ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[PLAYER57832]

#1, you proved YOUR Point, not mine. I specifically did talk about the money behind the names.

No, your original point, before you changed the argument, was that only corporations give money, not unions.

No, that is not actually true.

I said that government is not a dictator, unless its controlled by big money. Money IS funneled through corporations. Earlier statements I made specifically say that the problem with corporations is that they act as sheilds, giving some individuals far more power AND shielding them from the real impacts of their decisions.

I never said unions don't give money, but they actually get donations from some of the same sources. Also, in this,

I specifically referred to "other than corporations" and you said "not really." It's right there in typed writing.

Yes, because those unions get money from a lot of the same people. Also, they are not acting as an independent voice of the people in this, in the bit about whether individuals have voice or not. They are perhaps, but only perhaps, representing a somewhat broader base.

[PLAYER57832]

I posted the link to the website with the contribution data in another thread; we can continue the discussion there if you'd like. I would very much like to see your data. I will do some searching of my own (although the website I found shows that no one individual has donated more than $50,000 to a particular organization).

And again, don't make this a political issue. For me, it's not a Republican vs. Democrat issue (other than that I find it interesting to see what entities give money to what parties). And I agree with your basic premise that monied interests have too much of a foothold with politicians. What I don't agree with is your characterization that it's a few very rich people donating. I've simply found no evidence to indicate that, I've provided evidence to show that's not the case.

Well, since you have excluded NPR as a source, there really is no point. The information I have is largely from their story, though I had intended to look up the studies to which they referred.

[thegreekdog]

#1, you proved YOUR Point, not mine. I specifically did talk about the money behind the names.

No, your original point, before you changed the argument, was that only corporations give money, not unions.

No, that is not actually true.

I said that government is not a dictator, unless its controlled by big money. Money IS funneled through corporations. Earlier statements I made specifically say that the problem with corporations is that they act as sheilds, giving some individuals far more power AND shielding them from the real impacts of their decisions.

I never said unions don't give money, but they actually get donations from some of the same sources. Also, in this,

I specifically referred to "other than corporations" and you said "not really." It's right there in typed writing.

Yes, because those unions get money from a lot of the same people. Also, they are not acting as an independent voice of the people in this, in the bit about whether individuals have voice or not. They are perhaps, but only perhaps, representing a somewhat broader base.

Based on the foregoing, you should never refer to "corporations" as donating money again. Ever. And in case you don't know why I've told you this, note that you've just indicated that it's not corporations donating the money, it's, in your opinion, certain individuals who donate through corporations, unions, and trade/professional organizations. This is, of course, all tongue-in-cheek because, due to your obsession with corporations being the problem, you'll still refer to them as being the political money contribution problem.

In other news, the link I provided does actually provide how much individual donors have given; so it's there for you to look at, if you want. The monies they've given greatly pale in comparison to the organizations; so if the CEO of Comcast is giving $50 million to Bill Clinton in 1992, it's pretty well hidden. Anyway, look at it.

Well, since you have excluded NPR as a source, there really is no point. The information I have is largely from their story, though I had intended to look up the studies to which they referred.

I read the entire NPR link you provided. It did not talk about campaign contributions. Which is why it's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

[PLAYER57832]

#1, you proved YOUR Point, not mine. I specifically did talk about the money behind the names.

No, your original point, before you changed the argument, was that only corporations give money, not unions.

No, that is not actually true.

I said that government is not a dictator, unless its controlled by big money. Money IS funneled through corporations. Earlier statements I made specifically say that the problem with corporations is that they act as sheilds, giving some individuals far more power AND shielding them from the real impacts of their decisions.

I never said unions don't give money, but they actually get donations from some of the same sources. Also, in this,

I specifically referred to "other than corporations" and you said "not really." It's right there in typed writing.

Yes, because those unions get money from a lot of the same people. Also, they are not acting as an independent voice of the people in this, in the bit about whether individuals have voice or not. They are perhaps, but only perhaps, representing a somewhat broader base.

Based on the foregoing, you should never refer to "corporations" as donating money again. Ever. And in case you don't know why I've told you this, note that you've just indicated that it's not corporations donating the money, it's, in your opinion, certain individuals who donate through corporations, unions, and trade/professional organizations. This is, of course, all tongue-in-cheek because, due to your obsession with corporations being the problem, you'll still refer to them as being the political money contribution problem.

No, its a distinction without a difference. Corporations exist to shield individuals. Their entire purpose is to generate money for those people in the way least painful to them. There is a lot of gimgaw about making products and such, but on that level, those are just "details". Its about making money for those at the top. Its just us that care about the details.

[thegreekdog]

#1, you proved YOUR Point, not mine. I specifically did talk about the money behind the names.

No, your original point, before you changed the argument, was that only corporations give money, not unions.

No, that is not actually true.

I said that government is not a dictator, unless its controlled by big money. Money IS funneled through corporations. Earlier statements I made specifically say that the problem with corporations is that they act as sheilds, giving some individuals far more power AND shielding them from the real impacts of their decisions.

I never said unions don't give money, but they actually get donations from some of the same sources. Also, in this,

I specifically referred to "other than corporations" and you said "not really." It's right there in typed writing.

Yes, because those unions get money from a lot of the same people. Also, they are not acting as an independent voice of the people in this, in the bit about whether individuals have voice or not. They are perhaps, but only perhaps, representing a somewhat broader base.

Based on the foregoing, you should never refer to "corporations" as donating money again. Ever. And in case you don't know why I've told you this, note that you've just indicated that it's not corporations donating the money, it's, in your opinion, certain individuals who donate through corporations, unions, and trade/professional organizations. This is, of course, all tongue-in-cheek because, due to your obsession with corporations being the problem, you'll still refer to them as being the political money contribution problem.

No, its a distinction without a difference. Corporations exist to shield individuals. Their entire purpose is to generate money for those people in the way least painful to them. There is a lot of gimgaw about making products and such, but on that level, those are just "details". Its about making money for those at the top. Its just us that care about the details.

This is incredibly frustrating.

I gave you the top 10 organizations by donation from 1989 to 2012. Of those, only two were companies (AT&T and Goldman Sachs). Five were unions. Two were trade/professional organizations. So why are you using the term "corporations" as your term to describe how moneyed interests donate to politicians? Shouldn't you use some other term? The term "corporations" appears to be the incorrect term to use.

[BigBallinStalin]

PAY ATTENTION.. PLEASE!!!
Because it is absolutely and entirely there. And....use the same skills you would if you were defending/investigating a client's claims. Also, of course there are good schools out there....but

I do not think there is a plot by Republicans or Democrats to limit funds to education so that they can easily control the masses. If you do think that, you're a conspiracy theorist, plain and simple, and can be ignored with impunity.

Not only that but wheres the information showing that highly educated people make any better political decisions than the uneducated...

The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies ?

[BigBallinStalin]

LOL.. not really. Its a few very, very big donors who do so through their corporations. I am going to have to do some digging to get the studies, but something like 90% of campaign money comes from only a handful of people. The claim that "unions and others can also contribute" is really a red herring claim, true, but lacking import.

[quote="thegreekdog wrote:I did the digging for you!

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

I would also note - Goldman Sachs - giving 60% of money to Democrats?

This is a fascinating website I found; I'm going to have to explore it some more.

Uh.. no. You need to do a good deal more digging to get at who is actually supplying the money there, who controls those things. This is NOT the same as the largest single donor lists, because the same people donate through various means to very different groups.

not sure what your point is about Democrats. This is not a Republican versus Democratic issue, its an average person versus a few extremely wealthy and powerful folks list.

You are really unbelievable.

Here are the top 10 donors from 1989 to 2012:
1. ActBlue - a Democrat political action committee
2. AT&T Inc. - a corporation
3. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees - a union
4. National Association of Relators - a business group (not a corporation)
5. Service Employees Internaional Union - a union
6. National Education Association - a union
7. Goldman Sachs - a company (we'll classify it as a corporation)
8. American Association for Justice - a business group (not a corporation)
9. International Brotherhood of Eletrical Workers - a union
10. Laborers Union - a union

Of these 10, there is one PAC, two companies, two business organizations (realtors and attorneys), and five unions.

So, when you indicated above that groups other than corporations do not give money, you're either ignorant or lying (or else you are correct and this website, which takes data from the Federal Election Commission and is a non-partisan, non-profit organization is wrong).

Here are 11 through 20:
11. American Federation of Teachers - a union
12. Teamsters Union - aunion
13. Carpenters & Joiners Union - a union
14. Communication Workers of America - a union
15. Citigroup, Inc. - a corporation
16. American Medical Association - a business organization (doctors)
17. United Food & Commercial Workers Union - a union
18. United Auto Workers - a union
19. National Auto Dealers Association - a business organization (auto dealers)
20. Machinists & Aeroespace Workers Union - a union

I see, so you, like the Supreme court, don't get the difference between INDIVIDUALS and ORGANIZATIONS?

How about looking into where those groups get their funding.. and note how many of the exact same names come up. BUT.. be very careful, because in many cases those donations are not made directly. It is actually pretty hard to really get where the money is coming from, very intentionally so.

Note player's initial position, TGD's evidence brought against her position, her refusal to admit to it, TGD repeating it, then again another refusal from her to acknowledge.

Really?

Then, based on her last post, she has to show how corporations supply money to labor unions, who then take that money to garner favor with politicians in order to make things more difficult for the very businesses which gave the labor unions that money...

Thank you, PLayer. That was aaaamuuussing.

[Aradhus]

Awesome site TGD

*masturbates furiously*

[john9blue]

player, you're going to have to provide more evidence if you want people to believe you. tgd has done more than enough to prove his point.

[GreecePwns]

Money isn't speech. It's money. Money is used to buy things, not say things. Let's face it, by donating to a candidate, are you saying something? No, you're giving them money to say something themselves. It should not be protected as speech in the Constitution.

Politicians' main motives (one could argue only for acting in a corrupt manner in order to favor outside parties are 1: campaign contributions and 2: a future job in the private sector with the outside party. And its obvious that the first "favor" is more prevalent than the second one. So a system in which elections are fully publicly funded and where all candidates are put on a level playing field makes the candidates' run on their beliefs. Those who are seeking the only remaining possible "favor" (the second one) will be called out more easily because of this. A clean election produces clean government, which in the end, no matter what the people want, will produce better results.

As an aside, I strongly suggest everyone take a look at http://www.americanselect.org/

[BigBallinStalin]

Money isn't speech. It's money. Money is used to buy things, not say things. Let's face it, by donating to a candidate, are you saying something? No, you're giving them money to say something themselves. It should not be protected as speech in the Constitution.

Politicians' main motives (one could argue only for acting in a corrupt manner in order to favor outside parties are 1: campaign contributions and 2: a future job in the private sector with the outside party. And its obvious that the first "favor" is more prevalent than the second one. [u]So a system in which elections are fully publicly funded and where all candidates are put on a level playing field makes the candidates' run on their beliefs. [/u]Those who are seeking the only remaining possible "favor" (the second one) will be called out more easily because of this. A clean election produces clean government, which in the end, no matter what the people want, will produce better results.

As an aside, I strongly suggest everyone take a look at http://www.americanselect.org/

The allocation of campaign contributions shouldn't be distributed by the government. Enterprising politicians should be allowed to seek opportunities in order to secure their own funding, whichever amount that may be.

For me, what's most important is transparency. The flows of political contributions should be available to the public, and that would produce better results.

[thegreekdog]

Money isn't speech. It's money. Money is used to buy things, not say things. Let's face it, by donating to a candidate, are you saying something? No, you're giving them money to say something themselves. It should not be protected as speech in the Constitution.

Campaign contributions can be regulated precisely because speech is not money.

On the other hand, advertisements that an organization or individual pays for cannot be regulated because that is speech (and THAT is the Citizens United decision). Unless the state has a compelling interest in limiting such speech, the government cannot do so.

Politicians' main motives (one could argue only for acting in a corrupt manner in order to favor outside parties are 1: campaign contributions and 2: a future job in the private sector with the outside party. And its obvious that the first "favor" is more prevalent than the second one. So a system in which elections are fully publicly funded and where all candidates are put on a level playing field makes the candidates' run on their beliefs. Those who are seeking the only remaining possible "favor" (the second one) will be called out more easily because of this. A clean election produces clean government, which in the end, no matter what the people want, will produce better results.

Why would public funding for elections solve any problems? Why wouldn't politicians continue to raise the public funds used to pay for their own elections? Further, it does not solve the more important problem of lobbying.

[Night Strike]

I see, so you, like the Supreme court, don't get the difference between INDIVIDUALS and ORGANIZATIONS?

How about looking into where those groups get their funding.. and note how many of the exact same names come up. BUT.. be very careful, because in many cases those donations are not made directly. It is actually pretty hard to really get where the money is coming from, very intentionally so.

Even though TGD has absolutely owned you on this topic (and your claim that him being a lawyer making him stupid on this topic is in itself very stupid), I figured I'd chime in a bit.

It's simple to find out where the groups get their funding. Corporations get their funding from the actual profits of the company. Organizations get their money from those who wish to be members and work for common goals. Unions get their money from forcing their employees to join the union and give them dues, whether they want to join the union or not. That's the truth about where these groups get their funding.

[Woodruff]

Unions get their money from forcing their employees to join the union and give them dues, whether they want to join the union or not. That's the truth about where these groups get their funding.

No, that is not at all the truth. No one is forced to join a union, because no one is forced to accept a particular job. Aren't you one of those who is always claiming that if you're job doesn't pay enough, you should just go find another one? The same holds true...if you don't want to join a union, find a job where you don't have to.

[thegreekdog]

It's funny, I've heard pro-union lawyers speak and I've heard pro-company lawyers speak (and I've heard them debate) - let me tell you folks, that is one of the most entertaining and combatitive debates you can find. Pro-union lawyers are adamantly pro-union. Pro-company lawyers are adamantly pro-company.

In any event, what I've learned from those discussions is this - there are two ways to characterize unions and two ways to characterize companies in employee relations; neither of them appear to be correct, so there must be a third way. I find nothing inherently wrong with unions. What I have a problem with is this notion that unions are not just as powerful as big companies in the political (or economic) process, or that they are some organization that only cares about the little guy. One of those pro-company lawyers once brought up that union bigwigs can be some of the most well-paid individuals in the U.S.; one might say part of the 1%. To put it another way, if I were able to join a union, I most likely would as it would benefit and protect me, but I would not pretend the union didn't sway political policy and was merely there to help little ole TGD.

[PLAYER57832]

I see, so you, like the Supreme court, don't get the difference between INDIVIDUALS and ORGANIZATIONS?

How about looking into where those groups get their funding.. and note how many of the exact same names come up. BUT.. be very careful, because in many cases those donations are not made directly. It is actually pretty hard to really get where the money is coming from, very intentionally so.

Even though TGD has absolutely owned you on this topic (and your claim that him being a lawyer making him stupid on this topic is in itself very stupid), I figured I'd chime in a bit.

It's simple to find out where the groups get their funding. Corporations get their funding from the actual profits of the company. Organizations get their money from those who wish to be members and work for common goals. Unions get their money from forcing their employees to join the union and give them dues, whether they want to join the union or not. That's the truth about where these groups get their funding.

Its not true, at all. Your second statement, about organizations is particularly naive. If that were true you would not see the same people contributing to supposedly competing organizations. Except, you do. As for corporations getting their money from profit. I only wish companies were run with that goal. Too many are run strictly to earn their stockholders and investors money.

Furthermore, what makes a company money is not necessarily what is good for society by any stretch of the imagination. So, claiming that profit is a better control of our country is stupid. That is how we wind up with insurance companies making profits off of sick people, while convincing large swaths of the population that having a true universal system, such basically any other country in the world with health care has, would wind up giving poor service and cost too much. Never mind that this is exactly the opposite of what happens in other countries.

Its also why we have all these claims that protecting the environment, people's health from pollution is just "too expensive" and "cuts innovation", instead of recognizing that innovation happens to solve problems. If rules are put in place saying you have to create safe products, then that happens. What we are doing to future generations health-wise is plain criminal.

[Woodruff]

I find nothing inherently wrong with unions. What I have a problem with is this notion that unions are not just as powerful as big companies in the political (or economic) process, or that they are some organization that only cares about the little guy. One of those pro-company lawyers once brought up that union bigwigs can be some of the most well-paid individuals in the U.S.; one might say part of the 1%. To put it another way, if I were able to join a union, I most likely would as it would benefit and protect me, but I would not pretend the union didn't sway political policy and was merely there to help little ole TGD.

Sure, I agree with almost all of this. I'm not convinced that unions have quite as much pull as corporations do, but there's no question that unions have A LOT OF PULL. I call myself pro-union, but I'm really probably more moderate about it than that implies. I'm not one that believes unions are a wonderful thing that does little wrong...I just think their plusses significantly outweigh the negatives in their value to our society.

[thegreekdog]

I find nothing inherently wrong with unions. What I have a problem with is this notion that unions are not just as powerful as big companies in the political (or economic) process, or that they are some organization that only cares about the little guy. One of those pro-company lawyers once brought up that union bigwigs can be some of the most well-paid individuals in the U.S.; one might say part of the 1%. To put it another way, if I were able to join a union, I most likely would as it would benefit and protect me, but I would not pretend the union didn't sway political policy and was merely there to help little ole TGD.

Sure, I agree with almost all of this. I'm not convinced that unions have quite as much pull as corporations do, but there's no question that unions have A LOT OF PULL. I call myself pro-union, but I'm really probably more moderate about it than that implies. I'm not one that believes unions are a wonderful thing that does little wrong...I just think their plusses significantly outweigh the negatives in their value to our society.

The only negative I'm concerned with is the unions' influence on politicians. I'm also concerned with corporate influences on politicians too.

Wait, that's not true. I'm also concerned with the way in which government employees negotiate wages and benefits.

In any event, those are both topics for other threads at this point.

[PLAYER57832]

PAY ATTENTION.. PLEASE!!!
Because it is absolutely and entirely there. And....use the same skills you would if you were defending/investigating a client's claims. Also, of course there are good schools out there....but

I do not think there is a plot by Republicans or Democrats to limit funds to education so that they can easily control the masses. If you do think that, you're a conspiracy theorist, plain and simple, and can be ignored with impunity.

Not only that but wheres the information showing that highly educated people make any better political decisions than the uneducated...

The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies ?

You seem to imply I think the average voter is intelligent? Even so, an educated populace IS important for a functioning democracy.

That is pretty much what the 60's showed us.

[BigBallinStalin]

PAY ATTENTION.. PLEASE!!!
Because it is absolutely and entirely there. And....use the same skills you would if you were defending/investigating a client's claims. Also, of course there are good schools out there....but

I do not think there is a plot by Republicans or Democrats to limit funds to education so that they can easily control the masses. If you do think that, you're a conspiracy theorist, plain and simple, and can be ignored with impunity.

Not only that but wheres the information showing that highly educated people make any better political decisions than the uneducated...

The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies ?

You seem to imply I think the average voter is intelligent? Even so, an educated populace IS important for a functioning democracy.

That is pretty much what the 60's showed us.

Who are you responding to?

[Aradhus]

PAY ATTENTION.. PLEASE!!!
Because it is absolutely and entirely there. And....use the same skills you would if you were defending/investigating a client's claims. Also, of course there are good schools out there....but

I do not think there is a plot by Republicans or Democrats to limit funds to education so that they can easily control the masses. If you do think that, you're a conspiracy theorist, plain and simple, and can be ignored with impunity.

Not only that but wheres the information showing that highly educated people make any better political decisions than the uneducated...

The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies ?

You seem to imply I think the average voter is intelligent? Even so, an educated populace IS important for a functioning democracy.

That is pretty much what the 60's showed us.

That and also that hairy armpits are unappealing. Ah, the 60s. good times.

[PLAYER57832]

That is pretty much what the 60's showed us.

That and also that hairy armpits are unappealing. Ah, the 60s. good times.[/quote]
I take it you don't spend much time in France? (0r most of Europe, for that matter...). Of course, being American, I do agree with the sentiment.

[thegreekdog]

New CBO budget is in on the Affordable Care Act.

http://cbo.gov/publication/43076

[Lootifer]

Why the f*ck can't american politics grasp plain english?

[Night Strike]

New CBO budget is in on the Affordable Care Act.

http://cbo.gov/publication/43076

You know, I hate all of these "mandated spending" accounts and numbers they put out. Since when is it Constitutional to bind a future Congress to spend money that you pass now? That's why we elect a Congress in the first place: to budget and spend the money necessary for that fiscal year. No Congress should have the power to dictate to a future Congress how to spend their money.