Wisconsin winner others to follow …

• isadore

  HitsRus;1191246 wrote:And so Wisconsin has spoken....just like Ohio did earlier. Ultimate soveriegnty appears to hinge on who spends the most money. Not a good way to run a government...state or federal.

  I guess what we have to do is take money out of political campaigns. Sounds like a great idea.
• HitsRus

  

  Do you think unions could live by that?
• isadore

  HitsRus;1191280 wrote:Do you think unions could live by that?

  do you think the rich and corporations are.?
• Con_Alma

  No thanks. It takes money to get a candidates message.
  
  I'll stick with contributions, voluntary contributions funding the message delivery.
• HitsRus

  

  As long as it's legal, people and organizations will donate. The best thing is just to try to administer government as it was intended.
• gut

  isadore;1191025 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, what a selective view of handouts. Government has been supporting these “successful” businessmen from the get go. From protective tariffs in the 1790s, to government supported

  LMAO...They've paid for their "handouts" many times over. You can't call something a handout when that person is a net payer of taxes. And they are ENTITLED to have their say and promote their views to combat the misleading propaganda aimed at wasting more of their money. Somebody has to bring some fiscal sanity to the debate, because it sure as hell isn't the people free-riding on someone else's dime.
• isadore

  gut;1191481 wrote:LMAO...They've paid for their "handouts" many times over. You can't call something a handout when that person is a net payer of taxes. And they are ENTITLED to have their say and promote their views to combat the misleading propaganda aimed at wasting more of their money. Somebody has to bring some fiscal sanity to the debate, because it sure as hell isn't the people free-riding on someone else's dime.

  Oh its so easy to measure the gain from these government pay offs to business. Protective tariffs raised the price on manufactured goods through many periods from the late 18[SUP]th[/SUP] well into the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century and cost consumers untold amounts in overpayment to business. Also they produced trade wars that damaged business itself. The Hawley Smoot protective tariff was a major factor in making the Great Depression world wide calamity. The Panic (Depression) of 1873 was caused in large part by overcapitalization of the RR because of government land grants and subsidies. And it lead to demand higher tariffs which retarded the world wide economy. Now there is a real payback.
  Here is a payback, the GI Bill that lead millions of service people to college for free and later they paid a lot of taxes.
• isadore

  HitsRus;1191318 wrote:As long as it's legal, people and organizations will donate. The best thing is just to try to administer government as it was intended.

  HitsRus wrote:Ultimate soveriegnty appears to hinge on who spends the most money. Not a good way to run a government...state or federal.

  gosh a ruddies.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1191303 wrote:No thanks. It takes money to get a candidates message.
  
  I'll stick with contributions, voluntary contributions funding the message delivery.

  and the rich and corporations should have an unlimited right to subvert the democratic process.
• QuakerOats

  isadore;1191611 wrote:and the rich and corporations should have an unlimited right to subvert the democratic process.

  You must be confused. People and organizations giving freely of their time and money in support of 'The American Way' is not subversion. Subversion of democratic processes is when obama, through the political appointment of radical czars and other marxist agency heads, and having unlimited regulatory powers, systematically reduces your freedom, liberties, and dismantles our capitalist economy.
  
  Hope that helps.
• isadore

  QuakerOats;1191665 wrote:You must be confused. People and organizations giving freely of their time and money in support of 'The American Way' is not subversion. Subversion of democratic processes is when obama, through the political appointment of radical czars and other marxist agency heads, and having unlimited regulatory powers, systematically reduces your freedom, liberties, and dismantles our capitalist economy.
  
  Hope that helps.

  It would if it had any foundation in reality, but gosh it doesn’t. Corporate money and corporate lobbyist subvert the will of the people on a regular basis. And no government agency has unlimited regulatory power.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1191611 wrote:and the rich and corporations should have an unlimited right to subvert the democratic process.

  It's not a "right" as much as it's a product of the process.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1191781 wrote:It's not a "right" as much as it's a product of the process.

  gosh a ruddies citizens united pretty much makes it a right.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1191784 wrote:gosh a ruddies citizens united pretty much makes it a right.

  Lol It's binary. It either is or is not a right. Pretty much doesn't fit the definition of a right.
• isadore

  gosh a ruddies I didn't realize you were planning to attack my use of colloquialisms to enrich our language. Citizens united gave corporations with their vast resources the ability to subvert democracy.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1191827 wrote:gosh a ruddies I didn't realize you were planning to attack my use of colloquialisms to enrich our language. Citizens united gave corporations with their vast resources the ability to subvert democracy.

  Where was the attack? I am not attacking at all. I simply responded to your post.
  
  Corporations with their "vast resources" don't vote or legislate. It still comes down to people who either represent their constituents or not. It still comes down to people either voting for a candidate or not.
  
  I have no problem with contributions being available so that candidates can publicize their message and people can determine if they wish to vote for the respective individual.
• isadore

  Con_Alma;1191835 wrote:Where was the attack? I am not attacking at all. I simply responded to your post.
  
  Corporations with their "vast resources" don't vote or legislate. It still comes down to people who either represent their constituents or not. It still comes down to people either voting for a candidate or not.
  
  I have no problem with contributions being available so that candidates can publicize their message and people can determine if they wish to vote for the respective individual.

  corporations through their lobbyists do write much our legislation. And where do ex congress people go when they leave office, number one job lobbyist.
  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_03/028512.php
  http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/departing.php
• Cleveland Buck

  

  isadore;1191025 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, what a selective view of handouts. Government has been supporting these “successful” businessmen from the get go. From protective tariffs in the 1790s, to government supported canal and railroad construction in the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, that leads into financial support for airlines and corporate agriculture, subsidies to oil companies, tarp, auto bailout and on and on. And of course their army of lobbyist winning them one break from the government after another.

  Holy shit. Out of all of the ridiculous nonsense he posts he finally said something I agree with.
  
  Of course, there is only one way to fix this problem, and he completely opposes it, so it must not bother him that much.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1191850 wrote:corporations through their lobbyists do write much our legislation. And where do ex congress people go when they leave office, number one job lobbyist.
  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_03/028512.php
  http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/departing.php

  It takes a congressman to sponsor and support the bill. It takes the House to pass it. It takes the President to sign it into law.
  
  It ultimately takes the elected representatives to make anything happen. They are responsible for the activity and action.
  
  Corporations don't vote or legislate. I never used the words "write".
• Cleveland Buck

  

  isadore;1191827 wrote:gosh a ruddies I didn't realize you were planning to attack my use of colloquialisms to enrich our language. Citizens united gave corporations with their vast resources the ability to subvert democracy.

  Citizens United has nothing to do with it. Before that the major corporations just bought their politicians the old fashioned way, slipping some cash into their pocket, paying them millions of dollars for motivational speeches, putting them on the board, etc. Restricting campaign contributions would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.
• fan_from_texas

  isadore;1191850 wrote:corporations through their lobbyists do write much our legislation.

  I don't really have a problem with this. I would expect that, for example, hospitals will have much more insight into the healthcare system than the average congressman. I would think that anyone trying to craft a reasonable, nuanced law that could adequately address real-world concerns would need to reach out to industry expertise to get things right. I don't see this as some sort of fundamental flaw in the process as much as a reality of the possible concerns with industry capture in any regulatory scheme. It's exactly the reason why many have pointed out the inherent issues with new regulatory oversight: the only people who care and have the expertise on the issues affecting a complicated industry tend to be the people who work in that industry, and thus you get a bunch of overlap between the regulator and the regulated. That's a fact of life for regulatory regimes.
• isadore

  of course it would be positive. the overturning of citizens united would eliminate at least one weapon the corporations have in subverting our system of government. Would it solve all our problems with corporate influence, of course not. Would it make an incremental improvement, yep.
• isadore

  fan_from_texas;1191871 wrote:I don't really have a problem with this. I would expect that, for example, hospitals will have much more insight into the healthcare system than the average congressman. I would think that anyone trying to craft a reasonable, nuanced law that could adequately address real-world concerns would need to reach out to industry expertise to get things right. I don't see this as some sort of fundamental flaw in the process as much as a reality of the possible concerns with industry capture in any regulatory scheme. It's exactly the reason why many have pointed out the inherent issues with new regulatory oversight: the only people who care and have the expertise on the issues affecting a complicated industry tend to be the people who work in that industry, and thus you get a bunch of overlap between the regulator and the regulated. That's a fact of life for regulatory regimes.

  and what do you do for a living?
• Cleveland Buck

  

  Con_Alma;1191856 wrote:It takes a congressman to sponsor and support the bill. It takes the House to pass it. It takes the President to sign it into law.
  
  It ultimately takes the elected representatives to make anything happen. They are responsible for the activity and action.
  
  Corporations don't vote or legislate. I never used the words "write".

  When the government has the authority to choose winners and losers in the economy they are officially open for business and the representatives no longer represent the people. No regulation on campaign contributions will ever change that.
• Con_Alma

  isadore;1191874 wrote:of course it would be positive. the overturning of citizens united would eliminate at least one weapon the corporations have in subverting our system of government. Would it solve all our problems with corporate influence, of course not. Would it make an incremental improvement, yep.

  I respectfully pass on the option of overturning Citiznes Untied. Lobbying has is a valuable component to our process.