RadioFreeLiberal.com

Smart Voices, Be Heard
It is currently Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:50 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Forum rules


Please click here to view the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 6:38 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:24 pm
Posts: 17397


Free college would cost over 500 billion a year. Got to run am having troubles with this site tonight.


Source for this figure, please.

_________________


Stop calling the cops on us.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 6:52 pm 
Offline
Political Junkie

Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:01 pm
Posts: 973
Location: Home of the DFL
A cool trillion on education would be well spent.

_________________
I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat. - Will Rogers


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 7:15 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 1:17 pm
Posts: 8417

Source for this figure, please.



Don't mind that Glen couldn't answer you. He was having troubles with this site and had to run off.

_________________
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. — John Kenneth Galbraith
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 17, 2018 9:01 pm 
Online
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 3:07 am
Posts: 10407


Try clicking on the link and adding up the numbers.


Glen, I figured that out, that you were adding up the numbers at that source link, then I converted the corrected numbers to Hexadecimal and posted:

"I think he intended to say Republicans spent 0x2503B540 Hexadecimal, and Democrats spent 0x205D85C0 Hexadecimal."

I was hoping you would convert those numbers back and realize that you had misread the numbers at that site, said billions when what was correct was millions. Your numbers were sort of exact yet wrong, they were inflated by exactly a thousand times, quite an error. Millions Glen not billions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 1:56 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 10:06 pm
Posts: 12858


Last election GOP spent 621 billion the DNC 543 billion. Making the ratio 53% GOP 47% DNC like I said the amount is very close. But, that is ok you keep telling your lies and I am sure the low information people will keep believing them

https://www.opensecrets.org/parties/

Your link shows the 2018 election cycle, not the 2016 (the last) election cycle. Here's the info from your link of the 2016 cycle.
2016 Cycle

_________________
When you vote Left you vote right.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:34 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:36 pm
Posts: 250
You tell us. If a business gives money to a candidate, and the candidate promises to lower taxes for the business, is that corruption?

It sounds like pay to play to me.

Money has corrupted our system of governance. I understand that's what you on the right wants, as you got a lot more money than we do. Corporations can outspend unions (who can't use union dues, but must rely instead of donations from members), and that's how they want it. Even a pro-union candidate who takes union money and wants to support them faces corporations that can give them 50 times what the unions can, looks at them and says "If you vote for the unions on this issue, you can kiss all our money goodbye."

What does he do?

No, I think we should take the money out. Then all speech is equal. Of course, you guys don't like that, because there's a lot more people in a union than there are corporate CEOs.



I have no problem with an amendment that would take business and organizational money out of campaigns. None. Make it exclusively personal donations. A proposal that practical could get done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 3:49 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36389


I have no problem with an amendment that would take business and organizational money out of campaigns. None. Make it exclusively personal donations. A proposal that practical could get done.

So the rich guy could buy him some politicians? Who's going to have the stronger voice - a guy giving a hundred thousand, or the guy giving fifty? I mean, you can certainly see campaign donations as bribes. So why have bribery at all? Have them not get anything - then they would decide upon the strength of your argument and ideas.

And if you let people donate, then corporations would demand it too, as corporations are seen as people under the law.

But of course, even now we have corporations that put their HQ offshore, so they don't have to pay taxes, but they still fund campaigns.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 4:46 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:36 pm
Posts: 250
So the rich guy could buy him some politicians? Who's going to have the stronger voice - a guy giving a hundred thousand, or the guy giving fifty? I mean, you can certainly see campaign donations as bribes. So why have bribery at all? Have them not get anything - then they would decide upon the strength of your argument and ideas.

And if you let people donate, then corporations would demand it too, as corporations are seen as people under the law.

But of course, even now we have corporations that put their HQ offshore, so they don't have to pay taxes, but they still fund campaigns.


I'd say the stronger voice is the 2,000 giving 50. Grassroots would be very effective.

The amendment would trump corporate citizenship. They won't be allowed to donate. I am giving you too much credit.

If their HQ is off shore and they aren't a registered as a U.S. corp. then they aren't allowed to participate.

And no, campaign contributions are not bribes - damn few rational people would even think that. There's no provable relationship. A contribution guarantees nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 4:54 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36389

I'd say the stronger voice is the 2,000 giving 50. Grassroots would be very effective.

The amendment would trump corporate citizenship. They won't be allowed to donate. I am giving you too much credit.

If their HQ is off shore and they aren't a registered as a U.S. corp. then they aren't allowed to participate.

And no, campaign contributions are not bribes - damn few rational people would even think that. There's no provable relationship. A contribution guarantees nothing.

There's been PROVEN quid-pro-quos with campaign money. For instance:

Former Alabama governor Don Siegelman heads back to prison next month, contrite about and embarrassed by his bribery conviction. But when he faced resentencing earlier this month, he still was not quite ready to concede that he knowingly broke the law.

“If I had known I was coming close to the line where a campaign contribution becomes a bribe and a crime, I would have stopped,” Siegelman told U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who sentenced Siegelman to 61 / 2 years in prison.


So, you're obviously wrong.

So, you think it's great that working people have to use their hard-earned income and give it to politicians, while the rich can afford far more. How about we just say NO ONE can, and THEN EVERYONE CAN HAVE MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS!

And our system would be far less corrupt.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2018 6:13 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 11:53 am
Posts: 13231
Siegelman did not get close to a bribe, at all. The law he broke was orchestrated by Karl Rove because Rove couldnt beat him in the election.
Siegelman did nothing whatsoever remotely wrong or illegal.

_________________
I dont criticize other liberals, even when I disagree with them. United fronts work better! But that is just me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 10:16 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 10:27 pm
Posts: 8185
Location: miles from nowhere

I'd say the stronger voice is the 2,000 giving 50. Grassroots would be very effective.

The amendment would trump corporate citizenship. They won't be allowed to donate. I am giving you too much credit.

If their HQ is off shore and they aren't a registered as a U.S. corp. then they aren't allowed to participate.

And no, campaign contributions are not bribes - damn few rational people would even think that. There's no provable relationship. A contribution guarantees nothing.

You would be wrong as evidenced by the current system. Large donors impact politicians. Try and get an audience with one of these politicians when election season is not in bloom if you are one of the $50 dollar donors. Even if you manage it you will be patronized. If you think or believe that contributions guarantee nothing then you are precisely the naive fool that defenders of the status quo want. Large donors do not donate for no reason. They are making an investment and expect a return on that investment. Oh, it may not be direct pay for play but you can bet your ass that there are strings attached. Bribery in politics is an art form. It isn’t like the old Chicago machine of the twenties.

_________________
bird's theorem-"we the people" are stupid.

"No one is so foolish as to choose war over peace. In peace sons bury their fathers, in war fathers bury their sons." - Herodotus

The new motto of the USA: Unum de multis. Out of one, many.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 19, 2018 11:43 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36389
You would be wrong as evidenced by the current system. Large donors impact politicians. Try and get an audience with one of these politicians when election season is not in bloom if you are one of the $50 dollar donors. Even if you manage it you will be patronized. If you think or believe that contributions guarantee nothing then you are precisely the naive fool that defenders of the status quo want. Large donors do not donate for no reason. They are making an investment and expect a return on that investment. Oh, it may not be direct pay for play but you can bet your ass that there are strings attached. Bribery in politics is an art form. It isn’t like the old Chicago machine of the twenties.


You are correct, sir. Unions can get in the door, because they have a PAC, which is voluntary donations from members which can add up to a tidy sum, even if they are $10 donations from members, so the union can get a meeting. But if unions and corporations are taken out, and every donation is an individual donation, then unless you can give thousands - which most working people can't - you won't get the ear of the candidate or the legislator.

I'd rather have a system where everyone can keep their money, and there's no bribes allowed at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2018 6:51 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:36 pm
Posts: 250
There's been PROVEN quid-pro-quos with campaign money. For instance:

Former Alabama governor Don Siegelman heads back to prison next month, contrite about and embarrassed by his bribery conviction. But when he faced resentencing earlier this month, he still was not quite ready to concede that he knowingly broke the law.

“If I had known I was coming close to the line where a campaign contribution becomes a bribe and a crime, I would have stopped,” Siegelman told U.S. District Judge Mark Fuller, who sentenced Siegelman to 61 / 2 years in prison.


So, you're obviously wrong.

So, you think it's great that working people have to use their hard-earned income and give it to politicians, while the rich can afford far more. How about we just say NO ONE can, and THEN EVERYONE CAN HAVE MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS!

And our system would be far less corrupt.


This case was not brought for a campaign contribution made to the candidate. It was other shenanigans.

But the case you cite is an abomination.

"I haven't seen a case with this many red flags on it that pointed towards a real injustice being done," says Grant Woods, the former Republican attorney general of Arizona."
"But Grant Woods, the former attorney general of Arizona, says the case should never have gone to trial. "The prosecutor's gotta look at it and say, 'Hey, is this the sort of thing that we're really talking about when we're talking about bribery?' Because what the public needs to know here is there is no allegation that Don Siegelman ever put one penny in his pocket," he says.
Richard Scrushy did make donations totaling $500,000 to that education lottery campaign, and after serving on the hospital board under three previous governors, Scrushy was re-appointed by Siegelman.
But Woods says that's politics, not bribery. "You do a bribery when someone has a real personal benefit. Not, 'Hey, I would like for you to help out on this project which I think is good for my state.' If you're going to start indicting people and putting them in prison for that, then you might as well just build nine or ten new federal prisons because that happens everyday in every statehouse, in every city council, and in the Congress of the United States," he says.
"What you seem to be saying here is that this is analogous to giving a great deal of money to a presidential campaign. And as a result, you become ambassador to Paris," Pelley remarks.
"Exactly. That's exactly right," Woods says."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-ex-ala ... aw-deal/4/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 20, 2018 7:13 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36389
“I gave to many people, before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And do you know what? When I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them, they are there for me. And that’s a broken system.” — Donald Trump in 2015.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 8:09 am 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36389
The basis of one of the progressive ideas. It's funny - glen seems to think we can afford all kinds of wars and tax cuts, but doing something for the American People? Impossible!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 12:59 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 17387
Location: The blue parts of the map
Individual donations used to be capped. Citizens United, the worst SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott, established that you couldn't do that because money is free speech.

No corporate donations AT ALL, no foundation donations AT ALL, no advocacy group donations AT ALL, no registered lobbyist donations AT ALL, no PAC donations AT ALL, and a $100 per candidate per election cap on individual donations. That seems like a good place to start. Even better would be no money in politics whatsoever, but that'll never happen.

_________________
We used to hang our traitors. Now we elect them to lead us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 1:47 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:36 pm
Posts: 250
Individual donations used to be capped. Citizens United, the worst SCOTUS decision since Dred Scott, established that you couldn't do that because money is free speech.

No corporate donations AT ALL, no foundation donations AT ALL, no advocacy group donations AT ALL, no registered lobbyist donations AT ALL, no PAC donations AT ALL, and a $100 per candidate per election cap on individual donations. That seems like a good place to start. Even better would be no money in politics whatsoever, but that'll never happen.


I'm fine with everything except the individual. Individual's free speech is sacrosanct.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 1:56 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 1:10 pm
Posts: 17387
Location: The blue parts of the map
Money is not speech. It is a transaction. Over some amount, it's essentially bribery.

Then we have all the various sleazy things pols do to get even more of it. I am reminded of the fund raisers they're always having in Beverly Hills. Every POTUS does it, in both parties, and others do too. For a mere $33,000 (the current cap) you too can get face time with The President of the United States. I don't consider that a freedom issue, since it discriminates against 99% of the electorate. It's another reminder that this is a free and democratic country for people who can afford it.

A lower cap would mean that POTUS would have to do these in the local basketball arena, and they'd probably just stop doing them. That would do wonders for traffic in L.A.. Win-win.

_________________
We used to hang our traitors. Now we elect them to lead us.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 4:03 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36389

I'm fine with everything except the individual. Individual's free speech is sacrosanct.

Zowie is correct. Money is not speech. So, you believe if individuals wants to give millions, they can, right? What could POSSIBLY go wrong.

You guys worship money. It's disgusting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 5:30 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11564
Location: Sunny South Florida
I'm OK with a system where advocacy organizations, whether they agree with me or don't, are allowed to make contributions to candidates, but everybody plays by the same rules of limits, fairness, and transparency.

It doesn't bother me that Planned Parenthood, labor unions, or Children's Defense Fund are donating to candidates.

I accept that along with that, RW orgs, corporations, and the Federalist Society can also do the same.

Just with everybody playing by the same limits, and the same fair rules!

That includes whether they are an individual or an organization.

Free speech != money, and limits and rules on campaign finance are not infringements on free speech.

Those same limits and rules should apply to everybody. I know I'm getting repetitive, but maybe this point needs to be hammered home.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 5:34 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus

Joined: Wed May 04, 2011 11:26 pm
Posts: 36389
I'm OK with a system where advocacy organizations, whether they agree with me or don't, are allowed to make contributions to candidates, but everybody plays by the same rules of limits, fairness, and transparency.

It doesn't bother me that Planned Parenthood, labor unions, or Children's Defense Fund are donating to candidates.

I accept that along with that, RW orgs, corporations, and the Federalist Society can also do the same.

Just with everybody playing by the same limits, and the same fair rules!

That includes whether they are an individual or an organization.

Free speech != money, and limits and rules on campaign finance are not infringements on free speech.

Those same limits and rules should apply to everybody. I know I'm getting repetitive, but maybe this point needs to be hammered home.

well, they aren't the same rules. Corporations can give any money to candidates, without the permission of the stockholders. But unions can't give any dues money to candidates, only money donated by members. The way it would be fair is that stockholders give donations to the corporate PAC. But that's not the way it works.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 21, 2018 5:44 pm 
Offline
Board Emeritus
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2015 6:57 pm
Posts: 11564
Location: Sunny South Florida
So, the thing I find fascinating is publicly traded corporations need to ask shareholders (at least shareholders with enough shares to have a seat at the table, not small fry who have 1-6 shares) to vote or decide on many business decisions, but do not ask their shareholders what candidates or causes they donate to when they do so.

I agree with you that practice appears to be both against the responsibility of corporations to their shareholders, and basic fairness.

_________________
-- Tis an ill wind that blows no minds.
Malaclypse the Younger


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 147 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Sam Lefthand, tojo70 and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group