Dylan Ratigan Rant: Debt Negotiations 'Reckless, Irresponsible And Stupid'

[wayliff]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/dylan-ratigan-rant-debt-negotiations_n_922855.html

I'd like to see no lobbying allowed, no use of personal money for campaigning, term limits...One can only dream!
I wonder how different the country would be.

:thumbsup:

 

[sandorski]

Good point. I wonder how long Obama would live after attempting that though.

 

[Ausm]

Nice dream but it will never happen since everyone in DC politics are bought and paid for. The worse part is now with Citizen United the same problem is trickling down to the States.

 

[JTsyo]

“People of the United States of America, your Congress is bought, your Congress is incapable of making legislation on healthcare, banking, trade, or taxes because if they do it, they will lose their political funding and they won’t do it. But I’m the President of the United States, and I won’t have a country that is run by a bought Congress.

heh like President's aren't bought twice over. You can't run for President without donations from big business and wealthy donors.

 

[Craig234]

I just found Ratigan (MSNBC show) last month, and immediately like him.

The key quote from the article and he's right on, and almost never hear it:

"Tens of trillions of dollars are being extracted from the United States of America. Democrats aren’t doing it, Republicans are not doing it, an entire integrated system, financial system, trading system, taxing system, that was created by both parties over a period of two decades is at work on our entire country right now," said Ratigan. "We’re sitting here arguing about whether we should do the $4 trillion plan that kicks the can down the road for the president for 2017, or burn the place to the ground, both of which are reckless, irresponsible and stupid."

 

[Craig234]

heh like President's aren't bought twice over. You can't run for President without donations from big business and wealthy donors.

If you read the article, you would see he blames both Congress and the President (I agree) and the quote is what he'd like the President to say.

 

[JTsyo]

If you read the article, you would see he blames both Congress and the President (I agree) and the quote is what he'd like the President to say.

Yea but if the person is not bought they'll never make it to President.

 

[Double Trouble]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/dylan-ratigan-rant-debt-negotiations_n_922855.html

I'd like to see no lobbying allowed, no use of personal money for campaigning, term limits...One can only dream!
I wonder how different the country would be.

:thumbsup:

"no personal money!" -- yeah, brilliant, let the media be the ultimate king-maker (as if they aren't bad enough already). Nothingn like trampling on people's rights in the name of fixing corruption.

Ratigan is a complete buffoon, I've had the misfortune of watching some of his left wing drivel on MSNBC. People like him have lost all ability to apply logical reasoning, only in such a scenario can you call making cuts that are both critically needed and inevitable "reckless".

 

[Doppel]

"no personal money!" -- yeah, brilliant, let the media be the ultimate king-maker (as if they aren't bad enough already). Nothingn like trampling on people's rights in the name of fixing corruption.

Ratigan is a complete buffoon, I've had the misfortune of watching some of his left wing drivel on MSNBC. People like him have lost all ability to apply logical reasoning, only in such a scenario can you call making cuts that are both critically needed and inevitable "reckless".

I guess you're not quite there yet. A lot of others in this thread thankfully are and you'll get there soon enough.

The catch 22 is obvious that any president who would actually act on behalf of the people and not his paymasters by virtue of that would not be the kind to get elected in the first place because he wouldn't get enough money from his corporate pimps. And is why Obama is a Black Bush, etc.

 

[wayliff]

"no personal money!" -- yeah, brilliant, let the media be the ultimate king-maker (as if they aren't bad enough already). Nothingn like trampling on people's rights in the name of fixing corruption.

Ratigan is a complete buffoon, I've had the misfortune of watching some of his left wing drivel on MSNBC. People like him have lost all ability to apply logical reasoning, only in such a scenario can you call making cuts that are both critically needed and inevitable "reckless".

Definitely more brilliant than a candidate being able to win an election by outspending others...people end up voting for who is on their faces because they did not know better or others. 🙄

What I endorse is simply that each candidate is exposed to the public in the same way (same amount time, same chance, etc.) and ideally without media bias...the media is another problem.

 

[Doppel]

Definitely more brilliant than a candidate being able to win an election by outspending others...people end up voting for who is on their faces because they did not know better or others. 🙄

What I endorse is simply that each candidate is exposed to the public in the same way (same amount time, same chance, etc.) and ideally without media bias...the media is another problem.

This is why personal money must be taken out of it or else only the rich can ever be in that office. Use publicly available financing (a framework already exists but nobody uses it now because it's not enough) that becomes increasingly available to you in larger amounts once you hit certain benchmarks of support.

Who would you rather trust the media or some rich guy and his sponsors' marketing machine?

 

[a777pilot]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/09/dylan-ratigan-rant-debt-negotiations_n_922855.html

I'd like to see no lobbying allowed, no use of personal money for campaigning, term limits...One can only dream!
I wonder how different the country would be.

:thumbsup:

No lobbying? Great. I would love to see the unions not to be able to lobby. Or the NEA.

No private money? Really? You want the taxpayers to fund this crap? Really?

Term limits? do you really want term limits? Then have real term limits. One federally elected office per person per life time. In other words, if you elected to the House......that's it you get one two year term and then are no longer eligible to run for any other federal elected office. The same applies to the other federal elected offices. Elected as the Vice President, that's it. that was your one and only shot at a federal elected office. You're finished in federal politics.

If you want term limits then have term limits.

 

[PokerGuy]

Who would you rather trust the media or some rich guy and his sponsors' marketing machine?

Is this a trick question? Obviously "neither" is the correct answer. If I had to choose one, I'd pick the "rich guy and his marketing machine" to trust because at least with him I know his agenda is to personally benefit. With the media I have to figure out what their leftist agenda for the day is.

This is idiotic, something I'd expect from the left wing. Why should you not be able to spend your own money to promote yourself?

Anyone who thinks you can get money out of politics and make it "pure" and wonderful where people can debate ideas on their merit and all that jazz is delusional. Money runs politics, always has, always will.

 

[wayliff]

No lobbying? Great. I would love to see the unions not to be able to lobby. Or the NEA.

No private money? Really? You want the taxpayers to fund this crap? Really?

Term limits? do you really want term limits? Then have real term limits. One federally elected office per person per life time. In other words, if you elected to the House......that's it you get one two year term and then are no longer eligible to run for any other federal elected office. The same applies to the other federal elected offices. Elected as the Vice President, that's it. that was your one and only shot at a federal elected office. You're finished in federal politics.

If you want term limits then have term limits.

Yes no lobbying - no special interests...simply policy and cleaner politics.

We are electing the candidates to act on our behalf. We, the taxpayers or the people, want X or Y on a particular position. I don't want Exxon choosing for me.
So yes funded (by the people) equally and present all candidates and plans to everyone. We can then look at and compare 'everyone'...then choose.

I am fine with those kind of term limits. Although yours is a bit extreme, I'd say two terms at any office...ends right there.

 

[wayliff]

Is this a trick question? Obviously "neither" is the correct answer. If I had to choose one, I'd pick the "rich guy and his marketing machine" to trust because at least with him I know his agenda is to personally benefit. With the media I have to figure out what their leftist agenda for the day is.

This is idiotic, something I'd expect from the left wing. Why should you not be able to spend your own money to promote yourself?

Anyone who thinks you can get money out of politics and make it "pure" and wonderful where people can debate ideas on their merit and all that jazz is delusional. Money runs politics, always has, always will.

The left? - is that all you can come up with? That is all you can see eh?
I am not making a partisan issue here.

Why should candidate A be better than candidate B because candidate A had $100 million to present himself while candidate B, equally qualified, only had $1 million?

People end up voting after being brainwashed by candidate A just because candidate B was outspent.

And I don't disagree that politics is currently run, and has been run, by money\interests. It does not mean it cannot be changed or improved.
Anyone who thinks it cannot be changed is short sighted or has simply given up.

 

[a777pilot]

Yes no lobbying - no special interests...simply policy and cleaner politics.

We are electing the candidates to act on our behalf. We, the taxpayers or the people, want X or Y on a particular position. I don't want Exxon choosing for me.
So yes funded (by the people) equally and present all candidates and plans to everyone. We can then look at and compare 'everyone'...then choose.

I am fine with those kind of term limits. Although yours is a bit extreme, I'd say two terms at any office...ends right there.

Why two terms? Why not three or five?

I don't want Exxon choosing for me.

Good and I don't want the NEA and unions choosing for me.

So yes funded (by the people) equally and present all candidates and plans to everyone. We can then look at and compare 'everyone'...then choose.

So you would be happy with any political parties getting public money? Even the muslim radicals, say the Muslim Brotherhood? What about the Communist Party?

 

[wayliff]

Why two terms? Why not three or five?

Good and I don't want the NEA and unions choosing for me.

So you would be happy with any political parties getting public money? Even the muslim radicals, say the Muslim Brotherhood? What about the Communist Party?

Yes, why not 8, 12 or 24 terms? If one or two is not reasonable then I'd say you're just playing games to simply contradict.

Agreed neither Corps or Unions.

Well considering that a muslim radical organization might be able to fund itself then what is the difference?
(So currently, what is the basis we use to prevent political party XYZ from running for any office if they are able to fund themselves? for my own education.)

I am not saying the public should provide a blank check to x, y o z party but instead use a framework to present the candidates. An existing framework...be it channel A or debate in University ABC and everyone gets to see it. Then people can make their choice.

 

[wayliff]

This is why personal money must be taken out of it or else only the rich can ever be in that office. Use publicly available financing (a framework already exists but nobody uses it now because it's not enough) that becomes increasingly available to you in larger amounts once you hit certain benchmarks of support.

Agreed.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes no lobbying - no special interests...simply policy and cleaner politics.

Yes, and unicorns can roam the fields. Are you really that naive?

So yes funded (by the people) equally and present all candidates and plans to everyone. We can then look at and compare 'everyone'...then choose.

Funded by the people heh? So who all gets funding, everyone? You have to set thresholds... and without any money, who's going to be able to meet those thresholds, and how?

If you try and take personal money out of the equation, first of all you're going to be at odds with the constitution. Second, you're never going to be able to take it out anyway, because someone can always use money to pay people to hand out flyers, or go door to door to do stuff etc, you're not going to be able to control that without shredding the constitution.

I also agree with DT, if you were to magically take all the money out of the process (when pigs fly), the media would essentially control politics. It would be free to cast each candidate in the light it desires to get the desired outcome. For example, they can treat candidate A (who they don't like) like dirt, show bad pictures of them, run negative "news" stories on them, while candidate B is portrayed as the savior. No thanks, we already got a nice little taste of that in 2008.

 

[wayliff]

Yes, and unicorns can roam the fields. Are you really that naive?

Funded by the people heh? So who all gets funding, everyone? You have to set thresholds... and without any money, who's going to be able to meet those thresholds, and how?

If you try and take personal money out of the equation, first of all you're going to be at odds with the constitution. Second, you're never going to be able to take it out anyway, because someone can always use money to pay people to hand out flyers, or go door to door to do stuff etc, you're not going to be able to control that without shredding the constitution.

I also agree with DT, if you were to magically take all the money out of the process (when pigs fly), the media would essentially control politics. It would be free to cast each candidate in the light it desires to get the desired outcome. For example, they can treat candidate A (who they don't like) like dirt, show bad pictures of them, run negative "news" stories on them, while candidate B is portrayed as the savior. No thanks, we already got a nice little taste of that in 2008.

Funding would not be for the candidate(s) but the framework that presents all candidates.

Change is not simple and I am by no means an expert so this is just me relating to someone who made a point in the news and elaborating on what I think.

So being naive is wanting better? Then yes, I am very naive (can't wait for the unicorns to show up). It is easier to be complacent but I won't just go along with what we have now just because it seems to work. We are all getting screwed.

Yeah, I agree leaving it on the hands of Fox News, MSNBC, ABC, CNN and you name it only would be a disaster.

 

[PokerGuy]

Funding would not be for the candidate(s) but the framework that presents all candidates.

So who gets to be a "candidate"? Anyone? Thousands, millions of them, all getting equal time? Oh, wait, someone has to set some sort of threshold. And how does someone meet that threshold? Who pays for that effort if no personal funds can be used? What about "issue ads", where someone basically pays for an ad about an issue without identifying (or endorsing) a particular candidate?

Change is not simple and I am by no means an expert so this is just me relating to someone who made a point in the news and elaborating on what I think.

That's what I'm telling you, anyone who thinks there's any realistic way of "fixing" the crappy system is naive. There isn't.

At least your motivation (wanting to fix the system) appears to be good, but there just isn't a realistic way to do it. The motivation of idiots like Ratigan and his ilk isn't to fix a broken process, it's to fix the problem of morons they like not getting elected all the time.

 

[wayliff]

So who gets to be a "candidate"? Anyone? Thousands, millions of them, all getting equal time? Oh, wait, someone has to set some sort of threshold. And how does someone meet that threshold? Who pays for that effort if no personal funds can be used? What about "issue ads", where someone basically pays for an ad about an issue without identifying (or endorsing) a particular candidate?

That's what I'm telling you, anyone who thinks there's any realistic way of "fixing" the crappy system is naive. There isn't.

At least your motivation (wanting to fix the system) appears to be good, but there just isn't a realistic way to do it. The motivation of idiots like Ratigan and his ilk isn't to fix a broken process, it's to fix the problem of morons they like not getting elected all the time.

Good points. I'm not sure how a 'requirement\threshold' can be set but surely with some thought something good can come out.
I agree something like this would be necessary.

Right now it seems like the only way to be a candidate is to have a sponsor or self-fund. That in itself already influences the motives of a candidate. (unless I'm mistaken on how it really occurs)
During the elections in FL, I came to realize there were many more candidates than what I was being fed by the media or big ads. I only knew about 3 or 4 when it reality there were double that amount or a few more.

Agreed, the ideal solution is likely not realistic but it has to start somewhere and keep building on it.

 

[First]

Is this a trick question? Obviously "neither" is the correct answer. If I had to choose one, I'd pick the "rich guy and his marketing machine" to trust because at least with him I know his agenda is to personally benefit. With the media I have to figure out what their leftist agenda for the day is.

lmao, what a fucking tard.