Slashdot Mirror
2016 Election Cycle Led By Billionaire Donors
Nicola Hahn writes: The pluralist stance of American politics contends that true power in the United States has been constitutionally vested in "the people" through mechanisms like the electoral process, freedom of speech, and the ability to establish political parties. The traditional view is that these aspects of our political system result in a broad distribution of power that prevents any one faction from gaining an inordinate amount of influence. And today the New York Times has revealed the shortcomings of this narrative by publishing the names of the 158 wealthy families that have donated almost half of the money spent towards the 2016 presidential race. This group of donors is primarily Republican and is dominated by interests in the banking industry. These facts lend credence to the idea that national policy making is influenced heavily by a relatively small group of people. That the American body politic is largely controlled by a deep state.
Today, the New York Times published a damning report on the portion of water that is wet, showing that 100% of water molecules are, in fact, quite wet. The report even tested salt water and brine water, which were also wet. This report may shed light on the traditional view that water is dry.
You'd have to be dumb to think otherwise....
All about money!
Unless they're directly buying votes, then that remains true. I'm not sure why we're equating advertising dollars with votes, because they aren't the same thing.
Take for example the Colorado state senate recall election a few years back: 11 times the amount of money was spent lobbying in favor of the incumbents as there was for the newcomers, yet the incumbents lost anyways.
Larry Lessig found this out the hard way, he assumed (very stupidly I might add) that he could just buy votes for his mayday campaign. Instead he found out that every candidate he spent money on that won was already likely to win anyways, and the rest lost.
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, I tell you!
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
What is there that compels anybody to vote for their spoon fed candidates?? Where is the gun? This is all nothing but blame passing.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
According to the FEC, contributions to Democrats so far total US$64.2 million, while contributions to Republicans total US$61.2 million. Hillary Clinton has received US$47.1 million, more than the top three Republican candidates combined. (Not surprising, given the fragmentation of the Republican field).
The summary's breathless implication that "rich Republican bankers are buying the Presidency" doesn't appear to reflect the facts.
To learn gambling is taking place in this establishment!!!
The solution is so easy that most of the democracies have taken it.
Once you get past the Pavlovian reaction to "socialist", you'll find that he is the only candidate NOT dropping to his knees in front of the latest batch of plutocrats. If nor no other reason, a victory for him would be a victory for democracy remaining in the hands of the people.
The truth of it isn't interesting, to me. It's that this sort of guillotine-bait is being publicized when the 'deep state' OP cites, is specifically interested in having no such information be available.
I think it just goes to show the power of the whistleblower, and the instability of extreme injustice. When it gets this obnoxious, it's as fragile as it appears impregnable. Kind of like the USSR, which more or less imploded and balkanized.
News is the interface between the information and the act of communicating it. In this case the information is very old news to anyone who's been studying the world for a while, but the act of communicating it is strikingly different. This is off-script, and doesn't serve the interests of the 'deep state'.
Confirmed.
Well, with so much regulation, taxation, and rent seeking, "when the means of production are bought and sold, the first thing bought and sold is the legislature."
Translation: If the goverment didn't have such intrusive powers to begin with, especially into the economy, there wouldn't be such fights to wield its power.
inb4 someone yelpz about corporations being citizens with speech rights, needing yet another belabored explanation of the actual Supreme Court ruling.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
About half will vote Democrat because they're Democrats. About half will vote Republican because they're Republicans. If the Democrats or Republicans feel disheartened about their candidate, they'll just stay home, and 20% or less of voters will actually turn out to vote. The politicians and point-one-percenters are treating Americans like little bitches because they are little bitches. This situation will continue until that stops being the case.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Bernie Sanders 2016.
Paid for by the People. Not the Billionaires.
It's those Sheeple blindly following all the SJWs in the MSM, I tell you!
For presidential races after 1900 turnout is usually 50-60%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
meep
https://www.opensecrets.org/pr...
bernie sanders largest contribution out of ~15 million is 15,000 from google.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
You usually post pro-republican articles to the front page, but with this one you forgot to tell us why this is a GOOD thing. Are you feeling OK? This is highly out of character for you.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
No one should "believe in climate change", unless it's part of your religion (which apparently for you it is). Climate change is either provable or not, it's not a matter of belief for anyone science minded.
... ask Yourself how much You donated to campaigns last time around. If the answer is zero, You are a politically lazy fuck and have no ethical right to complain.
If the french revolution is ever to repeat itself, that article would serve as a handy list of those who need to be brought to justice.
Also, wtf is it with posting as an AC? Way to make it almost impossible /.
> Climate change is either provable or not
Yeah, whatever, I'm sure you're all about the science. No scientific theories are *provable*, gravity, evolution, whatever, they're all theories. It's just that the preponderance of evidence that makes them some theories more likely than others.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
The Koch Brothers do not believe in climate change, or in any public policy that would do anything to mitigate it.
Oh, the Koch Brothers believe in climate change, alright. They realize how damaging the reality is to their business interests. That's why they funnel so much money in to conservative candidates and PR groups to create the false impression that there is serious scientific debate.
Suzanne Goldenberg of the London Guardian reports that "conservative billionaires used a secretive funding route to channel nearly $120 million . . . to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change," helping to "build a vast network of think tanks and activist groups working to a single purpose: to redefine climate change from neutral scientific fact to a highly polarizing 'wedge issue' for hardcore conservatives."
What pleases me is that no amount of money can keep the current set of Republican presidential candidates from self-destructing every time they open their mouths. The GOP should heed Bobby Jindal's advice to "stop being the stupid party."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Let them, it's obvious the authorities are too corrupt to do anything, but also name them and make their addresses known, just like we know those of regular voters.
You seem to be omitting the part where they use that money to alter the system to favor their acquisition of more wealth, while moaning about the poor with no "skin in the game"
same as it ever was.
Those who think MOAR government is MOAR better (including Comrade Sanders) have another think coming.
That's a generalization that is sometimes fair, sometimes not. Rich people occasionally throw their money at unprofitable things for principled reasons. Anyway, by making this bald generalization, you definitely have the class warfare/envy shtick down, so I guess thanks for illustrating my point.
it's about controlling. You're viewing the money issue in a vacuum, assuming it's the only factor at work here. The key to politics is to get out the vote. It's to make people who have a hundred other things to worry about and are exhausted at the end of the day drag their tired asses to the polls and vote. You do that with advertising. You make sure they don't forget to vote after their second shift at the Arby's or after the meds that keep their heart pumping kick in.
There's more to it. You Gerrymander so the people who vote against you don't count. You shut down pulling offices so they can't vote. You make it so signing up to vote gets them Jury duty they can't afford to serve. When you're a billionaire with an entire society's wealth at your disposal you can hedge your bets.
There's two really easy solutions to this. a. You're not allowed to donate to a politician you can't vote for and you're not allowed to buy advertisement in a race you can't vote in. There's your free speech issue solved. b. Mandatory voting. It's like Jury duty on steroids. Everyone over 18 votes unless their declared legally incompetent.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
(taken out of context, article is hugh, reference numbers removed)
"Looking back at the past two decades, U.S. intervention in the Middle East has failed to “spread democracy” or win the “war on terror.” It has only succeeded in creating more instability, more conflict, and more enemies. After spending $25 billion to equip and train Iraqi security forces, our military ends up bombing its own equipment to fend off CIA-armed jihadist forces in anticipation of providing even more military aid to the Kurds.
One thing is certain: the Middle East is awash with armaments supplied by the United States."
http://dissidentvoice.org/2014...
Sometimes one needs to see it in print...
It can't be! Jews are the eternal victims!
Unfortunately, their money doesn't all come from their own labors, so you have to ask where it does come from.
So people elected by 15% of the eligible population ends up as the Representative. No wonder they don't listen to you. You did not elect them. 85% of America did not elect them. You find it in the polls. 85% of America has negative opinion of their Reps.
If mere 15% more people arm themselves with facts, start showing up in the polling booth, register as independents to vote for the best candidate from either party, the influence of money on the politics will wane. Don't blame the rich people for being jerks. Blame the non-so-rich people for being lazy and ignorant.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Money works on elections that people don't care about, like obscure local elections. When it comes to the presidential election, people are going to take the time to choose their issues, and guys. Bloomberg tried to moneybomb gun control opponents in Colorado. The gun control opponents won.
"you definitely have the class warfare/envy shtick down," ..and you have the "you're just jealous" mantra down.
If you want to change the system then you have to be involved a lot sooner than voting day.
And it all starts at the grassroots level.
Don't simply vote for the "lesser evil" in your local elections. Get out and help campaign for someone whom you could actually support.
Get your friends together and form your own voting bloc.
Schedule time to meet with the candidates. Even the ones who "have no chance".
MAKE the change instead of waiting for someone who's already bought to do so for you. Because that isn't going to work.
Money gets people elected because most people are suckers for a convincing television ad. Now if someone doesn't accept bribes(campaign contributions), they can't get elected because they don't have enough money for advertisements. The way the system works is that honest people who won't accept bribes don't have a chance.
Be that as it may, you can still meet lots of cool friends and get a good education in the USA. We've had a corrupted system by money since at least the late 1800s judging by political comics, but still living as a citizen of the USA is better than any other country.
The thing I hate most is how politics and the illusion of choice has to make people so argumentative. I guess right wing vs left wing news needs to make people argue, otherwise grassroots campaigns can start up. It's just sad seeing someone brain washed with right or left wing propaganda and always living life angry.
God spoke to me
In one form of dictatorship, the dictators select the candidates who will stand for election. This is the system in Iran. The people dutifully vote for one or the other candidate.
Here, if one can control who can reach the general election, you stand a decent chance of profiting from whoever wins the election.
Lessig talked about this in his notable TED talk which discussed the very issue of a very few, very wealthy people controlling the primary system, leading to election of the candidates they favor.
The problem is, when you undermine the electoral system, you undermine the rule of law.
Hillary Clinton has FAR more money than every other candidate despite having higher disapproval ratings than every other candidate, and this article calls out 'those darn rich Republicans'. When you learn that journalists political donations are 90/10 Democrat, nothing surprises you anymore.
The rich just LOVE being in a position of power over the "poor". Which is why pretty much every White president the US had are all at least millionaires...
And with that first comment, you perfectly demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of the desire for a just society. Up until the seventies, the blue collar middle class grew and thrived. People could work a single job and buy a house, raise a family, live a modest lifestyle, and be perfectly content. But since then those with wealth used it to undermine that culture, and thus began the decades-long erosion of the middle class and working families, all while those with wealth saw their prospects improve.
Now you have families where both parents work two or three jobs and still can't improve their economic outlook. There's much less opportunity to start a business. I'm not saying none, but much, much less. People just want a chance to give their children more than they had, to take risks to get ahead, to see their labor rewarded. Instead of taxing the rich more I'd much rather see a livable wage—or better still—a basic income guarantee that would bring these opportunities back to all of society.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
"There are 120 million households, and 158 spend half of what is spent, an amount that's only $176 million. If all of the households in America gave just $5, that would be $600 million, vastly overwhelming those supposedly fearsome, overspending, rich, white men. That money could be given directly to that candidate (since it comes, obviously, nowhere near the limit)". - Ann Althouse
The people forget how much power they have and the media is intent on making certain they don't remember.
we will instinctively protect the in-group even when it makes no rational sense to do so.
I'm not so sure that it is entirely true. The problem is that the "in-group" make it very much in the rational, self-interest of whomever gets into power to support that in-group. What you need are politicians in power who are willing to go against their own self-interest and act in the interests of the people they represent. These are a rare breed and getting rarer since, when one appears, the "in-group" do all they can to stop them getting into power and/or corrupt them.
The result is a choice between politicians who will not act against the in-group and, because of the huge power and influence of that group, very little chance of that ever changing unless something severely damaged the in-group's power which, in our case, would probably need to be something like an economic collapse of biblical proportions.
If it was all so damn obvious to everyone, why the hell haven't you done anything about it yet? Because it's either you're really into corruption and want it there or you're sarcasm needs recalibrating.
It is illegal for an individual to give more than $2600 to any one candidate for any particular election. So, it matters not if someone is a blue collar bolt-turner at GM, or Donald Trump himself. Neither can give more than $2600 to a candidate's campaign.
Given that there are articles like this,
http://www.express.co.uk/news/...
You might be correct.
If that's true why did we bail out the banks?
Get up!
i am waiting for a revolutionary solution that does not include death, in some form or sort.
sorry, but as a member of the left, usually a victim in political violence, over the "rightist warfare corporatist" wing of our country... don't deny it. it is true...
that we have to take the brunt of this thuggish, terrorist violence, over a more peaceful pushback. (something i often find myself unable to excuse - the "pillow-hugging rainbow-unicorn" form of peaceful protest.)
the lie is that, corporations aren't violent. we're already waaaayy beyond govt's being violent...
corporations can be violent.
is there disagreement?
Jagdish Shukla got 63.5 million dollars from the National Science Foundation. That's just one climate scientist. How much has Michael Mann gotten? I'm pretty sure he's gotten more than Jagdish.
But keep promoting the view that the Koch Brothers and big Oil are polluting the well.
OK, but I'm not rich*. Just trying to be fair.
* At least, not for an American. Large-ish family, single income.
You got me. I think such meddling was a mistake.
Now you have families where both parents work two or three jobs and still can't improve their economic outlook.
I'll grant that there are some families like that. Most in that situation shoot themselves in the foot by spending beyond their means.
I was hoping to see some left leaning stars over there. After all, the lowest places on every list are composed from donations way cheaper than some of their eccentricities. That could be caused by different causes, a disconnection between mouth and wallet maybe?
So basically, you just told everyone here that rich people control the us goverment?
YOU DONT SAY?
Shoddy reporting.
Does the New York Times analysis include the fact that a lot of their coverage is basically an "in kind" contribution to the guys they favor? This is the problem with Lawrence Lessig. Him and the rest of the anti-Citizens United crew are thinking that without political advertising, the only things the people will hear is what the professional media tells them. And they're betting that the media will continue to act on behalf of the candidates Lessig and the rest support. This story, which takes the activists at their word instead of what they are transparently doing, is the kind of story Team Lessig is counting on.
Depends how you define "wet".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What do people think of the idea of candidates being limited to a hard dollar amount they can spend on their campaign, regardless of the source of the money? 'Buying' an election is ludicrous at best, criminal at worst, if you ask me.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
The real news is that the mainstream media (NYT) is reporting on it. Also, that money is influential is obvious, but the degree to which it is influential is finally being measured. With numbers backing up observation, and MSM exposure, something may have to be done about it.
Online tech forums are fond of saying the MSM is a puppet of government. Here we have an instance where it isn't.
That's news for nerds.
A few billionaires and corporations buy ad time...it seems to me they are the balance to the spending by unions. I notice many posts here decry the Koch brothers, but never say a peep about Tom Steyer or Michael Bloomberg, who each individually outspent the Koch brothers or George Soros who was not far behind Kochs in last cycle.
And since when is ad time equal to votes? My guess is 99.999% of all political ads never change anyone's mind; at best they solidify existing patterns of voting and maybe ensure that the base turns up to vote.
Top All-Time Donors
OpenSecrets.org's historically researched organizations
Rank Organization Total All Cycles
1 Service Employees International Union $222,434,657
2 ActBlue $160,637,963
3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $93,830,657
4 National Education Assn $92,972,656
5 Fahr LLC $75,289,659
6 American Federation of Teachers $69,757,113
7 Las Vegas Sands $69,440,942
8 National Assn of Realtors $68,683,359
9 Carpenters & Joiners Union $67,778,534
10 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $63,572,836
That's possible, but I haven't read any studies to assess whether it's most or some or few. The problem is that those families used to be able to work a reasonable amount and still spend the same. And it's not like they're buying yachts when they shouldn't; they're eating at McDonald's instead of cooking at home because they have no time or prioritize having at least some leisure time left after working.
It's phrased as the poor wanting to steal the hard-earned money from the wealthy. But that completely ignores the fact that the wealthy have used their power to alter the system to get more of the income gains over the past few decades. In a sense, they stole the hard-earned money from the middle class to make them poor and now whine that the poor insist on having a decent life and call it class warfare. The class war was forty years ago, and the wealthy won.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Top All-Time Donors
OpenSecrets.org's historically researched organizations
Rank Organization Total All Cycles
1 Service Employees International Union $222,434,657
2 ActBlue $160,637,963
3 American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $93,830,657
4 National Education Assn $92,972,656
5 Fahr LLC $75,289,659
6 American Federation of Teachers $69,757,113
7 Las Vegas Sands $69,440,942
8 National Assn of Realtors $68,683,359
9 Carpenters & Joiners Union $67,778,534
10 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $63,572,836
When Wall Street paid for Senator Clinton's campaign, she "represented" 20 million New Yorkers, and saw 0.000001% of them face-to-face. She DID spend face time with Wall Street bankers, she didn't spend (unscripted) face-to-face time with "normal" people. Senators generally don't do that much.
My state representative represents 167,000 people, is my neighbor, and sees me once a week at church.
Who do you think is more influenced by Wall Street bankers vs influenced by people like you and I - my neighbor, who is my state rep and sits two rows down at church, or my federal senator? My state rep has never met any of the Wall street bankers who bankroll federal candidates.
At an even more local level, my city councilman represents a district of about 8,000 people. He's my daughter-in-law's brother. I have his phone number. He's also never met a Wall Street banker.
If you're going to complain about the Koch brothers or other republican billionaires donating to their politicians or causes, and say that's a bad thing, it is at least reasonable to expect a fair person to be consistent and similarly list Tom Steyer, Michael Bloomberg and George Soros among the people corrupting the systems. If you complain about corporation, the exact same complaints need to be levied against unions; and, also admit that the Daily Kos and the New York Times are for-profit corporations.
Listing only one side or the other just makes you a partisan who just thinks it's bad that the other side gets to fight back in kind.
it's an age old observation about democracies. Plenty of folks have had it. Canada did, and it's one of the reasons they have a parliament instead of a two party system. That way when some numbskull votes for the lizards they're drowned out by rational folks. See, Democracy works, but like any system it can also be broken...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This corporation provides its endorsements in print "ads" that would cost candidates millions to buy otherwise.
But the NYT consistently takes the position that for-profit corporations providing endorsements to politicians is evil.
All the time refusing to count itself among the evil-doers.
I real United Nations as - planet wide for all of us. On this little rock, by the little star. Just a speck in the galaxy. Time to evolve or else.
Get up!
and his basic strategy: Whatever you are your opponent is +1. That's how they convinced the right to vote for a draft dodger (Bush) over someone who actually served in 'Nam (Kerry). The second part of that strategy is that no matter how crazy what you say is you _always_ double down. If you make a lie big enough and stick to it folks just can't believe you'd keep lying. To this day Cheny will tell you we found WMDs in Iraq and that Waterboarding got us valuable intel, even though both are demonstrably false. It's just too hard to believe someone would lie about that so convincingly....
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
But we're also acknowledging reality and the truth about wealth inequality. And yes, Americans have classes. If you dont' believe me then take a trip to your local high income neighborhood in an economy car from the mid 2000s sometime and see how long it takes for a cop to stop you.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Gravity is provable, there is a huge list of experiments and data that have done this. I think your confusing the idea that real science must be provable and have the ability to be false. Just because we haven't pinned down gravity's exact mechanism doesn't mean it's voodoo. We'll need a more powerful collider most likely to get further down than the Higgs.
I get the point that you're making, but how many representatives can live near enough to their representative to be their neighbor? All 167,000 of them?
More likely is the city councilman being a relative of sorts. All 8,000 people being somehow related, somewhat less likely.
It sounds like you live in a very exclusive area, where most people don't have a chance to hob-nob. You had some sort of point, but I guess it was about how awesome it is to be connected politically, or about how much money you make to be able to afford a house where you live.
Lots of people have never met a Wall St banker. A state representative in New York maybe, but otherwise, what's your point? City councilman anywhere other than the 5 largest cities? Not likely.
I can't even start to explain how stupid your comment is, how unrelatable to anyone else completely at all.
> Lots of people have never met a Wall St banker. A state representative in New York maybe, but otherwise, what's your point? City councilman anywhere other than the 5 largest cities? Not likely.
How likely that ALL of the 100 US Senators have had lunch with Wall Street bankers and their lobbyists? Approximately 100%. So, would you rather have most laws be made by:
a) people who hang out with Wall Street bankers and lobbyists.
b) People who hang out with your dad
Federal politicians - US senators and house reps, hang with banker and lobbyists. State and local reps hang out with your dad, your teacher, or your pastor. You may not have spoken to your state rep personally (though you can call or email any time if you choose to), but you probably know some of the same people. Specifically, the head of the local charity, your pastor, and other local leaders you know personally have probably talked to your state rep.
Justice cannot be based on theft,on coercion, on violence, including violence of the state against individuals because the mob wants more of what it did not earn.
What helps the middle class and the poor is more business, more economic freedoms, free market capitalism is the best system of wealth dissemination not based on violence, theft and coercion. The average mob representative will never be able to see it,will vote for politicians promising welfare based on theft and will get the government that will eventually destroy the economyand society under the banner of so called 'just society' , which is nothing more than desire for state control of individuals, state based slavery.
You can't handle the truth.
That's fine, but you have to tread carefully when you start talking about "fair" and socio-economics...
Our Right just keeps advocating policy that will heep even more money onto a wealthy class of citizens who are wealthier then they have ever been in American history.
Please don't confuse 'The Republican Party" with The Right". For at least the last three presidential election cycles the Republican Party has been solidly under the thumbs of one of its four major factions - the Neocons. (And this cycle that faction is finally being bumped by a new challenger which I'll call "The Plutocrats", in the form of the self-financed campaigns of Trump and Fiorina.)
The Classic/Paleo conservatives, religious right, and liberty wing (libertarians and other anti-tax, government-off-our-backs types) are more of the party but lately have negligible power.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Taking the post-war economic situation of the fifties and assuming it is applicable to the world of 2015 is extremely misleading. After WWII, there was no competition in the manufacturing sector for the United States. It boomed hard because of that, and everyone was fairly well off because of that. Towards the end of the 20th century, the gaps in the various industries in other markets began to close. Change was coming whether people wanted it to or not. The panacea of the global market sitting at the feet of the US was no longer a reality.
Like it or not, you tax people too highly today, they can literally leave, and do what they want in several other places in the world. The US is no longer the money trap it was in the fifties. You guys need to get past that and work on policy to control wealth and manage the economics for the 21st century.
“I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies.” —Thomas Jefferson http://consciouslifenews.com/v... That is not a secret yet the sheep continue to the slaughter. Only the strong will survive.
I get the point that you're making, but how many representatives can live near enough to their representative to be their neighbor?
If you didn't have a large country, perhaps most of them?
Seriously, the US is so large, it allows representatives to have no contact with the people they represent, and due to multiple layers, those that do have contact are too far removed from the top to have any useful influence. It may just be that a successful democracy has a maximum limit of size before it ceases to function correctly.
Democrats get most of their donations from foreign countries. Both parties are, at their core, corrupt, and it's high time people started fighting back.
So if 50% of voters turnout, the winner only needs 25% of the vote to take office?
So even if 75% of the population don't vote for that candidate, they still win?
The last link in TFS (deep state) offers a glimpse at the puppeteers but this crowd is firmly grounded in bickering about the puppet show.
Once you get past the Pavlovian reaction to "socialist", you'll find that he is the only candidate NOT dropping to his knees in front of the latest batch of plutocrats. If nor no other reason, a victory for him would be a victory for democracy remaining in the hands of the people.
Once you look beyond the (D) label, you'll find that he's not the only candidate NOT dropping to his knees in front of the latest batch of plutocrats. Trump, Carson and even Cruz are either getting most of their money directly from voters, or in Trump's case, using his celebrity in the media to drive his own campaign.
If that's true why did we bail out the banks?
Because many "private" banks make loans to other countries, which they are more likely
to do if the taxpayer backs them.
Some such loans are used to pay off existing loans and debt, or interest even.
Only a portion may even be used for "new" things.
Nowadays all countries are deeply in debt, and deeply interconnected.
The U.S. government wants the dollar to rule the world. Petrodollar too. Eurodollar too.
As long as people believe in it, and/or are forced to use it, that is somewhat a win, even if it is all
make believe.
Debt is a form of warfare. Low-intensity economic conflit. The first hit is always free.
You don't want to destroy the enemy completely. They need to make payments.
It makes the stock numbers look good. This makes people money, reality be damned.
Why did the U.S. give up the Panama canal?
There were no politics at play, no issues of sovereignty except in the media's imagination...
the simple fact is they owed us money, and that was a way to keep them paying their loans,
by having something they could profit from.
see also:
any book on the Federal Reserve, G. Edward Griffin or Eustace Mullins or Antony Sutton, or many others
Confessions Of An Economic Hit Man
A Fate Worse Than Debt
Citibank Plutonomy Documents
Dark Pools
Deliberate Dumbing Down.com
the communist manifesto:
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
>>> The Red Symphony
The rich in the U.S. practice "reverse Marxism" -- kill the proletariat, save the bourgeios. Arguably this was the whole idea all along.
You could look into Karl Marx and Rothschild connections, but the Citibank memos will show you that is still true today.
They define capitalists as "the rich."
About as sensical a statement as saying that non-rapists are "the married" or criminals are "those in jail" or women are "people with breasts"
But, to the stereotypical Marxists, "the rich" are all capitalists, a priori. Regardless of what they actually do. Regardless of whether central banking is a capitalist idea in the first place or not.
This is how Citibank thinks. We call it Citilogic.
Citibank of course, is not even a U.S. bank -- they are global.
And with origins from outside the U.S.
All roads lead to Rothschilds?
Citibank of course is "the largest global bank" and they will readily admit:
- there is plutonomy (they don't call it plutocracy, creditism or usurocracy are also acceptable, capitalism it ain't)
- the rich disproportionately benefit from globalization
- all economies are rigged for globalization -- but that is not "protectionism" somehow in Citilogic...just like the Trans-Pacific Partnership is somehow "free trade" despite the fact that any law pro or against trade is, inherently, not "free" at all.
- rich people overpower all other numbers on graphs; their sums are so immense noone else even registers on statistics
source: Citibank plutonomy memos. Straight from the horse's mouth.
In short, all countries are deliberately interconnected. Central banks themselves, for the most part, are foreign entities that have taken over nations. Iceland may be an exception. They have IMF loans to pay bak I believe, and they crashed when Lehman Brothers did. How the fuck does Lehman brothers crash affect Iceland? beats me. Lehman was not on the bail-out list, perhaps because Iceland is so small.
You will find, people nowadays find Iceland's "sovereign central bank" idea a "radical" move in the "modern" world.
In reality, that is the default and normal and perfectly sane capitalist idea -- banks don't get bailed out, trustworthy governments don't have to pay interest to private banks to borrow money, they just print and/or coin it and/or credit it. Governments still might inflate themselves to death, but there is absolutely zero reason for "private" banks to get paid interest for loaning out money or credit that they don't actually have, and zero reason to bail out such banks. The government may be just as bad and do the same, but at least you could cut off the leeches and ensure the interest remains in the people, or give everyone a share in such a "company" -- if the taxpayers have to bail them out, the people should all get a share in the "private" company before any such "bailout."
That should show you how far away the world is from reality and capitalism. A move towards sovereign in Iceland is instantly labelled "radical"
Do your own research, but that is a start.
See also: bail-ins
I think you will find, more than enough evidence to answer your question. You may not like the answers.
See also Edward Mandell House and his role in getting the Federal Reserve act passed, and if you can track down his diaries. People have accused him of being a "Marxist" -- which I don't doubt for a second, although in his mind he probably thought of himself as an "anachist" or "revolutionary" although the non-state Socialists would hate him just as they hated Marx -- but it is best to track down original sources and see what his own words actually said.
see also:
Looking Backwards from 2000 to 1887, Edward Bellamy
for possible theories behind the move towards "credit money"
As you read the Citigroup memos re: plutonomy, keep in mind "these pieces of shit got bailed out 3 years later"
I have yet to see an "anti-tax" conservative who advocated policies whose most prominent beneficiary wasnt the very wealthy.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I have yet to see an "anti-tax" conservative who advocated policies whose most prominent beneficiary wasnt the very wealthy.
I have seen plenty.
Have you looked at Rand Paul's flat tax proposal, just for starters?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I understand class warfare and envy
No you don't. Where are the bailouts for "the poor" ?
The rich are waging class warfare and are envious.
Why would anyone vote for people with more money?
If you are interest in politics, then you would vote sensibly.
If you are sheeple, and vote for those with the biggest money and axe to grind, it should be no surprise if the axe came swinging your way once these money spending trolls get into power.
Oh, well that must be true for all of them then! you're a tit.
> It may just be that a successful democracy has a maximum limit of size before it ceases to function correctly.
Indeed. A solution that was proposed was that one could have a bunch of smaller democratic republics, and where large- scale action was required (such as a military at war), those sovereign republics would act as one by each republic having a vote on what the coalition (federation) does.
Local citizens would be served by locally elected publics servants for things like noise ordinances, schools, and anything else that doesn't directly affect neighboring republics. That is, each community rules themselves. To move mail around the entire federation you'd have a federation mail service, and when negotiating with foreign countries they'd act as a united federation. The concept was called federalism and the workings were described in a document called the US Constitution.
It was supposed to be separate states, but united. United States. During and after WWII, the federation government (federal government) assumed most of the power, and the states have allowed it.
The only time when this was true was the period shortly after WWII when Europe, Japan, and China were still rebuilding and the developing world was still decolonizing. The net result of those two historical facts was that workers in the US and Canada were not in competition with most of the rest of the world. Since then free trade agreements have led to decreased prices for almost everything, but increased downward pressure on wages. This is made worse by the large influx of immigrants into this country.
https://equalitybylot.wordpres...
The rich, and the wannabes, like to think that they are smart and everyone else is stupid.
Can they influence the political process? Probably yes.
Do they control it? Almost certainly No. They just think they can.
And of course there are many leaches who will claim to control things for money.
Besides the U.S. is not designed to prevent the rich from controlling things, it's just designed to prevent -one- rich person from controlling it all. As in: set them against each other, and they will bother us less. 8-)
"All in all, then, what Paul is proposing is a big tax cut for high earners and businesses with almost no direct benefits for most Americans. It's the latest evidence that a flat tax that cuts most people's taxes while keeping revenue at a plausible level is just not possible" (Ramesh Ponnuru, 22Jun15, Rand Paul's Implausible Flat Tax). The flat tax may treat everyone fairly, but the added consumption tax negates any benefit that middle-income families would have received. And this is the latest version of Paul's plan.
I'm sure the IRS will be looking into this.
Oh, wait.
12 out of 20 listed are labor groups or connected to labor groups willing to trade votes for contracts ..yes please look at list again .unions = mob
Clearly you have not read the link.
please point out the labor groups you claim to see.
Google Inc $14,652
Quilceda Creek Vintners $10,000
University of California $9,000
National Education Assn $6,392
University of Illinois $5,760
Federal Coal Co $5,500
Santa Monica Art Studios $5,400
Microsoft Corp $5,080
Dartmouth College $4,242
Pacific Gourmet $4,000
Coldwell Banker Real Estate $4,000
Merrill Lynch $3,700
Boeing Co $3,450
Amazon.com $3,317
Columbia University $3,293
United Parcel Service $3,202
US Postal Service $3,179
Promed Capital $3,000
Clinical Radiologists SC $3,000
Apple Inc $2,906
So Paul's is out as referenced to another's post. Where's this laughable "plenty" at?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
[Quoting Ramesh Ponnuru in Bloomberg] "All in all, then, what Paul is proposing is a big tax cut for high earners and businesses with almost no direct benefits for most Americans. ..."
For the middle class, however, the plan looks like a wash:H
And when you look at the article you see that it's mischaracterized. He claims "For the middle class, however, the plan looks like a wash" because the massive tax cut would be offset by two factors:
1) The replacement of the corporate income tax with a 14.5% "business activity tax" that doesn't include labor costs as a deduction. He treats this as if it were a hidden 14.5% tax on goods, neglecting the compensating benefits of reducing the corporate income tax, AND the costs of computing it and changing business decisions to work around it, to zero. (Yes, some corporations manage to structure their operations so they can get their corporate tax below 14.5%, or even down to zero. Want to bet whether it costs them less than 14.5% when tax-hacking costs are included?)
2) The alleged reduction in benefits to the middle class from cuts in government spending. Do YOU think that the middle-class actually gets any substantial benefits from the government spending that would be cut? Then take into account that cuts in government spending tend to stimulate the economy BIG time (by not having so much of its blood drained every time it circulates another round), something that his source for this claim - the pro-business "The Tax Foundation" - explicitly ignores in its analysis.
IMHO Ponnuru's article was another hit piece - part of business interests' attempts to convince the voters that tax reform plans which favor the working / middle classes, growing the pie and letting them keep a bigger piece of it, are bad ideas, so they elect another shill who is in the moneyed interests' pocket.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The only problem with going back to this idea would be the red states that rely on "federation" money to continue to exist. As soon as the handout is gone, states like Texas would likely militarize and start trying to take over neighboring "republics", and we'd have our own Christian version of ISIS right here in the US. Predictably, the rest of the "federation" would stomp down Texas, and they'd have to get their shit in order for the first time ever and bootstrap themselves to black budget... likely with plenty of "federation" help.
Luckily, the other insolvent red states wouldn't attempt this, they would likely allow social change within to keep the "federation" dollars coming with the same air if indignancy displayed currently.
It seems you've confused Texas with Vermont or some other state in the northeast. Last fiscal year, Texans paid 265 billion in federal taxes, while 147 billion in federal spending went to Texas.
Meaning that beyond paying for themselves, Texas paid the entire combined deficit of Vermont, Maryland, Maine, Connecticut, Virginia, Idaho and several other states.
Paul's Flat-Tax is not mischaracterized at all. A similarly recent article, Senator Rand Paul's Very Good Tax Plan Needs One Important Tweak, further expounds this point about the Flat-Tax taking the form of a VAT.
1) "...neglecting the compensating benefits of reducing the corporate income tax..." So for this plan to be beneficial to the middle-class, we must rely on the corporations to decide to pass the benefit further on to those working for them, a bit more trickle-down action? According to Paul, so many of those corporations are already paying zero because they're using loopholes; But where was the spread of wealth from those monies? Are we to believe that those companies really want to share benefits with their workers when their taxes are officially made less? I don't follow that logic, and thus far history hasn't supported it either.
2) Alleged reduction in benefits? I don't know if people are keeping tally, but much of what is currently left in federal budgets to slash would be political suicide to the ones who did, including Social Security, Medicaid, VA, preK-12 education, pell grants, transportation infrastructure, etc. Suggesting that further spending cuts from such a flat-tax wouldn't negatively affect this group of people is ludicrous.
And as far as cuts in government spending, they tend to stimulate the economy when interest rates are non-zero--which at the moment they are not, which is probably why that point was explicitly ignored.
IMO the Bloomberg article wasn't a "hit-piece", but rather a heads-up to an important issue with the Paul tax plan.
The concept was called federalism and the workings were described in a document called the US Constitution.
The Constitution was written before Nation states became the standard model. Perhaps this document is outdated and needs updating?
That's an interesting thought. Parts of Europe did have a different model at that time. On the other hand, the UK was unified a hundred years before the Constitution. In other parts of the world, outside of Europe, nation states such as Egypt and Japan -FAR- existed for thousands of years.
I'm curious too how exactly that applies. It seems to me that the culture of Louisiana is quite different from Vermont, which is again quite different from Montana or Georgia. Do you think that the Creole people, the Cajuns, and others should have more of their own state, to be more along the lines of the nation state model?
Do you think that the Creole people, the Cajuns, and others should have more of their own state, to be more along the lines of the nation state model?
I don't really know the situation that well, but having visited a lot of American states, while disparate in some areas, I never got the impression anyone really wants independence from the Union.
See the Catalans and Basque in Spain for contrasting examples.
There has never been a better time in human history to start a business. For $5.00/month I can set up a website that is indistinguishable from GM or IBM.
With the exception of Atlantic states and California, the rest of the country wants *more* independence from Washington ; at least they vote for it. They want something more like the federal system that the founders envisioned and codified in the Constitution with the enumerated powers. For example, they don't want Obama deciding what their kids eat for lunch.
The Constitution lists a dozen things that the national government is allowed to do and specifies that everything not listed is the domain of the states or the individuals. It seems the majority want it to be more like that - evidenced by the fact that they vote for representatives who campaign on that principle. I tend to agree - Texas isn't exactly like Washington DC or Maryland. We want to do some things differently than they do them in Maryland. Heck, the abundance of space, of available real estate, makes a big difference several times per day.
Actually the city councilman I mentioned, who is my stepdaughters' half-brother, grew up one block from crackville. His stepmom was a streetwalker for a while. So not exactly rich and entitled. Your neighborhood has a state representative too. That's a representative to your STATE legislature, not Congress. It might be interesting to look up who your state rep and city council reps are - they're your neighbors, quite unlike the US Senate.
If you think you know everyone who your pastor, your dad, AND your teacher talk to, and you're not in a very small town, you might want to talk to your teacher - because you need to review multiplication. The odds that you know all 8,000 people that any of them do is pretty slim.