Nice Bank You Have There

Jccarlton · Post by **Jccarlton** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 6:23 pm

Nice bank you have there, pity if something was to happen to it:
http://www.620wtmj.com/shows/charliesyk ... tml?blog=y
Haven't we gotten beyond this kind of crap?
Apparently not:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/03/1 ... roy-A-Bank
That's real civility

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:15 pm

Quite honestly, I can understand that people are upset with the bankers. Their money was meant to bail out the bank and part of the bailout money went to the politician. If certain groups keep abusing the hard working citizens, more threats like that will happen in the future.
As Brecht said, what a small crime is a bankrobbery compared to the crime of funding a bank (and I never liked that communist Brecht, but he had a point there).

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Sat Mar 12, 2011 11:42 pm

The banks are doing pretty much what anyone with their head screwed on straight might have predicted. The bailouts were foolish.

jnaujok · Post by **jnaujok** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:09 pm

The "Boycott List" that's being perpetrated is a list of campaign donations from *individuals* that listed their employer on their donation (a Federal Elections Committee requirement.)

The bank itself has made *zero* donations to either political candidate in the Wisconsin Governor's race.

I'm sure that if you went out and did the same search, that the dem candidate got just as much money from the M&I employees as Scott Walker did, as banks seem (from my experience at two different ones) to be mostly ideologically split.

So the fact these people are picketing the bank and calling for pink slips only demonstrates the utter stupidity of their position. Are we going to now prevent people from contributing to campaigns because they work for a particular company? Or are they really just angry because people contributed to someone they don't personally agree with?

If we allow dissenting opinions (and what is donating money but the ultimate form of approving an opinion) to be silenced, then we are on the road to tyranny and dictatorship.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:11 pm

I think that the US campaign contribution system is broken. It is close to bribery and IMHO it is a real problem for the integrity of the politicians involved.

kunkmiester · Post by **kunkmiester** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:51 am

The only way to truly get rid of bribery in the system is to get rid of the system, and no one is ready for an anarcho-capitalist system yet.

Reduce the size of the races to the point where accountability can be had, and make sure that corps can donate all they want, but transparently. We have more than enough advocacy groups to make sure that info gets out. Areas where the people don't care, it'll make little difference, but they'll be small enough areas they do will be able to take care of business.

If you look at the Constitution, Congressional districts aren't supposed to be more than 70,000 people. If that was held to the House of Reps would be a VERY different place.

choff · Post by **choff** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 2:21 am

I saw an ad on TV by the NYSE basically trying to get ordinary people to start investing in Wall Street. Perhaps if people refuse to get suckered again it will have the same effect as a boycott.

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:39 am

kunkmiester wrote:The only way to truly get rid of bribery in the system is to get rid of the system, and no one is ready for an anarcho-capitalist system yet.

Disagree, presuming you are talking about the political system.

The problem can be stated (as all political problems can when properly diagnosed) in four words (with articles) The problem is "the systemic bias favoring incombants". In each of those words is the seed of a "soution". You mentioned only one.

Systemic: The system is warped! Solution, eliminate the system. No thanks. Our sytem may be warped, but still better than many others around.
Bias: People are biased toward the familiar. They vote based on name recognition. This is why candidates want so much money, to BUY name recognition. It is also why incumbants win so often, they get MASSIVE free publicity which raises their name recognition. Solution, eliminate the bias. Sure, let's wait a million or so years and let evolution take its course. Sorry, don't want to wait that long.
Lets look at the end.
Incumbants: Incumbants get too much free publicity, resulting in their excessive re-election, and the need for MASSIVE campaigns to unseat them, thus necessitating MASSIVE expenditures and... bribery? Solution, eliminate the candidate. No, I am NOT advocating assasination! But this concept is the basis of term limits. Not grotesque, but it has the grace of a headsman. And lets face it, if we ever DO get a COMPETENT saint for a polititian, do we want to force him (her) out.
Last word...
FAVORING: Our system only lets you vote FOR, in FAVOR of, a candidate. Changing to full-option voting (allowing voters to vote for or against the canditate of their choise would neutralizes the bias and pretty much stop large, pricey, campaigns. After all, if with every commercial you buy you annoy folks even more, but now they can vote AGAINST you...

Nik · Post by **Nik** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:38 am

Not my politics, but I'd like a 'None Of The Above' box to tell the candidates to pack their tents and leave...

ps
incumbents
candidates

hanelyp · Post by **hanelyp** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:35 am

Kiteman, with Approval Voting you could effect a vote against a particular candidate by voting for every other candidate.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:10 am

I have weighed in on this issue before. I think voting should be limited to only those people who pay taxes. The biggest problem with any government is the lack of control on spending tax money. With the people who provide it wanting to keep the amount provided as low as possible, this methodology would serve as a negative feedback system for fiscal restraint. (Which is what we desperately need right now.)

Remember, Greek Democracy failed because they spent the treasury empty.

ladajo · Post by **ladajo** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:09 am

My father would have disagreed with you strongly on this. He wrote a paper at Harvard pre-poll tax abolishment, and was failed on it as the Professor did not agree with the opinion. He thought that guy was an @ss to his dying day.

choff · Post by **choff** » Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:22 am

Diogenes wrote:I have weighed in on this issue before. I think voting should be limited to only those people who pay taxes. The biggest problem with any government is the lack of control on spending tax money. With the people who provide it wanting to keep the amount provided as low as possible, this methodology would serve as a negative feedback system for fiscal restraint. (Which is what we desperately need right now.)

Remember, Greek Democracy failed because they spent the treasury empty.

That means bankers, wall streeters and corporate ceo's wouldn't have the right to vote, only ordinary working people who can't afford tax shelters, offshore accounts or bailouts in the trillions. Welfare money spent on the poor is chunk change compared to what they get.

Actually, its the compound interest on government debt that causes the biggest part of fiscal problems. If politicians had dealt with it at the small stage it would be a whole lot easier than the festering monster accumulated. Even a small cut to entitlement programs would make a huge difference.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:52 pm

ladajo wrote:My father would have disagreed with you strongly on this. He wrote a paper at Harvard pre-poll tax abolishment, and was failed on it as the Professor did not agree with the opinion. He thought that guy was an @ss to his dying day.

The poll tax was utilized as a methodology to deny Minorities the right to vote. As a tool of oppression, the poll tax needed to go, but the 24th amendment threw the baby out with the bath water by adding the words "...or other tax. ."

Again, I say the DAMAGE done by this amendment is far worse than the bit of good it accomplished. It may have single handedly wrecked this nation.

Where is the negative feedback system for fiscal restraint? We don't have one. The 24th amendment destroyed it.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:01 pm

choff wrote:
Diogenes wrote:I have weighed in on this issue before. I think voting should be limited to only those people who pay taxes. The biggest problem with any government is the lack of control on spending tax money. With the people who provide it wanting to keep the amount provided as low as possible, this methodology would serve as a negative feedback system for fiscal restraint. (Which is what we desperately need right now.)

Remember, Greek Democracy failed because they spent the treasury empty.
That means bankers, wall streeters and corporate ceo's wouldn't have the right to vote, only ordinary working people who can't afford tax shelters, offshore accounts or bailouts in the trillions. Welfare money spent on the poor is chunk change compared to what they get.

Actually, its the compound interest on government debt that causes the biggest part of fiscal problems. If politicians had dealt with it at the small stage it would be a whole lot easier than the festering monster accumulated. Even a small cut to entitlement programs would make a huge difference.

It's not going to be fixed. It is going to collapse. (At least that's what it looks like to me now. ) We are all riding on one massive "Titanic" and many of us are doomed, we just won't know which of us it is yet.

I predict fire and darkness with death stalking the land. The four riders of the Apocalypse are coming, and they are being brought here by the immorality of spending/stealing that the government (promoted by it's handout recipients) has been doing.

I'm trying to get prepared, but what can you do to prepare for worthless money? I'm trying to put together a natural gas filling system for my vehicles, grow my own crops, and raise my own cattle. Off Grid, John Galt is the way to go.

When it hits it's going to hit fast and ugly. Hopefully the National guard will be able to keep some sort of lid on it for awhile.

Talk-Polywell.org

Nice Bank You Have There

Nice Bank You Have There

Sadly, it's all misinformation...

Not my politics...