Kochs to spend $290M more to buy the US Capitol

[b_dubb]

$290 million is pocket change for these demons.  Is this a down payment? Or are they buying it outright?

[NowhereInTime]

$290 million is pocket change for these demons.  Is this a down payment? Or are they buying it outright?

Lease with option to buy...

[PB the Deplorable]

Considering you never hired him, how much does it matter?  In fact, there's not one blessed thing Obama's done to which you've ever given assent, so you have no credibility calling him out now.
Not only that, but if you conservatives would stop equating money with speech and getting your court to turn over 100 years of campaign law maybe people wouldn't have to waste so much time on fundraising.
Corporations are not people.

If corporations aren't people, then neither are unions and pressure groups.

And by the way, there are some things I like about Obama - he's a caring loving father providing a good role model for other young men, he hasn't shut Gitmo down, he approved that Navy sniper to kill those Somali Pirates, and I love the drone programs in places like Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan...  There are a few other minor things here and there...

And the collective 'we' did hire him and are paying his salary, golf outings, vacations, fund raiser travel.  We're paying for Mooch and the girls too. 

[NowhereInTime]

If corporations aren't people, then neither are unions and pressure groups.

Yo're right about that.  I'm pro-Union but I also believe they should have to play full disclosure rules like corps should.  There should be no advantage for either of them, or any other group.
I mean the NRA AND Move-On.
No tax-free status, no hidden donors, no pay for play.
Fuck it! If you believe in something, stand up and shout it from the rooftops, don't hide in the shadows!

[PB the Deplorable]

If corporations aren't people, then neither are unions and pressure groups...

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of corporations funding candidates.  Whether they do or not, either way, it should be a fair playing field when it comes to unions, PACs, and other groups.  A corporation is just another group of people with an interest in what government does.


The public owns the airwaves.  It should be part of the deal when allowing TV and radio stations, including satellite and cable access to those airwaves that they run free candidate ads during an election.  The remaining campaign expenses should be funded by individual donors.  No money from outside the district a person is running in, or outside the State in the case of a Governor or Senator.  A President shouldn't be spending his time on fundraisers.  Maybe no one in any office should be holding fundraisers - they have jobs to do, and already have the advantage of name rec and being the incumbent.


But the real problem is the government is too big, has too much power, has too much money, and has too much say over much of society.  If they were limited to doing just those things only government can do (and that we need them to do), with the rest left to the private sector, they wouldn't have much of an ability to distribute all these favors to their cronies.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Fuck it! If you believe in something, stand up and shout it from the rooftops, don't hide in the shadows!

All well and good, but around here people are sometimes persecuted by the fuckwits for being on the other side (for example see fallout from California's Prop 8 ) 

There is a reason we have a secret ballot.

[NowhereInTime]

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of corporations funding candidates.  Whether they do or not, either way, it should be a fair playing field when it comes to unions, PACs, and other groups.  A corporation is just another group of people with an interest in what government does.


The public owns the airwaves.  It should be part of the deal when allowing TV and radio stations, including satellite and cable access to those airwaves that they run free candidate ads during an election.  The remaining campaign expenses should be funded by individual donors.  No money from outside the district a person is running in, or outside the State in the case of a Governor or Senator.  A President shouldn't be spending his time on fundraisers.  Maybe no one in any office should be holding fundraisers - they have jobs to do, and already have the advantage of name rec and being the incumbent.


But the real problem is the government is too big, has too much power, has too much money, and has too much say over much of society.  If they were limited to doing just those things only government can do (and that we need them to do), with the rest left to the private sector, they wouldn't have much of an ability to distribute all these favors to their cronies.

Agreed.

Now if only we could agree upon a true ideal of government's limits and responsibilities...

[West of the Rockies]

Yo're right about that.  I'm pro-Union but I also believe they should have to play full disclosure rules like corps should.  There should be no advantage for either of them, or any other group.
I mean the NRA AND Move-On.
No tax-free status, no hidden donors, no pay for play.
Fuck it! If you believe in something, stand up and shout it from the rooftops, don't hide in the shadows!

I concur!  Transparency and less say by businesses and unions.  I may take some heat for this, but I think churches as well should pay taxes and have less political clout.

[West of the Rockies]

All well and good, but around here people are sometimes persecuted by the fuckwits for being on the other side (for example see fallout from California's Prop 8 ) 

There is a reason we have a secret ballot.

Secret ballots:  excellent!  Secret influence?  Not so much....  Have the courage of your convictions!

[Yorkshire pud]

I concur!  Transparency and less say by businesses and unions.  I may take some heat for this, but I think churches as well should pay taxes and have less political clout.

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of corporations funding candidates.  Whether they do or not, either way, it should be a fair playing field when it comes to unions, PACs, and other groups.  A corporation is just another group of people with an interest in what government does.


The public owns the airwaves.  It should be part of the deal when allowing TV and radio stations, including satellite and cable access to those airwaves that they run free candidate ads during an election.  The remaining campaign expenses should be funded by individual donors.  No money from outside the district a person is running in, or outside the State in the case of a Governor or Senator.  A President shouldn't be spending his time on fundraisers.  Maybe no one in any office should be holding fundraisers - they have jobs to do, and already have the advantage of name rec and being the incumbent.


But the real problem is the government is too big, has too much power, has too much money, and has too much say over much of society.  If they were limited to doing just those things only government can do (and that we need them to do), with the rest left to the private sector, they wouldn't have much of an ability to distribute all these favors to their cronies.

Agreed.

Now if only we could agree upon a true ideal of government's limits and responsibilities...

You see? Whne all said and done reasonable people aren't that far way from each other's 'beliefs'. We just dislike bullies with a passion. Especially the ones who dress their brand in the guise of our wealth.

[VtaGeezer]

Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of corporations funding candidates.  Whether they do or not, either way, it should be a fair playing field when it comes to unions, PACs, and other groups.  A corporation is just another group of people with an interest in what government does.


The public owns the airwaves.  It should be part of the deal when allowing TV and radio stations, including satellite and cable access to those airwaves that they run free candidate ads during an election.  The remaining campaign expenses should be funded by individual donors.  No money from outside the district a person is running in, or outside the State in the case of a Governor or Senator.  A President shouldn't be spending his time on fundraisers.  Maybe no one in any office should be holding fundraisers - they have jobs to do, and already have the advantage of name rec and being the incumbent.


But the real problem is the government is too big, has too much power, has too much money, and has too much say over much of society.  If they were limited to doing just those things only government can do (and that we need them to do), with the rest left to the private sector, they wouldn't have much of an ability to distribute all these favors to their cronies.

Considering the endless campaign cycles and 3rd+ party candidates we have now, your suggestion is unworkable and would effectively be nationalizing of the media. 

You and other conservatives always seem to make the deflective and phony assertion that  liberals intend to exempt themselves from any political money restriction they may propose. 

Your final and most common claim about Big Government is phony too.  Using % of GDP, the US government is smaller than that of other industrialized developed nations, not to mention the heavy redundancy of state government spending, a ridiculous "defense" budget, or that for a nation of 330 million we have grossly inadequate and cheap admin levels and it shows ( e.g. the VA, collapsing infrastructure, retreating quality of education) and have been surviving more from momentum than good direction for decades.

[Quick Karl]

Using % of GDP, the US government is smaller than that of other industrialized developed nations, not to mention the heavy redundancy of state government spending, a ridiculous "defense" budget, or that for a nation of 330 million we have grossly inadequate and cheap admin levels and it shows ( e.g. the VA, collapsing infrastructure, retreating quality of education) and have been surviving more from momentum than good direction for decades.

A smaller percentage of a gigantic GDP is far greater than a larger percentage of a smaller GDP - you're using bad statistic modeling.

[NowhereInTime]

A smaller percentage of a gigantic GDP is far greater than a larger percentage of a smaller GDP - you're using bad statistic modeling.

You're using to much modeling glue.

Once again you reveal yourself as a clueless, lecherous shill for undignified greed.  And pedophilia.

[PB the Deplorable]

Considering the endless campaign cycles and 3rd+ party candidates we have now, your suggestion is unworkable and would effectively be nationalizing of the media...

Something could be put in place so that a bunch of 3rd parties that no one votes for would not get as much air time.  Perhaps something like a candidate would need to gather a certain number of signatures to get a certain amount of airtime

... You and other conservatives always seem to make the deflective and phony assertion that  liberals intend to exempt themselves from any political money restriction they may propose...

Yeah, where would anyone get that idea

... Your final and most common claim about Big Government is phony too.  Using % of GDP, the US government is smaller than that of other industrialized developed nations, not to mention the heavy redundancy of state government spending, a ridiculous "defense" budget, or that for a nation of 330 million we have grossly inadequate and cheap admin levels and it shows ( e.g. the VA, collapsing infrastructure, retreating quality of education) and have been surviving more from momentum than good direction for decades.

I don't really think we should be comparing ourselves to other countries.  We should determine what's good governance for ourselves. 


As far as infrastructure and schools - there is plenty of money for that, it just isn't being spent wisely.

Look at just tolls, gas excise taxes, and sales tax on gasoline - that is all supposed to be spent on roads and infrastructure.  Plus more from the general budget as needed.  Instead it goes into the State and Federal general operating funds and much of it is spent elsewhere.

Or schools.  Here in Calif we spend nearly $10,000 per kid per year on education.  If there are 25-30 kids in each classroom, that's $250-300k per class.  Obviously some is spent outside the classroom for administration, library, keeping up the grounds, school nurse, etc, but looking around any classroom there is nowhere near $250k being spent there a year, including teacher salary.  Not even close.  It's way off. 

That money is spent in Sacramento and in Washington DC on mostly useless paper shuffling educrats - whose main purpose is apparently coming up with rules that thwart the kids getting a decent education.

There is not a shortage of money in government.  There is a shortage of competent administrators, there are poorly set priorities, too many desk riding bureaucrats, and dysfunction and 'empire building' everywhere.  More money isn't the answer.