What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Rover said:
Gay marriage. $1.5B cuts in defense spending. $700M tax hikes on the wealthy. PPACA. Dodd-Frank. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

We live in a center-left country. We have been for at least the last 22 years.
Click to expand...

Center-left electorate (in on year races). Center-right political establishment. $1.5B cuts in defense spending when $65.5B would be a good start. $700M tax hikes on the wealthy when $7T would be a good start. We've lived under the shadow of far right economic theory for so long that even center-right strides now look like "big gains." Give me 1955 tax brackets and Gini and then we'll talk about center-left politics.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Kepler said:
the larger problem of lifting the dead weight of the plutocratic parasite off our back is not going to get solved by the current party configuration. That's going to have to boil up from below, and it will probably be a populist movement that is as much right as left and brings with it as many problems as it solves.
Click to expand...

an apt summary of the original Tea Party, before it was co-opted by self-aggrandizing showboats.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I am picturing Kepler playing Graham Chapman, Rover playing Eric Idle, Bob as John Cleese.

Me? I'm the penguin on top of the telly.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

FreshFish said:
an apt summary of the original Tea Party, before it was co-opted by self-aggrandizing showboats.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I had high hopes for the TP for about the first five minutes, before Glenn Beck and that crowd re-purposed it as a way to fleece herpa-derps of their cash.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Kepler said:
Center-left electorate (in on year races). Center-right political establishment. $1.5B cuts in defense spending when $65.5B would be a good start. $700M tax hikes on the wealthy when $7T would be a good start. We've lived under the shadow of far right economic theory for so long that even center-right strides now look like "big gains." Give me 1955 tax brackets and Gini and then we'll talk about center-left politics.
Click to expand...

Apologies, its $1.5T over 10 years for defense and $700B over 10 years for tax hikes on the rich...

Stupid letters. :mad:
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Kepler said:
I vote Dem because I want to see Dem policies in place, but the larger problem of lifting the dead weight of the plutocratic parasite off our back is not going to get solved by the current party configuration. That's going to have to boil up from below, and it will probably be a populist movement that is as much right as left and brings with it as many problems as it solves.
Click to expand...

The Tea Party and Occupy might have been that coalition, but the Tea Party got coöpted by the evangelical right and Occupy fizzled.

(Granted, even though they agreed in the broadest of strokes about the nature of the problem, they had pretty fundamental differences about how it ought to be solved, so there might not really have been the seeds of a coalition anyway...)
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Funny how those who complain the most about "money corrupting politics" have no problem whatsoever about accepting it!!



The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has so far this cycle raised $111 million, or $30 million more than the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The DSCC has spent or reserved nearly $42 million for this fall in TV advertising—55% of it in Iowa, Colorado and North Carolina. The $23 million it will spend in those three key states—which could determine Senate control—is $4 million more than the NRSC will spend across the country.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is a great rationalization for the hypocrisy, though....
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

FreshFish said:
Funny how those who complain the most about "money corrupting politics" have no problem whatsoever about accepting it!!

I'm sure there is a great rationalization for the hypocrisy, though....
Click to expand...
Agreed. We never hear the end of complaining about the Koch Brothers, but nary a word about George Soros. People lose a lot of credibility when they can't see problems on both sides of the fence.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
Agreed. We never hear the end of complaining about the Koch Brothers, but nary a word about George Soros. People lose a lot of credibility when they can't see problems on both sides of the fence.
Click to expand...


Straw man argument. I have no problem with money in politics since most of it gets wasted anyway, and at some point you actually have to campaign to win the race. However if someone is voting for legislation to restrict these donations, but in the meantime has decided to play by the rules currently in place, that makes them pragmatic, not a hypocrite.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Rover said:
Straw man argument. I have no problem with money in politics since most of it gets wasted anyway, and at some point you actually have to campaign to win the race. However if someone is voting for legislation to restrict these donations, but in the meantime has decided to play by the rules currently in place, that makes them pragmatic, not a hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Not at all. You are responding to something I didn't say. I'm just saying it people complain about the issue regarding one party, they should apply the same critical view to the same thing going on in their party of choice.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
Agreed. We never hear the end of complaining about the Koch Brothers, but nary a word about George Soros. People lose a lot of credibility when they can't see problems on both sides of the fence.
Click to expand...

Assume each time I mention Koch I also mean Soros.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

FreshFish said:
I'm sure there is a great rationalization for the hypocrisy, though....
Click to expand...

Well, since you asked so nicely, there is a difference between the rich who give money to magnify their influence and those who give money to undercut their own influence.

But I am all for strict enough limits on contributions so that rich liberals and rich conservatives alike are unable to exert influence beyond their numbers.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

Bob Gray said:
Why not say Soros and the I'll assume you also mean Koch. It'd spice up your postings a good bit!
Click to expand...

I really have included both, explicitly, a couple times -- a few times I've doubled back after posting and amended to include both -- but you make a fair point. The generic issue is the undue influence of the super-wealthy, whatever flavor.

When I'm talking about the specific atrocities of the Kochs, they'll still get singled out.
 
Re: The Power of SCOTUS V: The Final Frontier

I've always thought that one way to better control the influence of $$$ in politics would be to tax it. Set up a progressive tax on any money donated and/or spent on elections/issues. The more you donate/spend the greater the tax. Give $50 and pay zero. Give $500 and pay 20%. Put out a commercial for $200K and pay 50% tax. Hit em with a tax when it's donated and charge em again when they spend it. It'll never happen since the idiots who would make the law would be the ones hurt by it but it might help and would also bring in some income.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top