Why we're going to get creamed in November

[bpwallace49]

Yes but the left is looking to silence the corporations and their stock holders through legislation like the "Disclose Act" which will basically double the amount of any ad due to disclosure requirements, yet the "Disclose Act" does not affect union contributions. BTW I think they will be voting on the "Disclose Act" today.

 

Ahh . . . so in your opinioon, the right is so much more virtuous thatn the left?

 

I am SHOCKED by this unexpected development!

 

CLEARLY that means the left is completely wrong and the right is awesome! Thank you moneymakers for that important update!

 

Either you have your eyes open and realize both have constituenties that they bend over for . . or you keep your blinders on and try to paint one as somehow being less full of crap than the other. Hence the partisanship rings out loud and clear . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

Ahh . . . so in your opinioon, the right is so much more virtuous thatn the left?

 

I am SHOCKED by this unexpected development!

 

CLEARLY that means the left is completely wrong and the right is awesome! Thank you moneymakers for that important update!

 

Either you have your eyes open and realize both have constituenties that they bend over for . . or you keep your blinders on and try to paint one as somehow being less full of crap than the other. Hence the partisanship rings out loud and clear . . .

 

My problem is with the left wanting to silence corporations and thus their stockholders, but not wanting to do the same to the unions. Aside from it being an assault on free speech, it is a one sided assault on free speech geared to silencing or at least limiting the speech of supporters of the current opposition party. How you get that I feel one part is more virtuous than the other out of that is beyond me. Both parties are corrupt as hell, and I'd like to see most politicians in DC right now get sent home. Why don't you dial back the shtick and actually read what is posted and respond to it rather than what you project others may feel.

[Ursa Majoris]

fixed to be a relevant comparison.

Actually, not. The next big move, on the heels of the Supreme Court's blatant attempt to allow corporations to fix elections, is going to be to demonstrate to said corporations that without customers, they are f*cked. Those donations like the Target one will receive one hell of a backlash, which will effectively dry up most of them eventually.

[dmarc117]

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recips.php...p;id=D000000085

 

looks like dems got more from gs in 2010.....shocking

 

 

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/toprecips....&cycle=2010

Edited September 23, 2010 by dmarc117

[bpwallace49]

My problem is with the left wanting to silence corporations and thus their stockholders, but not wanting to do the same to the unions. Aside from it being an assault on free speech, it is a one sided assault on free speech geared to silencing or at least limiting the speech of supporters of the current opposition party. How you get that I feel one part is more virtuous than the other out of that is beyond me. Both parties are corrupt as hell, and I'd like to see most politicians in DC right now get sent home. Why don't you dial back the shtick and actually read what is posted and respond to it rather than what you project others may feel.

 

I do so love our discussions perch. . . .

[Ursa Majoris]

Yes but the left is looking to silence the corporations and their stock holders through legislation like the "Disclose Act" which will basically double the amount of any ad due to disclosure requirements, yet the "Disclose Act" does not affect union contributions. BTW I think they will be voting on the "Disclose Act" today.

Why would disclosing which corporations are making donations affect their ability to do so? Haven't we already seen a list of corporate and union donors?

[Azazello1313]

is going to be to demonstrate to said corporations that without customers, they are f*cked.

 

I think the market's been demonstrating that to them since the time of adam smith.

[Ursa Majoris]

I think the market's been demonstrating that to them since the time of adam smith.

Yep. But as long as there are alternatives, people can vote with their feet. The Target example is but a small one. When this thing gets organized, corporations are going to find that their donations are very heavily scrutinized by some customers, enough to matter. That's why they don't want to have this stuff disclosed.

[Perchoutofwater]

Why would disclosing which corporations are making donations affect their ability to do so? Haven't we already seen a list of corporate and union donors?

 

The Disclose Act requires ad space to be wasted indicating who paid for the add and have the person come out and say "I support this message." Of course this will increase the length of the add, thus increasing the cost. Of course the Disclose Act only affects corporations and PACs but not unions or the NRA (they agreed not to oppose it if they were not required to abide by it). So basically for every $1 of ad space unions buy they get a $1 of ad space, but for every $1 of ad space corporations or PAC's pay for they get $0.70 of ad space and $0.30 of disclosure space. It will actually be worse for PACs as I believe the top 5 donors to PAC's have to be listed.

 

While I have a problem with this as it basically stifles free speech, I'd have much less of a problem if it stifled it uniformly instead of targeting specific groups and exempting others.

[Ursa Majoris]

The Disclose Act requires ad space to be wasted indicating who paid for the add and have the person come out and say "I support this message." Of course this will increase the length of the add, thus increasing the cost. Of course the Disclose Act only affects corporations and PACs but not unions or the NRA (they agreed not to oppose it if they were not required to abide by it). So basically for every $1 of ad space unions buy they get a $1 of ad space, but for every $1 of ad space corporations or PAC's pay for they get $0.70 of ad space and $0.30 of disclosure space. It will actually be worse for PACs as I believe the top 5 donors to PAC's have to be listed.

 

While I have a problem with this as it basically stifles free speech, I'd have much less of a problem if it stifled it uniformly instead of targeting specific groups and exempting others.

So 30% of the sapce / time has to be given over to disclosure?

[Perchoutofwater]

So 30% of the sapce / time has to be given over to disclosure?

 

Not 30%, but the time that has to be used for disclosure by corporations which reduces the actual ad time, particularly for PAC's which have to list the top 5 donors. It won't be all that bad in print ads, but it is going to be very costly in radio and tv ads. Basically any time the corporations and PAC's are having to use for disclosure in these ads is time they are paying for but getting nothing from. Unions are not subject to this, so they get a lot more bang for their buck.

[Ursa Majoris]

Not 30%, but the time that has to be used for disclosure by corporations which reduces the actual ad time, particularly for PAC's which have to list the top 5 donors. It won't be all that bad in print ads, but it is going to be very costly in radio and tv ads. Basically any time the corporations and PAC's are having to use for disclosure in these ads is time they are paying for but getting nothing from. Unions are not subject to this, so they get a lot more bang for their buck.

Don't all political candidates have to do that "I approve this message" thing?

[Azazello1313]

Government Motors back to political donations

 

The Detroit company gave $90,500 to candidates running in the current election cycle, Federal Election Commission records show.

 

.The beneficiaries include Midwestern lawmakers, mostly Democrats, who have traditionally supported the industry's legislative agenda on Capitol Hill, including Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.).

 

The list also includes Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the House Republican Whip, who would likely assume a top leadership post if Republicans win control of the House in November.

 

It isn't unusual for big companies like GM to spend on political campaigns, but complicating GM's situation is that the company is majority-owned by the U.S. government.

 

what a lovely little graft feedback loop.

[Perchoutofwater]

Don't all political candidates have to do that "I approve this message" thing?

 

Read the bill. We are talking about 3rd party ads. Unions don't have the disclosure requirements thus get more bang for their buck. Corporations and PAC's do have disclosure requirements thus get less bang for their buck. Does that seem right to you?

[Ursa Majoris]

Government Motors back to political donations

 

what a lovely little graft feedback loop.

Hmmmm. If the government doesn't really have any money (which is what we hear all the time), GM must be largely owned by the taxpayer, yes? Ergo, these donations must in part belong to Republicans since some taxpayers are Republicans, true? Thus Republicans are funding Democrat donations in some measure.

 

So, how is that different to Democrats that own parts of private corporations via stocks, 401k, etc having their money donated to republicans?

[driveby]

Hmmmm. If the government doesn't really have any money (which is what we hear all the time), GM must be largely owned by the taxpayer, yes? Ergo, these donations must in part belong to Republicans since some taxpayers are Republicans, true? Thus Republicans are funding Democrat donations in some measure.

 

So, how is that different to Democrats that own parts of private corporations via stocks, 401k, etc having their money donated to republicans?

Cool, are paying taxes optional now?

[Azazello1313]

Hmmmm. If the government doesn't really have any money (which is what we hear all the time), GM must be largely owned by the taxpayer, yes? Ergo, these donations must in part belong to Republicans since some taxpayers are Republicans, true? Thus Republicans are funding Democrat donations in some measure.

 

So, how is that different to Democrats that own parts of private corporations via stocks, 401k, etc having their money donated to republicans?

 

seriously? wow. OK, I'll pretend you are serious, and point out that primary difference is that target doesn't take your money by coercion. you are absolutely free to shop at target or not shop at target.

[Deathpig]

Yep. But as long as there are alternatives, people can vote with their feet. The Target example is but a small one. When this thing gets organized, corporations are going to find that their donations are very heavily scrutinized by some customers, enough to matter. That's why they don't want to have this stuff disclosed.

 

I think this is actually a better description of why the Union/Member, Corporation/Shareholder is a poor analogy. As best I'm aware most union jobs don't give you the option to not be in the union and perform the job. To have the job, you have to join the union and pay the dues. There aren't multiple unions that cater to the same professionals so that you might have a choice of which union to join (maybe one that more caters to your personal views). Shareholders (Az's example) and Customers (Ursa's example) have the option to not invest in/patronize the corporation. If I work in the UAW and I disagree with their contributions, what are my options? Leave my chosen profession?

 

Unions aren't voluntary. Corporations are.

[driveby]

more comedy;

 

Vice President Biden said Thursday the conservative Tea Party movement might be "the best thing to happen" to Democrats with the midterm elections approaching.

 

Biden, speaking at a fundraiser in Chevy Chase, Md., for Sen. Barbara Mikulski, said that the energy of the Tea Party might inspire a lethargic Democratic base to turn out and vote in November.

 

“May be the best thing to happen to us lately is the Tea Party wins," Biden said. "Maybe it’ll shake some of our constituency out of their lethargy.”

 

The vice president also offered a "guarantee" that Democrats will defy predictions and maintain control of the House.

 

“I guarantee you we’re going to have a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate. I absolutely believe that,” Biden said.

 

The vice president conceded that voters are "angry against whoever is in power," but he said that Democrats “have a heck of a record, a heck of a positive record to run on."

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I think very little. With the innernets and talk radio and such most people are pretty up to speed on the issues and a 30 second commercial or billboard isn't going to sway anyone one way or the other.

 

They spend it because the other side spends it. It's white noise to most people.

 

I think you mean most of the people are fed propagandist garbage by slanted interests rather than "up to speed" on the issues pretty much 24/7 and are entrenched in their beliefs thanks to said saturation.

[driveby]

I think you mean most of the people are fed propagandist garbage by slanted interests rather than "up to speed" on the issues pretty much 24/7 and are entrenched in their beliefs thanks to said saturation.

I don't believe that at all.

 

Before the innernets what Walter Cronkite said on the news and what was printed in your local parer were the troof.

 

Now you can read thousands of different opinions (or "facts" if you're so inclined) on every issue and topic. Sure there are a lot of echo chambers going on but most people are pretty perceptive and can seperate the wheat from the chaff.

 

I didn't need to be fed propagandist garbage to determine Obama was not qualified for the job and would not lead this country in a positive direction. I just had to watch and listen to him talk. Now a lot of my initial suspicions have been confirmed since then, but nothing I've read (and I do read more than just Rush and Hannity) have persuaded me otherwise.

 

That's why I scorn "moderates" and "independents" and the people who are undecided days, weeks or even months before an election. The information is out there, find it and make a friggin decision.

 

And thats why arguing the facts vs opinions thing is really useless. For every fact you can find and link to, I can find and link to another expert or "factual" article that states just the opposite.