Page #14
Pages: #1... #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 ...#24
New Comment Rating: -3 Similar topics: 1.American men? 2.nude 3.Donald Trump 45th President of United States 4.🎆 🇺🇸 HaPpY BiRtHdAy America!! 🇺🇸 🎆 5.The Nobel Peace Prize 🏅 Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
"MAKE CORRUPTION ILLEGAL"!
Republicans made corruption LEGAL, by LAW.
What part of "make corruption ILLEGAL" did you not understand?
Only the most progressive politicians don't take bribes.
All the Republicans and most Democrats take bribes and then
do exactly what those 'donors' want and forget what voters want.
If you get rid of the corrupt politicians, their replacements will be
exactly as corrupt as the original politicians. Because they can!!!
How can this be so hard to understand?
If you are a politician and TOXICO INC. gives you a million dollars per year,
will you make a law or vote for a law that requires TOXICO INC. to pollute less?
You know that TOXICO INC. then will not give you your million dollars next year,
even if TOXICO INC. did not tell you directly why they give you $ 1 million/year.
Meanwhile the people cannot drink tap water, because TOXICO INC. polluted it.
Now that was a simple example; there is not 1 company that bribes $ 1 million/year,
it's many companies, all wanting the same things, donating to the campaigns of politicians, which they invented tricks for to enrich themselves personally.
Many politicians have companies, and favor from the same policies that favor their donor's companies. And politicians are allowed to trade in stocks, giving them insider knowledge when they make policies, making them them the most effective stock traders in your country and not because they are so good at stock trading.
They do that, because they are ALLOWED TO, BY LAW. And they make the laws!
Let's see murder is against the law but it happens everyday in chicago and all over the country.
drugs are illegal but you can buy them most anywhere in the country.
machine guns are illegal but they are on the black market to be had for cash.
R@pe is illegal but it happens all the time.
So how is a law regarding political donations going to stop anything?
Drugs are illegal in your country, but your country provided a strong gateway to drugs, by making healthcare unaffordable for millions of people and letting the pharma industry provide people with all the Opioids they need, until they are addicted, and then get cut off in an irresponsible way.
R@pe is illegal, but your culture assures that women who accuse men are not believed and always get punished for accusing men in power, even if the men are found guilty.
It is the same with corruption; actual corruption is still illegal in your country, but you provided the politicians with the best tools to do it. You allowed unlimited campaign funding, loopholes for politicians to enrich themselves with that campaign funding, allowed them to have all sorts of side activities, allowed them to trade stocks and allowed direct pipelines from high management to politics and from politics back to a nice cushy jobs on some board of directors. That's not an incentive for honest politics.
The principle of democracy is one person one vote, not one dollar one vote.
That's why outlawing political donations goes a long way to restore democracy to how it is intended; politicians represent certain political principles, the voter votes for the politician they most agree with, and the elected politicians go do their job of turning those political principles into legislation. Those politicians get payed well for doing their work and do not benefit themselves from the legislation they create, other than living in a society that is organized by the political principles they believe in.
If they do a good job, they get re-elected, if they suck, they get voted out.
If you think that's a pipe-dream, that's you believing that politics sucks just as bad everywhere else. It doesn't. There are 27 countries less corrupt than yours.
In those countries, politicians act on the will of their voters way more.
IF you expect a canidate to run for office and pay their own way,only the very wealthy could afford to run and be in office.that is why donations are needed.
expecting a US citizen to give up their rights to invest in their own futures and retirements thru the stock market is down right stupid.UNless you want to maintain a great standard of living for them off the taxpayer dime? which we already do give them a retirement.
There is some issues with campaign money but there are far worse problems facing this country right now,
Our constitution guarantees our right to own weapons for our protection, it is not the lawful citizens fault they are misused by criminals.
If your neighbor has to many kids, do you have your nuts cut off? No, you cut the neighbors nuts off to fix the real issue.
It's a system that is created, so the politician with the most money wins.
It's not necessary. The government can provide the same media exposure for all candidates, so the people can make the choice for the candidate that represents their ideas best. You don't need hundreds of TV commercials which provide nothing useful and only give a few soundbites or some lies about the other candidate(s).
Politicians get paid enough to compensate for not being allowed to invest in individual stocks. I'm not saying that they should not be allowed to invest money in general funds, provided by an investment firm. That the price they should pay to be a civil servant.
The fact that you face so many problems is caused by politicians who only care about themselves. That's because of the corruption. It is the root cause of all the other problems. It is my principle to always attack the root cause of any problem, everything else is symptom control.
How much does a 30 second ad cost on tv?
How much does it cost to operate any kind of vehicle ,be it horse and buggy or grey hound bus, to get a national candidate from town to town to meet the people he is asking to represent?
As for all candidates getting equal exposure, ha, they are not equal or there would be no need but for 1.
Those are examples of why it is inevitable that it cost money to run for a office.
That's the issue when you don't have public broadcasting, which is obligated to inform the public about political candidates. It's doing a better job than your commercial broadcasting, which is silencing candidates that they think are a threat to their business.
Did I say that political parties shouldn't be allowed to spend money?
They question is where that money comes from. Do you allow one wealthy person to push up one particular candidate, with many millions of dollars? Don't you see a problem with that?
It's easy to organize funding for campaigns without allowing corruption.
The money can come from party membership with a fixed contribution or the money is just provided by the government in equal measures. Why let the wealthy and corporations decide which politicians they prop up?
But let's say parties wouldn't have money for posters and TV ads,
are you then missing any essential information that will help you vote?
If a name on a poster or a 30 second ad is what people base their vote on,
then I understand why politics is in such a horrible state.
Public broadcasting,you haven't saw our "public" tv have you?
Most is boring as hell or goofy kids shit all day.
That's the issue when you don't have public broadcasting, which is obligated to inform the public about political candidates.
----------------------
That is if the left does not control most of the media
It means media which is not funded by large corporations, but by taxes.
It means setting up a system where the media is independent of big money.
There are no left channels in the US. You only have some cultural liberal CORPORATE media and some right-wing CORPORATE media. No TV channel is telling you how people are getting screwed by the wealthy and corporations, because those wealthy and corporations own all of them and pay the wages of the people working there. They get fired as soon as they say something that those wealthy and corporations don't like.
But CAT you assume sleepy is MAGA, so why not include SUPER MAGA as the old fart puts it. If anyone wanted to wreck the US right now what would they do different than sleepy??
Biden is just small steps to delay the suffering a bit.
If America was ever great, neither of them is going to make that happen again.
To make that happen, you need a president like FDR.
For poor people? For minorities? For LGBTQ people?
There are worse places to be, for those people, but a diminishing number.
"I see a country where the quality of living conditions is superior to other countries." There are many countries where most of the people have a better quality of life than the US. You probably have the richest top 10% of people in the world, but you also have a bottom 50% of people who doing much worse than the bottom 50% of many other countries.
What is really strange, is how so many people who are in that bottom 50% or even in the bottom 10% are supporting the system that is responsible for that bottom 50% and especially that bottom 10% being so much worse off than in other countries, with systems that provide more equality.
Why do people who are damaged by such levels of inequality keep supporting those level of inequality?
As far as anything else, I live in a median priced home. My neighbors are clean and well behaved. They maintain their yards and, generally, keep to themselves. I have a little more than a 1/4 acre with a three bedroom/ two bath home. I have a Florida room, a dinning room, a family room, a living room, a two car garage and a 15 x 30 in ground pool with an overhang rear porch. I'm going by the same forms of fact gathering as you. I'm a big fan of English, Irish, Danish, and other European tv and movies. Judging by what are median properties in ALL those countries, yes, I'd say we have it better here.
--------------------------------------- added after 13 minutes
My country has 14% or 30% of it's population below the poverty level and that is very high. However, most have a refrigerator, a stove, at least one TV, cell phones, a low cost duelling with furniture and many, a car. It's not enough to guarantee a great life, but, it's a livable life. I'm personally acquainted with Paris, Rome, London, Lisbon, Madrid. I also been to the Bahamas, Trinidad/Tobago, Cuba, the Virgin Islands, Santiago, Rio, Buenos Aires. Not one of those places have what I have at home. Not even close. Materialistic? Maybe, but, I've seen posts by European travelers that go to poor third world countries. They find extreme poverty with happy people. The return to their prospective European cities and find their fellow countrymen very unhappy. It's not how or where you live. It's weather you can buy a loaf of bread or not.
However, I judge a country by how they treat their most vulnerable citizens, not how I'm doing myself. Even if I had or made millions, the condition of the working class, poorest, underprivileged and handicapped, would still mostly shape my opinion on the state of my country and government. I didn't become a member of the socialist party when I was less well off, I decided to do that, when I was doing great, but many of my countrymen were struggling.
I'm sorry, but in these times of technical advancements and abundance,
I'm not satisfied with people having a loaf of bread. The fact that poor people can be happy, doesn't defend their governments from my disapproval of failing to provide their citizens with more. I'm sure even cavemen were happy, but humanity has progressed beyond that and it's the government's job and the responsibility of civilization to provide the rewards of those advancements to everyone.
A country is great, when it provides the maximum of its citizens with freedom, safety, health, prosperity, opportunity, a healthy work-life balance, enlightenment, culture, trust, the truth and a future. It's also important that that country doesn't provide those advancements to its own citizens at the cost of citizens of other countries. In fact, a country is great, if it spreads advancements beyond its borders.
Do you think those standards are too high? Without me slamming your country again, do you think your country is providing most, or any, of my demands, to its citizens?
However, there is some risk to socialism, because people are stupid too. Fully democratizing everything should be accompanied by better education and information, or they will just make stupid choices.
Still, when it comes to saving or destroying the earth and humanity, I prefer to put that choice in the hands of all the people and not in the hands of a few wealthy people.
While having socialism as a long-term goal,[30] some moderate democratic socialists are more concerned about curbing capitalism's excesses and are supportive of progressive reforms to humanise it in the present day.[31] In contrast, other democratic socialists believe that economic interventionism and similar policy reforms aimed at addressing social inequalities and suppressing capitalism's economic contradictions would only exacerbate them,[32] causing them to emerge under a different guise.[33] Those democratic socialists believe that the fundamental issues with capitalism are systemic and can only be resolved by replacing the capitalist mode of production with the socialist mode of production through the replacement of private ownership with collective ownership of the means of production and extending democracy to the economic sphere in the form of industrial democracy.[34] The main criticism of democratic socialism is focused on the compatibility of democracy and socialism.[35] Several academics and political commentators tend to distinguish between authoritarian socialism and democratic socialism as a political ideology, with the first representing the Soviet Bloc, and the latter representing the democratic socialist parties in the Western Bloc countries that have been democratically elected in countries such as Britain, France, and Sweden, among others.[36] However, following the end of the Cold War, many of these countries have moved away from socialism as a neoliberal consensus replaced the social democratic consensus in the advanced capitalist world.
What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter if the rich control government, we control witch rich guy gets in. Most socialist societies (the supposedly democratic type) are Old World ideas coined over 100 yrs ago. They all want to do away with Capitalism, but, what do they want to replace it with? General ownership of all businesses or, in other words, no one owns anything except THE GOVERNMENT. And who controls the government? Not the papushca in a small town or the clerk in a bank. Usually it's the oligarchs with access to the government. But, you say, look at Norther European countries, look at Sweden? Ok, lets. Sweden is socialist in certain laws. They still vote for Government and last I've checked, Capitalism is alive and well. The same for England, France, and most of Europe. The ex Soviet Block nations have more socialism and what happens there? Capitalism is accepted but with a strongman in charge and a tough police force. That's not for me. Maybe Genera Motors has a monopoly in cars. Maybe Standard Oil fixes the price of a gallon of gas, but, I have a choice of services and I too can go into business. No, baby, socialism is not for me even though, we , in the US use many sociaLISTIC laws.
No, you don't. Both parties answer to their donors to decide which candidates are allowed to run for office. Then they also control the media, to completely destroy any candidate that they don't like.
If you were right, there would be several progressive challengers to Biden right now. But, there is only one, Marianne Williamson; and she is being either silenced or destroyed by all of the corporate media. Biden only has a chance to win against Trump. If you elect Biden in the primaries and the Republican candidate is not Trump, Biden will most likely lose. Then you will find out what will happen to your country and your democracy. The Democrats know that, but the corporate Democrats prefer to throw away the future of your country, over a progressive winning. It's Joe Manchin's party, and he is just a Republican in Democrat's clothing.
Who's talking about a 'strongman in charge'? I'm talking about the people in charge. When have I ever defended authoritarianism? For that you need to look to your right, not to your left. Sure, I want leaders with perseverance, but I want them to fight for what their voters want, not what they want for themselves.
only registered users can see external links
What you have is a 'strawman' in the office and the wealthy 'in charge'. Are you referring to the embers of democracy, when you are talking about those 'many sociaLISTIC laws'? In any case, those embers will be further extinguished, when Biden loses. You will not eat, unless you work, no matter your age or your health, unless you belong to the elite club.
"My countrymen are happy as they are."
Really? How high are the trust percentages in the government?
only registered users can see external links
That's not because they are doing so well and are so happy.
No, I'm absolutely not satisfied with the way things are in my country, because the right-wing VVD and Mark Rutte, who have been in charge since 2010, have created a crisis in literally every foundation of the country. Companies and investors are making record profits, while the people are hurting. Trust in government is at a record low.
I'm not attacking the USA, because it's going so well in The Netherlands, I'm attacking it, because what has gone wrong in my country is going even more wrong in yours. However, we still have a much better working democracy and way more rights than you have, because we started out with much more. People are waking up. Many are attracted to stupid right-wing populists, who will only make an even bigger mess, but people are even waking up to that. The ultra-right-wing Forum for Democracy had a short popularity spike, but has fallen like a rock too. Recently, people have voted en masse for the BBB (Farmer Citizen Movement), which presents itself as a farmers-party, but in actuality is an agriculture-industrial party. After they were elected to the water councils and the senate, they are now doing nothing useful. People are already getting frustrated with them too. I hope they soon see the light and start voting for the left again, because damn have people fucked themselves hard by voting for the right.
only registered users can see external links
See what I mean?
Republicans love socialism, FOR THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS.
They give them trillions of tax dollars, while people get almost nothing.
Remember who they gave all the money to, during the corona crisis?
They just dumped trillions in the stock market, and gave trillions in PPP loans that were intended to not have to fire their employees. They still fired most of their employees, but didn't have to pay back the loans.
That's not the type of socialism that I support.
I'm sure you know about the debt ceiling deal. They are cutting $20 billion in funds to the IRS. It will result in an estimated increase of $120 billion in evaded taxes by the wealthy, creating a $100 billion higher deficit. It's not a deficit-reduction-deal, it's just another fuck-the-poor-help-the-wealthy-deal; 'socialism for the rich'.
Try it here
"Venezuela’s confiscation of most of its private sector organizations during the past 20 years has resulted in a failed state that cannot feed its people, despite oil reserves that could make it a middle-income country or better."
Sure, Venezuela has one of the largest oil reserves in the world, but they cannot sell it, because the US has sanctions on them.
"Cuba nationalized its private sector after Fidel Castro came to power in 1959, and now boasts crumbling buildings, long lines for basics, and occasional mass arrests of citizens protesting decades of austerity."
Blaming Cuba for their poverty is also atrocious. The US prevents them to trade with anyone. Even a country as large as the US would go down the drain, if it would be sanctioned like Venezuela and Cuba.
Does the writer not know this? Or are they lying to you?
This is another article to tell you that socialism doesn't work, without telling you that those countries are being destroyed by the US.
Also, state ownership of non-democratic states is by definition; COMMUNISM. Socialism is ownership by the PEOPLE. In neither Venezuela or Cuba are the people owning anything. Is that the democratizing of everything, that I'm always talking about?
In both capitalism and communism is the means of production controlled by a small group of wealthy elites. They control what happens to it and who profits from it and the people have no say in it and mostly don't profit from it. Compare that with a country like Norway, who kept their oil industry in public hands, but created one of the biggest pension funds in the world with it, for their people. That can be called socialism, without Norway being a real socialist country.
I don't see how the human trafficking, that DeSantis is doing, is supporting socialism.
BOTH, Venezuela and Cuba are dictatorships. The head guy might change every so often, but, the results are the same. I agree that, TODAY, blaming socialism for their ills does not fit, but, you have to admit the reason these dictatorships emerged? was due to a needed change called by the people. At the bottom it’s the same old story. The oligarchs and politicians, and, yes, the old dictatorship, is what caused their revolution. The new regimes immediately took aim at the US. My country did what any other power would do. Leveled economic sanctions. They could have wiped both countries from the face of the earth. All we did is grabbed our marbles and went home. Both these “governments” could have, at any time, requested a truce and used diplomacy to get out of the ringer. Cuba exported its revolution to Africa, Central America and South America. Venezuela, under Perez, nationalized the oil industry in 1976 and gave Cuba FREE oil and monetary help to sustain itself. We didn’t like it, but, until 20 yrs ago, we had a good relationship with them. Now, due to the last two dictators, relations went south.
You say, “state ownership of non-democratic states is by definition; COMMUNISM, Socialism is ownership by the PEOPLE.” I think we both know the definition of these “isms”. In reality, neither works exactly like that. I don’t know any real Communist country anywhere in the world. They are all dictatorships. The few semi-socialist countries in the world are a mix of 20%socialism and 80% capitalism or something similar. But, even if we could have true “isms”, people want to own a piece of the pie.
Norway did something good for the people. Alaska is one of our states. Like all our states, it’s a little country in a confederation of little countries called the United States.
In 1976, Alaska voters amended their state constitution to establish the Permanent Fund and require that at least 25% of the state's oil and mineral royalties be deposited into it. Money from the fund's earnings is used to supplement the state's general fund as well as pay dividends to eligible residents. There are many benefits of oil and gas production in Alaska – it provides a huge amount of jobs and accounts for 90% of taxes raised in the state, so funds education, health, policing and important community services.
What DeSantis does is criminal in every state of the union except Florida and Texas. The guy is crazy for power and being the top dog of an important state like Florida, he thinks he can take over the world. Another Hitler.
Nomia: The Republicans wanted to dump the $80bn in IRS funding, claiming it would be used to hire an army of agents to audit Americans - the agency said it would also be used to modernise the system. Instead - in showcasing his deal-making skills - Biden agreed to cut $20bn but divert that cash to other non-defence spending.
only registered users can see external links
At least for the time being, the IRS still retains most of the IRA funding boost. Rather than accelerating spending or slowing investments, the IRS could stay the course and cautiously test out approaches that could improve the efficiency and fairness of tax administration and then provide Congress with the evidence to evaluate the agency’s spending needs. If Congress were to act on that evidence, the Biden-McCarthy deal could yield a good outcome for the IRS and the vast majority of taxpayers.
These types of deals are knee jerk reactions. It's a spike in the skeem of Congressional spending. In the long run the spike will become a sine wave.
Sure, the damage, that Republican tried to do, is minimized to some extend. But it wasn't necessary! There was no need to give the Republicans ANYTHING. In fact, Biden could have used it to reduce the deficit by raising taxes on the wealthy. Understand that Republicans are cucked to the wealthy even more than Democrats. The wealthy people will lose lots of money if US defaults on its debt.
They would cut the throats of any Republican who assures that.
Let McCarthy go down for it. Don't give him a victory. The crazier his replacement, the less people will vote for Republicans.
The deal only contains cuts on people and presents for the wealthy.
If you want to lower the deficit, do it by taxing the rich. That has a large majority support of the American people and will hurt the economy the least. Biden didn't get in this deal, because corporate Democrats don't want to raise taxes on the wealthy either.
In any case, I hope the Democrats will use the same trick,
when Republicans are in power and blow up the deficit.
This 1 is funny to,
But you know,that video touchs on alot of issues.And the mexican comments on it are interesting to.
The fact I had never heard of bed bugs except in a joke until illegals got to coming in droves tells me there is some truth to it all.
The US has had bed bugs from day one.
New Comment Go to top