View Full Version : Political Priority Poll
A CNN poll (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/05/politics/ireport.debate.poll/index.html) on election issues. No real surprises in the results to me with the exception that Housing didn't make the top 10, but the economy is #1 (sorry for the spoiler). I don't think we can fix the economy without fixing housing.
ApatheticNoMore
5-9-12, 3:32pm
A CNN poll (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/05/politics/ireport.debate.poll/index.html) on election issues. No real surprises in the results to me with the exception that Housing didn't make the top 10, but the economy is #1 (sorry for the spoiler). I don't think we can fix the economy without fixing housing.
Energy and Environment. And then Campaign Finance - need an amendment for Citizens United (because NOTHING can be dealt with even somewhat rationally at present with an entirely bought and paid for political system! You can't get any good legistlation out of a CORRUPT TO THE CORE $y$tem). Fine I did put economy third. It was hard to pick because most of those topics I don't care about, so I end up picking marijuana legalization and stuff just to get up to 10 items!! I'm for legalization, but honestly marijuana legalization doesn't make or break my vote. (where's the toking smiley?)
"Civil liberties" isn't even listed as a possible choice, so I am out of luck...
ApatheticNoMore
5-9-12, 3:36pm
"Civil liberties" isn't even listed as a possible choice, so I am out of luck...
I hear you bae. Major issue for me too. Would have been my second choice (after Energy and Environment).
"Civil liberties" isn't even listed as a possible choice, so I am out of luck...
I'll take a wild shot here and guess this may not have surprised you.
Well I'll take a wild shot and say the reason civil liberties aren't on the list is because most people don't feel their civil liberties are in danger, or a thing to worry about. I suppose if I were to listen to fear mongering ads put out by those with an agenda, I'd be huddled down with my gun (which I can carry in church, some schools, to political rallies, etc...) waiting for the Feds to bust down my door, led by President Obama of course, but in a quiet, thoughtful moment, I realize i enjoy more civil liberty protection than I would have 30, or 100, or 200 years ago. In fact, any erosion of my civil liberties started when Bush created Homeland Security. I happened to be living overseas when 9/11 happened, and I'm quite certain Bush's administration was listening in on my calls, e-mails, etc...
Civil Liberties erode under Republican administrations because they seem to be a bit more paranoid.
So peggy, are you saying your civil liberties have been better protected and your personal freedom has INCREASED under the current administration?
ApatheticNoMore
5-9-12, 6:55pm
Well I'll take a wild shot and say the reason civil liberties aren't on the list is because most people don't feel their civil liberties are in danger, or a thing to worry about.
Most people might really need to up their understanding of what is going on in the world, agreed!
What I mean by civil liberties (and hey the ACLU stands for these things too) is things like the right to trial (NDAA), it's things like how there is now a bill to turn everything that goes on over the internet to the government without a a warrent (CISPA), of course considering how the intellegence angencies want backdoors to personal web emails and all social networking etc. the CISPA bill may be mild in comparison :(. Some of these things are not laws yet, yes fine.
I want civil liberties here well because I do think privacy is a basic human (right? need?) so yea they shouldn't be spying on your email to your lover, it's none of their @#$# business and privacy is indeed needed for self-construction, for thinking for etc., but also because the internet is the main means of POLITICAL debate and POLITICAL information these days. I don't want the chilling effect big brother being EVERYWHERE will have on that, the awareness of someone watching everything. Some of that may already happen, the telecoms already got immunity etc.. I know (although hey I don't know EVERYTHING - I'm not the snoops!)) my arguments don't stem from complete naiveity, but rather you don't code this stuff into law! It's just wrong. Really I despair at this, this and the environmental situation and I'm so desparing at the future to such a degree, that well a news fast may be recommended. Sometimes it all seems like a perfectly sprung trap (boot stomping on a human face forever I guess? um is the boot profitable?), try to vote - you get two aweful corporatist candidates in the lead (though there's still the House Reps, there's still voting principle even if nothing comes of it), try to protest and you're met with brutality, try to get the truth out over the internet and big brother is everywhere (or wants to be at any rate).
It's not partisan, it's bipartisan, look at the voting breakdown for CISPA, way more Reps than Dems voting for that monstrosity (they'd rather argue what a horrible threat to liberty a 30% tax rate is than the governments total upsurpation of all rights to privacy on the web), but look at Obama's polcies on civil liberties - horrible (NDAA is worse than any internet law).
I mention the words "civil liberties", and out comes the prepackaged rhetoric to distract, deflect, and demean.
Very telling.
I mention the words "civil liberties", and out comes the prepackaged rhetoric to distract, deflect, and demean.
Very telling.
Right along with the prepackaged 'we're all gonna die' rhetoric.
Our civil liberties are in no more danger than under the last super paranoid administration. And ANM, really? You do have some interesting things to say but, really, where were you during the Bush years? I mean, are you young and just weren't aware, cause you sometimes act like you just became aware yesterday. All this crap you keep trying to pin on Obama was thought of, and implemented under, George. This really isn't new stuff. Really. You know, homeland security!
Now, personally, the biggest crime to our civil liberties in the last few years has definitely been the right leaning (thank you George) Supreme court that gave person hood status to corporations. That has/will do more harm to our freedoms than any e-mail listening.
We have the ACLU (which the republicans hate. I wonder why?) and public pressure. The kind of pressure that keeps republicans out of women's vaginas, literally, in certain conservative states.
You want to forestall erosion of rights? Well, it's simple. Don't vote republican, because it's these folks who want to be up your hoo haw, literally, and tell you how to live (no gay marriage, or unions) , what to do(invasive ultrasounds for women who want a legal medical procedure, no contraceptives for the rest) and how to think (real freedom is letting grandma have the 'choice' of insurance providers offered her on the open market)
So peggy, are you saying your civil liberties have been better protected and your personal freedom has INCREASED under the current administration?
It has remained the same. In fact, I do believe I can pack heat in some schools now. In Florida i can shoot someone and, as long as there aren't any witnesses, i can claim self defense and get away with it. I can carry a gun to a political rally. Only Democrat political rallies though, guns have been banned at the republican convention coming up this summer. I wonder why? I think bae should look into that. Your right to intimidate your political leaders are being infringed on.
Let's see...I have the right to unlimited campaign contributions..if I'm a (person) corporation (along with limited liability and other perks that the poor, unwashed masses don't have...suckers!)
Under this administration I feel free to ram through legislation that limits voting with a slew of stupidly unnecessary voting laws designed solely to ..well, limit voting. More suckers! (whoops, republicans again!)
Wow Peggy, it's good to see you back in rare form again. I've missed you. :~)
There's so much to comment on in your posts, but since I'm ready for bed, let's start with the following and pick up the rest tomorrow:
Now, personally, the biggest crime to our civil liberties in the last few years has definitely been the right leaning (thank you George) Supreme court that gave person hood status to corporations.
You might want to look that one up as I think you're off by a hundred years or so. Plus, the concept is all wrong. The 'corporate personhood' doctrine doesn't hold that corporations are 'people' in the literal sense, and it doesn't grant corporations all of the rights of citizens. It just means that any corporation, as a conglomeration of people, has the right to sue or be sued just as a natural person could. Is that wrong?
Amazing, simply amazing. Well, not really. Settings adjusted.
One of the biggest threats to our civil liberties is the USA Patriot Act passed under President Bush. I was in banking at the time and had to write the policies and procedures to comply with it. You would be surprised what information your bank is required to report to the Federal government on your banking activities.
One of the biggest threats to our civil liberties is the USA Patriot Act passed under President Bush.
And supported, along with its renewal and follow-on bills, by both parties.
Civil liberties aren't a partisan issue.
It is interesting how "energy and the environment" seem to reside under the same roof these days. I didn't see any surprises in the poll. It's basically where the media and the wallet have been leading people. My take would put government reform at the top with hopes the rest would fall into place.
That is very true civil liberties is not a partisan issue. But passing all of these laws is job security for many people.
Wow Peggy, it's good to see you back in rare form again. I've missed you. :~)
There's so much to comment on in your posts, but since I'm ready for bed, let's start with the following and pick up the rest tomorrow:
You might want to look that one up as I think you're off by a hundred years or so. Plus, the concept is all wrong. The 'corporate personhood' doctrine doesn't hold that corporations are 'people' in the literal sense, and it doesn't grant corporations all of the rights of citizens. It just means that any corporation, as a conglomeration of people, has the right to sue or be sued just as a natural person could. Is that wrong?
You know I'm talking about the Citizens United ruling.
You know I'm talking about the Citizens United ruling.
Would you feel the same way if the decision had been about, "McCain: The Movie"?
You know I'm talking about the Citizens United ruling.
Ahh, that's a horse of another color isn't it?
OK, riddle me this, if the First Ammendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, and it has any force, should the Congress be able to restrict political speech depending upon who is promoting it?
If you believe the answer is yes, should that apply to newspapers, TV & radio stations or other publishing/broadcast operations that may use their services to promote or validate particular political ideals? Should it apply to non-corporate associations of individuals such as your local PTA or Kiwanas club? Should it allow the existance of overtly political action groups such as MoveOn.Org?
If not, why not? Where would you draw the line?
Settings adjusted.
LOL! :laff: As if anyone cares! :laff:
ApatheticNoMore
5-10-12, 12:22pm
Well the line needs to be drawn somewhere because Citizen United has made the vote entirely meaningless and the idea of representative democracy a joke. I'd very happily do away with legally protected corporate personhood as far as limited liability altogether (since it's nothing but trouble anyway - these whole entities legally designed to care about nothing in the world but profit, that is troublesome), but I'm not sure that's really the battle on this issue. More to do with money being speech I think, when to most people speech is speaking. I don't fault the Supreme Court on the decision as such even, but just the results are to make representative democracy entirely meaningless, so we need a new approach.
And if you add this to an environment in which individuals (and by individuals I mean single ordinary probably can't even buy themselves justice individuals - not corporations!) are increasingly deprived of all rights (can readily be stripped search, protest is not speech only money is, and protestors are moved to "free speech zones") and yet the corporate right to buy the politicians is sacrosant, we've got problems. Basically the end result is somewhat tyranical rule of and for corporations.
And the bills we get out of a bought and paid for congress are horrendous, they don't just insult democracy they actually seem to represent themselves further attacks on civil liberties (SOPA, PIPA - defeated and tabled but what were these but attacks on due process with lots of entertainment industry money behind them), CISPA, etc.). Economic problems everywhere and no bills to try to address it (not that I think they have the answers but it is clearly what people care about), but a half dozen bills attacking civil liberites. But this will all come out in the wash as the Supreme Court will also rule these unconstitutional - well you know in an ideal world yes that is how it would work, but I don't see the current Supreme Court really ruling that way (I'm saying it seems an increasingly stacked deck). When BP can buy up politicians you've already reached the point of the constitution being a suicide pact (for the world as such pretty much!). And when even the privatized prison industry can buy politicians these days, you've reached utter absurdity - you can hardly even satarize this
Ahh, that's a horse of another color isn't it?
OK, riddle me this, if the First Ammendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, and it has any force, should the Congress be able to restrict political speech depending upon who is promoting it?
If you believe the answer is yes, should that apply to newspapers, TV & radio stations or other publishing/broadcast operations that may use their services to promote or validate particular political ideals? Should it apply to non-corporate associations of individuals such as your local PTA or Kiwanas club? Should it allow the existance of overtly political action groups such as MoveOn.Org?
If not, why not? Where would you draw the line?
I understand Nancy Pelosi is working on an amendment to the first amendment that would limit free speech protections to "natural persons". I'm not sure how that would apply in practice. I guess we'd have to wait for the first time someone offended the government.
I understand Nancy Pelosi is working on an amendment to the first amendment that would limit free speech protections to "natural persons". I'm not sure how that would apply in practice. I guess we'd have to wait for the first time someone offended the government.
I thought this was interesting - court ruled that "like" in Facebook isn't covered under free speech, even though this is used by millions to express opinions everyday.
http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/does-your-facebook-count-free-speech-749433
I thought this was interesting - court ruled that "like" in Facebook isn't covered under free speech, even though this is used by millions to express opinions everyday.
http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/technology/technolog/does-your-facebook-count-free-speech-749433
I'm having trouble following his reasoning. Must be one of those penumbra things.
I understand Nancy Pelosi is working on an amendment to the first amendment that would limit free speech protections to "natural persons". I'm not sure how that would apply in practice. I guess we'd have to wait for the first time someone offended the government.
She's endorsed the Peoples Rights Amendment here:
http://peoplesrightsamendment.org/ No restrictions on natural persons, in fact, it protects the rights of natural persons.
You know, peggy, not once did ANM mention a political party or a president in either assertion. ANM mentioned specific laws (congress) and rulings (supreme court) that give her pause about civil liberty issues in the current era. they give me pause too. So also does the Patriot Act, which i, personally, saw as a huge problem in regards to civil liberties.
And, there are laws before, and there will be laws after.
like bae, I wonder why it's not even on the list. Though< i would say that the economy is number one for me, too at this point.
What is it we really mean when we say "the economy"? Almost every poll, and a good chunk of us here (including me), all say that is the top concern. I suppose it is a vague and extremely broad term by design, but it does strike me as funny that so many of us emphasize something, even to the point of selecting leaders based on their direction, that could actually mean something completely different for each of us.
She's endorsed the Peoples Rights Amendment here:
http://peoplesrightsamendment.org/ No restrictions on natural persons, in fact, it protects the rights of natural persons.
I said it would limit speech protection to, not of "natural persons". It wasn't clear to me how that would work in practice. Would any entity with a corporate charter, such as the New York Times, Planned Parenthood, Yale University or the Disney Corporation then be subject to any speech restrictions Congress or state legislatures chose to pass?
If we decide to lead off the Bill of Rights with something like this, and we fall into the mindset that rights can be exercised individually but not in groups, it moves forward the day when government itself is the last institution standing.
If we decide to lead off the Bill of Rights with something like this, and we fall into the mindset that rights can be exercised individually but not in groups, it moves forward the day when government itself is the last institution standing.
Exactly! A statist utopia.
I said it would limit speech protection to, not of "natural persons". It wasn't clear to me how that would work in practice. Would any entity with a corporate charter, such as the New York Times, Planned Parenthood, Yale University or the Disney Corporation then be subject to any speech restrictions Congress or state legislatures chose to pass?
If we decide to lead off the Bill of Rights with something like this, and we fall into the mindset that rights can be exercised individually but not in groups, it moves forward the day when government itself is the last institution standing.
Money really isn't speech, as it turns out. Making public statements, like Planned Parenthood or Disney might make, isn't the same as anonymously funding a super pac to the tune of millions of dollars. This is the danger of Citizens United. It has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Each and every one of those corporations had/has/will have freedom of speech, just as you or me. What this ruling does is open the floodgate of money, way more than you or I, therefore way more important to the politician. And the super pacs lets them accept way more than the limit that used to be, I think 5,000 or something like that. So, big corporations with definite agendas can dump millions behind candidates, or against candidates if said candidate doesn't tow their particular line.
Now, if that super pac sets up a 'non profit' they can take it further and accept that money anonymously, making it way more easy for a particular corporation with tons of money to burn but a reputation to uphold, to back whatever friendly politician they want. Disney, for instance, may want to back a pol who wants to segregate schools, limit birth control access, teach creationism in schools, and reinstate poll tax in the form of voter ID legislation, or in other words, a republican. But it doesn't exactly want to be associated with these regressive ideas. Well, now they can donate to Carl Rove's 'non-profit' and no one need know.
Citizens United is not about free speech. It is about money and power, pure and simple.
The Supremes have become a reflection of the republican congress. No thoughtful considerations there. They vote party line, down the line.
The Supremes have become a reflection of the republican congress....... They vote party line, down the line.
...No thoughtful considerations there...
Ironic, dontcha think?
What is it we really mean when we say "the economy"? Almost every poll, and a good chunk of us here (including me), all say that is the top concern. I suppose it is a vague and extremely broad term by design, but it does strike me as funny that so many of us emphasize something, even to the point of selecting leaders based on their direction, that could actually mean something completely different for each of us.
Exactly my feelings as far as 'civil liberties' go. It's one of those things people say but can't really define what they mean. It's like the beauty queen contestant who wishes for 'world peace' (don't they all!) It's just something that people say.
The civil rights movement made it illegal to refuse a black person a seat at the lunch counter. But I'm guessing that lunch counter owner felt HIS civil rights were being violated by that. One persons rights may infringe on another's 'rights'. Plenty of people think it's perfectly OK to discriminate against gays, and deny them the right to marry, just as it was illegal for a white and black to marry in the 50's in many states. And they don't' think twice to stand up and say so, or try to push legislation towards a ban, with certain elected leaders even promising to try to write it into our constitution. But, 30 years from now, or 40 years from now, will we view these people like we view George Wallace now? Will we remember them as backwards bigots who failed to see the coming comet (in dinosaur speak)? I think so.
So, looking at history as a whole, and not just my little corner of it, I, certainly as a woman, enjoy way more rights now than anytime in history. Now I never said it's time to sit back, crack a beer and just let it roll. There are specific areas that need watching and work. ANM points out a few certainly, Citizens United especially. But, looking at the big picture, I can see why civil liberties would not be on a top ten worry list. Things are not black and white. It may be number 15, just not in the top ten.
Would you feel the same way if the decision had been about, "McCain: The Movie"?
Uh...you lost me here guy. Maybe I'm just being dense. I've had snakes on my mind.
Please explain.
Well the line needs to be drawn somewhere because Citizen United has made the vote entirely meaningless and the idea of representative democracy a joke. I'd very happily do away with legally protected corporate personhood as far as limited liability altogether (since it's nothing but trouble anyway - these whole entities legally designed to care about nothing in the world but profit, that is troublesome), but I'm not sure that's really the battle on this issue. More to do with money being speech I think, when to most people speech is speaking. I don't fault the Supreme Court on the decision as such even, but just the results are to make representative democracy entirely meaningless, so we need a new approach.
....it seems an increasingly stacked deck). When BP can buy up politicians you've already reached the point of the constitution being a suicide pact (for the world as such pretty much!). And when even the privatized prison industry can buy politicians these days, you've reached utter absurdity - you can hardly even satarize this
+1
Uh...you lost me here guy. Maybe I'm just being dense. I've had snakes on my mind.
Please explain.
Reference to "Hillary: The Movie" that got the whole Citizens United bandwagon rolling. Sorry if my comment was snarky, but I do think it would be interesting to look at how the response may have been different if it had been a prominent Republican who was featured in a "film" as opposed to a Democrat.
Money really isn't speech, as it turns out.
Saying “money isn’t speech” is the wannabe censor’s way of saying “if we can’t stifle the speech itself, we can put limits on it’s dissemination”. Citizens United was a failed attempt at this. Mrs. Pelosi’s proposed amendment is the next logical step after the Citizens United defeat . If the Bill of Rights presents an obstacle to censoring speech promulgated by opposing organizations, then remove the applicability of the Bill of Rights to those organizations. It has a certain brutal simplicity to it.
ApatheticNoMore
5-11-12, 12:31pm
I think by the economy most people mean JOBS but I can see how if your self-employed the take would be a little different (the economy then would mean customers with money they can and want to spend because without that you have no business).
Now I suppose some people might worry about the performance of their investments or that various goverments (states mostly) can't fund anything due partly to the economic situation reducing revenues (or in other words over rosey estimates) and especially if you are a public sector worker, but still for most the focus is JOBS.
And why jobs or customers? Because it's how the vast majority (the 99%? :)) survive. Simple. That I think making this the only concern and looking over all else is short-sighted. Yes, I do. And I did when unemployed (but there is a level of visceral fear there where you just hope for the economy to be good enough for you to get a job ... that can swamp ability to take some long nuanced perspective, it's personal, it's visceral.). And with money in the bank you take the long term perspective? Yes, I take it a little more securely with that. There's a certain amount of priviledge there that I wish everyone had when they were evaluating the political situation (but again it's not immunity - FI might be). And the long term perspective for me is we have got to care about the environment.
ApatheticNoMore
5-11-12, 12:41pm
Currently we seem to be moving toward a situation in which a few big corporations and a government that will back them (and they are heavily intertwined) are the last institutions standing (and hey remove the other things government does like Social Security, like some wish to, and that will the sum total of what the government is - the enforcer and enabler of corporate power).
Other institutions may exist but they have no political power. I mean honestly do churches, or unions, or non-profits have that power? No, because they don't generally have that money.
Currently we seem to be moving toward a situation in which a few big corporations and a government that will back them (and they are heavily intertwined) are the last institutions standing (and hey remove the other things government does like Social Security, like some wish to, and that will the sum total of what the government is - the enforcer and enabler of corporate power).
Other institutions may exist but they have no political power. I mean honestly do churches, or unions, or non-profits have that power? No, because they don't generally have that money.
Exactly!! ++1
Currently we seem to be moving toward a situation in which a few big corporations and a government that will back them (and they are heavily intertwined) are the last institutions standing (and hey remove the other things government does like Social Security, like some wish to, and that will the sum total of what the government is - the enforcer and enabler of corporate power).
Other institutions may exist but they have no political power. I mean honestly do churches, or unions, or non-profits have that power? No, because they don't generally have that money.
FYI
Full list here: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
I had to delete the tilt symbols to get it to post but you get the idea:
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012
LEGEND: http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/elephant.gif Republican http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/donkey.gif Democrat http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/fence.gif On the fence
http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/fence.gif
http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/elephant.gif
http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/donkey.gif http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/donkey.gif
http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/elephant.gif http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/elephant.gif http://assets.opensecrets.org/img/elephant.gif
= Between 40% and 59% to both parties
= Leans Dem/Repub (60%-69%)
= Strongly Dem/Repub (70%-89%)
= Solidly Dem/Repub (over 90%)
Rank
Organization
Total '89-'12
Dem %
Repub %
Tilt
1
ActBlue (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000021806)
$61,045,753
99%
0%
2
AT&T Inc (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000076)
$48,552,272
43%
55%
3
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000061)
$47,869,048
92%
1%
4
National Assn of Realtors (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000062)
$41,770,326
47%
49%
5
Service Employees International Union (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000077)
$38,819,196
74%
2%
6
National Education Assn (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000064)
$38,284,919
80%
5%
7
Goldman Sachs (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000085)
$38,135,456
58%
39%
8
American Assn for Justice (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000065)
$35,793,179
88%
8%
9
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000069)
$34,928,253
97%
2%
10
American Federation of Teachers (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000083)
$32,850,516
89%
0%
11
Teamsters Union (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000066)
$32,657,878
87%
5%
12
Laborers Union (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000074)
$32,629,200
88%
7%
13
Carpenters & Joiners Union (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000073)
$31,622,758
86%
10%
14
Communications Workers of America (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000075)
$31,271,197
92%
0%
15
Citigroup Inc (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000071)
$29,433,390
49%
49%
16
American Medical Assn (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000068)
$28,016,861
40%
59%
17
United Food & Commercial Workers Union (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000072)
$27,981,755
92%
0%
18
United Auto Workers (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000070)
$27,926,225
98%
0%
19
National Auto Dealers Assn (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000080)
$27,680,258
32%
67%
20
Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union (http://www.simplelivingforum.net/summary.php?id=D000000078)
$27,379,727
98%
1%
Saying “money isn’t speech” is the wannabe censor’s way of saying “if we can’t stifle the speech itself, we can put limits on it’s dissemination”. Citizens United was a failed attempt at this. Mrs. Pelosi’s proposed amendment is the next logical step after the Citizens United defeat . If the Bill of Rights presents an obstacle to censoring speech promulgated by opposing organizations, then remove the applicability of the Bill of Rights to those organizations. It has a certain brutal simplicity to it.
and saying "money is speech" is the power broker (wannabe) saying "those with the most money should have the most say" in politics.
Limits on the dissemination of speech? Really? Once again, it's the golden rule. He who has the gold, rules. I find it sad, in an ironic way, that those who call themselves tea partiers, in reference to the famous revolt from the tyranny of kings, are so anxious to be ruled by the vast monies of corporate kings. A different master but the same outcome. Rules and regulations and tax code, and policies written (bought) to benefit the rulers.
If you poke around Yossarian's link you see just who buys the politicians. The dems are largely representing the workers, unions, teachers, police, average everyday Americans. The republicans, who have the top 3 pacs by the way, and a larger percentage of the top 10, are representing the bankers, the auto coporations (not the auto workers) the big oil companies, insurance companies, and one pac that is just called 'republicans' or something like that which I'm guessing makes up all the social agenda folks who just generally like the republican message. You know, like writing discrimination into the constitution.
and of course now, under the guise of 'non-profit', super pacs can get out their message without us knowing who exactly is sponsoring that nasty attack ad. So in this case, they want all the 'free speech' their deep pockets can buy, they just don't want to stand behind their 'free speech'.
Is this what tea partiers are all about? Is this the tea party revolution you all wanted?
If money is speech, then the average American whisper will never again be heard over the corporate shouting.
Reference to "Hillary: The Movie" that got the whole Citizens United bandwagon rolling. Sorry if my comment was snarky, but I do think it would be interesting to look at how the response may have been different if it had been a prominent Republican who was featured in a "film" as opposed to a Democrat.
Once again I'm out of the loop. They made a movie about Hillary? How, exactly, did this bring about Citizens United? Just the crib notes please.
Difference between me and your average republican, I don't decide the rightness or wrongness of something by first checking party affiliation.
For instance, unlike Rush, I would never say cheating on your wife makes you a better candidate simply because it's a republican doing it. I never supported John Edwards cheating on his wife. And I would think a focus on healthy eating and lifestyle is good, even if a republican first lady were behind it. Just 2 examples.
Once again I'm out of the loop. They made a movie about Hillary? How, exactly, did this bring about Citizens United?
Peggy, even though you've expressed a great deal of opinion about the case, it might help to actually understand it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission for a primer.
PACS are so yesterday - now it's Super PACs. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
Super PACs tilting Republican/conservative, of course. "One Super PAC, 'Restore Our Future', has already spent more - $44.5 million - than all outside groups combined had spent at this point in 2008."
ApatheticNoMore
5-11-12, 5:49pm
My understanding is at this point we don't even know who is funding the Super PACs.
Peggy, even though you've expressed a great deal of opinion about the case, it might help to actually understand it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission for a primer.
I certainly understand the case, always did. I still think it's wrong...even if it were a hit piece on McCain. But as Lainey points out, super pacs give those anonymous corporate speechifiers, with exceedingly deep pockets, freedom to just hack away at whomever won't do their bidding. Highest dollar goes to the best little pet.
How you self described freedom lovers can not see this as a bad thing is beyond me. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
I certainly understand the case, always did. I still think it's wrong...even if it were a hit piece on McCain. But as Lainey points out, super pacs give those anonymous corporate speechifiers, with exceedingly deep pockets, freedom to just hack away at whomever won't do their bidding. Highest dollar goes to the best little pet.
How you self described freedom lovers can not see this as a bad thing is beyond me. The founding fathers are rolling in their graves.
I guess we "self described freedom lovers" understand that Citizens United and the Supreme Court have nothing to do with super pacs. They are a result of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/speechnow.shtml).
This "freedom lover" also believes that all political speech is protected. Otherwise, what's the point?
PACS are so yesterday - now it's Super PACs. http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
Super PACs tilting Republican/conservative, of course. "One Super PAC, 'Restore Our Future', has already spent more - $44.5 million - than all outside groups combined had spent at this point in 2008."
Chump change. Elections cost Billions now. 5.3 Billion in 2008.
See http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-10-22-electmoney_N.htm
We ain't seen nothing yet.
I guess we "self described freedom lovers" understand that Citizens United and the Supreme Court have nothing to do with super pacs. They are a result of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/speechnow.shtml).
This "freedom lover" also believes that all political speech is protected. Otherwise, what's the point?
Oh but they are related Alan. Everything is connected. Just follow the money.
http://www.iwatchnews.org/2012/04/26/8753/top-10-donors-make-third-donations-super-pacs
"This marks the first presidential election following the landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, decided in January 2010. The conservative majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices ruled that spending on independent messages that support or oppose federal candidates by corporations and labor unions does not lead to corruption.
A few months later, a federal court cited this rationale in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission. That decision led directly to the creation of super PACs. It said that outside spending groups — like American Crossroads, for example — could accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals to be spent on political ads.
Previously, if a group wanted to expressly advocate for or against a federal candidate, it could only collect $5,000 per person per year.
If an independent group were to raise $5 million for high-profile TV ad campaign advocating against the president or members of Congress, it would need at least 1,000 donors in a year to give the legal maximum. Now, one wealthy individual can single-handedly give a super PAC the cash it needs — and change the political dynamics of a race overnight."
Again, you try to equate freedom of speech with spending money. I suppose that's the ultimate consumerism. Buy a yacht, buy a McMansion, buy a politician.
I'll look for free speech on the shelves next time I'm at Walmart.
Nuance Peggy, nuance.
What dollar amount do you put on freedom of speech? Is it $1000? $5000? Do you limit it by number of words in a newspaper or number of seconds on a TV or radio spot? Or, do you simply limit it to certain preferred groups? I'm curious.
or number of seconds on a TV or radio spot?
I'll vote for restrictions on the number of seconds on TV if it means I don't have to see George Clooney any more.
I guess we "self described freedom lovers" understand that Citizens United and the Supreme Court have nothing to do with super pacs. They are a result of a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission (http://www.fec.gov/law/litigation/speechnow.shtml).
This "freedom lover" also believes that all political speech is protected. Otherwise, what's the point?
What's the point indeed? I think we're seeing two mutually incomprehensible camps here.
On the one side are the people who believe you can purchase some kind of "fairness" with little slivers of freedom. Limiting the media space occupied by George Soros or the Koch brothers seems to them to be a reasonable price if it "levels the playing field". Forcing people to buy insurance seems an acceptable imposition if it means no one need count the cost of abortifacients. The tax code is as much a tool for income distribution as for revenue raising. What matters above all is that outcomes be evened out, and the only entity capable of doing that is a government exercising comprehensive power. More decisions need to be made by politics and fewer by markets.
On the other side are the people who feel the constitution should be read as it is written. Who take the "shall not be infringed" and "shall not be abridged" parts seriously. Who are uncomfortable with trimming or temporizing or otherwise compromiising the list of items government is explicitly prohibited from interfering with. Who view Americans as capable of sorting out the nonsense from the truth in the media on their own. Who accept the price of blowhards bloviating as a cost of doing business in a free society, and who see certain freedoms as non-negotiable.
I'm not sure how you close the gap.
ApatheticNoMore
5-12-12, 1:38pm
I'm pretty absolutist on the civil liberties. And I can certainly see a problem with politicians being purchased outright by money and worse money which the citizens can't even find out the source of. I can see a problem when letters to congress people (our so called representatives) don't even matter in the slightest because they no longer care what the people think, only what the PACs think. I can see a problem, when anything and the destruction of absolutely anything is allowed and unpunished (including the entire gulf) because corporations have purchased the politicians.
Really you think this cluster is what the founders intended? If so congrats you agree with the historical revisionists critics of the constitution, I guess. This is constitution as suicide pact. I think what many who support this really want is to live in a corporate police state, and oh boy are they are going to get it! 1 million is spent on police gear for potential protests in Chicago, but remember peeps free speech is a super PAC buying a politician, repeat after me: protests are not speech. Your only free until you decide you want to change something (via first writing letters to the congress people, then protests), then you'll see with just how much overwhelming force the system is maintained (and that force increases all the time - police are being militarized outright all over the country - but as conditions grow worse and worse for people, maybe that force needs to increase all the time?). And this is supposed to somehow be better than what was once at least the pretense of functioning democracy.
I'm pretty absolutist on the civil liberties. And I can certainly see a problem with politicians being purchased outright by money and worse money which the citizens can't even find out the source of. I can see a problem when letters to congress people (our so called representatives) don't even matter in the slightest because they no longer care what the people think, only what the PACs think. I can see a problem, when anything and the destruction of absolutely anything is allowed and unpunished (including the entire gulf) because corporations have purchased the politicians.
Really you think this cluster is what the founders intended? If so congrats you agree with the historical revisionists critics of the constitution, I guess. This is constitution as suicide pact. I think what many who support this really want is to live in a corporate police state, and oh boy are they are going to get it! 1 million is spent on police gear for potential protests in Chicago, but remember peeps free speech is a super PAC buying a politician, repeat after me: protests are not speech. Your only free until you decide you want to change something (via first writing letters to the congress people, then protests), then you'll see with just how much overwhelming force the system is maintained (and that force increases all the time - police are being militarized outright all over the country - but as conditions grow worse and worse for people, maybe that force needs to increase all the time?). And this is supposed to somehow be better than what was once at least the pretense of functioning democracy.
Even if I bought into this, how would abridging the Bill of Rights be a remedy? If the political system is as hopelessly corrupt as you seem to believe, how would easing the restrictions placed on government do anything but make the situation worse?
Nuance Peggy, nuance.
What dollar amount do you put on freedom of speech? Is it $1000? $5000? Do you limit it by number of words in a newspaper or number of seconds on a TV or radio spot? Or, do you simply limit it to certain preferred groups? I'm curious.
Gee Alan, what is the going rate for free speech?
The reason there used to be limits on campaign spending and air time and equal air time is precisely because elections should be fair. If nothing else in this world is fair, and precious little is, our political elections should be. Limits on corporate and union, and even individuals spending helped to keep ALL voices heard. Our leaders knew that if the wallets had no limit, then what would happen is exactly what IS happening. A very few DEEP pockets are running the show, buying up politicians, or at least keeping them in line with threats of funding the opposition. And the pols, in turn, are writing legislation and policy to benefit their benefactors. Money corrupts, and where the money is is where the pols will be. There are plenty of politicians for sale if the ones in office don't do the deep pockets bidding. How can you not see that?
Curious take from one who spoke negative about those who would withhold money from Komen for the Cure, or refuse to shop at Walmart or promote a boycott of any corporation whom they thought not up to their standards and/or evil doing.
And what if I happen to own stock in that corporation and don't like the 'free speech' they are buying? Gee, now that free speech is for sale, we CAN put a price on it. I'm thinking that now the wallets are open, the price of free speech is going to go way up. Unfortunately, only the big corporations and fat cats will get the best (for them) politician money can buy.
And what if I happen to own stock in that corporation and don't like the 'free speech' they are buying? Gee, now that free speech is for sale, we CAN put a price on it. I'm thinking that now the wallets are open, the price of free speech is going to go way up. Unfortunately, only the big corporations and fat cats will get the best (for them) politician money can buy.
What about owning stock in a political party? Why don't we encourage each (all) of them to offer an IPO and go public. That would give anyone a chance to own a stake and thanks to already-in-place securities laws we would know the names of all the major share holders and the board members. That might be a way the parties could finally pay their own way not to mention adding some transparency to the whole process.
What about owning stock in a political party? Why don't we encourage each (all) of them to offer an IPO and go public. That would give anyone a chance to own a stake and thanks to already-in-place securities laws we would know the names of all the major share holders and the board members. That might be a way the parties could finally pay their own way not to mention adding some transparency to the whole process.
Well, that would add transparency, but it wouldn't change the fact that the really deep pockets still would own the party, or particular politician.
We all can support our favorite now without the IPO, but my paltry few hundred won't even be noticed among the piles of cash from some corporation or individual who just happens to also support some friendly-to-them legislation.
My dollars might gas up the limo to take the fat cat on a cruise.!Splat!
My dollars might gas up the limo to take the fat cat on a cruise.!Splat!
Very true, but at least those dollars would have been committed to the cause voluntarily.
ApatheticNoMore
5-14-12, 2:25pm
What about owning stock in a political party? Why don't we encourage each (all) of them to offer an IPO and go public. That would give anyone a chance to own a stake and thanks to already-in-place securities laws we would know the names of all the major share holders and the board members. That might be a way the parties could finally pay their own way not to mention adding some transparency to the whole process.
Hillarious, this has a modest proposal feel to it :laff: America Inc. But really since this all seems to be going on anyway making it above board might well be an improvement. ACTUALLY KNOWING that a political party is NOTHING MORE than a paid subsidiary of Exxon or something would be an improvement.
Well of course they take the positions they do, they are only acting as they must as the paid representives of Exxon afterall, I mean duh, why would anyone imagine it would be any different? There's no point in trying to understand anymore than trying to understand the logic of a salesman, he is paid to sell what he sells and that's about all there is to it. I could say I currently own a .0000001% share in my congressman (no, no, not enough share to get much return for my investment for sure - that return all goes to the fat cats).
Very true, but at least those dollars would have been committed to the cause voluntarily.
To make laws we all have to live under whether we want to or not, unless we disobey them.... um why disobey them voluntarily of course! (though that's what a police state's for - only way to keep a social contract that's so corrupt the majority starts giving up on it).
What about owning stock in a political party? Why don't we encourage each (all) of them to offer an IPO and go public. That would give anyone a chance to own a stake and thanks to already-in-place securities laws we would know the names of all the major share holders and the board members. That might be a way the parties could finally pay their own way not to mention adding some transparency to the whole process.
Ahhh...you were joking!:laff::laff: Of course you were. :doh: I guess I was on idle this morning.
Yes, let's be open about selling our politicians. But only on the National level. Blagojevich stays in jail!;)
Well of course they take the positions they do, they are only acting as they must as the paid representives of Exxon afterall, I mean duh, why would anyone imagine it would be any different? There's no point in trying to understand anymore than trying to understand the logic of a salesman, he is paid to sell what he sells and that's about all there is to it.
I'll admit to being a little tongue-in-cheek earlier, but it is worth remembering that political parties (ALL of them) are private organizations that play by far different rules than the candidates that attach themselves to the parties. They seem to work in the best of all worlds. A private organization that people line up to throw money at that also receives public funding and public subsidy at every turn? I gotta get myself one of those!
And yea, Blago stays put. He should get 5 to 10 just for the hair.
Perhaps we could apply a solution similar to health care. Mandatory political contributions. We all enjoy the benefits of democracy, so why allow freeloaders? Surely the Commerce Clause can be extended to cover the marketplace of ideas. A panel of experts could be appointed to determine which candidates were covered on a cost-effectiveness basis. If your children have no opinions of their own, they could be covered by your worldview until they were 26.
A friend on facebook re-posted a semi tongue in cheek idea about this a while back. It was, why couldn't politicians have uniforms like nascar drivers, covered in the logos of all their sponsors. At least then everyone would know who was paying for the politician's 'opinion'. I'm not quite sure what the real answer is short of eliminating the ability of anyone to use TV to express a political opinion, which of course has it's own issues. (and isn't likely to get anywhere since the TV lobby would have a conniption fit at the idea of all that lost revenue...) Barring that I think that the next best thing would at least be true transparency about who is supporting what politician, so maybe gray suits covered in logos might not be so bad...
Perhaps we could apply a solution similar to health care. Mandatory political contributions. We all enjoy the benefits of democracy, so why allow freeloaders? Surely the Commerce Clause can be extended to cover the marketplace of ideas. A panel of experts could be appointed to determine which candidates were covered on a cost-effectiveness basis. If your children have no opinions of their own, they could be covered by your worldview until they were 26.
We do have mandatory political contributions. It's called a salary, with benefits and pension, and...wait for it... government run health care! A perk not one, including all those republican/conservative/tea baggers wouldn't give up for anything!
I can't believe anyone supports a political leader who is against! against I tell you his constituents enjoying the same health care he/she does. And why don't the good little conservative foot soldiers who argue against these health care plans at any chance ever question their favorite conservative politicians own health care? Don't' you see the total irony of this? Just once, ask them and see what they say. Where is the tea party now? Including the tea party candidates who made into office the last time. Have any of them introduced legislation to do away with their government run health care? How can you support them when they enjoy, and cling desperately to, the very thing they profess to be against..for you of course.
I'll believe the sincerity of these a**clowns the day they advocate canceling congresses government run health care plans in favor of the 'freedom' of buying on the open market.
We do have mandatory political contributions. It's called a salary, with benefits and pension, and...wait for it... government run health care! A perk not one, including all those republican/conservative/tea baggers wouldn't give up for anything!
Did I miss the line up of Democratic Senators demanding that their benefit package be eliminated?
Where is the tea party now? Including the tea party candidates who made into office the last time. Have any of them introduced legislation to do away with their government run health care?
It seems the Tea Party has priorities that don't align with yours, peggy. My only question is why you thought they did?
We do have mandatory political contributions. It's called a salary, with benefits and pension, and...wait for it... government run health care! A perk not one, including all those republican/conservative/tea baggers wouldn't give up for anything!
So, you're against an employer providing benefits to employees? That doesn't sound very progressive to me, but perhaps the idea of the government providing all things to all people is so progressive I simply can't grok it.
I can't believe anyone supports a political leader who is against! against I tell you his constituents enjoying the same health care he/she does. And why don't the good little conservative foot soldiers who argue against these health care plans at any chance ever question their favorite conservative politicians own health care? Don't' you see the total irony of this?
Frankly, No, I don't see the irony in that. I don't know of any "good little conservative foot soldiers" who argue against health plans, although I do know a few who argue against the government assuming responsibility for everyone's health choices. Maybe you're just getting them confused.
Including the tea party candidates who made into office the last time. Have any of them introduced legislation to do away with their government run health care? How can you support them when they enjoy, and cling desperately to, the very thing they profess to be against..for you of course.
I think that's a false narrative. Don't you?
I'll believe the sincerity of these a**clowns the day they advocate canceling congresses government run health care plans in favor of the 'freedom' of buying on the open market.
Your hostility and anger are disturbing. Is everything ok?
ApatheticNoMore
5-15-12, 3:52pm
So, you're against an employer providing benefits to employees? That doesn't sound very progressive to me, but perhaps the idea of the government providing all things to all people is so progressive I simply can't grok it.
I think that employer provided health insurance works pretty badly at this point is just empirical. So that either individual or government provided health care (or probably some combination) at this point would likely be an improvment. Of course by government provided I mean some variant of single payer even if just for emergencies. Being that that is nowhere on the horizon, and what we have is a health care law written with the insurance companies at the table, hmm well that's just such a hybrid of I don't know what, that I can't say I have great faith in *that* particular plan working (Obamacare).
Anyway, health care tied to jobs, whose brillant idea was that? Well actually it probably wasn't anyone's idea in the sense that it was proposed as grand policy or anything. It just kind of evolved out of tax policy and so on I think. And now we're stuck with it, and it doesn't work very well, and less people start their own businesses than in many other countries because health care is tied to jobs, and if you lose a job (like maybe 10% of the population now officially?) you find yourself without health care, and wastefulness in healthcare is out of control (over-prescription certainly is), and doctors don't really give a rip about their patients, and more is spent on healthcare than anywhere else in the world. And well it's a total mess.
Did I miss the line up of Democratic Senators demanding that their benefit package be eliminated?
It seems the Tea Party has priorities that don't align with yours, peggy. My only question is why you thought they did?
The democrats enjoy government run health care and know it works. And, here's the difference between dems and repubs, the democrats want YOU and me and everyone to have the same good health care they have. The republicans, on the other hand, want what they have, but they don't want you to have it. And they have convinced, somehow, an army of people that they, the politicians, deserve this good coverage but we the people don't. That in fact having government run health care, single payer, or even simply regulations on the insurance industry that protect we the people, like Obamacare, it's actually curtailing our freedoms..somehow.
I see their lips moving and I see the masses nodding and it's just maddening!
The tea baggers rode in on their white horses going to save us all from the evil government, with swords drawn and Grover Norquest on their flag. They were going to cut to the bone all unnecessary spending, and quite a bit of the necessary spending as well. Wasn't this evil, government run health care program somewhere on the list? No? Is it maybe because they themselves are suddenly beneficiaries of this evil program, and actually see (oh the horrors!) the benefit of this? For them, of course.
What a bunch of phonies. They are all about cutting..your stuff. But hands off their stuff.
The democrats enjoy government run health care and know it works. And, here's the difference between dems and repubs, the democrats want YOU and me and everyone to have the same good health care they have. The republicans, on the other hand, want what they have, but they don't want you to have it. And they have convinced, somehow, an army of people that they, the politicians, deserve this good coverage but we the people don't. That in fact having government run health care, single payer, or even simply regulations on the insurance industry that protect we the people, like Obamacare, it's actually curtailing our freedoms..somehow.
I see their lips moving and I see the masses nodding and it's just maddening!
The tea baggers rode in on their white horses going to save us all from the evil government, with swords drawn and Grover Norquest on their flag. They were going to cut to the bone all unnecessary spending, and quite a bit of the necessary spending as well. Wasn't this evil, government run health care program somewhere on the list? No? Is it maybe because they themselves are suddenly beneficiaries of this evil program, and actually see (oh the horrors!) the benefit of this? For them, of course.
What a bunch of phonies. They are all about cutting..your stuff. But hands off their stuff.
I'd be happy seeing Congress doing as little as putting themselves on the same page as the rest of us and switching over from a pension to a 401k, when many of them deride pensions for government employees. But I don't expect to see that brought up, either.
I'd be happy seeing Congress doing as little as putting themselves on the same page as the rest of us and switching over from a pension to a 401k, when many of them deride pensions for government employees. But I don't expect to see that brought up, either.
Maybe it's simply a matter of perspective but I don't see anyone deriding pensions for government employees. I do see forward looking people concluding that the scope and size of the pension liability is unsustainable, which it is.
Maybe it's simply a matter of perspective but I don't see anyone deriding pensions for government employees. I do see forward looking people concluding that the scope and size of the pension liability is unsustainable, which it is.
Apparently not for congressmen, though.
So, you're against an employer providing benefits to employees? That doesn't sound very progressive to me, but perhaps the idea of the government providing all things to all people is so progressive I simply can't grok it.
Frankly, No, I don't see the irony in that. I don't know of any "good little conservative foot soldiers" who argue against health plans, although I do know a few who argue against the government assuming responsibility for everyone's health choices. Maybe you're just getting them confused.
I think that's a false narrative. Don't you?
Your hostility and anger are disturbing. Is everything ok?
I don't know why I get sucked into these ridiculous arguments. No matter what the conversation is, someone, this time LDAHL, will turn it into an indictment of Obamacare. And it just drives me nuts that these people don't even know what Obamacare is. They don't even realize it's really mostly better regulation of the insurance industry so they themselves are protected if they get cancer, or have a child with some birth defect, whether that defect actually impacts them in later life or not. They don't realize that most of it hasn't even gone into effect yet, but declare it a disaster. And that some of it, that has gone into effect, actually may even be benefiting them, like keeping your young adult on your family plan until they are 26. Yeah, that's part of Obamacare. And it's not free. We, who have young adult kids, pay for this in our family plan. the 'government' isn't paying for this. Taxpayers aren't paying for this. We are, and grateful for it as our kids graduate and look for work with benefits in this tough economy. This IS Obama care.
It's not death panels. Those are called insurance companies and they have been running their death panels for quite some time now. But only if you could afford the opportunity to go before their death panels.
It's not free health care for everyone. Everyone plays so everyone pays.
What it is is an attempt to make sure everyone pays according to their ability so everyone is covered, at least with basic health care.
Yeah, that takes away my freedom doesn't it...Except, now which freedom is it taking away, exactly?
Yet, Fox news and Rush Limbaugh (now there is a great thinker..) have convinced the low information folks, and there seems to be lots of them, that it's not in their best interest to have adequate health care. These millionaires and billionaires have drummed into these people that to be truly free is to go without health care (either you can't afford it or simply don't want to pay) because someone else will pick up the tab when you have your heart attack. Yes sir, that's freedom.
Well, as my husband likes to say, you can't fix stupid. So I will endeavor to stay out of these arguments.
*Full disclosure. I'm covered. I don't need Obamacare. I enjoy the best health care this country has to offer, without the fear of bankruptcy, or choosing pills over food, or any of the other realities most other people face. And I will be able to move into my later years with the comfortable knowledge that i will be taken care of. I absolutely don't have a dog in this fight except my sense of decency and moral truth. So, I'm done. And just like your congressman, I got mine.
Apparently not for congressmen, though.
I don't think it's surprising that those who make the rules like to exclude themselves from the masses they seek to control, but in terms of pensions, there are currently somewhere around 12 million active government employees awaiting their guaranteed pensions, and a likely equal number currently receiving them. At the same time, those participating in the private sector are a shrinking demographic as a percentage of total population and must fund increasingly higher numbers of peoples pensions, which are on average more generous than the private sector can hope to enjoy.
Congressional perks may be a prominant symbol of the problem, but they're not the problem.
Yet, Fox news and Rush Limbaugh (now there is a great thinker..) have convinced the low information folks, and there seems to be lots of them, that it's not in their best interest to have adequate health care. These millionaires and billionaires have drummed into these people that to be truly free is to go without health care (either you can't afford it or simply don't want to pay) because someone else will pick up the tab when you have your heart attack. Yes sir, that's freedom.
You may be mis-hearing the argument. I've never heard anyone say it's not in their best interest to have adequate health care. The argument is whether or not our government, the government that works for us, has the ability to dictate what levels and what type of health care we may receive and what price we must pay for it.
If you believe that the ends always justify the means, then Obamacare is just the ticket for you. If you don't believe that, you're not necessarily "low information folks", although it might be easier to dismiss them with that perjorative rather than confront the error of our own beliefs.
This IS Obama care.
Peggy, we understand that healthcare/Obamacare is your top priority in this election. Let the rest of us "low information folks" come up with our own priorities. There are a few other things that could use a little attention, ya know. Just a guess, the candidate that figures out what priorities are on top for the most people will win.
ApatheticNoMore
5-18-12, 5:52pm
Civil liberties might not be a partisan issue but look at that vote breakdown. This is the vote for the Smith-Amash ammendment to the NDAA that would require civilian trials for those arrested in the U.S..
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll270.xml
So hmm, those "small government" Republicans don't think poeple should have the right to trail but believe the government should lock them away indefinitely just on the government's word. Hmm. That is what Republican victory in the house has brought. Of all the things in their view that government shouldn't be allowed to do (like regulate polluters and so on), locking people away indefinitely without trial is not on the list. Hmm. I've said it once, I'll say it again, the face of corporatism, and in fact corporate dictatorship. And that's the Republicans (with a few rare exceptions, the Pauls generally).
The Dems meanwhile are all over the place. The house Dems are really not bad on civil liberties (would that there were more like them for sure!). Maybe if the midterm elections hadn't happened we could actually get some limits on the NDAA. But the Senate is corrupt and the Obama administration is tyrannical no doubt about it.
The NDAA is losing in court for now. Who are your heros? Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, etc.. Look at those names ... maybe civil liberties are more than just a right wing distraction perhaps? But meanwhile the Obama Department of Justice in the court proceedings won't even rule out indefinite detention applying TO SPEECH (even though the case could be dropped if it did). Really, grasp that. Do reporters dare speak the truth in a world in which indefinite detention without trail applies to speech?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.