Political Roundtable Part XVII

[gtn130]

Cammac - you believe our corporate tax rate was too high. The Koch brothers believed that too... what is so nefarious about their lobbying for such.

Why should wealthy people have more say than anyone else? Super PACs are massive net negatives for society.

[TGW]

Why is the USA government shut down?
It is because of CHIP & DACA both programs sabotaged by Donald Trump and the Republican Party. It effects 10 million plus youngsters and 700,000 Dreamers both have high approval ratings within the population. This is essentially a kidnapping hostage situation perpetrated on the youth by the Republican Party. Trump after cancelling DACA still hasn't given any information on where he stands?

McConnell is showing his ineptitude of being able to govern obviously he has a slim majority in the Senate but refuses to be bipartisan in any way. Major legislation is being held up by 4 or 5 radical Republican Senators and a confused and undisciplined White House. Obviously the Democrats will give concessions to reopen the government.

Again the Republican Party isn't able to present a comprehensive budget and is limping along on short term fixes. A Party who was totally disruptive during the majority of the Obama years has obviously not learned to govern and is still the party of NO!

I work the company that administers CHIP. We have a fair amount of Trump supporters working in the office, and even they're reaction to the CHIP program being defunded is complete shock. Children should have access to healthcare, whether they're poor or not. This is just another attack on the poor by Republicans.

[dckingsfan]

Cammac - you believe our corporate tax rate was too high. The Koch brothers believed that too... what is so nefarious about their lobbying for such.

Why should wealthy people have more say than anyone else? Super PACs are massive net negatives for society.

Eliminating the Koch brothers for right now - is it nefarious for businesses to lobby for what is in their best interests? Or for unions for that matter?

And careful what you wish for - more money is spent by the top 1% on Ds than on the Rs. Although more money is spent by the Russians on the Rs

Okay, now back to your question on Super PACs - did you know this is bipartisan? 75 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats think that "there would be less corruption if there were limits on how much could be given to Super PACs."

[gtn130]

Cammac - you believe our corporate tax rate was too high. The Koch brothers believed that too... what is so nefarious about their lobbying for such.

Why should wealthy people have more say than anyone else? Super PACs are massive net negatives for society.

Eliminating the Koch brothers for right now - is it nefarious for businesses to lobby for what is in their best interests? Or for unions for that matter?

And careful what you wish for - more money is spent by the top 1% on Ds than on the Rs. Although more money is spent by the Russians on the Rs

Okay, now back to your question on Super PACs - did you know this is bipartisan? 75 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats think that "there would be less corruption if there were limits on how much could be given to Super PACs."

I don't think it's nefarious, but I think it's ultimately bad for society.

And I don't think unions are exempt from that criticism at all - while unions were likely started with good intentions, I think they're pretty harmful in a lot of ways. Police and teacher unions for example should be disbanded. They're bad.

Money shouldn't be able to buy things in politics. Obviously that is quite idealistic, but it's true.

[cammac]

Cammac - you believe our corporate tax rate was too high. The Koch brothers believed that too... what is so nefarious about their lobbying for such.

Why should wealthy people have more say than anyone else? Super PACs are massive net negatives for society.

Eliminating the Koch brothers for right now - is it nefarious for businesses to lobby for what is in their best interests? Or for unions for that matter?

And careful what you wish for - more money is spent by the top 1% on Ds than on the Rs. Although more money is spent by the Russians on the Rs

Okay, now back to your question on Super PACs - did you know this is bipartisan? 75 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats think that "there would be less corruption if there were limits on how much could be given to Super PACs."

In Canada the laws are simpler in that a political party can raise about $1.80 per voter in a riding.If a candidate receives 10% of the vote the government gives 60% back to the political party. A maximum of $1500 is what a individual or corporation can give to a political party in a year. No Super Pacs so the parties are not in the debt of outside interests.

I used the Koch Brothers as a example it goes for large Democratic donors as well. When 1/10 of 1% of people can control the direction of government policy something is drastically wrong in a Democracy.

[TGW]

Cammac - you believe our corporate tax rate was too high. The Koch brothers believed that too... what is so nefarious about their lobbying for such.

Why should wealthy people have more say than anyone else? Super PACs are massive net negatives for society.

Eliminating the Koch brothers for right now - is it nefarious for businesses to lobby for what is in their best interests? Or for unions for that matter?

And careful what you wish for - more money is spent by the top 1% on Ds than on the Rs. Although more money is spent by the Russians on the Rs

Okay, now back to your question on Super PACs - did you know this is bipartisan? 75 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats think that "there would be less corruption if there were limits on how much could be given to Super PACs."

uh...yea. If it were up to businesses and corporations, workers would be paid 10 cents an hour, there would be no weekends or 40 hour work week, and it would be the workers fault if they died on a jobsite deemed as hazardous. The fact that we allow legal bribery (that's what it is..."lobbying" is just a cutesy word for it) in our system is what makes our government seen as a joke around the world. We create or eliminate laws to protect a small group of people because their bribe money is more important than the well-being of the rest of the country.

And yes, both sides of the aisle are slaves to their big money donors.

[dckingsfan]

Why should wealthy people have more say than anyone else? Super PACs are massive net negatives for society.

Eliminating the Koch brothers for right now - is it nefarious for businesses to lobby for what is in their best interests? Or for unions for that matter?

And careful what you wish for - more money is spent by the top 1% on Ds than on the Rs. Although more money is spent by the Russians on the Rs

Okay, now back to your question on Super PACs - did you know this is bipartisan? 75 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats think that "there would be less corruption if there were limits on how much could be given to Super PACs."

I don't think it's nefarious, but I think it's ultimately bad for society.

And I don't think unions are exempt from that criticism at all - while unions were likely started with good intentions, I think they're pretty harmful in a lot of ways. Police and teacher unions for example should be disbanded. They're bad.

Money shouldn't be able to buy things in politics. Obviously that is quite idealistic, but it's true.

And there you have it - you would need to set some maximum limit on individual contributions per person. Easy to say but very difficult to do.

But we definitely agree...

[dckingsfan]

Why should wealthy people have more say than anyone else? Super PACs are massive net negatives for society.

Eliminating the Koch brothers for right now - is it nefarious for businesses to lobby for what is in their best interests? Or for unions for that matter?

And careful what you wish for - more money is spent by the top 1% on Ds than on the Rs. Although more money is spent by the Russians on the Rs

Okay, now back to your question on Super PACs - did you know this is bipartisan? 75 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats think that "there would be less corruption if there were limits on how much could be given to Super PACs."

uh...yea. If it were up to businesses and corporations, workers would be paid 10 cents an hour, there would be no weekends or 40 hour work week, and it would be the workers fault if they died on a jobsite deemed as hazardous. The fact that we allow legal bribery (that's what it is..."lobbying" is just a cutesy word for it) in our system is what makes our government seen as a joke around the world. We create or eliminate laws to protect a small group of people because their bribe money is more important than the well-being of the rest of the country.

And yes, both sides of the aisle are slaves to their big money donors.

So, the remedy within the framework that is the US and it's constitution?

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

#ReleaseTheMemo will go down as one of the dumbest things in recent memory, and that's really saying something

[dckingsfan]

Why should wealthy people have more say than anyone else? Super PACs are massive net negatives for society.

Eliminating the Koch brothers for right now - is it nefarious for businesses to lobby for what is in their best interests? Or for unions for that matter?

And careful what you wish for - more money is spent by the top 1% on Ds than on the Rs. Although more money is spent by the Russians on the Rs

Okay, now back to your question on Super PACs - did you know this is bipartisan? 75 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats think that "there would be less corruption if there were limits on how much could be given to Super PACs."

In Canada the laws are simpler in that a political party can raise about $1.80 per voter in a riding.If a candidate receives 10% of the vote the government gives 60% back to the political party. A maximum of $1500 is what a individual or corporation can give to a political party in a year. No Super Pacs so the parties are not in the debt of outside interests.

I used the Koch Brothers as a example it goes for large Democratic donors as well. When 1/10 of 1% of people can control the direction of government policy something is drastically wrong in a Democracy.

Not sure that would be applicable in the US given our constitution and precedence. But, it would be terrific to see this happen.

[TGW]

Eliminating the Koch brothers for right now - is it nefarious for businesses to lobby for what is in their best interests? Or for unions for that matter?

And careful what you wish for - more money is spent by the top 1% on Ds than on the Rs. Although more money is spent by the Russians on the Rs

Okay, now back to your question on Super PACs - did you know this is bipartisan? 75 percent of Republicans and 78 percent of Democrats think that "there would be less corruption if there were limits on how much could be given to Super PACs."

uh...yea. If it were up to businesses and corporations, workers would be paid 10 cents an hour, there would be no weekends or 40 hour work week, and it would be the workers fault if they died on a jobsite deemed as hazardous. The fact that we allow legal bribery (that's what it is..."lobbying" is just a cutesy word for it) in our system is what makes our government seen as a joke around the world. We create or eliminate laws to protect a small group of people because their bribe money is more important than the well-being of the rest of the country.

And yes, both sides of the aisle are slaves to their big money donors.

So, the remedy within the framework that is the US and it's constitution?

Are you referring to Citizens United?

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

uh...yea. If it were up to businesses and corporations, workers would be paid 10 cents an hour, there would be no weekends or 40 hour work week, and it would be the workers fault if they died on a jobsite deemed as hazardous. The fact that we allow legal bribery (that's what it is..."lobbying" is just a cutesy word for it) in our system is what makes our government seen as a joke around the world. We create or eliminate laws to protect a small group of people because their bribe money is more important than the well-being of the rest of the country.

And yes, both sides of the aisle are slaves to their big money donors.

So, the remedy within the framework that is the US and it's constitution?

Are you referring to Citizens United?

No. Just what is your proposed framework that would fit within that context.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[verbal8]

Read on Twitter

Interesting take from Nate Cohn. One thing I think the Democrats have gained is a path to getting DACA considered pretty much on its merits vs. as some trade-off with a significant financial contribution towards something that looks like "border security"(e.g. wasting money on the stupid wall).

[stilldropin20]

Cammac - you believe our corporate tax rate was too high. The Koch brothers believed that too... what is so nefarious about their lobbying for such.

Why should wealthy people have more say than anyone else? Super PACs are massive net negatives for society.

why are you guys so afraid? why do you keep dancing around the real issue?

You have to recapture their wealth.

1. 1st you repatriate "american" wealth. trump's tax reform just did that.
2. Then you have a midnight (top secret) bi-partisan passage of law where you all american companies and individual MUSt keep their wealth in the american central banking system. (D's should be all over this if they are who they claim to be)
3. Included in that same law is a recapture and redistribution tax of 75% both corporate, Trust, foundation, and individual. When the (original) founder of those corporation die, or current incarnation, or the individual itself) when that person dies, the tax rate is 75% for all wealth over $10M individual. $100M corporate(and cumulative:ie you can not spread it around in multiple corps, trusts, or foundations).
4. tariff/tax all other corporations and individual wealth over 10M, 50M at the same 95% rate if they move their wealth into the american central banking system.
5. Immediately print government notes, not bonds and pay off the debt in its entirety. Announce it first. 1 week write the check. this will collapse the entire global banking system. any debt or wealth not held in american markets will disappear almost over night. Wealth will be immediately moved into american markets. tax will be paid.
6. Distribute the wealth equally to the poor, working poor, lower middle and upper middle classes. including the almost permenent removal of income taxes. and the wiping out of all debt. Your house and car will be paid off!! which will collapse the entire banking system.
7. Keep your house. keep your car. raise taxes appropriately locally to support sustainable local government in its entirety.
8. Enjoy! you are currently at ground zero. playing field is extremely level.
10. pass laws where you can only own a business in the local community of which you live. ie small businesses prosper. large business will cease to exist.

done and done. I just solved all US problems and the world now has a template of which to recreate fairness. the billionaire will run and hide from country to country to country, buying off politicians along the way. eventually they will run out of places to hide.

Thats's your final war right there. that is what should be WW3. That is the only war worth fighting. and dying over. I'd die for this war. let me know when you libs are ready to actually make the world fair.

Oh never??? never ready for that??? thats what i thought. So just STFU!!! and go sit down and continue sucking your thumbs!!!

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

#ReleaseTheMemo will go down as one of the dumbest things in recent memory, and that's really saying something

getting scurred??

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

No matter what side of the aisle you're on, I think we can all agree that getting CHIP funded for six more years is a GOOD THING.