Good Idea.  

We'll start with the Unions.  All Union member contributions and fees STAY in the Union coffers to pay for pensions, healthcare and all other shared costs that benefit members of the club.  Not one red cent will be allowed to go to a politician.  Union members can donate their own money to the party of their choice.  Just like the rest of us.

Next we go after the lobby. 

Posted by DougOut on 6/7/2014 2:39:00 PM (view original):
Good Idea.  

We'll start with the Unions.  All Union member contributions and fees STAY in the Union coffers to pay for pensions, healthcare and all other shared costs that benefit members of the club.  Not one red cent will be allowed to go to a politician.  Union members can donate their own money to the party of their choice.  Just like the rest of us.

Next we go after the lobby. 

Sure. Same rule for corporations? Also, you ok with capping donations?

Corporations are people.

I'm only OK with capping donations if it stays in the range of the working class. 

Kill the lobbyist.

Shareholders are people. Corporations are legal entities.

Jefferson would be shocked that we haven't watered the tree of liberty since the Revolution. Perhaps Will S. should have substituted politicians for lawyers.

Give the teabaggers+ Ted Nugent time. Hillary will put them into ultra-crazy-mode double-speed

I suppose so; now that it has come out she spent her college years working for the Black Panthers and the Communist Party. And that was before she was kicked off the Watergate lawyer team, by Democrats,  for being too radical.  I wonder if this will come out in the debates. 

Lol!

There is nothing LOL about her new book where she writes about her connection with the Black Panthers and Robert Treuhaft while at Yale..  Although she tries to gloss over it, she will only get support from people who support her stand on communism and racist murder.  Or those that do not know the facts.  Those who watch the nightly news and imagine they are informed.  I doubt the lame stream media will effort itself in exposing her.  It takes a village to coverup.  And as far as her expulsion from the Watergate trial is concerned, even the liberals can't rewrite the New York Times or history.  

I doubt it makes a difference to you. 

Lol!

LMAO!

Oh man, where to begin?

First off to the person that called bad luck lazy for not doing anything to further his cause ummm, yes he is doing something he is putting his views forward on forums. And for all we know he does this on more forums then just WIFS. And the left had a very interesting vehicle to push our agenda it was called the occupy movement. It's still breathing, but not nearly well enough, and I'm sure one of the biggest reasons for that is because of median portrayal of its members as being lazy good for nothings. When occupy was really active camping put on green spaces what did ever only see? The extremists and or the drugged out minority. And this is what all the major media showed us. And yet dougout is convinced that major media is primarily left wing. Right... Meanwhile the right have so many things to use for their purposes, and almost all of them are given positive spin by major media. The tea party being the big one, but so many other institutions that push the right wing agenda.

Yep, corporations are considered people legally. So let's cap their contributions to that of all other people. And squish any loopholes that arise.

I think bad lucks ideas are pretty good. They might need some more thought on how they are implemented and maybe some small alterations that make it fair for everybody, but IMHO these things are badly needed to level the playing field just a bit. Now, I can't speak for him, but I don't think he wants to implement policies that hurt the middle class. That class is beaten up pretty badly already. It's the top 1% that I personally want to see brought back a little closer to earth. How much is enough for them? Do we really need people to make a million bucks a year to be happy? Heck the top 400 people in the USA has as much wealth as the bottom HALF! How is that necessary? Why do those 400 people deserve to be that crazily rich? They should be paying a fair rate of tax. 40 billion dollars isn't enough money for them? When are they going to be happy? 50 60 70 billion? No amount is going to be enough.

The Occupy movement was a joke.  They had all the seeds for a successful movement, but it fizzled out because they were too ******* stubborn and stupid to do what they needed to do.  If you want to "change the system", you HAVE to do it from the inside, become part of it.  They refused to do that, and now Occupy is just a footnote in the history of the early 2010's decade.

ironically, they could have learned a HUGE lesson from the Tea Party in how to turn a grass roots ideology into a powerful and successful political movement.  Not that I agree with the tactics or all the goals of the TP (I don't), but you have to admire the fact that they are a power broken within the system.

As to greeny's last paragraph . . . why must the rich and successful be "punished" for being rich and successful?  NOBODY is able to come up with a valid reason other than "Bah, they have too much money.  Let's take some of it away".  Which isn't really a valid reason.  At all.

Isn't the reason (and punished is the wrong word, IMO) that by taxing the 1% more, you get to tax 99% of the population less, which is better for society as a whole? Also by taxing the 1% at a high rate, it affects the super-rich less, as they likely value the money they're paying at their rate less than the bottom 50% if they were taxed at that rate? Felt like this was an obvious reason, but tec said there was no reason given.  So tec, you can respond to this reason.

FWIW, this is coming from someone who knows less when it comes to these things as he thinks he is when it comes to sports, etc.  

Find these conversations fascinating, btw.

Why do you think 99% will be taxed less?

If the $ amount you want in taxes is X, and you raise the tax rate in one group, it could mean you lower the tax rate to the other group?  If the argument is "the best way to raise taxes" that's a different argument, I suppose.