• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Supreme Court strikes cap on aggregate political contributions

thaiboxerken said:
Because it's not working out too well for most of the country. The wealthy are benefiting the most because of policies they are buying in the government.
Click to expand...
The wealthy are not buying the government. That's illegal. Rather, they are influencing the government, not by the merit of their positions but by the thickness of their wallets, and that is perfectly okay. Yes, sir, influencing is a completely different thing from buying, because.... one is legal and the other isn't.

Remember, one of the purposes of the First Amendment is to protect despised minorities, and the ultra-rich certainly qualify.
 
Strange how Conservatives can't see the problem with money in politics...despite the evidence of the influence of money in politics.

But they are all over voter-fraud, which they see lots of problems with...even though there is scant evidence of voter-fraud.

Conservatives.... their positions are all faith-based, from economics, to politics, to religion and science.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Strange how Conservatives can't see the problem with money in politics...despite the evidence of the influence of money in politics.
Click to expand...


Oh, I don't know... I'm sure they see it; they just don't see it as a problem (or, possibly, their problem).

But they are all over voter-fraud, which they see lots of problems with...even though there is scant evidence of voter-fraud.
Click to expand...


I consider this to be some sleight of hand on their part.
 
Those who are whining about the amount of money in politics are fools.

You'd think after more than half a century of campaign finance reforms having ZERO effect on the re-election rates of House and Senate members, the campaign finance "reform" morons would finally figure out they have been trying to cure the symptom instead of the disease.

There is a reason someone gives a politician a lot of money.

If you want to truly reform politics, you need to take away the incentive to give the politicians money. The only way to do that is to take away the power they have over your lives. If a politician had less power, there would be less reason to bribe him. Duh.

As long as you give a political body so much power over your lives, money will ALWAYS find a way to exert that power to its benefit.

When, for the love of God, will you nanny state loving idiots ever figure that out?

Now that you have allowed a government takeover of healthcare, hmmmm...I wonder if a lot of money is going to be thrown around to control that sphere. You think?
 
Last edited:
DavidJames said:
yawn, watch out for those black helicopters.
Click to expand...

That's all you have in the way of retort?

Let's see...

1) To access an insurance company, many people now have to go through a government gatekeeper.

2) To be able to sell insurance, insurance providers cannot provide their customers with a wide range of options they can afford. They must provide what the government tells them to provide at a cost the goverment says they can charge.

3) If an insurance company makes more than the government feels they deserve to make, they have to return that money to their customers.

4) The government is forcing you to buy insurance or pay a fine.


That's a takeover, plain and simple.


So one day, when money is used to exert influence in the government's control of healthcare, don't whine. It's the design you continuously crave.
 
Last edited:
k4c9r6.jpg


17p83l.jpg


Figure it out, rubes. You have been trying to cure the symptoms of the disease you have created, and gotten the predictable outcome.

Zero effect. Zilch. Nada.
 
Last edited:
If a ban on all tax expenditures were put into effect tomorrow, what would be the point of dumping a lot of cash into a Representative's purse to get him to give your company a carve-out in the tax code? He would not have the power.

By banning all tax exenditures, not only would you completely level the playing field for all taxpayers, you could lower tax rates, pay down the debt, and have the extra special sauce of instant campaign finance reform.

The more power you hand over to the government, the more distortion, unfairness, and corruption you are begging for.
 
Last edited:
G6000 said:
That's all you have in the way of retort?

Let's see...

1) To access an insurance company, many people now have to go through a government gatekeeper.
Click to expand...
No they don't. The point of the exchanges (a GOP idea, by the way) was for people to have an idea what their options were. In other words so they could compare policies.

2) To be able to sell insurance, insurance providers cannot provide their customers with a wide range of options they can afford. They must provide what the government tells them to provide at a cost the goverment says they can charge.
Click to expand...
To the customer's benefit. What do you have against the customer?

3) If an insurance company makes more than the government feels they deserve to make, they have to return that money to their customers.
Click to expand...
This is a bad thing, why? It's not like we have a shortage of suppliers.

4) The government is forcing you to buy insurance or pay a fine.
Click to expand...
Yes, because just like requiring people to carry auto insurance, not doing so can cost the rest of us when you need emergency care.

You might want to put that koolaid down.
 
G6000 said:
Nor is access to a waiting list, as was so aptly stated by the Canadian Supreme Court when lifting a ban on private health insurance.
Click to expand...
Despite very good health coverage my son had to wait 3 months for a dermatology appointment here in the US.

Shortages in countries with national health insurance are not that much different in Canada than they are here. Providers are concentrated in some locations and specialties, and scarce in others.

Fear mongering is fed by koolaid.
 
BenBurch said:
I wonder what Roberts was paid?
Click to expand...

I assume you are kidding - he didn't need to be paid. Since Reagan set up the situation and explained the point that republickers needed to pack the courts and started doing it wherever possible (firing or not advancing Democratic appointees) bribes weren't necessary - Getting the positions were the bribes.
 
Very disappointed in this. I have no idea about particular constitutionality arguments, but political funding reform is just so obvious.
 
Finally!

At last the Supreme Court stands up for the rights of rich people!

Maybe the Holocaust of rich people in the United States can finally end!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom