• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

The One said:
Michaelskis has just pulled back the curtain and found the WIZARD!!! THIS IS THE POST OF THE MONTH!!!

Thank you Mskis for this post!

The One is being DEADLY SERIOUS RIGHT NOW
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:YES:thumbsup:




(Um, yeah, those are two thumbs.:))
 
michaelskis said:
Another Cyburbian posted a comment and link about the movie Inequality for All on FB. I watched it and I can not believe that I am about to say this... but I agree with a lot of stuff that was in there. To make matters worse, the guy who did the documentary was in the Clinton administration. Overall I thought it was a good documentary and I would love to see some of these things change, especially in terms of government interaction with corporations and taxes.

Have you watched it? If so what did you think of it?
Click to expand...

I haven't watched it, but after briefly reading over several of the issues related to income inequality, I confess it piques my interest. I will make a point to watch it based on the content of what I just read.
 
The One said:
Michaelskis has just pulled back the curtain and found the WIZARD!!! THIS IS THE POST OF THE MONTH!!!

Thank you Mskis for this post!

The One is being DEADLY SERIOUS RIGHT NOW
Click to expand...

(Ok... now I feel like you are mocking me... you Mocker...) :p

I think that I have made no secret that I don't like the current tax system. I believe that all income (including investments) should be taxed equally and zero deductions for anyone. Without deductions, why would we need the IRS? I think that there should be a base level where people pay zero federal income tax and a graduated system above that.

Second, I don't like the idea of lobbyists, and have made that no secret. That is a good portion of the pork right there. (The only pork I like is on my plate during a meal... or bacon... bacon is awesome)

I don't like our current system of campaign finance. Some of the best candidates never make it to the public eye because they are not willing to play ball with the Super Pacs (on both sides).

As for unions... this one is a mixed bag for me and it comes down to the right of free speech and the right of free assembly. I think that those items should be protected. But I don't quite think that government should protect the unions the way that they have been. I think it should be a persons right to join or not join a union. My brother-in-law is in a private union (pipe-fitters) and I think it is great. They get insurance through the union, it helps him get jobs, and they have helped improve safety on the site. He is independent contractor, so it is his choice if he wants to join or not.

Education is a mess, there is no way around that. I think that we need to do a much better job educating our children in terms of critical thinking skills and classical education. When our kids can't rationalize or reason with each other, then that will be the downfall in society.

Wall Street needs to be fixed on multiple levels. The government, federal reserve, and the banking industry have been in bed together for way too long. When the Government issues private franchises people to sell futures, (which happen to be the banks who own the other side of the equation too), it permits a closed system where only the super wealthy get to play. Secondly, I think that the Government needs to take real control of the banking system and end the federal reserve. They might appoint the chairperson, but it is not a governmental division. Finally, there needs to be better oversight on who is profiting from governmental appointments and potential for long term investments. It would be conflict of interest for us to encourage a zoning change on a parcel where we know a guy... then down the road leave our job, buy that parcel and develop it with zoning changes that we put into place.

Finally, the minimum wage is the one thing that I am not sold on for two reasons. What is a good idea in San Francisco or DC might shut down a mom and pop gift store in Germfask MI (middle of the UP). Second, I think that it goes back to the union thing. If people are not happy with what they are making, then they have an employment problem and should find another job that pays more, or get the skills to make more money. Let's face it, a business owner is not going to keep something open that results in a loss for very long. So it is either close up shop or raise the prices, which affects other people too. If enough people quit, a business owner is going to reexamine the position and his business model.
 
As a follow-up to the mention of Robert Reich's film (I've read his work for years, am a fan), there is an interesting follow-up to this work (coincidentally) by Thomas Piketty - Capital in the 21st Century. AIUI Krugman is going to have a review in the NYTRB this weekend (or next). I'll likely pick it up for the next trip out to CA for plane and ocean.
 
Two Political Thoughts for today:

1) Last Friday after 5 pm, a Federal Judge in Detroit declared the Gay Marriage Ban that was voted and approved by a majority of the people a few years ago is unconstitutional. On Saturday morning, several county clerk offices opened up to issue marriage licences, but Saturday afternoon, a federal court of appeals suspended the federal judges ruling for a few days, then on Tuesday declared that the Gay Marriage Ban will stay in effect until they have 'time to review' which means that they will wait until the US Supreme Court rules on it.

My thought on this whole thing is why? It sounds like there is enough momentum in MI to vote on it and approve it. (although I think the government needs to stay out of the marriage business and think it is BS that anyone needs to get a licence at all, and that couples regardless of orientation should be treated equal) I don't like the idea that a judge can overturn something that was voted on by the people... but I also don't like when the people vote to increase government interference.

2) College Players can now unionize? (LINK TO ESPN) Personally, I think that this is wrong on several levels because scholarships are not payment and they are not employees. They are students first, football players second. If they want to join a union, go pro. Secondly, all of the legal fees are being paid by the United Steelworkers. What does their mission have to do with playing football? Third, what will this progress into with other scholarship recipients? Will there be marching band unions, educational scholarship unions, and all the other sports too? Finally, what are they going to collectively bargain for that would not be a violation of NCAA rules? They can't get 'paid' and really can't accept gifts. Shorter practice times? Better equipment? Major teams already spend insane money on their athletic programs (sometimes more than the academic programs) as it is.
 
michaelskis said:
Two Political Thoughts for today:

1) Last Friday after 5 pm, a Federal Judge in Detroit declared the Gay Marriage Ban that was voted and approved by a majority of the people a few years ago is unconstitutional. On Saturday morning, several county clerk offices opened up to issue marriage licences, but Saturday afternoon, a federal court of appeals suspended the federal judges ruling for a few days, then on Tuesday declared that the Gay Marriage Ban will stay in effect until they have 'time to review' which means that they will wait until the US Supreme Court rules on it.

My thought on this whole thing is why? It sounds like there is enough momentum in MI to vote on it and approve it. (although I think the government needs to stay out of the marriage business and think it is BS that anyone needs to get a licence at all, and that couples regardless of orientation should be treated equal) I don't like the idea that a judge can overturn something that was voted on by the people... but I also don't like when the people vote to increase government interference.
Click to expand...
We should be glad the Federal government has authority to conduct judicial review of state statutes. Think about all those Jim Crow laws in the Civil rights era.
 
michaelskis said:
2) College Players can now unionize? (LINK TO ESPN) Personally, I think that this is wrong on several levels because scholarships are not payment and they are not employees. They are students first, football players second. If they want to join a union, go pro. Secondly, all of the legal fees are being paid by the United Steelworkers. What does their mission have to do with playing football? Third, what will this progress into with other scholarship recipients? Will there be marching band unions, educational scholarship unions, and all the other sports too? Finally, what are they going to collectively bargain for that would not be a violation of NCAA rules? They can't get 'paid' and really can't accept gifts. Shorter practice times? Better equipment? Major teams already spend insane money on their athletic programs (sometimes more than the academic programs) as it is.
Click to expand...

I'm very interested in seeing how Northwestern ultimately approaches this... I could see them departing for the Ivy League... they've got the academic chops to pull it off. That is assuming the university loses the appeal, which it almost undoubtedly will.

My take... I agree with the players, but only so far as it relates to medical/injury issues.

I do not want to witness the death of amateurism--it is what I like about college sports. I understand the pressures and arguments behind paying players, but just don't view that as more important than preserving what is great about college athletics. Paying players is not going to make a damn bit of difference in discouraging student athletes from going pro early, unless universities are going to pay players at least league minimum for the respective pro sports. I've also always liked that a smaller university with smaller alumni base can rise up and bite one of the massive universities despite disparities. Paying players inserts a disparity that I'm not sure can be overcome. If we're talking longer term medical/injury, then that is something. Although I actually think the medical/injury coverage would be better addressed through NCAA rules rather than some bastardization of collective bargaining.

This gets further complicated when you start thinking about this in the context of public, taxpayer-supported universities. Northwestern is private, but how this relates to public universities is the next logical step. Personally, I don't like the idea of taxpayer funds going to directly pay athletes. The counter argument to that is that boosters will provide funds. If this is going to rely on booster support directly to student athletes, then you are reintroducing high potential for inappropriate direct relationships between boosters & players, and perhaps more importantly, player recruitment. Not only that, but you have to deal with equal pay issues in the context of Title IX. Paying student athletes gets really messy, really fast.
 
The Hobby lobby lawsuit is interesting. They have a religious objection to providing health insurance that covers some forms of birth control but they currently provide insurance and will continue to provide insurance that covers viagra and penis pumps. I'm not even sure what a penis pump is but I'd be curious to understand their reasoning on why they are okay but birth control is not okay.
 
imaplanner said:
The Hobby lobby lawsuit is interesting. They have a religious objection to providing health insurance that covers some forms of birth control but they currently provide insurance and will continue to provide insurance that covers viagra and penis pumps. I'm not even sure what a penis pump is but I'd be curious to understand their reasoning on why they are okay but birth control is not okay.
Click to expand...

Yea... that is a bit on the hypocritical side.
 
Yeah.....

imaplanner said:
The Hobby lobby lawsuit is interesting. They have a religious objection to providing health insurance that covers some forms of birth control but they currently provide insurance and will continue to provide insurance that covers viagra and penis pumps. I'm not even sure what a penis pump is but I'd be curious to understand their reasoning on why they are okay but birth control is not okay.
Click to expand...

I bet they don't pay a living wage either.........

Remember: Jeebus wants you to go forth and PROCREATE:facepalm::trollface::no::redstar:
 
imaplanner said:
The Hobby lobby lawsuit is interesting. They have a religious objection to providing health insurance that covers some forms of birth control but they currently provide insurance and will continue to provide insurance that covers viagra and penis pumps. I'm not even sure what a penis pump is but I'd be curious to understand their reasoning on why they are okay but birth control is not okay.
Click to expand...

AIUI the "birth control" that they are "objecting" to was covered by their plan prior to 2012. The current pro-corporation USC can help dismantle burdensome laws with this suit, which is why it was brought. Not about birth control at all.
 
It is interesting to see all the democrats who are up for reelection that are urging congress to change Obamacare before the elections. (New York Times Link)

It is no secret that I have been opposed to it from the get go. I am lucky that we have only had a minimal impact, (lost the physical therapist for our middle child, increased costs across the board, wife's hospital loosing a few doctors back to Europe...) but several friends of mine have lost their old plans, one lost his doctor of 20+ years, and the new plans are more expensive than the old plans, by a lot. One guy who owns his own in ground sprinkling company is going without insurance. He said that he can't afford his new plan so he will just pay the fine.

The assessor for one of the communities I work for is self employed contractor, and she said that the cost of her plan doubled in monthly cost, the cost of her meds went up 75%, her ER visit cost went up 200%, walk in clinic increased 150%, and basic doctors visit copay went up by just below double.

We noticed our specialist co-pay more than doubled, and our regular co-pay's doubled. The only reduction in our costs was the number of visits covered is now unlimited and my yearly physical is free... unless they do labs... than those our out of pocket until we hit our deductible. Sad part is this this insurance company (though wife's hospital) was one of the lowest costs options for us.


I will say it again, the system is broken, but Obamacare appears to be making a bad situation worse.
 
The One said:
I bet they don't pay a living wage either.........

Remember: Jeebus wants you to go forth and PROCREATE:facepalm::trollface::no::redstar:
Click to expand...

That's the irony... for a retailer they actually pay pretty well (starting $13/hr for full-time, $9/hr part-time), offer (& I think pay for a portion of) insurance, have a retirement plan, and close earlier than most retailers to allow workers to spend more time with family. Of course like many, they've been exercising the part-time aspect more to reduce costs, but not as bad as others. They do wear their religion on their sleeves though. They are also very poorly managed and have major loss prevention issues. They didn't use barcodes to ring up items and track inventory until about 5-6 years ago.

What amazes me is how poorly they understands contraception. They are not "full quiver" types, yet they've latched onto this for some reason. They are targeting certain devices that for some reason they consider an abortive service. It is very strange. The hypocrisy is a little staggering though when pumps & male arousal treatments are covered. This is really about a business trying to use religion as a basis to undermine certain business regulations. This isn't the first time we've seen this type of argument (cough, cough, race-based civil rights, women's rights, etc.)

They also aren't as "godly" about being closed on Sunday's as they would have you believe. They have deliveries & stockers working on Sundays.
 
michaelskis said:
... (although I think the government needs to stay out of the marriage business and think it is BS that anyone needs to get a licence at all, and that couples regardless of orientation should be treated equal) ...
Click to expand...

An interesting thought ... Why do you need permission in the form of a license to get married? The only answer I can come up with is to prevent things like underage marriages, forced marriages and polygamy. Of course all of those things can still happen without the benefit of a marriage license.
 
http://news.yahoo.com/party-rich-congress-democrats-040228270--election.html

The idea that because the richest districts support Democrats doesn't exactly mean that Democrats are the party of the rich. I think the reason that label has stuck to Republicans is pretty clear - they are are much more interested in making some people rich. The Democrats may be rich, but their motives (at least appear to most) to be to try and even the playing field. I think their fight to raise taxes on the wealthy makes that pretty clear. No one in their right mind would argue that Republicans as they stand now, support raising taxes on the wealthy. Democrats do. Why they get elected in those house districts could just be that maybe those people are more willing to pay more of their taxes to the government? Or that the republican parties social policies are so abhorrent to them, that they will just go with democrats even though it hurts their pocketbooks.

Who knows. It is interesting though. Data from the article is below:


The 10 richest House districts:

___

New York 12

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Democrat

Per capita income: $75,479

___

California 33

Rep. Henry Waxman, Democrat

Per capita income: $61,273

___

New York 10

Rep. Jerry Nadler, Democrat

Per capita income: $56,138

___

California 18

Rep. Anna Eshoo, Democrat

Per capita income: $ 54,182

___

Connecticut 4

Rep. Jim Himes, Democrat

Per capita income: $50,732

___

Virginia 8

Rep. Jim Moran, Democrat

Per capita income: $50,210

___

New Jersey 7

Rep. Leonard Lance, Republican

Per capita income: $48,556

___

California 12

Rep. Nancy Pelosi, Democrat

Per capita income: $48,523

___

New York 3

Rep. Steve Israel, Democrat

Per capita income: $47,991

___

Virginia 10

Rep. Frank Wolf, Republican

Per capita income: $47,281
 
Regarding the college player unionization effort at Northwestern - I agree that something needs to be done regarding how college athletes are treated by the universities but I don't think anything will come of this unionization effort and am hoping that it's a stunt by the students to try and force the hand of the university (and then ripple out to other schools in the Big 10 and other major conferences and then down to the smaller schools) into offering 4-year guaranteed scholarships and health care for the athletes and maybe an actual stipend ($100 a month is a joke).

The fact that some of these football and basketball players are helping their schools rake in mountains and mountains of cash and can make nothing off of their own name is a travesty. At the vast majority of schools, if a player who has a legitimate shot at the pros should have a career-ending injury, at the end of the school year they are SOL. On the other end, leagues like the NBA and the NFL who have restrictions on drafting players right out of high school are another part of the problem, especially considering the NBA Developmental league is a joke and something similar is non-existent in the NFL. I often think that the NCAA and the major sports players associations are often in cahoots in their efforts to hold back college players.

If the Northwestern football team unionizes and begins to be classified as employees, they can kiss their 2014 season goodbye. None of the teams in the Big 10 will want to play them for risk of having the results of those games vacated since they could then be playing a "professional" team in the eyes of the NCAA.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Regarding the college player unionization effort at Northwestern - I agree that something needs to be done regarding how college athletes are treated by the universities but I don't think anything will come of this unionization effort and am hoping that it's a stunt by the students to try and force the hand of the university (and then ripple out to other schools in the Big 10 and other major conferences and then down to the smaller schools) into offering 4-year guaranteed scholarships and health care for the athletes and maybe an actual stipend ($100 a month is a joke).

The fact that some of these football and basketball players are helping their schools rake in mountains and mountains of cash and can make nothing off of their own name is a travesty. At the vast majority of schools, if a player who has a legitimate shot at the pros should have a career-ending injury, at the end of the school year they are SOL. On the other end, leagues like the NBA and the NFL who have restrictions on drafting players right out of high school are another part of the problem, especially considering the NBA Developmental league is a joke and something similar is non-existent in the NFL. I often think that the NCAA and the major sports players associations are often in cahoots in their efforts to hold back college players.

If the Northwestern football team unionizes and begins to be classified as employees, they can kiss their 2014 season goodbye. None of the teams in the Big 10 will want to play them for risk of having the results of those games vacated since they could then be playing a "professional" team in the eyes of the NCAA.
Click to expand...

Again, that's one of the things I like about baseball. The minor leagues are great for those who have no interest in college and probably don't belong. Actually MGK's posting in another thread about clubs in other parts of the world also makes sense.
 
HINK,

Not all people who have money are racist greedy A-HOLES. That explains your districts mentioned above. Not all old people are teabaggers. Not all vets are conservative. Most people do not lack empathy for their fellow man.

On the other hand, there are a lot of racist greedy A-HOLES in rural areas and other places. The kind of people that think the census should only count a person with no other statistics. The kind of people who think climate change is a hoax or some other nonsense because the scientists didn't think about thermometers above grass or some silly crap like that. The kind of people who use some kind of austrian model of economic theory nobody else remotely subscribes to. That trickle down economics hasn't really had a chance to work yet after 34 years. People who are glad to get government subsidies for crops but cut off people from being able to buy food. The kind of people who don't understand how the fed works to limit unemployment to no more than 4.5%, and then blames the jobless and underemployed as if it was their fault. The kind of people who think there should be no base wage otherwise known as the minimum wage as a floor to start, as if workers won't be prayed upon at every opportunity by their employers. And on and on and on...

What I don't understand is why people won't vote their own self interest. In 2 years they could make their lives better and sweep the counterproductive and harmful conservatives right out of the way. I don't blame the conservatives for the state of the country. I blame those who don't vote their own self interest. If they did, gerrymandered districts wouldn't matter.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
What I don't understand is why people won't vote their own self interest.
Click to expand...

Because people vote for the lesser of two evils. The entire system is so corrupt that we never get a decent candidate on either side. The candidates that end up on the ballot are those who have the most money behind them... not the best people for the job.

The entire system is corrupt.

As for voting all the conservatives out... I believe that there was a liberal majority for the House and Senate for Obama's first two years.... and we see how well that worked out for tax payers.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
HINK,

Not all people who have money are racist greedy A-HOLES. That explains your districts mentioned above. Not all old people are teabaggers. Not all vets are conservative. Most people do not lack empathy for their fellow man.

On the other hand, there are a lot of racist greedy A-HOLES in rural areas and other places. The kind of people that think the census should only count a person with no other statistics. The kind of people who think climate change is a hoax or some other nonsense because the scientists didn't think about thermometers above grass or some silly crap like that. The kind of people who use some kind of austrian model of economic theory nobody else remotely subscribes to. That trickle down economics hasn't really had a chance to work yet after 34 years. People who are glad to get government subsidies for crops but cut off people from being able to buy food. The kind of people who don't understand how the fed works to limit unemployment to no more than 4.5%, and then blames the jobless and underemployed as if it was their fault. The kind of people who think there should be no base wage otherwise known as the minimum wage as a floor to start, as if workers won't be prayed upon at every opportunity by their employers. And on and on and on...

What I don't understand is why people won't vote their own self interest. In 2 years they could make their lives better and sweep the counterproductive and harmful conservatives right out of the way. I don't blame the conservatives for the state of the country. I blame those who don't vote their own self interest. If they did, gerrymandered districts wouldn't matter.
Click to expand...

You just described my entire state. Sadly the state won't vote out it's overly conservative politicians because the majority believes they're fighting the good fight by slashing budgets (and services), not raising taxes, gutting the schools, and only passing laws that have very little effect on daily life, but a big effect on political gains. Most of the laws aren't even passed, just debated endlessly for political gain.

And for Mskies, I can claim the to biggest money grubbing @ssholes, I am in Kansas, yet even poor people here seem to support them and their cause. Then again, here we support @sshole churches that preach hate.
 
Hobby Lobby

I created this banner a couple years ago during the war on women Gov. Ultrasound days. Looks like it'll get more use soon.

dont-tread.jpg
 
dvdneal said:
And for Mskies, I can claim the to biggest money grubbing @ssholes, I am in Kansas, yet even poor people here seem to support them and their cause. Then again, here we support @sshole churches that preach hate.
Click to expand...

Preaching hate is no good either. Problem is the poor people don't get to hear from good candidates because the money does not back them. More so, a gay friend of mine claimed that the Koch brothers are pro-gay marriage and for legalization of drugs. I am not sure if I believe it. It is a shame that they have enough people on both sides to control most of the other issues. That is why things don't change in DC despite who is in office.
 
michaelskis said:
Because people vote for the lesser of two evils. The entire system is so corrupt that we never get a decent candidate on either side. The candidates that end up on the ballot are those who have the most money behind them... not the best people for the job.

The entire system is corrupt.

As for voting all the conservatives out... I believe that there was a liberal majority for the House and Senate for Obama's first two years.... and we see how well that worked out for tax payers.
Click to expand...

Nice contradiction. I think you are leaving a WHOLE lot of things out of that first 2 years. Besides, Look at how his first 2 years worked out. He managed to expand healthcare for people and to help everyone. You don't have to like it, but you will learn to accept accept over time. He managed something attempted repeatedly over the last 80 years. Thats a job well done.
 
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Nice contradiction. I think you are leaving a WHOLE lot of things out of that first 2 years. Besides, Look at how his first 2 years worked out. He managed to expand healthcare for people and to help everyone. You don't have to like it, but you will learn to accept accept over time. He managed something attempted repeatedly over the last 80 years. Thats a job well done.
Click to expand...

Also the average working class taxpayer saw his tax liability decrease in those two years. Mskis says "we saw how it worked out for taxpayers" and I'm guessing he takes it on faith that taxes went up because "liberals!" but in reality taxes went down http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...slashed-more-than-bush-did-in-first-term.html
 
Hink said:
http://news.yahoo.com/party-rich-congress-democrats-040228270--election.html

The idea that because the richest districts support Democrats doesn't exactly mean that Democrats are the party of the rich. I think the reason that label has stuck to Republicans is pretty clear - they are are much more interested in making some people rich. The Democrats may be rich, but their motives (at least appear to most) to be to try and even the playing field. I think their fight to raise taxes on the wealthy makes that pretty clear. No one in their right mind would argue that Republicans as they stand now, support raising taxes on the wealthy. Democrats do. Why they get elected in those house districts could just be that maybe those people are more willing to pay more of their taxes to the government? Or that the republican parties social policies are so abhorrent to them, that they will just go with democrats even though it hurts their pocketbooks.

Who knows. It is interesting though. Data from the article is below:


The 10 richest House districts:
...
Click to expand...

This "reportage" was highly misleading. These are the only data given. And no link to the report from the AP reporter. And no discussion of policy.

Weak.
 
michaelskis said:
Because people vote for the lesser of two evils. The entire system is so corrupt that we never get a decent candidate on either side. The candidates that end up on the ballot are those who have the most money behind them... not the best people for the job.

The entire system is corrupt.

As for voting all the conservatives out... I believe that there was a liberal majority for the House and Senate for Obama's first two years.... and we see how well that worked out for tax payers.
Click to expand...

People also vote to punish people they don't like: The Other.
 
imaplanner said:
Also the average working class taxpayer saw his tax liability decrease in those two years. Mskis says "we saw how it worked out for taxpayers" and I'm guessing he takes it on faith that taxes went up because "liberals!" but in reality taxes went down http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...slashed-more-than-bush-did-in-first-term.html
Click to expand...

Specifically, I was talking about the tax structure where the taxable income from regular employment is taxed at a different rate than then income from investments like stock markets and mutual funds. Everyone whines about the rich getting richer... but Obama and the idiot liberals did not do anything different that the Bush and the stupid republicans. Like I have said over and over again, it does not matter who is in office, we all get screwed.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dougl...-can_b_5048168.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

I find this take quite interesting. The best part is below:

And so it is we come to the case dealing with a for-profit corporation who insists that it be treated like a church and have all of the benefits of a religious organization to be exempt from generally applicable laws; this is an extraordinary claim -- even though some in-house lawyer got the bishops all stirred up over nothing; some of these bishops belonging to the Republican caucus anxious to embarrass more than educate, but Even Francis refers to some of these folks as "sourpussum" which in Latin would be sourpussum, as in Dominus Vobiscum Sourpussum; what a riot!

Putting us on? Yep, the notion that a for-profit corporation is the equivalent to a little church With the cash register substituting for a collection basket is quaint, but wrong. It's not that we don't want people to be nice to each other as they leave the parking lot, but if everybody can become a law unto himself by declaring himself to be a religious body or the equivalent we will start to look like warring factions in Libya.

Roberts knows this and he will want to avoid it. But how? It's not for me to disclose the cleverness of the chief justice before he plays his hand, but I'm going to make a prediction: Hobby lobby will lose. why? Because no one can figure out how corporations actually manifest religious intent, and if that's not a sufficient explanation,because the federal statute that applies never contemplated that corporations would be within its scope. Maybe it dies nit amount to Marbury v. Madison, but as they say it's good for government work. At a minimum, it should be a simple matter for the great new Chief Justice John Roberts to proclaim a lack of standing on the part of Hobby lobby.
Click to expand...
 
Hink said:
5-4. Not surprising really. It will make the mid-term elections more painful though.
Click to expand...

Hell let's just have a televised auction and do away with those pesky elections and annoying ads. That way we all can have more time to watch TV and allow the corporations and rich to continue to bend us over. :-@
 
rcgplanner said:
Hell let's just have a televised auction and do away with those pesky elections and annoying ads. That way we all can have more time to watch TV and allow the corporations and rich to continue to bend us over. :-@
Click to expand...

It has been said before, but it is worth repeating that we should require candidates to wear suits with patches of all their sponsors like NASCAR drivers do. That way we will clearly know who is backing them.
 
The funny part is that our elected officials could pass legislation to to put this into law. But they won't.

I would bet that you could get it into the constitution. 66% of the country would support it.

Corporate money is going to kill whatever semblance is left of "free" elections.
 
If money is speech, those with the most money have the most speech.

I think the actual language of the ruling compared to previous rulings is critically important to understanding the courts view of American democracy. The very first sentence of this ruling is:
"The right to participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the first amendment, ..."

Whereas in Bush v. Gore the court ruled:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."

It strikes me that the court considers political donations to be a constitutionally protected right, but that the average citizen does not have a constitutionally protected right to vote.
 
imaplanner said:
If money is speech, those with the most money have the most speech.

I think the actual language of the ruling compared to previous rulings is critically important to understanding the courts view of American democracy. The very first sentence of this ruling is:
"The right to participate in democracy through political contributions is protected by the first amendment, ..."

Whereas in Bush v. Gore the court ruled:
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States."

It strikes me that the court considers political donations to be a constitutionally protected right, but that the average citizen does not have a constitutionally protected right to vote.
Click to expand...

Steven Colbert's extended joke about his Super PAC was all about this.
 
Can the rich buy elections because we are so willing to sell our votes? What does all that money go towards? Ads? Are we really that easily swayed by ads?
Another thing that bothers me about all this... Where are the wealthy getting all their money? We are feeding their pockets every time we buy from their national and global institutions. That same money is then used to herd public opinion like cattle thus influencing elections. So it comes around full circle in the end.
 
Arnold said:
Can the rich buy elections because we are so willing to sell our votes? What does all that money go towards? Ads? Are we really that easily swayed by ads?
Another thing that bothers me about all this... Where are the wealthy getting all their money? We are feeding their pockets every time we buy from their national and global institutions. That same money is then used to herd public opinion like cattle thus influencing elections. So it comes around full circle in the end.
Click to expand...

Yeah, viewed in masse there's no question at all that ads sway voter opinion. They wouldn't spend millions of dollars year after year if misinformation/propaganda campaigns didn't work. As far as giving the rich our money, there's not a great deal of choice. If you put gas in your tank or buy food from the supermarket for your family you're lining the pockets of the wealthy like it or not.
 
Maister said:
Yeah, viewed in masse there's no question at all that ads sway voter opinion. They wouldn't spend millions of dollars year after year if misinformation/propaganda campaigns didn't work. As far as giving the rich our money, there's not a great deal of choice. If you put gas in your tank or buy food from the supermarket for your family you're lining the pockets of the wealthy like it or not.
Click to expand...

I think that this is an interesting point and I agree 100%. That is why I am willing to spend a little extra to buy locally made products from locally owned businesses, farm shares, and from farmers markets. I also think that as planners, we can work with developers to create walkable communities and encourage the use of public transportation to lessen the amount of money that we send to big corporations. Will it cut off their entire income, no. But I go to be at night feeling better knowing that I at least attempt to keep my money local. And local does not just mean where I live. When I travel, I always try to search out the mom & pop places or places that use local foods. I know that this is not always an option, but I think it is important to do what we can, and encourage others to do the same.
 
Arnold said:
Can the rich buy elections because we are so willing to sell our votes?
Click to expand...

Yes.

For all of the harping on about how we can't trust the mainstream media... blah, blah, blah... (especially from the GOP side of things) for some reason the typical American will happily believe whatever they see in a campaign ad, particularly a negative ad. There's even a term for it: "Swift-Boating," which is a reference to dishonest, unfair & personal campaign ads against John Kerry in 2004 that claimed to be revealing truth but were eventually discredited.
 
The more troubling fact is because how our elections are set up, nearly all of the ads/obscene amounts of money are directed to voters in a handful of states. A candidate is not worried too much about a voter in California or Oklahoma. They spend all of their effort and money on just a handful of states.

This graphic from the Washington Post shows the DMA's that the candidates and their allies bought ads during the 2012 General Election. What is even more disturbing is $862 Million was spent to buy ads in just ten states. The two candidates spent that much to reach 28% of the voters, or $24.21 for each vote they got in those 10 states. :-{ (Sorry my Political Science roots are coming out here)
 
rcgplanner said:
The more troubling fact is because how our elections are set up, nearly all of the ads/obscene amounts of money are directed to voters in a handful of states. A candidate is not worried too much about a voter in California or Oklahoma. They spend all of their effort and money on just a handful of states.

This graphic from the Washington Post shows the DMA's that the candidates and their allies bought ads during the 2012 General Election. What is even more disturbing is $862 Million was spent to buy ads in just ten states. The two candidates spent that much to reach 28% of the voters, or $24.21 for each vote they got in those 10 states. :-{ (Sorry my Political Science roots are coming out here)
Click to expand...

Do you know if those numbers are only direct from the candidates or does that include PAC's too? I thought it would be higher...

I think that the breakdown of negative adds brings up an interesting point as well, it is not enough to sell the candidate, as much as it is to bash the other guy. Also how much of the adds are 100% truthful?
 
Just like fast food ads... The product advertised always is made to look better than it actually is. You have to go and investigate yourself to get the truth.
 
Back
Top