Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"There’s plenty of money to help stranded Americans, just not the political will to raise it. And at the rate secret money is flooding our political system, even less political will in the future.
***
"We’re losing our democracy to a different system. It’s called plutocracy."
"There’s plenty of money to help stranded Americans, just not the political will to raise it. And at the rate secret money is flooding our political system, even less political will in the future.
***
"We’re losing our democracy to a different system. It’s called plutocracy."
The WSJ understands the plutocrat's existential dilemma.
"Capital moves where it is treated best, and emerging markets are getting much stronger than the U.S. or Europe.
"According to the report, millionaires in Europe and the U.S. plowed increasing amounts of their money overseas last year. That enabled them to bypass troubles at home and reap the benefits of burgeoning stock-markets in emerging markets.
"Yet the flight of capital could create a vicious cycle. If the U.S. economy isn’t expanding, the wealthy will invest elsewhere, reducing growth further, and leading to more capital flight.
"How do you think the U.S. can keep more of the investments of the wealthy? Or should it?"
There is no flood of money in politics. $3 billion spent choosing our congressional leaders and many governorships, 37 senators, and thousands of other state and local leaders...works out to about $10 per citizen. One big company spends twice that much every year to advertise soap and shampoo.
One party is squawking loudly because they are about to get spanked hard. Yet the same party benefits from the largest single donor to politics--a union--and has NOT been outspent by all money from all sources. They are just having trouble selling a defective product--the money spent advertising is not the problem.
There is no flood of money in politics. $3 billion spent choosing our congressional leaders and many governorships, 37 senators, and thousands of other state and local leaders...works out to about $10 per citizen. One big company spends twice that much every year to advertise soap and shampoo.
One party is squawking loudly because they are about to get spanked hard. Yet the same party benefits from the largest single donor to politics--a union--and has NOT been outspent by all money from all sources. They are just having trouble selling a defective product--the money spent advertising is not the problem.
"Failing to include this larger apparatus in an estimate for how much money now greases the legislative skids is analogous to estimating the cost of private transportation in America by what’s purchased at the gas pump without mentioning automobiles, roads, and bridges."
"Failing to include this larger apparatus in an estimate for how much money now greases the legislative skids is analogous to estimating the cost of private transportation in America by what’s purchased at the gas pump without mentioning automobiles, roads, and bridges."
OK, I'm with you...to a point. The billions spent lobbying for tax breaks, earmarks, and special legislation are a huge and corrupting influence--our tax code has been for sale by corrupt legislators of both parties. Earmarks to private companies who employ legislators' relatives is the definition of unethical conduct.
BUT the on the election process itself, I believe George Will is right.
The WSJ understands the plutocrat's existential dilemma.
"Capital moves where it is treated best, and emerging markets are getting much stronger than the U.S. or Europe.
"According to the report, millionaires in Europe and the U.S. plowed increasing amounts of their money overseas last year. That enabled them to bypass troubles at home and reap the benefits of burgeoning stock-markets in emerging markets.
"Yet the flight of capital could create a vicious cycle. If the U.S. economy isn’t expanding, the wealthy will invest elsewhere, reducing growth further, and leading to more capital flight.
"How do you think the U.S. can keep more of the investments of the wealthy? Or should it?"
They've been shooting themselves in the foot all along. Killing your customers is a reliably bad business model. This is the difference between captains of industry of old and this vapid batch of nouveau riche.
Noun 1. nouveau-riche - a person who has suddenly risen to a higher economic status but has not gained social acceptance of others in that class
arriviste, parvenu, upstart
disagreeable person, unpleasant person - a person who is not pleasant or agreeable
social climber, climber - someone seeking social prominence by obsequious behavior
junior - term of address for a disrespectful and annoying male; "look here, junior, it's none of your business"
Adj. 1. nouveau-richenouveau-riche - characteristic of someone who has risen economically or socially but lacks the social skills appropriate for this new position
parvenu, parvenue, upstart
pretentious - making claim to or creating an appearance of (often undeserved) importance or distinction; "a pretentious country house"; "a pretentious fraud"; "a pretentious scholarly edition"
OK, I'm with you...to a point. The billions spent lobbying for tax breaks, earmarks, and special legislation are a huge and corrupting influence--our tax code has been for sale by corrupt legislators of both parties. Earmarks to private companies who employ legislators' relatives is the definition of unethical conduct.
BUT the on the election process itself, I believe George Will is right.
That is likely because in this century people have been plugged into their televisions and computers... cheap, powerful tools.
There is no flood of money in politics. $3 billion spent choosing our congressional leaders and many governorships, 37 senators, and thousands of other state and local leaders...works out to about $10 per citizen. One big company spends twice that much every year to advertise soap and shampoo.
One party is squawking loudly because they are about to get spanked hard. Yet the same party benefits from the largest single donor to politics--a union--and has NOT been outspent by all money from all sources. They are just having trouble selling a defective product--the money spent advertising is not the problem.
Untrue. The elections here in wv are being bombarded with special interest money that isn't from here. In other words, citizens of their own state are getting drowned out by non citizen influence and undermining real elections/ reasoned debates. This special interest money isn't sponsoring 2 dozen debates, it's sponsoring whisper campaigns and smear jobs, most of which are baldfaced lies. Engaging this winning at any price war means we all lose. It's true of either party, even if 3rd party does it (which it can't because funding is always their handicap).
Should elections be about whomever has the biggest bullhorn to drown out reason wins? That's not the vision our founders had when they hammered out representative democracy.
Untrue. The elections here in wv are being bombarded with special interest money that isn't from here. In other words, citizens of their own state are getting drowned out by non citizen influence and undermining real elections/ reasoned debates. This special interest money isn't sponsoring 2 dozen debates, it's sponsoring whisper campaigns and smear jobs, most of which are baldfaced lies. Engaging this winning at any price war means we all lose. It's true of either party, even if 3rd party does it (which it can't because funding is always their handicap).
Should elections be about whomever has the biggest bullhorn to drown out reason wins? That's not the vision our founders had when they hammered out representative democracy.
I think it was Rush Limbaugh who instructed the righties to make appalled noises at Obama's shocking breach of decorum when he chastised the Supreme Court at the State of the Union address.
Hundreds of millions of dollars are pouring into advertisements for and against candidates — without a trace of where the dollars are coming from. They’re laundered through a handful of groups. Fred Malek, whom you may remember as deputy director of Richard Nixon’s notorious Committee to Reelect the President (dubbed Creep in the Watergate scandal), is running one of them. Republican operative Karl Rove runs another. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a third.
The Supreme Court’s Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission made it possible. The Federal Election Commission says only 32 percent of groups paying for election ads are disclosing the names of their donors. By comparison, in the 2006 midterm, 97 percent disclosed; in 2008, almost half disclosed.
-- The Perfect Storm ^^
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
