Money In Politics

[Gdjjr]

If you, or anyone, pays a user fee for the FRNs in your wallet, you're doing it wrong.

User fees are called taxes- and taxes they are, to pay the user fee to the federal reserve-

 

[Gdjjr]

Corporations will fill the vacuum that shrinking government will ensure. Do you believe that will make politics less corrupt?

Entrepreneurs can and would fill some voids- IF the Empty Suit Brigade in the District of Criminals would do it's originally intended job, (referee and not choose winners or losers) then anyone with the gumption could fill the void you're concerned with-

 

[Gdjjr]

Goddamnit I'm so fucking sick of this false equivalence. Corporations can't have you arrested. Corporations don't "fill the vacuum". They are not the same as government.

Then don't use it- I didn't.

 

[Gdjjr]

"It is easy to show that government spending precedes taxes.

"At the beginning of time, there are no banknotes and reserves. How can a citizen pay his or her taxes?

" By definition, the government has to spend them into existence.

"One arm of the government, the Fed, must purchase an asset from the public with either banknotes or reserves, thus giving birth to money.

How ever did we exist w/o godvernment in every aspect of our lives?

The Federal Reserve is NOT an arm of the gov't. It is a privately owned and run corporation whose founding was ostensibly to help smooth the peaks and valleys of our economy- to that end it has - to a degree, but, it has also created "bubbles" which eventually require "bailing out" for the big money players- the gov't purchases are so leaden with rules and requirements that joe citizen doesn't stand a chance of being involved in the procurement process- never mind profiting from it- the definition you seek and are using is precisely what I said- Keynesean economic theory formed for a Monarchy- the British Gov't- top down/trickle down economics meaning the gov't is at the top of the food chain which I seriously doubt was the original intent at the founding of this Country- it could be argued, in fact, it is diametrically opposite- since the founders did fight a war to get out from under the thumb of a distant ruler/gov't- and believe me when I say, the Empty Suits in the District of Criminals is "distant"- especially where joe citizen is concerned- now, Mr. Joe Citizen, may in fact be a part of an Empty Suits constitiuency, but, you can (and are forced to) bet your last Federal Reserve Note that you, a "stinky tourist", is the least of their concerns, until election time, then they (an Empty Suit) will promise you the moon and give you cheese and call it a day-

 

[Gdjjr]

Private prisons currently exist.
Private police forces are as American as White Supremacy.
Corporate courts are on the horizon.
Minimum government?
Maximum freedom.
For those who can afford it.

You're using Straw Man arguments- I don't know of ANY libertarian or Libertarian who advocates what you're claiming (referencing the stupid video title that I didn't watch- I prefer reading to form my opinions not some dick head talking his opinion that can't be talked [or typed] back to)-
Corporate is already here- who the fuck do you think donates to campaign which is part of the original argument against taxes and tax write offs? More laws = more taxes = fewer participants *freely* participating- "force" is what gov't does. Period. Voluntary and consensus is not in it's vocabulary, which WAS an original intent, in creating "representative" republican governance, which is bottom up, not top down.
Congress was *granted* the authority to coin money and set the value thereof- it could make Pinto Beans our currency and assign a value to it- instead, the gutless wonders abdicated their responsibility to the Federal Reserve and are given a Credit Card with NO "Maximum" insuring enslaving (INSURING minimum liberty) for all who participate for generations to come to a "privately owned" corporation that uses Federal Force as it's Collection Agency- IRS. That many pay little to no taxes is the Tax Code that has so many rules they can't be counted = more criminals for the corporate courts that you're just recently pointing out and blaming libertarians for- fuck head- get your head out of their ass and use it for something besides holding your ears apart-

 

[dblack]

Goddamnit I'm so fucking sick of this false equivalence. Corporations can't have you arrested. Corporations don't "fill the vacuum". They are not the same as government.

Private prisons currently exist.

Private prisons are an abomination and should be abolished. But they are not an example of the equivalence you're leaning on. A core premise of socialists is that society faces a choice between being controlled by corporations or by government. You can't conceive a society that is controlled by neither. You claim that if we reject government control of our economic decisions, corporations will rule us. But corporations cannot pass laws. All they can do is offer us goods and services. We can always say no if we don't like the offer. They can't coerce us. Unless of course government offers to do the coercing for them. (eg ACA).

Private police forces are as American as White Supremacy.

Really? Link? I've never heard of such a thing. If government IS granting private security forces the power to perform law enforcement, the practice should be halted immediately. But, again, this isn't an example of corporations "filling the void". It's just more equivocation. Instead, what you're insinuating with the "fill the void" comment is that if corporations aren't tightly regulated, they will run amok and control us coercively like government. That can only happen if the government grants them this power. It won't happen simply because they aren't "regulated".

 

[dblack]

Goddamnit I'm so fucking sick of this false equivalence. Corporations can't have you arrested. Corporations don't "fill the vacuum". They are not the same as government.

Then don't use it- I didn't.

I was responding to georgephillip who did use it: "Corporations will fill the vacuum that shrinking government will ensure."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The order doesn't matter.

"It is easy to show that government spending precedes taxes.

"At the beginning of time, there are no banknotes and reserves. How can a citizen pay his or her taxes?

" By definition, the government has to spend them into existence.

"One arm of the government, the Fed, must purchase an asset from the public with either banknotes or reserves, thus giving birth to money.

"Only then are citizens able to pay Uncle Sam their dues."

Is It True That the Government Can Spend Before Taxing?

"At the beginning of time, there are no banknotes and reserves. How can a citizen pay his or her taxes?

Originally, with grain and livestock.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you, or anyone, pays a user fee for the FRNs in your wallet, you're doing it wrong.

User fees are called taxes- and taxes they are, to pay the user fee to the federal reserve-

You don't pay taxes to the Fed for using FRNs.
Neither does the US Treasury.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"It is easy to show that government spending precedes taxes.

"At the beginning of time, there are no banknotes and reserves. How can a citizen pay his or her taxes?

" By definition, the government has to spend them into existence.

"One arm of the government, the Fed, must purchase an asset from the public with either banknotes or reserves, thus giving birth to money.

How ever did we exist w/o godvernment in every aspect of our lives?

The Federal Reserve is NOT an arm of the gov't. It is a privately owned and run corporation whose founding was ostensibly to help smooth the peaks and valleys of our economy- to that end it has - to a degree, but, it has also created "bubbles" which eventually require "bailing out" for the big money players- the gov't purchases are so leaden with rules and requirements that joe citizen doesn't stand a chance of being involved in the procurement process- never mind profiting from it- the definition you seek and are using is precisely what I said- Keynesean economic theory formed for a Monarchy- the British Gov't- top down/trickle down economics meaning the gov't is at the top of the food chain which I seriously doubt was the original intent at the founding of this Country- it could be argued, in fact, it is diametrically opposite- since the founders did fight a war to get out from under the thumb of a distant ruler/gov't- and believe me when I say, the Empty Suits in the District of Criminals is "distant"- especially where joe citizen is concerned- now, Mr. Joe Citizen, may in fact be a part of an Empty Suits constitiuency, but, you can (and are forced to) bet your last Federal Reserve Note that you, a "stinky tourist", is the least of their concerns, until election time, then they (an Empty Suit) will promise you the moon and give you cheese and call it a day-

The Federal Reserve is NOT an arm of the gov't. It is a privately owned and run corporation

Why do you feel that?

 

[basquebromance]

Silicon Valley reportedly pouring money into Biden coffer â not so much for Trump

Employees at the six largest Silicon Valley tech firms have donated nearly $5 million to Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden while dishing out a paltry $239,000 to President Trump, according to a report on Tuesday.

www.foxbusiness.com

 

[dblack]

That's another one. Regulations.

If I have the power to regulate the blazes out of your business and make it extremely difficult for you to get off the ground, why do you think that happened?

It happened because your competitors who have been around for decades paid me beaucoup dollars to make it harder for you to compete against them.

Who are you???

A TDSer

 

[georgephillip]

Entrepreneurs can and would fill some voids- IF the Empty Suit Brigade in the District of Criminals would do it's originally intended job, (referee and not choose winners or losers) then anyone with the gumption could fill the void you're concerned with

Regardless of how much gumption an entrepreneur possess, it isn't likely he or she will have as much money as a large corporation. Shrink government and the largest and richest private enterprises will take over public functions like criminal courts, for starters:

PRIVATE ALTERNATIVES TO CRIMINAL COURTS: THE FUTURE IS ALL AROUND US - Columbia Law Review

"In his important article, Criminal Justice, Inc., Professor John Rappaport identifies the establishment of a new and novel institution: a private company retained by retail stores to dispose of cases involving shoplifting claims.1

"Still in its infancy, this new development has spawned two private for-profit, specialist companies since 2010: the Corrective Education Company (CEC) and Turning Point Justice (TPJ).2

"CEC alone handles thousands of shoplifting cases annually,3 and if some legal technicalities are overcome, these companies may be handling significantly more in the coming years."

 

[georgephillip]

top down/trickle down economics meaning the gov't is at the top of the food chain which I seriously doubt was the original intent at the founding of this Country- it could be argued, in fact, it is diametrically opposite- since the founders did fight a war to get out from under the thumb of a distant ruler/gov't

We should keep in mind how the founders viewed corporations like the East India Company and feel grateful that Royal Company never attained the military advantage here that it did in India.

There's no doubt the New York Federal Reserve is owned by some of the very same criminal enterprises it was created to police:

Citigroup Is Slapped with a $400 Million Fine for Doing Something So Bad It Can’t Be Spoken Out Loud

"On Tuesday, September 29, when all eyes were focused on the presidential debate to occur that evening, the Justice Department issued a press release announcing the fourth and fifth felony counts against JPMorgan Chase in the past six years.

"In an unprecedented move, the Justice Department did not hold a press conference to explain why the country’s largest bank is allowed to perpetually commit felonies with no change in management."

 

[georgephillip]

Corporate is already here- who the fuck do you think donates to campaign which is part of the original argument against taxes and tax write offs? More laws = more taxes = fewer participants *freely* participating- "force" is what gov't does.

Government provides a public monopoly of violence which is theoretically subject to one person-one vote control. Obviously, that is not the case today, but I would blame rich individuals and corporations for that problem, not the institution of government.

If you shrink the power of government without first gutting the political strength of corporations, the society you produce will resemble what we see today in Russia or China far more than what America could be.

Let America Be America Again by Langston Hughes - Poems | poets.org

 

[georgephillip]

A core premise of socialists is that society faces a choice between being controlled by corporations or by government. You can't conceive a society that is controlled by neither. You claim that if we reject government control of our economic decisions, corporations will rule us. But corporations cannot pass laws.

The East India Company and its Dutch equivalent did exactly that hundreds of years ago,, and they both possessed the military/police powers to enforce their codes. I've seen no reason to believe that couldn't happen in the US if democratic institutions are sufficiently weakened.

At this time, I don't see the alternative to democratic vs corporate control; can you point me to a viable option?

 

[georgephillip]

Really? Link? I've never heard of such a thing. If government IS granting private security forces the power to perform law enforcement, the practice should be halted immediately

"Along with their exploits in the Wild West, the Pinkertons also had a more sinister reputation as the paramilitary wing of big business. Industrialists used them to spy on unions or act as guards and strikebreakers, and detectives clashed with workers on several occasions."

10 Things You May Not Know About the Pinkertons

More recently, we've seen Blackwater operate in New Orleans in ways that could become routine if democratic control over the monopoly of violence becomes too weak.

 

[georgephillip]

Why do you feel that?

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK - Serving the Second District and the Nation - FEDERAL RESERVE BANK of NEW YORK
What does .org tell you about the New York Fed's owners?

Robert L. Kelly's The Federal Reserve Trilogy Uncovers the Truth behind the Fed's $30 Trillion Heist

 

[dblack]

Really? Link? I've never heard of such a thing. If government IS granting private security forces the power to perform law enforcement, the practice should be halted immediately

"Along with their exploits in the Wild West, the Pinkertons also had a more sinister reputation as the paramilitary wing of big business. Industrialists used them to spy on unions or act as guards and strikebreakers, and detectives clashed with workers on several occasions."

10 Things You May Not Know About the Pinkertons

More recently, we've seen Blackwater operate in New Orleans in ways that could become routine if democratic control over the monopoly of violence becomes too weak.

A "paramilitary wing of big business" is a criminal enterprise, not law enforcement.

 

[dblack]

A core premise of socialists is that society faces a choice between being controlled by corporations or by government. You can't conceive a society that is controlled by neither. You claim that if we reject government control of our economic decisions, corporations will rule us. But corporations cannot pass laws.

The East India Company and its Dutch equivalent did exactly that hundreds of years ago,, and they both possessed the military/police powers to enforce their codes. I've seen no reason to believe that couldn't happen in the US if democratic institutions are sufficiently weakened.

At this time, I don't see the alternative to democratic vs corporate control; can you point me to a viable option?

It's called freedom. The absence of authoritarian control. In a liberal democracy, government exists to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want - each of in our own capacity. It's not there to decide what society should be, and then to force everyone to comply. Government should be the referee, not the coach.

You probably won't ever get over the Marxian view the economic power is coercive, and that's the core of our disagreement. "Economic coercion" is a fraud, an excuse to justify actual coercion by the state.