Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
ads affect the vote. That is completely undeniable.
As to who spent more...Does it matter? Its corrupting. But looking at it...most say the Republicans are spending slightly more, but due to the hidden nature of the billions of dark money its hard to say.
I agree, money influences the vote.
Smart money legally bribes both sides in order to hedge their bets so beneficial treatment is guaranteed no matter which 'team' member is elected.
The real benefit comes from money spent in lobbying versus money spent to influence campaigns. Money spent on campaigns simply 'greases the wheels.'
There are many sources confirming & propose a challenge to provide a source which disconfirms. Here's another source confirming;
Quote:
Tax lobbying provides 22,000 percent return to firms, KU researchers find
LAWRENCE — Three professors at the University of Kansas have found that a one-time tax break allowed several multinational corporations to receive a 22,000 percent return on lobbying expenditures. ... KU News - Tax lobbying provides 22,000 percent return to firms, KU researchers find
Quote:
Further, the KU professors found that firms lobbying for the repatriation provision received lucrative returns on their lobbying investment. On average, firms generated a 22,000 percent return on tax lobbying. When the researchers examined the firms investing more than $1 million in tax lobbying, the return jumped to 24,300 percent.
It's worth noting that some of the firms who repatriated their tax sheltered profits, then turned around & outsourced jobs to other Countries (not included in rate of return on lobbying).
Quote:
Alexander, Mazza and Scholz concluded that the tax policy implications are troubling. Many economic development policies are aimed at supporting emerging firms and industries. This tax provision appears to be doing the opposite as it provides tax subsidies to well-established and highly profitable firms and industries. Mazza hopes this study informs elected officials when similar provisions are introduced.
The following describes the opportunity costs (to our economy) of rent-seeking behaviors:
Quote:
“Perhaps it is time for a national conversation about the role of lobbyists in tax reform,” he said. “We should be concerned when a corporation’s most lucrative investment is in lobbying the government for tax benefits.”
ads affect the vote. That is completely undeniable.
As to who spent more...Does it matter? Its corrupting. But looking at it...most say the Republicans are spending slightly more, but due to the hidden nature of the billions of dark money its hard to say.
ads affect the vote. That is completely undeniable.
As to who spent more...Does it matter? Its corrupting. But looking at it...most say the Republicans are spending slightly more, but due to the hidden nature of the billions of dark money its hard to say.
It all evens out. I don't think we need to infringe on political speech.
The corporate welfare of "too big to fail" alone is 18 billion dollars every year as the culprit banks benefit from lower interest rates as a result of the welfare provided by tax payers.
And let's not get started on the crash itself caused by the reckless greed and criminal behavior that cost the taxpayer trillions of dollars in damages to the US economy.
The repeal of Glass Steagal and the deregulation craze should go down in history as a crime against the American people.
The last few decades have redistributed resources similar to those during the 'gilded age.' & similar to back then & for many of the same reasons, concentration of economic power tends to become self reinforcing.
Something's gotta give, what do you think about bringing back Glass-Steagall. There's a bill out there:
Actually I answered your question quite clearly. It appears Republicans do. But apparently you missed the important part. It doesn't matter. Yes I know, you want to argue the details, and argue that somehow Democrats or unions were worse using some cherry picked or partial answer. You want this to be partisan. It isn't.
The reality is that money in politics is corrupting and bad. If you want to get into the nitty gritty argument about who is worse, feel free. To do it with yourself, or in some more specific thread here. I might even join you in debating it. Stay on topic here. Extreme inequality is bad for democracy because it causes the financial power of a few to determine a systems actions that are supposed to be based upon everyone.
I don't worry about people making millions but the lack of jobs due to too many illegals. It's killing the low skilled/educated workers and their chance to just find a job, let alone a decent paying job.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
