Matt Taibbi: How the Democrats destroyed their very own finance reform bill

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
And you miss my point. You cannot remove money from politics. No amount of regulation or "ethics" will change that. Big government attracts big money and corruption is the name of the game. The wealthy have access to the federal government. You do not and never will.

The layers of government and their responsibilities is not a separate question. In fact it is the most important question. As power has moved away from cities and states and to the feds, power has moved from the citizen, to the corporation and the ultra wealthy. Until you understand that, you cannot fix the problem.

I am beginning to see the wisdom of how its done in Australia.

Election season only last 4 -6 weeks prior to the election. This keeps down the cost of campaigning.

Federal elections are federally funded, not privately. This keeps out most of the influence.

Finally, it is compulsory to vote in elections - their turnout %age is typically in the mid-90's. Those who do not vote are asked for an explanation and are fined if no satisfactory explanation is given. This keeps the electorate involved and gives a more representative Govt.


It is my opinion that lobbying is one of the worst aspects of the American system. And the SC interpretation that Corporations are 'persons' and thus have rights, including free speech.

..
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,145
10
81
i have said for years the US has gone from "we the people" to "them that have money" its no longer about the average person. its about Big corporations.

when you have big business implementing laws at the expense of the poeple and small business (and protecting big business) something is wrong.

The recent bailouts should be proof. it was not about the little guy but about the rich. same with the "help the workers" bailouts. seems they are geared to the unions more then the average worker.

this is not a R or D issue either. its the fact nearly all politicans are lieing sacks of shit.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
Governments have one thing in common and that's to increase it's power. If they can use corporations they will. If they can use unions they will. When they don't reform social programs they are pandering to another group.

There has been no effort by politicians to remove themselves from benefiting from office. Not one has made it their mission. Lip service always.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Governments have one thing in common and that's to increase it's power. If they can use corporations they will. If they can use unions they will. When they don't reform social programs they are pandering to another group.

There has been no effort by politicians to remove themselves from benefiting from office. Not one has made it their mission. Lip service always.

Because it's not about 'politicians benefiting from office'. That PEANUTS, it's NOTHING.

It's about the interests who want the benefits of policy getting their way FROM politicians.

You're ignoring the billions of the policy, to whine about the thousands for the politicians, completely missing the issue.

It's not about government power using corporations. It's about the private corporate power using government.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
i have said for years the US has gone from "we the people" to "them that have money" its no longer about the average person. its about Big corporations.

when you have big business implementing laws at the expense of the poeple and small business (and protecting big business) something is wrong.

The recent bailouts should be proof. it was not about the little guy but about the rich. same with the "help the workers" bailouts. seems they are geared to the unions more then the average worker.

this is not a R or D issue either. its the fact nearly all politicans are lieing sacks of shit.

You were doing well, but the only big political faction that is NOT serving the corporatocracy agenda is the progressive wing of the Dems.

You don't need to try to equate unions and the corporatocracy - they are hugely different, from the size of their power to the effects of their agenda on the public.

For one thing, many non-union workers do better as a result of unions doing better.

I can name you many politicians who are not 'lying' - will you support them?

If not, how are you not helping cause the problems? Take a Sen. Bernie Sanders - he's not 'lying', he's not out for the rich or the corporate agenda. Support more like him?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Election season only last 4 -6 weeks prior to the election. This keeps down the cost of campaigning.

..

I agree with the non-quoted pointed, but I'm not so sure about this one. Again and again I've seen candidates make a big 'splash' and people support them, but over months of scrutiny the people get their good sense and change their opinion. I suspect we benefit from the cooling off period after the first weeks with longer campaigns. Remember, it was 'in the bag' for Hillary for months - to which Hillary supporters say 'ya, so let's have short elections'.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
You were doing well, but the only big political faction that is NOT serving the corporatocracy agenda is the progressive wing of the Dems.

You don't need to try to equate unions and the corporatocracy - they are hugely different, from the size of their power to the effects of their agenda on the public.

For one thing, many non-union workers do better as a result of unions doing better.

I can name you many politicians who are not 'lying' - will you support them?

If not, how are you not helping cause the problems? Take a Sen. Bernie Sanders - he's not 'lying', he's not out for the rich or the corporate agenda. Support more like him?

http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st329.pdf

Tis a good read. Why do you suppose they are so underwater?

As far as the "progressive wing of the Democrats", I haven't seen one that seems to understand basic math yet. Even your favorite Krugman doesn't seem to understand exponents. I must assume that he passed algebra in college but I don't want to go so far as to say that he is intentionally misleading people (read: lying). Not that everything he says is but enough...

You can cheat the math for a while but eventually math wins everytime.

On the bright side, I do agree with you that the Republicans suck too.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
I agree with the non-quoted pointed, but I'm not so sure about this one. Again and again I've seen candidates make a big 'splash' and people support them, but over months of scrutiny the people get their good sense and change their opinion. I suspect we benefit from the cooling off period after the first weeks with longer campaigns. Remember, it was 'in the bag' for Hillary for months - to which Hillary supporters say 'ya, so let's have short elections'.

Those "months of scrutiny" are generally where the huge sums of money from the people who purchase those politicians comes into play.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,331
10,237
136
I used to think term limits on all public offices was a good idea, lately I've been reconsidering. Would it really change anything? Or would we simply have a group of inexperienced people being bribed just as the lifers are right now? I don't like the idea of career politicians, but is the problem really the person in the position or is the problem the position itself?

Exactly, you would end up with staffer technocracts owned by lobbyist making legislation who don't have get reelected. Not that many bills aren't already written by lobbyist.
 
Last edited:

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Reading The Treasury’s Worrisome Position on the Volcker Rule, it sounds like you folks need to compel your White House to give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner the boot.

More generally, if what Mr. Taibbi is reporting is correct (and from other sources it looks to be the case) there's an enormous disconnect between what the media reports and what actually happens in your Congress. That before anything else must be addressed. Some semblance of media neutrality to allow them to call it like it is must be reintroduced.
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
I agree with the non-quoted pointed, but I'm not so sure about this one. Again and again I've seen candidates make a big 'splash' and people support them, but over months of scrutiny the people get their good sense and change their opinion. I suspect we benefit from the cooling off period after the first weeks with longer campaigns. Remember, it was 'in the bag' for Hillary for months - to which Hillary supporters say 'ya, so let's have short elections'.
Those "months of scrutiny" are generally where the huge sums of money from the people who purchase those politicians comes into play.

The longer the campaign the more money is required. I would rather take my chances with a shorter campaigning period. It's not as if the candidates for higher offices are completely unknown quantities.

..
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
The longer the campaign the more money is required. I would rather take my chances with a shorter campaigning period. It's not as if the candidates for higher offices are completely unknown quantities.

..

Take the same money, and blast it into a shorter period - it'll be an even more media-driven, aka money-driven, election.

The tidbits we DO get to counter the money tend to take time coming from reactions to events, offhand comments and such.

Nice idea to go shorter and make them government-funded, but we have a problem doing that with the recent 5-4 Supreme Court ruling entrenching unlimited corporate money.

Short campaigns + unlimited corporate funding = disaster IMO.

And yes, many even presidential candidates are little known by most of the American people until the campaign.

What did people really know about Barack Obama or John McCain before the campaign, seeing things like Obama's race speech or McCain's bumbling in the economy's meltdown?

You just had the carefully crafted publicity - McCain the 'Maverick', which he never said he was, if you ask him later. No, remember the unlimited corporate funds here.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,328
126
Take the same money, and blast it into a shorter period - it'll be an even more media-driven, aka money-driven, election.

The tidbits we DO get to counter the money tend to take time coming from reactions to events, offhand comments and such.

Nice idea to go shorter and make them government-funded, but we have a problem doing that with the recent 5-4 Supreme Court ruling entrenching unlimited corporate money.

Short campaigns + unlimited corporate funding = disaster IMO.

And yes, many even presidential candidates are little known by most of the American people until the campaign.

What did people really know about Barack Obama or John McCain before the campaign, seeing things like Obama's race speech or McCain's bumbling in the economy's meltdown?

You just had the carefully crafted publicity - McCain the 'Maverick', which he never said he was, if you ask him later. No, remember the unlimited corporate funds here.

You make a good point but I think that the opposite is also true:

long campaigns + unlimited funding = at least an equal disaster.

The 4 weeks running up to the election are always a media blitz anyways. I am not sure how it could get more saturated at this point but as I have often learned the hard way, things can always get worse. With that said, our current election cycles are absurdly long. A ton of politicians spend 25-50% of their time in office campaigning (or raising funds) for reelection.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
You make a good point but I think that the opposite is also true:

long campaigns + unlimited funding = at least an equal disaster.

The 4 weeks running up to the election are always a media blitz anyways. I am not sure how it could get more saturated at this point but as I have often learned the hard way, things can always get worse. With that said, our current election cycles are absurdly long. A ton of politicians spend 25-50% of their time in office campaigning (or raising funds) for reelection.

I've seen in election after election how there are 'flashes' of support for weeks or months for some people where I say, I hope the support goes away and people get sane again.

I hate the idea of us electing someone during those flashes. Not the best example, but remember Fred Thompson? There was a time Mitt Romney was 'the guy'.

When John Kennedy ran he had laid the groundwork like no candidate ever had, flying to local political groups around the country to build support for years. There was plenty of time to 'vet'.

As far as the spending, donors budget by cycle - so whether that cycle is 2 months or a year, the money doesn't really change. Not only will it mean more saturation, but the prices per minute on tv will shoo up that much more, excluding those without money even more. I just see no benefit to it, and only the danger of even worse informed voters and less chance to let the cream float to the top.