We need one Member per 100,000 citizens and the ability of the members to primarily work at home in their district. It would make the government far more effective than 1,000 campaign finance laws would. It scatters the flock from the wolves.
Meh, they are convening a Constitutional Convention as we speak. I need to be a delegate. I will call it the Blackboard Amendment. Members, like students, will be required to participate in the Blackboard legislative communityI would personally like to see most of government decentralized dramatically. Unfortunately, we are currently stuck with the centralized behemoth for now. If we want the People to have a say over the corporations then these laws are a necessity.
He absolutely was a conservative. A neoconservative, specifically.
Oh, thats right. The only TRUE conservatives are people like Ted Cruz. :roll: You do not have to be a radical conservative to be a conservative.
There are plenty of uninformed morons who pull straight GOP tickets, at least in my area.
And I don't quite get criticizing, say, single moms for voting for more 'entitlements.' This thread discusses the Koch brothers. We can be certain that the policies they support are good for Koch Industries and their personal fortune. And they're spending $900 million to advance an agenda that benefits them. Someone will have to explain to me why it's OK for the Kochs to spend massive sums to support policies that help them, but somehow illegitimate for a supposedly uninformed single mom to vote for those who she believes will benefit her?
I understand why others object to more 'entitlements' - their taxes pay for them. OK, so you're supporting your interest in lower taxes! It's no different than that single mom. If there is any problem, it's that we no longer feel the need to pay for things and run large deficits which removes the downside of many of our choices, but this is a bipartisan problem.
Anyway, those uninformed liberals are doing nothing more or less than the country's biggest donors and most powerful interest groups, and the latter are who wield by FAR the real power in this country.
You cut out the rest of my comment. The GOP is openly and proudly hostile to unions - would kill them off entirely if given the opportunity.
How about more people earn 100k and less earn 10k and 1 billion.Billionaires make their own chances. But by that logic if I make $100K/yr I get more chances than someone making $10K/yr. So why don't we just go straight to communism where everyone makes $10K/yr, right?
How about more people earn 100k and less earn 10k and 1 billion.
The difference between Communism and Socialism is that under Communism, 'everyone wearing glasses gets their heads smashed in with rifle butts' and under Socialism, 'drinks and smokes are on the middle class'. :roll:
Which do you prefer?
How about more people earn 100k and less earn 10k and 1 billion.
To what do you base your estimate on lobbists? Please provide proof that you're even remotely in the ball park. Also, please provide the basis for their lobbying efforts. Do you think the SEIU is lobbying for business interests? How about the AFL-CIO? A cursory review of the White House guest log indicates your estimates are not very accurate. I would suspect the same holds true on Capitol Hill.
The fact of the matter is that this spending would be very difficult to regulate. While I can bitch about the offensive nature of the Annenberg Learner program being used in public education, it's up to the parents to stop such efforts by these groups. I think they are too disinterested to do so, and appear in many states to be willing to turn the parenting over to the government.
So, that being the case, let the money flow. It's not just from billionaires, as your meme suggests, it's from all directions. They are not putting the money in a pile and burning it, they are spending it on ways they think will influence people towards support of their cause. Even the losers see their money being spent, so what's to worry about?
Frankly, if you tracked ALL the money, Liberal/Progressives should be quiet about reform, since they are way ahead of the game.
It's not "extracted" from anyone. That term implies theft or some type of coercion.
The right of the people - ALL of the people - to profit from their labor, their wit, their wisdom and whatever other LEGAL means they use should NEVER be infringed upon. Furthermore, just because I make a million dollars in no way, shape or forms means that you are somehow prevented from doing the same.
It would be funny to see how the opinion of some posters here will radically change when two Muslim trillionaires start shelling out billions of dollars to strategically back Muslim candidates and defeat Christian ones. Claims that it's a matter of free speech that we allow the system to be owned and manipulated by corporations see a little manufactured to me. I could understand it if somebody said that giving $100 to a local Congressman is an extension of your free speech. I do not understand somebody saying that creating a nationwide effort to manipulate policy in the manner the Koch brothers have done it (honing in on local elections that can be won with money to create Republican majorities on the statewide level) is free speech. It seems no different that what Tammany Hall did except it's on a much bigger scale.
LOL.
Please.
Let's take a quick sampling.
Koch Brothers - NY Times
The Kochs are longtime opponents of campaign disclosure laws. Unlike the parties, their network is constructed chiefly of nonprofit groups that are not required to reveal donors. That makes it almost impossible to tell how much of the money is provided by the Kochs — among the wealthiest men in the country — and how much by other donors.
Soros - NY Times
George Soros, the retired hedge fund billionaire and longtime patron of liberal causes, will invest $2.5 million in the effort, officials involved with the plan said. His participation is a signal that some of the wealthy donors who arrived late to the Democrats’ “super PAC” efforts in 2012 are committing early for the next round.
Details of the effort were presented this week at a Washington conference of the Democracy Alliance, a coalition of some of the country’s biggest liberal givers, which works to steer money and to coordinate political work among advocacy groups. Mr. Soros and other alliance donors were early investors in Catalist, and many of the groups funded by the alliance now buy data from it.
Hmmm. Any mention of the vast array of non profits his Democracy Alliance funds? Any mention of the closed door meetings they hold?
At a glance, Mr. Soros, a hedge fund manager who has helped finance “super PACs" and collaborated with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, does not fit the typical profile of a supporter for Mr. de Blasio, who has pledged to raise taxes on the wealthy and turn back Bloomberg administration policies and who is a frequent critic of unrestricted political spending.
Mr. Soros, a "hedge fund manager"? LOL. Any mention of his global Open Society Institute?
Sorry my friend, but you've not only tripped over your slip, but you did so in the corral. Again, you're going to need bleach to get the stains off.
And how do you propose that happen? Do you understand what earn means?
I predict that conservatives will be underrepresented in the White House after 2016. :lol: No matter how much money the Koch brothers spend.
Wait and see.
C'mon, conservatives don't bemoan? They are constantly bickering and crying over the policies of our "socialist" president. You're a smart guy John and I like you but that's kind of silly.
Bull, the Unions donate to and support the Democrat Party and have been for decades.
The last Union I was in didn't ask me wether or not I wanted my Union dues to go to a Conservative or Progressive candidate.
They took it upon their selves to make that decision for me.
Face it, you guys lost your monopoly and now all you can do is hypocritically complain about political donations coming from large private organizations.
Greetings, JasperL. :2wave:
Since there are 47 million people on food stamps, and countless others on some kind of government assistance, doesn't this indicate there is a big deficiency on the part of our elected leadership in DC? They are the ones steering our ship of state, not the people suffering in this country! We have gone from bad to worse in the past few years - why is this? We are not a third world country, so when does all this bull**** stop? How much are our little incursions in countries in the ME costing us - not only in dollars, but goodwill? They now hate us more than they ever did, and they are also getting more brazen than they ever were before! That sure doesn't look like a winning strategy to me! Meanwhile, too many are suffering here, and that's not right!.
If the Kochs can, in some way, find a way through legislation to provide decent-paying jobs for people who want to work, their money will be well spent, IMO! On the other hand, it looks like Soros wants to continue our downward trend to third-world status! How many jobs has Soros provided, other than those he created through various agencies for people to work on his agenda of keeping the poor dependent upon government? Why isn't he advocating for a better life for people here and the rest of the world, instead of the one-world-government he appears to favor, where everyone but the elite become serfs? Screw that! :2mad:
Is bribing a state official "free speech?"
IDK. Your argument is pretty weak.
Do you have some evidence that Soros and his ilk are utilizing donor anonymity loopholes as the Koch groups do?
I suspect they are, but do you have proof?
There are conservatives trying to do away with unions? Which ones? Oh, and just for the record, many union members are conservative, so what is it you are talking about?Why would a union member vote directly against their own interests?
Do ANY conservatives support unions? Or are they all trying to do away with them completely?
Why would a union member vote directly against their own interests?
Do ANY conservatives support unions? Or are they all trying to do away with them completely?
1) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000 a plate campaign fund raising event.
2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when we have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black.
3) Only in America could we have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.
4) Only in America will you find people who burn the American flag and call America an "imperialist nation," but who get offended if you say they're not patriotic.
5) Only in America can we have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.
6) Only in America could someone drinking a $5 latte and texting to his friends on an iPhone 4 complain that the government allows some people to make too much money.
7) Only in America would people take rappers who brag about shooting people and selling drugs seriously when they complain the police are targeting them unfairly.
8) Only in America would we make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just become American citizens.
9) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country's Constitution be thought of as "extremists."
10) Only in America could the most vicious foes of successful conservative women be self-proclaimed feminists and the National Organization for Women.
11) Only in America could you need to present a driver's license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.
12) Only in America can we have terrorists fly planes into our buildings and have some people’s first thought be "what did we do to make them hate us?"
13) Only in America would we think teaching kids at college is an appropriate job for communists, terrorists, and other dregs of humanity.
14) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether the oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when for every penny of profit the oil companies make, the government tacks on roughly 24 cents’ worth of taxes.
15) Only in America could the first people asked to weigh in on the seriousness of a racial incident by the media be professional race hustlers like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Ben Jealous. In other words, it's like calling in a car dealer as a neutral source on whether or not you need to get a new car.
16) Only in America does airport security put its hands on your underwear....while you're wearing it.
17) Only in America could the government force a skating rink to have handicapped parking spots and Braille on the ATM machines.
18) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation ever has before in all of recorded history, still spend a trillion dollars more that it has per year, and complain that it doesn't have nearly enough money.
19) Only in America could the rich people who pay 86% of all income taxes be accused of not paying their "fair share" by people who don't pay any income taxes at all.
20) Only in America could the people who approve of slaughtering 25 million females babies via abortion accuse OTHER PEOPLE of waging a "war on women."
It would be funny to see how the opinion of some posters here will radically change when two Muslim trillionaires start shelling out billions of dollars to strategically back Muslim candidates and defeat Christian ones. Claims that it's a matter of free speech that we allow the system to be owned and manipulated by corporations see a little manufactured to me. I could understand it if somebody said that giving $100 to a local Congressman is an extension of your free speech. I do not understand somebody saying that creating a nationwide effort to manipulate policy in the manner the Koch brothers have done it (honing in on local elections that can be won with money to create Republican majorities on the statewide level) is free speech. It seems no different that what Tammany Hall did except it's on a much bigger scale.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?