, though even there Dems saw gains.
Superpacs are not the only source of funds for politicians . . .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 17, 2014, 10:14:53 AM
Quote from: garbon on July 17, 2014, 10:12:35 AM
All that spending and yet they got a Dem president, continued Dem control of Senate (+increase in Dem seat holders). I guess positive for those spenders was that Republicans kept onto House, though even there Dems saw gains.
Superpacs are not the only source of funds for politicians . . .
Of course. It just seems that these Republican superpacs didn't get much bang for their buck if they spent boatloads of money to get their guys elected.
CC- it is a peculiarity of American law that most corporate and commercial law is articulated at the state level. The Supreme Court justices, although uniformly brilliant and talented jurists, are selected primarily from persons who have spent most of their careers as government lawyers and as judges in the federal system. Those who did serve in private practice tended to have narrow or specialized practices (like Roberts who was a dedicated appellate lawyer). The last Supreme Court justice to have broad commercial and corporate law experience was Lewis Powell. It is not totally surprising that the Supremes sometimes seem to struggle with seemingly basic concepts of corporate law - they simply lack familiarity as a matter of experience.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 17, 2014, 10:35:07 AM
CC- it is a peculiarity of American law that most corporate and commercial law is articulated at the state level. The Supreme Court justices, although uniformly brilliant and talented jurists, are selected primarily from persons who have spent most of their careers as government lawyers and as judges in the federal system. Those who did serve in private practice tended to have narrow or specialized practices (like Roberts who was a dedicated appellate lawyer). The last Supreme Court justice to have broad commercial and corporate law experience was Lewis Powell. It is not totally surprising that the Supremes sometimes seem to struggle with seemingly basic concepts of corporate law - they simply lack familiarity as a matter of experience.
That does explain such a basic error.
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 09:35:45 AM
I don't really care what the union/corporation/rich individual breakdown might be, since it is immaterial to my basic point. It doesn't really matter unless you care about partisan cock measuring. You and DGuller are welcome to fight that one out.
What I do care about is that the amount of money being spent has crushed the relevance of the actual political process.
It's kind of hard to solve a problem you claim to care about if you don't really want to identify the causes.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2014, 11:09:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 09:35:45 AM
I don't really care what the union/corporation/rich individual breakdown might be, since it is immaterial to my basic point. It doesn't really matter unless you care about partisan cock measuring. You and DGuller are welcome to fight that one out.
What I do care about is that the amount of money being spent has crushed the relevance of the actual political process.
It's kind of hard to solve a problem you claim to care about if you don't really want to identify the causes.
:jaron:
I grant you that the cause are the Green Drazi, and you should totally be super pissed at them and spend all your time going on about what assholes they are. Have at it.
Quote from: DGuller on July 17, 2014, 11:09:54 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 09:35:45 AM
I don't really care what the union/corporation/rich individual breakdown might be, since it is immaterial to my basic point. It doesn't really matter unless you care about partisan cock measuring. You and DGuller are welcome to fight that one out.
What I do care about is that the amount of money being spent has crushed the relevance of the actual political process.
It's kind of hard to solve a problem you claim to care about if you don't really want to identify the causes.
He has identified the cause. The issue of which group is the greatest offender isnt all that relevent if all groups do to some extent. Whatever the solution is for limiting the influence of political donations it should be universal and not targeted at any particular group.
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 09:35:45 AMUnions are no more people than corporations are.
However, I think your numbers are completely bullshit, which of course, is why Republitards are so in favor of this rise of the super wealthy as the funders of election campaigns - they think the super wealthy mostly support their tribe, so they figure that subverting the democratic process is a small price to pay for "winning".
Super-Pac spending in 2012 was VASTLY in favor of Republican candidates/opposed to democrats. And most super-pac funding comes from corporations and rich individuals, to speak nothing of dark money spending.
I don't really care what the union/corporation/rich individual breakdown might be, since it is immaterial to my basic point. It doesn't really matter unless you care about partisan cock measuring. You and DGuller are welcome to fight that one out.
What I do care about is that the amount of money being spent has crushed the relevance of the actual political process.
Most election statistics don't count union spending in the same way they do Super PAC spending, which is where your incorrect view on the numbers comes from.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 17, 2014, 09:43:14 AMThat's quite a straw man you've thrashed there.
What Berk said was:
QuoteAmendment to the Constitution specifying that corporations and unions are not people, and do not have the rights of people.
I asked specifically what rights of people corporations should not have. Do you deny that the right to own and hold property, and to not have said property taken from you without due process, is a right held by people? Since Berkut was unable to expand on the specifics I can only assume he meant the most retarded thing possible, given his general opinions/beliefs these days.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2014, 11:52:17 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 17, 2014, 09:43:14 AMThat's quite a straw man you've thrashed there.
What Berk said was:
QuoteAmendment to the Constitution specifying that corporations and unions are not people, and do not have the rights of people.
I asked specifically what rights of people corporations should not have. Do you deny that the right to own and hold property, and to not have said property taken from you without due process, is a right held by people? Since Berkut was unable to expand on the specifics I can only assume he meant the most retarded thing possible, given his general opinions/beliefs these days.
Its the other way around. Corporations are given only those rights which are contained in the legislation which allows them to be created. By definition they do not therefore have the rights of real people. I am not sure what point you are trying to make.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2014, 10:08:38 AMYou missed the most important and fundamental aspect of a corporation. Limited liablity for its shareholders. That is what makes a corporation so important to an economy. An investor's exposure to liability is limited the amount they invest to purchase shares in the company. If those shares become worthless the investor loses that investment. No one can go after the investor for any greater amount. In return for that limited liability the investor also accepts that they have a separate identity from the company. That fundamental principle was ignored by recent rulings of the US Supreme Court which has conflated the rights of shareholders and the rights of corporations.
Corporations were never intended to have full personhood. Instead that have the legal fiction of an individual for certain limited purposes. They have always been creatures of statute and the common law which give prescribed rights. Unfortunately we live in a world of legal infants who have given corporations more status, rights and authority than was ever intended because of ideological zeal.
Imo the US has started down a very precarious path as has been discussed at some length in other threads. But Berkut's point nicely illustrates another problem of viewing corporations in this way.
I mentioned limited liability, actually. But property rights are an individual right that corporations also must have to function. Without them investing in corporations would be foolish, since the government could just dispossess them at whim.
I've never argued corporations should have identical rights to human beings or be treated legally the exact same as human beings. I just asked what specific rights they should or shouldn't have, if any. Joan seems to think they should have no rights and instead be subject solely to the strictures of statute. That's not entirely unreasonable since corporations are a creature of statute, but such a view to my mind would make it unreasonably easy for government to just dispossess corporations at whim. Which would have a major adverse effect on lots of actual people and their own property rights, when considering the investors and various other stakeholders. Corporations require and should have some extra-statutory rights above and beyond just what statute says about them.
I do find it strange that if I start a political party, which in form is very similar to any corporation, it has broad rights to advertise and do various things, though. It's strange to me where people choose to draw the line on what types of "collective groups" should be allowed to engage in political activities. The Constitution doesn't provide for organized political parties, and the Founder's were openly against them.
More broadly speaking, corporations needs some level of due process rights and protection from things like ex post facto laws or they could not exist in a stable fashion in the face of a ruinous government. Most governments would not seek to just randomly destroy corporations, but corporations need protection from that above and beyond statute. Those protections in our system of government would by any neutral party be called "rights", and would be adjudicable by courts that weigh such rights. Some of those rights are identical to rights that people have, so someone that says corporations should not have any of the "rights" of people, I think, is speaking far too broadly.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2014, 11:56:36 AM
I've never argued corporations should have identical rights to human beings or be treated legally the exact same as human beings. I just asked what specific rights they should or shouldn't have, if any. Joan seems to think they should have no rights and instead be subject solely to the strictures of statute. That's not entirely unreasonable since corporations are a creature of statute, but such a view to my mind would make it unreasonably easy for government to just dispossess corporations at whim. Which would have a major adverse effect on lots of actual people and their own property rights, when considering the investors and various other stakeholders. Corporations require and should have some extra-statutory rights above and beyond just what statute says about them.
I do find it strange that if I start a political party, which in form is very similar to any corporation, it has broad rights to advertise and do various things, though. It's strange to me where people choose to draw the line on what types of "collective groups" should be allowed to engage in political activities. The Constitution doesn't provide for organized political parties, and the Founder's were openly against them.
Otto, you fundamentally misunderstand the law. Joan doesnt just think corporations are subject to the structures of statute. Corporations only exist because of the statute that defines the powers that corporations may have.
Quote from: grumbler on July 17, 2014, 07:39:25 AM
I'd say that what you need is a law that says that no one who cannot vote for a given candidate can contribute to that candidate. Make all donations public, and lift all limits on individual donations. Sure, you'd have rich people giving the vast majority of the money, but you'd also have everyone knowing exactly which people are giving what money to whom, and you wouldn't have outsiders funding local elections. Combine that with a modification of OvB's idea, and require broadcast media to give some set number of slots to candidates at a reduced or no charge, and you'd allow candidates to run campaigns on less money. If they want to buy additional ads at full price, they can.
My solution gets rid of the anonymity of the current funding system, which I think is a major step forward; require candidates to justify why they are getting so much money from a given donor or set of donors, if that is how they are funded.
I like it.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 16, 2014, 07:01:23 PM
The amount of corruption in government will always be directly proportionate to the amount of power of government, so trying to address the first without addressing the latter is a fool's errant.
I guess I think you have it backwards. How can we limit the power of a corrupt system? Seems to me we would need to reform the way elections are held, get some real small government conservatives elected, and then reduce the size and power of the Feds.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2014, 11:56:36 AM
Joan seems to think they should have no rights and instead be subject solely to the strictures of statute. That's not entirely unreasonable since corporations are a creature of statute, but such a view to my mind would make it unreasonably easy for government to just dispossess corporations at whim. Which would have a major adverse effect on lots of actual people and their own property rights, when considering the investors and various other stakeholders. Corporations require and should have some extra-statutory rights above and beyond just what statute says about them.
The key phrase in this passage is "when considering the investors". The investors do have constitutional rights and those rights are implicated if the value of their property (shares) is extinguished by government action. The last sentence does not follow because extra-statutory rights for corps are not necessary for that purpose.
Consider another clause of the 5th amendment - the privilege against self-incrimination. Even though corporations can be indicted or convicted of crimes as entities, they cannot themselves invoke the right against self-incrimination and refuse to testify.
A state legislature could also effectively dispossess a corporation in the sense that it could require the dissolution of all corporations registered in that state if it wished.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 17, 2014, 08:09:15 AM
How do you propose to get around the "free speech of corporations" issue?
I propose no restrictions for corporations that I don't propose for individuals, so no problems there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 17, 2014, 12:02:00 PMOtto, you fundamentally misunderstand the law. Joan doesnt just think corporations are subject to the structures of statute. Corporations only exist because of the statute that defines the powers that corporations may have.
I don't see where anything I said relates to what you said. In fact did you see where I used the term "creature of statute" to describe corporations? What do you suppose I meant when I said that?
Driver's licenses also only exist via statute, does that mean there can be no rights implications when dealing with driver's licenses? Particularly ones of due process, equality under the law etc? I think you're fundamentally misunderstanding what I said, or unable to read what I wrote.
How many people here actually have incorporated, and actually operate a corporation? I have. Trust me I know from what fount corporations spring.
Stop engaging with him on this - it is a total red herring.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2014, 12:57:15 PM
Driver's licenses also only exist via statute, does that mean there can be no rights implications when dealing with driver's licenses?
:huh:
Quote from: Berkut on July 17, 2014, 01:12:42 PM
Stop engaging with him on this - it is a total red herring.
I am beginning to think he has been trolling us. At least I hope that is the explanation.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2014, 12:57:15 PM
Driver's licenses also only exist via statute, does that mean there can be no rights implications when dealing with driver's licenses?
The people who hold drivers licenses have various rights.
The actual licenses themselves don't.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 17, 2014, 04:15:38 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 17, 2014, 12:57:15 PM
Driver's licenses also only exist via statute, does that mean there can be no rights implications when dealing with driver's licenses?
The people who hold drivers licenses have various rights.
The actual licenses themselves don't.
My license has the right to have a picture on it of me "looking" like a thug. -_-
Maybe you shouldn't have gotten those teardrop tattoos in the pen.
I don't know why this obsession with corporate donations. Corporate donations are not particular influential for two reasons: they are not that significant in total, and they have limited goals. Corporations usually give money to either protect themselves from the avarice of government or to create small legal or regulatory changes to favor them over their competitors. To do that they usually give money to likely in direct proportion to their likelihood of winning since you don't get a ROI on a loser. In the end corporations have no impact on election outcomes.
I also find it funny when Berkut rails against Super-PACs favoring the GOP, when in fact the opposite is true. This year, for example, the Dems so far have raised $87 million in Super-PAC money vs $42 million for the GOP. Similarly funny is Berkut's belief that rich people are Republicans when they are mostly Democrats.
I think it is funny that Hans thinks that this is a partisan issue. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2014, 05:56:15 AM
I think it is funny that Hans thinks that this is a partisan issue. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
I'm not protesting, I'm mocking the outsized anguish over corporate influence on politics. And I'm no lady. :P
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 18, 2014, 06:57:49 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2014, 05:56:15 AM
I think it is funny that Hans thinks that this is a partisan issue. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
I'm not protesting, I'm mocking the outsized anguish over corporate influence on politics. And I'm no lady. :P
The anguish is that the Pols are more accountable to the donors and not the voters, which entrenches corruption and the status quo. Is wanting to have a non-corrupt and functional political system (well ok a less corrupt and more functional one, lets not go crazy here) really something worthy of mocking? Are you really such a huge fan of the Federal Government that you find attempts at reform mock-worthy?
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2014, 09:00:45 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 18, 2014, 06:57:49 AM
I'm not protesting, I'm mocking the outsized anguish over corporate influence on politics. And I'm no lady. :P
The anguish is that the Pols are more accountable to the donors and not the voters, which entrenches corruption and the status quo. Is wanting to have a non-corrupt and functional political system (well ok a less corrupt and more functional one, lets not go crazy here) really something worthy of mocking? Are you really such a huge fan of the Federal Government that you find attempts at reform mock-worthy?
:secret: He's created a strawman. Just ignore it.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2014, 09:00:45 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 18, 2014, 06:57:49 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 18, 2014, 05:56:15 AM
I think it is funny that Hans thinks that this is a partisan issue. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
I'm not protesting, I'm mocking the outsized anguish over corporate influence on politics. And I'm no lady. :P
The anguish is that the Pols are more accountable to the donors and not the voters, which entrenches corruption and the status quo. Is wanting to have a non-corrupt and functional political system (well ok a less corrupt and more functional one, lets not go crazy here) really something worthy of mocking? Are you really such a huge fan of the Federal Government that you find attempts at reform mock-worthy?
I find it mock worthy that people think the corporations are at the crux of the problem and the naive believe that some law or regulation is going to stop the nexus of money and power. The. only way to reduce the influence of money in politics is to reduce the stakes. If politicians have less ability to hand out favors to crony capitalists the amount of money flowing towards politicians to curry favor would diminish. Everything else is a fool's errant. We now have had 40 years of government regulation of campaign financing and the result has been essentially nil.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 17, 2014, 11:35:44 PM
I don't know why this obsession with corporate donations.
There isn't one - it didn't come up until around post 127 in thread.
It is just one more engine for channeling monied influence to elected politicians.
One interesting characteristic of using corps for that purpose is that it is a convenient way to hide the identity of the ultimate donors and thus a way to end run around the disclosure requirements that apply to Super PACs. The NY AG is fighting a probably losing battle with Citizens United (yes the same one) over that very issue now,
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 18, 2014, 09:18:30 AM
I find it mock worthy that people think the corporations are at the crux of the problem and the naive believe that some law or regulation is going to stop the nexus of money and power.
I find it mock worthy that people have the cynical belief that law or regulation can do absolutely nothing to stop the nexus of money and power, when cross-country comparison demonstrates conclusively that some institutional designs are superior for controlling that nexus than others.
And I find it disturbing that there exist libertarians so fanatical that they are perfectly content to accept rampant corruption in public life, on the theory that the existence of that corruption can be used to support their ideological goals.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2014, 09:28:15 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 17, 2014, 11:35:44 PM
I don't know why this obsession with corporate donations.
There isn't one - it didn't come up until around post 127 in thread.
It is just one more engine for channeling monied influence to elected politicians.
One interesting characteristic of using corps for that purpose is that it is a convenient way to hide the identity of the ultimate donors and thus a way to end run around the disclosure requirements that apply to Super PACs. The NY AG is fighting a probably losing battle with Citizens United (yes the same one) over that very issue now,
As hard as it might be for you to believe, this wasn't directed at you. :P
My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office. No other limitations are necessary.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 18, 2014, 09:18:30 AM
I find it mock worthy that people think the corporations are at the crux of the problem and the naive believe that some law or regulation is going to stop the nexus of money and power
I believe we (well Berkut and I) stated just the opposite. The corporations are doing what they are designed to do under the current rules of the game.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 18, 2014, 09:33:55 AM
My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office. No other limitations are necessary.
Sounds good to me.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 17, 2014, 11:35:44 PM
As hard as it might be for you to believe, this wasn't directed at you. :P
I assume it was directed primarily at Berkut. And as such, misplaced.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2014, 09:35:57 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 18, 2014, 09:33:55 AM
My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office. No other limitations are necessary.
Sounds good to me.
It would work, but at the pretty steep cost of eliminating all experienced elected officials.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 18, 2014, 09:33:55 AM
My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office. No other limitations are necessary.
I'd think that you would need to increase the term of office of Member of the House of Representatives to four years (perhaps staggering the elections every two years) if they cannot serve consecutive terms, but I like it. It goes further than my suggestion, but in the right direction.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2014, 09:35:57 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 18, 2014, 09:33:55 AM
My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office. No other limitations are necessary.
Sounds good to me.
Seems to be designed to destroy incumbency more then anything.
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 18, 2014, 09:33:55 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2014, 09:28:15 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 17, 2014, 11:35:44 PM
I don't know why this obsession with corporate donations.
There isn't one - it didn't come up until around post 127 in thread.
It is just one more engine for channeling monied influence to elected politicians.
One interesting characteristic of using corps for that purpose is that it is a convenient way to hide the identity of the ultimate donors and thus a way to end run around the disclosure requirements that apply to Super PACs. The NY AG is fighting a probably losing battle with Citizens United (yes the same one) over that very issue now,
As hard as it might be for you to believe, this wasn't directed at you. :P
My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office. No other limitations are necessary.
Then you support my call for an amendment to make that possible. Glad to have you on board the shrill machine.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 18, 2014, 09:44:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2014, 09:35:57 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 18, 2014, 09:33:55 AM
My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office. No other limitations are necessary.
Sounds good to me.
Seems to be designed to destroy incumbency more then anything.
You say that like it is a bad thing.
It's not really a good thing. Administration and lawmaking are skills, they need to be learned. It's harder then you think. If you prevent people who in office from running from office, all you'll have is inexperienced people. It would be like the major shift elections every two years where whole of government is made up of what you call "move on.org types" and Tea party fanatics. The government shutdowns were a direct result of inexperienced lawmakers not knowing how the system worked. The same thing occurred in the 1990's in the aftermath of the "Republican revolution".
Quote from: Razgovory on July 18, 2014, 10:13:14 AM
It's not really a good thing. Administration and lawmaking are skills, they need to be learned. It's harder then you think.
Maybe we could set up a counsel of former officials to act as a consultative body? Maybe they could serve for life and wear togas.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 18, 2014, 09:37:56 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2014, 09:35:57 AM
Quote from: Hansmeister on July 18, 2014, 09:33:55 AM
My proposed campaign finance rules are very simple: politicians can only take donations from registered voters in the district they represent, but with no limits to the amount that can be received. All donations have to be disclosed online within 24 hours of receipt. Politicians cannot raise money while holding public office, nor can they run for election while holding public office. No other limitations are necessary.
Sounds good to me.
It would work, but at the pretty steep cost of eliminating all experienced elected officials.
No, they just can run for consecutive terms. And the "experienced" lawmakers we have right now certainly certainly haven't really lived up to it so far.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 18, 2014, 10:13:14 AM
It's not really a good thing. Administration and lawmaking are skills, they need to be learned. It's harder then you think. If you prevent people who in office from running from office, all you'll have is inexperienced people. It would be like the major shift elections every two years where whole of government is made up of what you call "move on.org types" and Tea party fanatics. The government shutdowns were a direct result of inexperienced lawmakers not knowing how the system worked. The same thing occurred in the 1990's in the aftermath of the "Republican revolution".
Well, what we need is to find some happy medium between what we have now, where most seats are completely locked in, and a constant flux. You are right, legislative skill is important.
But right now we have the vast majority of seats locked down (this is largely due to another of my pet peeves where lawmakers have basically subverted the democratic process - gerrymandering), and so a disproportionate amount of resources that are not local to the election in question are spent on those that are NOT locked down, and even in those areas where the seats are locked down to a party, it forces the parties to cater to the more radical members, since there is no real general election fight, so the primaries just go to the most hard right candidates. Hello Tea Party.
Quote from: Valmy on July 18, 2014, 10:17:22 AM
Maybe we could set up a counsel of former officials to act as a consultative body?
We already call them "lobbyists". What would be your new name for them?
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 10:02:20 AM
You say that like it is a bad thing.
It is a bad thing. Making laws is not unskilled labor. Just because gerrymandering is producing overly strong incumbents doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2014, 11:17:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 10:02:20 AM
You say that like it is a bad thing.
It is a bad thing. Making laws is not unskilled labor. Just because gerrymandering is producing overly strong incumbents doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Making laws has two components. Politicans are supposed to have the necessary judgment to decide what should legislation should be enacted and to obtain the necessary political support for such legislation. Experience in "making laws" is not necessary for that skill set although it may be an asset. The drafting part is left to others who do need experience in the craft of drafting laws.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2014, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2014, 11:17:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 10:02:20 AM
You say that like it is a bad thing.
It is a bad thing. Making laws is not unskilled labor. Just because gerrymandering is producing overly strong incumbents doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Making laws has two components. Politicans are supposed to have the necessary judgment to decide what should legislation should be enacted and to obtain the necessary political support for such legislation. Experience in "making laws" is not necessary for that skill set although it may be an asset. The drafting part is left to others who do need experience in the craft of drafting laws.
Well, DG is right in that there is more to "making laws" than simply the technical ability to draft them - there is also the political skill needed to muster the support for them. Including all the vote trading, and other crap necessary.
And that is most certainly a skill.
DG, I am not advocating throwing any babies out - just wish for some more balance.
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 11:30:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2014, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2014, 11:17:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 10:02:20 AM
You say that like it is a bad thing.
It is a bad thing. Making laws is not unskilled labor. Just because gerrymandering is producing overly strong incumbents doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Making laws has two components. Politicans are supposed to have the necessary judgment to decide what should legislation should be enacted and to obtain the necessary political support for such legislation. Experience in "making laws" is not necessary for that skill set although it may be an asset. The drafting part is left to others who do need experience in the craft of drafting laws.
Well, DG is right in that there is more to "making laws" than simply the technical ability to draft them - there is also the political skill needed to muster the support for them. Including all the vote trading, and other crap necessary.
And that is most certainly a skill.
DG, I am not advocating throwing any babies out - just wish for some more balance.
Re-read the first of the two components I described for law making ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2014, 11:34:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 11:30:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2014, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2014, 11:17:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 10:02:20 AM
You say that like it is a bad thing.
It is a bad thing. Making laws is not unskilled labor. Just because gerrymandering is producing overly strong incumbents doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Making laws has two components. Politicans are supposed to have the necessary judgment to decide what should legislation should be enacted and to obtain the necessary political support for such legislation. Experience in "making laws" is not necessary for that skill set although it may be an asset. The drafting part is left to others who do need experience in the craft of drafting laws.
Well, DG is right in that there is more to "making laws" than simply the technical ability to draft them - there is also the political skill needed to muster the support for them. Including all the vote trading, and other crap necessary.
And that is most certainly a skill.
DG, I am not advocating throwing any babies out - just wish for some more balance.
Re-read the first of the two components I described for law making ;)
Fair enough, although I would argue that is three skills.
The judgment to know what laws should be proposed is a radically different skill from the political acumen to get them passed.
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 11:37:53 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2014, 11:34:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 11:30:51 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 18, 2014, 11:27:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on July 18, 2014, 11:17:05 AM
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 10:02:20 AM
You say that like it is a bad thing.
It is a bad thing. Making laws is not unskilled labor. Just because gerrymandering is producing overly strong incumbents doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Making laws has two components. Politicans are supposed to have the necessary judgment to decide what should legislation should be enacted and to obtain the necessary political support for such legislation. Experience in "making laws" is not necessary for that skill set although it may be an asset. The drafting part is left to others who do need experience in the craft of drafting laws.
Well, DG is right in that there is more to "making laws" than simply the technical ability to draft them - there is also the political skill needed to muster the support for them. Including all the vote trading, and other crap necessary.
And that is most certainly a skill.
DG, I am not advocating throwing any babies out - just wish for some more balance.
Re-read the first of the two components I described for law making ;)
Fair enough, although I would argue that is three skills.
The judgment to know what laws should be proposed is a radically different skill from the political acumen to get them passed.
I dont think they are that different. Knowing what laws should proposed carries with it a judgment of knowing what is politically possible.
Quote from: Berkut on July 18, 2014, 10:35:39 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 18, 2014, 10:13:14 AM
It's not really a good thing. Administration and lawmaking are skills, they need to be learned. It's harder then you think. If you prevent people who in office from running from office, all you'll have is inexperienced people. It would be like the major shift elections every two years where whole of government is made up of what you call "move on.org types" and Tea party fanatics. The government shutdowns were a direct result of inexperienced lawmakers not knowing how the system worked. The same thing occurred in the 1990's in the aftermath of the "Republican revolution".
Well, what we need is to find some happy medium between what we have now, where most seats are completely locked in, and a constant flux. You are right, legislative skill is important.
But right now we have the vast majority of seats locked down (this is largely due to another of my pet peeves where lawmakers have basically subverted the democratic process - gerrymandering), and so a disproportionate amount of resources that are not local to the election in question are spent on those that are NOT locked down, and even in those areas where the seats are locked down to a party, it forces the parties to cater to the more radical members, since there is no real general election fight, so the primaries just go to the most hard right candidates. Hello Tea Party.
I don't see how it fights gerrrymandering. The seats will still go to the same parties, it will just be different people in that party each time. This is attractive if you want to purge out moderate members of your caucus like Hans does, but otherwise I don't see the benefit.
a lot of these rants aren't backed by real evidence. private money is far less powerful today to government than it was even a hundred years ago. the panama canal company bribed five hundred ministers of the french government in the 1880s. let's not even touch what the vastly wealthy could do in the roman empire. the wealthy will always be influential, but it's not as if the government is subverted by their whims and desires. there might be individuals within government, but not government as a whole. there are simply too many components that would have to be consumed by it.
look at the koch brothers. wealth created the tea party, but there was clearly a thirst for the tea party's ideologies in the U.S. and thankfully due to our two party system, the fringe groups are kept on the fringe. the tea party influences the republican party, and a sizable percentage of republicans sign onto it, but the republican party isn't fully controlled by it. however, not all fringes are bad, as you hint at in your opening post, berkut.
there are differences between the democrat and republican parties, but they're not vastly different because the majority of the U.S. population generally agree with each other. there are plenty of littler and finer disagreements, of course - i don't mean those. say 10% of the wealthy, 10-15% of the average person, and 50% of the bottom 10% all pushed hard enough for income equality, that's still only a small amount of people. conditions probably have to get worse so more people are willing to change their stance before actual change takes place
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 15, 2014, 10:46:00 AMDisagree.
Dean was a flash in the pan and his next act was to figure out how to shovel as much corporate money into the Democratic trough as possible.
Obama is far more problem than solution. He is Exhibit 1 of the permanent fund-raising presidency. I realize you hedged with the "(08)" designation - but that just underscores the stark difference between promise and reality.
Rand Paul?? He is one of the loudest shills for loosening any restrictions on campaign fianance. And his very existence as a political force is essentially parasitical on decades of propaganda spewed forth by corporate funded liberatarian "think tanks".
The tea partiers are an unorganized force that basically stand for nothing coherent beyond anger and ignorance. Their role over the past 5 years has been to be alternatively used as dupes or foils.
There is no counter-trend. You are kidding yourself.
Sorry to head back to this but I was being brief. The point I was trying to make is that I think these are all counter-points to the corporate finance/big money funding campaigns.
Dean was the first candidate who used the internet successfully and unfortunately his campaign - which I remember talking with TC about and we were both big fans of this centrist Governor from New England - got consumed by his supporters and turned him into a rather different candidate.
I think Obama (08) and the Paul family have since learned how to use the internet to build campaigns but also to raise funds while more strictly remaining in control of the message whether it's mainstream or crazy, respectively.
With the Tea Party, yes, some of their think tanks have corporate backers. But the the truth is a lot of 'their' campaigns don't and a large motivation is the perceived corruption and lobbying deals done by the 'establishment'. Just spend some time reading any Tea Party site about, for example, Cantor's primary. They acknowledge he was a solid conservative, the problem is he was a K Street solid conservative - and, contrary to the impression you generally get, that mattered far more than immigration.
I don't think any of these point to a legislative counter-trend, but I don't think they need to. It seems that Citizens United is an oddly apt group for this ruling: they can show their film about Hillary Clinton.
Trouble is, Hillary lost. She seems to be running exactly the same coronation-campaign as last time so I think she could end up losing again if any challenger can build up a bit of momentum. Similarly I can't think of a great deal of campaigns that have been won by your Adelsons or your Kochs. I am not convinced that a single recent USSC decision actually matters for politics in this media environment.
I don't see how any of current US politics which seems volatile and changeable is somehow more corrupt than Rove v Shrum or whoever else on the Democrats bench. I'd argue that volatility is because the old corruption - which surrounded big ad spends - is dying. What Cantor spent on steak dinners, his opponent spent on the entire campaign and their sources of that money were wildly different.
I think there's more concern with lobbying and the shameless ease with which Jon Favreau (main speechwriter during Obama's first term) moved from a White House role to opening his own lobbying firm. But I don't think that's been caused by any new rulings, or old laws, or anything else. I think it's been a permanent feature of Washington for decades, which probably does need tackling.
Sheilbh, that was a very good post and spot on.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 18, 2014, 07:51:56 PM
Jon Favreau (main speechwriter during Obama's first term)
Obama's speeches were so money and I didn't even know it. :(
Yeah, the revolving door between government and lobbying issue is a tricky one. The ability to get things done and know who's who in Washington is definitely a skill of extreme value to employers, especially as the federal government must take on a larger role in the years to come. On the other hand, it would be very difficult for political appointees to make their way in the world with too many restrictions. After all, these guys only have their job for a couple of years. But during that time, they have to worry about being destroyed by Republican short-sightedness, and you're not going to spend a lifetime working at that level in government.
Government and lobbying cross-pollination is tricky, but private sector and government regulatory cross-pollination is even worse.
The conflict of interest is obscene, and usually the only requirement is a financial statement and a divestiture of stock.
Quote from: grumbler on July 17, 2014, 12:29:36 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 17, 2014, 08:09:15 AM
How do you propose to get around the "free speech of corporations" issue?
I propose no restrictions for corporations that I don't propose for individuals, so no problems there.
You proposed no contributions to a campaign for an office for which the contributer can't vote. The Supreme Court has equated contributions (and other forms of spending) to free speech. Since we are free to speak about elections that we can't vote in, banning us from contributing to them wouldn't pass constitutional muster. In this case, the contitutional problem has nothing to do with the issue of the corporation as a legal artificial person.
That said, I do like your idea, just don't think it would get by the Supremes.
Quote from: dps on July 19, 2014, 11:41:37 AM
You proposed no contributions to a campaign for an office for which the contributer can't vote. The Supreme Court has equated contributions (and other forms of spending) to free speech. Since we are free to speak about elections that we can't vote in, banning us from contributing to them wouldn't pass constitutional muster. In this case, the contitutional problem has nothing to do with the issue of the corporation as a legal artificial person.
That said, I do like your idea, just don't think it would get by the Supremes.
As i munderstand it (particularly Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United) the supreme Court has ruled that campaign
spending is speech, not campaign contributions. The court upheld restrictions on contributions, but not on campaign or independent spending. I think (though could be convinced otherwise by JR or someone else who is more knowledgeable than I) that my rules stay on the right side of the USSC's rulings.
Quote from: grumbler on July 19, 2014, 11:50:11 AM
Quote from: dps on July 19, 2014, 11:41:37 AM
You proposed no contributions to a campaign for an office for which the contributer can't vote. The Supreme Court has equated contributions (and other forms of spending) to free speech. Since we are free to speak about elections that we can't vote in, banning us from contributing to them wouldn't pass constitutional muster. In this case, the contitutional problem has nothing to do with the issue of the corporation as a legal artificial person.
That said, I do like your idea, just don't think it would get by the Supremes.
As i munderstand it (particularly Buckley v. Valeo and Citizens United) the supreme Court has ruled that campaign spending is speech, not campaign contributions. The court upheld restrictions on contributions, but not on campaign or independent spending. I think (though could be convinced otherwise by JR or someone else who is more knowledgeable than I) that my rules stay on the right side of the USSC's rulings.
Hm. Yes, I think you are probably correct and I mis-remembered.
QuoteStudy: Citizens United elected more Republicans
WashingtonPost GovBeat
The 2010 Supreme Court decision that helped usher in a new era of political spending gave Republicans a measurable advantage on Election Day, according to a new study.
The advantage isn't large, but it is statistically significant: The researchers found the ruling, in Citizens United v. FEC, was associated with a six percentage-point increase in the likelihood that a Republican candidate would win a state legislative race.
And in six of the most affected states — Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee — the probability that a Republican would be elected to a state legislative seat increased by 10 percentage points or more.
In five other states — Colorado, Iowa, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming — Republican candidates were seven percentage points more likely to win.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fgovbeat%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F08%2Fprobability.png&hash=9d188f421f15003c73b300b288e53ab19bee4f27)
"Citizens United has given corporations and labor unions new means of influencing political elections," researchers Tilman Klumpp of the University of Alberta, Hugo Mialon of Emory University and Michael Williams of Competition Economics wrote in their paper, "The Business of American Democracy: Citizens United, Independent Spending and Elections."
Before the ruling, labor unions were more freely able to spend on campaigns and elections. But by freeing corporations to spend their own money, the study found, "Citizens United has, on balance, increased the political influence of corporations relative to that of unions."
The study focused on 22 states where bans on independent expenditures by corporations and labor unions were overturned by the Supreme Court's ruling. The remaining 28 states, which never had bans on independent expenditures, serve as control states.
In the 22 states where independent expenditures were suddenly allowed, Republicans took advantage. The Republican State Leadership Committee raised about $30 million in 2010 through its RedMap program, targeting states such as Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Wisconsin. The RSLC spent about $1 million each in Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, all of which swung to Republican control after 2010.
Other conservative groups, organized under section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, spent heavily in North Carolina, Montana, Colorado and Tennessee, all states where Republicans made gains. The bulk of those groups raised funds from corporations and other politically active groups, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The researchers also found evidence that the ruling led to an increase in the number of Republicans who ran for reelection, and a decrease in the number of Democrats who ran for office, especially in state House races. One Democratic candidate dropped out of about every 10th race in states affected by Citizens United, the researchers found.
Spending by outside groups, dubbed "super PACs" in the wake of the Citizens United decision, exploded between 2010, when those PACs were created, and 2012, when they established themselves near the top of the political hierarchy. Business contributions to the 10 largest super PACs multiplied from about $35 million in 2010 to more than $345 million in 2012, the researchers found.
The 2010 midterm elections were a huge boost to Republicans nationally, and at the state level. Republicans won control of 53 state legislative chambers that year, 20 more than they controlled before Election Day. Just 15 Republican state legislators lost reelection bids that year, compared with 492 Democrats who found themselves out of jobs.
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 01:34:08 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 16, 2014, 01:29:23 PM
Quote from: DGuller on July 16, 2014, 01:27:16 PM
Good question. I have no plan. But you shouldn't point your finger at something that's not a problem, because you don't know how to fix something that is a problem.
I guess I don't understand the problem with the people. We were just as shitty a hundred years ago when the system functioned much better. In fact we were far worse. So if the people have not gotten worse and the system has become more corrupt how can you point your finger at the people?
Worse in what way? Certainly not when it comes to partisanship, and tailoring your views on all issues to match the views of the party you favor more. Look at presidential election maps from the beginning of 20th century to now. Notice how they become incredibly more predictable as you get to 21st century?
I think that the brave new world of media is really damaging to democracy, ironically enough. Media by its nature is extremely biased, in that it needs to report things that rile people up. When you have much more of that media, you have much more of riling up. Eventually you put people in echo chambers that way.
Are you historically illiterate? They people were much more partisan at the turn of the 20th century then they are now. The Solid South was far more democratic than it has ever been republican since Nixon.
I was under the impression that CU treated unions and corporations as essentially the same.
QuoteEric Cantor joins Wall Street investment firm, will open Washington office
washingtonpost.com
Former House majority leader Eric Cantor is joining a Wall Street investment bank as vice chairman and managing director, the firm announced this morning.
The firm, Moelis & Co., said Cantor will be based in the New York office of the global company and will soon open an office in Washington. Moelis, with 500 employees, is known as a fast-growing "boutique" firm that advises companies and investors on mergers, acquisitions and risk.
It will use Cantor, 51, to help it compete for business, according to the Wall Street Journal, which broke the story. He will also advise corporate clients on takeovers and "other deals," the Journal reported.
Cantor, a lawyer, does not have a Wall Street background, though he was considered a friend of Wall Street in Congress. According to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, individuals and committees associated with the securities and investment business were the leading donors among industries to Cantor's reelection bid, giving a combined total of about $1.4 million during the primary election cycle in 2013 and 2014.
The figure is not unusual for a member of the Republican leadership in Congress. Nor is it unusual for a former member or outgoing high-ranking official in an administration to go to work for a Wall Street firm or to represent banking interests in Washington law firms.
Cantor, a lawyer, worked in the family real estate development business before becoming a member of Congress in 2001.
Moelis & Co. describes itself as "a leading global independent investment bank that provides innovative strategic advice and solutions to a diverse client base, including corporations, governments and financial sponsors."
According to the company's Web site, its clients have included "entities" related to the government of Dubai, which it advised on debt restructuring. Since its founding in 2007, it has also advised on a number of mergers and acquisitions, including Berkshire Hathaway's purchase of Heinz, the sale of Anheuser-Busch to InBev and Hilton's sale to the Blackstone Group.
Cantor was unexpectedly defeated in his district's June primary election by a little-known college professor, David Brat.
According to the Journal, Cantor and Moelis have known each other for more than three years. Cantor told the paper the two men were having brunch with their wives in Los Angeles in July and began talks at that time that led to the job.
In a statement issued by the company early this morning, Cantor said: "When I considered options for the next chapter of my career, I knew I wanted to join a firm with a great entrepreneurial spirit that focused on its clients. I have known Ken for some time and having followed the growth and success of his firm, I have long admired his vision and leadership. The new model of independent banks offering conflict free advice, in a smaller more intimate environment, was a place where I knew my skills could help clients succeed."
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 01, 2014, 09:06:46 PM
I was under the impression that CU treated unions and corporations as essentially the same.
That may be true, but it seems that there are order of magnitudes more cash available from corporations.
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2014, 01:20:38 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 01, 2014, 09:06:46 PM
I was under the impression that CU treated unions and corporations as essentially the same.
That may be true, but it seems that there are order of magnitudes more cash available from corporations.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Top political donors 1989-2014:
1. PAC
2. Union
3. Union
4. Corp
5. Trade Association
6. Union
7. Corp
8. Union
9. Union
10. Union
11. Union
12. Union
13. Union
14. Union
15. Corp
16. Union
17. Union
18. Corp
19. Corp
20. Trade Association
Quote from: alfred russel on September 02, 2014, 01:33:26 PM
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Top political donors 1989-2014:
1. PAC
2. Union
3. Union
4. Corp
5. Trade Association
6. Union
7. Corp
8. Union
9. Union
10. Union
11. Union
12. Union
13. Union
14. Union
15. Corp
16. Union
17. Union
18. Corp
19. Corp
20. Trade Association
What's the point of munging data from before and after Citizens United rather than comparing the shift between the two?
Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2014, 01:38:49 PM
What's the point of munging data from before and after Citizens United rather than comparing the shift between the two?
I just did a search and picked the first link that came up. My understanding is that it won't change the overall result, especially since what citizens united struck down was only in effect a short time.
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2014, 01:20:38 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 01, 2014, 09:06:46 PM
I was under the impression that CU treated unions and corporations as essentially the same.
That may be true, but it seems that there are order of magnitudes more cash available from corporations.
However corporations usually have to spend those orders of magnitude more on actually running their businesses. Unions, however, have virtually no costs beyond their own staffs. As AR has pointed out they are very big donors.
Quote from: alfred russel on September 02, 2014, 01:43:00 PM
I just did a search and picked the first link that came up. My understanding is that it won't change the overall result, especially since what citizens united struck down was only in effect a short time.
The contention is that CU changed the landscape for Corps and political spending. This is taking data from 21 years before the ruling and lumping it in with 4 years of data from after the ruling. The issue isn't the total amount spent over this time (of which the predominance of the data points are from before the ruling), but the difference between the two periods.
Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2014, 01:54:54 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on September 02, 2014, 01:43:00 PM
I just did a search and picked the first link that came up. My understanding is that it won't change the overall result, especially since what citizens united struck down was only in effect a short time.
The contention is that CU changed the landscape for Corps and political spending. This is taking data from 21 years before the ruling and lumping it in with 4 years of data from after the ruling. The issue isn't the total amount spent over this time (of which the predominance of the data points are from before the ruling), but the difference between the two periods.
And this is why Dorsey would never be mistaken for an actuary.
Quote from: Jacob on September 02, 2014, 02:01:35 PM
And this is why Dorsey would never be mistaken for an actuary.
1989-2014 is 25 years of data, and the laws struck down by CU in 2009 went in effect in 2003. Do you really think that~6 year period would change things?
If you want 2014, here you go:
http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php
1. PAC
2. Hedge Fund
3. Union
4. Municipality
5. PAC
6. Union
7. Trade Association
8. Hedge Fund
9. Corp
10. Union
11. Union
12. Union
13. Union
14. Union
15. Union
16. Union
17. Corp
18. Corp
19. Union
20. Union
Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2014, 01:54:54 PM
The contention is that CU changed the landscape for Corps and political spending. This is taking data from 21 years before the ruling and lumping it in with 4 years of data from after the ruling. The issue isn't the total amount spent over this time (of which the predominance of the data points are from before the ruling), but the difference between the two periods.
Then let's compare to the current election cycle: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php
1. PAC
2. Corp
3. Union
4. Municipal government
5. PAC
6. Union
7. Trade association
8. Corp
9. Corp
10. Union
11. Union
12. Union
13. Union
14. Union
15. Union
16. Union
17. Corp
18. Corp
19. Union
20. Union
Looks oddly similar.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 02, 2014, 02:35:22 PM
Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2014, 01:54:54 PM
The contention is that CU changed the landscape for Corps and political spending. This is taking data from 21 years before the ruling and lumping it in with 4 years of data from after the ruling. The issue isn't the total amount spent over this time (of which the predominance of the data points are from before the ruling), but the difference between the two periods.
Then let's compare to the current election cycle: http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/toporgs.php
1. PAC
2. Corp
3. Union
4. Municipal government
5. PAC
6. Union
7. Trade association
8. Corp
9. Corp
10. Union
11. Union
12. Union
13. Union
14. Union
15. Union
16. Union
17. Corp
18. Corp
19. Union
20. Union
Looks oddly similar.
Top 2 spend about as much as the next 6 combined. After that it flattens out considerably. Positions 21-50 are dominated by Corps.
Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2014, 02:43:06 PM
Top 2 spend about as much as the next 6 combined. After that it flattens out considerably. Positions 21-50 are dominated by Corps.
And the top 6 (including the top 2 you identified) give their money almost exclusively to democrats.
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2014, 02:52:00 PM
Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2014, 02:43:06 PM
Top 2 spend about as much as the next 6 combined. After that it flattens out considerably. Positions 21-50 are dominated by Corps.
And the top 6 (including the top 2 you identified) give their money almost exclusively to democrats.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a6YdNmK77k
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2014, 02:52:00 PM
Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2014, 02:43:06 PM
Top 2 spend about as much as the next 6 combined. After that it flattens out considerably. Positions 21-50 are dominated by Corps.
And the top 6 (including the top 2 you identified) give their money almost exclusively to democrats.
Who the money is spent on is a different issue from that it being spent at all. I'll also note that these amounts don't count 501(c).
For the record I'm not a fan of Unions being able to spend money on these types of contributions either, but the amount that they can throw around is dwarfed by the companies, and in practice their percentage of contributions is going down fast.
CdM hasn't fit into his 501s since '94.
Not a lot of republican money in that list. Corps tend to give to both sides too. Also, ActBlue spent fifteen times as much as Koch. :nelson:
If I had money in a hedge fund and i found out they were giving to politics I'd call in my redemption asap.
Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2014, 03:22:08 PM
For the record I'm not a fan of Unions being able to spend money on these types of contributions either, but the amount that they can throw around is dwarfed by the companies, and in practice their percentage of contributions is going down fast.
If you count Tom Steyer's hedge fund contribution as corporate it is $101,078,205 for corporations in that list vs. $68,260,195 for unions. Remove Steyer[1] and the corporate slice drops to $80,732,613. That is hardly "dwarfing" unions.
[1] Arguably, Steyer is running his own personal PAC rather than making corporate contributions. I'm not sure which column his money should really go in.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 02, 2014, 03:52:36 PM
If you count Tom Steyer's hedge fund contribution as corporate it is $101,078,205 for corporations in that list vs. $68,260,195 for unions. Remove Steyer[1] and the corporate slice drops to $80,732,613. That is hardly "dwarfing" unions.
[1] Arguably, Steyer is running his own personal PAC rather than making corporate contributions. I'm not sure which column his money should really go in.
They have the potential to dwarf unions, I didn't say they are doing that right now. I'm pretty sure that GE could spend much more on politics than the $2 million they are right now. I doubt that most unions could spend much more.
Quote from: The Brain on September 02, 2014, 03:29:52 PM
CdM hasn't fit into his 501s since '94.
'98, fuck you very much.
Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2014, 03:58:12 PM
They have the potential to dwarf unions, I didn't say they are doing that right now. I'm pretty sure that GE could spend much more on politics than the $2 million they are right now. I doubt that most unions could spend much more.
Of course they could, but why would they? Corporations exist primarily to make money. They aren't going to spend more money than they expect to gain from the action. They certainly are not going to spend shitloads of money on social or moral issues that do not hit their bottom line, which unions will.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 02, 2014, 04:03:40 PM
Of course they could, but why would they? Corporations exist primarily to make money. They aren't going to spend more money than they expect to gain from the action. They certainly are not going to spend shitloads of money on social or moral issues that do not hit their bottom line, which unions will.
Of course not, they are primarily interested in taxation, zoning, things that effect corporations. That's why their spending is usually pretty balanced between parties, and probably targeted pretty well at committee chairs for things that they are concerned about. Who said that campaign contributions are only about social or moral issues?
Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2014, 04:10:48 PM
Of course not, they are primarily interested in taxation, zoning, things that effect corporations. That's why their spending is usually pretty balanced between parties, and probably targeted pretty well at committee chairs for things that they are concerned about. Who said that campaign contributions are only about social or moral issues?
Nobody did, including me. My point is that unions have more issues they want to spend money on than corporations. Additionally, they raise money from people who want certain positions on those issues voiced rather than from people who want more money back in return. Thus, the rational limit for spending on, and the money available specifically for, political contributions by corporations is lower than for unions (who are still concerned with taxation, zoning, and other such issues).
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 02, 2014, 03:52:36 PM
Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2014, 03:22:08 PM
For the record I'm not a fan of Unions being able to spend money on these types of contributions either, but the amount that they can throw around is dwarfed by the companies, and in practice their percentage of contributions is going down fast.
If you count Tom Steyer's hedge fund contribution as corporate it is $101,078,205 for corporations in that list vs. $68,260,195 for unions. Remove Steyer[1] and the corporate slice drops to $80,732,613. That is hardly "dwarfing" unions.
[1] Arguably, Steyer is running his own personal PAC rather than making corporate contributions. I'm not sure which column his money should really go in.
The difference in our categories seems to be that you considered hedge funds corps while I put them in their own category: because they aren't actually corporations. :P
Quote from: frunk on September 02, 2014, 02:43:06 PM
Top 2 spend about as much as the next 6 combined. After that it flattens out considerably. Positions 21-50 are dominated by Corps.
And the 21-50 is likely indicative of a very long tail of corporate contributions. There are only a few really significant unions, but there are lots and lots of corporations that are interested in swaying politicians on issues that matter to them.
The second fallacy with the list is that it excludes 501(c)'s - it even uses bold type to make sure everyone understands this. That is kind of important considering Citizens United was a 501(c) organization. The game here is that pseudo non-profits like CU don't disclose their donor lists, so the decision allows an end run around the usual requirement of transparency in political contributions.
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2014, 02:52:00 PM
And the top 6 (including the top 2 you identified) give their money almost exclusively to democrats.
So?
How does that disprove the premise of this thread?
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 02, 2014, 04:18:30 PM
Nobody did, including me. My point is that unions have more issues they want to spend money on than corporations. Additionally, they raise money from people who want certain positions on those issues voiced rather than from people who want more money back in return. Thus, the rational limit for spending on, and the money available specifically for, political contributions by corporations is lower than for unions (who are still concerned with taxation, zoning, and other such issues).
The rational limit for spending is much higher than the amount that is currently being spent. If a tax change can save a company billions it wouldn't have a problem with spending 100s of millions to obtain it. Right now it doesn't have to, the going rate is much cheaper than that.
Ah dam it. I can't believe I missed this thread.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2014, 05:21:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2014, 02:52:00 PM
And the top 6 (including the top 2 you identified) give their money almost exclusively to democrats.
So?
How does that disprove the premise of this thread?
Yeah, wasn't the premise that both the Democrat and Republicans ultimately serve some fairly similar moneyed interests, and if you disagree with those you're SOL?
Quote from: Jacob on September 05, 2014, 01:44:32 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 02, 2014, 05:21:25 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 02, 2014, 02:52:00 PM
And the top 6 (including the top 2 you identified) give their money almost exclusively to democrats.
So?
How does that disprove the premise of this thread?
Yeah, wasn't the premise that both the Democrat and Republicans ultimately serve some fairly similar moneyed interests, and if you disagree with those you're SOL?
Of course - but as we've seen from both sides in this very thread, it is incredibly hard to get the tribe members to think about any of this objectively, which of course is exactly what the money wants.
It is part of the game where they buy politicians, and then let the gullible believe they are engaging in a meaningful political fight over critical issues.
What is the meaning of SOL?
Servant of liberty? Son of a leech?
Survivor of life?
Quote from: Siege on September 08, 2014, 06:49:33 PM
What is the meaning of SOL?
Servant of liberty? Son of a leech?
Survivor of life?
Sorry out of luck
("Son of a leech" is great. When I write the story of a 1920s mild mannered pharmacist by day, vigilante by night, that will be one of his insults.)
I use it to mean shit out of luck.
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2014, 10:02:32 AM
It is part of the game where they buy politicians, and then let the gullible believe they are engaging in a meaningful political fight over critical issues.
:bleeding: :tinfoil: I think Berkut's level of argument sophistication has finally gone down to the "Ron Paulite spamming the Yahoo! news comments section" level.
I'm willing to be subverted for a Klondike Bar.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on September 02, 2014, 03:52:36 PM
If you count Tom Steyer's hedge fund contribution as corporate it is $101,078,205 for corporations in that list vs. $68,260,195 for unions. Remove Steyer[1] and the corporate slice drops to $80,732,613. That is hardly "dwarfing" unions.
$101 million to $68 million sounds like "dwarfing" to me. Now, the argument that contributions to Republicans dwarf contributions to Democrats doesn't work, because not all unions contribute to Democrats nor all corporations to Republicans, but that's a separate issue.
The real concern on my part is that donations from artificial people dwarf donations from real people, creating the perception, and perhaps the reality, that politicians (of both stripes) are beholden to artificial people more than to real people.
http://news.yahoo.com/shut-already-senate-dems-want-amend-constitution-stop-225020824.html
QuoteDemocratic Senators said Monday the Constitution must be amended, because people like Charles and David Koch must be stopped from flooding TV with negative ads Americans don't want to see.
"A handful of super rich donors and giant corporations are now flooding our elections and determining entire narratives of closely contested races," Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, said in a press conference Monday. "The American people are furious with the state of campaign finance in this country. They can't stand the negative advertisements that are dominating the airways."
Senator Amy Klobuchar agreed. "This Congress forgets what the people really care about," she said. "They don't want to see these ads. They don't want to see this outside money."
"These negative, poisonous, untruthful ads have just proliferated," echoed Sen. Al Franken, and the American people "know this is wrong."
The proposed amendment, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Tom Udall, would give Congress broad power to shape campaign finance laws. It would effectively overturn the Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC and 2014 ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC, which struck down laws restricting when corporations and unions can spend money on elections, and how much individuals can donate to candidates in a two-year period.
This is "the most important issue to Americans in years," added Sen. Bernie Sanders. "If people think this is some kind of esoteric issue, not related to jobs, the economy, and wages, and women's rights, and income and wealth inequality, and healthcare and global warming, you are deadly wrong."
"Why do people like the Koch brother's spend hundreds of millions of dollars?" he continued. "If you understand what they stand for, and that is to end, do away with social security, do away with medicare, do away with medicaid do away with the concept of the minimum wage, do away with the environmental protection agency — that is the struggle. They have an agenda."
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse also pointed to the Koch Brothers as a reason for amending the Constitution, and accused them of coercing Republicans into giving up on climate change legislation. Before Citizens United, the Republicans had a candidate for president willing to have a climate change plan, he said, and brought a carbon regulations bill to the Senate floor. But now "the Koch brothers, the biggest polluters in this country have gotten together, and they've silenced them."
"That is not adding to debate," he continued. "That is not adding to democracy. That is the force of money, as bullying as coercion, as bribery, as influence peddling in all the wrong ways. It is not freedom of speech. It is not the first amendment."
Republicans have criticized the proposed amendment as an attack on free speech at a time Democrats are afraid of losing their Senate majority. "The proposal they want to consider would empower incumbent politicians to write the rules on who gets to speak and who doesn't," Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell wrote in an op-ed Monday. "And while no one likes to be criticized, the way for Senate Democrats to avoid it is to make better arguments, or even better, to come up with better ideas — not shut up their constituents."
Congress is scheduled to vote on the amendment Monday night, which has almost no chance of passing.
This article struck me as very strange. Americans don't want to see these ads and now "it is wrong" and yet we have no choice but to mindlessly watch/follow them?
Also, love that last bit. Glad to see Congress is spending its time wisely.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2014, 07:42:38 PM
I use it to mean shit out of luck.
Something we agree on! :w00t: :hug:
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 11:41:40 AM
This article struck me as very strange. Americans don't want to see these ads and now "it is wrong" and yet we have no choice but to mindlessly watch/follow them?
Also, love that last bit. Glad to see Congress is spending its time wisely.
Yeah, it sounds like they are phrasing the amendment to insure maximum opposition while drumming up support for themselves.
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 11:41:40 AM
This article struck me as very strange. Americans don't want to see these ads and now "it is wrong" and yet we have no choice but to mindlessly watch/follow them?
This comment strikes me as very strange. Why are the only choices (1) having negative ads financed by artificial people from outside the election area or (2) you have no choice but to mindlessly watch/follow them? Neither of those are options discussing in the very article you chose to quote.
And I don't know how you can say so adamantly that the article "is wrong."
Quote from: grumbler on September 09, 2014, 12:06:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 11:41:40 AM
This article struck me as very strange. Americans don't want to see these ads and now "it is wrong" and yet we have no choice but to mindlessly watch/follow them?
This comment strikes me as very strange. Why are the only choices (1) having negative ads financed by artificial people from outside the election area or (2) you have no choice but to mindlessly watch/follow them? Neither of those are options discussing in the very article you chose to quote.
And I don't know how you can say so adamantly that the article "is wrong."
I never said that those were the only two choices. :)
The manner in which the supposed champions of the amendment cast it in a strictly partisan light makes me think they don't really care to see it passed either.
QuoteDemocratic Senators said Monday the Constitution must be amended, because people like Charles and David Koch must be stopped from flooding TV with negative ads Americans don't want to see.
I don't get it, why this article, or even the legislation as Dem legislators are quoted is only targeting the Repubs, and of course the ebil Koch brothers. The Dems do the same thing, George Souris and other Dems like him, Unions, etc. The article seems so "off" because if this legislation goes through it should impact Dems and Repubs alike. And it's even more disingenuous because they all like the negative ads and use those heavily, and they often work!
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 12:31:49 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 09, 2014, 12:06:40 PM
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2014, 11:41:40 AM
This article struck me as very strange. Americans don't want to see these ads and now "it is wrong" and yet we have no choice but to mindlessly watch/follow them?
This comment strikes me as very strange. Why are the only choices (1) having negative ads financed by artificial people from outside the election area or (2) you have no choice but to mindlessly watch/follow them? Neither of those are options discussing in the very article you chose to quote.
And I don't know how you can say so adamantly that the article "is wrong."
I never said that those were the only two choices. :)
True. You didn't even offer choices. Choice is added by implication.
Bottom line, we are fucked and the progressive movememt is going to maintain our GDP low and let China win by Domination or Diplomacy.
Quote from: Siege on September 09, 2014, 04:05:08 PM
Bottom line, we are fucked and the progressive movememt is going to maintain our GDP low and let China win by Domination or Diplomacy.
That's why we need to start spending more on space exploration!!! /Tim