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.
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.
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.
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.
And this is precisely why the advertising industry doesn't exist.
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?
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.
My favorite part is that 3 of the 4 top organizations are government unions and give 99+% to Democraps. No conflict of interest there!
I hear they are set to rise from their sunken city R'lyeh and devour the world in 2016
Cthulhu / Dagon 2016 - why vote for the lesser evil?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?"
"What?"
"I said," said Ford, with an increasing air of urgency creeping into his voice, "have you got any gin?"
"I'll look. Tell me about the lizards."
Ford shrugged again.
"Some people say that the lizards are the best thing that ever happenned to them," he said. "They're completely wrong of course, completely and utterly wrong, but someone's got to say it."
"But that's terrible," said Arthur.
"Listen, bud," said Ford, "if I had one Altairian dollar for every time I heard one bit of the Universe look at another bit of the Universe and say 'That's terrible' I wouldn't be sitting here like a lemon looking for a gin.”
For all man's accomplishments, we're still largely at a tribal stage where we will instinctively protect the in-group even when it makes no rational sense to do so. It's millions of years of evolutionary baggage that we need to overcome as we move forward.
Democrats also get their money from Billionaires and special interest groups.
You'd have to be dumb to think otherwise....
Exactly. It is disgusting how President Romney was able to buy his way into office. Here in California, both Governor Whitman and Senator Fiorina were swept into office by spending millions of their own fortunes along with plenty of corporate contributions. Yup, the people have no power, and you would have to be dumb to think otherwise.
For all man's accomplishments, we're still largely at a tribal stage where we will instinctively protect the in-group even when it makes no rational sense to do so. It's millions of years of evolutionary baggage that we need to overcome as we move forward.
Precisely what I am saying. And this scapegoating the objects of our desires is part of that same show.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
> 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/
Ahh, another self-described Homo economicus.
Where would Slashdot be without the powerful man who is 100% rational, informed, and pulled themselves up by their bootstraps.
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
Shoot the messenger all you want...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
There is a wide enough variety of sources now. The TV is just the most conveniently passive. The whole thing is strictly a reflection of our own aggregated personal choices to stay safely in the center of the herd.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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"
... 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.
Narcissist. You don't have to contribute to a thing to critique it. I don't contribute to child labor but I sure as shit hate it. I have every ethical right to complain, a moral obligation in fact. Go back to your cave asshole.
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/
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
But some "choices" aren't really choices, are they?
And this is how money controls elections. Not by forcing anyone to pick one candidate over another, but to pre-choose the candidates before the voters even know who they are.
There is a "money primary" that happens way before the voters decide who their candidates are going to be. And the "money primary" has now filtered all the way down to town council candidates, county board presidents and even local school boards.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"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
Don't normally post on politics, but have disagree on this one. Money has alway an important played a role, but so did political parties, pecking orders, etc. Nowadays, it's all about the money, and a single well-heeled benefactor can keep an otherwise unviable candidate in the running. Political parties have lost much of their clout because candidates no longer need the machinery they provide.
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.
Democrats also get their money from Billionaires and special interest groups.
Yes, but the summary showed that the majority of billionaires give the majority of their money to republicans. As I said, Samzenpus forgot to tell us why that is a good thing.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Hopelessness is learned, you know, and I believe it is one of those those things that is indeed uniquely human. No, that's not true, you can even teach a dog to be scared to walk through an open door.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Sure, and it is just as bad for democracy as when Republicans or Independents or anyone else in a position of power over others cave to plutocrats. That's when you know someone has no justification or backing for their position: when their sole argument is "The other side does it too!" Luckily, rational people are able to dislike an aspect of something and work to change it, yet still support that something. It's like supporting your friend even though you think they're making a horrible decision.
It's the same problem with addressing climate change: "China isn't doing anything to solve the problem, so neither should we!" Your neighbor doesn't have flood insurance in New Orleans, so neither should you. Unfucking believable.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
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!
And of course that makes it all okay.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
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.
If that's true why did we bail out the banks?
Get up!
I wish they had a lot more influence.
Unfortunately, despite their best efforts, idiots like Obama still get elected.
Good! Money is not the ideal mechanism for selecting candidates and giving them visibility, but it sure beats party machines.
Party machines give you 2-n choices. Money machines give you 1.
I'm sorry, you don't understand. Let's say I'm only "50% rational, informed, and self-made". An elected politician or government bureaucrat is on average no better than me on any of those dimensions. But worse yet, their rationality isn't focused on my benefit, it is focused on their own benefit.
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.
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."
Er, you do realize that the Koch brothers alone are potentially planning on spending $900 million, just on the 2016 election cycle?
So, tell me, what is your typical Republican candidate going to do.
1) Wait for money to dribble in from households around the country.
2) Assume the position for the Koch brothers?
Take your time answering.
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
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.
> Money has alway an important played a role
in the US. Most other countries have sane rules.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
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!
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.
Yeah, that free speech stuff really sucks.
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/
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/
I've talked with more than a few "little people" the ones that work for a living and live paycheck to paycheck. The media has them running scared, thinking that if they don't vote the next republican in, their bosses will punish them and make their already miserable lives worse. Some of this comes from their bosses, too... but, really, if the media would do half a job in educating people how to vote in their own best self interests, at least half the people would. I haven't seen that, ever.
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.
Have you met anyone ever at all? Sure, you're a smart cookie, but do you feel that you are average?
I don't care what your answer is, and here's why. If you don't feel average, then you are not representative of the majority of voters. If you do feel average, then you are not, by definition, smart. You are average.
Money means paying people to research every video, every quote, every statement by your opponent, and make a montage of them being dishonest, or contradictory, or in some fashion the opposite of what voters seem to want. Oh, and being able to afford to show that montage when opponents bid up the advertising rate.
It's about controlling the message, to react quickly, to have ad slots bought that you can swap out for the latest narrative. It's about having the money to compete with the other people who also have the money.
You can call it blame passing if you don't understand anything about people, or politics, or marketing, or economics, or everything that is in play.
> 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.
I don't know which twisted fuck came up with the notion that bribing politicians is "free speech", but they need a rock upside the head.
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
“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.
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?
You'd have to be dumb to think otherwise....
Exactly. It is disgusting how President Romney was able to buy his way into office. Here in California, both Governor Whitman and Senator Fiorina were swept into office by spending millions of their own fortunes along with plenty of corporate contributions. Yup, the people have no power, and you would have to be dumb to think otherwise.
Not to mention President Forbes in 1996 and 2000, when he bought both the GOP primary, as well as the general elections by spending his own fortune. That despite the GOP candidates like Dole, Buchanan and Alexander turning Leftist and using the class envy card against him. Something that McCain did unsuccessfully against President Romney in 2008.
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.
Well, I do. I guess I have your blessing. ;)
I disagree here because unions don't have shareholders that expect higher profits each year nor share in those profits. While corporate leaders will claim they speak for all their employees and are, of course, only working in the best interest of said employees, it's hard to believe when they donate to politicians whose platform is dismantling worker and environmental safety protections and pitting domestic and foreign workers against each other in a race to the bottom.
While there are certainly stories of union bosses taking advantage (lavish parties, travel, etc), that happens in corporations as well and boils down to human nature. I'd bet that not every member supports every deal union bosses make, at least the members can elect new bosses. What can workers do when their employer donates to a candidate they don't support? Nothing. And where does that donated money come from? From the products and services the workers make/perform.
"Thank you for your tireless effort making widgets at ACME. As we don't like having to pay disability when our machines chop off your limbs, we've decided to take some of the revenue we earned selling the widgets you built and donating it to a candidate who will work tirelessly to dismantle disability insurance. Game on!"
That being said, I would prefer all campaign contributions be small and individual. There's no reason unions and corporations can't explain why they believe a particular candidate is good for their members/workers and leave it at that. I may feel the "nefarious factor" of union versus corporate donations differ, I'm not in favor of exceptions for certain groups that allow them to donate unlimited, anonymous funds to candidates or issues.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
Many countries realised that money != speech, and so have spared themselves of the nonsense the US sees every cycle.
The real crime here is the People allowing all this to happen. Electing and Re-Electing the same People over and over. Blame Voters, not Politicians.
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
Political parties have lost much of their clout because candidates no longer need the machinery they provide.
Well, yes, and no. It has always been true that the wealthy, privileged have been able to buy power, and the tendency will always be for them to establish their own ruling elite, as long as wealth is allowed to overrule the will of the people. But I think there is something wider - and possibly more sinister - at play: the fact that the mainstream parties all look the same. We have all been sold the idea that "Capitalism has won, there is no other way" etc, so everybody is trying with varying success to be the same party, with slightly different tones of grey as the dominant colour. What is sinister about it is that is isn't exactly true - it is tale that has only been told from one side, and the assumption has always been that the economy MUST grow, no matter what. I think we will have to review that idea, sooner or later, is we wish to achieve a stable and sustainable society.
People - the ones that should have had a say in elections, but increasingly don't - are clearly sick of it; that's why Jeremy Corbyn became leader of the Labour Party in UK, surprising everybody, not least himself. And that is also why the sillier parties like UKIP or the Tea Party movement have so much popular support - at least they look different, and they appear to have another way of doing things.
bern is owned by the union/teamsters ..he gets free travel/food/ads and guaranteed votes and they get contracts for billions of dollars each year ...hes basically owned by the mob
> 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.
Good! Money is not the ideal mechanism for selecting candidates and giving them visibility, but it sure beats party machines.
No, it is actually bad. Money seems to turn quite a lot of people crazy when they have enough of it. We are now in a situation where some candidates are actually polling at 0. Yes, 0, meaning nobody voted for them at all. Yet they still are in the race and get media exposure. The vast majority of real people don't care for the person, or their policies, or both, yet they can still keep on going like a zombie candidate because some crazy rich fool is voting with his wallet, and his wallet matters much more than yours or mine.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
Well, besides "dumb" and "smart", there's "experienced" and "inexperienced"; and experience shows while this has always been true to some degree, that degree varies over the years.
In particular if you are old enough to remember what the American middle class was like in the early 70s, it's a shadow of its former self. Oh, we're materially better off in some ways, but that's largely a function of (a) technological advances and (b) the shift from single earner households to dual-earner households and (c) a massive reduction in leisure time.
The bottom line is that fewer people have time to act as involved citizens. That creates a power vacuum that is filled by people with resources who can make a return on investing their time and attention in being influential.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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-)
Don't normally post on politics, but have disagree on this one. Money has alway an important played a role, but so did political parties, pecking orders, etc. Nowadays, it's all about the money, and a single well-heeled benefactor can keep an otherwise unviable candidate in the running. Political parties have lost much of their clout because candidates no longer need the machinery they provide.
Whats the difference between the USA and Russia regards elections?
In the USA, the friends of the party use gerrymandering to exclude as much as possible, opposition candidates.
The wealthy make sure to fund their candidates so that post election business can come to the wealthy, or that they can later work with their candidate to influence laws favourable to the wealthy. (eg, spend 500k to win 2-3million in business / year). Its known as one-hand washes the other.
In Russia, its one party. The opposition is eliminated, and the single party, favourable to the leader and his cronies influence laws favourable to the wealthy. (eg, spend 500k rubles to win 2-3million in business / year). Its known as one-hand washes the other.
At least with Russia, socialism provides good health care, excellent education, good jobs and vacations, and a relative even standard of living for the masses. Can you say that for the USA?
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
"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.
At least with Russia, socialism provides good health care, excellent education, good jobs and vacations, and a relative even standard of living for the masses. Can you say that for the USA?
Let's give Russia the benefit of the doubt and for the sake of argument agree that health care, education, jobs, vacations, and standards of living are acceptable for all people and nobody gets left behind. But what Russia and other planned economies don't have and cannot offer their people is the freedom to choose how you want to live, or the freedom to pursue happiness on your own terms. It's suffocating and people are not happy.
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.
University of California $9,000 labor related ..dont confuse with united coal non-union ..contracts and guess what? IAM District 751 unions .The American Postal Workers Union (APWU) is a labor union in the United States. It represents over 200,000 employees .yeppers unions and money moving on side ProMed Properties pays $22M for part of Union .union/teamsters betsy butler Current.Current. Consumer Attorneys of California,; Teamsters JC 42 ... Betsy Butler. Administrative Director at Clinical Radiologists, S.C.now shes on DNC running for office
National Education Assn $6,392 more of same
University of Illinois $5,760 lookie more unions
Federal Coal Co $5,500 yeppers you guessed it
Dartmouth College $4,242 yeps more of same
Boeing Co $3,45
Columbia University $3,293..more of same
United Parcel Service $3,202 . from ups teamster page UPS is the single largest employer in the Teamsters Union.
US Postal Service $3,179
Promed Capital $3,000
Clinical Radiologists SC $3,000
coulda looked deeper into others like i did with clinical radiologists .. just keep thinking bern is for the little guy lol
2002-2014 https://www.opensecrets.org/or... if numbers are right unions 300+ million on Democrats....there the little guys lol
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
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.
Wow. So you seem to think that business with union shops are therefore union boosters. they are union adversaries usually.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
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.
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.