That would be great, but you know it can not ever fly. Politically it is suicide to get rid of deductions for children, mortgage payments, and business expenses. I think corporations would fight this. Also corporations make up a very small percentage of tax revenue anyway. I think cutting discretionary spending any more is a terrible mistake. It's not the area that is out of control. Pork projects account for a whooping 3 billion our of a multi-trillon dollar budget. It's medicare, defense, and social security that is driving up the deficit - plus all the tax cuts. I think as soon as the economy heals we have to roll back the tax cuts and reform entitlement spending.
from Think Progress Pro-GOP Outside Groups Outspending Key Senate Democratic Candidates And Allies By Three-To-One Margin In yet another sign that the Supreme Court’s controversial 5-4 Citizens United ruling has tilted the playing field toward secretive groups and billionaire businessmen, a new Bloomberg analysis reveals Sen. Sherod Brown (D-OH) and Senate candidate Tim Kaine (D-VA) are being massively outspent by right-wing Super PACs and 501(c)(4)s. Right-wing political groups like Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS have spent at least $8 million against Brown, compared to just $2.5 million on television advertising spent by the Democratic incumbent and allied groups. In Virginia, the Chamber of Commerce and others have so far outspent former Gov. Kaine and his allies by a $1.9 million to $385,000 margin.
From the most recent (2010) election totals we have. False equivalency watch: Union versus corporate spending So the outside corporate influences (Chamber, AAN, American Crossroads -which discloses its donors- and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, which does not,) have thus far spent a total of some $92.2 million dollars on the midterm elections, while unions have spent $27.3 million, less than a third of corporate spending. And let us not forget that unions are required to disclose donor information. SuperPacs can use virtually unlimited funds from anonymous sources for the sole purpose of undermining the public sector.
This idea of false equivalency as practiced by the media, both conservative and mainstream media makes even smart guys like Thumbs operate from a fact free basis. DIABOLICALLY EFFECTIVE BTW even before superpacs corporations outspent unions by several times.
This is... to me a very odd argument. Because from my perspective, deciding Citizens United should have absolutely nothing to do with the idea of who spends what. I'd like to begin any discussion about Citizens United with the left by asking something I repeated before. Is the spending of money by corporations and unions to influence elections free speech? If not, why?
Its speech but the idea that we can't regulate it is the issue. Also are unions and companies people in the sense that the first amendment extends to them? It can be speech but is it first amendment protected speech. Also, unions never had citizens united all of these years. They spent (and still spend) their money on union organizing and traditional voter contact through field programs. That's certainly speech as well (and certainly is in a more literal sense) and if companies want to start doing voter contact programs by all means feel free. Its the idea that corporate speech is protected under the first amendment that is a question. Also read the transcript of the case. Theodore Olson argued that Citizens United should be able to play its hillary documentary on the grounds that BCRA only applied to advertisements and they were putting up a documentary. The argument was purely textual and very specific to Citizens United. Scalia literally laughed in the trial and almost begged Olson to make the argument that corporate speech was protected. It was judicial activism at its worst. And you wont sell me on the idea that corporate speech is protected by the first amendment so no while its speech its not free speech.
more speech is always a good thing Notice it's the left trying to limit speech. What are they afraid of? That they can't control the message? You do realize every news program or Colbert Report is corporate funded political speech?
conservatives and libertarians should just be honest. "We want to win." Our guys are fewer in numbers but have more money to spend so we want them to spend it without resrictions. We want voters id laws that will prevent the young and the elderly poor and the poor in general from voting, as they tend to vote against the GOP/libertaran coalition--, even if only one in 10,000 or even 1 in 100,000 votes are fraudulent. We don't care if it takes millions of tax dollars to accomplish this screening,or throwing voters off the roles and responding to their attempts to get back on. Of course similar millions spent on the mentally ill is just needless government spending. We want to have all the radio stations owned by one group if it is our guys who own them. We would have a fit if voting was held on say the whole weekend like in many countries as that would just encourage the rabble to vote. We can't trust the average person to vote against public education, heavily subsidized state college tuitions, social security and medicare so we don't want them to vote.
We are afraid that a small group of the very wealthy will fool even more little guys like you to vote against their economic interests and against any political influence for themselves.
What are you supposed to do as an individual when you are watching your country's government being stolen right out from under you? The old slogans of "well get out there and vote" or "go be a politician" have lost thier substance as a tools for positive change. In my opinion, its really only a matter of time before someone or a group of people start taking very drastic measures to fight what is happening.
