If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   The Supreme Court could improve the budget deficit--or they could completely screw it up. Given their track record, it seems clear what will happen   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 316
    More: Scary, supreme courts, Douglas W. Elmendorf, health law, health insurance exchange, debt limit, deficits, Congressional Budget Office, Wall Street reform  
•       •       •

3399 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jun 2012 at 1:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



316 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-14 07:37:52 PM

Dr Dreidel: Garet Garrett

If money is speech, then money is also: food, shelter, taxes, labor, toys, charity, appliances, events, time...and subject to pretty much every sort of oversight and limitation we have in this country. Either that, or money is speech, and my bribing of a county official is a discussion of the relative pros and cons of a given matter.

Money is opportunity. Isn't that what they teach in economics class? A dollar in your hand represent an OPPORTUNITY to purchase $1 worth of goods/services. $1 worth of advertising is speech, but only because you've already converted it from an opportunity into a good/service (an ad).

Money is not speech. Don't they teach things in English class anymore? Speech is speech and money is money. Speech is protected under Amdt 1, opportunity is not.

Speech is an action. Money is a concept (or a paper, if you're that way inclined). You can turn money into speech the same way I can turn it into a cheeseburger, but that doesn't make money speech any more than it makes money cheeseburgers.


The press was not defined as a corporate news during ratification and didn't exist for a few decades until after ratification. Many will argue, even Franklin himself, that the press protected in the first amendment refers to technology to amplify speech. Franklin had his own printing press, most did not. Was it unfair his voice was "louder"? How much does a website cost again?
 
2012-06-14 07:41:11 PM

Fart_Machine: Perlin Noise: Garet Garrett: Perlin Noise: DamnYankees: Garet Garrett: I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech

So you believe bribing people should be legal? If money is speech, then a bribe is just an argument.

I think the concept that money is speech makes as much sense as saying chocolate pudding is speech. None. Money itself says nothing. It allows some people to speak louder than others. A megaphone is not the speech itself.

//mmmmm pudding!

Of course you're right on what amounts to a completely irrelevant level. Under your theory, it wouldn't offend the 1st Amendment at all to ban the use of megaphones, since that's not speech. Well, then, we could prohibit the use of transponders or radio frequency transmission devices, too. Nothing to stop those politicians from standing on the street corner giving their stump speech to those within earshot!

How quickly the 1st Amendment becomes a token obstacle when you're as literalist as that.

Correct me if I am wrong ..but there are noise ordinances and regulations for what you are talking about... there should be regulations on the money, substantial ones.

Citizens United also breaks 100 years of legal precedent. Funny how the same people who criticize Roe as "judicial activism" have no problem here.


Can always tell the idiots apart by them claiming 100 years. CU did not that. Speech around elections by private citizens was limited just over 40 years ago. The precedent you are thinking of is campaign finance which CU did not touch.
 
2012-06-14 07:43:03 PM

madgonad: Pincy: Yep, I've been saying it for years now, I would be willing to pay a National sales tax if it meant we got UHC.

So would I, and I HATE the idea of using a sales tax.

FYI - just for general knowledge. We could DOUBLE the Medicare portion of the payroll tax and extend Medicare to everyone. Seriously. 48% of all health spending in the US comes from the government (Medicare, Medicaid, VA). And with the government picking up the tab we can finally impose some cost controls. Yes, doctors and pharmaceutical sales reps will whine, but since they didn't protest when manufacturing compensation plummeted over time I don't see why anyone should care that they can't afford that $80k Lexus anymore.


Lol. Price controls? On Medicaid or Medicare? Any time any reform is discussed liberals claim its the death of either. Good luck.
 
2012-06-14 07:46:31 PM

bugontherug: Are you really this dense? This answer is non-responsive and inapposite. The problem isn't that people aren't currently allowed to form advocacy corporations. It's that their private investments aren't protected from corporatist misappropriation.


Who's dense? When you trade your money for common stock, it ain't yer munny no moar.

anindependent: You moron. He's not saying the government should be able to ban Republican advertisements. God damn, my fellow conservatives embarrass me.


I'm not a conservative, you limp pimpled dick.

Fart_Machine: jigger: A campaign donation is giving money directly to the candidate so that they may spend it as they wish. They control the money and the message.

In the examples I gave the foreign donor is providing specific donations such as rent or transportation. The candidate doesn't control the money. They get the benefit of negative advertising against their opponent as well as the luxury of distancing themselves from the attack.


And I already said before that direct campaign donations from foreigners would be a no-no.

Are you saying that independently placing an advertisement is a direct campaign donation?

If the candidate wants to distance himself from the ad, all he has to do is say that he doesn't agree with it. It's up to you to believe him or not.
 
2012-06-14 07:53:30 PM

bronyaur1: sprawl15: DamnYankees: Except I'm not, and have explicitly said this would not be allowed.

sprawl15: If you need to fall back on the 5th Amendment to say that wanton killing isn't acceptable under the commerce clause, maybe you should shut up, sit down, and think up an interpretation that isn't dumber than anything I've seen NarrowCranium post today.

I can keep reposting things all day, eventually you'll read them, if only on accident.

I hate to interrupt and ruin this fun, but perhaps Sprawl15 should be apprised that he is arguing constitutional law with someone who I believe got their law degree from NYU, one of the best schools in the country. And one of the smartest farkers here.

You're gonna lose badly.


You are talking about damnyankees, the person who stated that if he was a judge he would put empathy over legal logic. Your assertion that he is one of the smartest is laughable. Sprawl logically won that argument, demonstrated by dy leaving.
 
2012-06-14 07:55:43 PM

MyRandomName: Can always tell the idiots apart by them claiming 100 years. CU did not that. Speech around elections by private citizens was limited just over 40 years ago. The precedent you are thinking of is campaign finance which CU did not touch.


When people talk about "100 years," they're talking about Teddy Roosevelt and the Tillman Act of 1907. Said TR:

"All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law."

The law enacted in response to his exhortations read as follows:

An Act to prohibit corporations from making money contributions in connection with political elections. Be it enacted, that it shall be unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any laws of Congress, to make a money contribution in connection with any election to any political office. It shall also be unlawful for any corporation whatever to make a money contribution in connection with any election at which Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors or a Representative in Congress is to be voted for or any election by any State legislature of a United States Senator. Every corporation which shall make any contribution in violation of the foregoing provisions shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and every officer or director of any corporation who shall consent to any contribution by the corporation in violation of the foregoing provisions shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not exceeding one thousand and not less than two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court."

Nobody thought the Tillman Act was unconstitutional, and its language banning money "in connection with" politics was arguably broad enough to ban finance of independent political activity. CU certainly undermined the purposes underlying the Tillman Act. So no, people who talk about "100 years" really aren't "idiots."
 
2012-06-14 08:03:06 PM

jigger: Who's dense? When you trade your money for common stock, it ain't yer munny no moar.


When you buy stock, you're not literally buying a piece of paper. That would be worthless. You're buying a property interest in the corporation's assets, symbolized by the stock certificate. As part owner, the shareholder has a more legitimate claim to the corporate treasury than do the corporate officers, who are mere agents of the corporation.
 
2012-06-14 08:26:46 PM
In its totality, the Affordable Care Act is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reduce 10-year deficits by about $200 billion compared to what would have happened if the law never existed.

We have a high level BS alert.

It is now an established fact that ObamaCare is going to cost far more than we were told and even if it it is held up totally by SCOTUS everyone knows that some of the 'cost cutting' measures are an absolute pipe dream that will not happen in anything resembling reality.

But okay, I'll call your bluff. The moment ObamaCare turns out to cost money than it saves liberals will admit they were completely wrong about it right? Right? I'll expect a hand written apology and admission each time it goes up another 1%.

Of course not.

Just as a helpful suggestion, you might want to consider that most social programs that liberals are oh so very fond of have anywhere from 2 to 10 times more cost today than they were ever projected to cost when they were passed.
 
2012-06-14 09:57:11 PM

jigger: And I already said before that direct campaign donations from foreigners would be a no-no.


You seem to be under the belief that supporting the campaign through advertising is less influential to the candidate. It's a silly distinction. Do you really believe Joe Smith is going to have as much pull with the candidate as opposed to the guy who provided a million in SuperPAC ads?
 
2012-06-14 11:12:20 PM

randomjsa: Just as a helpful suggestion, you might want to consider that most social programs that liberals are oh so very fond of have anywhere from 2 to 10 times more cost today than they were ever projected to cost when they were passed.


Well, let's start with your "liberals" and "oh so very fond" comments. For the moment, forget about financing. Why are you in favor of a public that is in poor health, homeless, malnourished, and under-educated?

Now back to the matter at hand. The fact that, say, Social Security is costing far more than originally projected is mostly due to people living longer. Again, why are you opposed to the rise in the nation's standard of living? I suppose we should let the elderly die in the streets, eh? Compassionate conservatism strikes again.
 
2012-06-14 11:31:20 PM

ImpendingCynic: Well, let's start with your "liberals" and "oh so very fond" comments. For the moment, forget about financing. Why are you in favor of a public that is in poor health, homeless, malnourished, and under-educated?


Because socialism.

Seriously, that's about as much of a response as you're going to get out of him.
 
2012-06-14 11:40:15 PM

jigger: Should a commercial corporation not be able to advertise? Should the government be able to regulate the content of those advertisements?


When is the last time you saw a cigarette ad on TV? Why is that?
 
2012-06-15 02:52:57 AM
Why not remove the cap on medicare and ss taxes then delete the words "under 65" from the relevant medicare statutes? There, we have universal healthcare without eliminating the private option.
 
2012-06-15 02:59:04 AM
The SCOTUS will do whatever it takes to get Mittens elected.
 
2012-06-15 03:00:47 AM

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Why not remove the cap on medicare and ss taxes then delete the words "under 65" from the relevant medicare statutes? There, we have universal healthcare without eliminating the private option.


Mitt has promised to privatize Medicare so why bother?
 
2012-06-15 03:04:24 AM

Bucky Katt: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Why not remove the cap on medicare and ss taxes then delete the words "under 65" from the relevant medicare statutes? There, we have universal healthcare without eliminating the private option.

Mitt has promised to privatize Medicare so why bother?


Thank Zod that Dubya never got around to privatizing SS.
 
Displayed 16 of 316 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report