Campaign donations.

[Toddsterpatriot]

QE has nothing to do with the right or Reagan's "supply side" economic policies. In essence, every free market economy functions on a "trickle down" principle. If you don't like that principle then you don't like free market economy. Because that's what is happening.

QE is more like the Federal Reserve printing Monopoly money. This is used like smoke and mirrors to keep a fledgling economy from tanking. We'll pay the piper for it down the road in devaluing of the dollar. So... two or three years from now, when we're all paying $4 for a loaf of bread, you'll understand why... or no... maybe YOU won't, I'm sure you'll blame that on Bush and Republicans too.

I agree to disagree. Simply bailing out the wealthiest and letting the rest, "tickle down" is merely capitalism in action regarding the wealthiest being able to simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities.

Simply bailing out the wealthiest

The wealthiest? Can you be more specific?
Bailed out how? Can you be more specific?

QE is simply bailing out the wealthiest on the Peoples' dime.

Yeah, you mumbled something about that already.
Any details? Or you just repeating something you heard and didn't understand?

It has more to do with public policies (which constitute public Use), which the wealthiest can invest in on a for-profit basis, with their existing wealth. It is the opinion of some on the left, that promoting the general warfare cannot be a necessary and proper expense if our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates for it, simply Because, only promoting and providing for the general welfare, is specifically enumerated, should there be Any need to quibble especially in legal venues.

It has more to do with public policies

So no details.......that's what I thought.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nobody GAVE the banks anything.
TARP for the banks were expensive loans. Long ago repaid. The US Treasury made something like $50 billion.

Don t Be Fooled, There's No Profit In Bank Bailouts - Forbes

Bailout Scorecard Eye on the Bailout ProPublica

Does making a profit on bailing out a bankrupt drug dealer justify bailing out the drug dealer?


We bailed out criminals and frauds and incompetents.

Saving the banking system helps the evil and the good, helps the righteous and the unrighteous.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It has more to do with public policies (which constitute public Use), which the wealthiest can invest in on a for-profit basis, with their existing wealth.

Let me straighten you out on some things here... There is no law on the books which allows wealthy people to do anything that you and I aren't also allowed to do. There is no law that restricts us but doesn't apply to the wealthiest. We don't have a caste system here, all our citizens are afforded the same rights under the constitution. We all follow the same set of laws.

Also, ANY investment is made with the anticipation and expectation of a profit. There is no such thing as non-profit investment. This does not matter if the investment is public or private. Because we do live in a system where we all follow the same set of laws, whenever you establish laws which restrict the amount of profit you can make on investments, you essentially kill all investment. You're cutting your dick off to spite your balls.

It is about policies, public, benefiting the wealthiest the most due simply to their wealth; the right's version of "trickle down" is to bailout the wealthiest who may even retain multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare, and let the rest trickle down.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[19] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[18][19][20] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.
Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Whence even, any standing to complain about the alleged unfairness of Taxes, if no wartime tax rates are involved.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth

The country doesn't have wealth, the people do.
If you remember that, you'll make fewer stupid mistakes.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Should campaign donations be limited? Yes. Why? Not everyone has 900,000,000 dollars like the Koch brothers to throw at an election.

And yeah.........900,000,000 will buy a LOT of influence with elected officials.

Additionally, it takes money to get your message out, so if you have less resources to put out your message, you might end up writing a better message that resonates with the voters so you can get elected rather than crapping up the airwaves with scare ads that frighten the voter (who doesn't understand that you're using scare tactics to get their vote) into voting for you.

And no..................money doesn't equal free speech. Why should the Koch brothers have more "free speech" than the average citizen?

We finally have gotten to the point where America has the best government money can buy.

 

[danielpalos]

I agree to disagree. Simply bailing out the wealthiest and letting the rest, "tickle down" is merely capitalism in action regarding the wealthiest being able to simply "purchase" better privileges and immunities.

Simply bailing out the wealthiest

The wealthiest? Can you be more specific?
Bailed out how? Can you be more specific?

QE is simply bailing out the wealthiest on the Peoples' dime.

Yeah, you mumbled something about that already.
Any details? Or you just repeating something you heard and didn't understand?

It has more to do with public policies (which constitute public Use), which the wealthiest can invest in on a for-profit basis, with their existing wealth. It is the opinion of some on the left, that promoting the general warfare cannot be a necessary and proper expense if our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates for it, simply Because, only promoting and providing for the general welfare, is specifically enumerated, should there be Any need to quibble especially in legal venues.

It has more to do with public policies

So no details.......that's what I thought.

The detail is a lack of wartime tax rates to prove we have alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

 

[danielpalos]

It has more to do with public policies (which constitute public Use), which the wealthiest can invest in on a for-profit basis, with their existing wealth.

Let me straighten you out on some things here... There is no law on the books which allows wealthy people to do anything that you and I aren't also allowed to do. There is no law that restricts us but doesn't apply to the wealthiest. We don't have a caste system here, all our citizens are afforded the same rights under the constitution. We all follow the same set of laws.

Also, ANY investment is made with the anticipation and expectation of a profit. There is no such thing as non-profit investment. This does not matter if the investment is public or private. Because we do live in a system where we all follow the same set of laws, whenever you establish laws which restrict the amount of profit you can make on investments, you essentially kill all investment. You're cutting your dick off to spite your balls.

It is about policies, public, benefiting the wealthiest the most due simply to their wealth; the right's version of "trickle down" is to bailout the wealthiest who may even retain multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare, and let the rest trickle down.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[19] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[18][19][20] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.
Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Whence even, any standing to complain about the alleged unfairness of Taxes, if no wartime tax rates are involved.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth

The country doesn't have wealth, the people do.
If you remember that, you'll make fewer stupid mistakes.

I am not the one resorting to fallacy. We have a Commerce Clause not any form of war on crime, drugs, poverty, or terror, clause.

 

[g5000]

Should campaign donations be limited? Yes. Why? Not everyone has 900,000,000 dollars like the Koch brothers to throw at an election.

And yeah.........900,000,000 will buy a LOT of influence with elected officials.

You can send your dollars to Greenpeace, and then they can throw $900 million at elected officials.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Simply bailing out the wealthiest

The wealthiest? Can you be more specific?
Bailed out how? Can you be more specific?

QE is simply bailing out the wealthiest on the Peoples' dime.

Yeah, you mumbled something about that already.
Any details? Or you just repeating something you heard and didn't understand?

It has more to do with public policies (which constitute public Use), which the wealthiest can invest in on a for-profit basis, with their existing wealth. It is the opinion of some on the left, that promoting the general warfare cannot be a necessary and proper expense if our federal Congress cannot justify wartime tax rates for it, simply Because, only promoting and providing for the general welfare, is specifically enumerated, should there be Any need to quibble especially in legal venues.

It has more to do with public policies

So no details.......that's what I thought.

The detail is a lack of wartime tax rates to prove we have alleged wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror.

Those things have exactly what to do with the Fed and QE and "bailing out the rich on the Peoples' dime"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It has more to do with public policies (which constitute public Use), which the wealthiest can invest in on a for-profit basis, with their existing wealth.

Let me straighten you out on some things here... There is no law on the books which allows wealthy people to do anything that you and I aren't also allowed to do. There is no law that restricts us but doesn't apply to the wealthiest. We don't have a caste system here, all our citizens are afforded the same rights under the constitution. We all follow the same set of laws.

Also, ANY investment is made with the anticipation and expectation of a profit. There is no such thing as non-profit investment. This does not matter if the investment is public or private. Because we do live in a system where we all follow the same set of laws, whenever you establish laws which restrict the amount of profit you can make on investments, you essentially kill all investment. You're cutting your dick off to spite your balls.

It is about policies, public, benefiting the wealthiest the most due simply to their wealth; the right's version of "trickle down" is to bailout the wealthiest who may even retain multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare, and let the rest trickle down.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. The top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. From 1922 to 2010, the share of the top 1% varied from 19.7% to 44.2%, the big drop being associated with the drop in the stock market in the late 1970s. Ignoring the period where the stock market was depressed (1976-1980) and the period when the stock market was overvalued (1929), the share of wealth of the richest 1% remained extremely stable, at about a third of the total wealth.[19] Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[20] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[18][19][20] During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.
Source: Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Whence even, any standing to complain about the alleged unfairness of Taxes, if no wartime tax rates are involved.

In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country's total wealth

The country doesn't have wealth, the people do.
If you remember that, you'll make fewer stupid mistakes.

I am not the one resorting to fallacy. We have a Commerce Clause not any form of war on crime, drugs, poverty, or terror, clause.

the country's total wealth <<<<< fallacy

 

[Boss]

Should campaign donations be limited? Yes. Why? Not everyone has 900,000,000 dollars like the Koch brothers to throw at an election.

And yeah.........900,000,000 will buy a LOT of influence with elected officials.

Additionally, it takes money to get your message out, so if you have less resources to put out your message, you might end up writing a better message that resonates with the voters so you can get elected rather than crapping up the airwaves with scare ads that frighten the voter (who doesn't understand that you're using scare tactics to get their vote) into voting for you.

And no..................money doesn't equal free speech. Why should the Koch brothers have more "free speech" than the average citizen?

We finally have gotten to the point where America has the best government money can buy.

And we have gotten here with a society full of people who have your mentality and share your views! That's what is so incredible about it. In spite of all your efforts to restrict money and make campaign finance more transparent and fair, the money still flows and power is still influenced by it, and it happens even more. Since 2008, the number of billionaires has doubled.

I really don't understand what you mean by "writing a better message that resonates" and "scare ads that frighten the voter" because this sounds to me like opinions. Let's get some understanding about radio and television ads... those places do not run campaign ads because they like the candidate and think their message deserves to be heard. Time on the airwaves costs money. There is no way around that because the airwaves are operated by free market capitalists. And the same thing applies to printed materials and publication. A print shop doesn't print political fliers because they like your message. So yes... money DOES equal free speech because more can be purchased.

I honestly don't know about the Koch Brothers. The first I ever heard of them was from liberal idiots and morons who seem to think they are like Dracula and Hitler. I know they have contributed to many political campaigns, including the Tea Party movement... I don't know if they are Corporatists but I expect they could be. Whatever they are, they deserve the same freedom of speech rights as George Soros.

 

[ABikerSailor]

What I mean by a better message that resonates is for the politician to actually TELL us what their stance is on things like the budget as well as their proposals to fix whatever problem they choose to work on.

What I mean by scare tactic ads are those that ran almost non stop towards the end of the election, blaming Obama for ISIL and Ebola. Most low information voters don't know that Ebola never became an epidemic and ISIL has NEVER made it to the US.

I saw several of those ads every night for the 2 weeks leading up to the elections, and it was Republicans that were running them.

 

[Boss]

Additionally, it takes money to get your message out, so if you have less resources to put out your message, you might end up writing a better message that resonates with the voters so you can get elected...

.....Or if you are corrupt, you circumvent the campaign finance laws and flood the people with your message to trounce your opposition who is playing by the rules.

Or... If you are not corrupt but just unethical as hell, you exploit the various loopholes in the laws to your advantage, thereby giving you more resources than your opponent because you knew how to manipulate the system.

OR.... If you are an incumbent who already holds the office, you simply obey the same laws and use the power of office to get your message out through the free news media.

 

[dblack]

If we're saying that it's wrong for economically powerful people to use their money to influence elections and that such spending should be limited, should we also limit those who weild other forms of influence? Should famous celebrities be prevented from endorsing candidates or promoting their campaigns?

 

[Boss]

What I mean by a better message that resonates is for the politician to actually TELL us what their stance is on things like the budget as well as their proposals to fix whatever problem they choose to work on.

What I mean by scare tactic ads are those that ran almost non stop towards the end of the election, blaming Obama for ISIL and Ebola. Most low information voters don't know that Ebola never became an epidemic and ISIL has NEVER made it to the US.

I saw several of those ads every night for the 2 weeks leading up to the elections, and it was Republicans that were running them.

Well I can, just off the top of my head, think of dozens of things to blame Obama for besides Ebola and ISIL. I understand what you mean but you're still talking about OPINIONS. We don't all share a universal one. On ANYTHING! So what you may see as a "scare tactic" others may view as a serious concern, you don't own the market on opinions. Politics are ALL about opinions.

Now, let me hit on this "better message" part again... That's the primary problem as I see it, with the way we perceive politics in America today. We elect the candidate who gets up there and tells us how he/she is going to use the powers of government at their disposal, to make things happen that we think should happen. We don't care if they are good for everyone else, it's what is best for us. We don't care if the nation is bankrupt or borrowing from our enemies... doesn't matter... gimme mine! Gimme it, or you don't get my vote! And thus, is born the silver-tongue politician who is charismatic and charming, but also knows how to tell you what you want to hear.

Modifying free speech and reforming campaign finance can't fix our problem.

 

[ABikerSailor]

So........is it fair that the Koch brothers can donate 900 MILLION DOLLARS (that's almost a billion) like they have threatened to do in 2016, while the rest of us, who have neither the money, nor own a super PAC, can only manage around 2,500?

That's not free speech, that's buying an election and a politician.

 

[dblack]

So........is it fair that the Koch brothers can donate 900 MILLION DOLLARS (that's almost a billion) like they have threatened to do in 2016, while the rest of us, who have neither the money, nor own a super PAC, can only manage around 2,500?

That's not free speech, that's buying an election and a politician.

What do you suppose they'd be getting for their money?

 

[Boss]

If we're saying that it's wrong for economically powerful people to use their money to influence elections and that such spending should be limited, should we also limit those who weild other forms of influence? Should famous celebrities be prevented from endorsing candidates or promoting their campaigns?

Or even their agendas and ideas! It's not fair that liberal directors can churn out movies glorifying liberal issues which influence voters. Harper Lee should co-write her new book with Ayn Rand if we're going to be politically fair.... right?

 

[ABikerSailor]

If we're saying that it's wrong for economically powerful people to use their money to influence elections and that such spending should be limited, should we also limit those who weild other forms of influence? Should famous celebrities be prevented from endorsing candidates or promoting their campaigns?

Not really, because saying that you like a certain politician is expressing your views. And...........not all famous people can get that kind of support behind a politician.

Anything Ted Nugent or Kanye West thinks is a good idea, I usually think the opposite is better.

Same thing with Karl Rove or Sarah Palin.

 

[dblack]

If we're saying that it's wrong for economically powerful people to use their money to influence elections and that such spending should be limited, should we also limit those who weild other forms of influence? Should famous celebrities be prevented from endorsing candidates or promoting their campaigns?

Not really, because saying that you like a certain politician is expressing your views. And...........not all famous people can get that kind of support behind a politician.

Anything Ted Nugent or Kanye West thinks is a good idea, I usually think the opposite is better.

Same thing with Karl Rove or Sarah Palin.

I feel likewise about anyone the Koch brothers throw cash at. How is it different?

 

[ABikerSailor]

So........is it fair that the Koch brothers can donate 900 MILLION DOLLARS (that's almost a billion) like they have threatened to do in 2016, while the rest of us, who have neither the money, nor own a super PAC, can only manage around 2,500?

That's not free speech, that's buying an election and a politician.

What do you suppose they'd be getting for their money?

What would they be getting for their money? Political influence to push the agenda of this country in the direction they prefer. Sorry, but 900 MILLION DOLLARS will get a lot of influence over a politician. Shit............in some cases it only takes a donation of around 500,000 to score an ambassador ship (meaning a paid government job to live overseas).