|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 10 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2014 12:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 10 2014 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 10 2014 10:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 10 2014 10:18 Mercy13 wrote:On September 10 2014 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 10 2014 09:32 Mercy13 wrote:On September 10 2014 08:38 coverpunch wrote:On September 10 2014 08:21 Danglars wrote:On September 10 2014 08:01 coverpunch wrote:
This whole thing is kabuki theater. Democrats wouldn't do this if they thought it had a serious chance of passing, but it looks good to let republicans kill the bill and goose liberal donors to fight "for the people". They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook. I would agree that the sad part is there are plenty of legitimate issues to run on but they don't, but this is the political game. It is similar to everyone complaining about polarization and partisanship, but few admit that it persists for the simple reason that it is good for business and both parties have made handsome gains by increasing partisanship more than ever. While it's true that both parties benefit from corporate donations, Republicans benefit far more than Democrats. During the 2012 federal elections, Super PACs raised $406.8 million for conservatives, and $195.5 million for liberals. SourceSo yes, Democrats actually would love to curb Super PAC donations, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else. And what does all this money buy for corporations and other special interest groups? Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business
interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens
and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. SourceIt blows my mind that some conservatives claim this is a good thing. At least have the honesty to admit that you are in favor of unlimited corporate donations because such donations disproportionately favor Republicans, not because they are in any way good for the country. Isn't it spending and not donations? I don't understand what distinction you're trying to get at. Maybe bribes is an even better term : ) Donations are limited... you can't donate an unlimited amount to a candidate. Yeah and PAC's (usually run by a candidates close friend/associate) and the candidate can't 'coordinate', which spawns things like #McConneling. + Show Spoiler +Guess I am a bit torn between the entertainment value and the damage the clear corruption causes. Our campaign laws are a tragic comedy as are the attempts to feed the lie that it's significant problem is that wealthy people/corporations are getting unfairly shut out... Yes they're not supposed to coordinate, because that would be too close to an actual donation. Who is saying that wealthy people are unfairly shut out? Blows my mind anyone thinks they aren't, but ok. Are you taking issue with the word choice or the idea that people have been suggesting that many campaign finance law restrictions should be lifted because they infringe on the first amendment of the few who would be 'freed'?. Show nested quote +First amendment rights to run ads and support candidates cannot be abridged in this manner Because you can just put in whatever words make you feel better instead of "wealthy people are unfairly shut out".
It's not a matter of word choice. Spending on ads and donating to a campaign are different things.
Who is saying that wealthy people are unfairly shut out?
|
On September 10 2014 14:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2014 13:16 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 10 2014 12:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 10 2014 10:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 10 2014 10:24 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 10 2014 10:18 Mercy13 wrote:On September 10 2014 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 10 2014 09:32 Mercy13 wrote:On September 10 2014 08:38 coverpunch wrote:On September 10 2014 08:21 Danglars wrote:
[quote]They need something to run on, and I think War-on-Women has lost steam. I mean their visible head, Obama, is ramping up the war rhetoric (I think Kerry and Hagel both are continuing Bush-era policy of using the "evil" word for justification) in contrast to his campaign tone and speeches on the drawback of US-led efforts against terrorism in the Middle East. I guess class warfare is the last thing they've got, aside from trying to blame others for the anemic recovery that involves 1970s rates of workforce participation. It's also rather amusing to watch political ads that make no mention of Obama, only a rare few referencing ACA/Obamacare without the name, and talking tough on the budget and changing the economic outlook. I would agree that the sad part is there are plenty of legitimate issues to run on but they don't, but this is the political game. It is similar to everyone complaining about polarization and partisanship, but few admit that it persists for the simple reason that it is good for business and both parties have made handsome gains by increasing partisanship more than ever. While it's true that both parties benefit from corporate donations, Republicans benefit far more than Democrats. During the 2012 federal elections, Super PACs raised $406.8 million for conservatives, and $195.5 million for liberals. SourceSo yes, Democrats actually would love to curb Super PAC donations, for pragmatic reasons if nothing else. And what does all this money buy for corporations and other special interest groups? Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business
interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens
and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. SourceIt blows my mind that some conservatives claim this is a good thing. At least have the honesty to admit that you are in favor of unlimited corporate donations because such donations disproportionately favor Republicans, not because they are in any way good for the country. Isn't it spending and not donations? I don't understand what distinction you're trying to get at. Maybe bribes is an even better term : ) Donations are limited... you can't donate an unlimited amount to a candidate. Yeah and PAC's (usually run by a candidates close friend/associate) and the candidate can't 'coordinate', which spawns things like #McConneling. + Show Spoiler +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20sfBNa_xL8 Guess I am a bit torn between the entertainment value and the damage the clear corruption causes. Our campaign laws are a tragic comedy as are the attempts to feed the lie that it's significant problem is that wealthy people/corporations are getting unfairly shut out... Yes they're not supposed to coordinate, because that would be too close to an actual donation. Who is saying that wealthy people are unfairly shut out? Blows my mind anyone thinks they aren't, but ok. Are you taking issue with the word choice or the idea that people have been suggesting that many campaign finance law restrictions should be lifted because they infringe on the first amendment of the few who would be 'freed'?. First amendment rights to run ads and support candidates cannot be abridged in this manner Because you can just put in whatever words make you feel better instead of "wealthy people are unfairly shut out". It's not a matter of word choice. Spending on ads and donating to a campaign are different things. Who is saying that wealthy people are unfairly shut out?
You can stop now. I'm not playing those games with you tonight.
|
How much of the money donated to political campaigns is spent on ads?
|
On September 10 2014 14:51 IgnE wrote:
How much of the money donated to political campaigns is spent on ads?
Looks like ~60% for 2012.
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/expenditures.php
Campaign Expenses
Campaign mailings & materials $25,188,128
Campaign events & activities $652,848
...
Media
Unspecified media buys $594,690,686
Web ads $94,291,103
Media consulting $30,095,195
Media production $17,885,512
Miscellaneous media $15,438,098
Broadcast ads $8,548,406
Print ads $2,398,810
These are just from candidate's campaigns.
|
So is spending on ads only like 60% of donating to a campaign? Or would you go the other way and say spending on ads is like 167% of donating to a campaign? Don't have to pay the staffers and all that.
|
I'm on the side of more varied political contribution streams myself but I also think that there should be a really good reason to silence wealthy donors.
It will be really hard to close this loophole as you'd have to draw the line somewhere.
|
On September 11 2014 02:13 Wolfstan wrote:
I'm on the side of more varied political contribution streams myself but I also think that there should be a really good reason to silence wealthy donors.
It will be really hard to close this loophole as you'd have to draw the line somewhere.
Here's a good reason. Money shouldn't make your voice mean more. Why should Bloomberg get more of a say than me? Not very democratic to only allow rich people any say in political discourse.
|
So where do you draw the line to ensnare only the people you don't want to hear/have too much voice?
Should it be illegal to tell my buddies that free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity? or the government is terrible?
What if I stood on a soapbox on main street?
What if my soapbox was a TV ad?
Should McDonald's be allowed to say they are overtaxed during their Superbowl Ad?
Should a Labour lobby firm be able to say McDonald's underpays employees and government should raise minimum wage during the next commercial break?
Should Op-Ed writers be allowed to say government is terrible with sources while there is an ad that says government is great with sources on the adjacent page?
Should this constitutional right to criticize or support candidates and causes be taken away during election campaigns?
Good luck closing those loopholes without looking like China or N. Korea fining or imprisoning citizens for criticizing government and supporting opposition policies.
|
On September 11 2014 03:11 Wolfstan wrote:
Good luck closing those loopholes without looking like China or N. Korea fining or imprisoning citizens for criticizing government and supporting opposition policies.
You may be very surprised, but there actually are a lot of steps between closing a loophole and literally ending up as North Korea. Not everything is a slippery slope into dictatorship.
Why not limit campaign spending to a certain amount? Say everyone gets 10 million bucks. It's still fair because everyone has the same amount to spend. It would put an end to this ridiculous arms race for sure.
|
On September 11 2014 03:26 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 03:11 Wolfstan wrote:
Good luck closing those loopholes without looking like China or N. Korea fining or imprisoning citizens for criticizing government and supporting opposition policies. You may be very surprised, but there actually are a lot of steps between closing a loophole and literally ending up as North Korea. Not everything is a slippery slope into dictatorship. Why not limit campaign spending to a certain amount? Say everyone gets 10 million bucks. It's still fair because everyone has the same amount to spend. It would put an end to this ridiculous arms race for sure.
Oh I agree that the arms race is stupid beyond belief, but what about the blatantly partisan spending by individuals/corporation/unions that never mention a candidate or party? Shutting up the Koch brothers will take a lot more than limiting campaign spending to 10 million bucks.
For the record, I really favour Canadian style political financing consisting of about a third private contributions, 1/3 donor tax credits, 1/3 per vote subsidy. With a small 1000ish private contribution limits.
Source
|
On September 11 2014 03:49 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 03:26 Nyxisto wrote:On September 11 2014 03:11 Wolfstan wrote:
Good luck closing those loopholes without looking like China or N. Korea fining or imprisoning citizens for criticizing government and supporting opposition policies. You may be very surprised, but there actually are a lot of steps between closing a loophole and literally ending up as North Korea. Not everything is a slippery slope into dictatorship. Why not limit campaign spending to a certain amount? Say everyone gets 10 million bucks. It's still fair because everyone has the same amount to spend. It would put an end to this ridiculous arms race for sure. Oh I agree that the arms race is stupid beyond belief, but what about the blatantly partisan spending by individuals/corporation/unions that never mention a candidate or party? Shutting up the Koch brothers will take a lot more than limiting campaign spending to 10 million bucks. For the record, I really favour Canadian style political financing consisting of about a third private contributions, 1/3 donor tax credits, 1/3 per vote subsidy. With a small 1000ish private contribution limits. Source
It get's joked about a lot but my main issue is disclosure. So let them donate big bucks, but they should have to wear patches like nascar drivers that represent the size of the donations.
|
On September 11 2014 04:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2014 03:49 Wolfstan wrote:On September 11 2014 03:26 Nyxisto wrote:On September 11 2014 03:11 Wolfstan wrote:
Good luck closing those loopholes without looking like China or N. Korea fining or imprisoning citizens for criticizing government and supporting opposition policies. You may be very surprised, but there actually are a lot of steps between closing a loophole and literally ending up as North Korea. Not everything is a slippery slope into dictatorship. Why not limit campaign spending to a certain amount? Say everyone gets 10 million bucks. It's still fair because everyone has the same amount to spend. It would put an end to this ridiculous arms race for sure. Oh I agree that the arms race is stupid beyond belief, but what about the blatantly partisan spending by individuals/corporation/unions that never mention a candidate or party? Shutting up the Koch brothers will take a lot more than limiting campaign spending to 10 million bucks. For the record, I really favour Canadian style political financing consisting of about a third private contributions, 1/3 donor tax credits, 1/3 per vote subsidy. With a small 1000ish private contribution limits. Source It get's joked about a lot but my main issue is disclosure. So let them donate big bucks, but they should have to wear patches like nascar drivers that represent the size of the donations.
Another interesting idea I've heard is to make all donations confidential, in such a way that the recipients have no way of confirming where the donations are coming from. This would require some sort of intermediary organization that would collect political donations, and then disburse them to the intended recipients without revealing the source. It would be tougher to buy politicians if the politicians don't know who is trying to do the buying.
Combining a structure like this with some sort of public financing, i.e., giving every American a voucher worth $20 that can be donated to the campaign of his or her choice, would seriously dilute the ability of corporations and other special interests (including unions) to influence politicians.
|
Without necessarily being for or against, I'd say that more emphasis on disclosure is probably easier, more fair, and more constitutional than additional spending limits.
|
I'd rather have no spending on election ads; and switching the system for selecting people for government to something that isn't so dependent both on fundraising, and on the self-selling of the people trying for the position.
I want to pick the best people for the position, not the people who're trying hardest to get the job.
|
Time to see what Fearless Leader has to say. The real question is the extent to which he will authorize military action -- particularly ground troops -- in Syria.
|
Bad speech. Very bad speech in fact.
|
On September 11 2014 10:19 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Bad speech. Very bad speech in fact.
Haha, I could have sworn it was a black Bush up there giving that speech. I just wish people will quit telling the lie that ISIS is not Islam. The problem is that ISIS is Islam in arguably its purist form.
|
That point can be argued either way. Speech felt rather bland and uninspiring to me.
|
The other strikes in relation to the Obama Doctrine had nothing to do with ISIS. That and there was no bare bones telling the Arab world i.e. Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan etc. they were on their own they must deal with this on the ground as the US will not. That and the Yemeni government can't control it's own domestic areas let alone battle AQ.
Makes one wonder that if said countries can't form a coalition because their scare of their own domestic enemies as much as their foreign ones. Especially Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
