386 replies to this topic

[hblask]

So what are these protests about:

Video: What we saw at OccupyWallStreet

Video: What the OccupyBoston people think they are there for

A short commentary from someone who was there

Longer commentary on the protests

[hblask]

A nice sympathetic article from my pals at Reason.com

[AmScray]

Mostly fags, losers and retards, but with some very valid concerns.

[strategy]

I like the movement. it's true, all I ever wanted was to be among that group (because it IS a really interesting profession), but that doesn't mean I ever endorsed their attitude about the bailouts or any of the other ways the government saved their asses in 2008+. as a country, both left and right, we need to understand that we've still got this blank check written for wall street in the event of another collapse, regardless of the legislation we've passed since lehman.

[hblask]

Using the MSNBC Tea Party Theory of Journalism™, if I can find one person behaving objectionably, then that person represents the entire movement.

Based on that, I have to denounce this horrible anti-semitic movement known as OWS.

Hey MSNBC, can I get a job now? I've reached your journalism standards.

[Balloon guy]

[LongLiveYorke]

Mostly fags, losers and retards, but with some very valid concerns.

Actually, I think that's their new slogan.

[LongLiveYorke]

BalloonGuy'sImage

This WOULD be funny, but I thought they were against bankers...

[phlegm]

This WOULD be funny, but I thought they were against bankers...

If you could interview everyone of them, im guessing there isnt a single thing they arent against.

Except maybe someone to take care of them from cradle to grave.

[Balloon guy]

This WOULD be funny, but I thought they were against bankers...

That's why I am okay with the protest. Hopefully those poor bankers will not be able to walk to lunch unmolested.

And should the Tea Party join in and supply the hippy dregs of society with guns, I wouldn't shed a tear if the most dangerous job in America became banker.


But the message of these kids is so convoluted there is nothing to say what they mean.

[LongLiveYorke]

I think the most powerful thing to come out of this movement is the "I am the 99%" slogan. I think this is the way for a politician to embrace this movement without risking being connected to hippies playing bongos:


http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

[Balloon guy]

I think the most powerful thing to come out of this movement is the "I am the 99%" slogan. I think this is the way for a politician to embrace this movement without risking being connected to hippies playing bongos:


http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/

What they say: "We are the 99%"

What the politicians hear: "We are 3% of the registered voters who contribute less than 1% to political campaigns"

[strategy]

What they say: "We are the 99%"

What the politicians hear: "We are 3% of the registered voters who contribute less than 1% to political campaigns"

I hate to derail the topic, but can anyone give me a good reason why the state doesn't just set a dollar figure and fund everyone's campaign? surely we recognize the harm NOT doing so is inflicting on us, no?

[Dagata]

I hate to derail the topic, but can anyone give me a good reason why the state doesn't just set a dollar figure and fund everyone's campaign? surely we recognize the harm NOT doing so is inflicting on us, no?

I can with 2 words

Define Everyone.

[LongLiveYorke]

I hate to derail the topic, but can anyone give me a good reason why the state doesn't just set a dollar figure and fund everyone's campaign? surely we recognize the harm NOT doing so is inflicting on us, no?

I can with 2 words

Define Everyone.

Yeah, the definition of "everyone" is a sticky point. But, I'd have to think that there'd be some way to do this that makes more sense than the current system.

I mean, ironically, the deal-breaker to this kind of system, namely that "everybody could then just run", is the very benefit that this system would bring.

If there were some way to define how much money each candidate got, say based on popularity or using some tiered system, I think it would work. For example, one needs 10,000 signatures in every state to get started (or something like that, possibly based on state population). This makes the threshold to get started high, but not impossible for a well-organized grass roots candidate. Then, if in some average of polls you get X% percentage in Y states, or whatever, you get Z campaign dollars, etc.


This is all a decent idea, but I think the real game-changer will come when a candidate figures out how to run a campaign on significantly less money than modern candidates. I believe, though not with too much evidence, that there has to be a way to leverage the internet, social media, and television/radio in an inexpensive way. I mean, a lot of candidates' money goes into television commercials, but how much influence does a presidential candidates' television commercials actually have? Don't people usually just auto-ignore those anyway? Aren't debates and appearances on news show much more influential? Aren't policy positions and speeches much more influential? Traveling the country and giving speeches isn't cheap, true, but I'd have to think that one can do it with < $200 million... Right? Am I completely wrong?

[hblask]

I can with 2 words

Define Everyone.

Mainly this, but there is also the immorality of forcing people to finance speech with which they disagree. That's a pretty totalitarian thing to do.

[CaneBrain]

Mainly this, but there is also the immorality of forcing people to finance speech with which they disagree. That's a pretty totalitarian thing to do.

that's fine but then don't complain about things like the auto bailout or Halliburton getting every no-bid contract in Iraq. If you make Presidents have to raise millions and millions of dollars to be competitive in elections, then they are going to have little choice but to reward their big donors when they can.

[FCP Bob]

Mainly this, but there is also the immorality of forcing people to finance speech with which they disagree. That's a pretty totalitarian thing to do.

How is this different than letting political donations be tax deductions ?

[Balloon guy]

I hate to derail the topic, but can anyone give me a good reason why the state doesn't just set a dollar figure and fund everyone's campaign? surely we recognize the harm NOT doing so is inflicting on us, no?

McCain/Feingold was supposed to stop that. what it did is stifle the free speech of people and increase the strength of corporations and organizations like unions.

The Unions during the last election gave $200million to the Obama campaign, as an individual, I could only give $2,000. Who's voice will the politician hear after the election?

Also, given your scenario, candidate X can only spend $50million. So what is he to do if the NRA runs TV ads saying he is a communist? Or the Unions, or the Koch brothers? The laws now say you cannot actively promote any single person, but you can totally talk about how someone else is bad. ( And no way we want the right to complain taken away from us. )

Or you can trust that Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner will be completely unbiased during elections?

Yeah, the definition of "everyone" is a sticky point. But, I'd have to think that there'd be some way to do this that makes more sense than the current system.

I mean, ironically, the deal-breaker to this kind of system, namely that "everybody could then just run", is the very benefit that this system would bring.

If there were some way to define how much money each candidate got, say based on popularity or using some tiered system, I think it would work. For example, one needs 10,000 signatures in every state to get started (or something like that, possibly based on state population). This makes the threshold to get started high, but not impossible for a well-organized grass roots candidate. Then, if in some average of polls you get X% percentage in Y states, or whatever, you get Z campaign dollars, etc.


This is all a decent idea, but I think the real game-changer will come when a candidate figures out how to run a campaign on significantly less money than modern candidates. I believe, though not with too much evidence, that there has to be a way to leverage the internet, social media, and television/radio in an inexpensive way. I mean, a lot of candidates' money goes into television commercials, but how much influence does a presidential candidates' television commercials actually have? Don't people usually just auto-ignore those anyway? Aren't debates and appearances on news show much more influential? Aren't policy positions and speeches much more influential? Traveling the country and giving speeches isn't cheap, true, but I'd have to think that one can do it with < $200 million... Right? Am I completely wrong?

The art of running a campaign is proven, it's not as simple as running a few ads and mobilizing a few thugs with bat at voting booths.

that's fine but then don't complain about things like the auto bailout or Halliburton getting every no-bid contract in Iraq.

Halliburton got no-bid contracts because they were 1 of 2 companies in the world set up to do that work. the other company was French, and they already got their no contract bid when they broke UN laws and supplied Saddam with all the weapons he had that we had to destroy when we invaded. Lucky for us they were all French made and therefore quickly dispatched.
But keep pretending Halliburton is the devil, it makes the rest of your points seems equally weak and pathetic.

If you make Presidents have to raise millions and millions of dollars to be competitive in elections, then they are going to have little choice but to reward their big donors when they can.

Millions and millions? Try $200 million from the unions alone in the last election for one candidate. I'm sure you are for stopping those unions from doing that next election?

How is this different than letting political donations be tax deductions ?

1. By making them tax deductible, they also become public record. Impossible for anyone to hide giving to any candidate.

2. The government does not own all the money, therefore me getting to keep some of my money to pay towards helping elect someone in a representative democracy isn't remotely connected to taking money from public coffers and giving it to Michelle Bachman or Joe Biden to promote ideas I do not espouse.

3. Making the ability of the average citizen to be involved in the political process easier is also not anywhere near the same camp as forcing me to pay for President Obama to lie about who is responsible for the current economy.

4. The reality ignored by the left whenever they make this kind of argument is that all tax laws are created by the same place that collects the tax. If their laws allow any way to lessen the tax burden, it is of exactly the same impact on society as the burden of the taxes to begin with. You can't argue otherwise unless you first establish that taxes at the current rate are perfect and any changes to the amount collected is in violation of this perfect rate. ( this will backfire when you ask to raise them, so good luck )

[ahosang]

Mainly this, but there is also the immorality of forcing people to finance speech with which they disagree. That's a pretty totalitarian thing to do.

I want to say that i don't necessarily agree, but there is a school of thought that :

1) party outreach is a public good in a democratic society
2) The basic costs associated with functioning(media, campaigning, IT, etc) are minimal in relation to other expenditure under the 'public' umbrella
3) Public and social policy can be reinforced by linking award of party funding to conforming to certain normative principles

The last point can easily be taken as a negative against the idea of public funding, of course. The question of public funding is an interesting one, and I'm interested in some of the concerns both pro and con.