I'll quote myself: Repeated rulings by the Supreme Court do, in fact, start to make a moral argument.
Then repeated budgets allocating funds for welfare make a moral argument for that.
His statement is that the supreme court ruled incorrectly. And you say that is dumb in light of the Supreme Court's ruling. Those don't do together.
I'll quote myself: Repeated rulings by the Supreme Court do, in fact, start to make a moral argument.
Oh, you quoted yourself? I guess that's it, then. /s
Until then, the plain language of the Constitution clearly says "free speech shall not be infringed by laws." The Supreme Court has upheld that speech does, in fact, relate to money.
Therefore, if you say "we need to stop 'the rich' from giving money,' what you're really saying is you see nothing wrong with limiting free speech. I initially laid out how ridiculous this looks when applied to other rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
Your argument is predicated on the premise that the SCOTUS is infallible. One needs look no further than Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott to see that this is untrue. Unless, of course, you agree that blacks people are “an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race...”
If you wish to continue to look ridiculous in light of all this, you are free to do so.
Oh, someone certainly looks ridiculous, but I don't think it's who you have in mind...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if anyone has suggested this, but I wonder if this might actually end up being a good thing for the country. It might lead to huge reserves of money that are basically just sitting idle in the hands of the ultra-wealth getting pushed into the economy.
What, do they keep it under their mattress, or in a big vault like Uncle Scrooge Mc Duck? They don't have it invested or nothing?
In-state tuition, right now in my state, costs $8000/year. That's only out of the realm of possibility for people who are too lazy to work. $8/hr x 20hrs/week x 50 weeks per year = $8000
You DO realize that a 4 year degree is not a guarantee of a position in your field once you get out right?
You DO realize that a 4 year degree is not a guarantee of a position in your field once you get out right?
Don't forget that the cost of living is zero!
What, do they keep it under their mattress, or in a big vault like Uncle Scrooge Mc Duck? They don't have it invested or nothing?
Investing and having it spent in the economy are not the same thing.
What, do they keep it under their mattress, or in a big vault like Uncle Scrooge Mc Duck? They don't have it invested or nothing?Investing and having it spent in the economy are not the same thing.
here will be found a brief explanation of the effects of expansionary monetary policy.
briefly,....
Monetary policy is referred to as either being expansionary or contractionary. Expansionary policy seeks to accelerate economic growth, while contractionary policy seeks to restrict it. Expansionary policy is traditionally used to try to combat unemployment in a recession by lowering interest rates in the hope that easy credit will entice businesses into expanding. This is done by increasing the money supply available in the economy.
Expansionary policy attempts to promote aggregate demand growth. As you may remember, aggregate demand is the sum of private consumption, investment, government spending and imports. Monetary policy focuses on the first two elements. By increasing the amount of money in the economy, the central bank encourages private consumption. Increasing the money supply also decreases the interest rate, which encourages lending and investment. The increase in consumption and investment leads to a higher aggregate demand.
So, no they're not the same thing exactly, but invested money is not just "sitting idly in the hands of the wealthy." See, that's what companies offer stocks for: it's a way for them to.....raise money. Then they......spend the money. They don't leave this money sitting in big vaults like Scrooge McDuck. Neither do rich people for that matter. Except the crazy ones might.
So, you're absolutely wrong: "investing money and having it spent in the economy is the exact same thing." That's what businesses do with the money.
Oh I think not responding to direct questions does make one of us look ridiculous... I will respond more in depth tomorrow. I am enjoying the back and forth!
Dennis, I did respond.
And in light of every post I've made, where I advocate liberty to the fullest extent possible, you want me to answer an asinine question?
Yes, I agree the Supreme Court ruled this case correctly, because the First Amendment of the Constitution plainly says Congress can't limit free speech. Since getting a message out (even one you don't personally like) requires money, yes, you're going to have to suck up the fact that some people have more money than you and will spend it in ways you don't like. I'm with Justice Thomas on this: All arbitrary campaign finance laws should be swept away. I understand you don't agree, and that's fine. There are plenty of campaign finance laws still in place, including the limit on the amount an individual can give a candidate directly.
I don't think, after 40 or so years of campaign finance rules, there's been a decrease in corruption (heck, Leland Yee was just arrested for GUN RUNNING! Maxine Waters intervened with federal regulators when they started poking around in a bank she and her husband had substantial investments in. William Jefferson kept $90k from bribes in his freezer). Campaign finance regulations are infamously called "Incumbent Reelection Laws" for a reason. So perhaps, after finding out that something doesn't work, we should try something else.
Good luck with the continued debate. I've got a IT deployment coming up, so I won't be able to continue the conversation. Feel free to drop a comment on my blog. I've even set up a special post welcoming you.
You DO realize that a 4 year degree is not a guarantee of a position in your field once you get out right?
Which is why it's extremely stupid to take on student loan debt.
Maybe you should go to school part-time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Human beings should be allowed to donate whatever amount to whatever candidate they like as long as they are US citizens.
Candidates should be required to list all donors and the amounts given on a weekly basis, along with all amounts spent. This should be done on a publicly accessible website and available at all campaign for that candidate.
Corporations, Unions, businesses, PACs, and anything else that is not a living breathing human being should not be allowed to donate a single penny to any candidate.
What, do they keep it under their mattress, or in a big vault like Uncle Scrooge Mc Duck? They don't have it invested or nothing?Investing and having it spent in the economy are not the same thing.here will be found a brief explanation of the effects of expansionary monetary policy.
briefly,....
Monetary policy is referred to as either being expansionary or contractionary. Expansionary policy seeks to accelerate economic growth, while contractionary policy seeks to restrict it. Expansionary policy is traditionally used to try to combat unemployment in a recession by lowering interest rates in the hope that easy credit will entice businesses into expanding. This is done by increasing the money supply available in the economy.
Expansionary policy attempts to promote aggregate demand growth. As you may remember, aggregate demand is the sum of private consumption, investment, government spending and imports. Monetary policy focuses on the first two elements. By increasing the amount of money in the economy, the central bank encourages private consumption. Increasing the money supply also decreases the interest rate, which encourages lending and investment. The increase in consumption and investment leads to a higher aggregate demand.
So, no they're not the same thing exactly, but invested money is not just "sitting idly in the hands of the wealthy." See, that's what companies offer stocks for: it's a way for them to.....raise money. Then they......spend the money. They don't leave this money sitting in big vaults like Scrooge McDuck. Neither do rich people for that matter. Except the crazy ones might.
So, you're absolutely wrong: "investing money and having it spent in the economy is the exact same thing." That's what businesses do with the money.
But investments aren't all in things that improve the economy that the wealthy are taking money out of.
If a businessman makes money from businesses in the US, then buys art from Europe, the money is leaving the US and going to Europe. The art might appreciate in value (making it an investment), but even if it's sold within the US, it's money that is now tied up in that piece of art and no longer circulating in the economy.
Same with investments overseas, off-shore accounts to avoid taxes, etc. Wealth inequality leads to a weak economy. The two highest periods of recorded wealth inequality in the US are the 1920's and now. The current trend started around 1980, dropped briefly in 2009 and started to increase again.
No, they don't put it in vaults like Scrooge McDuck. They do have a negative effect on the economy though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've got a IT deployment coming up, so I won't be able to continue the conversation.
Ah! That explains the unique brand of logic.
Did you hear about the programmer whose wife sent him to the grocery store?
Ah! That explains the unique brand of logic.
Did you hear about the programmer whose wife sent him to the grocery store? ** spoiler omitted **
As someone who spent three years on a C++ chain-gang...I resent that!
P.S. IT deployment could mean programmer, but probably means something like sysadmin. Depending on the structure of the organization, of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
P.S. IT deployment could mean programmer, but probably means something like sysadmin.
Meh. Either way, people who deal with computers, rather than other people, tend to develop the same kinds of weird antilogic. Present company excepted, of course.
Remember that B.S. "scientists against evolution" petition? Mostly computer scientists/software engineers, not physical scientists.
Remember that B.S. "scientists against evolution" petition? Mostly computer scientists/software engineers, not physical scientists.
Well, that's...disappointing.
Meh. Either way, people who deal with computers, rather than other people, tend to develop the same kinds of weird antilogic. Present company excepted, of course.
Remember that B.S. "scientists against evolution" petition? Mostly computer scientists/software engineers, not physical scientists.
Yeah, you know how the IT guys seem to not always "get" the issue you're having? It's because you don't speak their language, and vice versa.
My role is bridging the divide. So, customer service.
Plus, as these particular new systems are deployed, I needed to establish that everything is going to work for the users when they return on Monday. So, working with the system as a regular user would, not as a system admin. Although I am called on to do sysadmin stuff. And regular chemistry stuff. And leadership stuff when they get to the bottom of that particular barrel. And training. And root-cause analysis.
Life was a lot simpler when it was just routine chemistry, but the pay wasn't nearly as good.
I do not think it is an asinine question, just a direct question. All the same thanks for answering what you believed to be an asinine questions.
Now I understand your argument. You don't agree the ruling because the Supreme Court ruled on it, which was the impression you were giving me, you ruled on it because you believe that it is the correct ruling.
You certainly are not alone, the principle that freedom of speech should not be restricted is a sound one. However, I believe that there is a strong public policy argument against allowing (practically) limitless contributions. If money equals speech then more money equals more speech or at least a greater ability to be heard than those with less money. Therefore, by allowing (practically) limitless contributions, you erode the one person one vote rule by drowning out those voices which cannot afford to be heard.
As far as your argument that the campaign finance rules don't work so they should be abolished appears to be logically flawed to me. People are still being murdered and we have laws against murder so should we then abolish laws against murder because some people choose to break those laws? I do not think so and I don't think you do either. It appears that you think there is a better way to restrain corruption. We can discuss that in your blog post, I will re-post my responses there later on in the day.
For the record I am really just playing devil's advocate here, I think the entire system works exactly the way it was supposed to work from inception. A Madison quote the Government "ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority". If that does not say it all I do not know what else does.
Now, to address some of your issues.
People are being murdered, and we do indeed have laws against murder. But we also have laws that prevent people from effectively defending themselves. By removing those laws, it turns out that the murder rate drops.So I disagree with your notion that in order to support free speech we should limit speech.
Regarding Madison's quote, he was quite right. Democracies tend to fail because "the people" disregard the natural rights of others. Two put it into common parlance, two foxes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner. The Constitution was written precisely to prevent such things from occurring, and to temper the heated passions of "the people" with time and judgement. If you don't believe me, just study the French Revolution.
As for those with less money not being heard, I find that to be outright wrong. Unions have been on the decline for decades, but they still tend to donate large piles of money. Who don't we here from? Fringe political groups. I can't remember when the Communist Party had snowball's chance of winning a majority.
If the message is good, money will find it. If the message is not good, no amount of money will convince a majority of the people to support it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, to address some of your issues.
People are being murdered, and we do indeed have laws against murder. But we also have laws that prevent people from effectively defending themselves. By removing those laws, it turns out that the murder rate drops.
It also turns out that, when you add guns you add violence and murder.
We just had another mass shooting at Fort Hood. Since their institution of strict gun control, Australia has not had a single mass shooting.
So I disagree with your notion that in order to support free speech we should limit speech.
No one wants to limit speech (but that is different than whether or not we should). You're using a non sequitor to say that money=speech. Because we are talking about limiting money, not speech. Much like with compression, limiting amplitude is not censoring sound waves. Keeping it in check allows all parts to be heard. And it is the opposite, the proliferation of volume among certain proportions that masks the quieter parts into nonexistence. So in that sense, speech can ONLY by free if money is limited. To approach it another way, we must never become so tolerant as to tolerate intolerance. Gentrification, collusion, price-fixing, discrimination, even slavery, all these things could be taken as expressions of speech if money=speech and that speech is to be entirely unlimited.
If the message is good, money will find it. If the message is not good, no amount of money will convince a majority of the people to support it.
Bull. Shit. Given infinite time in infinite universes all possible permutations of reality will occur. But without that infinite timescale, your idea is just plain wrong. I cite the anti vaccination movement, the creationists, the crystal healers, climate change deniers, the magnet healers, the big bang deniers, and a myriad number of other flatly bad ideas that continue to draw in and spend boatloads of dough. Meanwhile infinite renewable energy struggles. As does science education and education generally. In a world where we spend more on war than education, I don't know how anyone could in good conscience make the statement you just did. When the people with the money are writing the rules, they'll write the rules that keep it that way. The foxes are deciding what's for dinner tonight.
People are being murdered, and we do indeed have laws against murder. But we also have laws that prevent people from effectively defending themselves. By removing those laws, it turns out that the murder rate drops.
Or, equally valid, "it turns out that states with a high incidence of gun murders are more likely to enact bans." Correlation =/= causation, and causation may be bi-directional.
I think what they are trying to ask, Mr. Workshop, is: does free speech give you the right to drown out someone else's free speech? If you are trying to exercise your right to free speech, do I have the right to stand next to you and yell so loud that no one else can hear what you are saying? And if so, do you still have free speech then?
I think what they are trying to ask, Mr. Workshop, is: does free speech give you the right to drown out someone else's free speech? If you are trying to exercise your right to free speech, do I have the right to stand next to you and yell so loud that no one else can hear what you are saying? And if so, do you still have free speech then?
Thank you for the question, Durngrun.
First, I would disagree with the notion that allowing someone else to speak somehow drowns out other speakers.
If you want to buy air time on a television station supporting your candidate, you are not being "shouted down" if someone else purchases air time on a regional or nation-wide station. Nor are you being drowned out if I purchase two advertisements to your one.
Does anyone complain that Budweiser "drowns out" competition during the Super Bowl? Because I still see lots of successful beers in the adult beverage aisle that aren't Budweiser, but I don't remember Killian's Red advertising during the largest sports event in the US.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what they are trying to ask, Mr. Workshop, is: does free speech give you the right to drown out someone else's free speech? If you are trying to exercise your right to free speech, do I have the right to stand next to you and yell so loud that no one else can hear what you are saying? And if so, do you still have free speech then?Thank you for the question, Durngrun.
First, I would disagree with the notion that allowing someone else to speak somehow drowns out other speakers.
If you want to buy air time on a television station supporting your candidate, you are not being "shouted down" if someone else purchases air time on a regional or nation-wide station. Nor are you being drowned out if I purchase two advertisements to your one.
Does anyone complain that Budweiser "drowns out" competition during the Super Bowl? Because I still see lots of successful beers in the adult beverage aisle that aren't Budweiser, but I don't remember Killian's Red advertising during the largest sports event in the US.
So, you think the free market should control our politics too?
Why not just assign each person a number of votes based on their net worth?
Davik, you're going to have to show me the full study, because the AJPH has a history of . . . shall we say . . . 'massaging' data to get the results they wish.
For example, the abstract doesn't mention that people who anticipate violent confrontations (like criminals, or frequently-robbed store owners, or women with violent stalker ex-boyfriends) might be more likely to possess guns, just like people who go fishing are more likely to have a fishing pole.
I'll say it again, because you seemed to have tuned it out in your rant against anyone who you disagree with: If the message is good, money will find it. If the message is not good, no amount of money will convince a majority of the people to support it.
Maybe your message just isn't good, Davik.
So, you think the free market should control our politics too?Why not just assign each person a number of votes based on their net worth?
I was illustrating a point, that you apparently missed. I'll leave it to you to decide how you should handle that situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that good ideas will find money (and therefore those with the most money must have the best ideas) is one that can only be believed if you ignore the way the world works.
Seriously, why don't we just allow vote purchasing and declare democracy dead already.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was illustrating a point, that you apparently missed. I'll leave it to you to decide how you should handle that situation.
So, you think the free market should control our politics too?Why not just assign each person a number of votes based on their net worth?
I'm just continuing your beer analogy of a free market. Because smaller beers often get bought out by larger beers, it even happened to Killian's which is owned by Coors.
Please tell me how this applies to politics and ensures our freedom.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How about this: I'm willing to bet that, regardless of actual QUALITY (Budweiser tastes like piss) domestic beer producers make more revenue and have a higher profit margin than smaller breweries largely BECAUSE of such advertising.
Because advertising works. Money talks.
Advertising for consumer goods is largely a trivial matter, but things that get a lot of media attention, including aggressive advertising blitzes, are successful in swaying opinions of a product enough that the producer increases their profits. Regardless of the product's quality.
Our democratically elected government, on a state, local, and federal level, are not such trivial things. Allowing a few moneyed elites (only some 600 people hit these aggregate limits in recent cycles) to flood the market (so to speak) will absolutely have a deleterious and corrupting affect on American politics. To believe otherwise is willful ignorance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the message is not good, no amount of money will convince a majority of the people to support it.
Its funny that you both say and refute this at the same time.
I think what they are trying to ask, Mr. Workshop, is: does free speech give you the right to drown out someone else's free speech? If you are trying to exercise your right to free speech, do I have the right to stand next to you and yell so loud that no one else can hear what you are saying? And if so, do you still have free speech then?Thank you for the question, Durngrun.
First, I would disagree with the notion that allowing someone else to speak somehow drowns out other speakers.
If you want to buy air time on a television station supporting your candidate, you are not being "shouted down" if someone else purchases air time on a regional or nation-wide station. Nor are you being drowned out if I purchase two advertisements to your one.
Does anyone complain that Budweiser "drowns out" competition during the Super Bowl? Because I still see lots of successful beers in the adult beverage aisle that aren't Budweiser, but I don't remember Killian's Red advertising during the largest sports event in the US.
Maybe you can make that argument at 2:1 but what if I buy ten commercials to your one? 100? 1000? What if I buy all the airtime so your commercial cannot play? What if I pay so much for my airtime that the cost of airtime is raised beyond your reach? Do any of these scenarios affect your free speech?
We'll, credit where credit is due... Doug certain has a very healthy self-esteem.