Prohibition doesn't work. Statists will never learn. At the same time the I hear about "electabilty" and "playing the game" when it comes to elections. More liberal hypocrisy and doublestalk.
So, thumbs you think billions spent are good and "free" speech? As an aside you need to get beyond false equivalency. Who started the superpac arms race first? I would rather see Obama denounce the superpacs and run without their money. Last I saw 95% of Romney's pac money was from contributions of $1 million or more? The first Democrat-- and it will have to be a Democrat-- who does that will be the next great president in US history. It might take a loss or two, but as Americans suffer more from the rule of the rich, the spin won't hold. As an aside do you believe in man made climate change? After all a handful of scientists say "no", tens of thousands say "yes". Do you apply spurrious equivalency on this isssue? Also do you feel duped knowing that the Kochs and a small group of ultra-rich guys turned the Tea Party into a GOP front group?
When SuperPac donations are subject to FEC regulations regarding contribution limits and reporting guidelines, then you can continue this silly line of thought. But seeing as how you have people like Karl Rove peddling Crossroads GPS as a tax exempt haven for unlimited corporate political donations, I dont see how you can pretend that Romney's SuperPac money are the same as Obama's money that is capped at $2500 per person. One candidate is clearly raising money the way it was intended to be raised by doing so through an accountable structure that regulates contribution amounts and requires proper disclosure. The other is running a terrible fundraising operation that is supported by a flurry of unregulated money from billionaires through shadow PACs that are theoretically "not cooperating" with the Romney campaign. if you cant see the difference you're crazy.
Don't worry thumbs, these guys are just cranky that the unions and media that are in the pocket of President Obama don't have a monopoly on total campaign control anymore.
Odd, given that McCain - and many of the Republicans that got hurt in the primaries - are amongst the biggest critics of Citizens United. But hey, if it makes you feel better to just complain about those evil liberals, feel free.
And who gets to decide what qualifies as a campaign or not under your system? Spending money is free speech. That, the Supreme Court determined over forty years ago, and it's inherently obvious. Otherwise, the US government could tell the New York Times "You can print all the newspaper you want, you can't just spend money to do so." Rant about free speech, and then support banning a video on Hillary Clinton ( which is what Citizens United was actually about) and discuss reimplementing the Fairness Doctrine.
Actually, I am not a fan of superpacs. I actually lean more to the thadeus camp of donations/spending. Unfortunately, there is no realistic way to stop this form of arms race. I just like to hold up a mirror to those who whine about being fouled when they commit the same fouls.
I have no problem with taking industry funded PAC's out of politics if ALL groups are taken out like unions, all the Soros funded groups, etc.... If all political donations had to come from individuals with a cap of say $20, $50, $100 or some reasonable amount I would support it. If corporations can't spend money to influence elections then no group should be allowed to do it.
I agree with this somewhat, but I have to ask, can you name one " Soros funded group"? Since 2000 Soros has donated around $450,000 to various democratic organizations. By contrast we have one knucklehead who gave Newt $20 million dollars for just this year's GOP primary.
non-productive scandals? You mean like the Halliburton scandal? Or Bush's admin misplacing $18 billion in Iraq? Or the WMD scandal? Or bushes Aids Tsar sleeping with prostitutes? Or drug use by the dept of the interior's mineral management service? Romney will have a lot more of those with his lazeee-faire approach. And yes, a flat tax that will kill consumer spending and/or gov't revenue. Because to balance the massive tax cut it would give the rich, you will have to replace that with an effective tax hike on everyone else. You must be one of Mitt Romney's Corporations.
Yes! A graduated flat tax with no shelters would indeed increase revenues immediately. A person who makes $1B would pay (say 30% top rate) $300M while the person making $30K (say 5% bottom rate) would pay $1.5K. People earning less than $30K would pay no tax at all. How many billionaires currently pay $300M in taxes? Heck, GE made $5B and paid no tax at all. On the other hand, about 50% of wage earners paid taxes at all. The current tax system is unfair, granted, but the spending similarly is out of control.
Interestingly, 80% of all money raised by SuperPACs are going to Republican candidates. http://www.npr.org/2012/05/26/15378...g-the-race-a-billionaires-game?sc=ipad&f=1001 You can say for every yin, there is a yang, but that's simply not true when it comes to the SuperPACs.
Umm, sorry to bust your bubble, but if you have a tax with rates ranging from 5% to 30%, that's not a flat tax by any definition of the word. That's a progressive tax - all you've done is take out the deductions.
