The Koch Brothers really are libertarians

[Peter1469]

The Koch Brothers really are libertarians (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/051115-752056-entrepreneur-says-kochs-not-greedy-but-freedom-oriented.htm) and not the monsters that the liberals and MSM, sorry I repeat myself, make them out to be.


What do Charles Koch and David Koch stand for? I wasn't quite sure when I accepted an invitation to join them at the recent Freedom Partners seminar in Southern California. Years of media criticism caused me to wonder whether there was any substance to what the Kochs' critics were saying.


Now that I've participated in this meeting, I have a clear sense of the Kochs' mission: Foster freedom, help the least fortunate and give everyone the chance to achieve prosperity. I now have every intention of returning to the event and supporting their efforts in the years to come.


Let me explain how I ended up in the Kochs' company. I was born in the Soviet Union in 1970. Shortly thereafter, my parents fled the Soviet regime to escape the repression they faced under a system that criminalized free-market economics and imprisoned those who criticized the Soviet rule.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/051115-752056-entrepreneur-says-kochs-not-greedy-but-freedom-oriented.htm#ixzz3ZyAMnfnV
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dW0sw4iSyr3P7iab7jrHtB&u=IBDinvestors) | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dW0sw4iSyr3P7iab7jrHtB&u=InvestorsBusinessDaily)

[PolWatch]

sshh....if the right finds out they have supported gay marriage and donated $$$ to the ACLU to fight the Patriot Act, they might refuse to accept any money from them.....:rollseyes:

[Tahuyaman]

The Koch Brothers really are libertarians (http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/051115-752056-entrepreneur-says-kochs-not-greedy-but-freedom-oriented.htm) and not the monsters that the liberals and MSM, sorry I repeat myself, make them out to be.


This is going to tie a knot in the shorts of the left wingers here.

[Tahuyaman]

sshh....if the right finds out they have supported gay marriage and donated $$$ to the ACLU to fight the Patriot Act, they might refuse to accept any money from them.....:rollseyes:

most right wingers opposed the patriot act.

[PolWatch]

most right wingers opposed the patriot act.

most of them supported it when George Bush proposed and enacted it. Its only since Obama continued the PA that they have decided it might not have been such a clever idea.

[Chris]

This is going to tie a knot in the shorts of the left wingers here.

It'll kicker knot a few Republicans as well.

[Tahuyaman]

most of them supported it when George Bush proposed and enacted it.


That is not true. That's why many of the provisions ended up with a sunset clause.

[PolWatch]

That is not true. That's why many of the provisions ended up with a sunset clause.

On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Sensenbrenner) introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-4) The next day on October 24, 2001, the Act passed the House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) 357 to 66,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-5) with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The following day, on October 25, 2001, the Act passed the Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) by 98 to 1.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-6)wiki

[Tahuyaman]

It'll kicker knot a few Republicans as well.

Republicans don't care where private citizens donate their money. They just note the hypocrisy of the left wingers who scream about the evil Koch brothers, but are silent about George Sorros and the Hollywood crowd.

[Tahuyaman]

On October 23, 2001, Republican Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Sensenbrenner) introduced H.R. 3162 incorporating provisions from a previously sponsored House bill and a Senate bill also introduced earlier in the month.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-4) The next day on October 24, 2001, the Act passed the House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) 357 to 66,[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-5) with Democrats comprising the overwhelming portion of dissent. The following day, on October 25, 2001, the Act passed the Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) by 98 to 1.[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act#cite_note-6)wiki


The Republicans demanded and got the sunset clauses needed to pass it. It would have failed to pass without that.


It looks like it had a broad range of support.

[Peter1469]

That was 5 weeks after 9-11. It is not surprising that it had support at the time.

[Bob]

sshh....if the right finds out they have supported gay marriage and donated $$$ to the ACLU to fight the Patriot Act, they might refuse to accept any money from them.....:rollseyes:

The left attacks the brothers. And you want to blame republicans? Just proves what I have long suspected.

[Tahuyaman]

That was 5 weeks after 9-11. It is not surprising that it had support at the time.

thats back when just about every liberal politician around was rushing for every TV camera they could find telling us how much of a hawk they were.

[Bob]

most of them supported it when George Bush proposed and enacted it. Its only since Obama continued the PA that they have decided it might not have been such a clever idea.

I never heard it is Bush's fault till the post above.

This comes live from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act#First_bills_introduced



Within a few weeks of the September 11 attacks, a number of bills attempting to make changes to anti-terrorism laws were introduced into Congress. The first bill proposed was the Combating Terrorism Act of 2001, which was introduced by Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrin_Hatch) (R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States))-UT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah)) and Jon Kyl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Kyl) (R (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States))-AZ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona)) with Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dianne_Feinstein) (D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States))-CA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California)) and Chuck Schumer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Schumer) (D (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States))-NY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York)) on September 13.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act#cite_note-SA_1562-4) Among its proposed measures, it ordered a report on the readiness of the National Guard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Guard) to pre-emptively disrupt domestic acts of terrorism that used weapons of mass destruction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction) and called for long-term research and development into terrorist attacks. It also called for a review of the authority of Federal agencies to address terrorist acts, proposed a change that would have allowed the CIA to recruit terrorist informants and proposed to allow law enforcement agencies to disclose foreign intelligence that was discovered through wiretaps and other interception methods. The amendment proposed a Sense of Congress that not enough was being done to impede and investigate terrorist fundraising, and sought to increase measures to prevent the laundering of the proceeds of terrorism.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Patriot_Act#cite_note-SA_1562-4)

[PolWatch]

Bob do you see the word 'fault' in my post? Blame yourself for the word 'fault'. The PA was proposed & signed into law by GWB. If you think its his fault, fine. I don't need your help to express my thoughts.

[Bob]

Bob do you see the word 'fault' in my post? Blame yourself for the word 'fault'. The PA was proposed & signed into law by GWB. If you think its his fault, fine. I don't need your help to express my thoughts.

Why won't Wikipedia put the blame on Bush as you did?

And you did it again.

[del]

Bob do you see the word 'fault' in my post? Blame yourself for the word 'fault'. The PA was proposed & signed into law by GWB. If you think its his fault, fine. I don't need your help to express my thoughts.


but, but...


wait for it







he's a realtor!

[Bob]

but, but...


wait for it







he's a realtor!

At least I don't claim to be a Navy officer .... an admiral

[del]

At least I don't claim to be a Navy officer .... an admiral

lol

like anyone would believe you, bobby

[Common]

The koch bros are libertarians yet they back all far right republicans. The piece is an attempt to soften their image

[Chris]

The koch bros are libertarians yet they back all far right republicans. The piece is an attempt to soften their image

They were also once heavy donors to Democrats.

[Bob]

lol

like anyone would believe you, bobby

We don't believe you so why should I pretend to have been a naval officer?

[del]

We don't believe you so why should I pretend to have been a naval officer?

i dunno bob.

if you gave me some time, i might be able to run out and borrow some fucks to give about what a poor excuse for a man like you believes.

[Common]

They were also once heavy donors to Democrats.

I know that I read it, they are whores, the dont care if theres gay marriage, they only care about raping workers and paying them the least possible and having no regulations so they can fuck more people.

Libertarian my ass, they dont care about social issues because they are immune to them. They want easier access to screw everyone else.

[PolWatch]

Please Stay on Topic--Koch Brothers

[Bo-4]

Duh? We've acknowledged such for fucking eons Peter.

This amazing revelation changes what?

[Chris]

I know that I read it, they are whores, the dont care if theres gay marriage, they only care about raping workers and paying them the least possible and having no regulations so they can fuck more people.

Libertarian my ass, they dont care about social issues because they are immune to them. They want easier access to screw everyone else.



So if we take away all the emotional vulgarity, you don't like them...for some reason. Meh.

[Common]

So if we take away all the emotional vulgarity, you don't like them...for some reason. Meh.

If we take away your pom poms you would still be their lead cheerleader

[Chris]

If we take away your pom poms you would still be their lead cheerleader

What pom poms, common. I don't care about the Kochs...like you obviously and emotionally do.

[Peter1469]

From the OP:


My biggest realization: Claims that the Kochs are motivated by greed are baseless. They oppose crony programs that benefit one company or industry at the expense of others. One of their strongest-held beliefs is that subsides, business handouts and every other form of corporate welfare should not exist.


Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-on-the-right/051115-752056-entrepreneur-says-kochs-not-greedy-but-freedom-oriented.htm#ixzz3ZyfKOa6h
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rw?id=dW0sw4iSyr3P7iab7jrHtB&u=IBDinvestors) | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook (http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=dW0sw4iSyr3P7iab7jrHtB&u=InvestorsBusinessDaily)

[PolWatch]

People donate to political causes for 2 reasons: they believe in the candidate or they expect to get something in return. I think all major donors look at option #2 first & #1 second....no matter which party gets the $$$.

[del]

anyone who thinks any of the megadonors are motivated by ideology, right or left, is really fucking stupid naive.

[Peter1469]

Saw an article several weeks ago that argued that corporations get much more bang for the buck with lobby money as opposed to campaign donations.

[PolWatch]

The lobby industry is nothing but legal bribery. The lobbyist is the middle man between the organization wanting favors and the politician giving favors.

[Chris]

From the OP:


My biggest realization: Claims that the Kochs are motivated by greed are baseless. They oppose crony programs that benefit one company or industry at the expense of others. One of their strongest-held beliefs is that subsides, business handouts and every other form of corporate welfare should not exist.

Read More At Investor's Business Daily: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editor...#ixzz3ZyfKOa6h
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook



Their greed is different than the usual "corporatist". Rather than seeking favors from big government, they seek to profit from getting government out of the way.

[Bob]

The lobby industry is nothing but legal bribery. The lobbyist is the middle man between the organization wanting favors and the politician giving favors.

You are represented by lobbyists, I am as well. We are in general all represented by some lobbyists.

Sadly some of the various states legislators do use the lobbyist for a lot of things said legislator wants.

To give one example, when he was a state legislator, one Bill Lockyer of CA showed up to our free meal for him.

I wanted to get the man to discuss education but his topic was the bridge toll fights between counties in North California. I was not interested in such toll wars. He was not interested in public education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Lockyer

[Bo-4]

Their greed is different than the usual "corporatist". Rather than seeking favors from big government, they seek to profit from getting government out of the way.

I would call that accurate.. assuming you add the words: taxes, regulation and the environment be damned!

[Bo-4]

You are represented by lobbyists, I am as well. We are in general all represented by some lobbyists.

Sadly some of the various states legislators do use the lobbyist for a lot of things said legislator wants.

To give one example, when he was a state legislator, one Bill Lockyer of CA showed up to our free meal for him.

I wanted to get the man to discuss education but his topic was the bridge toll fights between counties in North California. I was not interested in such toll wars. He was not interested in public education.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Lockyer

Of course your negative lobbyist example would be a Dem -- BoB.

Republican lobbyists are pure rainbows and unicorns!
:biglaugh:

http://www.vdmainlyqueens.nl/Gebruikte icoontjes/Regenboogbrug 7.jpg

[Bob]

Of course your negative lobbyist example would be a Dem -- BoB.

Republican lobbyists are pure rainbows and unicorns!
:biglaugh:

http://www.vdmainlyqueens.nl/Gebruikte icoontjes/Regenboogbrug 7.jpg

Since I called him a congressman, and not a lobbyist, I don't understand your commentary.

Say, don't blame me for meeting a Democrat and trying to discuss education with the man.

[del]

Saw an article several weeks ago that argued that corporations get much more bang for the buck with lobby money as opposed to campaign donations.

like there's a difference

[Tahuyaman]

Why are liberals so fixated on these Koch fellers anyway?

[The Sage of Main Street]

Bob do you see the word 'fault' in my post? Blame yourself for the word 'fault'. The PA was proposed & signed into law by GWB. If you think its his fault, fine. I don't need your help to express my thoughts.


but, but...


wait for it







he's a realtor! Does that mean that when he decided to become a GOPer, he tore himself away from the real world? Looks like that must be its derivation.

[The Sage of Main Street]

The koch bros are libertarians yet they back all far right republicans. The piece is an attempt to soften their image A Kochonut has a hard shell. These Aynal-Retentive Birchers are as deceptive as the Bolsheviks, who also preached "the withering away of the State." Lenin was an upper-class sheltered and conceited snob who thought of regular people as impersonal pawns. The Kochs come from the same class with the same Born to Rule goal. Rhetoric is rubbish.

[Tahuyaman]

And please someone tell me why liberals can't get these guys off their mind....

[Kurmugeon]

If I live another decade, which highly unlikely, I would Thankful and Proud to accomplish 1/1000th of the Good for America that the Koch Brothers have done in just the last year.

Every American, especially the Progressives, so quick to OPM, owe the Koch Brothers a huge debt of gratitude.

-

[Tahuyaman]

If I live another decade, which highly unlikely, I would Thankful and Proud to accomplish 1/1000th of the Good for America that the Koch Brothers have done in just the last year.

Every American, especially the Progressives, so quick to OPM, owe the Koch Brothers a huge debt of gratitude.

-

is that why these guys have set up camp in the head of every liberal here?

[Kurmugeon]

is that why these guys have set up camp in the head of every liberal here?

No... that would be the ugly face of jealousy and FEAR!

-

[Captain Obvious]

No... that would be the ugly face of jealousy and FEAR!

-

Tell us more about fear, ebola-boy.

[Bob]

If I live another decade, which highly unlikely, I would Thankful and Proud to accomplish 1/1000th of the Good for America that the Koch Brothers have done in just the last year.

Every American, especially the Progressives, so quick to OPM, owe the Koch Brothers a huge debt of gratitude.

-

I enjoy PBS and the Koch brothers are huge contributors to free TV. But for them, who knows if we would get the programming from PBS?

[nic34]

Why are liberals so fixated on these Koch fellers anyway?

They buy government better than any other.

The Koch brothers’ operation intends to spend $889 million in the run-up to the 2016 elections — a historic sum that in many ways would mark Charles and David Koch and their fellow conservative megadonors as more powerful than the official Republican Party.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goal-114604.html#ixzz3a86QVaVv

[nic34]

I enjoy PBS and the Koch brothers are huge contributors to free TV. But for them, who knows if we would get the programming from PBS?

There is no "free TV" if someone is paying for you to watch it.

Free brainwashing maybe....

[Kurmugeon]

They buy government better than any other.

The Koch brothers’ operation intends to spend $889 million in the run-up to the 2016 elections — a historic sum that in many ways would mark Charles and David Koch and their fellow conservative megadonors as more powerful than the official Republican Party.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goal-114604.html#ixzz3a86QVaVv

I think its more that they buy their "Government" from outlets that don't offer political power to the Left.

Progressive-Fascists care only about one thing, increasing their own power.

If you don't add to that end, then any and all means to destroy you is fair game.

In the end, isn't that what the word "fascist" means?

-

[PolWatch]

Kurmugeon is banned from this Thread for excessive vulgarity. Please do not respond to his posts.

[Tahuyaman]

They buy government better than any other.

The Koch brothers’ operation intends to spend $889 million in the run-up to the 2016 elections — a historic sum that in many ways would mark Charles and David Koch and their fellow conservative megadonors as more powerful than the official Republican Party.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goal-114604.html#ixzz3a86QVaVv

Better that George Sorros? Better than the labor unions?

[PolWatch]

Hint: why not quit allowing the sale of our government to anyone....regardless of party? Why not require all donors be listed openly by everyone that gets $$$? If we are going to sell our government, shouldn't we at least know who is buying it?

[Venus]

They buy government better than any other.

The Koch brothers’ operation intends to spend $889 million in the run-up to the 2016 elections — a historic sum that in many ways would mark Charles and David Koch and their fellow conservative megadonors as more powerful than the official Republican Party.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goal-114604.html#ixzz3a86QVaVv


Tom Steyer

Steyer is a leading Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)) activist and fundraiser. In 1983, he worked on the Walter Mondale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mondale) for President campaign.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#cite_note-onecalif.com-23) He raised money for Bill Bradley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Bradley) in 2000 and John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry) in 2004. An early supporter of Hillary Clinton (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton) for President, Steyer became one of Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama)’s most prolific fundraisers. Steyer served as a delegate to the Democratic National Conventions in 2004 and 2008, and has been a member of the Hamilton Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_Project) since 2005.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#cite_note-Lashinsky-2) Steyer, one of the backers of Greener Capital, has been accused of reaping benefits from the anti-oil policies of the Obama administration.[30] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#cite_note-30)[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#cite_note-31) In January 2013, rumors briefly arose that Steyer might be named as a replacement for Energy Secretary Steven Chu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu).[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#cite_note-OLTFOC-32) Asked whether he would accept such an appointment, Steyer said yes.[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#cite_note-USES-33)
Steyer is seen as an adversary to some of the political activities of the Koch brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers).[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#cite_note-34)[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#cite_note-35)
Steyer is involved with the Democracy Alliance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Alliance), a network of progressive donors whose membership in the group requires them to donate at least $200,000 a year to recommended organizations.[3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer#cite_note-36)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Steyer

Steyer’s political operation, NextGen Climate, is also hosting a dinner on Monday night along with other green-minded groups like LCV and NRDC Action Fund.
Steyer has spent more than $100 million of his vast hedge-fund fortune since 2012 to transform climate change into a top-tier political issue. Though he had mixed results (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/where-did-steyers-strategy-go-wrong-112624.html) in 2014, he is already making plans to go big again this cycle. Chris Lehane, Steyer’s top strategist, has declined to say how much Steyer is willing to spend this time around, but he told reporters earlier this month that the billionaire would spend “what it takes.”
NextGen recently opened (https://www.politicopro.com/story/energy/?id=45802) a San Francisco-based “war room” that will track target Republican political candidates for their skepticism about climate science.
Lehane, in an email, said Steyer’s work is focused on environmental, economic and educational justice and “how these issues need to be addressed holistically if we are going to give our kids a fair shake at the American Dream.”


http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/tom-steyer-liberal-donors-democracy-alliance-116935.html

[del]

Tell us more about fear, ebola-boy.

:rofl:

[Tahuyaman]

Hint: why not quit allowing the sale of our government to anyone....regardless of party? Why not require all donors be listed openly by everyone that gets $$$? If we are going to sell our government, shouldn't we at least know who is buying it?


The left won't allow it, that's why.

[MisterVeritis]

They buy government better than any other.

The Koch brothers’ operation intends to spend $889 million in the run-up to the 2016 elections — a historic sum that in many ways would mark Charles and David Koch and their fellow conservative megadonors as more powerful than the official Republican Party.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/koch-2016-spending-goal-114604.html#ixzz3a86QVaVv
It sounds to me as if they are buying it back from the authoritarian statists. That would be people who believe as you do. I will wait to see who gets campaign contributions before judging. If they get a hundred Constitutional Conservatives elected and Boehner, McConnell, McCain and Graham defeated they will have my gratitude.

[MisterVeritis]

Hint: why not quit allowing the sale of our government to anyone....regardless of party? Why not require all donors be listed openly by everyone that gets $$$? If we are going to sell our government, shouldn't we at least know who is buying it?
Yes. And there should be no limits.

[PolWatch]

The left won't allow it, that's why.

The last bi-partisan vote in December was to raise the $$$ allowed by private donors. I don't recall the right objecting. Convince yourself that its one-sided....but it's not. They both have their hands in the same nasty pockets....

[PolWatch]

Yes. And there should be no limits.

I have no objections to that as long as we are aware of who gave how much to which candidate. When candidate X introduces a new tax loophole for industry Y, we would know the reason for it. If corps try to use their employee's names for donations, they should be fined an equal $$$ for trying to sneak by the rules. Who knows, we might see a slow down in paid-in-advance legislation.

[Chris]

Yes. And there should be no limits.



There should be no limits to people even corporation giving government money but extreme limits on government turning around and doing them political favors. It should be completely outlawed. Not that I expect politicians to ever legislate that.

[MisterVeritis]

I have no objections to that as long as we are aware of who gave how much to which candidate. When candidate X introduces a new tax loophole for industry Y, we would know the reason for it. If corps try to use their employee's names for donations, they should be fined an equal $$$ for trying to sneak by the rules. Who knows, we might see a slow down in paid-in-advance legislation.
Imagine that, we agree.

I would add one additional level. Anonymous donations must be allowed. Should they be limited in size?

[MisterVeritis]

There should be no limits to people even corporation giving government money but extreme limits on government turning around and doing them political favors. It should be completely outlawed. Not that I expect politicians to ever legislate that.
It is already against the law.

[Tahuyaman]

I have no objections to that as long as we are aware of who gave how much to which candidate.

Why is it so important for you to know where private citizens contribute their own money?

I can understand your concern over special interest entities which donate large sums of money they collect in dues from members who have no say in where the money goes, like labor unions and such.

Why do you need to know who your neighbor contributes to?

[Chris]

It is already against the law.

Rarely enforced.

[Blackrook]

most of them supported it when George Bush proposed and enacted it. Its only since Obama continued the PA that they have decided it might not have been such a clever idea.
That is a lie. I have always hated the Patriot Act, including the fact that they called it the Patriot Act, so they could say that anyone who opposed it is not a patriot.

[del]

That is a lie. I have always hated the Patriot Act, including the fact that they called it the Patriot Act, so they could say that anyone who opposed it is not a patriot.

unless you're most of them, it's not a lie.

[Tahuyaman]

Conservatives supported the patriot act only after the sunset clauses were added to specific sections.

[del]

lol

[Chris]

lol

Is that ASCII for...

http://i.snag.gy/L6RSR.jpg

[del]

Is that ASCII for...

http://i.snag.gy/L6RSR.jpg

no, it's shorthand for only a fuckwit would believe that

next?

[The Xl]

It is already against the law.

If it's the law, it's completely ignored

[PolWatch]

If anyone is not willing that their name be made public for donations, those donations should be limited. I don't see any other way to know who owns our elected officials. If their motives are pure, why would they object to everyone knowing that they support candidate X? There is nothing like a bright light to send the roaches scurrying.

[Peter1469]

All donations to politicians should be 100% transparent. Voters should know who they are voting for.

[Chris]

no, it's shorthand for only a fuckwit would believe that

next?

Oh, my, I was joking.

[Tahuyaman]

If anyone is not willing that their name be made public for donations, those donations should be limited. I don't see any other way to know who owns our elected officials. If their motives are pure, why would they object to everyone knowing that they support candidate X? There is nothing like a bright light to send the roaches scurrying.


Again, why do you need to know where a private citizen donates his own money? Do you want to keep tabs on your neighbor?

[MisterVeritis]

"It is already against the law."

Rarely enforced.
True. But not relevant.

[MisterVeritis]

"It is already against the law."

If it's the law, it's completely ignored
Still not relevant. The original comment was that we ought to make a law to make graft and corruption unlawful.

[Chris]

"It is already against the law."

Still not relevant. The original comment was that we ought to make a law to make graft and corruption unlawful.

Right but you'd never know that by the lack of enforcement of it.

[Bob]

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by PolWatch http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=1092668#post1092668)
If anyone is not willing that their name be made public for donations, those donations should be limited. I don't see any other way to know who owns our elected officials. If their motives are pure, why would they object to everyone knowing that they support candidate X? There is nothing like a bright light to send the roaches scurrying.


Again, why do you need to know where a private citizen donates his own money? Do you want to keep tabs on your neighbor?

I have no clue why any of the public must know who sent what to a person running for office.

The implication is cash is dirty. To spend cash makes sure you get a scheduled outcome.

Think Obama and his rush for the past 8 years to scurry for cash. His taking at one meal amounts to $35,000 per dinner.

Do I need to know who donates to him? If so, why?

It is their cash and it is up to them to spend even though he is the undesirable party.

But it is none of my business.

I know big money owns Obama. I am not all that worried about big money.

[Tahuyaman]

I have no clue why any of the public must know who sent what to a person running for office.

The implication is cash is dirty. To spend cash makes sure you get a scheduled outcome.

Think Obama and his rush for the past 8 years to scurry for cash. His taking at one meal amounts to $35,000 per dinner.

Do I need to know who donates to him? If so, why?

It is their cash and it is up to them to spend even though he is the undesirable party.

But it is none of my business.

I know big money owns Obama. I am not all that worried about big money.

if a wealthy individual wants to contribute millions of dollars to a candidate for office, that's fine with me and I have no need to know.

However, if I'm a dues paying member of a labor union such as AFSCME, which I am required to join as a condition of my civil service employment, I should have a right to vote on where my dues money goes.

The public should also be able to see where confiscated money is spent in support of political causes.

[Bob]

if a wealthy individual wants to contribute millions of dollars to a candidate for office, that's fine with me and I have no need to know.

However, if I'm a dues paying member of a labor union such as AFSCME, which I am required to join as a condition of my civil service employment, I should have a right to vote on where my dues money goes.

The public should also be able to see where confiscated money is spent in support of political causes.

I did my best on the Realtor Board of directors to make sure dues money was not spent on any candidate.

It was members cash and they had never approved.

[MisterVeritis]

Right but you'd never know that by the lack of enforcement of it.
The laws that exist are very difficult to enforce. Maybe that is the crux of the problem. Term limits would fix much of the problem. Add in an anti-revolving door policy and get the federal government back to operating solely within its constitutional boundaries and the problem would be completely solved.

[Bob]

The laws that exist are very difficult to enforce. Maybe that is the crux of the problem. Term limits would fix much of the problem. Add in an anti-revolving door policy and get the federal government back to operating solely within its constitutional boundaries and the problem would be completely solved.

I am not for term limits. I discovered to my surprise that knowing the system used by Congress takes a lot of time and effort to try to master it. Most are not aware how complex the system is for the two houses.

As one representative said on cspan today, you would end up with the lobbyists in charge of the system. If one wants the lobbyists in full charge, support term limits. They have years to master the system.

I spent 4 years on a board of directors. My first year I had to purchase Roberts Rules of Order to survive. People can block you for the best ideas by knowing the rules of order.

[Chris]

The laws that exist are very difficult to enforce. Maybe that is the crux of the problem. Term limits would fix much of the problem. Add in an anti-revolving door policy and get the federal government back to operating solely within its constitutional boundaries and the problem would be completely solved.

Agree. Those steps would go a long way to solving the problem.

[MisterVeritis]

I am not for term limits. I discovered to my surprise that knowing the system used by Congress takes a lot of time and effort to try to master it. Most are not aware how complex the system is for the two houses.

As one representative said on cspan today, you would end up with the lobbyists in charge of the system. If one wants the lobbyists in full charge, support term limits. They have years to master the system.

I spent 4 years on a board of directors. My first year I had to purchase Roberts Rules of Order to survive. People can block you for the best ideas by knowing the rules of order.
We can agree to disagree. The nation's government has become tyrannical. Term limits across the board is part of the solution.

[Bob]

We can agree to disagree. The nation's government has become tyrannical. Term limits across the board is part of the solution.

I truly wish you were correct.

This is like term limits on say an Army Captain saying he only has 2 years or must get out.

[MisterVeritis]

I truly wish you were correct.

This is like term limits on say an Army Captain saying he only has 2 years or must get out.
Army captains are not destroying the nation. The federal legislature, the president and the judicial branch are.

You have your wish. I am correct. :-)

[Bob]

Army captains are not destroying the nation. The federal legislature, the president and the judicial branch are.

You have your wish. I am correct. :-)

I believe you see the roles of congress to be very very simple and easy to accomplish.

I wish that were so.

[Chris]

I have no clue why any of the public must know who sent what to a person running for office.

The implication is cash is dirty. To spend cash makes sure you get a scheduled outcome.

Think Obama and his rush for the past 8 years to scurry for cash. His taking at one meal amounts to $35,000 per dinner.

Do I need to know who donates to him? If so, why?

It is their cash and it is up to them to spend even though he is the undesirable party.

But it is none of my business.

I know big money owns Obama. I am not all that worried about big money.



Because it affects all of us. How they spend their money in business and personal lives, is no one's business. Politics is what with the intrusiveness of the government into our lives.

[Bob]

Because it affects all of us. How they spend their money in business and personal lives, is no one's business. Politics is what with the intrusiveness of the government into our lives.

Your opinion remains safe with you.

[Tahuyaman]

I did my best on the Realtor Board of directors to make sure dues money was not spent on any candidate.

It was members cash and they had never approved.

money taken from others should be subject to the approval of those whom it was taken from.

[Bob]

money taken from others should be subject to the approval of those whom it was taken from.

That is how I saw it too.

[Tahuyaman]

Still, could someone explain to me why you need to know who I personally donate money to?

[Chris]

Still, could someone explain to me why you need to know who I personally donate money to?

Because it affects all of us. How you spend your money in business and personally, is no one's business. Politics is, what with the intrusiveness of the government into our lives.

[MisterVeritis]

I believe you see the roles of congress to be very very simple and easy to accomplish.

I wish that were so.
Not only should there be term limits for the Congress critters. There should be limits on their staffs as well.

I do not really care how hard you think their jobs are. The number who have read and understood the Constitution cannot possibly be more than 20 or 30 out of the 535. Maybe their first two years of their term limited time would require taking and passing a college level four semester course on the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. They can take their seats when they get a perfect score on a ten hour graded exam.

[Bob]

Not only should there be term limits for the Congress critters. There should be limits on their staffs as well.

I do not really care how hard you think their jobs are. The number who have read and understood the Constitution cannot possibly be more than 20 or 30 out of the 535. Maybe their first two years of their term limited time would require taking and passing a college level four semester course on the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. They can take their seets when they get a perfect score on a ten hour graded exam.

That is part of their first year training.

Again, term limits won't fix anything.

Lobbyists would then be fully in charge. They would represent the institution.

[Tahuyaman]

Because it affects all of us. How you spend your money in business and personally, is no one's business. Politics is, what with the intrusiveness of the government into our lives.


It's none one of your business which candidate I donate money to. If you think it's your business you are a nosy busy-body. My contributions do not impact you in any way shape or form.

[Tahuyaman]

Not only should there be term limits for the Congress critters. There should be limits on their staffs as well.

I do not really care how hard you think their jobs are. The number who have read and understood the Constitution cannot possibly be more than 20 or 30 out of the 535. Maybe their first two years of their term limited time would require taking and passing a college level four semester course on the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. They can take their seats when they get a perfect score on a ten hour graded exam.


Absolutely. Elected office should not be a career. These people need to be forced to re-enter the real world and live under the same laws they impose upon us.

They also should not not be allowed to jump from office to office. Not only term limits for a particular office, but term limits pertaining to all elected offices.

[Chris]

It's none one of your business which candidate I donate money to. If you think it's your business you are a nosy busy-body. My contributions do not impact you in any way shape or form.

Funny, you asked why, I answered why. If you weren't interested in an answer, why ask?

All contributions affect others because they are political, from dog catcher to president.

[MisterVeritis]

That is part of their first year training.

Again, term limits won't fix anything.

Lobbyists would then be fully in charge. They would represent the institution.
Bullshit Bob. You know that you are not telling the truth.

We know it too.

[Tahuyaman]

Again, term limits won't fix anything.


I could not disagree more.

[Bob]

Term limits are a terrible idea

http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/the-case-against-term-limits/

She eagerly got term limits installed. Just in time to impact her newly elected husband in the legislature.

She explains how she changed from pro term limits to realizing her blunder.

Rather than post the long story, use the link and read it.


Now lobbyists and consultants, who all make a lot of money from the legislative process when it is well manipulated, had a well-greased cash cow to collect from. The so-called “elected” officials were all so new and ignorant to the wisdom of the process that they were easily manipulated and distracted from the beginning with what they would do when they were term limited out. This was as easy as leading lambs to slaughter.
First, lobbyists and consultants had meetings to establish how they could make the most money, working together. Karl Rove and his minions were in Missouri from Day 1, helping the establishment take advantage of what term limits would offer. The grassroots like me who had helped to institute term limits from the beginning were useful idiots in their plot to dismantle voter’s power in the Missouri state capitol.
I watched as new legislators were “told” who their new chiefs of staff would be. In some cases, their legislative assistants would now be dictated (or strongly suggested) by consultants as well.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/the-case-against-term-limits/#pV0bPdY2Zu8fumrJ.99

[Tahuyaman]

Funny, you asked why, I answered why. If you weren't interested in an answer, why ask?

All contributions affect others because they are political, from dog catcher to president.

and I responded to your answer. Do you think because you answered I am bound by some moral code to agree with you?

I disagree with your answer....... Is that authorized here?

[Bob]

I could not disagree more.

OK, I used to believe in them too. I changed my mind once I learned what really happens.

[Tahuyaman]

She eagerly got term limits installed. Just in time to impact her newly elected husband in the legislature.

She explains how she changed from pro term limits to realizing her blunder.



I don't think it's odd to find a person who ran on a platform of term limits, then changed their mind after they got elected and discovered how much power they would be forced to give up in a few years.

Humans are easily corrupted by gaining power.

[Tahuyaman]

If term limits are good for the office of the presidency, they are good for the rest.

[Bob]

I don't think it's odd to find a person who ran on a platform of term limits, then changed their mind after they got elected and discovered how much power they would be forced to give up in a few years.

Humans are easily corrupted by gaining power.

Sure would have been nice had you read the actual article.

[Tahuyaman]

OK, I used to believe in them too. I changed my mind once I learned what really happens.

The more I learn about what really happens, the more I support term limits.

[Bob]

If term limits are good for the office of the presidency, they are good for the rest.

Presidents don't legislate.

I really can't say term limits helps in their job either.

It's one of those things like a boy sucking his thumb. To him it is a great idea.

[Tahuyaman]

Sure would have been nice had you read the actual article.

again, it's not unusual to see someone run on and get elected standing on term limits only to see them figure out some way to justify abandoning that pledge once they receive the perks of power.

[Bob]

The more I learn about what really happens, the more I support term limits.

First of all, you don't elect the new power. They will do as the lobbyists tell them to do.

[Bob]

again, it's not unusual to see someone run on and get elected standing on term limits only to see them figure out some way to justify abandoning that pledge once they receive the perks of power.

Sure would be cool if you understood the system and how it really works.

i once was entirely for term limits.

[Chris]

and I responded to your answer. Do you think because you answered I am bound by some moral code to agree with you?

I disagree with your answer....... Is that authorized here?

Sorry, but you did not respond to or disagree with my answer. You ignored it's content, namely, the social aspect of political contributions.

Of course you're perfectly free to do just that.

[Tahuyaman]

Presidents don't legislate.

Right, but legislators do. They should be forced to consider the fact they they soon will be required to live under the rules of the legislation they write and pass

[Bob]

Synopsis of term limits

Old guy gets bums rush

Trouble is, he is the master of the system

New guy shows up bright eyed

Trouble is, he has little idea of the system, how to legislate

He needs a world of help

Lobbyists eagerly coach him

Now he needs replacing

You got a new guy for nothing

Not that I object to a congress doing nothing. i like such congresses.

[Bob]

Right, but legislators do. They should be forced to consider the fact they they soon will be required to live under the rules of the legislation they write and pass

I understand....
Wish it worked as you hoped it would

[Tahuyaman]

Sorry, but you did not respond to or disagree with my answer. You ignored it's content, namely, the social aspect of political contributions.

Of course you're perfectly free to do just that.


I have no no idea where you came up with the notion that I did not respond to your answer. I responded clearly. I told you that regardless of your view, it is none of your business to know who I donate my earning to.

What more do you require?

[Tahuyaman]

I understand....
Wish it worked as you hoped it would

its never been tried. We know for a fact that what's going on now is not working. Expecting a different result by maintaining the same failing system is not an effective fix.

[Bob]

​After term limits


The corruption is now more insidious, greedier, more controlling, and there is nothing voters can do about it. You can’t defeat lobbyists, consultants or staffers in an election. Their sick little crime ring simply circles into an ever-more powerful establishment elite that is out of the view and control of the public.
Today, it is that fight for term limits that keeps me humble. I realize now that no matter how good something sounds, how ethical something seems, one cannot really know until it has already happened what the ultimate fallout may be. This is why sticking to the Constitution as our Founding Fathers wrote it is always best. The Missouri state Constitution came out of the U.S. Constitution, and should not have been amended to include term limits.
People talk about corruption in politics, and I have seen it firsthand. Even though the entrenched establishment wielded power in ways that were perverse prior to term limits, nothing could have prepared me for what would happen when you handed that same power over to those who don’t answer to the voters.
I am sure that many currently serving would vehemently deny what I am saying, as would Speaker Tilley. But, respectfully, I would submit that they didn’t see both sides of term limits as I did when I was there in the state capitol both before and after term limits. I spent more than a decade of my life studying human and organizational development and what makes people tick within different affiliations and organizations. I was watching the organizational process closely as I completed a PhD on the topic. I had a front-row seat to the changes that took place, and I know what I saw. Much like so many things in my life, I wish I didn’t know what I know. Since I do, I believe I am responsible to convey the dangers of something that sounds as good as term limits do at first blush.
The answer to political corruption is not term limits. The answer to political corruption is simply voter involvement and citizen engagement. Keep a close eye on those who would make you cynical, on those who would have you believe that you can’t change things by your involvement, and on those who tell you that your engagement doesn’t matter. It does matter, more so today than ever in America’s history.
Our Founding Fathers didn’t forget to put term limits in the Constitution. They knew the danger of the power of those we cannot “un”elect. The power to elect, or defeat, rests in the hands of the voters, whether or not we choose to use it. No other solution works better. Our founders knew this. We had better learn it, rather than grasp for quick-fix solutions that are merely demons in disguise.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/the-case-against-term-limits/#pV0bPdY2Zu8fumrJ.99

[Tahuyaman]

Term limits will never be passed because once people get elected they become impressed with their own power. They aren't going to intentionally give that up. There are rare cases of people of high character who term limited themself because they ran on that idea, but they are very rare.

[Chris]

I have no no idea where you came up with the notion that I did not respond to your answer. I responded clearly. I told you that regardless of your view, it is none of your business to know who I donate my earning to.

What more do you require?


Simply quoting me and posting a non sequitur is not responding.

Yes, you were clear. But what you said had nothing to do with what I posted. In fact now you are saying it was a non sequitur with "I told you that regardless of your view...." Thank you.

I don't require anything. That you fail to respond is enough.

[Tahuyaman]

Simply quoting me and posting a non sequitur is not responding.

Yes, you were clear. But what you said had nothing to do with what I posted. In fact now you are saying it was a non sequitur with "I told you that regardless of your view...." Thank you.

I don't require anything. That you fail to respond is enough.

it had everything to do with what you posted. It's none of your business. Period. I don't care if the political arena is involved. It's my money, I can donate it anywhere I wish and it's none of your business.

You simply require people to agree with you and if they don't, you ignore the response.

[Chris]

it had everything to do with what you posted. It's none of your business. Period. I don't care if the political arena is involved. It's my money, I can donate it anywhere I wish and it's none of your business.

You simply require people to agree with you and if they don't, you ignore the response.


Your non sequitur implies disingenuousness in asking.

That it is political and affects me makes it my business despite your opinion.



I've said twice before I require nothing of you. Why do you now lie that I require something of you? Moreover, I'm am clearly not ignoring your response. Why do you lie and say I'm not? Try and be a little more intellectually honest.

[Tahuyaman]

Your non sequitur implies disingenuousness in asking.

That it is political and affects me makes it my business despite your opinion.



I've said twice before I require nothing of you. Why do you now lie that I require something of you? Moreover, I'm am clearly not ignoring your response. Why do you lie and say I'm not? Try and be a little more intellectually honest.

what.......?

[MisterVeritis]

​After term limits


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/01/the-case-against-term-limits/#pV0bPdY2Zu8fumrJ.99
The answer really is term limits for everyone. Everyone.

There is no valid case against term limits.

[Chris]

what.......?

You don't understand, do you. Sad. I'd explain why you're wrong but you wouldn't get that either.

[Tahuyaman]

You don't understand, do you. Sad. I'd explain why you're wrong but you wouldn't get that either.

Uh huh...........

[Tahuyaman]

The answer really is term limits for everyone. Everyone.

There is no valid case against term limits.

correct.....

[Chris]

Uh huh...........

I'm amazed at your ability to discuss an issue.

OK, let's see if you can grasp this. Why is it my business? Because it affects me. Money given to politicians affects politics and that affects everyone. Note, because you have given it away, it is no longer your money. It is only your business inasmuch as it's everyone's.

Now, go ahead, repeat your unresponsive non sequitur.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm amazed at your ability to discuss an issue.

OK, let's see if you can grasp this. Why is it my business? Because it affects me. Money given to politicians affects politics and that affects everyone. Note, because you have given it away, it is no longer your money. It is only your business inasmuch as it's everyone's.

Now, go ahead, repeat your unresponsive non sequitur.


Yes, after I give it away, it's no longer mine., But as long as It's still mine, it's none of your business who I give it to. It doesn't matter if it's given away to help fund another individuals campaign, or purchase a new car.

[Chris]

Yes, after I give it away, it's no longer mine., But as long as It's still mine, it's none of your business who I give it to. It doesn't matter if it's given away to help fund another individuals campaign, or purchase a new car.

The point has to do with money given away to politicians. Your point is irrelevant. It's a non sequitur.

I don't doubt you will repeat it just the same.

[Tahuyaman]

The point has to do with money given away to politicians. Your point is irrelevant. It's a non sequitur.

I don't doubt you will repeat it just the same.

Actually your point is irrelevant and nonsensical. You simply state it's your business because it's political.

Its certainly not not effecting you if the money I contribute is helping a candidate run his campaign and getting his message out.

People like you would get elected and then find out who contributed to your opponent and then go after them or their business. That's what left wingers do. That's one reason it's none of your business.

[Chris]

Actually your point is irrelevant and nonsensical. You simply state it's your business because it's political.

Its certainly not not effecting you if the money I contribute is helping a candidate run his campaign and getting his message out.

People like you would get elected and then find out who contributed to your opponent and then go after them or their business. That's what left wingers do. That's one reason it's none of your business.


No, politics is social, it affects everyone. The immediate scope may vary from local to federal, but the point is the same. Money given affects everyone.

At least you've given up on the ridiculous notion it's your money.




People like you would get elected and then find out who contributed to your opponent and then go after them or their business. That's what left wingers do. That's one reason it's none of your business.

As is becoming apparent when you have nothing to say in argument, you make things up for there you go again making up lies about me. Do you think there's value in trying to win an argument deceptively like that?

I'm further to the right than you.

[Tahuyaman]

No, politics is social, it affects everyone. The immediate scope may vary from local to federal, but the point is the same. Money given affects everyone.

At least you've given up on the ridiculous notion it's your money.





As is becoming apparent when you have nothing to say in argument, you make things up for there you go again making up lies about me. Do you think there's value in trying to win an argument deceptively like that?

I'm further to the right than you.

A campaign does not impact everyone. A candidate can't impact anyone until he or she gets elected.

Like I said, people like you would get elected and find out who contributed to your opposition then go after them.

You still can't tell my why it's your business to know which candidate I support. The last time I looked, an candidate who's not holding any office can not impact your life at all.

You're simply a busy-body who wants to know things about people do you can use it to penalize them later if the need arises.

[Chris]

A campaign does not impact everyone. A candidate can't impact anyone until he or she gets elected.

Like I said, people like you would get elected and find out who contributed to your opposition then go after them.

You still can't tell my why it's your business to know which candidate I support. The last time I looked, an candidate who's not holding any office can not impact your life at all.

You're simply a busy-body who wants to know things about people do you can use it to penalize them later if the need arises.



Campaigns like any free speech do indeed affect others. Campaigns have a purpose of getting people to vote for you.


Like I said, when you run out of arguments, you seem to need to make things up. Like I already pointed out about if I got elected.

Another example of you making things up: "You still can't tell my why it's your business to know which candidate I support." I never said anything of the sort. Why do you need to make things up like that?


Oh, by, and now come the meaningless insults and name calling. What a joke.

[Tahuyaman]

Campaigns like any free speech do indeed affect others. Campaigns have a purpose of getting people to vote for you.


So, a person seeking office who's currently not holding any office is impacting you because he wants people to vote? Really. That makes it your business to know which private citizens support him?

You are a closet dictator. That's not an insult. That's an observation based on your need to know things about others which is not something you have no need to know.

[Chris]

So, a person seeking office who's currently not holding any office is impacting you because he wants people to vote? Really. That makes it your business to know which private citizens support him?

You are a closet dictator. That's not an insult. That's an observation based on your need to know things about others which is not something you have no need to know.


I've made my point clear.

You want to obfuscate and lie about me based on absolutely nothing I've said but only your overactive imagination, go ahead. It's your reputation.

[Peter1469]

I am all for 100% transparency for donations to all politicians and a similar program for lobbying efforts. Our politicians are too corrupt as it is.

[Chris]

I am all for 100% transparency for donations to all politicians and a similar program for lobbying efforts. Our politicians are too corrupt as it is.

Exactly. Campaigns and lobbying are public and ought to be transparent. Example, Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her (http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money). The public deserves to know about that. Only statists would demand secrecy.

[Tahuyaman]

I've made my point clear.

You want to obfuscate and lie about me based on absolutely nothing I've said but only your overactive imagination, go ahead. It's your reputation.


Yep, you made your point clear. You made it clear that you want to know things about private citizens that you have no valid need to know.

Ill put put my reputation up against the inconsistency and nosiness of others every day. I'm not a busy-body who has a need to invade the privacy of others. But that's just me.

[Peter1469]

Exactly. Campaigns and lobbying are public and ought to be transparent. Example, Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her (http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money). The public deserves to know about that. Only statists would demand secrecy.

She took money from several Arab nations as well.

[Chris]

And I don't mean to just point at Hillary. I want to know contributions and lobbying by Kochs and everyone else.

[Tahuyaman]

the requirements for people holding elected office is a different issue

[Chris]

Yep, you made your point clear. You made it clear that you want to know things about private citizens that you have no valid need to know.

Ill put put my reputation up against the inconsistency and nosiness of others every day. I'm not a busy-body who has a need to invade the privacy of others. But that's just me.


You're lying. No one wants to know your personal financial situation, that's not being discussed.

Your reputation.

[Peter1469]

the requirements for people holding elected office is a different issue

People holding office have to file a OGE Form 278, Public Financial Disclosure. (http://www.oge.gov/Forms-Library/OGE-Form-278--Public-Financial-Disclosure-Report/) You can get them on any office holder (federal). Obama's was turned into an article yesterday.

[Common]

Exactly. Campaigns and lobbying are public and ought to be transparent. Example, Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her (http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money). The public deserves to know about that. Only statists would demand secrecy.

Better Example: At least we know that hillary personally took money from companies that sought to influence her. We have no clue about the network of koch billions and lineage of their pacs and exactly where the money goes.

We owe this new more insidious dark money to the right leaning Scotus that gave us Citizens United. Which was really Billionaires United. Same principle as no regulations for corporations see what the people get ?? SCREWED

[Chris]

This is another case where MisterVeritas is going to tell me we already have laws for disclosure not only for office holders but also candidates:


What are Financial Disclosure Reports?

Financial Disclosure Reports include information about the source, type, amount, or value of the incomes of Members, officers, certain employees of the U.S. House of Representatives and related offices, and candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives.


http://clerk.house.gov/public_disc/financial.aspx

[Chris]

Better Example: At least we know that hillary personally took money from companies that sought to influence her. We have no clue about the network of koch billions and lineage of their pacs and exactly where the money goes.

We owe this new more insidious dark money to the right leaning Scotus that gave us Citizens United. Which was really Billionaires United. Same principle as no regulations for corporations see what the people get ?? SCREWED


I mentioned Kochs in a subsequent post.

But no it's not a vast right wing conspiracy, common.

[MisterVeritis]

I am all for 100% transparency for donations to all politicians and a similar program for lobbying efforts. Our politicians are too corrupt as it is.
In my opinion this is a form of suppression. The Framers recognized that anonymous speech was still speech. I agree with them.

There are legitimate concerns that very large donations, say to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, were used to buy access or future favors. So haw do we balance the need for privacy with the need for transparency? This is a harder problem than it seems. Most of us are lawful. Some of us are not.

[MisterVeritis]

Exactly. Campaigns and lobbying are public and ought to be transparent. Example, Hillary Clinton personally took money from companies that sought to influence her (http://www.vox.com/2015/5/16/8614881/Hillary-Clinton-took-money). The public deserves to know about that. Only statists would demand secrecy.
I am not a statist and I do demand secrecy. The framers were not statists but they recognized that anonymous speech still needed protection. They were right.

[PolWatch]

I find it interesting that some want to talk about the illegal money Clinton receives but not Koch. Some want to talk about Koch but not Soros. Get off the partisan kick. They all are guilty. Our government is for sale to the highest bidder.

Its not a matter of personal privacy when it effects all of us. Personal finances are money spent for personal items....politicians are not (or should not) be personal purchases.

[Chris]

I am not a statist and I do demand secrecy. The framers were not statists but they recognized that anonymous speech still needed protection. They were right.

So you want our politicians and their sources of bribery, graft, and corruption secret? I'm not advocating prying into private financial affairs of citizens, but advocating what I later posted as already law. Government should be transparent.

[Chris]

I find it interesting that some want to talk about the illegal money Clinton receives but not Koch. Some want to talk about Koch but not Soros. Get off the partisan kick. They all are guilty. Our government is for sale to the highest bidder.

Its not a matter of personal privacy when it effects all of us. Personal finances are money spent for personal items....politicians are not (or should not) be personal purchases.



I don't think Kochs or soros should be investigated in their private finances, how much they have, how they spend and invest. I think the Bushes, Obamas, Clintons, etc should be. Of course that will expose their donors and contributors, but as you say and I agree, that affects us all politically, it's not longer private.

[Tahuyaman]

You're lying. No one wants to know your personal financial situation, that's not being discussed.

Your reputation.

It has nothing to do with personal finances. I do agree, that hasn't been discussed. I don't know how or why you decided to take the discussion there. That comment seemed to be pulled from thin air.

it could be that you are trying to entice some kind of exchange which turns rude, foul or otherwise insulting to satisfy another purpose . There's no other explanation.

[Bob]

The answer really is term limits for everyone. Everyone.

There is no valid case against term limits.

Yeah, has not worked in CA nor Missouri. Why not keep trying a failed system, huh?

[Tahuyaman]

I don't think Kochs or soros should be investigated in their private finances, how much they have, how they spend and invest. I think the Bushes, Obamas, Clintons, etc should be. Of course that will expose their donors and contributors, but as you say and I agree, that affects us all politically, it's not longer private.


If they start a humanitarian foundation and use that to enrich themselves and fail to report the money and evade taxes, yes investigate them.

[PolWatch]

It has nothing to do with personal finances. I do agree, that hasn't been discussed. I don't know how or why you decided to take the discussion there. That comment seemed to be pulled from thin air.

it could be that you are trying to entice some kind of exchange which turns rude, foul or otherwise insulting to satisfy another purpose . There's no other explanation.

if the subject of personal finances has not come up, what were you referring to here? Bedroom activities?:

'Yep, you made your point clear. You made it clear that you want to know things about private citizens that you have no valid need to know.

Ill put put my reputation up against the inconsistency and nosiness of others every day. I'm not a busy-body who has a need to invade the privacy of others. But that's just me.'

[Tahuyaman]

if the subject of personal finances has not come up, what were you referring to here? Bedroom activities?:

'Yep, you made your point clear. You made it clear that you want to know things about private citizens that you have no valid need to know.

There is no need for a government agency to know or track which candidate I contribute money to. It's none of your business either. It's only between me and the candidate I support.

Why is this concept so difficult for liberals to grasp?

see if you can somehow connect that to private financial situation or sexual activity.

[Bob]

I find it interesting that some want to talk about the illegal money Clinton receives but not Koch. Some want to talk about Koch but not Soros. Get off the partisan kick. They all are guilty. Our government is for sale to the highest bidder.

Its not a matter of personal privacy when it effects all of us. Personal finances are money spent for personal items....politicians are not (or should not) be personal purchases.

You explained why. The Clinton money is illegal. But for laws, it would be legal.
Koch has not done a thing illegal.

It amuses me how money is called legal on the one hand but not on the other hand.

[PolWatch]

There is no need for a government agency to know or track which candidate I contribute money to. It's none of your business either. It's only between me and the candidate I support.

Why is this concept so difficult for liberals to grasp?

see if you can somehow connect that to private financial situation or sexual activity.

You are all over the subject....are you talking about how you spend your money or the laws governing donations of millions? No one cares who you give your $5 to. Who a Soros or a Koch gives $5 million is another subject. Is that plain enough?

[Chris]

I am not a statist and I do demand secrecy. The framers were not statists but they recognized that anonymous speech still needed protection. They were right.

2nd reply to add I don't think you're a statist as your earlier proposal for term limits limits not the people but the politicians, the government.

That's what I think several of us doing as well, limiting not the people but politicians, government under a call for transparency, making politicians, government report who contributes and lobbies them.

I do notice some trying to twist that rather disingenuously and nonsensically into trying to pry into private individual's finances.

[Peter1469]

In my opinion this is a form of suppression. The Framers recognized that anonymous speech was still speech. I agree with them.

There are legitimate concerns that very large donations, say to the Clinton Crime Family Foundation, were used to buy access or future favors. So haw do we balance the need for privacy with the need for transparency? This is a harder problem than it seems. Most of us are lawful. Some of us are not.Do you have some quotes from Founders about anonymous speech?

[Bob]

2nd reply to add I don't think you're a statist as your earlier proposal for term limits limits not the people but the politicians, the government.

That's what I think several of us doing as well, limiting not the people but politicians, government under a call for transparency, making politicians, government report who contributes and lobbies them.

I do notice some trying to twist that rather disingenuously and nonsensically into trying to pry into private individual's finances.

If term limits improved government, I would be all for them.

[Chris]

One could argue the Federalist Papers were written anonymously, sort of, I believe most everyone knew who the authors were.


Justice Anthony Kennedy in Citizens United ruled "Political speech is indispensable to decision making in a democracy and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual," but went on, "We reject Citizens United's challenge to the disclaimer and disclosure provisions. Those mechanisms provide information to the electorate. The resulting transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and different messages." (from http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/06/07/154526639/theres-more-secret-money-in-politics-despite-justice-kennedys-opinion)

[Chris]

If term limits improved government, I would be all for them.

Well, that's where we differ, I don't want to improve the government, I want to limit it.

[Tahuyaman]

You are all over the subject....are you talking about how you spend your money or the laws governing donations of millions? No one cares who you give your $5 to. Who a Soros or a Koch gives $5 million is another subject. Is that plain enough?


No. I've been 100% consistent. I have said from the very start that how much money and to which candidate a private citizen donates his own money to is no ones concern but his. $5.00 or $5,000,000.00, it makes no difference.

The Koch brothers or George Sorros can spend as much as they want supporting a candidate for office. Once that candidate is elected, the cash given to him must then stop.

Got it? Do I need to take it slower for you?

[Tahuyaman]

Well, that's where we differ, I don't want to improve the government, I want to limit it.


The constitution limits it. It now needs improvement by electing only people who respect constitutional principles.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm still trying to figure out how some people translated my remarks into saying that I'm concerned about personal financial status bring disclosed?

I guess making up shit is what people do when they finally realize they are on the wrong side of an issue.

[Chris]

I'm still trying to figure out how some people translated my remarks into saying that I'm concerned about personal financial status bring disclosed?

I guess making up shit is what people do when they finally realize they are on the wrong side of an issue.



Words like "It's my money."

I see you're an echo troll. Earlier I demonstrated you were trolling by making things up. So now you echo that back.


The distinction I'm making is that despite your earlier lying about it, I'm not interested in your money or your finances or anything of the sort. I'm interested in politicians disclosing their sources, according to existing law.

[Bob]

Well, that's where we differ, I don't want to improve the government, I want to limit it.

That is what I meant.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm still trying to figure out how some people translated my remarks into saying that I'm concerned about personal financial status bring disclosed?

I guess making up $#@! is what people do when they finally realize they are on the wrong side of an issue.


Words like "It's my money."

I see you're an echo troll. Earlier I demonstrated you were trolling by making things up. So now you echo that back

"It's my money" somehow proves your point? That means it's none of business how I disperse it.

You are perhaps the better example of a troll. Personally, I don't care if you have some function to perform here. That doesn't give you the special privledge to insult people with impunity.

The only thing you demonstrated was that when the argument presented defeats you, you make shit up to support your view. That's all.

[MisterVeritis]

I find it interesting that some want to talk about the illegal money Clinton receives but not Koch. Some want to talk about Koch but not Soros. Get off the partisan kick. They all are guilty. Our government is for sale to the highest bidder.

Its not a matter of personal privacy when it effects all of us. Personal finances are money spent for personal items....politicians are not (or should not) be personal purchases.
Hmm. Which political offices do the Koch brothers occupy? What sort of influence peddling are you accusing these private entities of?

[Tahuyaman]

When ever a liberal here starts to get shot down, they react in one of a few ways. First they call you a troll. Then they claim you posted comments you didn't post. Next they start the dumb insults and claim you stated it. Then they claim that they are tired of slapping you around and run away.

[MisterVeritis]

So you want our politicians and their sources of bribery, graft, and corruption secret? I'm not advocating prying into private financial affairs of citizens, but advocating what I later posted as already law. Government should be transparent.
You are making an unwarranted assumption.

Government should be transparent. But political speech is not government.

[Tahuyaman]

Hmm. Which political offices do the Koch brothers occupy? What sort of influence peddling are you accusing these private entities of?

They don't know. They just know they wish they could forbid them from exercising their rights.

[Tahuyaman]

You are making an unwarranted assumption.

Government should be transparent. But political speech is not government.

and people seeking office can't be considered part of the problem. Only the people holding the office are the problem.

[MisterVeritis]

Yeah, has not worked in CA nor Missouri. Why not keep trying a failed system, huh?
The failed system is the one we have. That is the one that needs to be changed.

What has not worked in California or Missouri? How do those states relate to the destruction of the entire nation from the federal level?

[Chris]

When ever a liberal here starts to get shot down, they react in one of a few ways. First they call you a troll. Then they claim you posted comments you didn't post. Next they start the dumb insults and claim you stated it. Then they claim that they are tired of slapping you around and run away.

Well, lying liberal, you just described yourself to a T. Perhaps you could explain why you are so deceptive.

[MisterVeritis]

2nd reply to add I don't think you're a statist as your earlier proposal for term limits limits not the people but the politicians, the government.

That's what I think several of us doing as well, limiting not the people but politicians, government under a call for transparency, making politicians, government report who contributes and lobbies them.

I do notice some trying to twist that rather disingenuously and nonsensically into trying to pry into private individual's finances.
The real solution is the one we dare not speak of. We need to restore the Constitution and we need to limit the government to do only those things allowed to it by the Constitution. We need to repeal the amendment that allows the federal government to directly tax individuals. Do those things and the problems go away.

[Chris]

You are making an unwarranted assumption.

Government should be transparent. But political speech is not government.



But being political makes it social, not individual, public, not private, despite your irrational claim "it's my money" after you'd given it away.

My logic here is the same a the finding Citizens united. Contributions are political speech, but anonymity doesn't come with that because disclosure is beneficial to the people.

[MisterVeritis]

Do you have some quotes from Founders about anonymous speech?
I have their example. The Federalist papers were all anonymous speech.

[Chris]

The real solution is the one we dare not speak of. We need to restore the Constitution and we need to limit the government to do only those things allowed to it by the Constitution. We need to repeal the amendment that allows the federal government to directly tax individuals. Do those things and the problems go away.

All those and so much more.

It is my contention in this discussion that transparency limits government and restores some power to the people.

[Bob]

The failed system is the one we have. That is the one that needs to be changed.

What has not worked in California or Missouri? How do those states relate to the destruction of the entire nation from the federal level?

If you are disgusted by those in office, the natural term limit is the voters remove them.

Apparently you want the law to take charge and limit them.

I prefer the founders system of the public limiting them.

It is the law in CA. It has not worked. They are not removed from government, they circulate. They still stay in government.

I posted a piece that came from Missouri that I really wish you had bothered reading.

It is my contention it is party, more than each person. That the Democrats have struggled for many years to convert things to a thing of their liking. That what the like is failure.

Such as term limits. Not saying it is all their fault since in the D state of CA, we have term limits.

[MisterVeritis]

But being political makes it social, not individual, public, not private, despite your irrational claim "it's my money" after you'd given it away.

My logic here is the same a the finding Citizens united. Contributions are political speech, but anonymity doesn't come with that because disclosure is beneficial to the people.
If one depends upon the Robbers in Black Robes one might miss out on individual liberty.

Public disclosure of an individual's donations to the politician of his or her choosing does not benefit the people. My neighbors do not need to know whether or not I contributed to a politician. Nor do you. Equally then do not need to know that I did not contribute.

[Tahuyaman]

Well, lying liberal, you just described yourself to a T. Perhaps you could explain why you are so deceptive.


See what I mean? They just can't sustain a debate without swerving off into something unproveable

How is it deceptive by saying it's none of your,business, or government's business to keep track of which candidate I support with a contribution?

Im sure he, or she will respond by claiming I said something I didn't say.

[MisterVeritis]

If you are disgusted by those in office, the natural term limit is the voters remove them.

Apparently you want the law to take charge and limit them.

I prefer the founders system of the public limiting them.

It is the law in CA. It has not worked. They are not removed from government, they circulate. They still stay in government.

I posted a piece that came from Missouri that I really wish you had bothered reading.

It is my contention it is party, more than each person. That the Democrats have struggled for many years to convert things to a thing of their liking. That what the like is failure.

Such as term limits. Not saying it is all their fault since in the D state of CA, we have term limits.
We are where we are today because there are no term limits.

If you were serious about understanding the founders you would examine the history of that time. You would note that political offices turned over at every election. We did not have politicians who have done nothing other than get elected to the House or the Senate. People served one or possibly two terms and then were replaced by new people. Today we have people who view themselves as aristocracy, or in the case of the Obamas as Royalty. We need to fix that. No one should be part of the federal government for more than just a few terms. And total time in office should not exceed some very small number.

[Chris]

If one depends upon the Robbers in Black Robes one might miss out on individual liberty.

Public disclosure of an individual's donations to the politician of his or her choosing does not benefit the people. My neighbors do not need to know whether or not I contributed to a politician. Nor do you. Equally then do not need to know that I did not contribute.


Note I didn't appeal to the authority of men in black robes but to the logic of the finding.

It's also the rules of Congress as I cited before. Candidates are running public campaigns for public office and the public needs to know who is behind them in order to make informed decisions.

As PolWatch said earlier, the interesting isn't small donations, but the political favor buying ones.

[Chris]

See what I mean? They just can't sustain a debate without swerving off into something unproveable

How is it deceptive by saying it's none of your,business, or government's business to keep track of which candidate I support with a contribution?

Im sure he, or she will respond by claiming I said something I didn't say.



The deception is in your misrepresentation of what I said, as has been amply demonstrated. You come back echoing the accusation unable to demonstrate it. And then you continue to misrepresent what I said, though I must say in your anger you're getting incoherent: "How is it deceptive by saying it's none of your,business, or government's business to keep track of which candidate I support with a contribution?" Huh?


Wrestle with a pig, you get dirty, and the pig likes it.

So I leave you to wallow in your lies.

[Tahuyaman]

If you are disgusted by those in office, the natural term limit is the voters remove them.

Apparently you want the law to take charge and limit them.



I don't know how or why anyone would oppose term limits. The idea that the normal electoral process is the most effective term limit out there is a cop-out.

Elected office was never intended to be a career.

[Bob]

If one depends upon the Robbers in Black Robes one might miss out on individual liberty.

Public disclosure of an individual's donations to the politician of his or her choosing does not benefit the people. My neighbors do not need to know whether or not I contributed to a politician. Nor do you. Equally then do not need to know that I did not contribute.

While I would not call the robes the robbers, the point you made is also shared by me.

CU in my view was the correct decision.

The alleged left should be grateful it helps unions as well.

[Tahuyaman]

The deception is in your misrepresentation of what I said, as has been amply demonstrated.

I never misinterpreted anything you said. I simply responded to the things you said. You never demonstrated any such thing.

If anything, you misinterpreted my comments by claiming I was arguing about maintaining the privacy of my own financial situation. I never argued anything remotely close to that position.

[Chris]

@MisterVeritus, the logic of the Citizens United case on disclosure rested, besides the benefit to citizens, on the inability of anyone ever to show harm to citizens. harm to Bushes, Obamas, Clintons, yes, but not to Kochs or Soros.

[Bob]

We are where we are today because there are no term limits.

If you were serious about understanding the founders you would examine the history of that time. You would note that political offices turned over at every election. We did not have politicians who have done nothing other than get elected to the House or the Senate. People served one or possibly two terms and then were replaced by new people. Today we have people who view themselves as aristocracy, or in the case of the Obamas as Royalty. We need to fix that. No one should be part of the federal government for more than just a few terms. And total time in office should not exceed some very small number.

Do they enter office as good people? If not, they never should have been elected.

Do they get corrupted by office? If so, it is the office and not them.

Term limits have proven to be a failre.

It has to be something other than a term or two. Take Sen. Inhoffe, where he gone as is former Sen, Tom Coburn, that is a tragic thing he resigned. He really cared about the public at large. Worked hard for all of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn

In November 2013, Coburn made public that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer). In 2011, he had prostate cancer surgery while also surviving colon cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_cancer) and melanoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma). On January 28, 2014, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, he announced that his health insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act) (ACA) did not cover his oncologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncology) and treatment, but said he is still receiving quality care. It was confirmed with Politico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico) that since Coburn enrolled in the ACA, "his coverage has been reduced and he lost coverage for his cancer specialist." He decided he will pay out of pocket to receive his medical treatments from his oncologist. Coburn announced his discontinuation of serving a full Senate term is not due to his declining health. Coburn's spokesman, John Hart claimed “We hope the White House will work with us to make sure Americans who can’t afford to pay out of pocket don’t lose access to life-saving care, as Dr. Coburn’s experience shows, the American people are about to learn they’re going to lose access to not only their doctors and plans, but their specialists and treatments.”[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn#cite_note-Koplan-Obamacare-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn#cite_note-Kliff-Obamacare-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn#cite_note-Fox-_Obamacare-15) No health plans through the ACA marketplace included Coburn’s oncologist in-network. However, in a twist of fate, the fact that Coburn had to buy insurance in the ACA marketplace is a result of his own party’s actions. As opposed to receiving health care through the federal employees health plan, which Coburn had until 2014, he was required to buy insurance on the ACA marketplace. This requirement was a mandate created by Republicans in an attempt to undermine the ACA when it was being passed, as GOP senators, including Coburn, insisted that Capitol Hill employees, including themselves, be forced to buy coverage in the marketplace beginning in 2014.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn#cite_note-16)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn#cite_note-17)

[Bob]

I don't know how or why anyone would oppose term limits. The idea that the normal electoral process is the most effective term limit out there is a cop-out.

Elected office was never intended to be a career.

Actually there is no proof whatsoever that is true.

We have been poorly educated in government if that is the contemporary thinking.

This to me is a false saying. Such as saying "jury of your peers" That never was part of the jury system but it is said all the time.

I can only relate my personal elected job I ever held for some years.

I was but a real estate broker. I talked to the former president of the real estate board, the now long departed John Walasek. I enjoyed visits to his office at times. John looked at me one day and says, Bob, you have good ideas. You see things clearly. (hey, don't get mad i flatter myself, since it is my story, lol) join board committees to learn how it works.

The lucky thing is one can join committees and not be on the board of directors.

( I am trying to consider a way this can also apply to congress, since they end up directors)

John I says, what committees do you believe I should be on. He says, if you have time, get on several, but in your case, Bob, the budget and finance committee for sure. You will learn a lot about the function of the board plus the money part.

I applied and was selected by the powers to be. I sure learned a lot about organizational budgets. I saw inside politics. I saw some good and some crap. I was trained in zero based budgets. I had the entire budget of the board and it was in financial trouble. It was on the verge of raising (taxes) member fees to afford it's bills.

I took the tack the republicans take, what can we do to cut expenses?

The EO of the board was paid a high salary. He was on contract. He was almost monthly telling us he had to hire more help. Help did not come cheap. They got more than salary. They got free vacation time, free medical, and other free benefits.

When you are on that paid vacation, you are not helping the company in any way. When they pay your medical, it is to make you healthy but is no direct benefit to the company.

Anyway, not to write a book, but let's cut to the chase. I later was elected to the board of directors where I got to vote for what happened to members.

I found i followed one tactic. If it helped members, I voted for it. If it hurt them, I voted nay.




REALTOR® OF THE YEAR



1960 John A. Deadrich, III

1981 Mike Harris

1998 Jeri Jorgenson (Tri-Valley)


1961 Barny Adams

1982 Ellie Lange

1999 Cynthia Chiasson (Central)


1962 Richard Farrer

1983 John Lynch

1999 Chuck Edell (Tri-City)


1963 Fred Cox

1984 Phil Ferriera

1999 Michael Bowers (Tri-Valley)


1964 Richard Bigelow

1985 Barret Clack

2000 Donna Smith


1965 Robert Mandel

1986 Janet Cristiano

2001 Michael Riley


1966 C. Gordon

1987 Maxine Jennings

2002 Beth LaGrant


1967 Ted Diamant

1988 Mike Jacinto

2002 Steven Lloyd


1968 William Kerry

1989 Katie Minor

2003 Gib Souza


1969 Frank Straface

1990 Craig Ragg

2004 Mary Anne Rozsa


1970 John Walasek

1991 Bill Aboumrad, Jr.

2005 Melrose Forde


1971 Barny Adams

1992 Kathy Silva

2006 Pam Winterbauer


1972 Philip Olsen

1993 Sharon Luther

2007 Otto Catrina


1973 John Walasek

1994 Curtis Jenkins

2008 Shawna Jorat


1974 Del Bain

1995 Rick Geha

2009 Craig Ragg


1975 Ivan Cornelius

1996 Maureen Nokes

2010 Jennifer Branchini


1976 Frank Barnhisel

1997 John Stidham (Central)

2011 Sherri Souza


1977 Peppy Mayer

1997 Dave Gravelle (Tri-Cities)

2012 Don Faught


1978 Jean Clack

1997 Tom Chance

2013 Doreen Roberts


1979 Hank Cupples

1998 Lyman Menger (Central)




1980 Bill Henson

1998 Rosa Chang (Tri-City)

[Chris]

Prior to the Constitution term limits were the tradition, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_limits_in_the_United_States:


Term limits date back to the American Revolution, and prior to that to the democracies and republics of antiquity. The council of 500 in ancient Athens rotated its entire membership annually, as did the ephorate in ancient Sparta. The ancient Roman Republic featured a system of elected magistrates—tribunes of the plebs, aediles, quaestors, praetors, and consuls—who served a single term of one year, with reelection to the same magistracy forbidden for ten years. (See Cursus honorum)[1] According to historian Garrett Fagan, office holding in the Roman Republic was based on "limited tenure of office" which ensured that "authority circulated frequently", helping to prevent corruption.[1] An additional benefit of the cursus honorum or Run of Offices was to bring the "most experienced" politicians to the upper echelons of power-holding in the ancient republic.[1] Many of the founders of the United States were educated in the classics, and quite familiar with rotation in office during antiquity. The debates of that day reveal a desire to study and profit from the object lessons offered by ancient democracy.

Prior to independence, several colonies had already experimented with term limits. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut of 1639, for example, prohibited the colonial governor from serving consecutive terms, setting terms at one year's length, and holding "that no person be chosen Governor above once in two years."[2] Shortly after independence, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 set maximum service in the Pennsylvania General Assembly at "four years in seven".[3] Benjamin Franklin's influence is seen not only in that he chaired the constitutional convention which drafted the Pennsylvania constitution, but also because it included, virtually unchanged, Franklin's earlier proposals on executive rotation. Pennsylvania's plural executive was composed of twelve citizens elected for the term of three years, followed by a mandatory vacation of four years.[4]

On October 2, 1789, the Continental Congress appointed a committee of thirteen to examine forms of government for the impending union of the states. Among the proposals was that from the State of Virginia, written by Thomas Jefferson, urging a limitation of tenure, "to prevent every danger which might arise to American freedom by continuing too long in office the members of the Continental Congress".[5] The committee made recommendations, which as regards congressional term limits were incorporated unchanged into the Articles of Confederation (1781–89). The fifth Article stated that "no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years".[6]

More follows on the omission from the Constitution...

[MisterVeritis]

Note I didn't appeal to the authority of men in black robes but to the logic of the finding.

It's also the rules of Congress as I cited before. Candidates are running public campaigns for public office and the public needs to know who is behind them in order to make informed decisions.

As @PolWatch (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1099) said earlier, the interesting isn't small donations, but the political favor buying ones.
The two are inextricably linked.

The touchstone is the Constitution. It is not the laws made by Congress that contravene the Constitution. Nor is it the mutterings of the Rebels in Black Robes. When the Congress took such enormous powers to themselves they positioned themselves to shakedown everyone. The government must be limited. Not the people. Government.

If one cannot donate anonymously then one does not have the freedom of speech nor of association. Term limits for the representatives and Senators is the essential element. It is the lack of turnover that causes the damage.

[MisterVeritis]

@MisterVeritus, the logic of the Citizens United case on disclosure rested, besides the benefit to citizens, on the inability of anyone ever to show harm to citizens. harm to Bushes, Obamas, Clintons, yes, but not to Kochs or Soros.
We are not likely to agree.

Disclosure of my donations helps no one and may suppress my willingness to support any candidate. No one needs to know who I support or do not support. Either position could be used against me.

[PolWatch]

I am talking about disclosure of amounts large enough to influence elected officials. There is a point where personal privacy needs to stop and public disclosure start. When you are talking about contributing to politicians privacy has to give way to transparency in government.

If you want to contribute $5,000. to a candidate running for your local public works commissioner privately...fine. But, if you want to contribute $5 million to the same candidate, I think the public needs to know. You may own a paving company and be expecting preferential treatment in selling products/services to the city.

There does not seem to much hope that we will stop the selling of politicians....but we should at least know who owns them.

[Bob]

I am talking about disclosure of amounts large enough to influence elected officials. There is a point where personal privacy needs to stop and public disclosure start. When you are talking about contributing to politicians privacy has to give way to transparency in government.

If you want to contribute $5,000. to a candidate running for your local public works commissioner privately...fine. But, if you want to contribute $5 million to the same candidate, I think the public needs to know. You may own a paving company and be expecting preferential treatment in selling products/services to the city.

There does not seem to much hope that we will stop the selling of politicians....but we should at least know who owns them.

I suppose there is no presumption that one is innocent then.

Me, I see it working even when helping a candidate.

I for instance never see nor know who gives Obama vast sums of cash. He rushes all over America collecting, not $5,000 but $35,000 a pop. And he does not tell us who buys him.

My guess is the rich buy him and own him.

[PolWatch]

That is the issue. Except you are ok with any and all donations to someone you support while demanding transparency in those you don't support. I believe they all should have to disclose their large donors.

[MisterVeritis]

Do they enter office as good people? If not, they never should have been elected.

Do they get corrupted by office? If so, it is the office and not them.

Term limits have proven to be a failre.

It has to be something other than a term or two. Take Sen. Inhoffe, where he gone as is former Sen, Tom Coburn, that is a tragic thing he resigned. He really cared about the public at large. Worked hard for all of us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn

In November 2013, Coburn made public that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer). In 2011, he had prostate cancer surgery while also surviving colon cancer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colon_cancer) and melanoma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanoma). On January 28, 2014, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, he announced that his health insurance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_in_the_United_States) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act) (ACA) did not cover his oncologist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncology) and treatment, but said he is still receiving quality care. It was confirmed with Politico (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politico) that since Coburn enrolled in the ACA, "his coverage has been reduced and he lost coverage for his cancer specialist." He decided he will pay out of pocket to receive his medical treatments from his oncologist. Coburn announced his discontinuation of serving a full Senate term is not due to his declining health. Coburn's spokesman, John Hart claimed “We hope the White House will work with us to make sure Americans who can’t afford to pay out of pocket don’t lose access to life-saving care, as Dr. Coburn’s experience shows, the American people are about to learn they’re going to lose access to not only their doctors and plans, but their specialists and treatments.”[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn#cite_note-Koplan-Obamacare-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn#cite_note-Kliff-Obamacare-14)[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn#cite_note-Fox-_Obamacare-15) No health plans through the ACA marketplace included Coburn’s oncologist in-network. However, in a twist of fate, the fact that Coburn had to buy insurance in the ACA marketplace is a result of his own party’s actions. As opposed to receiving health care through the federal employees health plan, which Coburn had until 2014, he was required to buy insurance on the ACA marketplace. This requirement was a mandate created by Republicans in an attempt to undermine the ACA when it was being passed, as GOP senators, including Coburn, insisted that Capitol Hill employees, including themselves, be forced to buy coverage in the marketplace beginning in 2014.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn#cite_note-16)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Coburn#cite_note-17)
Serious illness or death is not an adequate term limit.

I think a dozen years is enough time for anyone. And there should be no retirement give for the members of the House and Senate. If a retirement is granted it should be at the same rate as the military and only given if one does not serve every possible year up to the term.

[Bob]

Serious illness or death is not an adequate term limit.

I think a dozen years is enough time for anyone. And there should be no retirement give for the members of the House and Senate. If a retirement is granted it should be at the same rate as the military and only given if one does not serve every possible year up to the term.

I have not yet gotten into retirement. Turns out they can't collect it until reaching an advanced age. The military pays even young men who retired upon 20 years. You can have a man under 40 collecting military pay for decades.

If congress collected at such a young age, sure, I object.

[PolWatch]

Politicians seem to think they own their positions. The longer they are in place, the less they seem to listen to those who elect them.

I like the idea of making the pension equal to that of military pensions. Huge, lifetime pensions given to people who spent a few years in office is ridiculous. Last year, Congress passed a bill that allowed underfunded pensions to reduce their benefits to existing retirees. Tell me, what organization is more underfunded than our government? Why should their pensions remain untouched?

[Bob]

Politicians seem to think they own their positions. The longer they are in place, the less they seem to listen to those who elect them.

I like the idea of making the pension equal to that of military pensions. Huge, lifetime pensions given to people who spent a few years in office is ridiculous. Last year, Congress passed a bill that allowed underfunded pensions to reduce their benefits to existing retirees. Tell me, what organization is more underfunded than our government? Why should their pensions remain untouched?

I am still finding out more about congress pensions. This so far is what I located.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/01/congressional-pensions-update/

CRS, June 13: Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.

[Bob]

If a man joins the military at age 18, retires at 38, his retirement pay starts right then. Congress gets paid much later.

If he is an officer, his retirement pay is staggering to say the least.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/retirement/ad/10_rc_ts_O5_20.html

[Chris]

The two are inextricably linked.

The touchstone is the Constitution. It is not the laws made by Congress that contravene the Constitution. Nor is it the mutterings of the Rebels in Black Robes. When the Congress took such enormous powers to themselves they positioned themselves to shakedown everyone. The government must be limited. Not the people. Government.

If one cannot donate anonymously then one does not have the freedom of speech nor of association. Term limits for the representatives and Senators is the essential element. It is the lack of turnover that causes the damage.


The logic was the court applying the constitution to legislated law, striking part, upholding part.

No one has shown harm to call for anonymity. Remember, we're talking public political speech.

"The government must be limited. Not the people. Government." is what I'm advocating.

[Chris]

We are not likely to agree.

Disclosure of my donations helps no one and may suppress my willingness to support any candidate. No one needs to know who I support or do not support. Either position could be used against me.


Kennedy's point in Citizens United was no one as shown harm.

And our disagreement is fine. We've each made out case. Others can decide their position.

[MisterVeritis]

I have not yet gotten into retirement. Turns out they can't collect it until reaching an advanced age. The military pays even young men who retired upon 20 years. You can have a man under 40 collecting military pay for decades.

If congress collected at such a young age, sure, I object.
They do not retire at a young age.

Many become multi-millionaires on their very low six figure incomes. How is that possible?

[MisterVeritis]

I am still finding out more about congress pensions. This so far is what I located.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/01/congressional-pensions-update/

CRS, June 13: Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at the age of 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. Members are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service. The amount of the pension depends on years of service and the average of the highest three years of salary. By law, the starting amount of a Member’s retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary.
Right. Add in the rest of the percs.... The most dangerous thing any Congress critter has done is stood between a television camera and john McCain.

[MisterVeritis]

If a man joins the military at age 18, retires at 38, his retirement pay starts right then. Congress gets paid much later.

If he is an officer, his retirement pay is staggering to say the least.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/retirement/ad/10_rc_ts_O5_20.html
Right. I would not recommend that anyone join the military today. One gives up one's youth, goes where the nation directs and does what the nation demands. My retired army pay roughly matches my taxes.

[MisterVeritis]

The logic was the court applying the constitution to legislated law, striking part, upholding part.

No one has shown harm to call for anonymity. Remember, we're talking public political speech.

"The government must be limited. Not the people. Government." is what I'm advocating.
I have shown you harm. If I have a boss of another political persuasion he may choose to reward me or punish me based upon a public record of my donations.

This is fundamentally chilling to make donations a matter of public record.

[MisterVeritis]

Kennedy's point in Citizens United was no one as shown harm.

And our disagreement is fine. We've each made out case. Others can decide their position.
Kennedy cannot be fired.

[Chris]

Kennedy cannot be fired.

His logic is what should be questioned, not his person.


Came across this. In addition to government policies and laws regulating political disclosure, some private businesses require it as well: Geraldo: ABC Fired Me for $200 Donation, Why Not the Same for Stephanopoulos? (http://www.mediaite.com/online/geraldo-abc-fired-me-for-200-donation-why-not-the-same-for-stephanopoulos/) -- what he was actually fired for was "for failing to publicly disclose $75,000 in donations to the Clinton Foundation over the last three years."

[Chris]

I have shown you harm. If I have a boss of another political persuasion he may choose to reward me or punish me based upon a public record of my donations.

This is fundamentally chilling to make donations a matter of public record.


You have proposed hypothetical harm. So too did Citizens United argue hypothetical harm but none was found.

[MisterVeritis]

His logic is what should be questioned, not his person.


Came across this. In addition to government policies and laws regulating political disclosure, some private businesses require it as well: Geraldo: ABC Fired Me for $200 Donation, Why Not the Same for Stephanopoulos? (http://www.mediaite.com/online/geraldo-abc-fired-me-for-200-donation-why-not-the-same-for-stephanopoulos/) -- what he was actually fired for was "for failing to publicly disclose $75,000 in donations to the Clinton Foundation over the last three years."
His logic is flawed.

People can be harmed quietly by public disclosure. One can never know nor prove. That does not make this form of human nature any less dangerous to participation.

[MisterVeritis]

You have proposed hypothetical harm. So too did Citizens United argue hypothetical harm but none was found.
Kennedy know it is impossible to prove. Prove instead that no harm is possible.

[Chris]

Kennedy know it is impossible to prove. Prove instead that no harm is possible.

The case simply wasn't made.

I'll leave proving negatives to you. Anything's possible, I suppose, but the likelihood of it needs to be weighed against the gain of an informed public with regard to politicians and government.

[Chris]

His logic is flawed.

People can be harmed quietly by public disclosure. One can never know nor prove. That does not make this form of human nature any less dangerous to participation.


How is his logic flawed?

Could, people could be, maybe, but it's not been shown.

As you said earlier, we disagree. We've made our cases. Repeating gets a bit boring.

[Peter1469]

They do not retire at a young age.

Many become multi-millionaires on their very low six figure incomes. How is that possible?

In the 1990s the stock market was rigged and people were making very high interest on their investments. Greenspan referred to it as irrational exuberance. A lot of higher ranking army officers got rich off their investments. I ran a tax center in 2000 at Fort Drum and had to do some tax returns for them. Impressive gains.

My dad did very well. Years with returns in the low 20%s.

[MisterVeritis]

In the 1990s the stock market was rigged and people were making very high interest on their investments. Greenspan referred to it as irrational exuberance. A lot of higher ranking army officers got rich off their investments. I ran a tax center in 2000 at Fort Drum and had to do some tax returns for them. Impressive gains.

My dad did very well. Years with returns in the low 20%s.
That occasionally happens but it is not the norm.

My returns have been between 8-12% year after year. I used some of my money to start two businesses. I lost everything I put in. Next week I am starting another business. I will limit my investment to $10K.

[Bob]

They do not retire at a young age.

Many become multi-millionaires on their very low six figure incomes. How is that possible?

Right, confirms my comment. I would ask you how they do it?

[Bob]

Right. I would not recommend that anyone join the military today. One gives up one's youth, goes where the nation directs and does what the nation demands. My retired army pay roughly matches my taxes.

True. And lives a life of obeying orders.

[Bob]

Right. Add in the rest of the percs.... The most dangerous thing any Congress critter has done is stood between a television camera and john McCain.

Well, they do get to combat zones at times. protected by our military.

[Peter1469]

That occasionally happens but it is not the norm.

My returns have been between 8-12% year after year. I used some of my money to start two businesses. I lost everything I but in. Next week I am starting another business. I will limit my investment to $10K.

If I recall, the return since the GD averages out at 15%. Our current situation is low because of poor policy choices.

[MisterVeritis]

Right, confirms my comment. I would ask you how they do it?
Their powers allow them to shakedown everybody.