AOC: A Society With Billionaires Cannot Be Moral

[qui_est_ce]

qui_est_ce:

You just articulated the problem very well. You want to give these people more of YOUR money to gain power and discretion to make worthless and corrupt choices. They all take their cut.

No thank you.

Well, I obviously understand your sentiment, but a lot of our taxes actually do end up doing good.

Education, environmental protection, infrastructure, national security, the government ends up making some things work to some degree in spite of all the corruption.

If they didn’t, it would all truly collapse.

I respectfully disagree that our government is doing well in any of these. National security is appropriately the government’s job, but really, not doing well. Look at all the infighting at the FBI. Remember the $400.00 hammer?

 

[ProVobis]

Do you think Chief Justice Roberts was bought off when he ruled in favor of ACA? That’s the decision that was “biffed”.

How so? The privates still run healthcare.

 

[OneSheep]

I respectfully disagree that our government is doing well in any of these.

I didn’t say they were doing well, friend. I said that they make things work “to some degree”.

And the politicians do mean well, every single one of them. AOC means well too. She has a lot to learn, but her intentions are all good.

 

[OneSheep]

How so? The privates still run healthcare.

Exactly. The ACA was written by the insurance companies. I don’t think that the courts were “bought off” on that one, though. They were ruling on the basis of constitutionality of powers.

But as far as letting foreign-owned corporations and interests pump money into our legislative process, I can’t see anything constitutional about it. It defies the very definition of “constitution”.

A government, a nation, that allows other nations to buy off its political leaders has no “constitution”.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, Jon, I hear you, you object to this use of your taxes. I find other uses of my taxes even more objectionable.

No, I object to government forcing people to give away their wealth to others against their will, when neither the constitution nor scripture supports such a process.

Do legislators even read the legislation that the lobbyists and corporations write?

Legislators pass legislation that they are paid to pass.

Source.
Be specific. Name a legislator and who paid him/her? How much? On what piece of legislation?
If you can’t name these, hen it is a baseless accusation.

I should tell the FBI that special interests are funding campaigns? You must be joking.

That’s not what you said. You said buying influence. No one contributes to a candidate that doesn’t agree with them. People donate to candidates that campaign on a platform they agree with. That is not influence buying.
But that is how you can tell there is influence peddling: if someone changes their position after receiving a contribution, that’s selling influence.
Campaign contributions are not buying influence.

Foreign influence is now more powerful than ever. In the view of our history, it is now unprecedented.

Only in that there are 20 million illegal foreign nationals, some of whom might be voting. Otherwise, it isn’t any different.

If she pays for it by reducing the military budget, why complain? I disagree with anything being completely free. The people who benefit need to have some buy-in, some taxes.

That’s an interesting idea. Should the weight of one’s vote be commensurate with the amount of taxes they pay?

I think Kamala Harris is too chummy with the lobbyists to reduce the military budget, though.

Authoritarian socialists need military power.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Do you think Chief Justice Roberts was bought off when he ruled in favor of ACA? That’s the decision that was “biffed”.

How so? The privates still run healthcare.

It is really a rather fascistic socialist model. It is “run” by private insurance, but strictly controlled by government.

 

[ProVobis]

As opposed to a more “capitalistic” model which allows fraudulent insurance policies, which will use any excuse not to cover claims?

 

[Annie]

Actually, all insurance is heavily regulated by the states (which is why you can’t buy insurance across state lines). We would hear about the tough cases, but overall, what insurance companies would pay for and caps on how much they would pay for were revealwd to the buyers.

However, medical bills can be very confusing, especially to those who are under other pressures.

 

[JonNC]

As opposed to a more “capitalistic” model which allows fraudulent insurance policies, which will use any excuse not to cover claims?

Or government dictated that can deny coverage for any reason they choose. Harris proposes to eliminate private insurance. Not surprising, since her type want complete government control.
At least with private insurance companies, I can choose.

 

[ProVobis]

I have nothing against choice as long as I know they are being honest as to what they cover.

 

[JonNC]

I have nothing against choice as long as I know they are being honest as to what they cover.

Agreed…

 

[JonNC]

Actually, all insurance is heavily regulated by the states (which is why you can’t buy insurance across state lines).

This is one of the anti-market practices that needs to end, so that large interstate free associations can form and negotiate with providers and insurance companies.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

You just articulated the problem very well. You want to give these people more of YOUR money to gain power and discretion to make worthless and corrupt choices. They all take their cut.

No thank you.

How do you know people are making bad choices. Perhaps, they are simply folks who are struggling and could use some recourse and aid. And maybe some people are desperate or in difficult situations. Additionally, some may make bad choices but perhaps it’s because they don’t know any better (cycle of poverty) and could benefit from a hand up?

 

[JonNC]

How do you know people are making bad choices. Perhaps, they are simply folks who are struggling and could use some recourse and aid. And maybe some people are desperate or in difficult situations. Additionally, some may make bad choices but perhaps it’s because they don’t know any better (cycle of poverty) and could benefit from a hand up?

The Brookings Institute, nothing resembling conservative, has listed this to avoid or escape poverty:

1. complete high school
2. get a job and keep it
3. do not have children before marriage.

I would add avoid drugs and crime.

Redirect Notice

 

[qui_est_ce]

qui_est_ce:

You just articulated the problem very well. You want to give these people more of YOUR money to gain power and discretion to make worthless and corrupt choices. They all take their cut.

No thank you.

How do you know people are making bad choices. Perhaps, they are simply folks who are struggling and could use some recourse and aid. And maybe some people are desperate or in difficult situations. Additionally, some may make bad choices but perhaps it’s because they don’t know any better (cycle of poverty) and could benefit from a hand up?

I was talking about the government, not the people on the receiving end.

 

[OneSheep]

I object to government forcing people to give away their wealth to others against their will, when neither the constitution nor scripture supports such a process.

I don’t get it, Jon. Jesus said to pay Caesar what was due him. They were forced to give away their wealth to an oppressive ruler “against their will”. What am I missing?

Source.
People donate to candidates that campaign on a platform they agree with. That is not influence buying.

https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/11/11/243973620/when-lobbyists-literally-write-the-bill

Democrats and Republicans Sharing Big-Dollar Donors, DCCC’s Million-Dollar Pay-Off and More in Capital Eye Opener: November 10 - OpenSecrets News

The Democratic Governors Association and Republican Governors Association share 48 top donors, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of the group's top 100 non-individual donors indicates...

www.opensecrets.org

The 30 Fortune 500 companies that have thrown the most money at Republicans and Democrats in the last decade

These Fortune 500 companies' employees donated a ton of money to Republicans and Democrats over the past decade.

www.businessinsider.com

Do you really think that corporations give to political campaigns just because they like them so much? And then these corporations are donating to politicians on both sides of the aisle, so you think that they are really donating for ideological reasons?

No, Jon, I hate to burst your bubble, but it has to do with the bottom line. The campaign donors are the “kingmakers” well before the candidates are elected, its more rare, from what I’ve seen, that politicians suddenly switch to support a particular corporations. Look at net-neutrality. Does the ridding of net neutrality benefit anyone besides the large corporations and big media outfits? Answer: no.

Only in that there are 20 million illegal foreign nationals, some of whom might be voting. Otherwise, it isn’t any different.

They don’t have any political power.

Our foreign policy, our congress, and our executive branch are under complete control of one foreign nation, so blatantly that if I want to boycott that other nation, there is pending legislation that says I cannot subcontract with the government. It is a law already passed in most states. These laws are completely unconstitutional.

This control by another nation is unprecedented, it has never occurred in US history.

Is it by coincidence that this control by a foreign nation has anything to do with the top campaign contributor, who has a very specific agenda, having to do with that foreign nation?:

Midterm big spenders: the top 20 political donors this election

An extraordinary amount of money is being funneled into the midterms by a small number of people. But who are they, and what are they trying to buy?

www.theguardian.com

Again, all the players are well-intended, but what we essentially have is a plutocracy. Politicians represent donors. If not, the donors go find a competing politician to support instead.

 

[ProVobis]

Actually, all insurance is heavily regulated by the states (which is why you can’t buy insurance across state lines).

Actually some counties or hospitals can restrict certain procedures. It is true that states regulate insurance but much of that is protect their own residents. It may not seem that way when they force higher premiums but they need to make sure insurance companies have enough reserves to cover claims. Insurance companies are forbidden to file for bankruptcy but the holding companies can seek such relief, not touching the reserves which technically belong to the policy holders.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Again, all the players are well-intended, but what we essentially have is a plutocracy. Politicians represent donors. If not, the donors go find a competing politician to support instead.

And you want to give them your hard earned dollars to dispense as they see fit.

Again, all the players are well-intended,

Really not so sure about that. Good intentions aren’t good enough for me, especially the ones that have been tried and failed already.

 

[OneSheep]

And you want to give them your hard earned dollars to dispense as they see fit.

No, as I see fit! Isn’t that what we all want?

Really not so sure about that. Good intentions aren’t good enough for me, especially the ones that have been tried and failed already.

Yeah, impatience, I get that. And even thought they are all well intended, many (most?) don’t know what they are doing. I have the same affliction a lot of the time.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t get it, Jon. Jesus said to pay Caesar what was due him. They were forced to give away their wealth to an oppressive ruler “against their will”. What am I missing?

Jesus said render unto Caesar. He didn’t say force others to help the least of His children and pretend it is compassion. Helping His children is what we render unto God.
You continue to conflate taxation with coerced “charity “.

Do you really think that corporations give to political campaigns just because they like them so much?

Before I answer this,you answer mine. Do you have a source that shows evidence that a politician has sold influence, changing his or her vote based on a donation?

No, Jon, I hate to burst your bubble, but it has to do with the bottom line. The campaign donors are the “kingmakers” well before the candidates are elected, its more rare, from what I’ve seen, that politicians suddenly switch to support a particular corporations.

Answer the question above. Provide the evidence. I certainly don’t donate to a candidate whose platform I disagree with hoping to change their vote. That’s simply naive.

They don’t have any political power.

The exact same power as a legitimate citizen vote. And their is illegitimate.

Our foreign policy, our congress, and our executive branch are under complete control of one foreign nation, so blatantly that if I want to boycott that other nation, there is pending legislation that says I cannot subcontract with the government. It is a law already passed in most states. These laws are completely unconstitutional.

Okay, so much of what you’ve said I disagree with, but t this is silly. Based on the boycott comment, I suspect you mean Israel, but the leftist/ Democrat fairytale is its the Russians.
Either conspiracy theory borders between silly and demagoguery.
Go to court to fight against the boycott law.