![]() |
The Need For Reform of Campaign Financing
Much has been said about the need for reform in how political campaigns are financed. The legislation which requires a candidate to choose between using public funding and private funding was an attempt to deal with the problem, but, in my opinion, has accomplished nothing useful. Most political candidates can raise lots more money from contributions from the big money interests than would be allocated to them if they accept public (taxpayer) funding under the present system. Thus, the advantage goes to the monied interests, i.e. wealthy candidates and big corporations. The less wealthy, particularly challengers, have less money for campaigning than do the more wealthy and the incumbents. Few careerist politicians want to change this system, because they like the advantage it gives them.
What if the rules were changed to allow only public money to be used for campaigning---no personal or private or corporate money allowed? What if any and all candidates were restricted to a fixed amount (provided by the federal government) to be spent on campaigns? Would this not eliminate the undue influence of lobbyists and big business, all of whom want some favor in return? Would this not put all candidates on an equal footing and force them to focus on the issues instead of on how to raise money? Without strictly public funding and limited campaign spending, are our politicians really any different from those corrupt officeholders in other countries where bribery and graft are common practice? Such reform is another one of those badly needed changes, like term limits, which will come about only when enough of us citizens demand it. |
Quote:
If voting was compulsary to get a drivers license or something similar. And educational class that goes with it on how American politics work. I do believe lobbys should be outlawed, and PACs, think tanks, etc. Earmarking, essentially piggybacking bills too. Why shouldnt a bill be made into a plain english version by independent group, shared with voters, and then voted on by constiuents? A little work, but a real change. I'm no expert just spitballing here. Basically, allow each politician a set amount of public funds and thats it, nothing extravagant, just enough to make a solid campaign. All equal to other candidates in the same race, and more debates. No more money in politics except a bit of campaign financing and the politicians pay check from the USG. All they need beyond that is our voices and swift criminal action if they accept property, goods, or any kind of compensation from any entity private or otherwise to sway or vote in any direction besides the popular vote. I also think the electoral college should be dissolved. |
I think, ultimately, this boils down to a few core questions:
1) Do you believe money is free speech? The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporate funding of political campaign ads can't be legally limited because corporations are protected under the First Amendment. Glenn Greenwald (former civil rights attorney, current liberal political blog icon) basically made the point that a law that violates the Constitution can't be upheld simply because the law produces good outcomes, therefore the ruling, while possibly disastrous, was the right one. Not being an attorney myself, though, I don't find this argument particularly compelling. I'm not sure how the Constitution would matter if corporations ran the United States government, and clearly corporate influence has already caused numerous violations of the Constitution, even just in the last decade. 2) What are our alternatives, and which is the best? In the United States, the primary source of campaign funds comes from individuals, followed by PACs (hard money), however advertisements and donations to parties and other political activities (soft money) are primarily funded by corporations, political organizations, and unions. This leads to certain imbalances. Alternatives to this system generally involve public financing. Clean elections, for example, are entirely free of private money. As to which is best? I really don't know. Just as the American system is complicated and difficult to understand in its entirety, other countries, from Canada to Germany to France are also quite complicated and objectively comparing them is difficult to say the least. 3) How can significant campaign finance reform be accomplished? This may be the most difficult question of all. Various attempts have been made, however many of them have failed because of entrenched interests. The way campaign finance works now is to the benefit of those who have the power to change it, namely members of the House and Senate, and the President. While some individuals are able to choose principle over self-interest, it's been made clear time and again that most don't. The strategy then becomes making it in the interest of these individuals to support campaign finance by threatening their power, be that through elections or through preventing the individual from otherwise profiting from the campaign finance system. Unfortunately, the level of organization necessary to pursue such a thing is incredibly difficult to attain and then maintain. While this in part due to apathy, it also has to do with #2, in that not many people are educated on the alternatives, and even among them, there's disagreement on how the current system could be changed for the better. The best chance I can see currently are the numerous movements which came into being in the wake of Citizens United, which want to create a Constitutional Amendment or otherwise undo the consequences of the ruling. Still, the amount of money and manpower necessary to accomplish such a thing is unlikely to come together. |
I'll give my answers to that! Try something I figure, this isnt working
1) No sir I do not. Everyone has a voice and it should be taken equally. Not everyone can equally get dollars. Why replace what isnt broken. Speech is not dollars and dollars should not represent speech. 2)Public indeed. 3)REVOLUTION! lol, maybe not. you'd have to end lobbying? Might have to do somethingto undermine their abilities to do what they do... even if illegal. or revolution lol |
Even if one thinks that money is free speech, there must be limits on it's use just as there are limits on free speech. Speech which incites to riot or promotes treason can not be permitted because it endangers others. Money used to garner excessive political power must be guarded against because it takes advantage of those who are powerless to defend themselves from abuse. The supreme court was wrong about this.
|
the consequences of the conservative-dominated supreme court's citizen's united decision continue to roll out:
Secret Donors Multiply in U.S. Election Spending - Bloomberg this is the machinery that transforms the united states into a plutocracy. at some point the plutocracy will go too far in asserting its interests at the expense of the rest of us and maybe at that point the united states will start to catch up with tahrir. |
TBH, I kinda hope this thing with Clarence Thomas (breaking ethics law requiring federal employees to disclose their spouse’s income and employers and the massive conflict of interest with Citizens United) ends with him retiring. Never asking questions is one thing, but he clearly isn't an objective jurist and America is suffering in part because of his inability to divorce himself from his politics.
|
Regarding the need for campaign finance reform I have one starting question:
How much does money affect election results? My initial belief is that once a candidate has enough money, having more is of little consequence. Once I am aware of a candidate (local, state, national) and I know their positions, my vote has never been influenced by an ad or other marketing materials. I am aware of many situations where the candidate with the most money or the best marketing campaign did not win - so I wonder are we trying to fix something that is not a problem? If so, why? I suspect the real goal is for those currently in power to establish rules that will make it increasingly difficult for people "outside" the system to gain political power rather than opposite being true. ---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 PM ---------- Quote:
Thinking of my marriage, my wife is an independent thinker and that is the basis of our relationship. I don't control her political activities and she doesn't control mine. In your view, would a conflict she has automatically be mine? Why? And if so, why would my relationship with her be different than relationships I have with others? |
Quote:
Quote:
People tend to look out for the interests of their friends and family. Sometimes, people aren't even aware that their perspective is being clouded by their conflicts of interest. The simplest and most consistent way to deal with this is to exclude people who have conflicts of interest from taking part in the decisions from which the conflict arises. |
Quote:
I seriously doubt that Clarence Thomas, one of the supposed great legal minds of our time, can't understand a simple tax form for six years straight. And the part he made a 'mistake' on happens to be the part about his wife working for two conservative organizations, the Heritage Foundation and Liberty Central. I'm sure you're aware that these groups were very active in opposing healthcare reform. I'm also sure you're aware that the Affordable Healthcare Act's constitutionality has been challenged and may end up before the Supreme Court. Kagen promised to recuse herself from the same case because she used to be the solicitor general. On top of that, he lied about an all expense paid trip in 2008 to Palm Springs to make a speech paid for by Koch Industries, who benefited directly from the Citizens United case which now is allowing them to significantly expand their influence in American politics. This is no small conflict of interest. Scalia is also guilty of speaking at the Koch event and should have similarly recused himself. The event was organized around the goal of creating new conservative strategies to affect political change and prevent liberal political movement, so it was clearly partisan. BTW, Thomas had a 60 Minutes interview last year. I'm really disappointed that he didn't spend the entire hour in silence. |
Quote:
I recall a school board election I was directly involved in and when I spoke to people they fit into four categories with different levels of impact on the election based on their motivation. The group with the least impact were young and some old adults who had no children/grand-children in the school. The next was people who had children in school followed by parents of children with special needs and unions (we had a teachers union and a civil service workers union). Candidates who had the support of the unions and parents of children with special need won. If there was a meeting/rally/debate those motivated to show up were people in those groups. If letters appeared in the paper it was from those groups. Volunteers were from those two groups. People in those two groups attended the school board meetings. So, at the end of the day, those groups held the most influence - and it had almost nothing to do with money, but with their motivation. I see other special interest groups having the same kind of impact across the political spectrum. I suspect motivated people can have a bigger impact than the biggest campaign donors. So, I am either optimistic about the power regular people have or I am a pollyanna. I truly believe that once regular people have had enough and get motivated, they will easily over-come big money interest. I think the Tea Party is and will be a reflection of that. Quote:
---------- Post added at 08:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:06 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thomas is who he says he is, it seems to me that you simply want a system where people hide what they truly are. I find that much more of a problem than how a person fills out a form, who pays them for a speech, or what their wife does. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
What is being overlooked in this discussion is that it takes lots of money to run a campaign, and that those already in office spend an inordinate amount of time attending fundraising meetings. Former Senator E. F. Hollings recently wrote a column in the Charleston Post and Courier detailing this fact. Also, bear in mind that the hundreds of lobbyists have an existence only because they have monetary support to offer and every candidate needs the money. The interests represented by the lobbyists don't put up this money for free. They expect, and get, the supported candidate's favor in legislation which affects them. Thus the conflict of interest affects legislation, and money is the big influence.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Politicians don't campaign for those who are already going to vote for them.
|
Quote:
In today's world it is easily possible for a husband not to know his spouses income. To me the thought that one spouse has to be responsible for the other in this regard is presumptuous and clearly does not take into consideration other types of relationships that are comparable to marriage. Thomas may be guilty of not properly answering the question, it is possible that he lied (versus making an error, guessing, etc.), but does the question serve a valid purpose? If so, why not be consistent? Quote:
Also, one doesn't have to give much thought to some inconsistencies, for example did you study the forms of other Justices for errors or inaccuracies? What is your view on the Treasury Secretary and his tax issues? ---------- Post added at 03:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ---------- Quote:
So in this case the broad theory is that money buys political influence. So I immediately want to start testing that on an individual basis. I always start with me, what would I do, how would I behave? Then I start looking at, observing, and questioning others Here is my answer. If I am indifferent on an issue - others can influence me. The degree that they influence me is based on my primary motivators at the time. If I am in need of money, money could influence me. But I could just as easily be influenced by a young person displaying courage and conviction and my desire to champion the cause of an under-dog. But regardless, if I have strong views on an issue - money, emotion, nothing will move me. I have never sold-out on my strongly held convictions, have you? I think there are more people like me than there are the opposite. So I question the broad theory that money buys political influence. ---------- Post added at 03:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ---------- Quote:
My wife is my biggest supporter, and I treat her like gold and would never take her for granted. I believe the best politicians are the same way and spend a lot of effort with those that give them votes and support. P.S. - If you answered the question no, try it.:thumbsup: And report back to us what happened. Even the best of us are somewhat voyeuristic. |
Another failed analogy, ace.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Would you suggest that Michele Obama be restricted from being actively involved in her political party activity or that Obama be held directly responsible for her activity. Quote:
---------- Post added at 08:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:23 PM ---------- Quote:
"Every strike brings me closer to the next home run." http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._in_Sendai.jpg I have no fear of failure.:) |
Quote:
His paid speech at a conservative/libertarian event organized by the Koch brothers was improper. And his wife working for a political organization opposed to the Affordable Care Act is reason enough for Thomas to recuse himself when the law's constitutionality reaches the Court. I would suggest both would violate canons of the Code of Conduct for Federal Judicial Employees on "appearance of impropriety" issues alone. Unfortunately, when the Code was adopted, the Supreme Court exempted itself and its employees. |
Quote:
Is their any proof that his spouse's behavior has or will actually influence his official conduct? Is it a surprise that Thomas has a Constitutional view point that may lead him to rule the health care law unconstitutional. Anyone who has ever read anything he has written or said can anticipate what his position is - that as a given, how could anyone believe his wife will influence his official behavior? You folks are not fooling anyone, we know the issue is purely political. Why not own up to it? This issue with Thomas has been on the table for a long time now, why not act on it and stop the complaining? I have blown off my steam, I know the answers to my questions above. There is no reason to engage me further on this topic. |
Quote:
The issue is not my concern about "appearance," it is the Code of Conduct that refers to "appearing to advance the private interests of others." And, it is not a question of proof, but adherence to the Code of Conduct, even if only on a voluntarily basis. Given that the Court is exempt from the Code, there is no procedure to act on it, even if Congress had such an inclination. I agree, your adherence to your ideology to the point that you are unwilling or unable to understand the value of such a Code is political. ---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:07 PM ---------- The credibility of the Supreme Court is dependent not only on the legal merits of its judgements, but also, unlike the legislative or executive branches, on assurances of its independence from political influence. When a justice is payed by a political interest to participate in a meeting or when a justice's spouse is paid to lobby against legislation that may come before the Court, appearance of independence from political influence matters. Do you see no value in a code of conduct for federal judges, or just no value in the code including standards that judges "should not lend prestige of the office ...that appear to advance the private interests of others?" |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In fact... this is like what I was explaining to you in that other thread, that you do... in all these arguments. You need to read up on Critical Thinking and the difference between Objective and Subjective reasoning. Thats probably why people get upset at you. ---------- Post added at 09:24 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 AM ---------- Quote:
I've covered this, now your just resorting to accusations... |
Quote:
I acknowledged the facts and have gone on to a bigger issue. Thomas clearly stated that his wife's actions are of no consequence. Translated - It is true, F-you, what you gonna do about it? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Codes don't make me feel warm and fuzzy - I look at specific behaviors and actions, or what is real. ---------- Post added at 04:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ---------- Quote:
Are you really comfortable with the idea of being held accountable for the actions of another? How far do you go with this? Your wife gave $100 to a church, therefore you can not rule on any issue involving religion????Your son worked delivering for the NY Times, therefore you can not rule on issues involving the press??? Or, your wife tells you she made $50,000, but she really made $60,000 (she put $10,000 in her secrete divorce account because you take her for granted and don't buy her flowers any longer similar to Baraka-G outlook involving politicians), and you get impeached??? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I bet you could ask many married professionals with separate careers or entrepreneurs how much their spouse made and the best you would get is an estimate. Not even to mention those who have complicated financial arrangements, i.e. was the income to her business, to her personally, a trust, a charitable flow through, etc. To the guy who is a middle manager married to a person who is a teacher and they do a 1040EZ, that is pretty simple. But for some it ain't that simple. There are some rich people who could even tell you what they make without consulting an army of accountants and lawyers, even then the number can be disputed by reasonable people. All this with no intent to hide anything. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Remember Enron? They had a nice well written Code of Ethics. In fact it was more like a 64 page booklet. Every employee had to agree to it, every once in a while managers would hold special meetings talking about it, it was only printed on paper blessed by leaders of every major religion...(I just made that last part up)... The point is not in vague wording regarding conflicts and ethics but in the actual culture of an organization and the behaviors of the people! It is very easy to have a real conflict of interest and do the right thing. And the pretense that vague words on a piece of paper sets the tone for ethical behavior is laughable to me. I would rather have people who will do what is right even when faced with a conflict. It does not take spending much time to know when you are dealing with a person who will do the right thing - regardless of politics. |
Quote:
This has nothing to do with what year it is. As a citizen if you want man to man encounters on the side of your wife that's your business, as a public employee such as a representative, judge, etc. You set an example as does your parenting, choice in spouse, finances, etc. Your character up to and during is of the utmost importance. No one is being forced. If you don't like it, don't take the appointment. The appointment is the privilege earned not guaranteed, taken by choice not force. In this case i think its clear cut. An adult can certainly make the decision whether they are putting themselves in a position of creating a conflict of interest. My wife works for a major national law firm, i cant be involved in any litigation against any of their clients. The job, like the appointment, is a privilege not a right and thus is subject to certain rules. It's not about me or you or gender roles, its about ethics. As Mrs. Thomas, my husband being a justice, I'd be a fool not to expect that, I expect it now. Of course she can sell her car, this is indeed hyperbolic. Lobbying however is another thing, anything involving money in politics... not so much. If you cant tell why one is different from another, God help you. Yeah, your a justice but you cant make sure your maid is a legal citizen? That your wife is not lobbying? etc... In my opinion you do not deserve the privilege. This isnt like being the CEO of Kmart. This is the law of the United States as it may sometimes or not pertain to every aspect of every citizens life including legislation and legislators, etc. In this case the legality of that legislation in question. It's not punishment for her doing, its considering whether as a result of not knowing or bothering to know or purposely hiding it that your character is deserving of the privilege. Conflict of interest. By taking that appointment your making a promise, its a lot of responsibility and maybe it isnt for everyone. Dont take the appointment if it isnt for you. A public officials rights are one thing. His employment is not complete freedom like his citizenship. They come with rules, a job is a privilege. Follow the rules or get a different job. The private sector does this everyday the public sector has no reason to be different. If you see your job requires transparency and you think thats not right, dont take the job. Your not being forced to do anything, you choose. Thats the difference. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
ace...your arguments just get weaker and and less defensible when you make statements like:
Quote:
Or this: Quote:
Keep digging a deeper hole in denying that an appearance of the potential of conflict of interest may taint the public perception of the Court's independence. |
Quote:
If you put any case ever heard by the Court on the table, conflicts of interest can be found. If you don't think some Justices had conflicts of interest in the Gore V Bush case, you need to take some time and re-visit the case and some of the history. You consequently make claims about my supposed indefensible positions and eventually you hide from the truth. When I press for clarity you fail to provide it. There are clear differences between general conflicts of interest, and perpetuating a fraud leading to the direct enrichment personally and/or of family members. When I asked for proof of how Thomas' spouses actions was a violation of the code, the point was dismissed. Again, if you ever decide to get serious, let me know. ---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:14 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Regarding getting paid, if a justice was married to a teacher or professor would the justice then not be allowed to hear a case involving education? Again, where do you draw the line, give me some specifics, some examples of what you want. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
No it is how the left is currently operating. The only conflicts they are interested in are the ones that may help their cause. Quote:
|
Quote:
You clearly dont understand or are unwilling to acknowledge the difference between justices having known ideologies as opposes to justices with those known ideologies being paid by parties with similar ideologies. Now you are claiming that any case put before the Court has conflicts of interest. Tell me, ace, in the DC gun ban case, which justice was paid to speak at an event sponsored by the NRA or whose spouse works for the Brady Center? In the Arizona decided this week regarding employers hiring illegal immigrants, which justice was paid to speak at an event sponsored by the AZ Chamber of Commerce or whose spouse works for an immigration advocacy organization? You want me to get serious? Certainly, when you stop raising these bullshit assertions about conflict resulting from a presidential nomination, infringement of free speech of justices and/or spouses, alleging that all cases have conflicts of interest.... You do try one's patience with your nonsense, but I'm done with you on this one. |
Not a work, easier to convey thought...
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Everything else you said was either too subjective, loaded, nonsense, or just not worth addressing. Especially the multiple times you accused someone of something you were doing. Good luck with all of that. |
Quote:
Have you had a chance to actually think about Gore V Bush in context of an "appearance" of a conflict of interest and do you still stand by your statement that my bringing it up is nonsense? On one hand you have the actions of a spouse involved as a private citizen in a cause that has not appeared in front of the court. On the other we have... Oh, let's see...perhaps a conversation that I am sure never happened but could have: Thomas - Thank you President Bush for giving me the opportunity to realize my highest life long dream, if not for you I would have never gotten this opportunity, did I say of a life time? And did I say it is the one thing I have wanted the most in my life above everything else. I repeat something I value more than anything. You have helped me cement my legacy, I will go down in history - I am in your debt. Hell, I am not even qualified. Even in light of me sexually harassing Anita Hill, you stood with me. I love you more than life itself. G.H.W. Bush - Some day and that day may never come (you may remember that from the God Father , an excellent movie i might add), I may ask you for a favor... Fast forward to 2000 Gore V Bush comes along....and the rest is history! First, I believe Thomas did what he thought was right, my point is regarding the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. You clearly don't get it. I do. I also understand the liberal agenda concerning Thomas and his spouse and it has nothing to do with the issues you pretend to be concerned about. Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ---------- Quote:
I use humor, but within that humor are some very serious points. When people try to defend the indefensible or make charges without thinking the issue through, I enjoy having fun with it - sort of like when a cat toys with its prey. I do need to grow up. Perhaps I will start tomorrow. |
at the risk of bringing the thread back to it's topic and away from ace talking about himself....this editorial from the guardian gives a fair picture of the overall damage neo-liberalism has visited upon the united states, the irrational tax structure that has been foisted on us, the increasingly authoritarian political structure that neo-liberalism requires as its policies shred the socio-economic structure of the united states, and, within that, the role and problems of the current form of campaign finance:
After the crash: the pauperisation of middle-class America | Richard Wolff | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk |
It shouldn't come as a surprise that the natural conclusion of neoliberalism is a disproportionate distribution of wealth to the extent that it destabilizes the whole system.
No, it's not nothing new, but as with most things these days, you need to keep repeating it in hopes that it will stick. You need to keep repeating it to overcome the repetitious propaganda, which produces far too much interference. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 03:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ---------- Quote:
|
ace, take the most notoriously loathsome/controversial politicians in Canada on both the federal and provincial levels. Those are neoliberals. These are the politicians who do things like lower taxes and pay for it by dismantling healthcare and education, among other things.
If the "real problem" is an operational mixed economy over a conceptual free-market economy, then I suppose it's a problem in that it tends to get in the way of the desires of those who dream of a Friedmanesque utopia. Beyond that, I don't see how a mixed economy is any more problematic than unstable alternatives considered and even attempted via economic experimentation. ---------- Post added at 12:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ---------- Quote:
|
the problem, ace, is that you (routinely) isolate factoids and then mangle them because your markety market metaphysics are too weak to allow anything else.
every time you do that, you evacuate the politics from political discussion and replace it with religion. so instead of actual discussion there is just you nattering on about your inner world where the only necessary empirical correlate for a "belief" is the fact that you, apparently, believe it. of course you're wrong about the housing crisis. you're wrong about it like you're wrong, materially, about almost everything else you address. and the ways in which you're wrong are fundamental. but to have a discussion would entail that there be some reasonable expectation that a discussion is possible. and that you've entirely undermined. |
Quote:
Quote:
I also read an article by Krugman today, he complained about American politicians falling in the trap of believing that nothing can be done about unemployment (of course blaming Republicans for this condition) but not saying what needs to be done. I find his positions pretty convenient, he always complains about an economic issue but rarely offers real solutions. Quote:
---------- Post added at 09:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
Your guy is a simpleton! He does not know what he is talking about! That is what I present to you. You cited this guy for a reason, defend him! But you can't and we know it. So write some gobbledy gook about me, been there done that. Then if I respond, defending myself, more gooledy gook about me with a complaint about how I always make it about me - been there and done that too. The reality is that your guy (author cited) has a political agenda that has nothing to do with truth, he simply wants to shape public opinion and will do what it takes to accomplish his goal, even use misdirection. Did you really believe our economic crisis was the result of housing prices collapsing? |
you don't know what neo-liberalism is.
any rational person would have done a search. but you didn't. because it's too much work. so was reading the article. which you didn't. |
Quote:
This is a discussion board it is very appropriate to ask people to clarify the terms and concepts being used. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Or, even sarcasm. Have a nice day.:thumbsup: |
because, ace, your criticisms of the article were so fatuous as to not merit a serious response.
it's just another example of how you violate the basic rules of a political discussion. you'd be better off blogging. we all would be better off. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Getting back to this neo-liberalism business: Do you consider Obama to be a neo-liberal? Given that I don't expect an answer from you, I assume your answer is - yes. Based on the presumed answer: What is the difference, to you, in the first term neo-liberalism of Obama and Reagan, if any? I am going to assume your answer is that there is no difference in practical terms. Given your presumed answers, I suspect you are in the smallest of small minority who hold such a view and you know it. Hence, when you use the term neo-liberalism you knowingly disguise your true meaning to get unsuspecting people to agree with your extreme views. Nailed it didn't I? http://venturebeat.com/wp-content/up.../nailed_it.jpg |
awesome, ace.
so let's go through the steps, shall we? you demonstrably don't know what you're talking about materially. you demonstrably didn't understand the article linked above. you still don't know what neo-liberalism is. therefore i am a communist. you must have really tied yr thinkin cap on tight for that one. |
What does it mean when someone with extreme views says you have disagreeable extreme views?
What does it all mean? |
i am not sure what it all means.
|
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:00 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
|
The IRS may be moving to offer some small measure of reform by looking more closely at organizations that are abusing their 501(c)(4) non-profit status requiring that such organizations NOT be primarily for the purpose of political advocacy.
The impact would be significant in that groups like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS and the Koch Brother's Americans for Prosperity would be required to pay taxes on income and contributors would be required to pay a 35% gift tax on their contributions and could no longer hide under the cover of anonymity. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_866428.html |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I have read a bit of what Roach has written, and I believe he views that there is little or no difference between Republican conservatives and Democrat liberals. I have also read much of what you have written here and I believe you view that there are vast differences between R conservatives and D liberals. So, when you both use the term neo-liberal it begs the questions I have been asking. My confusion is real. Anyone who has actually read what you two have written would have the same questions. I was always the kid in class who would actual ask the teacher/professor the obvious (often viewed as silly) question, that everyone else was to embarrassed to ask but were actually as confused as I was. I would often ask my silly question and see others make their funny faces, which would change when the depth of the most simple and basic questions lead to much greater understanding of the topic at hand. My persistence is both a blessing and a curse. ---------- Post added at 12:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:46 AM ---------- Quote:
So many questions to consider on this issue! No need to tell me how silly my questions are, I know what you think about me already. but if interested in addressing the points being raised, I am interested in your views on those points. |
ace. want to know how simple this is? you are a neo-liberal ideologically. no need to think real hard. you aren't one politically because you're a true believer. one of those chumps who thinks this nonsense obtains. it's funny.
politically, neo-liberalism is a different beast--it's patently about consolidating power in the hands of conservative factions within the plutocracy. deregulation blah blah blah---de facto instruments of consolidation of power. the actions of the supreme court in erasing barriers to corporate money in political campaigns are patently an extension of neo-liberal politics. the need for campaign finance reform is obvious in the face of neo-liberal domination since reagan. i could go on, but it's a waste of my time. suffice it to say that the fact that neo-liberalism as an ideology refers to people like you and that you were unable to figure it out is beyond amazing. well, it would be for anyone else. |
Quote:
I would support the IRS enforcing a strict standard for (c)(4) organizations, whether it is the work of the Koch Brothers or George Soros. They should not have tax exempt status if their primary mission and the expenditure of the majority of their funds is to engage in partisan politics. And their donors should be taxed and lose the shield of anonymity. If you believe that Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS organization is to promote social welfare (requirement for a c4) rather than electing Republicans, then you are just demonstrating more rigid ideology. Please, no more questions to deflect the issue. Deal with the facts for once. |
Congratulations aceventura3... You've been LABELED!! (...by those who know best)
To commemorate the bestowing of "NEO-LIBERAL" as your officially administered stereotype, we at the American Political Monoculture wish to welcome you by offering this free membership. http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2551/...5e692231_m.jpg There's strength in membership and remember our motto... "a stereotype is a terrible thing to waste" |
have you read any of ace's posts, otto?
like ever? jesus. it's like there's a stupidity contest going on. |
Neoliberals aren't home-schooled. They don't watch fucking Fox News and NASCAR.
Shit. :shakehead: Neoliberals are those guys who are educated by the Chicago school and worship at the Church of Reagan. They're the guys who think objectivism is a viable social framework. They're the guys who think the market knows best, so just kindly get out of its way. The market will make things right and anything that gets in the market's way is the source of all of society's problems. All of them. |
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ---------- Quote:
If we can find two people who actually agree on what a neo-liberal is, now that will be real progress. |
ace--did you actually read my fucking post? did you?
never mind. it doesn't matter. it really does appear that there's a stupidity contest going on. |
Quote:
http://www.shirtaday.com/pastShirts/WINNING.jpg ---------- Post added at 04:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:09 PM ---------- Quote:
Ignoring being called a chump (I educate my son to avoid name calling and use arguments to make his points, because name calling reflects an inability to actually construct an argument - a good lesson to learn...as a child), to suggest I support plutocracy, suggests you have no clue regarding my beliefs or the beliefs of those I support politically. |
ace, there is no easy opposite. It generally would be any proponent of a mixed economy and a government system that supports to some extent social liberal policies. This is in response to the very idea that unregulated markets are a good idea, that labour exploitation is okay, that the environment only matters insofar to the maximal wealth that it can generate, etc.
I'm more or less a social democrat, which is one of the positions that would oppose neoliberalism. The idea that those with capital should have far-reaching power over society almost exclusively via their profit motive and their risk ignorance/aversion is abhorrent to me. This isn't a conscious power; it's a power that's both amoral and irrational. It's not exactly the kind of thing well suited to govern a society, despite the fictional warnings you may have read in Atlas Shrugged. I prefer societies to be governed based on the principles of representative democracy, preferably a form untainted by the corruption of wealth. |
in a very short post, i distinguished between the reality-optional views of true believers in neo-liberalism such as ace here
from the more complicated realities that neo-liberals have advanced/are enmeshed in once they get into power. once in power, neo-liberal politicians tend to continue talking the same way but use it largely as a screen for enacting policies that advance the interests of conservative segments of the american plutocracy. you know, the military procurement system, the prison-industrial system, the surveillance apparatus, the instruments of state repression, war if they can get away with it. all good for conservative business. this is intertwined with conservative political organizations which operate in a similar manner: american conservative organizations care about power and little else. the ideology of neo-liberalism is transparently a screen for them behind which the political interests (getting power, holding onto power, undermining whomever holds power that is not them) and economic interests (the patronage systems that benefit from conservative-style politics tend to support the political interests that advance those interests) there weren't that many sentences in the post. it's baffling that ace managed to fuck it up. an aside: here's a good recent book that outlines (again) the fiasco that neo-liberalism has wrought http://www.versobooks.com/books/105-contours-of-descent that is comprehensive enough to link, as the guardian article does above, the corrosion of political autonomy to the damage inflicted by neo-liberalism, particularly across the clinton and bush 2 periods. of course, to acknowledge that would require some critical reflexivity. so i expect no response that makes any sense from the reality-optional set. plus it's a book. gulp. |
What you point out, roachboy, is what largely distinguishes neoliberalism from libertarianism. (For those who may need it pointed out.)
|
Quote:
ace...perhaps you are not confused, just ignorant of the issue and the distinct difference between a c3 and a c4 or And, one again, using that ignorance to pose hypotheticals and inane questions so that you can continue to ignore the facts. What is a partisan issue? WTF? How about when you spend $millions solely promoting one party when you are supposed to be a social welfare oriented organization and not promote candidates or parties. Damn, dude, what can be more partisan than that? I give up, ace. You dont want to discuss the issues...you want to deflect the discussion away from any solution with which you dont agree, ignoring any facts you dont like and that get in the way of your extremist ideology. ---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 PM ---------- IMO, you consistently put artificial roadblocks in the way of nearly every discussion rather than honestly address the issues and facts presented. I think it is unfortunate for the community, but it too will survive. |
Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ---------- Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
For those who do get it - promoting social welfare is directly related to supporting those in political power who share similar views on social welfare. It is an exercise in nothingness to have a social welfare agenda and not be politically active. If you want to save the whales, you support those in politics who want to save the whales. If you want to end racial discrimination, you support those in political power who want to end racism. Smart people will study the rules of the game and play that game to win. Quote:
|
ace, neoliberalism is a broad concept.
If you want a dictionary definition, it represents a kind of liberalism bent towards a laissez-faire philosophy. But dictionary definitions are only so useful. Encyclopedic entries are a bit more useful. Neither are a be-all or end-all of anything. Though I do sympathize with your need to have everything cut, dried, and stored in little boxes that are clearly labelled, not allowed to touch one another, and kept stowed away from the real world. |
Quote:
|
Regarding your questions: they are usually posed as a way to sidetrack the conversation.
I think you tend to ask questions when you either a) don't agree with the premise, or b) can't defend your own position. Sometimes it's c) you don't understand something. But I don't think this is usually the case. You ask questions as a way to turn the conversation into something about you or about something you'd rather talk about. It's a bit distracting, so forgive me if I respond to your questions in ways that either nip something in the bud or otherwise keep the topic on course. In case you haven't noticed, this isn't a thread about neoliberalism and what it means to the world. If you don't know what neoliberalism is, then look it up. If you disagree with anyone's position about neoliberalism, then challenge it. Be forthright about it for fuck's sake. But I'm not sure that will even matter, considering roachboy's not sure you even read his posts. |
Quote:
Quote:
In the context of this thread and what you and Roach have posted in the past I simply asked what is neo-liberalism? Not hardly a side track! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Do you not realize the level of your intolerance to those who attempt to challenge your strongly held conventions? you do not mock to the level of some here, but you do partake in it. Are you unaware of your intolerance? Do you find it acceptable? If I am in fact every negative thing that you believe, are you handling the situation in the best possible way, are others? Quote:
Quote:
You and Roach have different views on neo-liberalism. That is my challenge statement to you and Roach. Prove I am wrong, and I move on. You can not, but for some reason can not say so, why? Quote:
|
ace, you're doing it again.
As soon as you take a position, offer me your perspective. Until then, you have none. Until then, all you have are your presumptions and accusations. I'm not going to hold your hand. |
Quote:
Please go back to your neo-liberalism thing along with the absurd notion that conservatives don't accept science or whatever that was in another thread. My position becomes clearer - there is absolutely no need to try to engage those who hold such narrow and absurd points of view. Just understand that the trends are clear - things are moving in my direction. If I were you, I would want to understand why. |
Cryptic clear as always, ace.
I see a bunch of contradictions in what you write too, but I'm not going to tell you what they are. You think that things are moving in your direction, but the truth is you're going the wrong way. I'm surprised you haven't noticed it yet. I think you're now my favourite progressive. |
wikipedia, ace. first stop of the intellectually lazy. you should know all about it:
Neoliberalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia here's a better place to start: Oxford University Press: A Brief History of Neoliberalism: David Harvey [edited] |
Quote:
And I am still appalled but not surprised that you would try to rationalize campaign contributions solely to one party as a non-partisan social welfare activity. |
DC, are there any 501s fighting for campaign finance reform you're familiar with and might suggest supporting? I've got a bit of money I'd like to donate to a good cause.
|
Quote:
Oh yeah... the membership-card. I remember being assigned membership to the conservative wing of the American Political Monoculture by roachboy. He does know best! So I created the card (check out this blast from the past). http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/tilted-...ml#post2531584 So yes, Nascar and Home Skooled may not apply here. I didn't have time, nor the interest in creating a new card. Name -calling is still name-calling (or is that bigotry?) It all seems so fresh and familiar. Not much really changes around here does it? ... was that a tumbleweed that just blew by? nope...just another cheap-shot (neo-liberalism) disguised as "informed". |
Hm. I guess I did miss your point. (I think I still do.)
But I suppose we're now even, because you missed mine. |
it's typically better, otto dear, if you get all huffy about "name-calling" in a situation where it's actually happening. i have lots of other, better names i would call you and ace. most of them i don't use here. but in 3-d you'd definitely know. o yes you would.
|
Quote:
It is great grass roots lobbying organization that focuses on campaign finance reform... Campaign Finance Reform - Common Cause ... greater transparency and accountability in govt and other issues. Now, I'll just wait for ace or otto to jump in and scream George Soros! It is well known that Soros is a contributor to Common Cause because of its transparency in identify contributors unlike Rove's organization in which contributors can hide behind a cloak of anonymity. Most of its money comes from the 400,000 members that are just regular citizens like you and me. |
Quote:
I'm relatively familiar with Common Cause because of Beck's Soros rants, but for whatever reason it never occurred to me to look into donating. It seems fantastic. Thanks very much! |
Quote:
Quote:
Free market capitalists nor I supported the protection of financial institution through government bailouts, the most recent ones or those done in the past. True free market capitalists would have allowed financial institutors who took excessive highly leveraged risk fail. True free market capitalists would have allowed big corporate operations like GM fail, there would not have been any bailouts. Your mixed use of the concept of neo-liberalism is confused and you confuse others. I hold the belief that you do this purposefully. Because I call you on it, you find my posts intolerable. |
All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:53 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project