Occupy Wallstreet

What's wrong with the guy in the middle? Pigment doesn't come off, you know that right?

 

I don't agree with #2, #4, or #7. I think #6 is fatally vague.

For #2, I think that first, people running for office should be able to spend as much as they want to get elected. It is called freedom of speech. Second, I don't want my tax dollars being spent on advertising for a campaign that I wouldn't give money to willingly. That is just one more thing the government would be spending my money on that I would prefer they didn't.

For #4, I would actually support higher taxes in the short term, if there was a guarantee that it was part of a strategy to pay off the debt and that spending would still be radically cut, eventually leading to much lower taxes and less government. Unfortunately, higher taxes would instead be used as an excuse for more spending (or at least maintaining current levels). Given that, I would prefer the starve the beast strategy.

For #7, there is no need to break up anything. Just don't go along with the idea that any corporation is too big to fail and don't bail them out. How about a simple no bailouts law?

 

I believe the "revolving door" refers to the fact that people move between government jobs and private sector jobs constantly, essentially cashing in the connections they get as government employees when they take private jobs. Example: legislator/congressional staff becoming lobbyists (See Gingrich, Newt), SEC regulators being once and future Wall Street investment bankers.

 

the guy in the middle is arian foster, i believe he is gainfully employed at the moment...

 

Don't know about you, but he seems pretty solid to me despite his ethnicity. The glasses mean he's one of the good ones.

 

corporate taxholes - there are no tax loopholess with the Fair Tax. Most Libertarians/Conservatives support this tax code.

publicly financed campaigns - who cares. Individuals can always use their money to support candidates. No legislation prevents this. George Soros, Rupert Murdoch, Ted Turner spend billions putting out political opinions 24/7.

congress subject to insider trading - free markets usually have very strong anti-corruption laws. Conservatives/Libertarians would probably support

repeal Bush tax cuts - nope. Raising taxes reduces GDP and our GDP is currently in the toilet.

Rebuild infrastructure - why? all it would do is put a temporary blip in the unemployment numbers and wouldn't address why private companies aren't hiring. We can't afford it.

revolving door - not sure what she is referring to.

break up too big to fail corps- Conservatives/Libertarians would just let them fail. The US economy is not dependent on one or more private companies to stay afloat, so too big to fail companies don't exist.

 

On her list the biggest one that would get rid of the power of lobbyists is public financing of campaigns.

Of course several conservatives in the thread including Tallanvor oppose the idea thus defending the lobbyists.

For those that say don't bail out corporations would rather doom the nation which is what would have happened had we not bailed out the corporations previously.

 

How is this possible?

 

Just wanted to note the hilarity.

 

Couple a 100% focus on the shower rate of OWS protesters, and a 0% focus on the issues, and I'm not surprised.

 

The world is pretty much set.

Your vision will never be. No Free market, no Libertarian government.

No socialist technocrat utopia for me either.

No brotherhood of Jesus, or Islam.

Cause you just can't trust people.

So, you are pretty much wrong, on everything, still.

like everyone but cml hightop and basso tell you everyday

but by all means don't give in an inch

you've got to be right, right?

 

Is she referring to politicians all being the same and never getting anyone with new ideas in office?

Is she referring to political machines controlling the government?

Either way, how would you stop it? describe that legislation to me. You can only run for office if you believe X and/or don't know person Y?

Companies can't possibly help candidates unless they can donate directly to their campaign. George Soros would just have no way to use his money to affect politics.

 

delete

 

1: way too vague
2: No.
3. Like a lot.
4. Would seriously consider.
5. Absolutely.
6. What?
7. OH HECK NO.

 

here, I'll end the misery for you...

http://www.opensecrets.org/revolving/

 

SO that's why you post in a super liberal forum. THat way when your confronted with arguments you can just say 'see, nobody agrees with you' . No wonder you support immature OWS.

 

Basically if the structure is set up so that there isn't any outside advertising and candidates can only use the money from the public financing then that is correct. Corps and lobbyists would be out of luck.

But aside from that if you think that's the only thing that can be done or that the OWS reform minded people want to change then you haven't been paying attention.

Also you're displaying the idea that if something doesn't solve every single problem with the system, nothing should be done. That kind of thinking is an enemy to progress. If your philosophy would have been followed there would have been no civil rights movement.

Like I said you just keep defending the lobbyists. It's plain you are on the side of the lobbyists instead of those who wish them out of our governing system.

 

Obviously not. Soros funds tons of news sources and can spend his money pushing whatever agenda he feels like whether it's a piece of legislation or a politician through those news sources. It's freedom of speech.

NObody is quite sure what they want. I posted a link above to them wanting to protest student loans. They are all over the map.

I have given you a solution, so has every conservative/libertarian for the past 50 years because we have been fed up with lobbying in this country for quite some time. Free markets would solve every problem involving lobbying.

IF government is not involved in markets then why would their be corporate lobbyists? 10 yr olds could understand this so the obvious conclusion is you are being willfully ignorant. NO political ideology I am familiar with supports companies controlling the government. You are trying to attack some straw man cause you have no counter-arguments.

 

Yer right. He should just start a news corporation and win law suits saying he can lie about the news and call it entertainment.

much easier.

 

"would hit" btw.