29
   

Why I left the Democratic Party

 
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 01:45 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
They have to obey one of them, don't they?


well. no.

they don't have to obey any of the lobbyists.

they may agree with the positions some take, but obey? straight out no.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 01:52 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

maporsche wrote:
They have to obey one of them, don't they?


well. no.

they don't have to obey any of the lobbyists.

they may agree with the positions some take, but obey? straight out no.


Well, I guess that's my point ehBeth.

I pointed out earlier that these politicians may simply just agree with the lobbyists but that was seen to be an impossibility. So I'm just pointing out that there are lobbyists on both sides of just about every issue and the politician is going to agree with one of them.

If you (general you) view any agreement with any lobbyist as doing their bidding (or obeying them) then you're really left without any good argument.
ehBeth
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 02:02 pm
@maporsche,
ah - you were trying to play with O's attempted logic. that's a losing game.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 02:03 pm
@ehBeth,
Indeed
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 03:35 pm
@maporsche,
Quote:
There is often not moral clarity in complex situations.

Speak for yourself. YOU may have insufficient moral clarity on this issue of how big money has historically distorted American politics, upto a point where a shody, repulsive billionaire was elected president. But others' moral compass may still work somewhat on this issue. They may for instance sense that too much money in politics makes a mockery of representative democracy.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 03:42 pm
@Olivier5,
Wow. You’re a hoot.

I agree with you that there is too much money in politics, you know that.

I don’t think Trump won because of that though.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 03:46 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
ah - you were trying to play with O's attempted logic. that's a losing game.

I think he was just expressing his position by saying: you have to obey a lobbyist or another. He is resigned to, or perhaps complicit with a fundamendally rigged political system. And apparently so are you... Figure that.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 03:59 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
I agree with you that there is too much money in politics

Oh look! Your moral clarity is coming back to you! Now I wonder if you can figure this one out:

If it turned out that quite a few democrats wanting to add their vote to a Republican bill, at this point in time, to partly undo Obama-era banking regulations, if it turned out that they were receiving significant donations from the banking sector, would that be:

a. mom-n-pop shops contributing to the American vibrant democracy; or

b. a problem?
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 04:05 pm
@Olivier5,
That would depend on a several things.

We’re the donations from individuals? What did the politician run on? Do the donors directly benefit from the legislation. Did the politician change their mind after the donation. What does the politicians constituency want. We’re the donations of significant value to campaign. Did the donations come as part of any quid pro quo.

Many questions.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 04:14 pm
@maporsche,
Darn, you're loosing your moral compass again.

And on what a several things would it depend?
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 04:18 pm
@Olivier5,
I edited my post to include some of them
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 04:34 pm
@maporsche,
What about "too much money in politics"? It only applies to "them" and not to "us"?

What about perception of impropriety, at the least? And for what? To co-operate with Republicans to undo some of Obama's legacy? I can possibly think of more urgent things for a dem congressman to do right now.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 04:38 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

What about "too much money in politics"? It only applies to "them" and not to "us"?

What about perception of impropriety, at the least? And for what? To co-operate with Republicans to undo some of Obama's legacy? I can possibly think of more urgent things for a dem congressman to do right now.


I don’t know what you’re saying here. Democrats do not all vote in lockstep on every issue. One should not expect them to. No bill is perfect, even Obama’s. All bills need to be reevaluated from time to time.

This bill doesn’t seem to be something to get worked up over. Dodd Frank is intact. Obamacare & CFPB (not to mention all these cabinet and federal agency issues) are things to get worked up over.

Regarding money and buying votes, is there a specific politician you have in mind that you’d like me to consider?
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 06:01 pm
https://scontent.fhou1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/28684979_10155572590558687_3771044348024708599_n.jpg?oh=3436332f9a67a8c2d055538e5dc5295b&oe=5B394223
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  2  
Reply Tue 6 Mar, 2018 08:09 pm
Getting Big Money Out of Politics and Restoring Democracy

Quote:
On November 19, 1863, standing on the bloodstained battlefield of Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln delivered one of the most significant and best remembered speeches in American history. At the conclusion of the Gettysburg Address, Lincoln stated “that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain…that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom…and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

In the year 2016, with a political campaign finance system that is corrupt and increasingly controlled by billionaires and special interests, I fear very much that, in fact, government of the people, by the people, and for the people is beginning to perish in the United States of America.

We cannot allow that to happen.

Six years ago, as a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, by a 5-to-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially said to the wealthiest people in this country: you already own much of the American economy. Now, we are going to give you the opportunity to purchase the U.S. Government, the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, Governors’ seats, legislatures, and State judicial branches as well.

The Citizens United decision hinges on the absurd notion that money is speech, corporations are people, and giving huge piles of undisclosed cash to politicians in exchange for access and influence does not constitute corruption.

During the 2016 campaign cycle, billions of dollars from the wealthiest people in this country flooded the political process. Super PACs – a direct outgrowth of the Citizens United decision – are enabling the wealthiest people and the largest corporations in this country to contribute unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.

The situation has become so absurd that super PACs, which theoretically operate independently of the actual candidates, have more money and more influence over campaigns than the candidates themselves.

Let’s be honest and acknowledge what we are talking about. We are talking about a rapid movement in this country toward a political system in which a handful of very wealthy people and special interests will determine who gets elected or who does not get elected. That is not what this country is supposed to be about. That was not Abraham Lincoln’s vision of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

As former President Jimmy Carter recently said, unlimited money in politics, “violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now, it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. Senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over.”

The need for real campaign finance reform is not a progressive issue. It is not a conservative issue. It is an American issue. It is an issue that should concern all Americans, regardless of their political point of view, who wish to preserve the essence of the longest standing democracy in the world, a government that represents all of the people and not a handful of powerful and wealthy special interests.

Real campaign finance reform must happen as soon as possible. That is why we must overturn, through a constitutional amendment, the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision as well as the Buckley v. Valeo decision. That is why we need to pass legislation to require wealthy individuals and corporations who make large campaign contributions to disclose where their money is going. More importantly, it is why we need to move toward the public funding of elections.

Our vision for American democracy should be a nation in which all people, regardless of their income, can participate in the political process, can run for office without begging for contributions from the wealthy and the powerful.

Our vision for the future of this country should be one in which candidates are not telling billionaires at special forums what they can do for them.

Our vision for democracy should be one in which candidates are speaking to the vast majority of our people – working people, the middle class, low-income people, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the poor – and discussing with them their ideas as to how we can improve lives for all of the people in this country.

It is essential that we:

*Only appoint Supreme Court justices who will make it a priority to overturn Citizens United and who understand that corruption in politics means more than just quid pro quo.

*Fight to pass a constitutional amendment making it clear that Congress and the states have the power to regulate money in elections. I have been a proud sponsor and leading champion of such an amendment in the Senate.

*Fight for a publicly financed, transparent system of campaign financing that amplifies small donations, along the lines of the Fair Elections Now Act that I have been pleased to co-sponsor, and an effective public financing system for president.

*Insist on complete transparency regarding the funding of campaigns, including through disclosure of contributions to outside spending groups, via legislation, action by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Federal Election Commission, and Federal Communication Commission, and an executive order requiring government contractors to disclose their political spending.

*Fight to eliminate super PACs and other outside spending abuses.

*Work to aggressively enforce campaign finance rules.

Getting big money out of politics is vital, but much more needs to be done to restore our democracy. Notably, we must ensure that all Americans are guaranteed an effective right to vote. Campaign finance reform must be accompanied by efforts to strengthen voting rights – restoring the full protections of the Voting Rights Act, expanding early voting and vote-by-mail, implementing automatic voter registration, ending gerrymandering and making Election Day a national holiday, among others. When nearly two-thirds of the electorate did not vote in 2014 midterm elections, it is clear we need radical change to bring more people into the political system. Our democracy cannot be truly representative unless elected officials hear from all of their constituents, not just the wealthy and the powerful.

Returning to a government of, by, and for the people – not the billionaires and giant corporations – will not be easy. We need not some, but all of the measures highlighted here. This will require agreement of Congress or, in the case of a constitutional amendment, two-thirds of the Congress and three-quarters of the states. We’re going to get there by building a movement – a movement with enough power not only to elect a president but to insist that all of our elected representatives return power to the people, a movement that not only identifies the deep corruption of our politics but rejects cynicism and instead insists on solutions, action and accountability.

https://berniesanders.com/issues/money-in-politics/
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2018 03:30 am
@maporsche,
You're just another banker. Of course you would support paid-for laws that favor your industry at the expense of the general public. What else is new?

Quote:
Regarding money and buying votes, is there a specific politician you have in mind that you’d like me to consider?

Nobody in particular. It's one of these general moral principles applicable to everybody, rich democrats included... :-)
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2018 03:59 am
@ehBeth,
Quote:
It matters to them that America is a republic, not a democracy. 

Sorry I don't usually model my thoughts on the extreme right.
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2018 04:58 am
@Olivier5,
And you still can’t tell me why passing this bill is a bad thing.

What damage will be done?
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2018 05:04 am
@maporsche,
Here you go:

Why Are Democrats Helping Trump Dismantle Dodd-Frank?
https://nyti.ms/2FYhasx
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 7 Mar, 2018 06:32 am
@Olivier5,
More detail from an excellent overview by Vox:

Quote:
The provision of the bill that has garnered the most attention is one that would raise the threshold at which banks are subject to certain federal oversight, including stress tests that measure a bank’s ability to withstand an economic downturn. Under current law, banks with assets of $50 billion or more are considered systematically important financial institutions (often referred to as SIFIs) and are therefore subject to stricter oversight from the Federal Reserve.

The Senate bill would increase the SIFI threshold to $250 billion. Banks with assets of less than $100 billion would be freed of current oversight requirements, and those between $100 billion and $250 billion would no longer be subject to tougher rules after 18 months, although the Fed could determine periodic stress tests and other tailored oversight measures. That would free up a lot of regional banks from the heightened regulatory scrutiny they face today, including BB&T, SunTrust Banks, Key Bank, and American Express. The bill could affect about two dozen banks in total.

A number of regulators and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have said that Dodd-Frank’s $50 billion threshold should have been set higher. Former Federal Reserve Gov. Daniel Tarullo, a Democrat, said in his “departing thoughts” in April 2017 that the $50 billion cutoff was “too low.” Even Barney Frank, the former Massachusetts Democratic representative who helped craft Dodd-Frank, has admitted that the $50 billion number was a “mistake.”

But the new $250 billion threshold has raised some eyebrows. In a recent CNBC op-ed, Frank said that were he still in Congress, he would vote against the bill because of the $250 billion mark. (He has suggested a threshold in the $125 billion range.) He pointed out that the failure of two or three such institutions would put us in “Lehman Brothers territory,” referring to the investment bank that filed for bankruptcy in September 2008, precipitating the financial crisis. Countrywide Financial, one of the country’s largest subprime mortgage lenders that was at the center of the 2008 mortgage crisis, had assets in the $210 billion range before it failed.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/10/2024 at 06:08:08