The Tea Party is back in business! (2 Viewers)

[Sand]

You know who's taken this advice to heart? The Fortune 500. Record profits. Record levels of corporate cash. Stagnant wages. Maybe we should choose some public policies that make this a less likely outcome.

Earnings growth rate has been quite stagnant over the last few years. I realize it is a nice meme to repeat over and over until it is accepted without question. But really, some semblance of truth would be nice.

 

[dparker713]

Also when you're leveraged to the hilt, you lose the flexibility to spend into a down economy.

Here is the problem we have caused over the years. We spend when we are down. We spend when we are up. There is never relief. Eventually it will hit us hard. There are simply too many people that view the debt as a magical, meaningless number.

People like Tim that argue against any cut since it will cause "pain"are a big problem.

Well, if you can't get cuts, then you should be in favor of new revenues.

Um, isn't that the opposite side of the Tea Party coin that everyone calls moronic? That is, the Tea Party says "no new revenues, cuts only", and everyone calls them stupid, childish, and intransigent. Now you're saying "no cuts, revenues only" is a viable plan?

I read it as a statement of fact.

If you have: A + B = C and you're stipulating that B = 0 then A must be > 0 if you want C to be > 0.

Well yes, clearly true. The issue seems to be that one side is stipulating that A = 0, while the other side is stipulating that B = 0, yet both sides call the other side stupid for such a stipulation.

Except that Dems have not stated that cuts are off the table from them. Now, they may not be the cuts the Repubs want, but they're not starting from the position that any concessions on cuts are tantamount to treason to the party.

I wasn't responding to the idea that Democrats have stated cuts are off the table. I was responding to your response to parasaurolophus's statement "People like Tim that argue against any cut since it will cause "pain"are a big problem." You seemed to be arguing that since some people are against all cuts, it makes sense that we should all simply approve of revenues as a fix. That would seem to be the opposite of the Tea Party argument that revenues are off the table, therefore we should all simply approve of cuts as a fix.

Was merely pointing out that fixating on cuts only is a hallmark of people that aren't actually serious about fiscal responsibility.

You didn't point out anything. Being serious about fiscal responsibility would automatically be directly related to a desire to not pay more in taxes. People who are responsible with their money don't like to piss it away.

If you want people to accept paying more in taxes you need to prove to them it is a benefit and that it would lead to a better long term living situation. The way we spend money right now and having people ##### and moan about 45 billion in cuts is absurd and does not provide any hope it could be different with higher taxes.

1) The main argument for cutting spending is to reduce the deficit to reduce our long term interest payments and unfunded liabilities. Raising taxes in conjunction with spending cuts is the only realistic means to do so

2) I'm not talking about individual responsibility, so your post is mostly garbage.

 

[E Street Brat]

Let's say you want to cut it in half- that means you have to find a way to reduce spending by around 40 billion a month.

This is the #1 problem I have with you, you ALWAYS go to extremes to try to prove your point. Why do you assume the only solution is to try to cut it by 50%? Why not try to cut it by 5% and take 20 years to fix the problem?

Here's why. Currently the debt is at 17 trillion, and the deficit is at 900 billion give or take. If we cut the deficit by 5%, we're still increasing the debt by 855 billion a year. If we cut the deficit by 5% more each year (which I'm assuming is your suggestion) and it takes 20 years to eliminate the deficit, by that time the debt will have gone up to 30 trillion or so. And that's assuming all costs stay the same, which it won't. And it's also assuming that the American public is going to put up with reducing spending by 45 billion a year every year for the next 20 years- which they won't either.

THERE IS NO WAY TO SOLVE ThE DEBT PROBLEM BY CUTTING SPENDING. It cannot be done. That doesn't mean that cutting spending is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it can help the economy to cut spending. Sometimes it can create stimulus all by itself. But it won't help with the debt.

And it's the Tea Party that's wacko

 

[humpback]

Wow, I just skimmed it but I didn't see a thing on either the carried interest exemption nor the cap gains. The two places where the system is most broken. Also, just 3 tax brackets? Really? We need more, not less.

Plus, the SS section is pretty dumb. They even recognize that the current cap on the tax is ineffective, but instead of removing the cap and making the system solvent, they recommend modifying the benefits, increasing the retirement age, and increasing the cap slightly.

That's because, as usual, you're reading what you want to read- try looking again.

And at those things being where the system is most broken.

Sorry, his post lost me at "We need MORE tax brackets!!!"

Yea.. Add more code to already a Tax code.

I get people are bad at math, but here's a tip, they print charts out for the tax brackets. Its really actually quite simple for you.

 

[TheIronSheik]

There are no winners here.

Seems like a lot of Obama supporters disagree with Obama.

I will say I agree with Obama that there are no winners here - but there was a loser.

I agree. The loser was America.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/sen_elizabeth_warren_glad_gove.html

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren: "According to the S&P index, the government shutdown had delivered a powerful blow to the U.S. economy. By their estimates, $24 billion has been flushed down the drain for a completely unnecessary political stunt.”

Not sure what's going on here. Are you agreeing with me?

I think we agree that the American people lost but might defer in our opinion of whom played the grinch.

Fair enough.

 

[dparker713]

I keep seeing/hearing that the shutdown caused a loss of $20 billion dollars. Does anyone have a link to a breakdown of where this money was lost?

I think a lot of it is bogus, the funds are just delayed or spent elsewhere, meaning if people didn't go to the National Park they'll spend their money regardless. Also I thought all wages were being paid out.

About $3.1 billion in lost government services, according to the research firm IHS

$152 million per day in lost travel spending, according to the U.S. Travel Association

$76 million per day lost because of National Parks being shut down, according to the National Park Service

$217 million per day in lost federal and contractor wages in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area alone

Not all wages are being paid out. Contractors are generally not protected. There were a lot of collateral effects to part-time workers in the service industry in the DC area too.

I can agree with this. But, I also fully believe that these contractors overcharge our government in the long run.

The only person I truly feel sorry for is the guy at the bottom of the hill. S##t always rolls down hill. Everyone above him/her is just fine.

Unfortunately, the contractors have a lot of people at the bottom of the hill. I was reading a story about a cafeteria worker at one of the Smithsonian museums. Contract worker; no back pay.

While I do feel bad for the cafeteria worker, I also have to wonder why they continue to work at that job. To me, this is exactly the same as the Walmart fair wage argument. If you don't improve your own situation, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

This is not the first time there has been a government shutdown. If you think it won't happen again,then you deserve to be furloughed without pay.

Wages are stagnant/declining in all fields. Is no one trying to help themselves?

Every job has it's good things and bad things. In the case of this cafeteria worker, the shutdown for 2 weeks is a bad thing. If there are no good reasons to offset this, then he/she should go to work at Walmart or McDonald's.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

Start at the beginning.

True or False? Every job has good things and bad things?

True or False? The 2 week shutdown was bad for the cafeteria worker?

True or False? If your job sucks, you make minimum wage, and you are at risk of unpaid furloughs, then find another job.

Seems simple enough to me.

That's a large part of the problem

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Let's say you want to cut it in half- that means you have to find a way to reduce spending by around 40 billion a month.

This is the #1 problem I have with you, you ALWAYS go to extremes to try to prove your point. Why do you assume the only solution is to try to cut it by 50%? Why not try to cut it by 5% and take 20 years to fix the problem?

Here's why. Currently the debt is at 17 trillion, and the deficit is at 900 billion give or take. If we cut the deficit by 5%, we're still increasing the debt by 855 billion a year. If we cut the deficit by 5% more each year (which I'm assuming is your suggestion) and it takes 20 years to eliminate the deficit, by that time the debt will have gone up to 30 trillion or so. And that's assuming all costs stay the same, which it won't. And it's also assuming that the American public is going to put up with reducing spending by 45 billion a year every year for the next 20 years- which they won't either.THERE IS NO WAY TO SOLVE ThE DEBT PROBLEM BY CUTTING SPENDING. It cannot be done. That doesn't mean that cutting spending is necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes it can help the economy to cut spending. Sometimes it can create stimulus all by itself. But it won't help with the debt.

Going from 1 trillion per year down to 0 per year over 20 years = tacking on an extra ~10 trillion, added to the current 17 you quoted plus interest gets you to your 30 trillion number (we'll call it +10% over 20 years).

Going from 1 trillion per year up to 2.65 trillion per year over 20 years = tacking on an extra 36 trillion, added to the current 17 you quoted plus 10% over 20 years (calc'd above) brings us to 58 trillion or roughly double of what it would be if we worked on reducing it in the first place. Is it 0? No. Is it better? Yes.

 

[Statcruncher]

THERE IS NO WAY TO SOLVE ThE DEBT PROBLEM BY CUTTING SPENDING.

I've found this comment fascinating and spent some time mulling over the implications. Tim is shouting but fails to capitalize the h in the. Most people might see that as a simple oversight, lack of fine motor control, or mistake, but knowing Tim I decided to dig deeper. There are 20 letters before the h, and 29 letter after it. It didn't take long to realize that Tim is predicting in the year 2029 the House will fail to pass legislation to fund the government (missing capital) and anarchy will reign. Pardon me while I go write a book about it.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Let's say you want to cut it in half- that means you have to find a way to reduce spending by around 40 billion a month.

This is the #1 problem I have with you, you ALWAYS go to extremes to try to prove your point. Why do you assume the only solution is to try to cut it by 50%? Why not try to cut it by 5% and take 20 years to fix the problem?

Because, much like a personal budget things change too much over the course of 20 years. College education, new car, furnace breaks down. The government is no different.

Start a college fundYou don't need a new car

Have savings for unexpected furnace break downs

Proper Planning Prevents Poor Performance

Exactly. The same applies to the cafeteria worker. Save your money for a rainy day. (or a rainy 16 days) Should we really feel sorry for someone that continues to work in a government contracted job if they know that they could be furloughed. Life is about choices. Make a different choice.

You know who's taken this advice to heart? The Fortune 500. Record profits. Record levels of corporate cash. Stagnant wages. Maybe we should choose some public policies that make this a less likely outcome.

So let's tax the hell out of them until we force them out of the country, 'murica!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Then toss out the lobbyists, special interest groups, and reform campaign finance laws.

At the very least ditch SuperPAC's and that stupid law that states corporate entities are no different than individuals when it comes to campaign contributions.

There is no such law. Corporations are not allowed to make campaign contributions at all.

corporations make campaign contributions all the time.

Not in federal elections. The maximum amount a corporation may contribute to a campaign for a federal election, under current federal law, is $0.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638

In bright red at the beginning of your first link, it says that the organizations themselves did not contribute. The contributions came from the families of employees, etc.

How does that support the claim that corporate entities are legally no different from individuals when it comes to campaign contributions?

(On a related note, would you seek to prohibit employees and their families from making campaign contributions?)

 

[Fennis]

THERE IS NO WAY TO SOLVE THE DEBT PROBLEM BY CUTTING SPENDING.

This statement is beautiful.

And 100% accurate.

 

[Mello]

I have to say, yesterday's events shocked me. I'm pretty cynical and I didn't think our politicians were that incompetent. If the end result was going to be almost total capitulation to a deal which bought those shutting down the government nothing, what was the whole point of the last few weeks? If I didn't know any better I'd say the Republicans were intentionally sabotaging the Tea Party half of their party.

 

[Schlzm]

THERE IS NO WAY TO SOLVE ThE DEBT PROBLEM BY CUTTING SPENDING.

I've found this comment fascinating and spent some time mulling over the implications. Tim is shouting but fails to capitalize the h in the. Most people might see that as a simple oversight, lack of fine motor control, or mistake, but knowing Tim I decided to dig deeper. There are 20 letters before the h, and 29 letter after it. It didn't take long to realize that Tim is predicting in the year 2029 the House will fail to pass legislation to fund the government (missing capital) and anarchy will reign. Pardon me while I go write a book about it.

POTD

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I have to say, yesterday's events shocked me. I'm pretty cynical and I didn't think our politicians were that incompetent. If the end result was going to be almost total capitulation to a deal which bought those shutting down the government nothing, what was the whole point of the last few weeks? If I didn't know any better I'd say the Republicans were intentionally sabotaging the Tea Party half of their party.

There is no leadership of the GOP right now and there hasn't been for some time. When McCain was forced to select Palin by the "insiders" the party fractured. It's gotten exponentially worse since then and there has never been one clear GOP voice. Romney certainly wasn't it and was an empty suit from the beginning. Top that with the charisma that Obama has and the undying hatred his opponents have for him and it fuels the fire.

If there was a party leader that could control this party this would have never happened. But Boehner doesn't run the house the way Tip O'Neill did or even the way Denny Hastert did. His own caucus is a mess. Pelosi was a much better speaker in terms of party unity and loyalty. Now, none of that does anything for the country most of the time, but when there are massive power vacumns in the party and nothing to fill it you get runaway trains of crap like this whole fiasco.

I think it's funny that Mitch McConnell actually comes off looking good. Mitch ****ing McConnell. That's the best the GOP has right now. I wonder if even he sits back tonight and goes, holy hell, I'm the best we've got and I suck!

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I have to say, yesterday's events shocked me. I'm pretty cynical and I didn't think our politicians were that incompetent. If the end result was going to be almost total capitulation to a deal which bought those shutting down the government nothing, what was the whole point of the last few weeks? If I didn't know any better I'd say the Republicans were intentionally sabotaging the Tea Party half of their party.

I gave this some semi serious thought about a week ago.

The GOP, if it is dong that, is playing a very dangerous game. If it alienates the Tea Party enough and they decide split into a separate party the GOP is sunk.

Now, another question is that is the Tea Party smart enough to see what just happened to them and know that the GOP humiliated them in the most public way possible?

 

[KCitons]

While I do feel bad for the cafeteria worker, I also have to wonder why they continue to work at that job. To me, this is exactly the same as the Walmart fair wage argument. If you don't improve your own situation, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

This is not the first time there has been a government shutdown. If you think it won't happen again,then you deserve to be furloughed without pay.

Wages are stagnant/declining in all fields. Is no one trying to help themselves?

Every job has it's good things and bad things. In the case of this cafeteria worker, the shutdown for 2 weeks is a bad thing. If there are no good reasons to offset this, then he/she should go to work at Walmart or McDonald's.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

Start at the beginning.

True or False? Every job has good things and bad things?

True or False? The 2 week shutdown was bad for the cafeteria worker?

True or False? If your job sucks, you make minimum wage, and you are at risk of unpaid furloughs, then find another job.

Seems simple enough to me.

Aren't you the guy who was #####ing about potential cuts at the USPS, where your wife works?

What's your point? The Government doesn't fund the Post Office. But, since you are able to read my past posts, I will amuse you.

Every job has it's good and bad things. The Post Office is no different. Weather, heavy mail during Christmas, or after a holiday, is a crappy part of the job.

Did the Two Week shutdown effect the Post Office (or my wife's pay) Nope.

Not all of my wife's job sucks. She doesn't make minimum wage, so quitting and going to Walmart makes absolutely no sense for her. The positives of wage and benefits offset the negatives.

What you have failed to read, is that we have seen the writing on the wall for a long time. You must have missed the point where I stated we paid off our house, have zero debt and are socking away money to prepare for the inevitable. When/If the Post Office closes, it will then make sense for my wife to get whatever job she is qualified to do. It might just be at Walmart. But, we have money to weather whatever storm comes along.

This is common sense. Too many Americans do not live within their means. Much like the government.

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

 

[Schlzm]

Then toss out the lobbyists, special interest groups, and reform campaign finance laws.

At the very least ditch SuperPAC's and that stupid law that states corporate entities are no different than individuals when it comes to campaign contributions.

There is no such law. Corporations are not allowed to make campaign contributions at all.

corporations make campaign contributions all the time.

Not in federal elections. The maximum amount a corporation may contribute to a campaign for a federal election, under current federal law, is $0.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638

In bright red at the beginning of your first link, it says that the organizations themselves did not contribute. The contributions came from the families of employees, etc.

How does that support the claim that corporate entities are legally no different from individuals when it comes to campaign contributions?

(On a related note, would you seek to prohibit employees and their families from making campaign contributions?)

Right before it lists the employees and family members it says the PAC:

This table lists the top donors to this candidate in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organizations' PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.

Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization's members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY's List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.

Is the candidate personally cashing a check written directly from %corporate entity% directly into their campaign fund? No, but it's only one or two hops for the equivalent to be happening and that should be curtailed in some way. As for your second question, people are free to do with their money whatever they please. Give it away, burn it, eat it, save it, not my place to say. Unions and other similar groups however should be barred from attempting to bully or pressure people into giving donations.

Schlzm

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I have to say, yesterday's events shocked me. I'm pretty cynical and I didn't think our politicians were that incompetent. If the end result was going to be almost total capitulation to a deal which bought those shutting down the government nothing, what was the whole point of the last few weeks? If I didn't know any better I'd say the Republicans were intentionally sabotaging the Tea Party half of their party.

There is no leadership of the GOP right now and there hasn't been for some time. When McCain was forced to select Palin by the "insiders" the party fractured. It's gotten exponentially worse since then and there has never been one clear GOP voice. Romney certainly wasn't it and was an empty suit from the beginning. Top that with the charisma that Obama has and the undying hatred his opponents have for him and it fuels the fire.

If there was a party leader that could control this party this would have never happened. But Boehner doesn't run the house the way Tip O'Neill did or even the way Denny Hastert did. His own caucus is a mess. Pelosi was a much better speaker in terms of party unity and loyalty. Now, none of that does anything for the country most of the time, but when there are massive power vacumns in the party and nothing to fill it you get runaway trains of crap like this whole fiasco.

I think it's funny that Mitch McConnell actually comes off looking good. Mitch ****ing McConnell. That's the best the GOP has right now. I wonder if even he sits back tonight and goes, holy hell, I'm the best we've got and I suck!

I could never draw him. I always screwed up the chin.

 

[The Commish]

@ Obama essentially saying "Screw you...you want to put your ideas into law, go win elections" Dude just doesn't get it....he's no different than the rest when it comes to fiscal issues.

 

[msommer]

I have to say, yesterday's events shocked me. I'm pretty cynical and I didn't think our politicians were that incompetent. If the end result was going to be almost total capitulation to a deal which bought those shutting down the government nothing, what was the whole point of the last few weeks? If I didn't know any better I'd say the Republicans were intentionally sabotaging the Tea Party half of their party.

I gave this some semi serious thought about a week ago.

The GOP, if it is dong that, is playing a very dangerous game. If it alienates the Tea Party enough and they decide split into a separate party the GOP is sunk.

Now, another question is that is the Tea Party smart enough to see what just happened to them and know that the GOP humiliated them in the most public way possible?

What could the GOP leadership have done differently?

Would the Tea Party not have been even more irate if they had not had their soapbox to stand on the past three weeks (e.g. if Boehner had ignored them and let a clean CR go to vote in September) - that might have split the party right then, no?

 

[jonessed]

THERE IS NO WAY TO SOLVE THE DEBT PROBLEM BY CUTTING SPENDING.

This statement is beautiful.

And 100% accurate.

Entitlement programs need to be reformed to reduce costs. Most people refer to that process as cutting spending, but you can call it something else if you like. It doesn't change the fact that it has to be done.

 

[Todd Andrews]

I don't know what, if anything, can be done about campaign financing. It seems like with the Citizens United decision, we would need a constitutional amendment to get what you guys are calling for. That's never going to happen- in today's age, constitutional amendments are extremely unlikely.

I think we're stuck with the lobbyist system we have now, for better or worse. Mostly worse.

Answer: No limits on any contributions. Full, instant, public disclosure.

Answer: full public financing of federal campaigns with equal free air time and lots of debates.

So no one at all can contribute to any campaign or candidate, then? Anyone who wants can run in any race, under any party line including "independent", and get exactly the same funding as a Democrat or Republican? Parties themselves can no longer run ads, supply funding, or solicit funds?

Short of that, you've essentially locked in incumbents and existing parties.

No.

Under this type of public campaign finance system, anyone can run and anyone can volunteer for any candidate they choose. And the only candidates who get public funding/airtime are those who qualify with a minimum number of signatures of voters in the voting area. For example, in a House race for an area with 1.2 million voters, we could take the top 4-6 candidates who get more than 30,000 voter signatures (this is a hypo and I am just making the numbers up, but similar plans have been implemented in various forms already on a smaller scale in a few states).

Thus, anyone who can develop an initial grassroots signature campaign can qualify for initial public funding/airtime. Then have some free televised debates and narrow down the field through a "primary" which narrows the final vote down to 2-3 top vote getting candidates and then have a final election. It would remove all special interest money, all corporate money and all money from federal campaigns, period, although political parties could obviously organize for boots on the ground get out the vote, etc, type activities. They just couldnt buy airtime or cut checks, etc. All volunteer.

This type of system would allow "third parties" to have a say if they had public support, and this type of system is actually the only one I can think of which might have a shot at breaking up the ridiculous political duopoly we all currently suffer under.

 

[RCon]

And Rich, for the umpteenth time, I don't argue against ANY cut. I am in favor of means testing for Medicare. I am in favor of certain, carefully thought out, targeted cuts to defense spending. I'm willing to remove certain corporate loopholes. I'd like to stop subsidizing agriculture. And if you show me wasteful government spending anywhere, I'm for dealing with it. All of these things, I believe, would make us eventually a more prosperous society, because as a general principle, the less government spends the better. I firmly believe that.

BUT- all of this stuff has to be done very carefully. The transition in particular has to be careful and slow, so that people aren't necessarily hurt. (For instance, rather than slash agriculture subsidies, you announce that they will be reduced over the next 10 years until they are eliminated, give people time to prepare, etc.) We do our best not to suddenly throw anyone out of work if we can help it. AND- you need to accept that while all of these moves might make us more prosperous, none of them is going to solve our debt problems. We can't solve them other than growing our economy.

I didn't say you argue against ANY cut. I said you argue against any cut that doesn't solve the whole problem and causes one person pain.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I have to say, yesterday's events shocked me. I'm pretty cynical and I didn't think our politicians were that incompetent. If the end result was going to be almost total capitulation to a deal which bought those shutting down the government nothing, what was the whole point of the last few weeks? If I didn't know any better I'd say the Republicans were intentionally sabotaging the Tea Party half of their party.

I gave this some semi serious thought about a week ago.

The GOP, if it is doing that, is playing a very dangerous game. If it alienates the Tea Party enough and they decide split into a separate party the GOP is sunk.

Now, another question is that is the Tea Party smart enough to see what just happened to them and know that the GOP humiliated them in the most public way possible?

What could the GOP leadership have done differently?

Would the Tea Party not have been even more irate if they had not had their soapbox to stand on the past three weeks (e.g. if Boehner had ignored them and let a clean CR go to vote in September) - that might have split the party right then, no?

The GOP should have not fought this at all. Boehner set up the Tea Party to fail, knowing that the provision would be passed several days ago but not bringing it to a vote.

 

[TheIronSheik]

So..... I'm guessing that's a big fat "no" on thanking the Republicans? You ungrateful bastards.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

There are no winners here.

Seems like a lot of Obama supporters disagree with Obama.

I will say I agree with Obama that there are no winners here - but there was a loser.

I agree. The loser was America.

http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/10/sen_elizabeth_warren_glad_gove.html

U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren: "According to the S&P index, the government shutdown had delivered a powerful blow to the U.S. economy. By their estimates, $24 billion has been flushed down the drain for a completely unnecessary political stunt.”

Not sure what's going on here. Are you agreeing with me?

FSM isn't going to agree with anything outside of a Liberal/Blue Team politic perspective..

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Is the candidate personally cashing a check written directly from %corporate entity% directly into their campaign fund? No . . .

Right. That's because the law treats corporate entities and individuals differently. That was the point of my initial post on this topic.

. . . but it's only one or two hops for the equivalent to be happening and that should be curtailed in some way. As for your second question, people are free to do with their money whatever they please. Give it away, burn it, eat it, save it, not my place to say. Unions and other similar groups however should be barred from attempting to bully or pressure people into giving donations.

What to do about PACs is a hard problem.

There are some First Amendment issues with telling individuals or corporations that they're not allowed to give all their money to political campaigns if they want to, but those issues can and have been handled pretty well. The upshot is that contributions by individuals are limited, and contributions by corporations are prohibited.

There are much more difficult First Amendment issues, IMO, when you tell individuals or corporations that they're not allowed to distribute pamphlets or produce movies or air television commercials. Those things pretty clearly qualify as "speech," much more certainly than campaign contributions do. And they're not just ordinary forms of speech: they're political speech, which might be the most important kind as far as the First Amendment is concerned.

PACs suck. I dislike them. But what to do about them, without effectively repealing the First Amendment, is a very difficult problem. PACs raise different constitutional issues than campaign contributions do. They're not the same thing, and the law can't pretend that they are the same thing.

What to do about PACs is a discussion worth having -- but not if it starts out by pretending that corporate entities are legally no different from individuals when it comes to campaign contributions. That's a false step.

 

[Socrates11]

That band sure sounds swell, now excuse my while I go re-arrange some deck chairs...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Next, we all need to think hard about how a raven is like a writing desk.

I imagine how writing desks are black all the time.

Racist.

Some of my best friends are black writing desks.

I ate lunch in the park with a black writing desk, also was invited to dinner..

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So no one at all can contribute to any campaign or candidate, then? Anyone who wants can run in any race, under any party line including "independent", and get exactly the same funding as a Democrat or Republican? Parties themselves can no longer run ads, supply funding, or solicit funds?

Short of that, you've essentially locked in incumbents and existing parties.

No.

Under this type of public campaign finance system, anyone can run and anyone can volunteer for any candidate they choose. And the only candidates who get public funding/airtime are those who qualify with a minimum number of signatures of voters in the voting area. For example, in a House race for an area with 1.2 million voters, we could take the top 4-6 candidates who get more than 30,000 voter signatures (this is a hypo and I am just making the numbers up, but similar plans have been implemented in various forms already on a smaller scale in a few states).

Thus, anyone who can develop an initial grassroots signature campaign can qualify for initial public funding/airtime. Then have some free televised debates and narrow down the field through a "primary" which narrows the final vote down to 2-3 top vote getting candidates and then have a final election. It would remove all special interest money, all corporate money and all money from federal campaigns, period, although political parties could obviously organize for boots on the ground get out the vote, etc, type activities. They just couldnt buy airtime or cut checks, etc. All volunteer.

This type of system would allow "third parties" to have a say if they had public support, and this type of system is actually the only one I can think of which might have a shot at breaking up the ridiculous political duopoly we all currently suffer under.

Getting signatures costs money. Are you going to allow people to spend money on "get out the signatures" activities, but not on "get out the vote" activities? If so, how will you prevent the second from masquerading as the first? A giant "get out the signatures" campaign, even if conducted a year before the election, may still have quite a bit of influence on the outcome of the election.

 

[RCon]

I don't know what, if anything, can be done about campaign financing. It seems like with the Citizens United decision, we would need a constitutional amendment to get what you guys are calling for. That's never going to happen- in today's age, constitutional amendments are extremely unlikely.

I think we're stuck with the lobbyist system we have now, for better or worse. Mostly worse.

Answer: No limits on any contributions. Full, instant, public disclosure.

Answer: full public financing of federal campaigns with equal free air time and lots of debates.

So no one at all can contribute to any campaign or candidate, then? Anyone who wants can run in any race, under any party line including "independent", and get exactly the same funding as a Democrat or Republican? Parties themselves can no longer run ads, supply funding, or solicit funds?

Short of that, you've essentially locked in incumbents and existing parties.

No.

Under this type of public campaign finance system, anyone can run and anyone can volunteer for any candidate they choose. And the only candidates who get public funding/airtime are those who qualify with a minimum number of signatures of voters in the voting area. For example, in a House race for an area with 1.2 million voters, we could take the top 4-6 candidates who get more than 30,000 voter signatures (this is a hypo and I am just making the numbers up, but similar plans have been implemented in various forms already on a smaller scale in a few states).

Thus, anyone who can develop an initial grassroots signature campaign can qualify for initial public funding/airtime. Then have some free televised debates and narrow down the field through a "primary" which narrows the final vote down to 2-3 top vote getting candidates and then have a final election. It would remove all special interest money, all corporate money and all money from federal campaigns, period, although political parties could obviously organize for boots on the ground get out the vote, etc, type activities. They just couldnt buy airtime or cut checks, etc. All volunteer.

This type of system would allow "third parties" to have a say if they had public support, and this type of system is actually the only one I can think of which might have a shot at breaking up the ridiculous political duopoly we all currently suffer under.

If political parties are to organize stuff, they need money. Who is providing that money?

Can a prospective candidate spend his/her own money? If not, how is that not a violation of free speech? If so, you've effectively made politics only for the rich.

A more viable plan for third party relevancy is instant run-off elections where voters rank their preferences. For example, I could have listed my POTUS choices in the last election as 1) Gary Johnson, 2-300,000,000) Every other citizen of the US, 300,000,001) Romney, 300,000,002) Obama, 300,000,003) Sarah Palin.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

You would be wrong.

 

[Schlzm]

Is the candidate personally cashing a check written directly from %corporate entity% directly into their campaign fund? No . . .

Right. That's because the law treats corporate entities and individuals differently. That was the point of my initial post on this topic.

. . . but it's only one or two hops for the equivalent to be happening and that should be curtailed in some way. As for your second question, people are free to do with their money whatever they please. Give it away, burn it, eat it, save it, not my place to say. Unions and other similar groups however should be barred from attempting to bully or pressure people into giving donations.

What to do about PACs is a hard problem.There are some First Amendment issues with telling individuals or corporations that they're not allowed to give all their money to political campaigns if they want to, but those issues can and have been handled pretty well. The upshot is that contributions by individuals are limited, and contributions by corporations are prohibited.

There are much more difficult First Amendment issues, IMO, when you tell individuals or corporations that they're not allowed to distribute pamphlets or produce movies or air television commercials. Those things pretty clearly qualify as "speech," much more certainly than campaign contributions do. And they're not just ordinary forms of speech: they're political speech, which might be the most important kind there is as far as the First Amendment is concerned.

PACs suck. I dislike them. But what to do about them, without effectively repealing the First Amendment, is a very difficult problem. The problem with PACs is very different from, and more difficult than, the problem with campaign contributions. They're not the same thing, and the law can't pretend that they are the same thing.

What to do about PACs is a discussion worth having -- but not if it starts out by pretending that corporate entities are legally no different from individuals when it comes to campaign contributions. That's a false step.

I see what you are saying and pretty much agree. Individual freedoms need to be protected at all costs. Any person should be able to do anything they want with their own money <as long as it stays within the law>. I think corporate and other large entities need to be restricted more because they not only have more ability to affect change in their benefit but they are also more difficult to control or punish. A person can be sent to jail for giving $20k to a hitman. A vague corporate account in some foreign bank cannot. I also think that allowing these large groups and entities to donate ludicrous amounts of money to the parties should be limited as well, though that is more ideological on my part than anything else because I am tired of seeing the perpetual partyline us vs. them in this country. Schlzm

 

[humpback]

While I do feel bad for the cafeteria worker, I also have to wonder why they continue to work at that job. To me, this is exactly the same as the Walmart fair wage argument. If you don't improve your own situation, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

This is not the first time there has been a government shutdown. If you think it won't happen again,then you deserve to be furloughed without pay.

Wages are stagnant/declining in all fields. Is no one trying to help themselves?

Every job has it's good things and bad things. In the case of this cafeteria worker, the shutdown for 2 weeks is a bad thing. If there are no good reasons to offset this, then he/she should go to work at Walmart or McDonald's.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

Start at the beginning.

True or False? Every job has good things and bad things?

True or False? The 2 week shutdown was bad for the cafeteria worker?

True or False? If your job sucks, you make minimum wage, and you are at risk of unpaid furloughs, then find another job.

Seems simple enough to me.

Aren't you the guy who was #####ing about potential cuts at the USPS, where your wife works?

What's your point? The Government doesn't fund the Post Office. But, since you are able to read my past posts, I will amuse you.

Every job has it's good and bad things. The Post Office is no different. Weather, heavy mail during Christmas, or after a holiday, is a crappy part of the job.

Did the Two Week shutdown effect the Post Office (or my wife's pay) Nope.

Not all of my wife's job sucks. She doesn't make minimum wage, so quitting and going to Walmart makes absolutely no sense for her. The positives of wage and benefits offset the negatives.

What you have failed to read, is that we have seen the writing on the wall for a long time. You must have missed the point where I stated we paid off our house, have zero debt and are socking away money to prepare for the inevitable. When/If the Post Office closes, it will then make sense for my wife to get whatever job she is qualified to do. It might just be at Walmart. But, we have money to weather whatever storm comes along.

This is common sense. Too many Americans do not live within their means. Much like the government.

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

The government doesn't fund Walmart or McDonalds either.

My point is you are a typical hypocrite- ##### and moan when something impacts you, tell others to stop #####ing and moaning when it doesn't.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

You would be wrong.

People equating running a country to personal finances are so off course, there really is no reason to engage them on the subject.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

You would be wrong.

People equating running a country to personal finances are so off course, there really is no reason to engage them on the subject.

If only we didn't incur all this debt by starting wars in the middle east all the time.

 

[Slapdash]

I was reading somewhere that only 43% of able adults are currently fully employed. Those are EU levels. We have an economy of underemployed and part-time workers now, and that trend only seems to be becoming more the norm.

Right, without the safety net that those nations have.

 

[Schlzm]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

You would be wrong.

People equating running a country to personal finances are so off course, there really is no reason to engage them on the subject.

If only we didn't incur all this debt by starting wars in the middle east all the time.

About a third of my household budget is dedicated to randomly attacking ####hole dictatorships with inhospitable climates...

Schlzm

 

[Slapdash]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

You would be wrong.

Should be an automated reply to every KCitons post.

 

[CBusAlex]

Tim, you spelled "refudiated" wrong.

 

[drummer]

This shutdown just showed me how benign our government is. Instead of politicians, we should hire CEO's to run the country. They pretty much already do anyway, but at least they can get fired, albeit with the same extravagant pension plans.

 

[Statorama]

The Democratic Party has been overtaken by the far left extremists for some time now. How much longer can the centrists in the GOP hold off the inevitable? Until they can vote in a rigid, unbending block like the mindless horde of Democrats do, their party is in trouble

 

[Fennis]

I don't know what, if anything, can be done about campaign financing. It seems like with the Citizens United decision, we would need a constitutional amendment to get what you guys are calling for. That's never going to happen- in today's age, constitutional amendments are extremely unlikely.

I think we're stuck with the lobbyist system we have now, for better or worse. Mostly worse.

Answer: No limits on any contributions. Full, instant, public disclosure.

Answer: full public financing of federal campaigns with equal free air time and lots of debates.

So no one at all can contribute to any campaign or candidate, then? Anyone who wants can run in any race, under any party line including "independent", and get exactly the same funding as a Democrat or Republican? Parties themselves can no longer run ads, supply funding, or solicit funds?

Short of that, you've essentially locked in incumbents and existing parties.

No.

Under this type of public campaign finance system, anyone can run and anyone can volunteer for any candidate they choose. And the only candidates who get public funding/airtime are those who qualify with a minimum number of signatures of voters in the voting area. For example, in a House race for an area with 1.2 million voters, we could take the top 4-6 candidates who get more than 30,000 voter signatures (this is a hypo and I am just making the numbers up, but similar plans have been implemented in various forms already on a smaller scale in a few states).

Thus, anyone who can develop an initial grassroots signature campaign can qualify for initial public funding/airtime. Then have some free televised debates and narrow down the field through a "primary" which narrows the final vote down to 2-3 top vote getting candidates and then have a final election. It would remove all special interest money, all corporate money and all money from federal campaigns, period, although political parties could obviously organize for boots on the ground get out the vote, etc, type activities. They just couldnt buy airtime or cut checks, etc. All volunteer.

This type of system would allow "third parties" to have a say if they had public support, and this type of system is actually the only one I can think of which might have a shot at breaking up the ridiculous political duopoly we all currently suffer under.

If political parties are to organize stuff, they need money. Who is providing that money?

Can a prospective candidate spend his/her own money? If not, how is that not a violation of free speech? If so, you've effectively made politics only for the rich.

A more viable plan for third party relevancy is instant run-off elections where voters rank their preferences. For example, I could have listed my POTUS choices in the last election as 1) Gary Johnson, 2-300,000,000) Every other citizen of the US, 300,000,001) Romney, 300,000,002) Obama, 300,000,003) Sarah Palin.

If we throw out non eligible candidates, I want to thank you for voting me at #23,598,322

I'm a big supporter of cumulative and weighted voting methods.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

The Democratic Party has been overtaken by the far left extremists for some time now. How much longer can the centrists in the GOP hold off the inevitable? Until they can vote in a rigid, unbending block like the mindless horde of Democrats do, their party is in trouble

Love the way you flip everything. But as the last few national elections have taught the GOP their rght wing tea party extremest are not not what the american people want, the Democratic party is the centralist party. No wait I see the problem..

 

[Scoresman]

The Democratic Party has been overtaken by the far left extremists for some time now. How much longer can the centrists in the GOP hold off the inevitable? Until they can vote in a rigid, unbending block like the mindless horde of Democrats do, their party is in trouble

American Politics mad libs!

The ____________ Party has been overtaken by the __________ extremists for some time now. How much longer can the _________ in the ________ hold off the inevitable? Until they can vote in a rigid, unbending block like the mindless horde of _____________ do, their party is in trouble

 

[KCitons]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

You would be wrong.

Should be an automated reply to every KCitons post.

I like how you say I'm wrong. but provide no substance as to why?

But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

 

[KCitons]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

You would be wrong.

People equating running a country to personal finances are so off course, there really is no reason to engage them on the subject.

Yeah, the countries finances are just fine. Keep up the good work.

 

[Schlzm]

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

You would be wrong.

Should be an automated reply to every KCitons post.

I like how you say I'm wrong. but provide no substance as to why?But, let's keep kicking the can down the road. Our kids should be able to fix it later.

Not my kids. I'm intentionally teaching them everythig incorrectly because lol!Schlzm

 

[KCitons]

While I do feel bad for the cafeteria worker, I also have to wonder why they continue to work at that job. To me, this is exactly the same as the Walmart fair wage argument. If you don't improve your own situation, then you have no one to blame but yourself.

This is not the first time there has been a government shutdown. If you think it won't happen again,then you deserve to be furloughed without pay.

Wages are stagnant/declining in all fields. Is no one trying to help themselves?

Every job has it's good things and bad things. In the case of this cafeteria worker, the shutdown for 2 weeks is a bad thing. If there are no good reasons to offset this, then he/she should go to work at Walmart or McDonald's.

There are so many things wrong with this I don't even know where to begin.

Start at the beginning.

True or False? Every job has good things and bad things?

True or False? The 2 week shutdown was bad for the cafeteria worker?

True or False? If your job sucks, you make minimum wage, and you are at risk of unpaid furloughs, then find another job.

Seems simple enough to me.

Aren't you the guy who was #####ing about potential cuts at the USPS, where your wife works?

What's your point? The Government doesn't fund the Post Office. But, since you are able to read my past posts, I will amuse you.

Every job has it's good and bad things. The Post Office is no different. Weather, heavy mail during Christmas, or after a holiday, is a crappy part of the job.

Did the Two Week shutdown effect the Post Office (or my wife's pay) Nope.

Not all of my wife's job sucks. She doesn't make minimum wage, so quitting and going to Walmart makes absolutely no sense for her. The positives of wage and benefits offset the negatives.

What you have failed to read, is that we have seen the writing on the wall for a long time. You must have missed the point where I stated we paid off our house, have zero debt and are socking away money to prepare for the inevitable. When/If the Post Office closes, it will then make sense for my wife to get whatever job she is qualified to do. It might just be at Walmart. But, we have money to weather whatever storm comes along.

This is common sense. Too many Americans do not live within their means. Much like the government.

I'm sure this will be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure a default would have been the worse thing for this country long term. Who cares if we cannot borrow any longer? It's time for this country to live within it's means. If my kid acted like the United States, the last thing I would do is suggest he/she borrow more money.

The government doesn't fund Walmart or McDonalds either.

My point is you are a typical hypocrite- ##### and moan when something impacts you, tell others to stop #####ing and moaning when it doesn't.

I think you missed the point where I mentioned we've taken steps to prepare for pending problems. Why shouldn't others. That'ts what I am #####ing about. People need to take ownership for their own lives and quit looking at taxpayers to help them out.

I don't expect the government or the taxpayers to bail out the Postal Service. It lives or dies on it's own. I will however, expect Congress to step aside and let the Post Office run however they want and charge whatever they want for postage.

 

[timschochet]

There is a way to reduce the deficit without raising taxes or cutting spending- it involves creating 15 million new taxpayers.