| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On August 20 2012 06:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I think I've taken 4, if memory serves correct. Then why do you keep referring to all government spending as stimulus? During a recession, government spending mechanically goes up, notably because of higher unemployment and more people being on welfare. That is not active stimulus spending by the government. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On August 20 2012 06:28 kwizach wrote: Then why do you keep referring to government spending as stimulus? During a recession, government spending mechanically goes up, notably because of higher unemployment and more people being on welfare. That is not active stimulus spending by the government. I don't refer to government spending as stimulus. I generally shorthand deficit spending as stimulus. I think Acker hates me for that because it isn't 100% accurate but I think it is a reasonable proxy when speaking casually on the TL forums. I also don't see the point of separating an automatic stabilizer from any active policy decisions when speaking about the overall amount of stimulus in the economy. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 20 2012 04:49 sam!zdat wrote: I don't take the US constitution as sacrosanct, first off, and secondly, I think the idea that spending money is first amendment speech is far from uncontroversial (though I'm not a constitutional scholar - maybe somebody who knows will weigh in). Anyway, most constitutional interpretation is more hadith than anything else - the constitution itself is too vague to say much of anything at all. It's my feeling that the power of money as speech has turned the US democracy into a parody of itself, basically tantamount to fascism. We don't have political discourse, we have a competition to see which meme is most virulent, or which propaganda most effective. (if an acceptance of the power of money as speech is an inextricable element of the constitution, then I would take that as an indictment of the moral legitimacy of the constitution.) That's where the disagreement lies. Conservatives do see the Constitution as sacrosanct. The Constitution is the guarantor of absolute freedoms to the population, such as the ability to spend money for political ends. So you're probably wondering what the conservative solution is to the problem that you're observing (too much money being spent on politics, which buys undue political influence). The short answer is that we don't see the excessive expenditures of money as a problem. The longer answer is that we believe that it is up to the voting public to be sufficiently "virtuous" such that it doesn't matter how much money is spent on the advertising and what not. As has been written extensively by the founders, de Tocqueville, and countless others, our system of freedoms is only as good as those who benefit from the freedoms allow it to be. Accordingly, the answer isn't to change the system and restrict the freedom. Instead, the answer is to better the citizenry. EDIT: For those who are confused about what I'm talking about, think about it this way: our country was basically founded upon an "honor system." | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
I hear often about raising taxes on corporations and stopping money from entering politics, buying elections. But you can't raise taxes on corporations. There are people the pay taxes, the corporation does not pay it, people pay it. They are borne by the shareholders, it is paid by the worker, it is paid by the customer in raising the prices on the goods he seeks to buy. The corporation may indeed have great profits, but go after those profits and its people that are affected. Money is speech. My voice in national government is through my congressman and my two senators. Can I walk myself over to Congress, and knock on his door, all this for free? Maybe I should communicate to him through a newspaper. Maybe a youtube video ... 5minutes on that? Or maybe I'm not good at technology, maybe hire somebody to make the movie for you. Maybe I find 10 people that agree with me, maybe we can pool together and run ad advertisement in the paper? On the TV? Screw all that, I'm a busy working man. Why don't I proportion some of my income and give that to a guy that agrees with me on maybe fiscal policy. Maybe get together with my 3 friends to do the same, make it a bigger gift, help him campaign and be my proxy voice in Washington? Maybe I have 50 friends. 100? Political speech is money. Once Congress fines or jails citizens AND their associations for engaging in political speech, what weight does the first amendment really have? If you have additional questions on the theoretical framework of why first amendment protections apply in this case (associations of individuals spending money on political speech), I refer you to the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission available at supremecourt.gov. The majority opinion and concurring opinions agree with the main body of conservative thought on the matter. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
If you see the Constitution as sacrosanct then you do not truly understand the Constitution. And once again, money = speech is a Supreme Court mandate, not a Constitutional right. What you're basically saying is, "It's okay for us to spend as much as we want to swing the election in our favor. We'll try to convince you with senseless propaganda, twisted rhetoric, and even outright lies, but you have to still be virtuous enough to see through all of that. It's not our fault if you fall for our strategies conducted by many professionals hired to cause humans to act in certain ways. It's entirely your fault if you fall for our trap." Instead of trying to implement fair(er) and more efficient elections, it's so much more convenient to blame it on the masses. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
If xDaunt actually took the Constitution seriously he would actually give a shit about things like gay marriage, equal pay laws, abortion rights, and numerous social issues. However, what we see from him is absolute, nonsensical apathy. It's all talk. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 20 2012 07:24 Souma wrote: If you see the Constitution as sacrosanct then you do not truly understand the Constitution. And once again, money = speech is a Supreme Court mandate, not a Constitutional right. Um, the Supreme Court is the body who determines what Constitutional rights are through its "mandates." Citizens United was expressly a Constitutional rights case. What you're basically saying is, "It's okay for us to spend as much as we want to swing the election in our favor. We'll try to convince you with senseless propaganda, twisted rhetoric, and even outright lies, but [i]you[/] have to still be virtuous enough to see through all of that. It's not our fault if you fall for our strategies conducted by many professionals hired to cause humans to act in certain ways. It's entirely your fault if you fall for our trap." Crudely, yes. Instead of trying to implement fair(er) and more efficient elections, it's so much more convenient to blame it on the masses. Convenience has nothing to do with it. It's the governing philosophy upon which the country was founded. You may want to go re-read history if you're not familiar with it. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 20 2012 07:25 DoubleReed wrote: Danglars, You didn't really address the major issues with money in politics... If xDaunt actually took the Constitution seriously he would actually give a shit about things like gay marriage, equal pay laws, abortion rights, and numerous social issues. However, what we see from him is absolute, nonsensical apathy. It's all talk. Your posts used to be worth addressing. They raised interesting points and were civil. Now, however, all I see is stuff like the above that is vitriolic and not even really accurate. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 20 2012 07:17 Danglars wrote: I'll weigh in a little on the topic of "Corporations are people and Money isn't speech." I hear often about raising taxes on corporations and stopping money from entering politics, buying elections. But you can't raise taxes on corporations. There are people the pay taxes, the corporation does not pay it, people pay it. They are borne by the shareholders, it is paid by the worker, it is paid by the customer in raising the prices on the goods he seeks to buy. The corporation may indeed have great profits, but go after those profits and its people that are affected. Seriously? We won't tax corporations but we'll let them spend tens of millions of dollars to skew elections, because obviously that doesn't affect workers, regardless if all of our shareholders or all of our workers agree with that certain politician's platform or not? (Next you're gonna tell me if the workers or shareholders don't like it, they can always quit or stop investing. So much for thinking about the people). Money is speech. My voice in national government is through my congressman and my two senators. Can I walk myself over to Congress, and knock on his door, all this for free? Maybe I should communicate to him through a newspaper. Maybe a youtube video ... 5minutes on that? Or maybe I'm not good at technology, maybe hire somebody to make the movie for you. Maybe I find 10 people that agree with me, maybe we can pool together and run ad advertisement in the paper? On the TV? Screw all that, I'm a busy working man. Why don't I proportion some of my income and give that to a guy that agrees with me on maybe fiscal policy. Maybe get together with my 3 friends to do the same, make it a bigger gift, help him campaign and be my proxy voice in Washington? Maybe I have 50 friends. 100? Speech is not money. It does not cost you anything to contact your congressman, other than an e-mail or a letter. Next you're going to tell me, "They won't read my e-mail or letter, and so I need to use money to get my point across." Then I'm going to tell you that that's exactly my point, that money causes one's opinion to matter more than another person's. Now how the hell is that democratic or fair at all? And for the record Citizens United vs. FEC was passed 5-4, which proves that the matter is a complicated one. Who knows what the verdict would be if two more Justices were on the Supreme Court. How about if every American were able to vote on it? | ||
|
whatevername
471 Posts
On August 20 2012 03:06 DoubleReed wrote: A minority of REPUBLICANS -- not conservatives -- supported it in the 90's and abandoned it in the 90's. Its not conservative just because you earnestly want Obama to be anything but far left.The mandate is to prevent people without healthcare from freeloading off the system (which is essentially what happens). This is why Romney supported it. It is a completely conservative idea. The only reason it's being seen as leftist is because the moment that the Democrats wanted to use the conservative policy, the Republicans labeled it as liberal. It's a lie. Health insurance not paying for pre-existing conditions completely undermines the purpose of the health insurance. I have no idea how anyone can see that as partisan at all. I think that's only liberal under the lens of anarcho-capitalism, where there should be no rules at all on the private sector. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 20 2012 07:40 whatevername wrote: A minority of REPUBLICANS -- not conservatives -- supported it in the 90's and abandoned it in the 90's. Its not conservative just because you earnestly want Obama to be anything but far left. In fairness, I think he does want Obama to be far left. What he has said previously, however, is that democrats offered the mandate and included it in Obamacare in an effort to compromise with republicans. Of course, this is ludicrous. The mandate was included because Obama did not have enough support from democrats to go singlepayer, which is what Obama would do if he could. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 20 2012 07:31 xDaunt wrote: Um, the Supreme Court is the body who determines what Constitutional rights are through its "mandates." Citizens United was expressly a Constitutional rights case. And once again that brings me to my point: if you see the Constitution as sacrosanct then you do not truly understand the Constitution. The way the Supreme Court interprets it now may not be how it interprets it twenty years from now (especially in a 5-4 case). What I'm saying is don't blindly follow the Constitution but look at the historic background and the social, political, and economic environment in which any law was introduced... then compare it to modern times and how it affects the status quo and see for yourself whether the law is outdated, just, or whathaveyou. Crudely, yes. Convenience has nothing to do with it. It's the governing philosophy upon which the country was founded. You may want to go re-read history if you're not familiar with it. Oh trust me, I'm quite informed on the basis of which our country was founded on, which allows me to confidently say that if Americans keep looking back, they'll never see what's in front of them and what's ahead of them. The way you run a country is by living [i]with the past, living in the present, and living for the future. Don't be blinded by the past. Our founding fathers made that bit clear. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
| ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On August 20 2012 07:49 Souma wrote:The way you run a country is by living with the past, living in the present, and living for the future. You, sir, have a way with prepositions. well said | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 20 2012 07:49 Souma wrote: And once again that brings me to my point: if you see the Constitution as sacrosanct then you do not truly understand the Constitution. The way the Supreme Court interprets it now may not be how it interprets it twenty years from now (especially in a 5-4 case). What I'm saying is don't blindly follow the Constitution but look at the historic background and the social, political, and economic environment in which any law was introduced... then compare it to modern times and how it affects the status quo and see for yourself whether the law is outdated, just, or whathaveyou. The Court seldom reverses itself, much less declaring that Constitutional rights that it previously announced no longer exist. Also, you're making the Constitution seem far more flexible than it actually is. The founders purposefully made it very hard to change, and judicial interpretation has its limits. Oh trust me, I'm quite informed on the basis of which our country was founded on, which allows me to confidently say that if Americans keep looking back, they'll never see what's in front of them and what's ahead of them. The way you run a country is by living [i]with the past, living in the present, and living for the future. Don't be blinded by the past. Our founding fathers made that bit clear. No, I don't think that you are that informed. There's nothing "backwards-centric" about relying upon the virtue of the people rather than relying upon regulation, which is clearly what you are implying. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On August 20 2012 07:17 Danglars wrote: I'll weigh in a little on the topic of "Corporations are people and Money isn't speech." I hear often about raising taxes on corporations and stopping money from entering politics, buying elections. But you can't raise taxes on corporations. Yes you can. That's why they're corporations in the first place - to distinguish them from the people running them. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 20 2012 07:52 sam!zdat wrote: You, sir, have a way with prepositions. well said It's actually the self-quote I'm proudest of. :D Though the original was, "Live with the past, in the present, and for the future," in regards to life in general. *pat on back* | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On August 20 2012 07:58 xDaunt wrote: The Court seldom reverses itself, much less declaring that Constitutional rights that it previously announced no longer exist. Also, you're making the Constitution seem far more flexible than it actually is. The founders purposefully made it very hard to change, and judicial interpretation has its limits. Yes, but the court not only reverses itself, but has also helped add/amend many amendments over time. And no one is saying that the court will announce that a constitutional right will no longer exist. Speech is the constitutional right. Money = speech is NOT the constitutional right, but the Supreme Court mandate in interpreting that right. They don't have to abolish freedom of speech to overturn Buckley/Citizens United. Also, the Constitution is only as flexible as the people it represents. Take the Japanese constitution for example. It would be easy enough to remove Article 9, but the pacifist mentality of the Japanese makes it almost impossible to. Americans are the same way, except our reasons are different. No, I don't think that you are that informed. There's nothing "backwards-centric" about relying upon the virtue of the people rather than relying upon regulation, which is clearly what you are implying. What I'm "implying" is that because of people being held up by this ridiculous mandate that money = speech, you leave our system wide open to manipulation by monetary means and consequentially put all the responsibility on citizens as you always do. While responsibility is a GOOD thing, if the government can't protect its citizens from being manipulated it is an UTTER failure. Why do you think governments were formed in the first place? To protect its citizens. Now, how many citizens are you actually protecting by saying money = speech? 1% of people hold 40% of wealth, 10% of people hold 80% of wealth. You do the math. And it's okay if they manipulate our government because 90% of citizens are supposed to be virtuous while the rich pull in the reins? That. Is. Ridiculous. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 20 2012 08:14 Souma wrote: Why do you think governments were formed in the first place? To protect its citizens. Now, how many citizens are you actually protecting by saying money = speech? 1% of people hold 40% of wealth, 10% of people hold 80% of wealth. You do the math. And it's okay if they manipulate our government because 90% of citizens are supposed to be virtuous while the rich pull in the reins? That. Is. Ridiculous. Those are all irrelevant considerations. There's a reason why Lady Justice wears a blindfold. Rights are rights, regardless of whom you are. | ||
|
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I also thought that rights were supposed to be equal and treat everyone fairly. I guess the founding fathers never took massive income inequality to mind. | ||
| ||
|
|
Kung Fu Cup
Replay Cast
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
Escore
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Spirit vs Mixu
Clem vs TBD
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
