Slashdot Mirror
Mayday Anti-PAC On Its Second Round of Funding
wonkavader (605434) writes 'Lawrence Lessig's MAYDAY.US Super PAC to end all Super PACs (and more) is now on its second round of funding. The PAC has been reported on here before, but now the numbers are bigger. They hit their $1 million first goal easily, but now they aim to get another $5 million in the same time period. Lessig says that he's arranged for matching, again. It seems like the goals will be even higher in 2016: "For 2014, our goal is to raise $12 million and use it to make fundamental reform the key issue in five congressional races. And we'll apply what we learn then to 2016."'
We are going to get money out of politics by spending money.. I support the goal, but it just seems to shift where the money is coming from. The idea may fail if those who get in dont actually wanna lose that money, so put up a fake fight to change it.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I've always been curious if it was possible for our system to eventually work itself out without the need for a bloody revolution. There has been so much malinvestment lately at the hands of entrenched political groups. I would be thrilled to see the US fix itself through its own system. My pessimism says otherwise though, but who knows.
by asking money??
I know... fight fire with fire, but 1m isn't going to be enough ;)
How does an anti-pac work? Do they pay the TV stations not to run the ads from the other super-pacs?
What's your plan?
This "Anti-PAC" is just a PAC supporting the two largest Democrat campaign finance bills which are more properly termed the "Silence Dissent Acts" or "Incumbent Protection Act" then any kind of real campaign finance reform.
So, all they are is another Democrat PAC masquerading under a fake name. Oh, they claim to support three other bills with bi-partisan support, which are bills sponsored by four back-benchers (Tom Petrie anyone? 30+ years in Congress and I don't think he's successfully sponsored one bill.) that will never make it out of sub-committee.
So, two hyper-left (Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Dianne Feinstein type) proposals, and three non-events.
Anti-PAC, it's another way of saying "Democrat".
Makes you wonder why they feel they have to lie about their intentions.
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Actually their site has links to several things want. Even never hearing of them before, it took me only a minute of my time to find it.. http://reform.to/#/reforms
They dont seem to be able blocking "pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics", but about stopping the direct large scale donations, and quid pro quo that goes on in our government.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Limiting spending in elections inherently favors incumbents. Keep that in mind when you're talking about getting money out of politics.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
OK so they raised $1M from unsuspecting id10ts on Kickstarter, good for them. Then a list of really nice, politically clean and pure people matched the $1M. What a load of BS. Hope and change baby!
Like 'Hope and change'?
How is this any different from any other PAC? Pour money in to promote some worm as a 'good politician. Like Obama - w/o the mass media effect and tons of money this bum wouldn't have made the White House lawncare.
Did you at least request lube before the pounding began?
Really? You're going to end the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics by out-fundraising them?
Having money is the one thing corporations are good at, and they're really, really good at it. If your strategy hinges on using money as influence, you're always going to lose, because they are FAR better and more practiced at that game than you are.
The only way to advance this particular agenda is to exploit the strengths that we have which corporations don't. We can fill the streets with real people, we can make disruptive spectacles and speak earnestly about social problems. Unlike corporations, we don't need to hide behind spokespeople and PACs, because we have authenticity. We are genuinely concerned about the future of our democracy, and though corporations can try hard to simulate that concern, it's never as authentic as the real thing.
The MAYDAY PAC is like David trying to beat Goliath in a fist fight. Don't fight on his terms, use the sling, idiot!
Drastically smaller government. When the government can't do much of anything for (or to) anyone, there's very little to gain by corrupting it and very little harm when it gets corrupted.
Take the money out of politics by taking the money and the power out of government.
They say they want "fundamental reform", but they won't be specific about the "reform" they're proposing. Without specifics, "reform" can mean anything (or nothing).
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has ruled (correctly) that spending money to print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics is free speech. So how "fundamental" can any reform actually be? Are they planning to amend the Constitution so the government can arrest people for making videos or publishing books?
I can't believe people are giving money to these guys.
Yes they are. You have to read their FAQ lol
Basically all they are doing at first is planning to back the opponents of candidates that do not support "reform" They don't have to be specific, they just need to state they want "reform" in any form.
Later they will do more fund raising and get behind a particular proposal. The specifically mention 5. 2 democratic, 2 republican and 1 bipartisan.
So if you're donating to this particular campaign you're donating to get congress to agree that "Reform" is an issue that needs to be addressed. When it's time to support a specific proposal there will be new fundraisers and you can decide at that time if you support that particular proposal.
Reform Party? Wasn't that Ross Perot's party ? Is he still around?
I think Jesse (the body) was part of that at one stage, but I don't think he is standing again. I would vote for him if he ran for Gov again.
A better plan to get less money in politics is to remove the biggest impetus for political authority, the ability to decide winners and losers via the tax code.
Remove income tax and replace with a revenue neutral consumption tax such as the Fair Tax. Without the ability to offer favorable tax breaks to potential donors, who are seeking to ultimately alleviate tax costs on their interests, a large portion of corporate money will dry up, leaving the ideologues.
On a side note, how much more left leaning can one get than to name one's thing May Day? This guy is, IMO, bad news. According to wikipedia (had to look him up), advancing a populist agenda, removing the representative nature of having a representative republic by getting rid of electoral college and having a constitutional convention with random delegates instead of those selected by elected state governments to represent state's rights and interests. IMO, Lessig appears to be a Statist of the worst kind and I want nothing to do with him or the tyranny he would advance.
All you can do is fight over *who* gets to wield it. At least now, bad as it is, I get to contribute to groups that represent my views, even if imperfectly. Seriously, with all the abuses of other moneyed interests,(mine, of course never abuse the system) no one has ever even tried to explain something better to me.
Just some adolescent rant about "getting the money out of politics".
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
I read their FAQ. "Reform" can mean anything. Anyone can pledge to support "reform". Later if there's a bill, they can say they're against the bill because of specific items but they still support "reform". Without specifics, it's meaningless.
People will ally with whoever is most powerful. Sure, he might get one or two into office. How long before they are quickly realigning themselves to get to the next level?
In a system, you can't do just one thing. This 'fix' will have side-effects, including the need for candidates to raise more $, and so give more power to the suppliers of that $.
The problem is that there is power to be bought, and politics is the auction mechanism. The only thing that can effectively reduce the price, given political control of the system of justice, is reducing the power to be bought.
Add to that a clause that you can only fund politicians within your own state.
So you can fund any locally based politician and a presidential campaign within your own state, but presidential campaign funds cannot be used in other states.
Might cut the senator for Hollywood being voted in by Utah.
The name of the PAC is May Day, which is a pro union and pro leftist holiday. It is a prominent holiday in many socialist countries. I am not sure why that is a good pick for a supposed non-partisan PAC with a mission to end PAC money.
I'm finding quite curious the contrast between the comments that appeared the first time this story was discussed in /. and now. Whereas in the first time the comments were balanced and generally positive, now most comments are violently against it. I wonder what caused this change. Perhaps now that it is clear that they are getting money and have a chance of making a difference the corporate shills have woken up?
entropy happens
We can fill the streets with real people, we can make disruptive spectacles and speak earnestly about social problems.
Like Occupy Wall Street which failed? Naivety indeed.
There has not been any reforms. Wall Street is business as usual.
In the meantime, the OWS people were harrassed,, beaten, ridiculed in the media, and dispersed.
Americans are so brainwashed by the system that anyone pointing a finger at said system i sconsdiered to be a radical, leftist, Liberal, or some other term to dismiss them.
To be taken seriously, one must play by the corrupt rules to make it look like one is part of the system; otherwise, they will be dismissed. Do not forget, the people driving politics - the angry rable that gets all the attention (old people) - do NOT want any changes. They demand the status quo and any attempt to disrupt it will be met with fierce opposition. Why do you think that all issues are framed as "old timey values"?
I see this everyday. I hear the old people talking. And THEY are the ones running to the polls in Nov of this year. Their agenda - NOTHING to do with anyone's platform - it's all about preserving the status quo.
If supporters had any recourse when candidates turned on them, such recourse would have been used on Bush Jr. and Obama.
This is why I steer clear of politicians who talk out of both sides of their mouth and try to avoid saying anything which might bother anyone - there's no telling what they'll actually do. I prefer someone like Chris Christie who says things that piss me off as well as things I agree with - it's pretty plain what he believes and what he intends to do. Whether or not you agree with his position, it's extremely clear what his position is.
> They say they want "fundamental reform", but they won't be specific about the "reform" they're proposing. Without specifics, "reform" can mean anything (or nothing).
I think specifically it means "change". And "hope". Hope and change. Is that more clear for you?
I believe the idea is that the money raised by "real people" will be used differently than that raised by corporations. The PAC is the funding mechanism which will be used to consolidate and coordinate "real people" who want to positively affect change. In other words: this is a campaign to raise the money for a sling.
JAGga.me ----> Producing video games addressing emotional health and wellness issues affecting teens.
print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics is free speech
Is it not free speech to do these things? Or you're just opposed to people doing these things for a cause you do not support? You are part of the problem because you think the problem is free speech for causes you don't support. I'll be dollars to doughnuts that you support your side (I don't know if you're (D) or (R)) having the right to "print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics". My guess, is you're a liberal though because liberals are well known for their hypocrisy regarding free speech.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Reading further, you almost sound Libertarian. However, I don't know a single libertarian that is opposed to people who "print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics".
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Until we realize that all taxes are regressive, the problem will remain.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The corporations can easily outspend this PAC with a small increase. On top of that, they are trying to buy corrupt politicians, who are just as likely to turn again when someone offers them better coke and prostitutes. I smell a get rich scheme, nothing more.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
We have a significant population in the US that has Fox News on all day and their World view has been distorted by it and by Talk Radio.
Old people.
The old people in this country have been so brainwashed that they are using their significant political clout to screw everyone - including themselves.
I know. I see it everyday. And they won't listen to anyone who is not part of the establishment. Look at Occupy Wall Street. The Fox News brainwashed old people were all for the cops "handling" those "ungrateful lazy kids" and "getting them back to work".
The old people do not understand how college educated people could be out of work. They firmly beleive that having a degree - any degree - makes you employable. It was with great surpirse to them when I informed them that those days are long gone - if they even existed.
They lived and worked during the best times the US ever had and they still think they are still going on and have no understanding what their grandchildren's generation is going through. They just think they are lazy.
tl;dr: We need this PAC to inform the ignorant old people - 65 and older.
And just how do we get from here to there? An overarching theme like 'drastically smaller government' sounds great. Until you get to the messy details. How do you de fang the NSA? Get the Pentagon to accept some rational budget? Keep Texas from starting (another) war with Mexico?
You can 'reboot' the system and hope to hell it comes up with a command prompt instead of "Disk Not Found". Or you can (slowly) work at the edges to clean the system up. No it doesn't work well and it's slow as hell - certainly slower than any human lifetime - but it sounds quite a bit more sane than the other ways.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Seriously? This is literally trading tax dollars for campaign dollars. What the hell kind of reform is this? Even with the proposed $50 limit on the credit it's a bad idea -- and what good is $50 going to do, anyway?
print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics is free speech
Is it not free speech to do these things? Or you're just opposed to people doing these things for a cause you do not support? You are part of the problem because you think the problem is free speech for causes you don't support. I'll be dollars to doughnuts that you support your side (I don't know if you're (D) or (R)) having the right to "print pamphlets, create a video, or publish a book about politics". My guess, is you're a liberal though because liberals are well known for their hypocrisy regarding free speech.
It's not a matter of what you want to say, it's how loud you shout.
Money buys a bigger megaphone. And unfortunately, we tend to elect whoever shouts the loudest.
And they won't listen to anyone who is not part of the establishment.
Who is "the establishment"? Would that be the major (non-Fox) news networks like CNN? Or perhaps the current US president and Senate majority party?
"The Fox News brainwashed old people were all for the cops "handling" those "ungrateful lazy kids" and "getting them back to work".
LOL! (That's pretty much all that needs to be said here.)
The old people do not understand how college educated people could be out of work. They firmly beleive that having a degree - any degree - makes you employable. It was with great surpirse to them when I informed them that those days are long gone - if they even existed.
So... you informed all old people? Or perhaps you just lectured an old person at hand who was polite enough to pretend that you were saying something important, and you interpreted such politeness as abject awe at the sharing of your wisdom which they had never heard before? See? It's fun to make generalizations about people you don't really know, and I can do it just as well as you can.
They lived and worked during the best times the US ever had
My grandma was a poor person during the Great Depression. This may come as a shock to you, but she didn't have a smartphone or a TV. In fact, she sometimes didn't have enough to eat. The wealth and technological advancement of the first world countries in general has accomplished something never before seen (at least on a large scale) in the history of the world until the late 20'th century -- our "poor people" today are often fat. Food for thought, no?
and they still think they are still going on and have no understanding what their grandchildren's generation is going through. They just think they are lazy.
I don't know whether all old people think you are lazy or not. But I am solidly of the opinion that you are intellectually lazy.
tl;dr: We need this PAC to inform the ignorant old people - 65 and older.
Correction -- nobody needs this PAC. However, the PAC needs naive people like you to throw their money at it.
I'm managing a Congressional campaign for a first-time candidate and I can tell you it's all about fundraising. You raise some funds from friends and family to appear viable enough that others will think you have a shot at making it until November. Then you get their donations and go out again to ask for more. Then you go out and try to get an endorsement from whichever of the two major political parties your candidate is aligned with. The major parties won't even back you unless you raise tens of thousands of dollars. It's just like getting a mortgage, they won't give it to you unless you can prove that you don't need it. Once that happens you use their endorsement and funds to get more endorsements and more money from PACs to fund the campaign, with implied strings attached. Meanwhile the incumbent candidate is raking it in from lobbyists and special interest groups and can easily outspend you 100:1. Check out opensecrets.org and take a look who wins races, it's almost always the candidate who can get the most funds. MAYDAY PAC's FAQ says they will give the funds to candidates who can win races- that's not reform candidates, it's incumbents or party members entrenched the political machine. Even if you're registered to vote as a member of one of the major parties, you're still an outsider unless you've been a party apparatchik for many years. MAYDAY PAC would have to raise tens of millions of dollars to fund reform candidates against incumbents, and they'd have to be third party or NPA to affect any real change. Five million split five ways is a drop in the bucket.
Really? You're going to end the corrupting influence of corporate money in politics by out-fundraising them?
No. You're going to get most of the people behind the unified cause of repairing the US electorial system. Big difference.
Them donating money is a secondary side effect. The technical part of what is required to change something. The first step is to get *all* of the 99% of US citizens of their lazy fat asses and actually be willing to do something to 'effing repair their broken system. The money-meter is just a gauge of that will to finally make a change that lasts. And I mean we, the people, making that change.
It's like in eastern German. When fat-cats say "This is how it goes." like they have been for decades and 99% say "Nope. Not anymore. Game's over. New rules." you have a peaceful revolution and the wall goes down the next day. It's really that easy.
Same here. If Lessig and his crew can get this show on the road and the 'effed up US electorial system repaired that would be really cool. And I see a real chance of that happening here.
You should all get behind this folks. You can do it. It's not that hard.
Keeping my fingers crossed for this SuperPAC.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
"Yes We Can" - shouts the loudest
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Apparently you are John Snow Know Nothing when it comes to the Fair Tax.
Allow me to enlighten you.
The Fair Tax is a 'progressive tax' with 2 key parts.
Part 1: The Consumption Tax
An inclusive consumption tax at a flat rate (at last reading, would be around 22%-23%) placed on all *NEW* goods and all services at the retail level.
This can only work if income and corporate taxes are repealed, as those are embedded invisibly into the final retail cost of a product or service along the supply chain. By removing those embedded taxes, the retail price would fall by approx 22-23%. Apply the inclusive consumption tax and the final retail price returns to almost the same as it's present value +- 1-2%.
Used or second hand products would not be taxed, as only NEW goods and services. States would facilitate the collection of the consumption tax as they already have in place the mechanisms for collecting sales tax. The inclusive tax would show up on receipts as a line item to make it's cost transparent to the consumer.
Part 2: The Prebate (aka, the progressive portion)
Each household of citizens will receive, based on family size, a prebate equal to the poverty limit for a family of that size, divided into 12 monthly payments over the course of a year. This prebate payment is to cover the cost of the consumption tax up to 100% spending of the poverty line for that family size.
Example 1:
presuming the poverty line for a single individual is $10,000, a single person household would get a prebate of (23% x 10,000) / 12, or $191.67 each month to cover the consumption tax. Consumption tax spent over the poverty line for that single person household would then be the responsibility of that person.
Example 2:
Presume a 5 person family poverty line is $30,000, that household will recieve a prebate of (23% x 30,000) / 12, or $575.00 each month to cover consumption taxes.
Example 3:
Lets take that same family of 5, and presume the household has an income of $50,000 (note not payroll, personal income taxes, medicare, etc taxes, they get 100% of check), and that family chose to spend 100% of their income on new goods and services. They would have ended up paying $11,500 in consumption tax over the course of the year. However, they also get their prebate for a family of 5 at the poverty level, which would be $6,900 over the year. This offsets the $11,500 in consumption tax, reducing the amount the household has to be responsible for down to $4,600 over the course of the year, or $383.33 monthly in inclusive consumption tax paid, presuming 100% of income spent on new goods and services.
Example 4:
Let us presume a wealthy individual that makes say, $250,000 a year. If that individual spent 100% of their income on new goods and services as in the above examples, this individual would have paid $57,500.00 in consumption taxes over the course of a year ($4,791.67 monthly in tax paid). However, this individual also gets their pretbate for the exact same amount as the person in example 1, as the poverty line for a single person is presumed in these examples to be $10,000. Thus this individual would recieve $2,300 a year ($191.67 monthly), to cover the consumption tax, reducing their tax to $55,200 yearly ($4,600 monthly).
Consumption tax liability covered by prebate assuming 100% spending on new goods and services:
Example 1: 100% covered by prebate, $0 out of pocket monthly tax expense
Example 2: 100% covered by prebate, $0 out of pocket monthly tax expense
Example 3: 60% covered by prebate, $383.33 out of pocket monthly tax expense
Example 4: 4% covered by prebate, $4,600 out of pocket monthly tax expense
Thus, a family living in poverty will never pay the consumption tax as it is covered by their prebate and wealthier households will spend considerably more with the same spending habbits.
Additional benefits include:
Tax free second hand market place, only new goods are taxed at retail.
No tax loopholes.
No more IRS
Corporate decis
Vote for different representatives, representatives that actually cut the budget. It has happened in the past and it's happening elsewhere.
As long as we have money in politics, does it matter if the rep is named Alice, Bob, or Charlie? They all vote with the money anyway. They're basically interchangeable. We MUST get the money out of politics.
No, what's regressive is watching an ever increasing amount of all wealth controlled by an ever smaller group of people.
That's just reverting to feudalism and pretending all is going well. We're moving back towards the rule of kings and the wealthy.
When your wealthy control your elections, your politicians, your laws, and your money ... your society is pretty much fucked.
The problem is idiots who act like this is the natural order of the universe and what we should aspire to.
And the drooling morons who have been propagating the lie of trickle down economics are the root cause. Sorry, but we regressed when we somehow decided that what was in the immediate interests of 1% of the people would some how have a carry over into improving the lives of the other 99%. It doesn't, it can't, and it never will.
Cutting the taxes on the most wealthy hasn't benefited the least wealthy. Unsurprisingly, it has only benefited the most wealthy, and the least wealthy now have even less.
That's basically theft, but done on an ideological basis you've convinced everybody was ethical and good and managed to institute as government policy as if it's rooted in fact. Here's a hint, economics isn't facts or science, it is ideology, pure and simple.
What you say is intellectually dishonest -- the only question is if you know you're lying to us, or you're actually lying to yourselves.
The last submission was met with positive/encouraging comments and a little skepticism, but now we have individuals overwhelmingly complaining that this is a "democrat PAC", a "leftist cause", or that it is somehow infringing on free speech rights. This is all absurd. A "democrat PAC" would not give you the option of limiting your pledge only to Republican candidates. The disgust with the influence of money in politics is not a "leftist" thing--there is just a minority trying to make it another left vs right thing by instilling the usual tribalistic hatred (most of the right hates money in politics just as much as the left does and knows how badly they are screwed by it). And the reforms the Mayday PAC supports do not infringe on free speech rights unless you believe there should be no equality to free speech--that the size of one's wealth should make one's voice much more likely to be heard.
As for the skepticism of whether or not it will work (assuming you think it's a problem in the first place--if not, enjoy your plutocracy):
First, what do you propose as an alternative? Unless you're advocating for a revolution, the solution needs to work within the system itself. Americans are very concerned about the influence of wealth in politics, but in order to transform that concern into a change in policy there need to be promising alternative candidates running on that issue (the current selection of candidates are quite reticent about it and rarely act on it because they know it threatens their re-election). Candidates that would actually like to remove the corrupting influence of wealth in politics cannot compete because one needs a lot of money to run a meaningful campaign (and the reforms supported by Mayday give such candidates a means based on support at local levels--e.g. matching funds systems). Therefore, these candidates rarely get any media attention and thus very few even know they exist or have any confidence in their success. What Mayday is trying to do is give candidates running on an issue that many Americans are concerned about a fighting chance within a system whose design is antithetical to resolving that issue. I'm all ears to your alternative solutions.
Second, while the skepticism is warranted, it is redundant. There is no solution to this problem that won't be unbelievably difficult in practice--Lessig is calling it a "moonshot" for a reason. If you look at each solution in isolation, all of them seem unreasonable and they always will until one of them by chance stumbles upon success. But this does not mean you should not act. Some solutions are less unreasonable than others and I believe Mayday PAC is one of them because it is one of the few that are working with the constraints and realities of the system in mind. And as a "kickstarter" it has been designed to reduce the risk to you as a supporter--the worst that can happen is that they raise $12 million dollars, the candidates they support are duds, and you lose $20. In the other negative case, you get to keep your $20.
But given the pent up disgust with politicians being unresponsive to the concerns of everyone except the large donors, I think Americans will respond very well to compelling candidates that make the issue of money in politics a top priority (and yes, "compelling," among other things, means well-financed--even if indirectly through a small dollar funded Super PAC) and whose financial backing does not compel them to act otherwise.
I don't doubt that Lessig et al. can achieve their goal, or that the FSF's lawyer does not know how to hoist the system with its own petard. I just question whether this initiative will effect any real change and not just lock in the outcomes and vast beauracracies of 100+ years of statism, socialism, and black budgets designed to make "capitalism" (definitely not "free enterprise") palatable to the electorate.
What outcomes other than structural changes in campaign financing does Lessig expect his effort to achieve? If it turns out to be a bad idea, can it easily be reversed? Where is the benefit to the little guy here, who putatively will have as much say as a bigshot, but who will still have to deal with crushing regulation and taxation? How does Lessig expect political inertia not to crush anyone with big capital behind them, regardless, assuming his initiative succeeds, and then is effective? How does this effort compare in any of these regards to alternatives to winner-take-all elections.
In short, has this effort really been thought through, and what are the likely agendas that would be served by it? Think I'll have to pass on it for now.
Ruin the government's credit and everything else fixes it's self.
The main problem is chumps buying Treasuries. That's us BTW, we're not buying them directly, but with 'our' SS trust fund.
Of course when the treasuries thing ends, they will print money. That's the end game.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
What you fail to realize is that the wealthy are not dragons that sit on their piles of money. Money has no value until it is trading hands. The "wealthy" do 2 things:
1) Spend their money
2) Invest their money to... MAKE MOAR MONEY!
Both these actions create jobs and spur the creation of businesses to produce things to be acquired and or consumed, and pay employees to produce or for services. Employees make money, investors try to invest wisely to make a positive return on the money invested, everyone wins with ZOMG! TRICKLE DOWN!
Money hidden under the mattress does no any good.
"The vast, vast majority of them inherited their wealth"
cnbc.com: Forbes says that 30 percent of the Forbes 400 members inherited their wealth and the remaining 70 percent are entirely “self-made.” And even by United for a Fair Economy's calculations, the number of "self-made" rich is rising. In 1997, the group calculated that 50 percent of the Forbes list inherited all or part of their fortune.
wikipedia: Sixteen percent of millionaires inherited their fortunes. Forty-seven percent of millionaires are business owners. Twenty-three percent of the world's millionaires got that way through paid work, consisting mostly of skilled professionals or managers.
cato institute: Roughly 80 percent of millionaires in America are the first generation of their family to be rich. They didn’t inherit their wealth; they earned it. How? According to a recent survey of the top 1 percent of American earners, slightly less than 14 percent were involved in banking or finance. Roughly a third were entrepreneurs or managers of nonfinancial businesses. Nearly 16 percent were doctors or other medical professionals. Lawyers made up slightly more than 8 percent, and engineers, scientists and computer professionals another 6.6 percent. Sports and entertainment figures — the folks flying in on their private jets to express solidarity with Occupy Wall Street — composed almost 2 percent. By and large, the wealthy have worked hard for their money. NYU sociologist Dalton Conley says that “higher-income folks work more hours than lower-wage earners do.”
Why on earth would anyone use a holiday celebrated by socialists as their marketing buzzword?
Knowing absolutely NOTHING about this effort, I'm instantly opposed to it on this basis alone.
This is like calling your new computer system the CyberStalin. Anyone who would do so is either ignorant, crazy, or evil.
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I've seen inklings of a smear campaign against this movement already, trying to exploit the same stupid red meat issues (abortion, gun control, taxes) to alienate potential supporters that would otherwise emphatically agree that corporations are not people and should no longer control our government.
I do wish them luck. They're gonna need it.
I've often wondered if officials should not be elected, but drafted, for a randomly selected period of service, divested of all holdings and assets, sequestered, and then shot or hung once their term has expired.
You mean if just about 100% of Americans are behind an idea and then someone funds that idea and puts up a candidate that stands for that idea and will actually do something about it in elected, then people fund it like crazy? What a concept! I mean seriously, all the people in office right now that are thinking they can do anything they want like vote for more NSA surveillance or openly take bribes from companies for net neutrality votes need a big, fat YOU'RE FIRED from the voters. That will remind them what's really what.
What you fail to realize is that the wealthy are not dragons that sit on their piles of money. Money has no value until it is trading hands. The "wealthy" do 2 things: 1) Spend their money 2) Invest their money to... MAKE MOAR MONEY!
Both these actions create jobs and spur the creation of businesses to produce things to be acquired and or consumed, and pay employees to produce or for services. Employees make money, investors try to invest wisely to make a positive return on the money invested, everyone wins with ZOMG! TRICKLE DOWN!
Money hidden under the mattress does no any good.
I agree that money only has value when it moves. But making more money does not necessarily create jobs. It might. Or it might not. One might make more money by doubling widget production capacity with twice the factories, twice the labor, etc. Or one might make more money by finding a way to make the same number of widgets with less labor, thus increasing profit. Maybe it's some of both. Money does not care how it is made. Capitalism means getting a return on capital. Sometimes the side effects of returning value to investors benefit those without the capital, too.
I am not a crackpot.
"OH, but then the corporations would rule and the evul robber barons of unfettered free market capitalism of yore would once again stride the earth, laissez faire style, and no longer have to work from behind the scenes through their oh-so-progressive trust fund grandchildren, trade unions, NGOs, community organizers, and so on."
Tweedle-Dum, Tweedle-Dee. We still have Pinkertons, either way. Where are the Wobblies when you need them?
The unions sure do...Opensecrets.org tracks political spending. In the top 25 organizations donating to candidates over the last few years, unions dominate the list and tilt almost exclusively Democrat. On the other hand, the few corporations in the top 25 tend to donate fairly evenly, favoring the ruling party.
Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014
This list includes the organizations that have historically qualified as "heavy hitters" — groups that lobby and spend big, with large sums sent to candidates, parties and leadership PACs. Individuals and organizations have been able to make extremely large donations to outside spending groups in the last few years.
Rank Organization Total '89-'14 Dem% Repub%
1 ActBlue
$102,669,137 99% 0%
2 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees
$61,819,929 80% 1%
3 National Education Assn
$58,988,290 56% 4%
4 AT&T Inc
$57,026,335 41% 57%
5 National Assn of Realtors
$55,559,528 41% 44%
6 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
$45,572,151 91% 2%
7 Goldman Sachs
$45,270,985 53% 44%
8 United Auto Workers
$41,923,428 71% 0%
9 Carpenters & Joiners Union
$41,577,299 71% 9%
10 Service Employees International Union
$38,711,298 84% 2%
11 Laborers Union
$38,401,420 83% 7%
12 American Federation of Teachers
$37,271,825 89% 0%
13 Communications Workers of America
$36,472,773 86% 0%
14 Teamsters Union
$36,355,957 88% 5%
15 JPMorgan Chase
Sorry, folks, but it is sooo easy to predict this will all amount to nothing, once Lawrence Lessig's name is mentioned.
Talk about your professional misdirection specialist, scion of wealth, the guy who couldn't be bothered to tell Aaron Swartz that federal prosecutors had dropped one of the punishments against Aaron they were pushing for --- namely forbidding Aaron from ever going online again, and then Aaron committed suicide!
Lawrence Lessig, the dood that attended the second-to-the-last Bilderberger forum, with senior executives of Stratfor and Palintir Technology --- you gotta be kidding me, if anyone takes anything serious about Lessig, he's the guy to coopt everything.
For some real news:
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/f...
...why they brought forth Lessig, the son of wealth and one of Wall Street's professional misdirection specialists, to do this.
You, in your superb analytical thinking, see right through this sham for what it is, while others, will be fooled and misled by a Lessig, or a Jeremy Rifkin, or a Kevin Philips, etc., etc., etc.
The revolution will not be foundation funded.
Your ignorance is their power.
.... even Warren Buffett thinks it's time to tax the rich --- sorry, Charlie, once again you've demonstrated you are one of the easily led sheeple.
Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway has been in federal tax court for years, fighting not to pay the zillions they owe in federal taxes.
Buffett was chair of Salomon Brothers, one of the premier Wall Street firms which lobbied for the adoption of what he calls "economic weapons of mass destruction" --- credit derivatives --- which Buffett then hired lobbyists to lobby against any oversight of them in the so-called Dodd-Frank economic reform legislation. You be all confused, dood!
One tiny little problem with all this: the very wealthy don't spend all their money on new goods and services. People with lesser incomes do. So essentially this exempts the rich from EVEN MORE taxes than they're exempt from now. It enshrines permanently shifting the tax burden downwards. That's the problem with well meaning but overly simple solutions.
Also, it's worth noting that this solution is supported by a lot of wealthy backers and corporations. They know how it will affect them, and they would be quite happy.
According to the CBO: "A corporation may write its check to the Internal Revenue Service for payment of the corporate income tax, but that money must come from somewhere: from reduced returns to investors in the company, lower wages to its workers, or higher prices that consumers pay for the products the company produces."
Corporate income taxes account for about $250-$200B in annual revenue. Compliance costs for business to determine how much tax they owe is also estimated at about $200-$300B annually. In other words, it costs corporations almost as much or maybe slightly more to determine how much they owe as they actually owe. Not to mention the inordinate amount of effort that goes into determining how to run the business when various tax considerations come into play (e.g. when to buy equipment, or hiring that 50th employee) instead of simply doing what's best for the business for business reasons rather than tax reasons. And virtually all of these taxes and compliance costs get passed on directly to consumers/labor/shareholders.
A huge amount of "corporate welfare" comes in the form of special tax breaks--eliminate the tax breaks and you eliminate the corporate welfare and the tens of millions of dollars of lobbyist money showered on politicians as they try to seek those special tax breaks.
Apart from the economic shot in the arm freeing up about $600B every year in the economy would be--and the increase tax revenues resulting from growth--the "cost" is largely recaptured as the dollars flow into personal income taxes (wages, dividends). Further, with the specter of double taxation removed, we could reset the CG rates to normal income rates.
The point relative the size of government here is that you take away a huge incentive for corporations to lobby for special tax treatment. That money flows out of the political system. Sure, corporations may find other things to lobby for, but special tax treatment seems to be #1 on the hit parade.
P.S. This will never happen because too many people think we need to punish corporations with taxes.
- "My computer is broken."
= "Throw it away."
Although you've technically resolved the initial problem, it's not a very good solution. I hope you realize that.
Because printing money in two steps is so much less efficient than printing it directly. They're already printing money, the government just uses the fiction of selling itself bonds to lay a very thin veneer over the process.
I call bullshit. (not to you personally, but the idea)
Money is NOT the issue. It has nothing at all to do with the problem.
The problem, my dear fellows, is accountability. Mainly the fact that the US in a general sense, has none. There are zero consequences for these guys when they break the law. In fact, there is only incentive for them to do it.
The answer? Simple.
Public service should be considered public service, regardless whether you "join" the military or attempt to "join" the congress. What happens in the military if you do something which is intentionally against the interest of your country? Best case, you are kicked out with a dishonorable discharge. Worst case, you're shot in the head.
Why should congress be different? They are in much more of a position to harm the entire country than a soldier. Yet, they do not swear allegiance. They are not required to live by any code? Why?
Why are these ass hats allowed to literally destroy America and yet nothing happens.
They should be made to live according to the UCMJ. When they fuck up, they are out. When the fuck up on purpose for money are power, they are shot.
Lots and lots of people imagine the wealthy hoarding their cash, a la McDuck's pool of gold coins (ever see the Family Guy were Peter tries that?!). They cannot imagine any positive impact deriving from people having wealth.
Of course, if *they* were to win $100M in the lottery, that'd be OK.
It's nice to be liked
But it's better by far to get paid
I know that most of the friends that I have don't really see it
That way
But if you could give 'em each one wish
How much do you wanna bet?
They'd wish success for themselves and their friends and
that would include lots of money
[Liz Phair: Shitloads of Money]
Right, because lobbying and funding political campaigns to influence what laws are instated will disappear because of the FairTax (tm). If you think tax breaks are the only thing these lobbyists are interested in, you are blissfully naive.
I said get LESS money in politics.
Obviously you will still have politicians throwing around our tax dollars at pet projects, wasteful social projects and such, but an awful lot of money goes into manipulating the tax code. Having a balanced budget amendment and not hamstringing the CBO with arbitrary limitations preventing accurate assessments would also go a long way.
So the money in all those accounts in various island states, Switzerland and Luxembourg is what, 'invested'?
Also, 'investing' in commodities isn't really investing. It's more like a currency exchange; the only jobs that such activities drive are in the financial sector.
Ultimately, an economy is demand-driven; if you want to stimulate a certain economy, you need to look at what that economy can provide (without to much extra effort) and then put money into the hands of the people that want what said economy can provide. That is very hard to do, because who knows what people will spend their money on?
One of the things we do know is that when it comes to 'buying local', poor people are a lot more effective than rich people (they tend to go for 'exclusive' and 'exotic' things).
No, you said: "a better plan to get less money in politics"
As long as a company has money burning in its pocket and ways and means to get it to people that can greatly influence the operations of that company, it will throw the money at those people. Parliaments must be held to the strictest of standards when it comes to corruption and nepotism, not stripped of power.
I would presume that yes, that money is invested by the banks that the money is stored in to generate money for the banks and pay interest to clients. In addition, the reason money is stored out of country is to avoid heavy income taxation. Removing income taxation and corporate taxation makes for an attractive environment for capital investment, spurring business creation and economic growth. In such an environment that is welcoming of wealth instead of punishing via taxation, people will repatriate their monies to such markets if they provide the opportunity for greater returns than sitting in some foreign bank. Greed is an excellent motivator in moving money to where it is most suited to making yet more money. No/Low Corporate, Income and Investment Tax friendly environments act as a beacon, places that take advantage of this benefit from an influx of money. All one has to do is look at movement and creation of new companies in states such as texas and florida with inviting tax climates, versus stagnation or worse in states with heavy income and corporate taxation and excessive regulation.
tl;dr version: get the government the hell out of the way let the money flow.
It's more like "the dog that bites me every day and eats my food is sick". Getting rid of it solves multiple problems.
In case you don't realize ... ALL TAXES are regressive. The fact that people think they are "progressive" is simply the result of not understanding the nature of taxes and legal tax avoidance. You see, while the poor STILL won't pay taxes, the middle class will STILL have the burden of taxes, and the rich will simply avoid taxes.
Taxes are a necessary evil, but that doesn't make them less evil if one tries (noisy way of doing nothing) make them "more fair". The best taxes are those that are voluntary, like Cigarette taxes. I can simply avoid taxes by NOT smoking. However, taxing things that everyone needs, like income, food, housing .... is pure evil, because one cannot avoid it, except to become a complete leech upon society.
I dare say that something like taxing soda at a rate that compensated society for the ills created by soda, would make our society healthier, as people would choose to avoid soda. This would suck for Pepsi and Coke, but it would reduce obesity voluntarily. You can go down the list of non-necessity items and tax them, letting people to Opt Out of taxes responsibly.
If you did this, you could fund every Social Program you wanted, while reducing the need for many of them by creating incentives to avoid taxes. Legalize pot, prostitution etc, and tax the crap out of them, and regulating them to death (legitimately). We would reduce our prison population dramatically while also being a benefit to society.
The problem isn't fair vs unfair taxes, it is taxes. Period. Make taxes voluntary.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The government (the fed actually) does buy a good chunk of bonds, which is just as you say. But there are still many chumps out there.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Sigh, you didn't bother to read what I posted in full, did you.
The Fair Tax is 100% voluntary. One only pays taxes when one purchases a *New* good or a service at the retail level. Purchase second hand, and there is no tax collected.
The "Fair" in fair taxes comes into play in that ALL NEW goods and services are taxed at the exact same rate, and that all households receive the prebate regardless of income level.
There are no exempt items except second hand.
There are no tax loopholes for the wealthy to avoid other than buying second hand.
There are no extra "sin" taxes to be manipulated by politicians for things such as sugary drinks or lessened rates for "good" things.
It's all flat at the same rate, for everything.
Under this system, the more one spends, the more tax is collected.
The hidden embedded tax costs of new products and services due to payroll, medicare, and corporate taxes inflating price no longer exists. Thus the price drops. Then a line item is added to the receipt for a 22-23% Inclusive (as opposed to exclusive) tax. The brings the price of the good or service back to within 1% of it's starting price before such a plan went into effect, only now it is in the open on the receipt, and only collected at retail so an item is only taxed once.
"Now good sir" one might say, "if the embedded taxes disappear, what's to stop companies from keeping the current price and adding the inclusive tax on top of what currently exists and pocketing the difference?"
Greed my dear friend, Wonderful Greed. As soon as a competitor figures out that they can undercut others that pocket the difference from the original price, they will start a race to the minimum price to sell more than the competition, which will balance out at the point of not having pocketed the difference in the first place.
The Fair Tax is about equal treatment for everyone and everything under tax law, not what some politician likes or dislikes.
"The "Fair" in fair taxes comes into play in that ALL NEW goods and services are taxed at the exact same rate"
This is hardly fair. The premise of the fair tax is that government has a right to take money from people. It doesn't. I would consider taxes to be violation of the Fourth Amendment, of unreasonable seizure.
Besides, I'm not buying used underwear. Nope not gonna do it.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I would presume that yes, that money is invested by the banks that the money is stored in to generate money for the banks and pay interest to clients
So the best way to get an economy to flourish is to have everybody put their money into savings accounts and not buy anything anymore?
Do you have any idea why the concept of inflation is popular among economists?
Anyway, the problem is that it is just not doable to get wealthy people to spend money the way you want them to. The thing is that they are very good at managing their money and have the resources to do so. Dislike it as much as you want, but a lot of the economy is driven by (non-wealthy) people buying stuff they don't really need (instead of investing their money for the highest ROI and instead of finding loop holes to avoid losing their money).
Really now? It's just a sick aggressive dog that is unnecessary?
How do you envision your world without (meaningful) government? How would that work?
OK, but whose interests - how many individuals - does Goldman-Sachs represent? A handful of obscenely wealthy investment bankers? Versus any of the unions listed, which politics aside, represent a much larger group of people representing a MUCH larger proportion of American society? The fact these two are listed together should be an alarm bell ...
The Anti-Corruption Act would go a long way towards helping. Lobbying is the major way that corporations influence legislation, and it needs to be completely stopped. It needs to be criminalized.
It will just get struck down, like every other anti-lobbying and campaign funding measure that has finally gotten to the courts.
This is because lobbying is a Constitutional Right. It is called "Free Speech" and "Petitioning the Government for redress of Greviances".
People do NOT lose their free speech and (especially) political activity rights when they are acting in a group, regardless of whether the group is a club, a political movement, or a business.
But such measures, once passed, can do enormous harm before they finally make it to court and being struck (after which another is passed and the cycle repeats). The rich and connected can hire lawyers to find their way through the latest maze of regulations, fill out the bales of forms correctly, defend themselves in court if challenged and bring suits to finally get the laws overturned. Meanwhile we little guys are hosed.
These laws may be well intentioned. Or they may be intended. from the start, to paralyze grass roots efforts while appearing to block undue influence by the rich. But they always give the advantage to big-money and big-connections and always penalize us little guys.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Technically, our current system is "voluntary" as well.
See what happens if you don't volunteer to pay.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I said "drastically smaller". That's not the same thing as "without".
A drastically smaller government, for example, wouldn't include a Department of Housing and Urban Development. Housing is a personal, or at most, a local problem.
A drastically smaller government wouldn't include a Department of Education. Education is an individual or family issue. Teaching and learning are simple, harmless transfers of knowledge. They should not be governed or policed. Central government has no legitimate role in education.
Agriculture is local. Unless there's a pandemic, Health and Human Services are local. Transportation -- at least road and train transportation -- is local. Street crime is local. Central government is mostly not needed for these things.
Central government has legitimate roles: national defense, minting a currency, international diplomacy, etc. If central government stuck to doing things we really need the central government for, it would be drastically smaller, much less expensive, and there would be a lot fewer opportunities for corrupt officials and congressmen.
That something occurs locally, doesn't mean that it is efficient to govern it locally.
Calling train transportation or education 'local' is absolutely retarded. Good luck running an economy with people that have diplomas like 'Smartest kid in the world. Signed, mom' or getting trains to run on railways with different widths.
The Romans figured out why centralized government works for a lot of aspects in life 2000 years ago. You should take (or at least fucking read) a page from their book.
Also, you should appreciate what centralized government has already done for you personally instead of taking it for granted.
Much as I don't like taxation myself, Article 1 Section 8 would like to disagree with you.
Of course, this only applies to indirect taxation (which we can both agree is prefer, and is what the Fair Tax is). direct taxation (income/property tax) didn't come until later.
That something occurs locally, doesn't mean that it is efficient to govern it locally.
Just because something occurs, that doesn't mean it needs to be governed at all. For the most part, people can live their own lives without a government mommy watching and second guessing everything they do.
And are you really trying to claim our huge central government is "efficient"? It must be really, really efficient for all that efficiency to outweigh the corruption.
Good luck running an economy with people that have diplomas like 'Smartest kid in the world. Signed, mom' or getting trains to run on railways with different widths.
Economies aren't "run". Individuals make individual choices.
Standardization regularly happens without government edict. The government didn't write the standard for email, for example, but there's still a more-or-less universal standard. It was all done without threats, without police, without graft, without government hearings, without bailouts for the losing technologies, and without paying an email tax.
The Romans...
...died and their empire crumbled. Their centralized government didn't save them.
Also, you should appreciate what centralized government has already done for you personally instead of taking it for granted.
I do appreciate what they do. It's just not worth the cost. I appreciate a good hamburger. I don't want to pay $2000 for a good hamburger. I don't appreciate being policed and regulated and threatened and spied on and otherwise oppressed in return for the opportunity to get on a waiting list buy a good hamburger for $2000.
uh... what? what in the name of delicious bacon are you talking about?
You're clearing leaping to ludicrous inferences and conclusions.
Money in banks does not sit stagnant. It moves around to create more money to fund the bank and pay interest on accounts.
Anyway, the problem is that it is just not doable to get wealthy people to spend money the way you want them to.
Let's get one thing clear. It's THEIR money. No one has to spend money in a way you believe would be more beneficial or efficient. You have no claim over it. If you want someone of any level of wealth to transition THEIR money in a direction you desire, you must entice them via exchange of goods or services that person believes is equivalent (or better) in value, or show that you can make them a profitable return on their capital investment.
When one tries to force, via seizing or forfeiture of assets, those assets are going to move away from the source of that force very quickly.
Taxation of assets is tolerable to a degree until the taxed feel that the services paid for by taxation no longer benefit their interests or exceeds that individual's tolerance level for taxation. Once the threshold has been passed, individuals move their assets to a more tolerable environment. This is why wealth flees heavily taxed states.
The attitude that one is misusing wealth by spending (or not spending) according to another person's desires is arrogant, classist, statist, and morally evil.
Good DAY, sir.
I dunno about that.
I would classify "voluntary" as indirect taxation.
Direct taxation such as income or property tax is significantly less "voluntary". tho granted, until the ACA, I could "choose" not to work or own taxable property and not be taxed simply for existing.
Just because something occurs, that doesn't mean it needs to be governed at all. For the most part, people can live their own lives without a government mommy watching and second guessing everything they do.
For the most part, people live their own lives relying on running water, roads, electricity, safety standards for food, cars and houses, centralized conflict resolution and prevention. Wherever you are: take a look around you and realize that there are loads of things that would be an absolute fucking mess if there wasn't some regulation making sure it wouldn't be. I'm talking about child labor, carcinogens in toys for children, rampant crime, etc.
The layer of civilization is very, very thin and fragile. Living in the jungle is cool, until you get eaten by a tiger or poisoned by a venomous insect.
Economies aren't "run".
Yes, they are. Interest rates are set, tax rates are set, legislation around working is set up, crises are dealt with, etc. You can believe the fairy tale that an economy without rules benefits the people, but it would be just that: a fairy tale.
The government didn't write the standard for email, for example, but there's still a more-or-less universal standard.
Actually, ARPANET was pretty important in the development of SMTP.
The Romans...
...died and their empire crumbled. Their centralized government didn't save them.
Yeah. One of the main reasons the empire fell is because it became so big that it became hard to keep the distant parts of the empire in check (information pretty much traveled at the speed of a horse). They found a real physical limitation to their political structure. Not some made up bullshit story about 'big government' always being 'inefficient'.
I do appreciate what they do. It's just not worth the cost. I appreciate a good hamburger. I don't want to pay $2000 for a good hamburger. I don't appreciate being policed and regulated and threatened and spied on and otherwise oppressed in return for the opportunity to get on a waiting list buy a good hamburger for $2000.
The thing is: you have no idea how it would be like without that hamburger. Would you want to eat dog poop every day for $2?
Because that's what you're looking at: something really cheap and really shitty.
You didn't answer my questions.
When one tries to force, via seizing or forfeiture of assets, those assets are going to move away from the source of that force very quickly.
Taxation of assets is tolerable to a degree until the taxed feel that the services paid for by taxation no longer benefit their interests or exceeds that individual's tolerance level for taxation. Once the threshold has been passed, individuals move their assets to a more tolerable environment. This is why wealth flees heavily taxed states.
So you agree with taxation, but not more than what people feel benefits their interests? Protip: the only place feelings have in science is when they are the subject of investigation.
I'll tell you something else: the concept of 'stealing' does not exist in the animal world. It's simply about who is able to dominate who. As highly intelligent, social and cooperative species, we have created laws that have us all respect possession because it benefits society as a whole. Never forget that it's not about the money or the things, but about living in a society that functions well and promotes progress and prosperity. My point is: we need to make sure that our system of government, our monetary system and our laws in general work towards that, instead of mentally clinging to a manufactured absolute concept of "what's yours is yours".
You're basically selling a really terrible system by making up FUD about the bad things that might happen if there are any changes. What branch of government writes your paychecks?
FUD? You mean history.
You're a spoiled brat and don't realize that at all.
And you're defending corruption and graft and repression. Because "efficiency" and what if bogeymen come?!?
Plus you skipped the part of "history" where governments slaughtered 100s of millions of innocent people and enslaved tens of millions more.
And you're defending corruption and graft and repression.
Bullshit. Go ahead: quote me where I did that.
Plus you skipped the part of "history" where governments slaughtered 100s of millions of innocent people and enslaved tens of millions more.
What the fuck are you talking about, man? There's a difference between 'big government' and totalitarian genocidal dictatorships.
You should really try to get over your irrational, perpetual and unwavering disliking for the word 'government'. It's a sign of indoctrination.
There's a difference between 'big government' and totalitarian genocidal dictatorships.
Are you OK with totalitarian dictatorships as long as they're not genocidal?
What's the dividing line between "big government" and "totalitarian" anyway? How do we keep a government with few limits from becoming a government with very few limits or no limits? Wishful thinking?
The current government is already spying on us all and sending the IRS after political enemies. Farm policies, defense spending, tariffs and import restrictions, immigration policies, financial regulations, clean energy loan guarantees, and environmental regulations are already for sale for campaign cash or non-cash campaign support. This is big government. This is what happens.
Do you think you can somehow magically get all the good things and none of the bad things? If you have the magic power to bring about this utopia, why aren't you using it?
Are you OK with totalitarian dictatorships as long as they're not genocidal?
What's the dividing line between "big government" and "totalitarian" anyway?
Really?
Really??
Are you really equating 'big government' and 'totalitarian government'?
The world is not black and white, you know?
How do we keep a government with few limits from becoming a government with very few limits or no limits? Wishful thinking?
Functioning democracy.
The US doesn't have that. And that is your problem, not 'big government'.
The current government is already spying on us all and sending the IRS after political enemies. Farm policies, defense spending, tariffs and import restrictions, immigration policies, financial regulations, clean energy loan guarantees, and environmental regulations are already for sale for campaign cash or non-cash campaign support. This is big government. This is what happens.
Not where I live.
Checkmate.
Not where I live.
Where is that? If you're not talking about the US, then everything you've said is 100% useless.
The US has a unique culture with unique problems. Big government can work in a largely homogeneous society, where there exists broad agreement on some cultural norms, a genuinely independent press, and some other unifying virtues. That's not the US. The US can't become Switzerland or Norway or Germany or Denmark. Pretending we can is a stupid waste of everyone's time.
Small government works in the US. Big Government does not.
So I take it that you have no problem with big government on a state level?
Or do we need to go even smaller? Municipal level?
Your idea of how 'homogeneous' countries with 'big government' are is wrong and a cop out. It has nothing to do with managing and deciding things on a larger scale, which is extremely effective for a lot of things in life. Your fundamental thinking error is that because an implementation of an influential government is broken in the US, that the concept of an influential government is broken.
It isn't. You just suck at it.
Don't get me wrong. It's not easy. Humans are generally greedy, selfish, violent, short-sighted animals. We need to keep ourselves in check and prevent ourselves from making mistakes. One only need to look as far as the tragedy of the commons to understand why government is the way to do that.
You don't have "functioning democracy". You come from a nation that is borderline totalitarian, and your ridiculous political ideas are the result of indoctrination in your schools, coupled with almost complete ignorance about US history or society.
Government should be as small and as local as necessary to do its job. That's not a US obsession, it's part of the Maastricht treaty and a fundamental principle of many European nations.
Yes, each of us need to keep themselves in check; and if we fail to do so, we automatically pay the price.
Greedy, selfish, violent, and short-sighted guys like you, however, want to take away other people's rights, liberties, and stuff. And because others generally resist that, you come up with all sorts of convoluted rationalizations for your political goals.
The tragedy of the commons is a speculative and vague idea, not a proven economic law. Even if it were on more solid footing, it wouldn't apply to most things people do, and there is no shred of evidence that "big government" is the only solution to that supposed dilemma, or even that it is a solution at all. The "tragedy of the commons" is really simply a toy argument that people of your political persuasion use to justify their greedy, selfish, violent, and short-sighted policies.