Guy fricking loses it on MSNBC, but it's awesome.

[disappoint]

Your thread title is mis leading. I was expecting somebody to be losing their ****... This video is rather old at this point, and the guy is simply spewing facts.

He's dead on.


And then you have ignorant people like PokerGuy who somehow can't grasp that what the guy is saying is correct. I also love how the right wing crowd always reverts to the " OK What do we do? What is your plan? " But then at the same time, they don't want to admit that there's even a problem. I know the old saying says if it's broke don't fix it but let me assure you it's broke and just because you are still getting a paycheck and not hurting doesn't mean it's not broken.

That right there is the problem. The people getting paid like the system the way it is because they are getting paid. Damn the long term consequences in their eyes. It's old fashioned greed and if it isn't taken out of policy making it will only get worse. People like Pokerguy are simply selfish. They don't care about the nation, they don't care about long the long term, they don't care about anyone else but themselves. As long as they get paid the system works for them. They have a very narrow minded tunnel vision view of the world and simply don't care as long as they get theirs.

 

[PokerGuy]

You think Dylan Ratigan is a lefty? LMAO shows how woefully uninformed you are...

He's a frequent contributor on that paint huffer site, huffpo, and he hosts a show on msnbc. Yeah, that just screams "right wing". Idiot. Granted, he's a little more pragmatic than most left wing loons, but that's not saying much.

Lots of people just see left vs right. You can also goto the OWS thread to see endless other examples of this. left winger sees left winger stating facts, refuses to acknowledge facts but rather changes the subject, tries to insult the right winger, or any number of other immature tactics.

I went ahead and corrected that for you.

 

[airdata]

He's a frequent contributor on that paint huffer site, huffpo, and he hosts a show on msnbc. Yeah, that just screams "right wing". Idiot. Granted, he's a little more pragmatic than most left wing loons, but that's not saying much.
I went ahead and corrected that for you.

You didn't correct anything. What you did was reinforce my previous posts about you and people like you.

What you could do, is refute anything the guy says in the video. That is, if you can. I'm guessing you can't because you can't refute the truth.

 

[PokerGuy]

What you could do, is refute anything the guy says in the video. That is, if you can. I'm guessing you can't because you can't refute the truth.

There's nothing to refute, the guy comes emotionally unhinged, throwing out his opinion. The get money out of politics angle is plain stupid, so he had nothing of value to say.

 

[Vic Vega]

How surprising, another lefty coming emotionally unhinged.

It's not about left or right. There is no left or right. It's a fantasy. It's we the people, and they the government. Wake up.

 

[Vic Vega]

There's nothing to refute, the guy comes emotionally unhinged, throwing out his opinion. The get money out of politics angle is plain stupid, so he had nothing of value to say.

You're part of the problem. Your way of thinking is obsolete and archaic.

 

[classy]

Its really simple to fix. But the problem is, those who could fix it, don't benefit from a fixed system.

 

[theeedude]

It's Rattigan and Santelli trying to out-outrage each other. Both failed in their role as financial journalists and reporters to inform the public of the out of control Wall street practices when the mess was being created, but now they are jockeying to be the most outraged about it.

 

[wayliff]

There's nothing to refute, the guy comes emotionally unhinged, throwing out his opinion.

I am not defending Ratigan...I saw your post and wow that sounds just like O'Reilly.

The get money out of politics angle is plain stupid, so he had nothing of value to say.

Why is that?

 

[wayliff]

anyway ... sign the petition if you believe on it.
http://www.getmoneyout.com/

 

[Fenixgoon]

That's not a bad idea. Anonymization of donors. That process in itself would be ripe for corruption, but an interesting idea nonetheless.

it's too easy for such a small piece of information to slip. sure, the donation might be anonymous, but who's to say that someone won't "accidentally" leak origin of that donation

my personal opinion:

the federal government should allot a certain amount of money for running campaigns. ONLY this money can be used to run the campaign.

any party that manages some minimum percentage of vote (it'd have to be small to encourage more than a 2-party system) is eligible to receive funding in the next election. these percentages would probably have to vary for presidential, house, and senate elections, since each election covers a different sized population/geographic region.

media coverage may only be donated, and must be done equitably for all candidates/parties.

so where do i envision PACs coming into play in the political system now? they still organize people and let them harass members of congress, but the money train stops.

let's say $1M per runner for congressional seats, ~$10M for presidents. in total it'd be no more than ~$2B I estimate.

 

[PokerGuy]

Why is that?

Because it can not be done. You might as well be talking about unicorns and magical fairies to solve the problem.

 

[wayliff]

Because it can not be done. You might as well be talking about unicorns and magical fairies to solve the problem.

Ahh ok. Here I was thinking you had a reason but it is actually because you gave up.

It may indeed be very hard to do, and yes it may currently sound like unicorns and hobbits, but it does not mean it cannot be done.

At work\life\sports...do you just give up on something or do you keep trying, seek help, etc. until you can accomplish it?

 

[William Gaatjes]

He has at least the good attitude and i agree with some points. But the money is not being transported outside of the US. I think it is more that the US is incredibly financially inefficient as a whole when it comes to spending and taking responsibility for the money spend. On top of that is interest to be paid. +cost billing schemes. Over the top charging making insane amounts of profits while using cheap subcontractors. Those profits have to come from somewhere. More internal political competition that also lowers overall financial efficiency. The list is endless...

 

[Ausm]

It's Rattigan and Santelli trying to out-outrage each other. Both failed in their role as financial journalists and reporters to inform the public of the out of control Wall street practices when the mess was being created, but now they are jockeying to be the most outraged about it.

Interesting take, I think you are spot on here now that I look back on it.

 

[WackyDan]

This guy didn't lose it. He got it.

No he didn't... He ignored the fact that the president is bought and paid for too.

 

[airdata]

Originally Posted by PokerGuy
There's nothing to refute, the guy comes emotionally unhinged, throwing out his opinion.

An opinion is something you think. He simply tells it how it is. Our elected officals are bought off. Lobbyists come in and take them to lunch or golf and suddenly instead of working for the people who elected them, they're working for some corporation.

Any elected official found to have ANY conflict of interest should be forced to step down.

Bills should be limited to a certain number of pages and anybody caught trying to hide unrelated legislation in the middle of a 600 page bill should be put in jail.

Serving as high official in the government is meant to be a service to the country. Not a free lunch, not a get rich quick scheme. Anybody who isn't looking at it like that shouldn't hold such a position.

 

[woolfe9999]

Ahh ok. Here I was thinking you had a reason but it is actually because you gave up.

It may indeed be very hard to do, and yes it may currently sound like unicorns and hobbits, but it does not mean it cannot be done.

At work\life\sports...do you just give up on something or do you keep trying, seek help, etc. until you can accomplish it?

A better response to his foolish comment is simply this: "getting the money out of politics" isn't an all or nothing proposition. Measures can certainly be taken to reduce the influence of monied interests. He is taking the statement literally and "refuting" it by assuming it is an all or nothing. The notion that nothing can be done to improve the situation by degrees is absurd.

 

[wayliff]

The notion that nothing can be done to improve the situation by degrees is absurd.

Agreed.

 

[irishScott]

People have been living with the actions of Congress and that doesn't seem to make them think, not sure this video will have any better impact.

Because 9/10 people are employed. Most people just want the services they've come to expect and then be left alone to live their lives. Only the radicals care enough to devote the time to change things, for now.

Hell I'm a prime example. I'm young, smart, able, I could make a hell of a career in politics if I wanted to. Hell in all honestly I think I'd make a damn good President if I went at it. But I prefer engineering and don't want to deal with all the backstabbing and maneuver and corruption. Most people are some variation of this, and only the corrupt and radical even attempt to make it politically.

I don't know the magic number, but once the middle class starts being more and more negatively affected, shit will fly, and the radicals will be all but silenced. ~80% of America is moderate, but only ~30% of that 80% vote. Once things get bad enough that moderates become involved en-masse, then and only then will things change for the better. And hopefully at that time we'll put a system in place that dis-empowers the rich and the radicals.

 

[werepossum]

A better response to his foolish comment is simply this: "getting the money out of politics" isn't an all or nothing proposition. Measures can certainly be taken to reduce the influence of monied interests. He is taking the statement literally and "refuting" it by assuming it is an all or nothing. The notion that nothing can be done to improve the situation by degrees is absurd.

I don't think there is any way to take the money out of politics because there is so much at stake. Government is literally in every facet of our lives and our society, and government action can make or break an industry or even an individual company in the blink of an eye. Also there is the problem of how to reduce the influence of money without empowering the parties or the media.

I think there are some steps that could be taken, but due to SCOTUS' decisions they would require a Constitutional Amendment. If you could ban all contributions by corporations (including unions) and ban all bundling, you'd remove a great part of the influence people can buy. Make it illegal to handle any political contribution but your own. You'd still empower the media because the media would naturally fill the void, but there are choices of viewpoints available in the media. And money would still be used to influence elections and policy, but would have to do things outside the electoral system where there are more stringent rules against graft and it's easier to pinpoint. Anyone wanting his free speech rights would have to make his own commercials or do so with someone else, not directly fund a candidate except to a few thousand dollars, and would have to provide a web site with every donation listed. You'd also have to limit contributions to Presidential inaugurations and libraries and such.

Of course, we're all assuming that making Congress even more divorced from anything outside the Beltway would automatically being a good thing. I'd say we'd also have to enact term limits, or Congress would become completely divorced from the rest of the country.

 

[PokerGuy]

The notion that nothing can be done to improve the situation by degrees is absurd.

No, I honestly don't believe it's absurd at all. No matter what measures you take to try and "fix" the problem, it will not fix anything because money can not be taken out of politics, it is part and parcel of it. Money = power, and politics = power. Those with one have the other, and vice versa. The nutty ranting by those who want to take money out of politics is pointless.

 

[irishScott]

No, I honestly don't believe it's absurd at all. No matter what measures you take to try and "fix" the problem, it will not fix anything because money can not be taken out of politics, it is part and parcel of it. Money = power, and politics = power. Those with one have the other, and vice versa. The nutty ranting by those who want to take money out of politics is pointless.

Oversimplification fail.

Politics = administrative power
Money = buying power.

The administrators could draft a system, entirely tax supported, that levels the playing field and effectively removes money from the equation. They refuse to because most like the status quo.

 

[woolfe9999]

No, I honestly don't believe it's absurd at all. No matter what measures you take to try and "fix" the problem, it will not fix anything because money can not be taken out of politics, it is part and parcel of it. Money = power, and politics = power. Those with one have the other, and vice versa. The nutty ranting by those who want to take money out of politics is pointless.

According to your logic, every other democracy in the world must have the same or a worse problem with money in politics than the U.S. I don't think that's the case. No, rules can be established to diminish the problem. Eliminate it entirely? No, of course not.

 

[Craig234]

It's not about left or right. There is no left or right. It's a fantasy. It's we the people, and they the government. Wake up.

Actually, it's we the people and our (stolen) democracy, and they the 0.01% who own and extract wealth rather than simply being 'well off' in a system that 'lifts all boats'.