The coming end of capitalism

[haymarket]

They would need a specified number of signatures from would be future constituents in order to qualify for that funding. I would wager that the number of signatures would vary based on the job, number of constituents, etc. Say, if at least 10% of the people you want to represent support your candidacy, then you get access to public funding.

Not perfect, and I'll wager there are better solutions, but at this point in our history, it's not unrealistic to have to apply some fairly dramatic and draconian rules onto our electoral process, because the banksters and corporatists are grabbing this country hand over fist, one well payed elected official at a time.

Thank you for that idea. I also would prefer a system of public funding but have never seen a detailed proposal that would actually work.

Lets use your reply about a state rep race. In Michigan, there are about 74,000 people in a state rep district. Would that be the base number? Or would you use the number of people who vote for the office which varies from one district to another but could be as low as 16,000? Or would you use the number of people who tend to vote in the primary if it is a primary election which can be less than half of that?

As you can see , depending on the standard, your ten percent number could then range from getting six or seven hundred signatures in a primary to ten times than number if you based it purely on the size of the district with number of people in it.

And in the end, where does that money come from and how much would it be?

I have managed successful Michigan state rep campaigns and it can cost over $40K just to win a primary. And if you are unlucky to live in a district that is NOT gerrymandered and you have to face a viable general election opponent, that figure can easily go over $200K or more in a highly competitive, hard fought for priority district.

So where does the money come from?

 

[haymarket]

not much... because the people are uneducated on the government which was created by the founders, to prevent ..COLLECTIVE LAW MAKING

To the contrary. I think people damn well know the difference between having the right to vote for something and you wanted to strip them of that right and take it away from them. There is nothing uneducated about that at all.People know when their pocket is about to be picked. They are not stupid.

 

[haymarket]

Of course I did. You claimed freedom was a strawman because either you couldn't bring yourself to agree that a desire for freedom is a natural human trait, or you couldn't think of a way to argue it wasn't. Obviously that equates to failure and a challenge you couldn't meet.

I've offered a few examples of capitalism to which you decided not to touch. Again, a challenge you failed to address.

While you may cling to the belief nothing has been offered to challenge your OP, much has been offered from which you've had no reply. Well, other than to apply the typical diversionary, accusatory, talking points responses.

As such, your statement has no meat, and the fact remains. Capitalism isn't dead, it's in fact more alive than ever. On a side note, perhaps that is why socialist progressives are getting so desperate.

Lets get this straight: your great so called "natural fact" is that people want freedom? Is that correct?

As many have pointed out,we have NOT had capitalism for a very long time now. What we have is capitalism tempered with elements of socialism producing a mixed economy. And what the OP article points out is that a future economic crash would shift that balance even more in favor of the socialism elements over the vestiges of the capitalism elements.

 

[ludin]

The lefts policies led to the great recession? Neoliberalism that has gripped both parties since the 70's has led to our decline..
A lack of proper regulations and this absurd idea that we shouldn't balance investing/consuming..
Socialism hasn't been a part of anything in America, unless you want to call anything the government does "socialism."
Weaker? Strongest military on earth.... Strong economy, recovered better from the recession..

actually yes it did. the fact that the government forced banks to give loans to people that shouldn't have gotten them.
on top of that the government then told lenders it doesn't matter what you lend we will cover you.
add on top of this the constant low interest rates which lead to huge speculation and massive housing flips from investors.

it was the worst recession recovery in history.
trillions of dollars spent for little to no result.

so yea tons of liberal policies lead to the recession of 2008.

 

[ludin]

The biggest drag on government's spending are entitlements. SS, Medicare, Medicaid and general welfare expenses are almost half the budget. And, in about 5 years, they will eclipse the 50% mark. We need to remember that.

worse than that when you add the interest of the national debt in about 15-20 years it will consume the entire budget.

 

[Master PO]

To the contrary. I think people damn well know the difference between having the right to vote for something and you wanted to strip them of that right and take it away from them. There is nothing uneducated about that at all.People know when their pocket is about to be picked. They are not stupid.

oh, so you want the people to have the ability to STRIP states of their powers by federal making.

you wish the people to have the ability to VIOLATE rights of the minority by federal law making.

you wish to have federal law making, which do not represent the states or the union

HELLO TYRANNY !

 

[Master PO]

actually yes it did. the fact that the government forced banks to give loans to people that shouldn't have gotten them.
on top of that the government then told lenders it doesn't matter what you lend we will cover you.
add on top of this the constant low interest rates which lead to huge speculation and massive housing flips from investors.

it was the worst recession recovery in history.
trillions of dollars spent for little to no result.

so yea tons of liberal policies lead to the recession of 2008.

..you know your stuff!

 

[haymarket]

oh, so you want the people to have the ability to STRIP states of their powers by federal making.

There is no such power to strip as keeping people with the power to elect the Senators from their state do not in any way deny the state government the power to pass state laws for the people of the state.

 

[ludin]

..you know your stuff!

it wasn't just poor people either. during that time I was in the construction business doing home automation.
I saw people building 400k homes making 50-60k a year. i knew there was no way they could afford it.

they were getting those ARM's and balloon mortgages and interest only mortgages is what they were doing.
they were pretty much house poor as i call it.

they were maxed out on their income level. all the people that could afford the items that i was selling
knew better than to buy it or a lot of it. they would buy some things but not everything.

 

[ludin]

To the contrary. I think people damn well know the difference between having the right to vote for something and you wanted to strip them of that right and take it away from them. There is nothing uneducated about that at all.People know when their pocket is about to be picked. They are not stupid.

the only entity that attempts to pick peoples pockets is the government.
they do so by offering that all this stuff will be free, or that those people will pay for it.

little do the sheep that believe that garbage realize it is going to cost them billions of dollars.

 

[Master PO]

There is no such power to strip as keeping people with the power to elect the Senators from their state do not in any way deny the state government the power to pass state laws for the people of the state.

WHEN the power of law making is only in the hands of one single interest, that interest will be tyrannical.

the states interest is no longer represented in senate, therefore they have no power to prevent the people's interest which now controls congress from making laws which violate the separation of powers.

 

[haymarket]

the only entity that attempts to pick peoples pockets is the government.
they do so by offering that all this stuff will be free, or that those people will pay for it.

little do the sheep that believe that garbage realize it is going to cost them billions of dollars.

We were talking about the taking away of the right of people to elect their Senators. That was the context of the comment.

 

[haymarket]

WHEN the power of law making is only in the hands of one single interest, that interest will be tyrannical.

the states interest is no longer represented in senate, therefore they have no power to prevent the people's interest which now controls congress from making laws which violate the separation of powers.

There never was a so called STATE INTEREST that could be represented without representing the people who constitute that same state. So your argument is without foundation in reality.

 

[ludin]

We were talking about the taking away of the right of people to elect their Senators. That was the context of the comment.

technically it wasn't 1913 that people could elect senators. before that senators were delegated by the state. this caused issues hence why it was switched.
of course you knew this already because i have told you this before.

 

[Master PO]

There never was a so called STATE INTEREST that could be represented without representing the people who constitute that same state. So your argument is without foundation in reality.

yes there was, but it was lost with the 17th amendment to the constitution.


Federalist 62 - Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.

 

[ludin]

WHEN the power of law making is only in the hands of one single interest, that interest will be tyrannical.

the states interest is no longer represented in senate, therefore they have no power to prevent the people's interest which now controls congress from making laws which violate the separation of powers.

actually the senate still represents the state which is why it has more power than the house.
it is just that senators are no longer appointed by the state governments like they use to be.

there were major issues with that process and it was switched. however the senate is still there to look
after state interests.

 

[ludin]

There never was a so called STATE INTEREST that could be represented without representing the people who constitute that same state. So your argument is without foundation in reality.

actually there is. that is why CA can't make the NV desert a garbage dump. as the senators in NV can shut the bill down.

 

[haymarket]

technically it wasn't 1913 that people could elect senators. before that senators were delegated by the state. this caused issues hence why it was switched.
of course you knew this already because i have told you this before.

I have no idea what point you think you are attempting to make or what the purpose of your post was as it says absolutely nothing of substance that changes the reality that some people here want to take away the right of a citizen to elect US Senators.

 

[haymarket]

actually there is. that is why CA can't make the NV desert a garbage dump. as the senators in NV can shut the bill down.

It is impossible for a state to have any interests that are divorced from the people who constitute a state. There simply is no such thing in reality.

 

[Master PO]

actually the senate still represents the state which is why it has more power than the house.
it is just that senators are no longer appointed by the state governments like they use to be.

there were major issues with that process and it was switched. however the senate is still there to look
after state interests.

no it doesn't, the people elect the senators today and they now represent the people's interest.

when the state legislatures appointed the senators, the senators worked in the interest of the states, this is how the states protected their state powers from federal usurpation by federal law making.

the senate is the weaker side of congress because it has no power of revenue.

 

[ludin]

I have no idea what point you think you are attempting to make or what the purpose of your post was as it says absolutely nothing of substance that changes the reality that some people here want to take away the right of a citizen to elect US Senators.

the fact is they didn't have that right before. so there is nothing being taken away it would go back to how it was designed to begin with.

 

[haymarket]

yes there was, but it was lost with the 17th amendment to the constitution.


Federalist 62 - Another advantage accruing from this ingredient in the constitution of the Senate is, the additional impediment it must prove against improper acts of legislation. No law or resolution can now be passed without the concurrence, first, of a majority of the people, and then, of a majority of the States.

Even when Senators were appointed by the legislature, it was physically and practically impossible for the senators to do anything but represent the actual people who constitute the make up of the state in the first place and you or your allies have NEVER shown otherwise.

 

[haymarket]

the fact is they didn't have that right before. so there is nothing being taken away it would go back to how it was designed to begin with.

I am talking about the real world of the USA in 2016 in which Americans have the right to elect their US Senators . I have no idea what fantasy world you are talking about.

 

[ludin]

no it doesn't, the people elect the senators today and they now represent the people's interest.

when the state legislatures appointed the senators, the senators worked in the interest of the states, this is how the states protected their state powers from federal usurpation by federal law making.

the senate is the weaker side of congress because it has no power of revenue.

not entirely true. the senate still has to approve the budget. also the senate can filibuster any bill
where as no power like that is in the house.

also in the senate the leader doesn't have to bring any bill they don't want to for a vote.
the senate has a great deal of power.

although you are right senators have lost a bit of their state interest, but it has been a long time since
senators were appointed by the state. there also were massive issues with that as well.

there were a ton of political interferences and sometimes states couldn't even appoint a senator because of it.

 

[Master PO]

Even when Senators were appointed by the legislature, it was physically and practically impossible for the senators to do anything but represent the actual people who constitute the make up of the state in the first place and you or your allies have NEVER shown otherwise.

incorrect, the senators were the legislatures representatives because he gets his posting from the legislature, if the senator does not vote according to how he is told, he will be asked to resign, ..which is a big thing in the 19th century, or he will not be reappointed to the senate.