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.
No, there's not. Not to mention that you are expecting 50% of the rich to behave altruistically. Indeed, faith that the rich WOULD behave altruistically is the only way that the payments of the rich (in politics) could serve the poor.
Nonetheless, you still didn't address my main point, which was that this notion of money as speech is incompatible with democracy. Benevolent fuedal Lords advocating on behalf of the serfs wasn't democracy, just as benevolent hedge funders and CEOs advocating on behalf of the poor doesn't constitute democracy.
Wrong - I am pro-democracy and our forefathers ran away from an authoritarian plutocracy which American neocon-servatives yearn to recreate here for their own benefit. That's what Citizens United is all about thanks to an activist right-wing republicon Supreme Court. Money as "free speech"?? Laughable - and I'm pretty sure your activist SCOTUS knows it. Money is property and nothing more!
The plutocratic mentality is never dead and is always working under the radar for leverage with our government. They got a nice boost with Citizens United.
The idle rich have both time and money on their hands to lobby Congress for favors, a perk the ordinary citizen doesn't have. For instance, con-servatives love the fact that the wealthy get personal audiences with our congressmen whom they know must grovel for monetary support, and corporations can virtually author their own legislation. A middle-class wage earner won't get past the door. Rightists call this "economic freedom" and they sniff at the prospect of publicly-financed elections.
Here's the truth you don't want people to know. Tom Perkins' big idea: The rich should get more votes - Feb. 14, 2014 Tom Perkins, The Rich Already Own Congress. Why Should They Be The Only Ones To Vote | Zwinglius Redivivus
Quote: Tom Perkins, the Silicon Valley billionaire, has risked further controversy by saying the rich should be given more votes than the less well off.
The guy openly and smugly admits to what con-servatives are really thinking. This is just the tip of the iceberg of such views, and I'm pretty sure this guy speaks for the rest of you.
It's all about the "more worthy" running things, y'know. You disagree?
The rulings allow dark money in our elections, how can you support non-disclosure?
Since you decide to go on an emotional "commie socialist" hissy-fit, and Fox "News" does the same, that is pretty typical of a dittoheads imo. Sorry, but RW dittoheads are a peeve of mine since I am not "socialist" at all.
I still need for you to explain why con-servatives prefer plutocracy over democracy or why it is better for America. Allowing more money into politics does not "even things up" and that is a self-serving rightist lie.
Surely you can explain your own beliefs.
The "idle rich"? Lol.
Do you know rich people? Every rich person I know works incredibly hard and has very little spare time to go buy off congressmen. Some people have more power and influence in society, that will never change. This ideology that evil rich people shouldn't be donating lots of money seems based in the idea that everyone should have an equal influence on government. That's a noble idea, but totally unrealistic. You can publicly finance elections but you will still have a wealthy elite who govern. By severely limiting or totally capping what individuals can donate, you ARE limiting the freedom of people to do what they want with their resources.
Donations should be regulated heavily, but it should limit freedom as little as possible. Also, influence does not necessarily equal corruption. That's the whole point of this decision.
No, there's not. Not to mention that you are expecting 50% of the rich to behave altruistically. Indeed, faith that the rich WOULD behave altruistically is the only way that the payments of the rich (in politics) could serve the poor.
Nonetheless, you still didn't address my main point, which was that this notion of money as speech is incompatible with democracy. Benevolent fuedal Lords advocating on behalf of the serfs wasn't democracy, just as benevolent hedge funders and CEOs advocating on behalf of the poor doesn't constitute democracy.
A surprising number of people don't vote or donate in their narrow self-interest.
Look at all the poor Republicans in red states, or the ultra-rich in Democrats in Hollywood.
As to your second point, your wording is a little unclear to me. Are you implying that we should allow people to speak, but just not allow them provide away for people to hear them?
No you ain't. If you were, you would be throwing an equal "hissy fit" that the left raises more money from wealthy individuals. Besides, we are a representative republic to begin with, not a democracy, are we not?
You think that by repeating verbatim the daily emails you get from OWS somehow provides any logical reasoning to your propagandistic BS?
Class-struggle agitation, hatred of the Americanism, Marxist slogans, PC, intransigence, Faux News / teabagger jokes are the usual staples of daily garbage many people, like yourself seem to be indoctrinated with by so-called "Progressives" who look to "transform" (read "regress") our very innovative republicanism back to a 5000 year tyrannical regime, which this flavor of velvet Marxism is all about.
You belong to a sick mindset, which always has led to self-destruction and scorched earth. You fellas need to come out of the closet and really say what you are for -- an all-too powerful tyranny, where individuals are in the service of the Govt.
Do you know rich people? Every rich person I know works incredibly hard and has very little spare time to go buy off congressmen. Some people have more power and influence in society, that will never change. This ideology that evil rich people shouldn't be donating lots of money seems based in the idea that everyone should have an equal influence on government. That's a noble idea, but totally unrealistic. You can publicly finance elections but you will still have a wealthy elite who govern. By severely limiting or totally capping what individuals can donate, you ARE limiting the freedom of people to do what they want with their resources.
Donations should be regulated heavily, but it should limit freedom as little as possible. Also, influence does not necessarily equal corruption. That's the whole point of this decision.
First: The super-rich in this country and across the world are investors and some are inheritance babies like Romney, the Koch brothers, and Trump. So a millionaire with investment income works a million times harder than the ordinary American? "Incredibly hard" my foot.
Second: You pulled the second statement above totally out of your behind. You can't even explain how that would be true. If the public finances elections, the candidates will have to respond to them instead of their rich handlers. In effect, the public becomes their handlers.
The third should not exist at all. It is these "donations" that make this a plutocracy.
Since you say it is inevitable (but really not), you still seem to believe in rule-by-wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry10
No you ain't. If you were, you would be throwing an equal "hissy fit" that the left raises more money from wealthy individuals. Besides, we are a representative republic to begin with, not a democracy, are we not?
You think that by repeating verbatim the daily emails you get from OWS somehow provides any logical reasoning to your propagandistic BS?
Class-struggle agitation, hatred of the Americanism, Marxist slogans, PC, intransigence, Faux News / teabagger jokes are the usual staples of daily garbage many people, like yourself seem to be indoctrinated with by so-called "Progressives" who look to "transform" (read "regress") our very innovative republicanism back to a 5000 year tyrannical regime, which this flavor of velvet Marxism is all about.
You belong to a sick mindset, which always has led to self-destruction and scorched earth. You fellas need to come out of the closet and really say what you are for -- an all-too powerful tyranny, where individuals are in the service of the Govt.
Right wingers keep bringing this up. We are supposed to be a republic, which by definition has a representative government - for all citizens, not just an upper economic class. Our representatives are supposed to be elected democratically and not running on the basis of how much money they can get from anybody, but the wealthy have the money. It is democratically-elected representatives which separates us from governments who do it differently, thus why we are called a "democracy" as opposed to other governments.
You are not against propaganda - at least corporate fascist propaganda. That is what Fox "News" is all about. Pro-democracy media is what you are calling "leftist" propaganda.
The "left" - what a joke. There is no freakin' "left" just because Faux News says there is. Faux is the voice of corporate fascism and plutocracy - both tyrannical forms of government, and the dittoheads who support that ideology are the real would-be tyrants. Y'all righties just "hate government" - only until you can use it for your own ends. You are transparent as glass, seriously.
You still have not explained why rule-by-wealth and the purchase of government by an upper class is good for America. You have not explained your seeming support for dark money secretly coming from any source, including our foreign enemies who may wish to influence our elections. Is that because you cannot?
BTW a "regressive" is a right-winger who wants to return to the 1920s financially, or one who wants to return to the 1950s culturally. A contemporary "progressive" is one who is against creeping fascism and plutocracy as well as against the other social inequities in the news today. So I am a "progressive" and you blindly accept the Faux News or Rush Limbaugh definitions - which are lies.
These terms are already out there and you cannot redefine them to suit yourself.
No, there's not. Not to mention that you are expecting 50% of the rich to behave altruistically. Indeed, faith that the rich WOULD behave altruistically is the only way that the payments of the rich (in politics) could serve the poor.
Nonetheless, you still didn't address my main point, which was that this notion of money as speech is incompatible with democracy. Benevolent fuedal Lords advocating on behalf of the serfs wasn't democracy, just as benevolent hedge funders and CEOs advocating on behalf of the poor doesn't constitute democracy.
You got it pretty well nailed on this phony altruism of the wealthy - yet their media expects us to believe it. Jeez, maybe many people do.
Money as speech rather than property is a road to oligarchy foisted upon us by a right-wing activist bought-and-paid-for SCOTUS (4 or 5 members of it). I hope at some point their treason and that of their congressional allies becomes apparent to all - but unfortunately they also own the major media.
There is no need to "re-define" plutocracy. It is "alive and kicking" in the Democratic party.
(B) Furthermore, we don't see drones like you throw a "hissy fit" that multi-millionaires like Obama, Reid, Schumer, Clinton who became plutocrats by getting into Government, and not contributing a single paycheck to the society, but simply as leeches, that you and I finance. I will even throw many republicans in there.
Why are these (A) and (B) plutocrats exempt from your "hissy fits?" Why is your "hissy fit" directed only to the dissenting Rich, those who do not comply with your dogma?
Because the "hissy fit" you have submitted to, has really nothing to do with fairness -- it is simply a weapon to eliminate the opponent.
Ironically, these are the rich that have contributed to our society, unlike the above-mentioned leeches who never earned a dollar in the real world, and never employed a single soul.
Your attack is not simply an attack on these Rich, but it is an attack on the American spirit, hard-work, innovation, risk-taking, looking after your fellow citizen, free speech.
SCOTUS has made many pathetic decisions, including those that your ilk supported, such as slavery and discrimination. But they got this decision right, for a change.
You have not explained your seeming support for dark money secretly coming from any source, including our foreign enemies who may wish to influence our elections. Is that because you cannot?
I would love that donations be disclosed, but I only cringe when I see the PC crowds, IRS targeting of political opponents, an AG in contempt of Congress.
You can't speak your mind these days, you can't refuse a stupid cake, you can't oppose gay marriage unless you have no problem with getting a crowd demonstrate outside your home, being boycotted for your thoughts, being financially ruined.
First: The super-rich in this country and across the world are investors and some are inheritance babies like Romney, the Koch brothers, and Trump. So a millionaire with investment income works a million times harder than the ordinary American? "Incredibly hard" my foot.
Second: You pulled the second statement above totally out of your behind. You can't even explain how that would be true. If the public finances elections, the candidates will have to respond to them instead of their rich handlers. In effect, the public becomes their handlers.
The third should not exist at all. It is these "donations" that make this a plutocracy.
Since you say it is inevitable (but really not), you still seem to believe in rule-by-wealth.
1. Most billionaires are self-made and the vast majority of millionaires are self-made. Yes, some are born into it, but not many.
2. This statement is just common sense. The power certainly wouldn't be AS concentrated in the hands of "wealthy" people, but you'd still have the societal elite who are calling important shots. If campaigns are totally financed through public funds, you put the power in the hands of the government as opposed to the evil rich. Who decided who gets on the ballot? If the positions of a politician violate some standards of the government, are their finances withdrawn? The idea that publicly financed elections would result in some utopian system where elected officials are totally beholden to the public is naive. If anything, more wealthy people donating ensures that more interests are represented. If you have some buerocracy running elections, they hold the power. And you'd still have figures in media and such who can control who gets the most publicity when campaigns can't do it themselves.
3. You can exchange favors that are not strictly financial. What makes you think that candidates won't become corrupted by those who control the ballots?
Finally, when you apply this logic, it gets more ridiculous further down the line. Can you no longer use ANY private funds to pursue your policy preferences and ideologies? That's what happens when you apply this logic across the board. I find it ironic that candidates who oppose "rule by wealth" ask for and depend on donations from wealthy donors to further their cause. If it's so morally corrupt, why not stay true to your values by avoiding the influence of wealthy donors?
Both sides have plenty of $$$$$$$ to buy influence....so I see NO problems associated with this ruling!
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.
If the public finances elections, the candidates will have to respond to them instead of their rich handlers. In effect, the public becomes their handlers.
