What would eating the rich accomplish?

You'll never get money out of politics and even if you could the results would be worse not better government.

 

Of course, we 'disagree'. Got it.

 

The winners of a violent revolution would probably be the white nationalists. They need the country destabilized and the peolpe turned against the government. They are preparing their infrastructure now and stirring up crap toward that end.

This was part of the reason for the collapse of several major cultures, such as the Mayans, and the reason for the crushing poverty of many, such as India.

 

Okay, I will now ask you:

Why do you think that would be so?

 

Call their goals evil, sinister, Satanic... whatever; the reason they will NOT succeed in the end, is that they WILL eventually turn upon one another. Even if in 20, 50 or 100 years they succeed... they WILL eventually fail, because they are essentially hateful, terrible, destructive human beings. That never works out well in the long run.

 

And it can devastate civilization in the short run, too.

 

Because like it or not money is the only way to defeat an incumbent because the powers of incumbency trump almost everything else.

 

I think you are STUCK in a clearly untenable paradigm.

Reality simply is NOT 'fixed' as YOU apparently think it is. (I'm pretty sure that what I'm sharing here won't change your mind though.)

 

The world was so backward before the Americans. What King's pantaloons did your people grovel at?

 

Nah dude, he's got it right, Super PACs have helped to improve, not diminish, the political process. It levels the playing field, and even allows for more Grass-roots voices to be heard, believe it or not.

It's not perfect, but money is speech, and we shouldn't limit that. And the more free we make it, the better off it seems we come out.

 

For now, what you say may be true (because we for too long allowed money to get in there, way BEFORE "Super PACs" existed). Still, it would ultimately be far better to simply let people's VOTES count the most.

Money is clearly a corrupting factor in American politics; there is little doubt about that.

 

Yes, more so if you try to control it. Attempting, from the top-down to take money out of Politics is no different than trying to take money out of healthcare, the effect is the same.

During the last election, President Obama flagrantly took advantage of Government resources to further his own campaign, to counteract that, a challenger needs money.

And as the man said, the 6 best Governed States had Super Pacs long before they were made legal nationally. The precedent points us in that direction.

 

Here is the answer; the rest is just BS:

GET THE MONEY OUT of politics. (Anything else is simply dancing around the primary problem.)

 

You cannot, you are assuming a type of power over reality that does not exist.

Just as getting money out of healthcare would just create a dualistic system, one for the rich and politically well-connected, and one for everyone else, getting "money out of politics" would result in there being an elite class, who would be the only ones with the means to weigh-in into politics, and the pedestrian class the former rules over.

Allowing free exchange of political contributions levels the playing field. This cannot be stressed enough, and it cannot be refuted, we have the precedent.

Oh and, BTW, as the editor for Business News Daily points out "We spend more on Kitty Litter in election years, than politics".

 

I did not claim to be doing that. And unless we look up higher and out further than where we are standing, we will NOT actually solve any damned problems.

Thankfully, there are always those who are encouraged or compelled to reject the status quo, tradition or standard convention (even over time)... and eventually 'change' things.

 

For-profit corporations should never be allowed to donate to political campaigns. It is just a sanitized form of bribery.

In spite of the way that a corporate whore law clerk diddled a Supreme Court Document, corporations aint people, and have no rights that government does not give them.

 

Johnny sorry but a paradigm isn't involved reality is. Removing money from politics simply converts politicians into a self perpetuating aristocracy that hangs on to power by means of the mere fact that incumbency by itslef gives you so much free publicity that no one not so simarly situated can possible get enough name recognition to defeat them. We've got studies going back more than half a century showing that the only hope a challenger has of defeating an incumbent is to out spend him by a wide margin and that won't always work.

 

There can never be enough of a profit margin then, correct?

 

Gingrich? He was President? I see....the buck always stops with the right wing huh? So, was Bush at fault for his 8 year reign of terror, or was that someone else? I'm curious.

 

The fat cats don't want to hear that so they makes excuses for it (they dance). Corporate cash must reign supreme in order to facilitate the elitist agenda.

 

"...all of their business assets could be siezed..."

Taxcutter says:
Better be quick. Soros and Buffett could liquidate and have all their wealth beyond Obama's greedy clutches in a matter of minutes.

 

Land and factories are not portable, for the most part. A lot of rich people actually like living and doing business here. There will be enough people here to manage the land and physical plant that they leave behind.

 

Why do the two options we have seem to be tax the wealthy 100% or believe simple cuts will cure it? Shouldnt we consider both? We do need to examime cuts as you mentioned for one. Second we could make simple changes as suggested by Warren Buffet to capital gains. Plus if you were to tax the wealthy just a little more, say 2% that would equate to a higher percentage of lower wage earner. Plus the idea of taxing the poor is quite simply deverting that money from going into the economy and possibly generating money for those with investments in the first place.

 

Gingrich forced a balanced budget and welfare reform on a President who vetoed those bills multiple times, had to shut down government etc...You only hate Bush because he didn't give 1/5 of the amount of money to private enterprise that Obama has. You shouldn't judge people based on how much free cash giveaway they give their friends.

 

The larger the margin, the more competition.

- - - Updated - - -

so wind down regulations. 5 year sunset clause on every regulation, if it is important enough even congress can pass something in 5 years.