• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Next Capitalist Revolution

TBH, Citizen's United is merely a symptom and outgrowth of the root of evil/idiocy that is Buckley v Valeo 76, where money was moronically determined to be speech, thus opening the floodgates to unlimited political spending under the providence and protection of the 1st amendment, which is the fundamental problem.

I definitely believe that far more stringent limits on either political spending, and/or the effective market for political spending need to be put into effect, or you will end up with an intensification of the defacto plutocracy we have now; sadly it will take a constitutional amendment at this point to make things right.



Right, I agree, but you'll never end up with the sort of progressive taxation you propose until you temper and diminish the vastly disproportionate influence of the wealthy.

That is easily done in France where contributions to any election are limited to €4,600 a year!

What it then requires is a bold political candidate to who promises to pass such law. I suspect that person would get a great deal of support from the French voting population.
 
And I am a proponent of changing fundamentally the way the economy works.
..

so was Marx and 120 million were slowly starved to death. Liberal solutions always require massive government violence. America is great because of freedom from liberal government.
 
What it then requires is a bold political candidate to who promises to pass such law. I suspect that person would get a great deal of support from the French voting population.

the yellow shirts are now mostly anti-semitic and France is very poor; so doing opposite of what French voters like is probably better strategy.
 
It seems apparent that President Donald Trump's owned by the Russian government. .

If true the liberal would not be so afraid to provide the evidence after being asked 5 times. What do we learn from the liberal's fear?
 
TBH, Citizen's United is merely a symptom and outgrowth of the root of evil/idiocy that is Buckley v Valeo 76, where money was moronically determined to be speech, thus opening the floodgates to unlimited political spending under the providence and protection of the 1st amendment, which is the fundamental problem.

I definitely believe that far more stringent limits on either political spending, and/or the effective market for political spending need to be put into effect, or you will end up with an intensification of the defacto plutocracy we have now; sadly it will take a constitutional amendment at this point to make things right. ...

... you'll never end up with the sort of progressive taxation you propose until you temper and diminish the vastly disproportionate influence of the wealthy.
Make commercials more expensive and elections more equitable.

The purposes of public announcements or advertising is to inform and/or influence their audiences. Government should not presume to determine what is or is not a political message.
Although purchasing electronic broadcasting time is expensive, it's been (by far) the most effective media for influencing public opinion, and it's the least expensive method per capita for reaching mass audiences.
The availability of electronic broadcasting is of greater advantage to wealthier political factions, and its lesser availability to less wealthy factions is to their greater disadvantages. ...
Surrealistik, I'm unconcerned regarding income disparity. It's a symptom in itself of no economic concern. Wealthy taxpayers' advantageous within our political auctions, (i.e. our elections), should not be promoted by unnecessarily shifting greater burden upon all other taxpayers and/or increase our national debt.

You and I do agree U.S. Supreme Court's decision in favor of Citizens United effectively and severely reduced government's ability to decrease high bidders advantages and/or greater increase their costs within our political auctions, (i.e. our political elections).
Benefits due to the expenditures for purchasing electronic broadcasting time are of much less economic significance, and the their detrimental affect upon the our elections ability to promote the sustainability of a democratic republic,are of much greater political significance to our nation.

It's unfeasible to now pass a constitutional amendment that would overcome the Citizens' United decision. This is not a remedy, but it would to some extent increase USA elections' equability.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
That is easily done in France where contributions to any election are limited to €4,600 a year!

What it then requires is a bold political candidate to who promises to pass such law. I suspect that person would get a great deal of support from the French voting population.

You also have to tackle lobbying and the revolving door between the private and public sector as well.

In general, a multipronged approach of limiting the effective market of campaign finance (legally defined, limited, brief campaign seasons), public funding of elections, and limiting contributions and spending, as well as full and complete transparency in relation to lobbyist interactions/meetings with elected officials, and the overall thrust of their intentions/presentations at those meetings would be an effective approach. Personally I would also assert that a lifetime ban on lobbying for elected officials is a good idea, as well as a 'cooling off' period before they're permitted to take cheques for speaking engagements and so on on behalf of private institutions/corporations.

Surrealistik, I'm unconcerned regarding income disparity. It's a symptom in itself of no economic concern. Wealthy taxpayers' advantageous within our political auctions, (i.e. our elections), should not be promoted by unnecessarily shifting greater burden upon all other taxpayers and/or increase our national debt.

You and I do agree U.S. Supreme Court's decision in favor of Citizens United effectively and severely reduced government's ability to decrease high bidders advantages and/or greater increase their costs within our political auctions, (i.e. our political elections).
Benefits due to the expenditures for purchasing electronic broadcasting time are of much less economic significance, and the their detrimental affect upon the our elections ability to promote the sustainability of a democratic republic,are of much greater political significance to our nation.

It's unfeasible to now pass a constitutional amendment that would overcome the Citizens' United decision. This is not a remedy, but it would to some extent increase USA elections' equability.

Respectfully, Supposn

Again, there is no real remedy save a passage of a constitutional amendment, and such an amendment would not specifically target Citizens United, which is, as stated, merely a downstream outgrowth/symptom of the far more poignant and significant Buckley v Valeo 76 SCOTUS ruling, that would be the focus; it must be made clear that money and political spending are not speech. As long as political expenditure is considered to be tantamount to it, and thus beyond any kind of reasonable limitation, we will never have an integral democracy, and the slide towards de facto plutocracy, rule of the rich and vastly disproportionate political influence enjoyed by the wealthy will continue essentially unabated.

Lastly, I'm not sure what you mean by being unconcerned by income disparity, or it being of no economic concern; when an increasingly small number of people hold an increasingly large share of the wealth, the economy inevitably suffers as money is pulled from circulation. To simplify this idea, one man with a ten billion dollars will not spend and consume nearly as much as a hundred thousand people with a hundred thousand each; the latter creates vastly more economic activity.
 
Last edited:
... there is no real remedy save a passage of a constitutional amendment, and such an amendment would not specifically target Citizens United, which is, as stated, merely a downstream outgrowth/symptom ...
Surrealistik, the availability of electronic broadcasting is of greater advantage to wealthier political factions, and its lesser availability to less wealthy factions are a political danger seriously threatening our democracy.

The most expensive items of national or state wide political campaigns are purchasing of electronic broadcasting time. Eliminating the reductions of taxable incomes due to such purchases (with no regard for for the avowed purposes of the purchased time), would not be a remedy, but it does eliminate government tax subsidy of politically partisan broadcasts. It does not grant government officials the power to determine what is or is not a politically motivated electronic broadcasting message.

The social and economic benefits due to those tax benefits, do not compensate for the harm to our democracy due to increased political campaign budgets and spending.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
Surrealistik, the availability of electronic broadcasting is of greater advantage to wealthier political factions, and its lesser availability to less wealthy factions are a political danger seriously threatening our democracy.

The most expensive items of national or state wide political campaigns are purchasing of electronic broadcasting time. Eliminating the reductions of taxable incomes due to such purchases (with no regard for for the avowed purposes of the purchased time), would not be a remedy, but it does eliminate government tax subsidy of politically partisan broadcasts. It does not grant government officials the power to determine what is or is not a politically motivated electronic broadcasting message.

The social and economic benefits due to those tax benefits, do not compensate for the harm to our democracy due to increased political campaign budgets and spending.

Sure, while I agree with eliminating such deductions and your rationale, I do think it is akin to bailing out the ocean with a bucket, and that any true remedy to the present causation of de facto plutocracy must feature constitutional change to tackle the precedent set by Buckley v Valeo 76. That having been said, of course I'll take what I can get in the interim.
 
You also have to tackle lobbying and the revolving door between the private and public sector as well.

In general, a multipronged approach of limiting the effective market of campaign finance (legally defined, limited, brief campaign seasons), public funding of elections, and limiting contributions and spending, as well as full and complete transparency in relation to lobbyist interactions/meetings with elected officials, and the overall thrust of their intentions/presentations at those meetings would be an effective approach. Personally I would also assert that a lifetime ban on lobbying for elected officials is a good idea, as well as a 'cooling off' period before they're permitted to take cheques for speaking engagements and so on on behalf of private institutions/corporations. ...
SurRealistik, I think we've drifted off-topic, I've responded to this post at post #5 within the discussion thread of
https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-p...-elections-more-equitable.html#post1069473733 .


Respectfully, Supposn
 
Sure, while I agree with eliminating such deductions and your rationale, I do think it is akin to bailing out the ocean with a bucket, and that any true remedy to the present causation of de facto plutocracy must feature constitutional change to tackle the precedent set by Buckley v Valeo 76. That having been said, of course I'll take what I can get in the interim.
SurRealistik, I think we've drifted off-topic, I've responded to this post at post #7 within the discussion thread of
https://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...post1069473733 (Make commercials more expensive and elections more equitable.) .

Respectfully, Supposn
 
From the Economist: The next capitalist revolution

Excerpt:



'Nuff said? I doubt it.

It's times-change boyz-'n-girlz - difficult decisions must be taken because the present modus-operandi is going nowhere except onto its next Great Recession.

It's times-change boyz-'n-girlz - difficult decisions must be taken because the present modus-operandi is going nowhere except onto its next Great Recession.

And there is nothing like a Great Recession to make people think of "Who's getting most of it, and who's getting nothing at all". Aka, by economists, as Income Disparity ...

Technological unemployment due to the twin dragons of advanced robotics and artificial intelligence is on the horizon and it promises to lay waste to all modern notions of capitalism as we know it today. No modern industrialized civilization can withstand sustained 25% unemployment for more than a few years, and 35% unemployment is unsustainable for any prolonged period and almost guarantees violent revolution.

In the next decade or fifteen years, technology guarantees we will witness at least 35 percent unemployment as AI and robotics eliminates most labor jobs, and even makes inroads into highly skilled occupations as well.

The purist anarcho-capitalism we see in the USA today is singing its swan song.
Capitalism in some form will survive in the West but it will not resemble what we see right now.
 
That is easily done in France where contributions to any election are limited to €4,600 a year!

What it then requires is a bold political candidate to who promises to pass such law. I suspect that person would get a great deal of support from the French voting population.
It ain't that simple. Respectfully, Supposn
Excerpted from
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/index.php .

This report examines campaign finance laws, including those governing the length of the campaign period, funding sources and disclosure requirements, restrictions on contributions and expenditures, and free speech implications of such restrictions, in Australia, France, Germany, Israel, and the United Kingdom.
 
In the next decade or fifteen years, technology guarantees we will witness at least 35 percent unemployment as AI and robotics eliminates most labor jobs, and even makes inroads into highly skilled occupations as well.

The purist anarcho-capitalism we see in the USA today is singing its swan song.
Capitalism in some form will survive in the West but it will not resemble what we see right now.

Well put. But what can you do in a country that had a choice bet(ween an educated woman and profound dunce - and chose the latter?

In fact, the lady won - but an arcane electoral device dating from two centuries ago gave the election to the dunce. And if nothing is done about the failings in American democracy it is surely set on the down-path to oblivion ...
 
Well put. But what can you do in a country that had a choice be an educated woman and profound dunce - and chose the latter.

In fact, the lady won - but an arcane electoral device dating from two centuries ago gave the election to the dunce ...

I'm looking more at the hero-worship of detestable figures like Ayn Rand on this issue, but I get where you were going with your response.
 
It ain't that simple. Respectfully, Supposn

The IRS revues your tax-statements, don't they?

Then an election body can do the same for regularly run (every two-years) national elections.

We just need to take the Electoral College out of their manipulative hands by forcing it to report ONLY the results of the popular-vote. And woe-betide any one trying to "fix" that vote! (Penitentiary, here they come!)
 
The IRS revues your tax-statements, don't they?
Then an election body can do the same for regularly run (every two-years) national elections. ...
Lafayette, General Electric, DuPont, Exon and many other corporations have, do, and will continue to receive tax deductions for broadcasting their political opinions and promoting the political concepts they favor. These effectively are government subsidized political announcements that are of particularly more political advantage to the wealthy. Government forms won't stop this practice which is enabled by using federal income tax forms.

Respectfully, Supposn

Refer to the discussion thread, "Make commercials more expensive and elections more equitable".
... For many months within many years, Ronald Reagan was the political spokesman for corporations. The corporations were not just selling their products or their corporate images; they were also broadcasting their own political opinions. Government cannot and should not attempt to determine the motivating purposes of any messages. ...
Make commercials more expensive and elections more equitable. ...
... I'm a proponent for the tasks of selling, distributing, or purchasing electronic transmission time be “unbundled” from all other commercial tasks, and no reduction of taxable income should be granted for purchase of time or use of electronic transmissions.
[There's a precedent for such “unbundling”. U.S. Federal court required the International Business Machine Corporation to “unbundle” their sales or leases of their equipment from all of their other goods and service products.]
 
I'm looking more at the hero-worship of detestable figures like Ayn Rand on this issue, but I get where you were going with your response.

What is detestable about great libertarians like our Founders and Rand?? Sounds like you'd be happier in Cuba making $300/month or France where yellow vested anti semites are rioting about making $1100 a month!
 
Alan Watts used to say that the real church...what matters....is not the building we call "The Church", it is what takes place in that building.

Same theory goes here, and America is not great, in fact it is so not great that it almost does not exist anymore.

America as well as the American Dream are almost dead now...in many ways it was suicide.

Very hard times are coming.


This seems obviously the case. It's very depressing, but .... you can't fool life.

The future is not predictable in any detail, but ... here is the one thing that could REALLY be very bad news for the whole species, not just Americans: the US still has immense military power, including a large and sophisticated nuclear arsenal. Almost every living American has grown up with this situation -- we just assume, in our bones, that we are top of the heap, militarily unassailable. All the horrible little snowflakes and Victim-culture peddlars exist precisely because they live in this bubble. Their grandparents, parents, and themselves have never faced what a large part of the world has either faced in living memory, or faces every day.

But that is changing, and the name of the Changer is China. Within ten years, China will have a larger economy than the US. We will be number two, and going down. Assuming current trends -- which cannot be assumed -- China will have a higher per-person income than us by the middle of the century. (And although you cannot assume current trends will be projected forward for several decades, you had better not assume that the trends which do occur will be in our favor.)

Now ... as the US has shown, a big economy means, if you want it to, a big military. China will get this. The time will come when their military will overmatch ours. They will overmatch us not just in raw firepower and material capacity, but in internal effectiveness and morale: they are not sentimental -- no Chinese officer will be sacked because he offended someone's delicate sensibilities.

Now many things can happen before then. Perhaps China will evolve -- or convulse -- into something like a liberal democracy. Unexpected events in Europe or the Middle East may overtake the US/China rivalry.

But ... as the US declines, and China rises, there is the terrible possiblity of a serious military clash. We tend to think of the Chinese as cool-headed, willing to wait ... and there is a lot of truth to this. But at the same time, don't think they have forgotten things like The Summer Palace. ["In 1860, the French and British looted the Summer Palace at the end of the Second Opium War and on October 18, 1860 the British burned down the nearby Old Summer Palace (called the Yuanmingyuan in Chinese). The destruction of the palace was ordered by Lord Elgin, the British High Commissioner to China, and was undertaken in response to the torture and killing of two British envoys, a journalist for The Times, and their escorts. The destruction of large parts of the Summer Palace still evokes strong emotions among some people in China". Source . ] They have a powerful racial pride (however, they are not 'racist' towards us in the conventional sense, just as you are not racist towards your dog).

Can anything be done to reverse course in the US, and if so, what would a re-invigorated US be able to do as it slides into number two position? I personally would like to see a new political party emerge, along the lines of FDR and JFK and Ike -- but that's unlikely. Few ruling classes in history, at the head of powerful countries, have been able to look up from the trough long enough to see that 'in order for things to remain the same, things will have to change'. The French aristocracy didn't, nor did the Russian.

But ... the future is not predictable.
 
Lafayette, General Electric, DuPont, Exon and many other corporations have, do, and will continue to receive tax deductions for broadcasting their political opinions and promoting the political concepts they favor. These effectively are government subsidized political announcements that are of particularly more political advantage to the wealthy. Government forms won't stop this practice which is enabled by using federal income tax forms.

So, instead of moaning in a debate-forum we pass a law that makes said deductions illegal.

Business entities and non-profit organizations have no right whatsoever to be funding elections. In a REAL DEMOCRACY the costs of elections (the apparatus) is borne by each state (that is, we taxpaying citizens).

Nobody, but nobody, should be financing elections wantonly. Each citizen should be allowed nonetheless to donate (via a tax exemption) a moderate amount of money (not to exceed a fixed amount of, say, $5000) to either a party or a candidate.

There is no reason whatsoever to razzmatazz electoral jubilation at a massive election turnout just to impress TV-audiences.

Voting in a America is a joke for a number of substantial reasons:
*As stipulated above, party donations are limited to modest amounts.
*The US is a two-party system that manipulates voting (by either the Electoral College - that is a "winner take all" nonsensical outcome - of patent meddling in the vote by means of gerrymandering). Both were introduced into the voting process in 1812 (when the nation did not know the difference between a democracy and a hole in the ground) and both should be both done away with.
*TV-stations should be obliged (for state and national elections) to offer free a series of political debates in which candidates address the most pressing issues. No radio advertising should be allowed unless in moderated debates with all candidates participating.
*No TV "commercials" should be allowed, the money spent only on debate-forums that address detailed matters of political importance to citizens.
*Fundamental "freedom of speech" underlines the necessity of having a vast array of voices debating their political points-of-view. The people will decide to whom they listen most and thus vote accordingly.
*The Electoral College will have only the responsibility of counting the popular-vote and addressing the results to Congress.

Furthermore, we should introduce National Identity Cards for a number of good-reasons*, but one of importance is to assure only American citizens vote in elections.

*Foremost of which is to trace individuals throughout the nation who indulge in illegitimate matters.
 
I personally would like to see a new political party emerge, along the lines of FDR and JFK and Ike -- but that's unlikely. .

ever think of reading even a tiny bit history??? FDR presided over 16 years of depression and 5 years of world war. Worst admin by a huge factor in all of American History. Sorry to break it to you.
 
ever think of reading even a tiny bit history??? FDR presided over 16 years of depression and 5 years of world war. Worst admin by a huge factor in all of American History. Sorry to break it to you.
Trump has his issues for sure but the real question is: is he better or worse than a liberal, all things considered? Take a look at his many problematic marriages, for example. Yet, the Family Research Council supports Trump. Why? Because Trump is pro-family, relatively speaking. Liberals, conversely, have launched an all out attack on the concept of love and family itself with their feminist, divorce, abortion, resilient kids, and welfare agenda.
James972, the majority of USA voters in 1932 through 1944, and in 2016, differed with your opinion. I have reason to believe more of them will disagree with you in 2020.
Respectfully, Supposn
 
James972, the majority of USA voters in 1932 through 1944, and in 2016, differed with your opinion. I have reason to believe more of them will disagree with you in 2020.
Respectfully, Supposn

so??? lots of people voted for HItler. Did that make them right? Think before you post please.
 
so??? lots of people voted for HItler. Did that make them right? Think before you post please.
James972, despite the party's name, (National Socialist German Worker's Party), Hitlers writings and speeches opposing the political spectrum's left was no less extreme than the tirades you post. As you pointed out, Hitler's wording did (as you pointed out), evoked approval from the greatest portion of Germany's voters.

The words you use are less effective than President Trump's tweets and his words can be found in dictionaries. Many, if not most of your posts are peppered with less meaningful words not found in any dictionaries and your posts are less than logical. The concepts you wish to promote are not smart and are contrary to what the majority of USA voters accept.

Respectfully, Supposn
 
James972, despite the party's name, (National Socialist German Worker's Party), Hitlers writings and speeches opposing the political spectrum's left was no less extreme than the tirades you post.

how could he and Stalin oppose the big government left when they were the big government left? Why do you think our liberals spied And gave them the nuclear bomb ?
 
and your posts are less than logical.

If you feel conservatism or libertarianism is less than logical please give us a substantive example or admit you are talking through your hat like a typical
 
Back
Top Bottom