Market politics

[neroden]

So, my brilliant girlfriend just suggested something.

It's really super hard to have any effect by prohibiting something. We know this from drugs, whoring, and lots of other areas.

On the other hand, it's really easy to influence people using taxes.

So, we want to reduce the impact of money on politics. Rather than banning or restricting campaign contributions.... how about taxing them? For every dollar that you spend on a campaign ad, or on an "issue ad", or whatever, you have to send a dollar to the Treasury (this could be called a 50% tax rate or a 100% tax rate).

At the very worst, if this didn't reduce campaign spending, this would fund the government. But it probably would reduce campaign spending. And it would be a lot easier to get people for *not paying their campaign taxes* than to get them for "illegal contributions".

Since the IRS has been subverted at this point, you'd probably need an independent enforcement mechanism, where third parties could bring suit (qui tam?) to enforce the tax.

 

[neroden]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.

That's what you're doing. You're being very soft-headed.

 

[Intl Professor]

Does he? He famously won't articulate any policies. The Current Affairs review of his book killed any interest I had in him, at least until he can come up with something other than a rehashing of Obama's "Hope and Change": All About Pete | Current Affairs

Even his own website doesn't say anything about him, except that he's been in government longer than X other people. Okay.

Admit I haven't read his book or the review you mention. By strategy I mentioned his use of religion, especially the connection of Christianity with concern for the poor and oppressed, plus talk about values more than specific policies since they require legislation. (The last courtesy of David Leonhardt of NYT, if I remember correctly.) I think, and hope, the winning Dem will subscribe to the latest version of the Green New Deal and mirror, or realize, general policy posture of Bernie and Elizabeth, whether they are the winner(s) or not.

Meanwhile, let me give your thesis and match with this on tactics:

‘I Want Him on Everything’: Meet the Woman Behind the Buttigieg Media Frenzy

If she can keep up this focus on media during the campaign, Trump is not the master media messager most think. He's too lazy, a one trick pony for the fascist in all of us. He is a man with limited ambition and no imagination, unlike Mayor Pete.

The Dem campaign should ignore Trump. He is quite good at digging his own grave for those who are persuadable. Focus should be on the welfare of all, health wise, money wise, and for peace and prosperity. In short, consistency with the goals of the Constitution as elaborated in its Preface.

Borrowing from Carville, in 2020 the slogan should be "It's the ecology, stupid."

root of word ecology - Google Search

 

[durkie]

Meanwhile, let me give your thesis and match with this on tactics:

‘I Want Him on Everything’: Meet the Woman Behind the Buttigieg Media Frenzy

If she can keep up this focus on media during the campaign, Trump is not the master media messager most think. He's too lazy, a one trick pony for the fascist in all of us. He is a man with limited ambition and no imagination, unlike Mayor Pete.

Haha, so this might just be my confirmation bias speaking, but your article on Pete just strengthened everything I think about him: that people are paying attention to him because of a media campaign, not because anything he's actually proposing.

I'd love for you to be right about Pete. He's at least talking the talk. But I, and I think many others, need to hear bold plans of action right now. One of the things that bothers me most about the Trump admin is what a giant collective waste of time it has been for our country. There's just no chance of him doing anything substantial (fortunately), and especially not about problems I care about (unfortunately).

We have so many pressing problems in this country and in this world. As I see it, we gotta make up some serious lost ground for farting around during Trump, and I'm finding Pete's gusto to be a little lacking there.

 

[neroden]

So at this point in the Democratic primary, I'm basically "anybody but Biden". Biden has an awful track record on most issues of importance today -- among other things, he was personally responsible for most of the abusive "throw drug users in prison" stuff (with the "crime bill") AND for the debt slavery / student loan crisis (with the "bankruptcy bill"). And while he may have learned... I just think it makes him open to severe attack during the general election, *and* shows a lack of good decision making.

 

[MikeQ]

National debt is a fake, a phony -- learn some Modern Monetary Theory or just read Keynes.

Rather than banning or restricting campaign contributions.... how about taxing them?

At the very worst, if this didn't reduce campaign spending, this would fund the government.

Seems like you're contradicting yourself. Why do you need to fund the government when debt is fake? Why not just keep printing money to fund the government?

 

[Intl Professor]

Seems like you're contradicting yourself. Why do you need to fund the government when debt is fake? Why not just keep printing money to fund the government?

Neroden's proposal is not to fund the government but penalize those who fund campaigns, different logic than you suggest so not a contradiction. Simple logic, you changed the predicate.

 

[MikeQ]

Neroden's proposal is not to fund the government but penalize those who fund campaigns, different logic than you suggest so not a contradiction. Simple logic, you changed the predicate.

I get that it's meant to be punative to campaigns but Neroden goes on to state that an added benefit is that it funds the government. His words, not mine. If you believe in MMT then it's not a benefit.

 

[Intl Professor]

Why is Barr so fearful of telling the truth under oath to Congress? That he's not smart enough to tell the truth to staff lawyers, or that House judiciary members are not conversant with the law? Methinks he at least wants Republican members to have opportunity to gas light or feed him the questions he wants and he will stonewall the others.

 

[Intl Professor]

its that it funds the government.

Sorry, I forgot that. Error of the half-assed predicate, to use a technical phrase of logicians.

You could say he anticipated favors from those on the opposite side of his debt position. Political or rhetorical nerds would probably accept this. Bear in mind the words of the British philosopher, John Wisdom, who has said "Paradox is the language of philosophy."

Checking Wikipedia, there are two cousins, both noted British philosopers, with the same first and last names, John Wisdom.

I go for the one denoted by middle name, Oulton.

Why is here, do you know my connection to him and why?

John Oulton Wisdom - Wikipedia

 

[neroden]

Seems like you're contradicting yourself. Why do you need to fund the government when debt is fake? Why not just keep printing money to fund the government?

It was a shorthand, and you're right, it's a somewhat inaccurate shorthand.

To be more accurate, this would allow for reduction in other taxes and/or increase in services without potentially affecting the inflation rate. I wish I had a better shorthand for that statement.

(While government debt is not a real limitation, inflation is a real limitation.)

 

[Intl Professor]

Since none of you bit the handle of Wisdom explained, the answer: one of his teachers was an Hegelian. His dissertation was about Hegel. Here's a random quote of da man: "The real is rational, and the actual is real." That was from memory of an old windbreaker. This is more authoritative from wikipedia:

"Central to Hegel's conception of knowledge and mind (and therefore also of reality) was the notion of identity in difference...."

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - Wikipedia

Sounds like someone of this ilk would say, "Paradox is the language of philosophy."

Tesla and TSLA correlation is often a paradox.

 

[STARR X]

So at this point in the Democratic primary, I'm basically "anybody but Biden". Biden has an awful track record on most issues of importance today -- among other things, he was personally responsible for most of the abusive "throw drug users in prison" stuff (with the "crime bill") AND for the debt slavery / student loan crisis (with the "bankruptcy bill"). And while he may have learned... I just think it makes him open to severe attack during the general election, *and* shows a lack of good decision making.

I’m with you on that. I would not be surprised to see him pick Stacy Abrams as a VP candidate either. They are both just old school democrats and that is not what I want to see. Trump could win against that ticket.

 

[lolachampcar]

BS! That's what Obama tried. The only way this gets fixed is to crush the enemy.

You are right. There is no way to remove money from politics. There is also no way someone like you, as reasonable has you sound in some of your writing, is going to allow that. It requires working with others to solve a problem and you have pretty much addressed that above.

Just understand that, by taking the above position, you really are not much better than the trump loving "others" I get hammered by on the MB forums.

Crush away...... I'll check back after the election to see how that worked out for you.

Oh, and thanks for passing along the fake debt to my daughter.

 

[EVNow]

Admit I haven't read his book or the review you mention. By strategy I mentioned his use of religion, especially the connection of Christianity with concern for the poor and oppressed, plus talk about values more than specific policies since they require legislation. (The last courtesy of David Leonhardt of NYT, if I remember correctly.) I think, and hope, the winning Dem will subscribe to the latest version of the Green New Deal and mirror, or realize, general policy posture of Bernie and Elizabeth, whether they are the winner(s) or not.

I don't want to get deep into this - but Mayor Pete has little chance of winning in the south (unless somehow he wins first 3). He has an awful record as mayor. Reminds me of another centrist favorite who wouldn't even run again to be mayor - Rahm.

Chief's Lawyer: Buttigieg Lied in CNN Town Hall - TYT.com

 

[neroden]

You are right. There is no way to remove money from politics. There is also no way someone like you, as reasonable has you sound in some of your writing, is going to allow that. It requires working with others to solve a problem and you have pretty much addressed that above.

Just understand that, by taking the above position, you really are not much better than the trump loving "others" I get hammered by on the MB forums.

Crush away...... I'll check back after the election to see how that worked out for you.

Oh, and thanks for passing along the fake debt to my daughter.

Feel free to keep wasting your time talking about "Removing money from politics" by "working with others" (like the Koch Brothers and Pharma and Military Contractor executives, perhaps? Would you like to work with them?) You seem very intent on wasting your time.

I'll be practical. We are acquiring the numbers of people necessary, and we can crush the small group of people who are trying to subvert democracy, render them irrelevant, and remove their power for generations. I don't know exactly how many years it'll take, but it's happening, very clearly. You are welcome to be helpful, but you'd clearly rather rant about dumb ideas which won't work.

Oh, and you're welcome regarding the fake government debt -- I'm glad to help out your daughter. The government's fake debt is actually not debt, it's money, the money whose circulation keeps our economy running -- it's actually necessary to keep the money economy running. If anyone attempts to retire the national debt by running a large surplus in the government budget -- i.e. suddenly withdrawing all T-bills from circulation -- they'll cause a massive recession. So it's very important that the "Debt" (aka T-bills, aka money) be circulating in your daughter's lifetime so that your daughter will have money, a job, etc. You're welcome.

(I do think it's quite immoral that most of the government-issued money bears interest. This only benefits the rich. Government-issued money should mostly not bear interest.)

 

[wdolson]

Do you agree or disagree that we should have a money economy? I need to know in order to know which argument to make.

It is literally flat out impossible to take money out of politics as long as we have a money economy.

Just like it's impossible to get rid of commercial (paid) sex as long as we have a money economy -- many have tried, none have succeeded, over THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

If you're arguing that we should abolish money, well, Gene Roddenberry agreed with you when he created Star Trek, but that's a big project and you have to articulate a path for how we can get there.

If you're arguing that we should have a capitalist money economy and somehow prevent money from influencing politics, that's just ridiculous. It doesn't work. Money by its very nature will influence everything.

There are ways to make it better, including making sure that everyone has roughly the same amount of money (rather than some people having a billion times more money than others), and making everyone disclose when they're spending money on politics. But you can't stop money from buying influence -- nobody has ever succeeded and nobody ever will, because that's kind of what money is for, really.


National debt is a fake, a phony -- learn some Modern Monetary Theory or just read Keynes.


BS! That's what Obama tried. The only way this gets fixed is to crush the enemy.

There are actual bad guys, people who want to demolish democracy and create an inherited aristocracy which rules by fiat, and they have to be stopped. I'm happy to work with any grassroots Republicans or ex-Republicans who recognize this -- such as the "Republicans" on the NC electoral commission who agreed that the Republican who was stuffing the ballot box should NOT be allowed to take office -- but you have to recognize that Republicans like the one stuffing the ballot box control the Republican party now.

Are you one of the people who thought the only way to fix the problems in the 1930s was to work together with Tojo, Mussolini, and Hitler? Because there WERE people who thought that way, and they were WRONG.

Throughout history negotiating with belligerent enemies can lead to good results if the enemy is rational and is out to gain something for their side, but doesn't want all out war.

Kim Jong Il is often called crazy, but I don't think he is. He's playing a weak hand as best he can and has kept getting things when he rattles the sabre. A bit of evidence supporting that is when he encountered a truly insane US president, he started acting more rational.

But when dealing with a belligerent enemy who is nuts, negotiation is just going to allow them to move the goal posts. Hitler did that in the 1930s, and the Republicans have increasingly used that over the last two decades. It's reached full on insanity.

Trump is leader of the party because he's a symptom of the disease, not an aberration.

 

[lolachampcar]

nerden,
You keep trying to put words in my posts. I say voters, you say thinks like the Koch Brothers and Pharma and Military Contractor executives...... I say right and left and you say Right Wing.

You need to believe others who do not agree with you are the bad guys and need to be crushed. In so doing, you are just as bad as the bad guys (in that respect) as they think you are a bunch of liberal idiots who think the debt is ok and are hell bent on turning this country into Venezuela (their words as directed at me on other forums, not mine).

I am neither. I realize there are frustrated people on both sides of the political divide. I realize the political divide has been dramatically amplified by all three sides to achieve their goals (Rep, Dems and Russians). I'm not interested in participating. One side is "bad" while the other is good. Change the people in power and there will still be one side that is bad and one that is good, only the party will have changed. I have no doubt that one is "mo bad" than the other but neither is acceptable. It will take a change in hiring practices to get better people from both sides of the political divide to come to the party. Diversity of ideas and willingness to work together and compromise is needed if we are to have a functioning government that represents all people.

It is time for me to step back. I've made my point and am only repeating myself. It has also been my experience that, when things get to this point, the attacks become personal. It seems the logical refuge.

 

[defc0n]

So at this point in the Democratic primary, I'm basically "anybody but Biden". Biden has an awful track record on most issues of importance today -- among other things, he was personally responsible for most of the abusive "throw drug users in prison" stuff (with the "crime bill") AND for the debt slavery / student loan crisis (with the "bankruptcy bill"). And while he may have learned... I just think it makes him open to severe attack during the general election, *and* shows a lack of good decision making.

Who else can stand up to trumps bullying tactics during debates though? I know Biden could.

 

[JRP3]

Who else can stand up to trumps bullying tactics during debates though? I know Biden could.

Sanders could, and he's gaining support in middle America. Tulsi Gabbard would also destroy Trump in a debate.