When Does Free Speech Become Bribery?
Posted by Joe Rivett on 02.05.2010
The latest Supreme Court decision on campaign finance may open up the floodgates...
The purpose of a judiciary is not only to interpret laws but to draw a line. For instance, we allow people the right to own some pretty powerful guns/arms but we don't want people to own rocket launchers or nuclear weapons. Even with free speech, we can't make threats but we can call porn freedom of expression. The problem with money is that when there are no limits, it corrupts.
The Supreme Court's decision to allow unions and corporations no limits when it comes to campaign advertising is potentially disastrous. If a Senator changes his vote because he got some free stuff, we call that bribery. However, if a Senator changes his vote because he got a campaign contribution, it is called free speech? Now the theory is that with limits, we can give enough money to show approval or support a cause but not enough single handedly to change a Senator's mind. Yet, with corporations able to spend unlimited capital (something which they have a lot of) that may be enough to let the banking committee's ignore their outrageous bonuses despite owing their existence to the federal government.
What compounds this problem is that many politicians leave politics for very lucrative business positions that makes one wonder how they were able to get such a cushy job in the first place? A Senator's voting record should not be a reward when they leave politics for a private sector job that relies on government contracts. If corporations and unions have more money in the system, this problem will only get worse. This "free speech" is why we have the military industrial complex and now what appears to be the health industrial complex.
Now this court decision won't change elections dramatically but if corporations and unions can spend without limits on advertising, why have limits for people? Limits allow a middle class man like me to have just as much speech as Bill Gates which I think is essential for a Democracy. Both of us can give 2,000 dollars to Obama to show our support, but if the limits are done away with, Gates will have far more influence to the point where I may feel like 3/5 of a person.
With the amount of corruption and money in our political system, the US is looking increasingly more like Mexico. How did Joe Lieberman voice only a year ago to change Medicare eligibility to 55 and then when it came to an actual vote, he stayed with the status quo. I'd follow the money.
Think of all the things you would do for the right price. If someone gave me enough money, I would do a lot of things that may be immoral or unethical; why should Congress behave any differently? Do we really want more money in our political system? Do we feel more free as individual Americans by the Supreme Court ruling? This decision makes government, big business and unions more powerful… something that doesn't appear conservative.
The reason the 'Democratic majority' has meant absolutely nothing since Obama was sworn in is *exactly* because of this problem. This decision is merely an extension of what we see every day on Capitol Hill - politicians, on both sides, voting in accordance to the interests of those who provide them the most campaign finance or lobby the most intensely.
Basically, fuck the little guy.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on February 05, 2010 at 06:44 PM
Well, evidentally Alito and Roberts have no qualms about doing away with precedent. Cant wait to see what they come up with in regards to religion, abortion, fourth amendment, et al.
Posted By: Guest#6920 (Guest) on February 05, 2010 at 07:52 PM
American democracy is finished and has been for MANY years now...you people really need to get over it and move along because NOTHING is going to change EVER.
People are to lazy to stage anything like the american revolution perfectly happy with their american idol and ipods. So we will all be dead and gone before anything happens and the people get tired of both parties and decide to do something about it. They could of course choose to do nothing in which case you can start playing taps now for the good ol US of A
Posted By: truth (Guest) on February 05, 2010 at 10:46 PM
People are to lazy to stage anything like the american revolution perfectly happy with their american idol and ipods. So we will all be dead and gone before anything happens and the people get tired of both parties and decide to do something about it.
Posted By: truth (Guest) on February 05, 2010 at 10:46 PM
Anything like the American Revolution? Why would we want to go to war with England?
There may not be a revolution, but there is going to be considerable rioting, crime, and death. I give our current way of life about 20 years, tops. After that, energy is going to be so expensive, we're going to get knocked back to a pre-civil war existence.
Posted By: Guest#3701 (Guest) on February 05, 2010 at 11:42 PM
yeah 19 years of precendent, not centuries like obama said the campaign finance laws didn't work, as you had all the 527's on both sides, and oh yeah, seiu poured in hundreds of millions to obama's campaign, and oh yeah about the lobbyists, you said you wouldn't hire, but most of obama's appointees have been lobbyists and never mind the fact obama doesn't know how to vet candidates
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on February 05, 2010 at 11:48 PM
You miss the point Joe.
I want to be very wealthy - and I want to spend that money anyway I choose.
If the means I do it thru a company, so be it.
If you want a bigger voice - go make alot a cash and use it.
We Americans used to want to be better, work harder, get more of everything.
Now people are happy with their lives and feel like "3/5ths" of a person because they're too lazy to get off their duff and make something of themselves.
All people are not equal. We are born equal - after that is up to you.
Do what you want with your life - don't try and put limits on me just because I succeeded thru hard work and make 10X what you do.
If I have the money - it's no one's business what I do with it (or what I have my company do with it).
-MDB
Posted By: MDB (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 01:51 AM
yeah 19 years of precendent, not centuries like obama said the campaign finance laws didn't work, as you had all the 527's on both sides, and oh yeah, seiu poured in hundreds of millions to obama's campaign, and oh yeah about the lobbyists, you said you wouldn't hire, but most of obama's appointees have been lobbyists and never mind the fact obama doesn't know how to vet candidates
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on February 05, 2010 at 11:48 PM
So, it's really all about "Left vs Right", eh? Even when US citizens of all political persuasions are going to get screwed? Good to know you're thinking about whats important.
Posted By: Guest#4458 (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 07:13 AM
Anything like the American Revolution? Why would we want to go to war with England?
Revolution against the ruling power (we were english colonies at the time)....try knowing what your talking about
Posted By: truth (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 11:06 AM
yeah 19 years of precendent, not centuries like obama said the campaign finance laws didn't work, as you had all the 527's on both sides, and oh yeah, seiu poured in hundreds of millions to obama's campaign, and oh yeah about the lobbyists, you said you wouldn't hire, but most of obama's appointees have been lobbyists and never mind the fact obama doesn't know how to vet candidates
Posted By: coby preimesberger (Guest) on February 05, 2010 at 11:48 PM
And here ladies and gentleman is why this country is going down the toilet....because as someone else said people like this see this country in blue and red and could care less about anything else. Even if both parties could care less about the little man, and neither party has done much in the last few decades to do anything but help the wealthy and rich of this country.
But yeah keep on trucking with the blue/red thing
Posted By: Guest#0667 (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 11:08 AM
MDB evidently built America all by himself.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 11:20 AM
You miss the point Joe.
I want to be very wealthy - and I want to spend that money anyway I choose.
If the means I do it thru a company, so be it.
If you want a bigger voice - go make alot a cash and use it.
We Americans used to want to be better, work harder, get more of everything.
Now people are happy with their lives and feel like "3/5ths" of a person because they're too lazy to get off their duff and make something of themselves.
All people are not equal. We are born equal - after that is up to you.
Do what you want with your life - don't try and put limits on me just because I succeeded thru hard work and make 10X what you do.
If I have the money - it's no one's business what I do with it (or what I have my company do with it).
-MDB
You or your company wouldn't be successful without other, less wealthy people. Don't you think they deserve the same voice as you?
More money doesn't mean your a better person. Considering the lack of morals it sometimes takes to become wealthy, I'd say if often means the opposite....
Posted By: Guest#3416 (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 01:00 PM
I have never agreed with anything you have ever written before, Joe, but I must admit... I agree with you here. This is not a left vs. right issue, but rather an issue of integrity. With the SCOTUS decision, the integrity of all elections (not that it had any to begin with) is officially thrown out the window. Horrible decision. Just horrible. Now labor unions can openly buy one on the left, and any large corporation can buy someone on the right. I see no upside to this.
Posted By: Chris (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 01:07 PM
"Anything like the American Revolution? Why would we want to go to war with England?
There may not be a revolution, but there is going to be considerable rioting, crime, and death. I give our current way of life about 20 years, tops. After that, energy is going to be so expensive, we're going to get knocked back to a pre-civil war existence."
You should be embarrassed. I suggest you never speak.
Posted By: Jerry (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 01:18 PM
It's the result of appointing "Strict-Constructionists" to the court, and it's welcomed. Oh how the tables have turned on Liberlism. Nice. Can't wait til November.
Posted By: Cabbage (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 01:48 PM
I have a feeling MDB wasn't born in a coal mining town in Appalachia. If we were all born equal, how is it that Paris Hilton was born a multi-millionaire and I wasn't? Sorry, but Horatio Alger is dead. It's not about "hard work" anymore. It's about rich people making sure they get richer and make sure the middle class *thinks* they can be rich but doing everything in their power to make sure it's only the rich that stay rich. That's why Michael Steele can stupidly say that "after taxes a million dollars isn't that much money" and conservative idiots agree with him.
But then again MDB is probably a millionaire who likes to spend his time commenting on 411mania.com, just like the other millionaires who hang out here.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 02:24 PM
Corporations are given the same rights as individuals AND also have a "super-right" you or I as individuals don't get-that of limited liability. Limited liability can only happen two ways-by contract or by law. Since we obviously don't sign contracts with every entity we come across the "law" is the applicable force to examine. This runs contrary to traditional libertarian philosophy. If you want, check out this (long) essay on the subject:http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn076.pdf
What does all that have to do with this ruling? Citizens United v. FEC essentially grants corporations the right to buy politicians. I am not naive enough to think that this isn't already occurring, on both sides of the aisle. But this is an outright, carte blanche ticket for corporations to influence legislation. The problem is that this removes the last barrier to complete corporate control of our government. With no liability attributed to the individuals that make up a corporation and no limit on the amount of influence they can peddle, a regular citizen would have no recourse should malicious or negligent corporate action intersect with "bought and paid for" legislation. For instance, say Corporation A decides to dump toxic waste in a densely populated urban area and tell no one. Meanwhile, they have already bought enough votes to get an act passed whereby corporations no longer have to report toxic waste disposal to any regulatory agency-or they dissolve the regulatory agency-or they place extreme caps on liability-you get the picture. So what recourse do the obviously wronged citizens of the area have? Sue and win, but only collect $100,000 for a shattered quality of life or death? What if the cost to properly dispose of the waste is higher than imposed caps on damages will allow? What incentive do the individuals who comprise a corporation have to behave in a socially responsible manner? The only segment of the population that could afford to take on a big corporation in a civil battle are upper middle class people and above...the very same people who run the corporations!!! The media will be of no use to the average citizen. They have sold their souls to ratings. Woodward and Bernstein won't save us.
To me, the key point here is that the First Amendment grants freedom of speech to individuals-it is modern law that treats corporations as individuals. It also creates the likelihood that citizens' own Constitutional rights will be trampled on. Even complete transparency of what corporations give, how much and to who wouldn't resolve this unless the information was presented clearly, in a way that that the average American could understand and, this is key, BEFORE the election.
Posted By: Guest#2746 (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 03:30 PM
There may not be a revolution, but there is going to be considerable rioting, crime, and death. I give our current way of life about 20 years, tops. After that, energy is going to be so expensive, we're going to get knocked back to a pre-civil war existence."
You should be embarrassed. I suggest you never speak.
Posted By: Jerry (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 01:18 PM
This country runs on energy Jerry, a LOT of energy. So does Europe. So does Asia.
In 1979, America experienced a 3.5% drop in oil production and the price of oil more than doubled.
With India and China growing, we can expect a 2-3% annual rise in global demand for oil. Combine this with an annual drop in production of 3%. Some say that rate may be as high as 10%.
Now throw in some ethnic unrest in Nigeria to shut down oil fields. Maybe a terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia or Alaska?
If energy prices doubled in the 70s because of a 3% drop in production, what happens over the next 20 years with an annual drop of say, 5%?
Food production? Manufacturing cars, computers? Maintaing a standing army? Forget about it. It's all based on energy, and now that corporations can buy elections, good luck getting emisions limited or alternative energy sources funded.
Posted By: Guest#0208 (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 05:34 PM
Fair enough , Joe, but answer this: Should Keith Olbermann lose his freedom of speech because because the parent company of MSNBC, GE, is set to make money if Cap & Trade legislation goes through? Over the last few months, with the Climate Gate fiasco and the Himalayan glaciers revelations that they weren't melting by 2035 (data that was used by Al Gore in his Slide show), MSNBC and NBC have done a poor job on reporting said scandals. Now this couldn't possibly have anything to do with GE's main interest, right? Or how about several news companies siding by Obama and generally reporting more good stories than bad? Why do only companies that can afford a news division have this form of freedom of speech where as smaller companies don't? Should they lose this right so as to make freedom of speech something where we are all equal?
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 05:48 PM
GaryML, it's mindsets like yours that prevent people from moving up in life, and never achieving anything. People do outgrow their "social class" One of the best studies of American income earners was completed in 1975, in this study it was shown that 3/4 of people living in the bottom 20% of income earners were also in the top 40% of income earners 16 years later. Yes it's an old statistic, but over the years many other surveys have shown the same result. In Britain a study showed people living in the bottom 10% rose out of poverty within 6 years. A similar study showed 1/2 of people in Greece and 2/3 of people in Holland rose above the poverty line after only 2 years! Every year people rise and fall through different income earning levels. Plus many of the people who are categorized as being "poor" are only in the category because they are retired, but have accumulated plenty of wealth.
Posted By: David_Payne (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 06:06 PM
The dream is over...
Posted By: John Lennon (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 08:33 PM
IMO, there is a good deal of deflection being offered here by several posters. Thus far, corporations being able to buy elections and politicians is okay because..
1) Its the "American Way". Everything should be bigger, louder, faster, and better. If the rich want to spend money supporting policies that ensure their continued wealth at the expensive of middle class 401ks, then they should be allowed to
2) Something about Obama and lobbyists.
3) Keith Olbermann works for a corporation, and he gets to express his opinion to the supposed benefit of GE. So, rather than working to curtail this conflict of interest, we should open up the floodgates so that every industry can inundate the airwaves.
4) Something about poor people picking themselves up by the bootstraps (see "The American Way").
Personally, I'm a "progressive" liberal with a disdain for Sarah Palin. Yet, I applaud the tea-party movement, due to it being a grassroots organization formed is response to reckless financial decisions made at the behest of GIANT CORPORATE BANKS.
But now, after a summer of being shouted at, politicians can go back to their home districts and give their constituents a giant "fuck you", knowing that, even if they are voted out of office for supporting corporate mandates at the expense of the middle class, they can be met with a nice, toasty lobbyist job after they leave office.
Posted By: Guest#8407 (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 09:00 PM
Don't more Americans watch that douche Joe Scarborough than do the big bad meanie, Keith Olbermann? And aren't Olbermann's numbers like a quarter of a million? Like, a *quarter* of O'Reilly's?
You've got to applaud Fox for their depictions of this guy as an almost dangerous far-leftie, enabling them to act like their product is 'balanced'. MSNBC have played right into their hands by trying to compete against the Fox hegemony by trying to offer a left-of-centre alternative, leaving Fox in an even greater position to manipulate their mindless idiot audience into thinking MSNBC is so extremely biased toward the left.
The fact is, MSNBC still retains an obligation towards 'news', regardless of their attempts to mimic the success of Fox by offering their own myopic opinion shows. Fox does not. It is an all-out opinion network, based around providing their viewers with *their* opinion on the narrow selection of news they choose to acknowledge.
They're in ratings, not news.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 09:05 PM
What a suprise, a bunch of libs complaining about something that helps corporations, which in turn helps the economy. Lets face it, you guys are just sore losers. Just because your savior Hussein doesnt like the decision, you dont like it either. Well guess what? Whats good for corporations is good for America! And dont give me that BS about how corporations ship jobs overseas or pay minimum wage. Those people that lost their jobs should have worked harder to have a better job, because that is what America is all about! Hard work! Something you socialists wouldnt endorse! If you dont want to work hard enough to make it into the top 1%, then dont complain when my piss hits your forehead!
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 10:33 PM
"
Personally, I'm a "progressive" liberal with a disdain for Sarah Palin. Yet, I applaud the tea-party movement, due to it being a grassroots organization formed is response to reckless financial decisions made at the behest of GIANT CORPORATE BANKS."
Most tea partiers didn't give two shits about the banks until Obama came into office. The same ones who crow about losing their freedoms jumped up and down with glee when ridiculous laws like the Patriot Act were passed. When companies like Goldman-Sachs were exposed in how they did loans instead of going after them they decided to blame the poor and the middle class for not being "successful" and "responsible" enough for "allowing" themselves to be fleeced of their savings when they got mortgages. They spent more time comparing Obama to Hitler and Stalin, misquoting Martin Luther King Jr. (a guy these types labeled a Communist among other things when he was alive), and crying about the loss of the lie of the American Dream then they did ever questioning the very system which screws the majority of them over. The only grassroots thing about the Tea Parties is that its roots are not linked with the people but rather with astroturf organizations such as FreedomWorks and Americans for Prosperity.
Posted By: RealityCheck (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 10:49 PM
Sorry David Payne that I'm not impressed by 35 year old studies. Want to know what's changed since 1975? Try our lending practices and the credit card industry. But for me to accept the obvious - some people have it easier than others - doesn't keep people from rising up the ranks. That "mindset" is realistic. I'm not going around telling kids they can never be president, but I'm also not like these conservatives who rail against tax hikes for billionaires while they work as an office temp at 40 years of age.
Let's face it: Roger Ailes has "more" freedom of speech than most of us, because he has Fox News. And now he can give Sarah Palin her own show so she can use it to run for President, and there's nothing wrong with that in the eyes of the court.
Don't blame me for people not being able to succeed. Put the blame where it belongs: on the folks who think a million dollars isn't much money after taxes.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 11:09 PM
What a suprise, a bunch of libs complaining about something that helps corporations, which in turn helps the economy. Lets face it, you guys are just sore losers. Just because your savior Hussein doesnt like the decision, you dont like it either. Well guess what? Whats good for corporations is good for America! And dont give me that BS about how corporations ship jobs overseas or pay minimum wage. Those people that lost their jobs should have worked harder to have a better job, because that is what America is all about! Hard work! Something you socialists wouldnt endorse! If you dont want to work hard enough to make it into the top 1%, then dont complain when my piss hits your forehead!
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on February 06, 2010 at 10:33 PM
Not everyone equates success with money. Just because some people value other things more, doesn't mean they should get less of a voice than someone only out to make a dime.
Posted By: Guest#8035 (Guest) on February 07, 2010 at 03:08 AM
Wasn't the reason this case was brought before the court was that McCain/Feingold led to prohibition of a film that cast Hillary in a negative light from being advertised? Why should anyone be mollycoddled from seeing this? Or more specifically, why should this film be censored from being shown two or three months before an election, but be permissible any other time? That's why the law was struck down. If Congress wants to go back and try to regulate speech, they have the right to try.
As for me, I'm educated enough to know I shouldn't believe everything I see in a political ad. I've seen enough union-supported ads over the years to know the field has been lop-sided in their favor for a very long time. I don't support everything that big corporations do, but why should they be muzzled when the other side has carte-blanche to say whatever they want?
Posted By: Guest#8689 (Guest) on February 07, 2010 at 08:37 AM
Your right our credit and leanding practices have change. Back when the study was conducted people were more responsible with credit. Now a days people complain that they can't afford paying back their creditors. They act as though it is the creditors fault that they are in debt!
Now on to the study and your claim how the economy has changed since then. At the end of 1975 the employment rate was 8.2%,the interest rate was 6.9% and the average rate of inflation was 9.2%. Also during that time period they were in a middle of a recession. During this time period they were in a worse state than we are. Now if people could rise above their position and succeed, than so can the people of today!
That 40 year old temp is the exception rather than the rule. If by the age of thirty he hasn't raised higher in life, who's fault is that? What choices did he make? Did he take out a large loan on a house, have children he can't afford, or used credit cards to supplement his income? People rise out of poverty all the time. They choose not to be the victim, and complain that the upper class is keeping them down. The strive to become one of them. At one point in my life I worked 3 jobs so that I could afford to live comfortably. I also choose to invest in myself by going to college. It was hard work, but now it is paying off.
Posted By: David_Payne (Guest) on February 07, 2010 at 09:19 AM
People rise out of poverty all the time. They choose not to be the victim, and complain that the upper class is keeping them down. The strive to become one of them.
Posted By: David_Payne (Guest) on February 07, 2010 at 09:19 AM
So, someone who doesnt value money above all else, like a priest or artist or stay at home parent should have less of a voice in a Democratic society?
Posted By: Guest#1300 (Guest) on February 07, 2010 at 01:54 PM
Well first off, we don't live in a Democratic society, but a Constitutional Republic, so right off the bat you are wrong. Whats to stop artists or priests from forming a lobbying body to petition their government? Nothing!
If a business is taxed and regulated by the government, why shouldn't they have the ability to express their view point? Should they remain silent and allow government to do what they wish to them? They to should have a say, and that's what the court decided.
Posted By: David_Payne (Guest) on February 07, 2010 at 04:23 PM
Oh how did I know that David Payne "worked 3 jobs?" I love that. You worked 120 hours a week??? Wow, impressive. Or, you mean you worked 3 part time jobs - meaning no benefits, no full lunch breaks, none of the things full-time workers get. Funny how that works out - it's as if the unions never existed and all those things we worked for are gone thanks to those wonderful corporations that supposedly have our best interest at heart. Just as long as you're salaried and they can get you to work 65 hours a week while only paying you for 40.
You left out a big difference between now and 1975: how many people leave college with a huge student loan along with that degree? Of course credit card companies aren't to blame, even though they're the same ones that jack up your rates if you sneeze and love to give immature college kids credit cards with rates just under 30%.
So my question to David Payne: how do you feel about a company that's incorporated in the U.S. but with a foreign owner, like Newscorp's Rupert Murdoch from Australia, being able to influence our elections by running smear campaigns and contributing to whichever party will bow to their wishes? What's stopping al Qaeda from opening up a business in Delaware and buying a few congressmen?
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on February 07, 2010 at 09:45 PM
GaryML seems to know a lot about David Payne. Please Gary, tell me about myself.
Posted By: gwpbrian (Guest) on February 07, 2010 at 10:03 PM
What is the difference between the Rupert Murdoch, who owns MULTIPLE media outlets, and George Soros throwing his billions behind MoveOn.org and all that other socialist garbage?
Posted By: Guest#5852 (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 05:38 AM
"If a business is taxed and regulated by the government, why shouldn't they have the ability to express their view point? Should they remain silent and allow government to do what they wish to them? They to should have a say, and that's what the court decided."
The point your not seeing and dont understand is that these corporation have more money than the average Joe and their "say" all of a sudden holds more weight on the average politician than do joe blow out in the middle of nowhere.
Also most of these corporation BARELY pay taxes. Most pay have paid I think I read AIG or one of these wall street firms paid .6% tax. On the other hand most average americans pay what? 30%
Actually .6% in generous as most of them have paid nothing for years - http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1249465620080812
so since we pay more taxes shouldn't we have more of a say than corporations? Oh but it doesn't work that way because they have more money to give so what they want is given precedent over what the average joe wants. Do you still don't see the problem here? Really?
How many average americans can afford a political commercial, political ad, or political documentary. The answer is 0 - Do you still not see the problem here? Really?
How many average americans can afford lobbyists to go to washington to have the ear of a politician on an issue for weeks and months on end and then have a bill passed based on that? the answer is 0.
If you still do not see the problem then you just refuse to see any other view but yours, and are oblivious to the real problem this causes.
Posted By: truth (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 08:55 AM
To GaryML, Guest#5852 answered the question before I had a chance to, and it's pretty close to what I would have said.
Truth, first off 100% of all businesses, corperations, LLC's, and what ever you want to call them pay 0 dollars in taxes. This is economics 101. The end user pays for the taxes. If the government raises the tax on a business, the company will pass the increase onto the consumer! Next, the article presented a very screwed report. If a business has a net loss, of course their tax liability is going to be close to zero! The article keeps mentioning gross sales, and gross receipts, there is a huge difference there! Don't believe me, look at your next pay check. On it, it should show your gross pay, and your net pay. Now, which one is larger?
If you are against deductions for corporations, than you should also be against deductions for individuals. If you believe there is nothing wrong with a family deducting their two children, then there is nothing wrong with a business using their deductions. Families deduct their mortgage interest all the time, well guess what so do businesses!
Every type of business has a competitor. Each company will lobby the government at some level. One side does not get all the say. Plus there are many advocacy groups out there trying to lobby for "the little guy"
Posted By: David_Payne (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 10:53 AM
What is the difference between the Rupert Murdoch, who owns MULTIPLE media outlets, and George Soros throwing his billions behind MoveOn.org and all that other socialist garbage?
Posted By: Guest#5852 (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 05:38 AM
Yeah, because we cant afford to have people donating money towards causes like donating $$$ to inner-city school children, or supporting ballot movements to give people more rights in regard to drug laws.
Posted By: Guest#2229 (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 11:12 AM
Well first off, we don't live in a Democratic society, but a Constitutional Republic, so right off the bat you are wrong. Whats to stop artists or priests from forming a lobbying body to petition their government? Nothing!
Posted By: David_Payne (Guest) on February 07, 2010 at 04:23 PM
Nothing.. other than a lack of money.
Posted By: Guest#2802 (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 11:17 AM
If you are against deductions for corporations, than you should also be against deductions for individuals.
Im against corporations who make millions or billions of dollars in profit and because of tax loopholes or offshore accounts pay NOTHING or are taxes such a small percent its a joke. Like i said one of those wall street firms tax liability was .6% are you kidding me? They made billions in profit and there tax was .6%?
And BTW is the health care industry lobbying against one another? How about the oil industry? Really? Or you joking?
And these groups advocating for the little guy they have as much power as the entire health care industry as just one example? They can give Millions of dollars to a few candidates so they will help their agenda?
if your happy living in a Plutocracy then I guess your thrilled with everything....but most people aren't and this is just another example of the the Plutocracy America has become...we are not a "Constitutional Republic" but a Plutocracy
Posted By: truth (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 12:49 PM
A lot of angry people pushing class warfare in this comment section. The Community Reinvestment Act and Fannie and Freddie were all created by the government in the name of "the little guy" and look where that got us. It severely injured the economy. Beware of people who look to protect the "little guy". It's the same arguments thugs like Chavez and Castro use and it usually only winds up creating even more of a disparity between the haves and the have nots, as you class warfare-types like to characterize America.
Posted By: Da Man (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 01:41 PM
A couple of points which should be mentioned:
1) Corporations are still prohibited from making direct contributions to federal candidates. Donations must come from individuals or PACs.
2) Political ads will need to be accompanied by disclaimers and disclosure statements.
3) Corporations have already been allowed to funnel $$$ thru PACs of various size and number.
Personally, I think this ruling will have negative long-term ramifications where the oil, insurance, and finance indusries are concerned. However, I dont believe that overturning the ruling would prevent problems anyways.
That's the thing about free-speech, its powerful in all shapes and forms.
Posted By: Guest#0832 (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 02:00 PM
Where do you think the money corporations make goes? Do the CEOs sit around a big ole campfire at Bohemian Grove burning 100 bills and T-Bonds to stay warm?
The complete lack of simple economic knowledge here confounds me.
How many of my detractors have had to make payroll? How many people look towards you for their livelihood?
We live in a plutocracy eh…sounds as if someone has read too many Marx books. So who made that Che shirt you are wearing? Was the shirt created out of the kindness of their hearts, and they broke even? Alternatively, did they make a …dare I even speak the word... a profit?
So in your perfect world, who would produce and offer services? How radically different would life be?
Posted By: David_Payne (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 03:25 PM
We live in a plutocracy eh…sounds as if someone has read too many Marx books. So who made that Che shirt you are wearing? Was the shirt created out of the kindness of their hearts, and they broke even? Alternatively, did they make a …dare I even speak the word... a profit?
So in your perfect world, who would produce and offer services? How radically different would life be?
Posted By: David_Payne (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 03:25 PM
Way to not understand what a plutocracy is
1 : government by the wealthy
2 : a controlling class of the wealthy
Explain to me again how this is not what we have in this country, and have had for a very long time? Profit is all well and good, no problem with it. However when it becomes the rule of the day and gets to dictate policy and the majority are shut out of the process strictly based on campaign contributions and how much they give an can afford to spend to get what they want, that is huge problem.
Now that i told you what a plutocracy is care to change your view....since profit really has nothing to do with it? probably not I would gather, probably just want to make another "funny" reference to my "che shirt"
Posted By: truth (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 04:48 PM
No I do not wish to change my view point. I stand by my statement. We live in a Democratic Republic. The vast majority of people claiming we are a plutocratic form of government, are "progressives" or whatever liberals wish to be called today. You have just as much say, at the ballot box, as Bill Gates. Plus for every Rupert Murdoch, there is a George Soros.
Posted By: David_Payne (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 05:38 PM
You have just as much say, at the ballot box, as Bill Gates. Plus for every Rupert Murdoch, there is a George Soros.
That is naive at best, yes each vote counts for one, but to say someone who has endless wealth and can get the ear more readily than those who do not have wealth is comical and just not factual.
You must see that as well as you did not have a very good answer or response.
of all the millions given to political candidates of any party for president where does the major portion of that money come from? Normal folks giving $20? As much as Obama would like you to believe that the majority of this money, including his came from wealth corporations/organizations with an interest in who won and hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars to donate. You don't think what they want takes precedent over someone who gave $20? If you think that your not paying attention - and that is the point you seem to be missing or just have your blinders on about and dont want to see
Posted By: truth (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 06:40 PM
Plus for every Rupert Murdoch, there is a George Soros.
________________________________________
Wow. To suggest Soros has even a semblance of the influence over the voting populace as Murdoch has is so incredibily naive, it's actually depressing you're willing to express it without shame.
Even were we to consider the premise hypothetically, say on one side a multi-billionaire leftie with hundreds of media outlets and a major 'news' network against a multi-billionaire right-winger with hundreds of media outlets and a major 'news' network on the other, the ideologies involved would ultimately lead to success for the guy on the Right, he who discards any regard for the well-being of the people who are responsible for his success but who he's fine to pretend he acts in the interest of, concerned only with his single-minded drive for profit.
Ideologically, for the guy on the right, it wouldn't even be about the 'Republicans' winning, it would just be him winning fiscally due to Conservatives caring more for that top 5%; the guy on the left, whose political allignment shares a far closer proximity to humane, philanthropic aspirations, would not be able to compete, sad as it is to admit. Fear and sensationalism simply garner more ratings than knowledge and rational.
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 08:33 PM
The vast majority of people claiming we are a plutocratic form of government, are "progressives" or whatever liberals wish to be called today.
Posted By: David_Payne (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 05:38 PM
Because you've run into a lot of people making such a claim, and asked them about their political affiliation, right?
Or.. is it a classic case of not being able to attack the message, so you attack the messanger?
Any assertion that the wealthy do not exert influence on policy formulation which is far above and beyond what the middle class can muster is.. questionable.
Posted By: Guest#3067 (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 08:56 PM
('Rationale' spelled incorrectly intentionally so as to quell any desires for you right-wing numbskulls to label me an 'elitist' - that being your by-word for 'people who value intelligence over beer hats, BBQs and Bibles'...)
Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on February 08, 2010 at 09:05 PM
I would like for David Payne to explain his view of the perfect conservative government. I'm having a hard time understanding what conservatives truly want from their government. As far as I can tell, they don't want regulation, they don't want taxes - basically they want a capitalistic free-for-all, where the government exists basically to make sure terrorists don't kill us in our sleep. Am I that far off from what the tea partiers are demanding?
You talk about other commenters not understanding simple economics, but do you? I'm not that old but I remember a time when yes, breaking even was considered a good year. You made enough to keep working and that was plenty. If you made a profit, you could reinvest in your own company.
That's not the case anymore. If a company doesn't make a substantial profit, it's considered a failure. Why is that? If I sell my product, purchase my supplies, and pay my employees, why is breaking even a bad thing? Oh that's right - because of the stockholders! And the CEO and CIO and VPs of every department needing millions in bonuses! In other words, the top 5% need even more money than ever before. And who should pay for it? The other 95% of course. Which David Payne thinks he'll be some day, but he never will.
When was our economy better, Mr. Payne? Now, when the banking industry can hold us hostage, or before when "breaking even" wasn't treated like a failure? And how in the world can a private business do something for cheaper than a non-profit entity, like the government? That's the reason why health care has fallen apart - there's too much profit being made and the corporations that own our Congress refuse to let us go to a single payer system, which would cover everybody and be cheaper since there wouldn't be a mark-up at every stage to justify those CEO bonuses. But no, that's socialism - now get your hands off my social security and medicare!
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 12:04 AM
Everybody has a price! bwaaahahaha
Posted By: Million Dollar Man (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 12:28 PM
Oh that's right - because of the stockholders! And the CEO and CIO and VPs of every department needing millions in bonuses! In other words, the top 5% need even more money than ever before. And who should pay for it? The other 95% of course. Which David Payne thinks he'll be some day, but he never will.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 12:04 AM
That is an interesting angle to the "debate" we carry on here. Conservatives accuse liberals of being envious of the rich, of wanting to "punish success". Here, conservatives are supporting a policy which will prevent them from becoming what they admire, rich.
Posted By: Guest#5417 (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 02:13 PM
It wasn't corporations that has saddled every american with 45,000 worth of debt through goverment programs.
Its not corporations that are the only growing sector in the job market, that would be goverment.
Keep blaming corporations while the goverment gets obese like bath tub boy Keith Olberrmann.
November is going to sting for Gary. Chungles isn't american, so thanks for your input, we will make a note of it. If we want to be like the UK, we will let you know.
Chungles response " your stupid, stupid, fox bad, Msnbc news, your stupid, goverment great, stupid, your stupid."
Tired and lame.
Remember to honor your "corpseman"
Posted By: Guest#8835 (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 03:21 PM
God Gary, no one owes you anything, your life must be pathetic to running around looking for victimhood.
Hey I know, quit coveting other peoples things.
Posted By: Guest#1016 (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 04:34 PM
America is a plutocratic! Unlike Russia, a country we should all inspire to be like. Yes, Russia, no one ever went hungry there. Unlike America where, due to Capitalism, everyone but, like, ten people, starve to death, because that’s what corporations want. Name one good thing corporations, run by the Zionist Jews, has ever done. The modern Airline? Phone Companies? Personal Computers? The iPod? All invented by communist because we as communist are smarter than average. The only reason the U.S.S.R. does not exist today is because the US niked it because it was failing. Thanks to those capitalist pigs, countries where people are so poor they can only shower when it rains, people will never have anything, because evryrthing worthwhile in the last millennium was due to communism, like modern technology that occurred during the industrial revolution.
Posted By: Dan (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 05:40 PM
It wasn't corporations that has saddled every american with 45,000 worth of debt through goverment programs.
Its not corporations that are the only growing sector in the job market, that would be goverment.
Keep blaming corporations while the goverment gets obese like bath tub boy Keith Olberrmann.
November is going to sting for Gary. Chungles isn't american, so thanks for your input, we will make a note of it. If we want to be like the UK, we will let you know.
Chungles response " your stupid, stupid, fox bad, Msnbc news, your stupid, goverment great, stupid, your stupid."
Tired and lame.
Remember to honor your "corpseman"
Posted By: Guest#8835 (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 03:21 PM
I do not believe any of this has ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand....but thanks for trying!
Posted By: idiot (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 06:23 PM
Listen ta all these liberal crybabies! Freespeech is great when it means you can go spit on police and call the president a terrorist, but when people who work for a living want to say something all of a sudden you want your wise latina on the supreme court to step in and stop it from happening! Well piss off! You are the ones assuming that people are just going to stare at the television and do what corporations tell them too, because they must not be as wise and all knowing an you are. America is about the freedom to make money and spend money and speak your mind and your mouth! If you all dont like it, go move to some socialist paradise like China! See how you like that!
Posted By: Nascar Billy (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 07:15 PM
Listen ta all these liberal crybabies! Freespeech is great when it means you can go spit on police and call the president a terrorist, but when people who work for a living want to say something all of a sudden you want your wise latina on the supreme court to step in and stop it from happening! Well piss off! You are the ones assuming that people are just going to stare at the television and do what corporations tell them too, because they must not be as wise and all knowing an you are. America is about the freedom to make money and spend money and speak your mind and your mouth! If you all dont like it, go move to some socialist paradise like China! See how you like that!
Posted By: Nascar Billy (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 07:15 PM
Way to totally not understand the point of any of this - its about corporations having overabundant influence on politics. What you are talking about here has NOTHING to do with that.
NOBODY said anything about profit being bad, so exactly what is your point?
Posted By: nat (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 08:47 PM
No, November is going to sting for all of the people who vote for Republicans and Conservative Democrats and expect things to somehow improve. Sure they'll be happy on election day, but given it a few months when they realize they had it pretty good under Obama when he was being a moderate conservative - when Speaker McConnell calls for Obama's impeachment for not having a birth certificate they'll start to wonder what the heck went wrong.
Right now, I would like for every single conservative to vow they want to repeal every government program. Every single one. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, our military, Homeland Security, everything. Put your money where your mouth is. No more public education, no more public water works, no public street lights or air traffic controllers. Put up or shut up, conservatives. Let's see how long you last without all of the goodies you've gotten used to over the years that liberals earned for every American. No more lunch breaks (what smart company is going to let workers take a break??? what are they going to do, QUIT? ha ha ha ha - not like they'll get fired and get unemployment if they don't follow the rules!). Better hire a food taster, since no more regulation of what we eat or what's sold. Oh and get ready to pay the police if you want them to come help you and make sure you buy fire insurance to pay for the fire fighters when they show up at your burning house and refuse to put it out until your credit line is approved.
Or you could have just visited Haiti before the earthquake. Anybody else want to live in a "libertarian paradise" like that? Put up or shut up conservatives - no more government! No more goodies! Privatize everything, profit above all else! Who's with Nascar Billy and David Payne? Who's with Sarah Palin, William Kristol, and the rest of the Republican leadership?
Who here is a REAL conservative? Or are you all a bunch of big talking suckers who don't REALLY want to lose out on all of your goodies, you just don't want other people to get more than you do? Well, maybe it's okay for old white guys - they EARNED it. But brown people who talk funny? Eww - no. They CAN'T be conservative - they're not REAL Americans like Nascar Billy.
I'm looking forward to Jesusland. What, you think in the privatized United States they're going to allow just ANY old religion? It'll be just like the Old West - everybody will wear a gun and poop in an out house and complain about how much the general store is charging them. But maybe, just maybe, you'll get to wear a cowboy hat like your heroes Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on February 09, 2010 at 10:58 PM
“Right now, I would like for every single conservative to vow they want to repeal every government program. Every single one. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, our military, Homeland Security, everything. Put your money where your mouth is.”
Yes, that’s totally it. Conservatives are all anarchist. Jesus fucking Christ, do you even read what you type out? No, conservatives don’t want a nanny state that wipes the ass of every one of its citizens. No, conservatives don’t want a state where nothing exists: we had that for a few years before the BoR/during the AoC. You’re essentially saying that people have to choose between an anarchistic state or a socialistic state. What you have presented is the False Dilemma fallacy. Look it up and see why you’re wrong.
However, since we are having fun doing false dilemmas, I’ll present one. To all you socialist/nanny staters, give up all byproducts from the industrial revolution and beyond. That means no computer, high-speed internet, automobiles, indoor plumbing, light bulbs, toilets, etc. Well, how did you respond to this without any of these things?
“Well, maybe it's okay for old white guys - they EARNED it. But brown people who talk funny? Eww - no. They CAN'T be conservative - they're not REAL Americans like Nascar Billy.”
Yeah, we should all follow the example of Robert Byrd: “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
That’s the kind of people Democrats like.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on February 10, 2010 at 12:19 AM
Yeah, we should all follow the example of Robert Byrd: “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”
That’s the kind of people Democrats like.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on February 10, 2010 at 12:19 AM
Nice try, but the issue here is between ideologies, not political parties. Robert Byrd wasn't a liberal, as evidenced by you're quote.
Posted By: Guest#4934 (Guest) on February 10, 2010 at 11:46 AM
For all this hot air being blown about, you'd think at least ONE person would take a crack at answering the question posited in the headline of the article. When does free speech become bribery?
Posted By: Guest#5020 (Guest) on February 10, 2010 at 12:40 PM
No BKS, I'm not creating a false dilemma. Tell me where I'm saying something that conservatives don't believe. They prefer private over public. Just because you can't actually counter my point, you cry "false dilemma!" and then point to something Robert Byrd said 70 years ago. Nice try - now will you vow to privatize all social services and our military? Or are you a conservative in name only, you socialist?
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on February 10, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Fellas, fellas, we're getting off topic here. Now, we can all agree that no sensible conservative is going to want to do away with EVERY service that the government provides, but that doesnt mean that they cannot fairly criticize certain policies which might stiffle economic growth or place disproportionate burden on affluent members of society.
Likewise, no sensible liberal would want to abolish the corporate business structure. Corporations raise capital which is then invested to raise productivity which raises the standard of living. But, that dosent innoculate corporations from criticism regarding the salaries paid to executives and the ethical decisions certain companies have made over the past decades.
Frankly, I think that everyone has some reason to be angry at this outcome. Nevertheless, we should all sit back and wait until November to see what develops of all this.
Posted By: CMS (Guest) on February 10, 2010 at 08:58 PM
That's my point - the hypocrisy of it all, especially when it comes to conservatives and government. As a progressive, I definitely think there are areas where the government can cut back and reduce their involvement (like in monitoring private communications). However, I doubt I can get any conservatives to concede that the government can do SOME things well. But when you put them on the spot, there are a ton of things they claim to hate but don't. They don't really want to privatize Social Security. They like having public schools and clean water. But admit that they're wrong about wanting to start a "new revolution" like Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers want? They refuse, and talk about how eeevil government is. Even though they're the ones who ran it into the ground under Bush.
And the conservatives on the bench are the reason why their view of life is going to be forced upon all of us - by expanding the role of corporations in our government.
Which begs the question: the more corporations are involved in things the government used to do, like national security, is that really shrinking government or simply expanding it and providing profits to a company that were given a no-bid contract by the Congressman they paid off? Was it better to have grunts doing KP duty as part of their service instead of paying KBR millions to bring in private cooks making three times what our servicemen and women get for the same thing (but without the combat training, meaning our military ends up having to do double duty by protecting civilians in a war zone)?
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on February 11, 2010 at 12:05 AM
“But when you put them on the spot, there are a ton of things they claim to hate but don't. They don't really want to privatize Social Security.”
The reason many of them can’t answer well is because you need to tell them how exactly you’d end the program. If you’re just going to cut the program and take all the savings that people have put in there, then yeah, most people would not want it cut. I understand this sentiment: You’ve worked all your life knowing that at the end you’ll be receiving a guaranteed check from SS and instead you spend the money you have on yourself. All of a sudden someone tells you won’t be getting that guaranteed check and suddenly your life is ruined. However, I believe for SS to end it would have to happen quite slowly. After all, this is what happens when you create an entitlement program and cut it: People who depend on it realize they need it. If, however, you know you won’t be getting that guaranteed check then people will have to be saving for themselves early on, with that extra cash that should be in your check because you’re not paying. After all, when SS started it was 16-1 support. Now it’s about 3-1.
“They like having public schools and clean water. But admit that they're wrong about wanting to start a "new revolution" like Sarah Palin and the Tea Partiers want? They refuse, and talk about how eeevil government is.”
First of all, you know that Water and Power Bill and Gas bill your parents get every two months? Yeah, you still have to pay. Nothing would be different if it was ran public or privately. Second, no, many conservatives such as myself support school vouchers for students. For example: For about semester, I went to a shit hole public high school where the Algebra 2 teacher didn’t know the difference between exponential and linear growth. I tried to change schools but couldn’t due to districts preventing me from going to one outside. I only went to a better school because my parents moved. The voucher system would allow for students to move from their crappy school to a private one, forcing the PS to either improve or die.
“And the conservatives on the bench are the reason why their view of life is going to be forced upon all of us - by expanding the role of corporations in our government.”
Yeah, we should all be like Venezuela where Chavez would come to private businesses and throw people out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkRseHu6n2E
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on February 11, 2010 at 03:17 AM
Nice try, BKS, but sorry - no. Sure you explain how you'd end Social Security, but what would replace it? Investing in the stock market? Ha ha ha ha. People LOVE Social Security. That's why when Bush tried to privatize it in 2005 people rejected it outright.
Agreed our government should be doing more to improve public schools, and it's insane we spend so much on military projects that don't serve any purpose (like jets that can't fly in the rain) while our children get lackluster education. But vouchers for private schools? Then you're just putting a price on education for children. What if your family can't afford a private school, much the same way families can't afford health care for their kids? Sorry, but I don't believe in the "I got mine" America.
I didn't say anything about power and gas, I said water. What, your toilet is privately run? Please. Do you honestly think our corporations would do more to regulate themselves if there was no government to do it? I think we can look to China for the answer, where at least they have the death penalty for greedy CEOs who knowingly put consumers at risk and it results in death.
BKS, you spew the right wing talking points with the best of them. But you have yet to take the pledge. Do you want to do away with government services like a true conservative? Will you say right now that yes, you want to privatize Social Security and education and road construction and water supplies and air traffic? If you do let me know so I can come over with the toll machines for every little thing you take for granted that the government provides.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on February 11, 2010 at 12:19 PM
Sure you explain how you'd end Social Security, but what would replace it?”
401K’s? Put it in a Bank? Gold? People should be able to invest it where ever they want. Like I said, SS will be a failing system seeing as when a majority of BB retire (Around 80 mill, compared to Gen X who are roughly 15 mill less) and will begin paying out more than it takes in by 2017. Either we’re going to have to put in more, or it will end anywhere by 2030-40. Example, during the 60’s, people put in 6.5% of their earnings for SS. Since 1990? 12.4? We also have a problem that eventually we will have to be retiring at age 70, as opposed to 66 if you were born between 43-54 and 67 after the 60’s.
“But vouchers for private schools? Then you're just putting a price on education for children.”
Why not? I went to school in Boyle Heights where my 9th grade English teacher missed half the semester and he never got fired for doing that shit. Since I had it for first period many times the office didn’t even know he wasn’t there until we sent somebody. This is what the public school system has created: a union where unless the teacher has fucked a student they won’t be getting fired. For private school, however, if a teacher ain’t doing their job and they’re not fired than one can take their business elsewhere causing the school to lose money. Voucher’s would allow for parents to send their kids to places that have an incentive to teach.
“I didn't say anything about power and gas, I said water. What, your toilet is privately run?”
In my city? No, However, certain areas do have a privatized Water (and, by the way, most water companies are also in charge of Power, so I’m questioning your state of independence) and they get by just fine.
“Do you honestly think our corporations would do more to regulate themselves if there was no government to do it?”
And do you honestly believe Government would do enough to regulate itself? Nebraska and many other states dealt with the problem of the US Supreme Court “Kelo” decision by completely outlawing the taking of private property in order to benefit cronies. No private corporation can walk up to my house and take it for penis on the dollar.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on February 11, 2010 at 05:11 PM
Sure you explain how you'd end Social Security, but what would replace it?”
401K’s? Put it in a Bank? Gold? People should be able to invest it where ever they want. Like I said, SS will be a failing system seeing as when a majority of BB retire (Around 80 mill, compared to Gen X who are roughly 15 mill less) and will begin paying out more than it takes in by 2017. Either we’re going to have to put in more, or it will end anywhere by 2030-40. Example, during the 60’s, people put in 6.5% of their earnings for SS. Since 1990? 12.4? We also have a problem that eventually we will have to be retiring at age 70, as opposed to 66 if you were born between 43-54 and 67 after the 60’s.
“But vouchers for private schools? Then you're just putting a price on education for children.”
Why not? I went to school in Boyle Heights where my 9th grade English teacher missed half the semester and he never got fired for doing that shit. Since I had it for first period many times the office didn’t even know he wasn’t there until we sent somebody. This is what the public school system has created: a union where unless the teacher has fucked a student they won’t be getting fired. For private school, however, if a teacher ain’t doing their job and they’re not fired than one can take their business elsewhere causing the school to lose money. Voucher’s would allow for parents to send their kids to places that have an incentive to teach.
“I didn't say anything about power and gas, I said water. What, your toilet is privately run?”
In my city? No, However, certain areas do have a privatized Water (and, by the way, most water companies are also in charge of Power, so I’m questioning your state of independence) and they get by just fine.
“Do you honestly think our corporations would do more to regulate themselves if there was no government to do it?”
And do you honestly believe Government would do enough to regulate itself? Nebraska and many other states dealt with the problem of the US Supreme Court “Kelo” decision by completely outlawing the taking of private property in order to benefit cronies. No private corporation can walk up to my house and take it for penis on the dollar.
“Do you want to do away with government services like a true conservative?”
Yes, after all, why should people receive a monthly check for doing nothing? Now, for the record, I don’t support anarchy as you are suggesting because I do believe that the government has to police and provide the security as outlined by the Constitution, otherwise the State is useless. However, you’ll probably say something in the lines about because I support the military for protection I’m a socialist and thus my points are invalid, which is the False Dilemma.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on February 11, 2010 at 05:12 PM
Whoa, wait a minute BKS - you're the one creating the false dilemma. You're saying that without government to police us, it would be anarchy. Why can't we let the free market decide who protects us? Sure the wealthy might have to pay more for their police protection, but why should the government tax us to pay for protection when there are private firms that will do it for a nice profit? Why do you want to limit how much private companies can make by taking those jobs away and making the government do it?
I'm not creating a false dilemma. I'm pointing out your hypocrisy.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on February 12, 2010 at 11:27 AM
"Wait, you have numbers? Screw it, I won't address your points, and instead I'll just call you a fool.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on February 12, 2010 at 11:27 AM"
Like I said, until you learn the difference between limited and No Government then you'll be convinced all conservatives are all anarchist. Second, I've never said I'm against Government taxation. I do, however, believe that the Fed can easily limit it taxation on people, cut programs that only serve unions and other members of state legislators, and people would have more money for themselves. Third, quite a few communities, and we're talking about communities that aren't even "rich," already rely on a private security force to protect them, just like some cities have private ambulances and fire fighters. Guess what, they are all still functional. But I'll just respond to this message as if I were you:
Venezuela is the greatest country ever because no one ever starves there because they have big Government. Every starves to death because in America because of corporations. I still live with my parents on the count that I didn't know the Department of Water and Power were one in the same.
Posted By: BKS (Guest) on February 12, 2010 at 02:50 PM
Wow BKS - what an immature response. Call names and lie about what I said? Such a shame. But I guess when someone points out your hypocrisy it's easier to act out like that instead of addressing the bigger point.
But with arguments like "cut programs that only serve the unions," it's easy to see you have no response. Just more Republican talking points and dog whistle words (unions are corrupt, dontcha know!) without addressing the validity of my points. Oh and make sure to toss in a reference to Hugo Chavez for good measure.
Sorry, but just like last November, you lose.
Posted By: GaryML (Guest) on February 12, 2010 at 04:49 PM
STAY CURRENT