Why don't I care that the rich are getting richer?

[werepossum]

so your argument is because there is no 100% effective solution we shouldn't bother changing anything. You must live quite life under that principle.

His argument is that there is no 1% effective solution, and it's a very persuasive argument. People's lives, fortunes and freedoms are at stake; it's completely unrealistic to imagine that it is possible to remove the money from politics. Nor in my opinion is it even desirable. The idea of such a powerful government with no way to influence it is frankly somewhat frightening to me.

Nearly always, when someone proposes "removing the money from politics" they actually mean "removing the money of people I don't like from politics." For myself I'd like to see a ban on all forms of bundling to candidates and parties - conventional bundlers, unions and corporations alike. But there is no way to prevent people from banding together to run ads for or against a candidate or an issue. Nor should there be; political speech is our most fundamental First Amendment right. And this, like any other restriction, won't remove any money from politics, it will merely change the form of spending.

 

[Specop 007]

What are you not getting?

Well obviously you are in the rich class yourself.

The 1%ers are raising the costs of everything while at the same time driving wages down resulting in the destruction of the U.S.

Until you are personally affected, you will not get it.

If you put as much time and effort into working as you did bitching about those who work, you would be solidly in that 1%......

 

[IceBergSLiM]

His argument is that there is no 1% effective solution, and it's a very persuasive argument. People's lives, fortunes and freedoms are at stake; it's completely unrealistic to imagine that it is possible to remove the money from politics. Nor in my opinion is it even desirable. The idea of such a powerful government with no way to influence it is frankly somewhat frightening to me.

Nearly always, when someone proposes "removing the money from politics" they actually mean "removing the money of people I don't like from politics." For myself I'd like to see a ban on all forms of bundling to candidates and parties - conventional bundlers, unions and corporations alike. But there is no way to prevent people from banding together to run ads for or against a candidate or an issue. Nor should there be; political speech is our most fundamental First Amendment right. And this, like any other restriction, won't remove any money from politics, it will merely change the form of spending.

that would at least be more transparent don't you think?

 

[werepossum]

that would at least be more transparent don't you think?

Agreed. Personally I don't think it would violate the First Amendment to require that all contributions be listed by amount, name and town, and in the case of corporate and union contributions (to PACs) a listing of the officers, on a publicly accessible web site. There is an absolute right to free political speech, but not to anonymous political speech.

I think these reforms would help to clean up our system, but Quantom is correct; these or any reforms won't get the money out of politics. There is simply too much at stake.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

If you put as much time and effort into working as you did bitching about those who work, you would be solidly in that 1%......

Not true -- he'd just be able to fill 10 cardboard containers of fries per minute instead of 4.

 

[dank69]

ron paul.

What if he doesn't win the nomination?

 

[QuantumPion]

so your argument is because there is no 100% effective solution we shouldn't bother changing anything. You must live quite life under that principle.

I didn't say we shouldn't bother changing anything. Quite the contrary, my solution is to limit the government power which is the source of the corruption. This is why the founding fathers wanted a limited federal government, to prevent the misuse of power by those with money and influence at the expense of the public. In fact your proposed solution would just make corruption even worse since interests would have to resort to less visible forms of bribery.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

What if he doesn't win the nomination?

vote for him anyways.

 

[dank69]

vote for him anyways.

And you are happy with the results of that?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

And you are happy with the results of that?

status quo is status quo it matters little to me who they say they are aligned with. Everyone else is 2 sides of the same team as far as I'm concerned.

 

[dank69]

status quo is status quo it matters little to me who they say they are aligned with. Everyone else is 2 sides of the same team as far as I'm concerned.

So you are not happy with the results of your write in vote?

 

[IceBergSLiM]

So you are not happy with the results of your write in vote?

Am I happy about a hypothetical vote in the future? I don't have many emotions at all about hypotheticals. If you care to ask a more direct question I can probably give you a better answer.

 

[dank69]

Am I happy about a hypothetical vote in the future? I don't have many emotions at all about hypotheticals. If you care to ask a more direct question I can probably give you a better answer.

Okay, in November 2008, when you went to vote, were you happy that the only two people that had a realistic chance of winning the presidency were Obama and McCain?

 

[blankslate]

And who elects these politicians?

If they are the 1% then how can they win elections at the ballot box when the other 99% is able to vote?

Last time I checked 99% > 1%

The pen is mightier than the sword and all that money buys alot of pens.... or radio markets for their talking heads.

 

[gingermeggs]

"The monkey sat on a pile of stone

And he stared at the broken bone in his hand

Strains of a Viennese quartet rang out across the land

The monkey looked up at the stars

And he thought to himself

Memory is a stranger

History is for fools

And he cleaned his hands in a pool of holy writing

Turned his back on the garden and set out for the nearest town"

I get it!
It's about GW Bush....................

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by dmcowen674
What are you not getting?

Well obviously you are in the rich class yourself.

The 1%ers are raising the costs of everything while at the same time driving wages down resulting in the destruction of the U.S.

Until you are personally affected, you will not get it.

If you put as much time and effort into working as you did bitching about those who work, you would be solidly in that 1%......

I work my fucking ass off. Try again America and American hater.