I was watching the debate last night until I had enough of it and had to stop. Bernie Sanders mentioned that because of the Citizens United supreme court ruling we were becoming an oligarchy. I looked up the term and it means when "a small group of people or organizations control a country" We have Soros, the Koch brothers, Lockheed/Boeing, Lesbian/Gay/Transgender, NAACP, NRA, etc, etc. So is the flood of dark money ruining our democracy and would it be better if it was outlawed and we had public campaign financing or is their another solution?
All forms of govt are oligarchy in nature. The only differences being the size of the group and whether any particular citizen happens to be a part of that group(s) or not.
I was watching the debate last night until I had enough of it and had to stop. Bernie Sanders mentioned that because of the Citizens United supreme court ruling we were becoming an oligarchy. I looked up the term and it means when "a small group of people or organizations control a country" We have Soros, the Koch brothers, Lockheed/Boeing, Lesbian/Gay/Transgender, NAACP, NRA, etc, etc. So is the flood of dark money ruining our democracy and would it be better if it was outlawed and we had public campaign financing or is their another solution?
Bernie is a self-avowed socialist. Socialists hate capitalism. What he *wants* to say is that he believes this country is a "Corpratocracy", but he knows damn well that once he starts down that path he is politically doomed with the American electorate. Instead he tap dances around using the more generic term *Oligarchy*
You can call that performance last night "The Santa Claus Debate"......decide who was promising more *free* stuff......(that someone else has to pay for
The only question for Democrats is whether their ticket will be Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Clinton.
If any of the idiots in ether party's that are in the debates now gets elected it is going to be the end of the US, none of them have what it takes to be the leader of our country. sure they talk a good campaign and will tell everyone what they think will get them elected but can they actually do anything they say they are going to? Not from what I see that is running right now.
None of them care about us, just themselves.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 10-14-2015).]
The only question for Democrats is whether their ticket will be Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Clinton.
Yes you are probably correct, Sanders bent over backwards to kiss up to Hilary. Maybe its my biased reaction but every time Hilary says something I get the impression that she is saying what she thinks people want to hear and she appears very phony to me. The people that demonize the 1% better be careful, IMO if you tear down the 1 percenter's it will have a negative affect on everyone's economic status. I do believe though that everyone including the 1 percenter's should be paying taxes. Under our current system the % in taxes called for in the tax code is often not paid. If everyone was paying a percentage we would be able to lower the tax rate without increasing the deficit.
Yes you are probably correct, Sanders bent over backwards to kiss up to Hilary. Maybe its my biased reaction but every time Hilary says something I get the impression that she is saying what she thinks people want to hear and she appears very phony to me.
She definitely does, she has been doing that for decades... that's why it was the very first question that was asked of her.
...Under our current system the % in taxes called for in the tax code is often not paid. If everyone was paying a percentage we would be able to lower the tax rate without increasing the deficit.
Sorry for the thread jack, but "our current system" was written as NEVER BEING MORE THAN 3% TAX RATE.
Under our current system the % in taxes called for in the tax code is often not paid.
Most people when talking about people not paying their fair share, etc. mention people like Warren Buffet and Mitt Romney, but AFAIK both of them pay all of the taxes they are required to pay according to the tax code. Not paying what the tax code calls for is tax evasion and punishable by law.
In some cases people mention off shore tax shelters or "loopholes." Well, those are legal accordint to the tax code. Be clear if you mean illegal tax evasion or if you think the tax code itself needs to change. Tax evasion is not nearly as rampant as the people complaining about others not paying enough taxes would lead one to believe.
You're absolutley right about Hillary being phony. Just watch her speeches to different audiences. She says what she thinks they want to hear. Politicians like Ted Cruz are more "genuine" in that they've chosen who they want to appeal to and tailor their message to their base. That doesn't mean they're honest, but the message is consistent. I think the only really honest one in the race right now is Trump and that's because he just doesn't care if you like what he says or not.
Of course he is. He's promising free stuff that other people will pay for. Bernie is so generous, he'll give you the shirt off of someone else's back.
I do respect him though. He's far more honest than Hillary. I don't get the sense he's trying to fool everyone - he genuinely believes his way is better and wants to tell you why. I don't agree with him, but I respect him.
Originally posted by Formula88: You're absolutley right about Hillary being phony. Just watch her speeches to different audiences. She says what she thinks they want to hear. Politicians like Ted Cruz are more "genuine" in that they've chosen who they want to appeal to and tailor their message to their base. That doesn't mean they're honest, but the message is consistent. I think the only really honest one in the race right now is Trump and that's because he just doesn't care if you like what he says or not.
An then you had folks like Scott Walker, who are so genuine they cant get nominated.
- Employed but think they are not "rich" and will not have to share their piece of pie. They just do not consider the possibility that their pie may actually shrink.
- Unemployed and getting their piece of pie from others already. They never consider the possibility of being forced to work as part of the deal.
The devout socialist Bernie Sanders clearly laid out his Philosophy. He will protect the constitutional rights of every American as long as they meet his means testing and qualification criteria. Should you happen to be "rich" by his definition, You are a threat because you do not need the Government in your private life. When he refers to things that are bad for Americans, The United States and The Planet, it is always People, Groups and Companies who are self sufficient. Especially if those entities disagree with him....
As far as an Oligarchy ? The word only has 1 antonym - Democracy Bernie Sanders is not advocating an end to Oligarchy. We have a representative democracy in which the most assertive among us often get their way. True, the majority tend to get the short end of the deal. The majority of Americans are not politically assertive unless it's election time. Political Group, Special Interest and Large Corporations are politically active year round.
IMHO, LoL Mr. Sanders is actually proposing us become an oligarchy....... If he were interested in more Democracy and less oligarchy he would be advocating a more individual access to the process instead of more limitations and restrictions.
- Employed but think they are not "rich" and will not have to share their piece of pie. They just do not consider the possibility that their pie may actually shrink.
- Unemployed and getting their piece of pie from others already. They never consider the possibility of being forced to work as part of the deal.
The devout socialist Bernie Sanders clearly laid out his Philosophy. He will protect the constitutional rights of every American as long as they meet his means testing and qualification criteria. Should you happen to be "rich" by his definition, You are a threat because you do not need the Government in your private life. When he refers to things that are bad for Americans, The United States and The Planet, it is always People, Groups and Companies who are self sufficient. Especially if those entities disagree with him....
As far as an Oligarchy ? The word only has 1 antonym - Democracy Bernie Sanders is not advocating an end to Oligarchy. We have a representative democracy in which the most assertive among us often get their way. True, the majority tend to get the short end of the deal. The majority of Americans are not politically assertive unless it's election time. Political Group, Special Interest and Large Corporations are politically active year round.
IMHO, LoL Mr. Sanders is actually proposing us become an oligarchy....... If he were interested in more Democracy and less oligarchy he would be advocating a more individual access to the process instead of more limitations and restrictions.
What I was trying to articulate on the tax code but didn't do a good job of was that it needs changing. I don't blame people for taking advantage of legal tax deductions but I advocate simplifying the tax code and elimination of the earned tax credit which is a transfer of money from my pocket to someone else's who happens to have several children and does not make a high income. IMO we would be better off to not withhold any taxes from the people getting large EIC checks and keep the money we would have handed them and use it to pay down the debt. I guess what I am leaning towards is a low flat tax with no deductions or tax shelters. Because everyone but low income people would be paying in the rate could be low and we wouldn't need the IRS bureaucracy. I would think that the rate could be determined fairly easily if we knew the total income produced in a year and then you could determine the percentage of that income that would produce the amount of money needed for the budget. I may be way off base but I would guess that the percentage needed wouldn't be as high as the percentage being paid by a lot of people now. Maybe this calculation has been done already??
Hillary said the enemy she is most proud of making is Republicans! She's proud that she is enemies with roughly half of the citizens of the United States! Did anyone else see it like that?
As for the tax system. The only truly fair tax system will be a sales tax system. I believe that even if they tax the 1%ers 100% of their incomes they still couldn't pay for all the free stuff they promised.
The only question for Democrats is whether their ticket will be Clinton/Sanders or Sanders/Clinton.
I''ve been watching (and sometimes involved in) this process for decades, and I'm willing to bet money that that won't happen. Second place in the polls/primaries doesn't automatically get the #2 spot on the ticket in the USA. It'll probably be Clinton, but who her running mate will be is still unknown. Remember, the election is still over a year in the future.
------------------
I own and drive American cars.
[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 10-14-2015).]
Hillary said the enemy she is most proud of making is Republicans! She's proud that she is enemies with roughly half of the citizens of the United States! Did anyone else see it like that?
As for the tax system. The only truly fair tax system will be a sales tax system. I believe that even if they tax the 1%ers 100% of their incomes they still couldn't pay for all the free stuff they promised.
It is always amusing to me when the socialists rant about the 1%
It's just a version of the same old "working class vs. the bourgeois" slogan that was sung during the Communist Bolshevik revolution. Simple class envy and warfare.
Those lemmings chanting against that so-called 1% seem to never look at history and see that it doesn't stop at the 1% they are after....There is *always* the next % just below that....until you hit bottom. Every time you knock off the top 1%, you have a new "top %" that is just a step down from that, but still *has more* than the *have nots*.
The "fuel" of socialism is *coveting* what others have, believing they somehow got it "unfairly" and demanding that it be forcibly taken and given to others.
Can you say "Zero Sum Game"?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 10-14-2015).]
That is because most of them are living off of mommy and daddy's income. They have not had to work or to pay taxes. Things change when they do go to work and end up finding out it is going to cost them a whole lot of their hard earned money to support politicians like Bernie.
That is because most of them are living off of mommy and daddy's income. They have not had to work or to pay taxes. Things change when they do go to work and end up finding out it is going to cost them a whole lot of their hard earned money to support politicians like Bernie.
You are absolutely right. I was much more liberal when I was 16 and living at home.
Here are a few issues that no matter how loudly you speak in contraindication of, or are arrogantly dismissive of, remain true. I know logic doesn't command political respect, so I will address the facts and the emotional reality below.
(1) Firstly, the United States of America is a Republic with democratically elected representatives; NOT a democracy. Referring to America as a democracy demonstrates that one has no respect or regard for the actual law of the land insofar as it is supposed to apply to all citizens.
As a candidate, calling America a Democracy proves that you only care about "ruling" the people your way; and when your political constituents agree they are effectively saying "force others to live the way we tell them to live."
This is the source of all political hatred; different constituencies wanting to FORCE the other to bend to their will under the threat of crippling fines, jail time, and other humiliating hassles.
(2) Secondly, the top 1% of wage earners are not always millionaires and billionaires. The income split for the top 1% on any given year is about $380,000 per household. While that is a lot of money for a single year it includes mostly: (1) married couples at the zenith of their hard-earned careers trying to save to support their children; (2) people accepting buyout bulk retirement packages which have been earned over an entire career; and (3) small business entrepreneurs who struggled for years earning nothing to create jobs (and are still by the way the #1 job creators as a group in America even those that fail in 5 years) and have finally earned the right to a large payday (maybe 10-20% of all creators).
The married couple at the top of their careers have worked hard, the retiree has earned every dollar over a long career, and the small business owner risked stability, financial security, any savings, and whose big payday may still not even compensate those sacrifices.
FURTHERMORE, our tiered tax system doesn't ratchet up at 1% it ratchets up at the top 10% which includes most all middle class couples earning a combined income of over $100k.
Our tiered tax system IS what is destroying the middle class and small business entrepreneurs. It only looks at one year and takes money away from those who have earned it over time, and from those who would invest in small ideas that create jobs and promote open market innovation and competition.
The rhetoric of punishing billionaires and millionaires has ONLY ever increased the wealth gap and furthered corporatism interests to control the market by stifling competition. It has fostered the cubicle farm by stripping the population's ability to save and invest for themselves, and giving a near monopoly on investment to the existing wealth holders. It has also allowed those who control wealth to control the market of innovative ideas by controlling large investments.
While income and property taxes sound like their take from the rich to feed the poor, in reality the rich are paying a small price to use government to control the property and markets of those working hard to achieve the American dream of wealth (and for those at the top of the food chain in business and politics that small fee has proven to be a lucrative investment).
(3) Most climate change is beyond human control, and that which is within human control is well-beyond the reach of the laws of this nation. That which is within reach of this nation has little to do with using fossil fuels for transportation and energy, and "sustainable" options are still at a point where impact is greater than production; especially hydro power which is one of the most environmentally destructive forms of energy in America. Hydro energy (1) wastes water via evaporation from slowing the rivers, (2) kills fish from restricting spawning travel to safe spawn locations; (3) harms the biological balance of our waterways; (4) hurts the food source of animals that survive off of our rivers; and (5) actually increases the risk of flooding and river instability insofar that predators who thrive off the river are driven away and herbivore animals are free to eat more plant life by the riverside and erode the banks (read the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction study for evidence). This is probably Greek to every candidate.
Additionally, the largest source of pollution (particulate pollution to water, greenhouse gas, land-clearing, etc. is from industrial farming mostly in the meat industry.) The USDA has systematically attacked small sustainable local farms with heavy un-affordable false-claim lawsuits (reference attorney Sarah Conant who was hired to do exactly that in upstate NY, MD, NJ, and other locations) designed to eliminate competition and force capitulation in support of large corporate farm interests who don't need to worry about sustaining the land because they simply contract out the risk to an endless stream of farmers who are trapped and burdened with the long term costs in order to meet exacting cost standards of production or otherwise face the wrath of the USDA.
Do we even need to bring up Monsanto?
A mere shift in farming practices for steak products alone would have 1000x more impact on air quality, water quality, and water and land use than if we stopped using all gasoline in America. While some may complain that that will raise the price of meat; I'd argue that those who would be affected would be those whose idea of red meat and veggies is a MacD burger with a side of fries not those who want a fine muscle gains producing Kobe steak once or twice a week.
America can't change the world climate, full stop. It is insane to think it can do it with laws that make transportation more expensive. Nor does America have a car addiction; it has a crappy food addiction, which is the source of a ton of other health problems in America and has increased the need for expensive healthcare and medications.
Focus on the problem that has caused more pollution than any other industry, and has 35 year old men being treated for colin cancer and diabetes, while also having to take testosterone pills because they can't get the dick they can't even see up, before telling me I can't drive my truck and need to watch another natural salmon hatchery be destroyed.
It is always amusing to me when the socialists rant about the 1%
It's just a version of the same old "working class vs. the bourgeois" slogan that was sung during the Communist Bolshevik revolution. Simple class envy and warfare.
Those lemmings chanting against that so-called 1% seem to never look at history and see that it doesn't stop at the 1% they are after....There is *always* the next % just below that....until you hit bottom. Every time you knock off the top 1%, you have a new "top %" that is just a step down from that, but still *has more* than the *have nots*.
The "fuel" of socialism is *coveting* what others have, believing they somehow got it "unfairly" and demanding that it be forcibly taken and given to others.
"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power."
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-15-2015).]
Originally posted by dennis_6: In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power."
What's the solution? Csjag mentions the NRA (among others) in his list of "dark money" contributors. The NRA is an organization made up of individuals who contribute so the NRA can collectively represent them. How else should a group of average citizens make their voice heard?
It's one thing when you have single individuals contributing huge sums of money, but without some kind of collective voice the average person would never be heard.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 10-15-2015).]
None of the libs complained about being an oligarchy when organized labor (afl/cio/usw/ibt/uaw etc) had the white house and almost all of congress in their pocket..........where labor thru it's weight, that cndidate won. go figure
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 10-15-2015).]
Democratic Presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)16% said on Saturday that climate change is directly related to terrorism.
“In fact, climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism,” said Sanders.
“And if we do not get our act together and listen to what the scientists say, you’re going to see counties all over the world…they’re going to be struggling over limited amounts of water, limited amounts of land to grow their crops, and you’re going to see all kinds of international conflict.”
