Robert Reich nails it: This is what this election is about

[septimus]

@sleestak

Really? It is all the evil <insert business here> who caused all the problems and the government had nothing to do with it?

You’re misreading what I wrote. Yes, there were multiple actors at fault and I certainly concede that misguided liberal advocacy is sometimes a problem. I was addressing the right-wing talking point that government policy was the principal reason for the crisis. Moreover, your comments did not address my claim that some of the government “shortsightedness” was a result of corrupt influence of private interests benefiting from the mortgage or housing markets rather than a result of progressive advocacy.

And you didn’t answer my main question. What books have you read on the subject? Anyone can pull a few quotes off the internet to support any partisan position. I’m sincerely curious who authored a full-length book, if any, which took a comprehensive look at the crisis and supports this favored right-wing talking point.

[BrainGlutton]

@Hank_Beecher

If their money is as all powerful over public opinion as you imagine, then they will just use it to tweak your poop stains on the constitution to their favor.

There are other democracies, such as France, where paid campaign advertising is banned, and they had rich and powerful people too. Somehow they overcame that obstacle.

[octopus]

@BrainGlutton

The proposal is simply for a ban on paid political advertising – a system that works well enough in some other democracies – and to which all the points you raise are irrelevant.

I think your right to assemble in the Democratic Party is not fair to those who don’t belong to equivalent powerful parties.

[Pleonast]

@BrainGlutton

The proposal is simply for a ban on paid political advertising – a system that works well enough in some other democracies – and to which all the points you raise are irrelevant.

So when I go to store, buy a poster, rod and ink, write the name of my favorite presidential candidate, and put it in my yard, I’ll be violating federal law?

[elucidator]

Not if his lawn sign statement reflects a correct attitude and a realistic assessment of political value. If not, counseling will be offered. All other efforts unavailing, maybe draw six months at the Jane Fonda Self-Criticism and Aerobics Camp. Tops. Time off for corrected opinions.

Whaddaya expect, we are burdened with liberals! All wishy-washy scairdy cats, don’t have the stomach for a Straight to the Wall program. Which is clearly the most efficient and effective way to deal with social deviance.

[Hank_Beecher]

@BrainGlutton

How can you keep repeating that bullshit? Banning paid campaign advertising would do nothing of the kind.

The argument against strict public regulation of money in politics is based on a false analogy between free spending and free speech protected under the First Amendment. The analogy is false, because limits on campaign finance do not address the content of speech – only its volume, as it were. It is not an infringement on free speech to say that, in a large public auditorium, Douglas will not be allowed to use a microphone unless Lincoln can as well.

What a crap argument. First of all, the content of the speech sure as fuck would be addressed, since the question of whether or not it was deemed political speech would determine whether it could be paid for. And of course keeping people from spending their money to spread an idea restricts their rights, by definition.

Would Saturday Night Live have to give equal talent and effort to their skits satirizing Hilary as they do Trump, or just equal time mocking both? Or maybe some official government paid punch card reader decide that SNL isn’t political speech. Can I have that job? If not, why not?

Freedom of the press is the freedom to literally own, operate, or hire the services of an actual printing press, without the government coming to smash it because they have decided you have to much influence. It’s not like this is a new argument, the free for all of ideas was known to be a dangerous one from time the Bill of Rights was written, but the benefits have been valued to be worth the costs. It’s not an ideal solution, but it is the most elegant one, and very resilient.

In the end this boils down to is one group printing and passing out flyers, and another trying to rally a mob to smash their printing presses.

[elucidator]

Smash the printing presses? When they are still perfectly good to print invitations to gay marriages?

[SlackerInc]

@elucidator

Not if his lawn sign statement reflects a correct attitude and a realistic assessment of political value. If not, counseling will be offered. All other efforts unavailing, maybe draw six months at the Jane Fonda Self-Criticism and Aerobics Camp. Tops. Time off for corrected opinions.

Whaddaya expect, we are burdened with liberals! All wishy-washy scairdy cats, don’t have the stomach for a Straight to the Wall program. Which is clearly the most efficient and effective way to deal with social deviance.

LMAO, this was awesome. As was Hank Beecher’s link to the ACLU position. That really made my day–thanks, Hank. I always loved the ACLU, but I really didn’t expect that level of awesomeness.

[adaher]

@BrainGlutton

:rolleyes: No, it is a means to a lot of ends, and liberty is only one of them. Equality is another, and no less important. Likewise with the general welfare.

Equality under the law and the general welfare are served by liberty. A government that can pick winners and losers based on political usefulness is neither equal, nor a friend to liberty.

[elucidator]

So, addy is committed to freedom and liberty. Bold stuff! Dare we expect courageous support for puppies and babies anytime soon?

[BrainGlutton]

@octopus

I think your right to assemble in the Democratic Party is not fair to those who don’t belong to equivalent powerful parties.

There’s a fix for that, too. But that’s another debate.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Equality under the law and the general welfare are served by liberty.

Looking at American history – no, that is not always true.

[adaher]

Not always, but mostly. Civil rights was an example where strongarmed government intervention was necessary. And it’s hard to complain, because it applies to all of our liberties, such as gun rights.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Not always, but mostly. Civil rights was an example where strongarmed government intervention was necessary.

The New Deal was another.

[adaher]

The New Deal didn’t enhance liberty, it enhanced broad prosperity. One might consider that justified under the circumstances, but as that and the civil rights issue tells us, to deprioritize our liberties requires one hell of a problem that can be solved any other way. Campaign finance doesn’t rise to that level.

[octopus]

@BrainGlutton

There’s a fix for that, too. But that’s another debate.

Parties have no right of representation. So that’s not a fix. I don’t see how people confuse the fundamentals. Is it on purpose?

[octopus]

@adaher

Equality under the law and the general welfare are served by liberty. A government that can pick winners and losers based on political usefulness is neither equal, nor a friend to liberty.

Wait. You don’t trust those who achieve positions of power in the government to decide fairly?

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

The New Deal didn’t enhance liberty, it enhanced broad prosperity.

That was my point. It did nothing for “liberty” in your terms, yet clearly was a thing worth doing, and much needed for the sake of the general welfare, and that is another thing democracy is for.

@adaher

One might consider that justified under the circumstances, but as that and the civil rights issue tells us, to deprioritize our liberties requires one hell of a problem that can be solved any other way. Campaign finance doesn’t rise to that level.

Don’t see why not; anything we might call “metagovernmental,” any dispositive structural element of the electoral system that determines who does or does not have a chance at getting into office or getting fairly represented, does rise to that level. Voting rights for women did, voting rights for blacks did, etc.

[Hank_Beecher]

But in those cases rights were expanded. In this case the proposed amendment would be the first ever to restrict constitutionally protected rights.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Richard_Parker

Whether it would result in more prosecutions depends on why you think more haven’t happened. I do not believe that U.S. Attorneys are declining to prosecute Wall Street executives out of some bias toward the financial industry, mostly because I see no evidence to support that conclusion. I think they haven’t prosecuted more because proving financial crimes is hard and because no one who is serious thinks that criminal behavior is what principally caused the Great Recession or causes economic harm more generally, and so the priority level of financial crimes is not as high as some people would (irrationally, in my view) prefer.

I think there is a lot of risk aversion among those that prosecute financial crimes. There is enough outright fraud and embezzlement that trying to convict someone for being exceedingly greedy is not attractive.

For the record there have been prosecutions but not a lot of jail time above the local mortgage banker level.

Angelo Mozilo settled with the SEC for $67 million (a record) for securities fraud and insider trading. The question is why they settled for anything short of jail time?

Virtually all of the large investment banks have paid large settlements for packaging and selling shitty mortgage securities.

Sure its tough to prove that these incredibly smart guys didn’t know they were buying crap, repackaging it and then selling it again but if you only take the easy cases then you only catch the stupid criminals.