Topic: Elizabeth Warren and Nancy Pelosi are right - page 2. (Read 3876 times)

As opposed to the crazy right ideas that pass by unchallenged in the current system?

At any rate, as I said above, there are several methods of implementing public financing: some more receptive to crazy new ideas, some more conservative. And by the way, this isn't all or nothing: most countries allow some amount of private financing alongside public funding - though within limits, and all at a far less insane level than in the US.

This puts ideas on too equal of a footing. If someone has a crazy left idea that no one is taking seriously under this model, the left would be able to present their idea to the public as of many people agreed with the idea enough so that they can advertise it's so called benefits that do not really exist

In relation to political finance, there are several countries that have considerable amounts of public financing, in one or more of the forms it takes - Germany, Japan, Sweden, Israel possibly with the highest levels. Is there any reason why the US would not be able to function in such a model?

The entire population may not have a strong enough feeling towards a specific candidate or a specific issue in order for them to want to donate to a campaign. If both sides of an issue are putting out their own one sided story to the issue then everyone has an equal chance of hearing both sides. If you were to force people to spend money on campaigns then it would be essentially the public financing campaigns that may or may not have a chance of succeeding

It does indeed - but disproportionally more those with money to spend in such efforts, than those who barely scrap by day to day. I mean, it's not a coincidence that policy decisions tend to closely follow the interests of the wealthy, while pretty much disenfranchising the poor and average citizens.


Excerpt taken from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10769041/The-US-is-an-oligarchy-study-concludes.html.

Of course, this isn't to say you necessarily have to remove money from the system entirely - that isn't the idea behind those 2 sites I mentioned (I should have been a bit clearer in my last post). Rather, the idea is to find other ways in which campaign contributions, lobbying, and so on, can be made, that is more representative of the interests of the whole population.

Money being in politics is not a problem. Having money in politics allows people to make a statement that they agree or disagree with something that is more powerful then just their words. Money allows you to make a statement that can be heard by others (by allowing for tv/radio/print advertisements

[...] After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period [policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002] and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite.

The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence." [...]

How about getting money out of politics? It seems to me that would be a step in the right direction: http://www.wolf-pac.com, or http://www.rootstrikers.org, for example, are working towards that goal. Of course, that wouldn't solve all the problems, but rather create enough of an opening that would give the population a chance to have a greater influence in the whole process.

"Too big to fail..." said the government.

So you trust big business more than the government? Look around. The companies are the wolves. I would not trust them with an inch. Hell, they would have slaves operating the internet if not for the government. I'll take my chances with an entity I can depose if need be.

RodeoX, you expect the wolf to protect the henhouse. Lol.
...

I'm not sure what I said that leads you to believe that I do not support net neutrality. I think it is central to the future of the internet and I am dead against messing with the open and neutral nature of the internet. Obama recently fought regulation of the internet. Super large ISPs and cable companies are trying to fundamentally change the internet. They want to set up a "non-neutral" system that allows ISPs to block any content they want or change the bandwidth you pull when viewing a competitors content.

You would not recognize this internet unless you live in China or North Korea. When you do an image search for "Tienanmen square" , you will see endless pictures of that guy who stood in front of the tank. If you searched in China you would find that image is unknown and would not show up. Why because there is no net neutrality in China. That is what the future will be like for us without neutrality. You will only see what your ISP has decided you should see. If they don't want you using bitcoin, then they will have the power to stop you.

I say we made the internet and it's content, not the ISPs. We should be able to view what we want.  

RodeoX and jaysabi, I can not fathom how you can write so astutely in this thread, and yet have favored Obama's pleas to regulate net neutrality. ...

RodeoX and jaysabi, I can not fathom how you can write so astutely in this thread, and yet have favored Obama's pleas to regulate net neutrality. How can you write the above and not understand the regulators are always captured by the regulated as matter of mathematical certainty as well as historical evidence?

The only way we will protect net neutrality is obscure the content with anonymity and so consumers can vote with their feet without fear of retribution from the State.

Only the free market works in the end, and anonymity is absolutely crucial to making it work. We don't have a free market, so you can't claim it doesn't work. We don't have it, because the technology hasn't been implemented to free up the market.

Always technological solutions (paradigm shifts) are the only real solutions. Politics is always a morass and entire waste of time.

the GOP generally favor lower taxes which prevents income/assets from being redistributed. They tend to favor the free market as opposed to forcing people/businesses to act a certain way

The end times are upon us. I find myself in agreement with not just Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), but House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA).

It’s not just me. Right Wing News’ John Hawkins — not exactly a cheerleader for bipartisan consensus — is publicly standing with Warren, Pelosi, and their liberal allies in the House and Senate. As have conservative Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), Townhall.com’s Amy Otto, and Tea Party Patriots, among many others.

And I’m not only opposed to the omnibus bill that squeaked through the House and may fail in the Senate. I’m flat-out agreeing with the principles upon which Pelosi and Warren are making their stand — specifically, their opposition to what Hawkins called “the GOP’s sop to the banks on derivatives along with their sleazy attempt to change campaign finance rules to benefit incumbents.”

It’s infuriating. In its first significant legislative effort since winning the Senate in a landslide last month, the Beltway’s GOP leadership has chosen to secure a special campaign-finance reform loophole for the election arms of both parties. Furthermore, it worked with the Democratic establishment to put taxpayers on the hook for risky investments by bankers.

And we haven’t even gotten to the fact that the bill offers only a few small improvements to the federal budget while still spending far too much. Likewise, the few mediocre — at best — pro-life efforts are offset by Republican support for slightly expanding the federal funding of abortion and continued funding for population control efforts.

This latest debacle is just more evidence that the wool is always going to be pulled over the heads of conservatives. Enough is enough, especially since the media has clearly decided that shutdowns are cool when Democrats do them.

On Friday, Noah warned the GOP leadership that “to dismiss this ire from conservatives as a mere fit of pique among conservatives…would be a foolish approach to this development.”

He’s right. Our country is in serious trouble, and none of the allegedly “reasonable” voices in Washington are doing much about it. As such, I’m proud to add my (small) voice to the growing cascade of conservatives and liberals that have decided it’s time to take the power back from both parties.


http://hotair.com/archives/2014/12/13/elizabeth-warren-and-nancy-pelosi-are-right/

the GOP generally favor lower taxes which prevents income/assets from being redistributed. They tend to favor the free market as opposed to forcing people/businesses to act a certain way