Thread: Bernie Sanders Exposes the 26 Billionaires who are Buying the 2012 Election

woodsdweller - 7/25/2012 at 08:52 PM

http://politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-exposes-26-billionaires-buying-2012- election.html


alanwoods - 7/25/2012 at 09:22 PM

There's fair and balanced for ya.


bigann - 7/25/2012 at 09:29 PM

And it's not even that it's the people who are being purchased. It's the state officials who are trying to make it harder for people to vote and the companies making the voting machines themselves that have been proven to be rather less than reliable to put it mildly. I'm not for sale....but evidently there are a lot of other factors in an elecion that are.


alanwoods - 7/25/2012 at 09:39 PM

quote:
And it's not even that it's the people who are being purchased. It's the state officials who are trying to make it harder for people to vote and the companies making the voting machines themselves that have been proven to be rather less than reliable to put it mildly. I'm not for sale....but evidently there are a lot of other factors in an elecion that are.


Have you been following the Va fiasco?


MartinD28 - 7/25/2012 at 09:54 PM

For all those who blast Judge Roberts & the Supreme Court for the Affordable Health Care Act decision, I believe the Citizens United decision is far worse. The CU decision puts the government up for sale - no if, ands or buts. I can't see how anyone could think this is a good ruling or a practical idea.

So much for "of the people, by the people, for the people". Now we have "of the billion$, by the billion$, and for the billion$".


bigann - 7/25/2012 at 11:22 PM

quote:
quote:
And it's not even that it's the people who are being purchased. It's the state officials who are trying to make it harder for people to vote and the companies making the voting machines themselves that have been proven to be rather less than reliable to put it mildly. I'm not for sale....but evidently there are a lot of other factors in an elecion that are.


Have you been following the Va fiasco?


Yes, and it's a sorry state of affairs that's going on in several other states.


TheGuru - 7/26/2012 at 12:57 AM

Where are George Soros, Penny Pritzker, Warren Buffet and Oprah on that list?


alloak41 - 7/26/2012 at 02:33 AM

The 26 individuals on that list...

How many jobs have they created, and how many millions in wages have they paid to folks on their payrolls? How much have they paid in taxes over their lifetime? Seems to me they should have some input on what goes on in elections.


bigann - 7/26/2012 at 02:40 AM

Of course they should but are you trying to say because they have more money they should have more say than the average person?


alloak41 - 7/26/2012 at 02:50 AM

quote:
Of course they should but are you trying to say because they have more money they should have more say than the average person?


I think they should have more say than someone with no skin in the game; a person that doesn't pay taxes, feeds off the government, and makes little or no contribution to much of anything. Who do you think that person will always support?


bigann - 7/26/2012 at 03:28 AM

So, if someone has lost his or her job, had to draw unemployment and as a result of the economy lost their house so they're living in subsidized housing drawing food stamps until they can find a job and get back on their feet, they shouldn't have the same say in how this country is run as the billionaires who maybe profited from mismanaged fiscal matters? How can you believe in what this country stands for and still say that someone should have more say because they have money?


alloak41 - 7/26/2012 at 03:38 AM

quote:
So, if someone has lost his or her job, had to draw unemployment and as a result of the economy lost their house so they're living in subsidized housing drawing food stamps until they can find a job and get back on their feet, they shouldn't have the same say in how this country is run as the billionaires who maybe profited from mismanaged fiscal matters? How can you believe in what this country stands for and still say that someone should have more say because they have money?


That's not at all how you framed the original question.


bigann - 7/26/2012 at 04:57 AM

are you trying to say because they have more money they should have more say than the average person?

That was my question, you said yes. I asked a different question to get you to elaborate on the subject. What's the problem?


woodsdweller - 7/26/2012 at 08:43 AM

quote:
I think they should have more say than someone with no skin in the game; a person that doesn't pay taxes, feeds off the government, and makes little or no contribution to much of anything.


Wow. Where to begin......

quote:
I think they should have more say


POLL SAYS 90% OF AMERICANS BELIEVE BIG BUSINESS HAS TOO MUCH POWER (2005 poll)
http://reclaimdemocracy.com/articles_2005/business_power_poll.php

BIG COMPANIES HAVE TOO MUCH POWER AND INFLUENCE IN DC, POLL FINDS (2010 Poll)
http://globalethics.org/newsline/2010/04/12/dc-poll/

BIG COMPANIES SEEN BY STRONG MAJORITIES AS HAVING TOO MUCH POWER AND INFLUENCE IN DC (2011 poll)
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/pacs-big-companies-lobbyists-and-ba nks-and-financial-institutions-seen-by-strong-majorities-as-having-too-much -power-and-influence-in-dc-155315865.html

quote:
a person that doesn't pay taxes


Bernie Sanders' Guide to Corporate Freeloaders (Huge Corporations That Paid No tax)
http://www.azprogress.org/sites/default/files/content/Corporate%20Greed%20T op%2010.jpg

quote:
feeds off the government




quote:
makes little or no contribution to anything


Are you saying, for example, that the underpaid workers employed by these 26 billionaires have made little or no contribution to anything? That the Billionaires could've gotten rich without their employees to help them?

Giving giant corporations more say in Government?
Not when they have a record like this....
THE TOP 100 CORPORATE CRIME STORIES OF 2011
http://corporatecrimereporter.com/top10012162011.htm

[Edited on 7/26/2012 by woodsdweller]


MartinD28 - 7/26/2012 at 12:32 PM

quote:
So, if someone has lost his or her job, had to draw unemployment and as a result of the economy lost their house so they're living in subsidized housing drawing food stamps until they can find a job and get back on their feet, they shouldn't have the same say in how this country is run as the billionaires who maybe profited from mismanaged fiscal matters? How can you believe in what this country stands for and still say that someone should have more say because they have money?


X2

All people are created equally. Everyone puts on their pants one leg at a time. Just because someone has more money than the next person & has created a payroll or jobs shouldn't translate to greater access / influence to politicians nor "ownership" of government.


gondicar - 7/26/2012 at 12:39 PM

quote:
quote:
Of course they should but are you trying to say because they have more money they should have more say than the average person?


I think they should have more say than someone with no skin in the game; a person that doesn't pay taxes, feeds off the government, and makes little or no contribution to much of anything. Who do you think that person will always support?


Wow. If that is your take on an "average person" in this country, then you really do have a warped sense of reality.


alloak41 - 7/26/2012 at 01:32 PM

Take it anywhere you want it to go, but I stand by my statement. I don't see anything outrageous about someone at that level of acheivement exerting influence over who gets elected.


Bhawk - 7/26/2012 at 01:52 PM

quote:
Take it anywhere you want it to go, but I stand by my statement. I don't see anything outrageous about someone at that level of acheivement exerting influence over who gets elected.


With that kind of trust to those above, will you stop voting?


dutchoneill - 7/26/2012 at 01:55 PM

OK, scale it back, should I be banned because I contribute on a regular basis to the party or organizations I choose because I can and because thats what i think is a good use of my money?

Its just being done a larger scale.

And please don't imply that there aren't a lot of deep pockets contributing to both parties.


Bhawk - 7/26/2012 at 02:00 PM

quote:
OK, scale it back, should I be banned because I contribute on a regular basis to the party or organizations I choose because I can and because thats what i think is a good use of my money?

Its just being done a larger scale.

And please don't imply that there aren't a lot of deep pockets contributing to both parties.



That depends. With what you donate, can you directly influence or even write legislation that becomes law? Does it get you connected enough to receive large amounts of government subsidies to assist your private business?


Bhawk - 7/26/2012 at 02:02 PM

Let's keep in mind that right now there are basically no campaign finance rules. The government is more for sale right now than it has ever been. Corporations are people, my friend.


Chain - 7/26/2012 at 02:05 PM

Another little statistical tidbit regarding who's "buying gov't:"

"Who gives money to Super PACs?
So far, 0.000063 percent of the country’s population—196 superwealthy people—have given more than 80 percent of the Super PAC money spent in the presidential election.
TheAtlantic.com"


MartinD28 - 7/26/2012 at 04:24 PM

quote:
Let's keep in mind that right now there are basically no campaign finance rules. The government is more for sale right now than it has ever been. Corporations are people, my friend.


Great post.

Going, going, gone. Sold to the highest bidders. The government is basically now owned by an oligopoly thanks to Citizens United.

Where have we heard that last line of your post? It seems oh so familiar.


TheGuru - 7/26/2012 at 05:11 PM

Yet, nary a peep about the shelving of an audit of the most influential corporation in the world?


Chain - 7/26/2012 at 05:20 PM

quote:
Yet, nary a peep about the shelving of an audit of the most influential corporation in the world?


Well, we did banter this travesty about quite sometime ago when Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, and others we pushing for an audit of the Fed. I entirely agree that the Fed should be held to the highest standard of transparency and should be required to complete an annual audit.

I'm sure you recall that it was only because of the efforts of the aforementioned individuals and others behind the scenes the led to the revelation that the Fed had actually given out Trillions of dollars at the height if the financial crisis to not only American owned banks, but foreign banks, govt's, etc..

Part of the problem is that the average citizen has no clue what the Federal Reserve even is much less the extent of its power and little to no oversight by other branches of gov't.

[Edited on 7/26/2012 by Chain]


piacere - 7/26/2012 at 05:20 PM

quote:
So, if someone has lost his or her job, had to draw unemployment and as a result of the economy lost their house so they're living in subsidized housing drawing food stamps until they can find a job and get back on their feet, they shouldn't have the same say in how this country is run as the billionaires who maybe profited from mismanaged fiscal matters? How can you believe in what this country stands for and still say that someone should have more say because they have money?


that's one scenario...and a legitimate one.

there are others. I see them first-hand every day. There are in fact people who do nothing: get housing, health coverage (to a degree) food stamps and a welfare check (or SSI, etc.) and other programs designed to keep them..."on their feet"...and they want more! and do nothing at all to contribute or get on their feet by themselves...why should they?

I agree we're all created equal and every vote carries the same weight but I don't think alloak41 is that far off the mark. If someone legitimately stands on their own feet and has for a while and employs others and has engaged in fair business practice, I think it's pretty obvious who's contributing and who isn't.


michaelsio - 7/26/2012 at 05:41 PM

quote:
quote:
Of course they should but are you trying to say because they have more money they should have more say than the average person?


I think they should have more say than someone with no skin in the game; a person that doesn't pay taxes, feeds off the government, and makes little or no contribution to much of anything. Who do you think that person will always support?


Everybody is equal. Some are more equal than others.


bigann - 7/26/2012 at 10:22 PM

So, the retiree who is living on social security and getting medicare shouldn't have as much say in the system as the go getter who's screwing everyone out of every dollar they can because they have more money? I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole concept of anyone in the country thinking rich people should have more say in our government than the least of us.


MartinD28 - 7/26/2012 at 10:37 PM

quote:
So, the retiree who is living on social security and getting medicare shouldn't have as much say in the system as the go getter who's screwing everyone out of every dollar they can because they have more money? I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole concept of anyone in the country thinking rich people should have more say in our government than the least of us.


I agree 100% with your premise. We've already seen that there are posts on this site supporting more say so based upon wealth. I have a problem with that logic and correlation.

Unfortunately we live in an era where politicians are owned. Politicians are nothing more than a commodity & beholden to those who purchase them. They are marketable items & big time "donors" pay quite well for influence.


alloak41 - 7/27/2012 at 01:58 AM

quote:
So, the retiree who is living on social security and getting medicare shouldn't have as much say in the system as the go getter who's screwing everyone out of every dollar they can because they have more money? I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole concept of anyone in the country thinking rich people should have more say in our government than the least of us.


I would suspect your difficulty in understanding that point of view is based on some predisposed dislike of wealthy people. The automatic assumption that they surely got that way by screwing people over. What else could it be? No surpise you can't wrap your head around the concept.

The employer of millions who took the risks, builds the enterprises, and meets the payroll is what makes this country work. Surpass this level of achievement and you deserve an audience with the politcians IMO. Good luck building Barack's roads and bridges without them.


alloak41 - 7/27/2012 at 02:01 AM

quote:
quote:
So, if someone has lost his or her job, had to draw unemployment and as a result of the economy lost their house so they're living in subsidized housing drawing food stamps until they can find a job and get back on their feet, they shouldn't have the same say in how this country is run as the billionaires who maybe profited from mismanaged fiscal matters? How can you believe in what this country stands for and still say that someone should have more say because they have money?


that's one scenario...and a legitimate one.

there are others. I see them first-hand every day. There are in fact people who do nothing: get housing, health coverage (to a degree) food stamps and a welfare check (or SSI, etc.) and other programs designed to keep them..."on their feet"...and they want more! and do nothing at all to contribute or get on their feet by themselves...why should they?

I agree we're all created equal and every vote carries the same weight but I don't think alloak41 is that far off the mark. If someone legitimately stands on their own feet and has for a while and employs others and has engaged in fair business practice, I think it's pretty obvious who's contributing and who isn't.


Thanks, Mark. It's really not that hard to wrap your head around. You described the feeders, but there are also the lifetime adolescents who never grow up. I have a few friends like that. They are nice middle aged guys that make decent money, work pretty hard, but never have any money.

Having nothing in the bank and no retirement fund doesn't keep them off the golf course or away from the dog track, though, and they live one paycheck away from disaster. Something happens and it becomes the taxpayers problem. Permanent adolescents that never learn to tell themselves "no" and never grow up, yet assume that everything will end up working out.

After all, the government is there to back them up if something bad happens...


gondicar - 7/27/2012 at 02:21 AM

quote:
quote:
So, if someone has lost his or her job, had to draw unemployment and as a result of the economy lost their house so they're living in subsidized housing drawing food stamps until they can find a job and get back on their feet, they shouldn't have the same say in how this country is run as the billionaires who maybe profited from mismanaged fiscal matters? How can you believe in what this country stands for and still say that someone should have more say because they have money?


that's one scenario...and a legitimate one.

there are others. I see them first-hand every day. There are in fact people who do nothing: get housing, health coverage (to a degree) food stamps and a welfare check (or SSI, etc.) and other programs designed to keep them..."on their feet"...and they want more! and do nothing at all to contribute or get on their feet by themselves...why should they?

I agree we're all created equal and every vote carries the same weight but I don't think alloak41 is that far off the mark. If someone legitimately stands on their own feet and has for a while and employs others and has engaged in fair business practice, I think it's pretty obvious who's contributing and who isn't.


I think he's way off the mark. The assertion that influence over public policy should be directly tied to business success, or more specifically, financial success runs contrary to the very principals our country was founded upon. People contribute to society in different ways. As far as I know, the constitution doesn't define or seek to define the type or size of the contribution that citizens must make or the amount of businesses succes it takes in order to exert influence over public policy.

You acknowleged that there are legitimate scenarios. They vastly outnumber and the "do nothings" that you describe, who are not even representative of the average person that benefits from the programs you mentioned. No one can dispute that there isn't abuse and fraud in the system. There is abuse and fraud on the internet, and in most other large enterprises as well. But instead of focusing on correcting the abuse and the fraud, these kinds of "throw the baby out with the bathwater" generalizations do not reflect the true nature of these programs and the majority of people that benefit from them.

Beyond that, having such a narrow interpretation of "who is contributing" by limitiing it to people who create or manage a payroll (the bigger the better!) and suggesting that these people deserve more influence over public policy is rather, well, unamerican in my view.


alloak41 - 7/27/2012 at 02:36 AM

Who's well-being is your typical welfare recipient providing for besides his own? As opposed to a Bill Gates, who's day-to-day endeavors effect the well-being of 100,000 employees. Yet the two should have equal access? And you question my view of reality?

Dream on.


gondicar - 7/27/2012 at 11:59 AM

quote:
Who's well-being is your typical welfare recipient providing for besides his own?

Their family.

quote:
Yet the two should have equal access?

Yes, exactly right. But's that's definitely not reality.


[Edited on 7/27/2012 by gondicar]


piacere - 7/27/2012 at 03:14 PM

quote:
quote:
Who's well-being is your typical welfare recipient providing for besides his own?

Their family.

quote:
Yet the two should have equal access?

Yes, exactly right. But's that's definitely not reality.


[Edited on 7/27/2012 by gondicar]


the government is providing for their family.

earlier, when I said "contributing", I meant it in a societal way, a community way, not financial. This notion that all business people are screwing everyone is nonsense, with all due respect to you ann . I don't screw anyone...in fact, I have clients who haven't paid me in months, yet I pay my two employees every week.

my next door neighbor collects welfare. She lives in a Section 8 house with her two kids, her working boyfriend, her working sister (both under the table). She sits around all day, though able bodied, and does nothing to "contribute" to society. Nothing. No volunteer work, no part time school hours work, nothing.

Society works, or works better, when everyone does their FAIR SHARE. This isn't a money or business thing, though I'll reiterate that those who have achieved success through fair business practices AND have contributed to the well being of others should have more say than the people who benefit from the taxes paid by the very same person.
No one "benefits" from habitually collecting welfare. It creates a cycle of apathy. I see it every day with far more people than some here apparently are aware of.


Bhawk - 7/27/2012 at 04:14 PM

I'm confused. Is it OK to tell other people how to live their lives or not?


bigann - 7/27/2012 at 05:36 PM

Not everyone who works is out to 'screw over' everyone and not everyone on Welfare is not contributing to society. Wasn't there some kind of welfare reform when Clinton was president that overhauled the system as it used to be?


piacere - 7/27/2012 at 05:43 PM

quote:
I'm confused. Is it OK to tell other people how to live their lives or not?


you got kids?


Bhawk - 7/27/2012 at 05:45 PM

quote:
quote:
I'm confused. Is it OK to tell other people how to live their lives or not?


you got kids?


Yes.


piacere - 7/27/2012 at 05:45 PM

quote:
Not everyone who works is out to 'screw over' everyone and not everyone on Welfare is not contributing to society. Wasn't there some kind of welfare reform when Clinton was president that overhauled the system as it used to be?


politics...it'll never change the human condition...no matter what Obama/Democrats want you to believe.

sorry, I had to throw that in there...


piacere - 7/27/2012 at 05:52 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
I'm confused. Is it OK to tell other people how to live their lives or not?


you got kids?


Yes.


you tell him/her/them the rights and wrongs? the "how to's"? provide for them because they can't for themselves? what if they won't? they're over 18 and won't work, try, make an effort but live on your dime? you won't suggest a path to a better way? and make it easier on yourself in the meantime? sure, you love them but there's discipline, structure...a foundation to build on that they have to understand.

same thing as what I'm talking about.


Bhawk - 7/27/2012 at 06:47 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
I'm confused. Is it OK to tell other people how to live their lives or not?


you got kids?


Yes.


you tell him/her/them the rights and wrongs? the "how to's"? provide for them because they can't for themselves? what if they won't? they're over 18 and won't work, try, make an effort but live on your dime? you won't suggest a path to a better way? and make it easier on yourself in the meantime? sure, you love them but there's discipline, structure...a foundation to build on that they have to understand.

same thing as what I'm talking about.


I understand all of that. I'm talking about adults who tell other adults how to live their lives. It seems that in some cases that's OK and in some cases it isn't.


piacere - 7/27/2012 at 07:19 PM

with retrospect, a foolish post on my part...yet again. I figured you understood that, unless of course, you raise your child/children to be Chiefs fans...but that's another thread.

Actually, I see little difference between the "adults" that you point to and misguided 13 year olds. I don't think it's necessarily telling someone "how" to live their respective lives but more "what", as in; programs to train to get back to the workforce or at least make themselves marketable or providing some initiative for them to at least be somewhat productive, in any area, in any role.

For me, I just can't see handing a perfectly able-bodied person welfare, food stamps, etc. without there being some sort of stimulus or incentive to do something, anything.


bigann - 7/27/2012 at 09:10 PM

This is an issue on which I've stated my beliefs in the past. I sincerely think all able bodied people who need financial assistance should have it tied to public works. I understand there are old people, ill people and children who should not be left homeless and hungry just because they can't work, but if they're able bodied, it needs to be work connected to assistance.


Peachypetewi - 7/27/2012 at 11:33 PM

quote:
This is an issue on which I've stated my beliefs in the past. I sincerely think all able bodied people who need financial assistance should have it tied to public works. I understand there are old people, ill people and children who should not be left homeless and hungry just because they can't work, but if they're able bodied, it needs to be work connected to assistance.


I think there does need to be a provision in there for single women with kids for day care. The cost of day care is more than what they would earn at some marginally paying public works job.


alloak41 - 7/28/2012 at 03:39 AM

quote:
quote:
This is an issue on which I've stated my beliefs in the past. I sincerely think all able bodied people who need financial assistance should have it tied to public works. I understand there are old people, ill people and children who should not be left homeless and hungry just because they can't work, but if they're able bodied, it needs to be work connected to assistance.


I think there does need to be a provision in there for single women with kids for day care. The cost of day care is more than what they would earn at some marginally paying public works job.


Put some qualified welfare recipients on it in exchange for their benefits.


bigann - 7/28/2012 at 04:10 AM

A long time ago I wrote that if I was king I would set up a system where women on welfare would be able to leave their children with a day care center staffed by other welfare recipients. After a year the women in the day care would go to school while others took care of the kids. After the women graduated from school they would either go to work and be off of the welfare rolls or they'd go and watch kids in the day care. One of the most difficult things for a women with children to do is go to work and still be able to afford living expenses in addition to daycare. We also need to make certain the missisng parent, man or woman, pay child support as ordered!


piacere - 7/28/2012 at 01:46 PM

quote:
A long time ago I wrote that if I was king I would set up a system where women on welfare would be able to leave their children with a day care center staffed by other welfare recipients. After a year the women in the day care would go to school while others took care of the kids. After the women graduated from school they would either go to work and be off of the welfare rolls or they'd go and watch kids in the day care. One of the most difficult things for a women with children to do is go to work and still be able to afford living expenses in addition to daycare. We also need to make certain the missisng parent, man or woman, pay child support as ordered!


ahhhh, thank you.

I rest my case.


piacere - 7/28/2012 at 01:59 PM

wait a minute...you said "would be able to..." Does that suggest they'd be given the option or it'd be mandatory? After all, we don't want to tell other adults, other dependent adults, how to live their lives...

maybe we could just gently coax them? like hyperactive adolescents...

then you said, "make certain". Again, telling the missing parent how to run their life...

tsk tsk...


bigann - 7/28/2012 at 05:34 PM

quote:
wait a minute...you said "would be able to..." Does that suggest they'd be given the option or it'd be mandatory? After all, we don't want to tell other adults, other dependent adults, how to live their lives...

maybe we could just gently coax them? like hyperactive adolescents...

then you said, "make certain". Again, telling the missing parent how to run their life...

tsk tsk...


Believe it or not, I've always believed in a hand up rather than a hand out. And it wouldn't be optional....if someone wants money to live on from the government, if they're old enough and able bodied, they they need to do something to earn it. Work to build our infrastructure, pick vegetables, whatever needs to be done. I've never said I was for supporting anyone other than the old, the sick and the very young with our tax dollars.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://hittintheweb.com/

Url of this website:
http://hittintheweb.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=125263