Merged Occupy Wall St.'s drumbeat grows louder

[Bri]

Yes, they do that now and we can see how they use the system to stifle 3rd parties and other candidates the leaders of the Dems and GOP would rather not run for office. Now you also introduce a means to deny them the funds with which to do so.

We're assuming some new legislation that provides the same amount of campaign funds to each candidate and doesn't allow any candidate to spend more than that amount. I assume that any qualifications to be a candidate for an office would also be part of those laws and would be equal for all candidates, no matter what party they are from. I don't see how limiting campaign funds to an equal amount provided by the government would allow any party to stifle any other party any more than they do now.

I'm sure you have a valid point, but I'm not understanding it. You may have to spell it out for me.

Anyway...the specifics of campaign finance reform is a bit of a derail, so it may be best to take it elsewhere.

-Bri

 

[WildCat]

We're assuming some new legislation that provides the same amount of campaign funds to each candidate and doesn't allow any candidate to spend more than that amount. I assume that any qualifications to be a candidate for an office would also be part of those laws and would be equal for all candidates, no matter what party they are from. I don't see how limiting campaign funds to an equal amount provided by the government would allow any party to stifle any other party any more than they do now.

I'm sure you have a valid point, but I'm not understanding it. You may have to spell it out for me.

Anyway...the specifics of campaign finance reform is a bit of a derail, so it may be best to take it elsewhere.

-Bri

Of course the laws will be the same for all candidates, which makes it easy to write laws so only Dem and GOP candidates qualify.

 

[Bri]

Of course the laws will be the same for all candidates, which makes it easy to write laws so only Dem and GOP candidates qualify.

Any legislation could be written so only Dem or GOP candidates qualify. Or not.

What does that have to do with limiting all candidates to equal campaign funds provided by the government?

-Bri

 

[MattusMaximus]

This is about more than just Wall Street, folks...

Occupy Wall Street isn’t about Wall Street

... This broader worry over economic inequality is a response to real developments. As we've reported, since 1979 most groups have seen their incomes barely budge, while income for the top 1 percent of earners has nearly quadrupled. ...

 

[WildCat]

Any legislation could be written so only Dem or GOP candidates qualify. Or not.

What does that have to do with limiting all candidates to equal campaign funds provided by the government?

-Bri

Why should the government provide campaign funds? Why would you want them to?

They will tilt the qualifications so only Dems and GOP candidates qualify. Bear in mind that your plan has the federal government making the qualifications for funding, while state governments actually run their elections, per the Constitution. As state laws regarding who gets on the ballot vary wildly, there is no reason to expect that the federal qualifications will be the same for any one state, let alone all 50. You will have candidates who get their names on the ballot but get denied funding to actually run a campaign.

I see no reason to create a new bureaucracy (realize this bureaucracy will have to evaluate the qualifications of many thousands of potential candidates every election cycle, and do so in a timely manner) candidates to dole out campaign funds. It's simply not needed. Just limit individual/group donations to campaigns and parties. Especially parties, that's where the real shenanigans occur.

 

[Neally]

This is about more than just Wall Street, folks...

Correct. A sampling of the various demands:
Pro anarchism
Pro Marxism
Anti FED
Anti racism
Anti capitalism
Anti war
Anti Corporate greed
.
.
.
Etc.
Pretty much anyone that wants to bitch about something, anything, or just be part of the scene and chant.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Correct. A sampling of the various demands:
Pro anarchism
Pro Marxism
Anti FED
Anti racism
Anti capitalism
Anti war
Anti Corporate greed
.
.
.
Etc.
Pretty much anyone that wants to bitch about something, anything, or just be part of the scene and chant.

Yup, that'll sure shut them up.

 

[WildCat]

Correct. A sampling of the various demands:
Pro anarchism
Pro Marxism
Anti FED
Anti racism
Anti capitalism
Anti war
Anti Corporate greed
.
.
.
Etc.
Pretty much anyone that wants to bitch about something, anything, or just be part of the scene and chant.

Don't forget "Free Mumia" and "Investigate 9/11"!

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Then what are all the ash trays for?

Bah, too subtle I guess...

They're not smoking cigarettes... {because they're smoking joints.)



What? They can afford Marlboros???

{I work for a living and can only afford Dorals}

No, actually it's not. Those laptops and smartphones are beginning to - or already are - vital in this day and age. Its almost to the point where you need them to function.

B.S.

I was an early adopter. Got my first cell phone in '92 when most of these folks were in diapers. Over time I realized I didn't need one and have been cell phone free since '94. I've also never owned a laptop.

To suggest one needs a laptop and cell... oh, just noticed now one needs a smartphone to "function" is inane and more of an indictment than an excuse.

 

[Corsair 115]

Start a company and then you can pay yourself all the bonuses you want!

Who has paid the price for the banking crisis in the US?
1. Home buyers that over leveraged have been foreclosed on. Check.

This is the way it's supposed to work.

Were they really over leveraged though? Most of the problems are put down to subprime mortgages, and there are allegation of (possibly widespread) illegal activities in the way these were sold to customers.

If that's the case, then the home owner took out the loan in good faith but it was the lender who was being irresponsible in either not being fully forthcoming about how the subprime mortgage jacked up interest rates dramatically in subsequent years, or failing to do the appropriate due diligence to make sure the borrower was, in fact, a good risk.

(As someone who's residing in a country where there was no near financial system collapse, no massive bank bailouts, no subprime mortage fiasco, no housing market collapse, and no foreclosure mania, I find it both utterly perplexing and appalling that the U.S. let its financial system get to the point it did. What happened was something that one would expect to see in a third-world banana republic, not from one of leading nations in the world.)

 

[Brainster]

Were they really over leveraged though? Most of the problems are put down to subprime mortgages, and there are allegation of (possibly widespread) illegal activities in the way these were sold to customers.

If that's the case, then the home owner took out the loan in good faith but it was the lender who was being irresponsible in either not being fully forthcoming about how the subprime mortgage jacked up interest rates dramatically in subsequent years, or failing to do the appropriate due diligence to make sure the borrower was, in fact, a good risk.

The problem had little to do with what we used to call "toaster rates" (because they would pop up after awhile). The problem was that Fannie and Freddie were encouraged by the government to purchase the loans of lower income people. And at first there was no problem.

Even where the borrower had financial difficulties, the rising property values bailed them out so either they sold the property prior to foreclosure at a profit, and the lender was made whole, or the lender foreclosed and sold the property at a profit. And meanwhile Wall Street was slicing the mortgage payments up and selling the resulting paper at a profit, and the people who bought even the lowest quality (highest risk) paper began to realize that they were not having the default risk that the premium interest rate they got for buying the paper indicated, and so they got hungry for more.

And the excess money chasing mortgages resulted in excess demand for housing. People were making paper profits hand over foot; a friend of mine ended up buying five houses in a year and a half, and on paper was worth over half a million dollars because the houses increased so much in value. He was 25 years old, and working as a barista at Starbucks.

 

[Bri]

Why should the government provide campaign funds? Why would you want them to?

Simple, because then candidates aren't beholden to anyone and there is no conflict of interest. Everyone will get the same amount of money from the same source.

They will tilt the qualifications so only Dems and GOP candidates qualify.

Who will? If legislation were to be devised that would provide limited funds to the candidates, part of that legislation would also set qualifications such that not only Dems and GOP candidates would qualify. I don't understand what your argument has to do with what I suggested since you could make the same argument about any plan to reform campaign finance practices.

Bear in mind that your plan has the federal government making the qualifications for funding, while state governments actually run their elections, per the Constitution. As state laws regarding who gets on the ballot vary wildly, there is no reason to expect that the federal qualifications will be the same for any one state, let alone all 50. You will have candidates who get their names on the ballot but get denied funding to actually run a campaign.

The qualifications for funding would be equal for all candidates. If the states want to make it so that only certain candidates can get on the ballot, they will do so regardless of what sort of campaign finance practices are in place. I don't see that as an argument against what I was proposing.

I see no reason to create a new bureaucracy (realize this bureaucracy will have to evaluate the qualifications of many thousands of potential candidates every election cycle, and do so in a timely manner) candidates to dole out campaign funds. It's simply not needed.

That seems to be a valid criticism of my proposal, although it would entirely depend on the qualifications. I assume any plan would require qualifications (including leaving the current bureaucracy in place) so I'm not sure how much of an issue that would be.

Just limit individual/group donations to campaigns and parties. Especially parties, that's where the real shenanigans occur.

That might work, but I can imagine lobbying firms working for large corporations spending huge amounts of money to get large numbers of people to each donate $10 (or whatever the limit is) to a particular candidate, who would then be beholden to the corporations. The same race for funds would still exist, and whichever interests could afford to buy the most donations would still win out.

-Bri

 

[WildCat]

Simple, because then candidates aren't beholden to anyone and there is no conflict of interest. Everyone will get the same amount of money from the same source.

There's no one to beholden to with a low contribution limit either, and it requires no complex and arbitrary rules.

Who will? If legislation were to be devised that would provide limited funds to the candidates, part of that legislation would also set qualifications such that not only Dems and GOP candidates would qualify. I don't understand what your argument has to do with what I suggested since you could make the same argument about any plan to reform campaign finance practices.

As I already explained, you've just doubled the opportunities of established parties to lock out 3rd parties and independents.

The qualifications for funding would be equal for all candidates. If the states want to make it so that only certain candidates can get on the ballot, they will do so regardless of what sort of campaign finance practices are in place. I don't see that as an argument against what I was proposing.

The differing standards means that it's likely that you will have candidates on the ballot who don;t qualify for funding, and even candidates who don't get on the ballot but do receive funding. It's absurd.

That seems to be a valid criticism of my proposal, although it would entirely depend on the qualifications. I assume any plan would require qualifications (including leaving the current bureaucracy in place) so I'm not sure how much of an issue that would be.

What current bureaucracy? The FEC? They certainly couldn't handle that without greatly expanding.

I'm just not seeing the point, on a cost/benefit analysis. Lowering contribution limits for both candidates and parties satisfies your concerns without the expense and headaches.

That might work, but I can imagine lobbying firms working for large corporations spending huge amounts of money to get large numbers of people to each donate $10 (or whatever the limit is) to a particular candidate, who would then be beholden to the corporations. The same race for funds would still exist, and whichever interests could afford to buy the most donations would still win out.

-Bri

Not under my rules. If 1,000 people wish to band together and form a group to donate to a candidate the group collectively can donate the same as a single individual can. If the limit is $100 then each individual donating can donate 10 cents, write out the beach towel-sized Big Check for $100 and present it to the candidate. And that ten cents counts against any donation they wish to make to the candidate individually.

 

[Checkmite]

Depends on the person making the argument. Although multiple people made it, they had various reasons. Some people just said it was more economically stable to have a currency backed by something physical, but I got a whole bunch of reasons.

The oathkeepers there let me know that taking America off the gold standard was the first step of the Illunati establishing a single world wide currency for the New World Order.

Did any of them suggest where they plan on getting enough gold to back the current US economy without completely crashing the dollar? It had better involve asteroid mining expeditions.

 

[dc1971]

Occupy Wall Street News Flash...

For those Fox News fans who like to say that George Soros is sponsoring Occupy Wall Street - you are misinformed.

Believe it or not, IT IS a grass roots movement. And believe it or not, there are people from both sides (whether conservative or liberal) who largely support these protests.

I think Fox News fans need to grow up!

DC

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Huh???

 

[portlandatheist]

Cool story bro

 

[Checkmite]

u mad?

 

[theprestige]

For those Fox News fans who like to say that George Soros is sponsoring Occupy Wall Street - you are misinformed.

Believe it or not, IT IS a grass roots movement. And believe it or not, there are people from both sides (whether conservative or liberal) who largely support these protests.

I think Fox News fans need to grow up!

DC

I don't follow Fox News at all, but now I'm curious: Why wouldn't George Soros contribute financially to the OWS movement? If he happened to agree with their cause, and they needed help, is there any reason he wouldn't want to break off a million here or there, to supply blankets or drinking water or portajon cleanout services or whatever else the movement needs?

I mean, isn't that what people with resources do, when a cause they believe in needs resources?

 

[WildCat]

Is this the official OWS strawman threadf?