Left has lost gun control debate

[rufus]

For consumer goods that's true, but most of us pay far more to corporations not chosen by us. Insurance, the corporations the gov deals with (see story on 200 million overcharge for oil to defense department today on a no bid contract), the corporations that supply support services for the corporations you choose, corporations that have a monopoly like electrical, gas, internet (I'm stuck with an awful company run by crazy devils), garbage, and even the sale, or giveaway, of your financial contracts that you have no control over.

In short, the lions share you are not really choosing.

You sound a little paranoid. Why not start your own ISP?

 

[bugeye]

You are obviously.
With regard to public sector unions, these are groups that pay significant amounts of money to get people elected that will pay them back with public funds.
With private sector unions, when CEOs are collecting huge bonuses, there are legitimate reasons for unions to go after a bigger slice of the pie.
But the last time I checked, the average taxpayer isn't getting bonuses.
This is close to an anti-trust violation, in the private sector it would be. The SEIU, AFSCME etc. are paying huge sums of money to get candidates elected that will line their pockets at taxpayer expense.

And they are running out of other people's money!

But I know that in your world buggy, California isn't really broke. It's all an evil plot perpetrated by corporations.

Unions act in their own interests and corporations act in their own interests.
The potential for corporations to buy the politcal process to get their way is relative to their profit vs. the unions profit which is a fraction of their dues.
This is a microbe vs. golliath, 11 billion vs. 6000 billion.
The Citizens united case enable unions and corporations to spend what they want, but this isn't going to result in any sort of leveling of the playing field.
Using your source here is some info on this case.

Supreme Court Gives Corporations, Unions Power to Spend Unlimited Sums on Political Messaging - OpenSecrets Blog | OpenSecrets

While I wasn't able to find a good source for the extra spending enable by Citizens United during the 2010 elections, because the legal decision allows corporations not to reveal spending (crazy!) the consensus is that it went to Republicans at a ratio of 6 to 1. Again, 2010 is just the start, and as others have pointed out the corporate and the political system are becomming one, however, given this insane decision I would expect our 'elected representatives' to be wearing coveralls with more logos on them then NASCAR drivers. "The House of Representatives of the US brought to you by the Fortune 500 and the Oil Futures Market".

 

[donMiguel]

You are obviously.
With regard to public sector unions, these are groups that pay significant amounts of money to get people elected that will pay them back with public funds.
With private sector unions, when CEOs are collecting huge bonuses, there are legitimate reasons for unions to go after a bigger slice of the pie.
But the last time I checked, the average taxpayer isn't getting bonuses.This is close to an anti-trust violation, in the private sector it would be. The SEIU, AFSCME etc. are paying huge sums of money to get candidates elected that will line their pockets at taxpayer expense.

And they are running out of other people's money!

But I know that in your world buggy, California isn't really broke. It's all an evil plot perpetrated by corporations.

So, I read your analogy above several times, and can not make sense of it. It appears you are comparing tax payers to CEOs? Seems the taxpayer is more like a stockholder or a customer, either buying in or paying out, and hoping for a reasonable return on investment.

That aside, unions, like corporations, are organized for self interest. Theoretically for the benefit of rank and file members and stockholders, but with that concentration of money flowing by, those with access/control become concerned about their own benefit to the occlusion of the intended beneficiaries interest. This is much in keeping with the whole capitalist drive to make a buck, and if it is not explicitly illegal, then it is OK.

The solution is not a power grab or whelching on a deal a la Wisconsin. It is to develop a spine, and negotiate away the intolerable. And it may be painful to go without garbage collection or beaurocrats, painful enough you commit to more than you wanted to offer. But a deal is a deal. Faced with bankruptcy / insolvency, hopefully both parties can reach consensus before the train wreck.

 

[Jamie6.5]

While I wasn't able to find a good source for the extra spending enable by Citizens United during the 2010 elections, because the legal decision allows corporations not to reveal spending (crazy!) the consensus is that it went to Republicans at a ratio of 6 to 1.

WRONG!

Campaign disclosure rules upheld

The Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance upheld these requirements:

** Disclosure requirement: Any corporation that spends more than $10,000 in a year to produce or air the kind of election season ad covered by federal restrictions must file a report with the Federal Election Commission revealing the names and addresses of anyone who contributed $1,000 or more to the ad’s preparation or distribution.

** Disclaimer requirement: If a political ad is not authorized by a candidate or a political committee, the broadcast of the ad must say who is responsible for its content, plus the name and address of the group behind the ad.

If you can't read or hear the "authorization message" included in ads, you probably shouldn't be voting.
Not to mention the FACT that the decision only affects the 30 days prior to a primary election, and 60 days prior to the general election.
Your quoted "consensus" amounts to nothing but conjecture, and if you want to look at undocumented donations, have a look at the amount of "undisclosed donations" received by obama in '08.
You know, the candidate that refused public funding and received the biggest political "war chest" in the history of presidential politics.
He's been paying back his union buddies legally and illegally ever since.

 

[Jamie6.5]

So, I read your analogy above several times, and can not make sense of it. It appears you are comparing tax payers to CEOs? Seems the taxpayer is more like a stockholder or a customer, either buying in or paying out, and hoping for a reasonable return on investment.

Actually in the case of states, the CEO would be the governor. The board of directors being the legislature, and the CFO the treasurer.
The taxpayer is the stockholder. However, in this case he/she has no choice in whether or not to buy the stock. He/she is forced by law to contribute, often buying shares for other people. In our progressive tax system, the more money he makes, the more people he buys shares for!
The difference being, that the CEO lives and dies by his/her company's profitability. Not so when a governor commits revenues. Especially when they haven't even been collected yet, and they are not obligated to provide even a speculative projection on how those revenues will be generated.
As proven by California, Oregon and other states, there are decision makers being elected with union money that have bankrupted their states/taxpayers with sweetheart deals for public sector unions. especially in the areas of retirement and insurance deals. Some of which last a lifetime.
Can you say unfunded mandate?

In the process they have placed taxpayers on the hook for these payments, regardless of current or future economic downturn(s), inflation, prime interest rates etc.

When you listen to left leaning people advocate for public sector unions, remember that those unions contribute greatly to the candidate(s) that will spend your money paying dividends to their members first, and providing for the general public second. When many current state budgets are examined, we find that there is no money left for the general public and their welfare/education/infrastructure.
Because it's all being spent on obligations that developed as a result of payback for union political contributions.

Like I said, corporations tend to grease both sides of the skids, so they will be appreciated by whoever gets elected.
Not so with unions. They ALWAYS give to the left/socialist side of the political aisle.

 

[Grunwald]

I have a couple of observations to make from reading this thread.
1) Liberal - this is the most misused word in the American political lexicon today. The meaning of this word has been flipped on its head by the people on the left and right. I suspect that it was appropriated by the left. For crying out loud, the root of the word liberal is liberty and the people who are classified as liberals today are not exactly pro liberty. The original liberals wanted to be left the f**k alone by government - pretty much like today's libertarians.

2) Fascism - is it on the left or right side of the political spectrum. The way people seem to want to apply left and right is also inaccurate. Instead a of straight line between left and right a more accurate representation would be a sideways cone like shape.
The single point on one side represents complete lack of government - anarchy. The other side of the spectrum represents complete government control: be it fascism, communism, dictatorship, monarchy or theism.
The space in between is where we exists. The more you move the right, the more government control you have. It does not really matter, what the underlying principles are - you have less freedom. So maybe the ideology is different between Nazism and Communism, but the end result for the general population is the same.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I have a couple of observations to make from reading this thread.
1) Liberal - this is the most misused word in the American political lexicon today. The meaning of this word has been flipped on its head by the people on the left and right. I suspect that it was appropriated by the left. For crying out loud, the root of the word liberal is liberty and the people who are classified as liberals today are not exactly pro liberty. The original liberals wanted to be left the f**k alone by government - pretty much like today's libertarians.

2) Fascism - is it on the left or right side of the political spectrum. The way people seem to want to apply left and right is also inaccurate. Instead a of straight line between left and right a more accurate representation would be a sideways cone like shape.
The single point on one side represents complete lack of government - anarchy. The other side of the spectrum represents complete government control: be it fascism, communism, dictatorship, monarchy or theism.
The space in between is where we exists. The more you move the right, the more government control you have. It does not really matter, what the underlying principles are - you have less freedom. So maybe the ideology is different between Nazism and Communism, but the end result for the general population is the same.

Communism murdered up to 100 million Russians and Ukranians and maintained a system of virtual slavery, gulags and abject poverty for the masses, completely failing to make anything that worked except for some military weapons, while the commissars were fat and sassy

Neither happened to Germans in Germany.. they went from the iron booted rule of the international banksters and the overlordship of the Western powers (after the crushing WW1 Versailles sanctions) and hauling wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread to full employment and a thriving economy and the most amazing inventions and science..in less than 12 years. From Television to low level unmanned space travel, the jet engine and very near to the nuclear bomb. Whatever you think of the pre/WW2 era German politics or other actions attributed to them by the victors who wrote the history books, the economic and accomplishment aspects could not be more stark between the two systems

 

[MA Duce]

If I lived in a country in which I had so little faith in the foundations of that society...as some here apparently do, I would move to a country that was better.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

If I lived in a country in which I had so little faith in the foundations of that society...as some here apparently do, I would move to a country that was better.

This country today isn't even a pale shadow of it's founding, which my ancestors were deeply involved in, from the very first shots at Lexington Green

 

[RB87]

Unions act in their own interests and corporations act in their own interests.
The potential for corporations to buy the politcal process to get their way is relative to their profit vs. the unions profit which is a fraction of their dues.
This is a microbe vs. golliath, 11 billion vs. 6000 billion.
The Citizens united case enable unions and corporations to spend what they want, but this isn't going to result in any sort of leveling of the playing field.
Using your source here is some info on this case.

Ahh yes, buy the process. You're acting as if the teachers unions haven't bought and taken over public education in the last 40+ years, enforcing their monopoly in many ways and when there is little improvement, they blame it on the parents or students or "system". The system they created.

 

[bugeye]

WRONG!

If you can't read or hear the "authorization message" included in ads, you probably shouldn't be voting.
Not to mention the FACT that the decision only affects the 30 days prior to a primary election, and 60 days prior to the general election.
Your quoted "consensus" amounts to nothing but conjecture, and if you want to look at undocumented donations, have a look at the amount of "undisclosed donations" received by obama in '08.
You know, the candidate that refused public funding and received the biggest political "war chest" in the history of presidential politics.
He's been paying back his union buddies legally and illegally ever since.

OK dude, so if these figures are easy to obtain go and get them, I spent an hour looking.
How much corporate spending legal under citizens united was spent in 2010, and what political party got what percentage?

 

[bugeye]

Ahh yes, buy the process. You're acting as if the teachers unions haven't bought and taken over public education in the last 40+ years, enforcing their monopoly in many ways and when there is little improvement, they blame it on the parents or students or "system". The system they created.

So you're saying the teachers unions have created the system that makes kids only interested in video games and popular culture? Makes many of the older ones live in a state of hopelessness that causes them to turn to gangs? Makes many of the others start taking drugs? Heck, I had no idea any union was that strong!

If the $'s can't convince you that corporations influence politics more than unions, or simple lobby's, like the NRA, then no one can convince you of anything at all.

 

[RB87]

Oh of course corporations influence society a lot. It all depends on the issue who might generally be more influential. You act as if the teachers in public schools who have a captive audience for 5-7 hours 5 days per week don't influence kids at all.

 

[Jamie6.5]

An hour?!? You don't read much eh?
Citizens United is a 527 committee, and finished third in our race behind the SEIU.

<broken link removed>

527 Committee Activity

527 committees are tax-exempt groups established to raise unlimited money for general political activities, such as voter mobilization efforts. They are prohibited from directly supporting or opposing a specific candidate. Here's what the most active 527 groups have brought in and spent this cycle.

 

[Grunwald]

So you're saying the teachers unions have created the system that makes kids only interested in video games and popular culture? Makes many of the older ones live in a state of hopelessness that causes them to turn to gangs? Makes many of the others start taking drugs? Heck, I had no idea any union was that strong!

............

Wow, talk about leaps in logic. Nice attempt at deflection. Were you on the debating team in high school?

 

[MikeE]

Communism murdered up to 100 million Russians and Ukranians and maintained a system of virtual slavery, gulags and abject poverty for the masses, completely failing to make anything that worked except for some military weapons, while the commissars were fat and sassy

Neither happened to Germans in Germany.. they went from the iron booted rule of the international banksters and the overlordship of the Western powers (after the crushing WW1 Versailles sanctions) and hauling wheelbarrows full of money to buy a loaf of bread to full employment and a thriving economy and the most amazing inventions and science..in less than 12 years. From Television to low level unmanned space travel, the jet engine and very near to the nuclear bomb. Whatever you think of the pre/WW2 era German politics or other actions attributed to them by the victors who wrote the history books, the economic and accomplishment aspects could not be more stark between the two systems

My Mother's family, who disappeared into Buchenwald concentration camp, would beg to differ.

 

[cybersomatix]

What boggles MY mind is the ignorance it requires for anyone to think that ALL of the "Left" is Communist or anti-Bill of Rights! I'll say it with a big snarl on my straight face, I AM PRO-LIBERTY AND ALSO LEFTIST! And to heck with anyone dumb enough to try to assume that they know what I believe or fight for, or what the broad "Left" fights for. You simply do not know what you are talking about.

I even know some pro-gun communists, actually.

 

[cybersomatix]

Again, more ignorance. I guess you slept through your civics classes. "National Socialism" is the NAZI'S term for Fascism, as far-RIGHT wing as it gets, actually a corporate/military partnership to own the state, dispensing with national elections to form a military dictatorship, brainwashing the citizenry to accept it. It has nothing to do with the principles of Socialism other than state planning of the economy---they just co-opted the name "Socialism" becuse it was popular in Germany's elections in the late 1920's and helped them confuse the voters and take over and END elections.

Yah, Communism is FAR Left, but you will find them to be very scarce in this century. What the heck are you reading to even think about Lenin? The only Leninists I know of are in their nineties now and their politics are senile too. Lenin was important a century ago in the age of the end of FEUDALISM in Russia and Prussia, but even Karl Marx expected a very different development of Socialism in the advanced "Western" democracies. Marx allowed that if elections were fair that educated voters would be able to restrain monarchists and greedy oligarchs' corporations and revolution to a representative democracy would be peaceful. You will have to look far and wide to find a Leninist today or any "Liberal" that follows Lenin.

No, you do NOT know what the "Left" is. You don't even know what a Nazi is. A suggestion: you are looking through your political binoculars BACKWARD.........................elsullo

To be fair, Nazism was economically centrist... just authoritarian as all get out... your are correct in your assessment that Leninism is outmoded among communists, though.

 

[cybersomatix]

I see the real sleeper and it isn't me. You apparently had a libtard for your government or civics professor or you get your political education from Hollywierd movies. National SOCIALISM is a middle to left system

Actually Nazism is slightly to the right... but then, so is the Democratic Party.

 

[cybersomatix]

The Left has lost gun control debate.

Case closed.

Except for those of us on the left who are pro-gun... that part of the left has won.