link?isadore;1190825 wrote:they spend millions while the rich and powerful spents tens of millions to buy an election
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/wisconsin-recall-election-spending-tops-60-million/FatHobbit;1190830 wrote:link?
Ds were outspent. This is partially because the unions' preferred candidate lost in the primary to Barrett, and also because the DNC didn't want to sink money into what it viewed as a losing battle. R organizations across the country rallied to Walker's defense, while the Barrett campaign was issuing pleas to Obama/DNC to step in and help out. That colors the money argument a bit differently than you're presenting.isadore;1190825 wrote:they spend millions while the rich and powerful spents tens of millions to buy an election
Money well spent. Wisconsin is on the road to recovery and teachers aren't dying on the streets. This is a huge victory for Republicans and rich people everywhere and the path to greatness.
from the article
The people have spoken[LEFT] McCabe said. “oll numbers haven’t changed much. Walker’s approval ratings haven’t changed. So the tens of millions spent don’t seem to have changed very many minds.[/LEFT]
It's hard to win against Union dollars, Kasich just wants to get paid off like his left leaning buddies.isadore;1190877 wrote:gosh a ruddies how short our memories are, we seem to have forgotten the stinging rejection of the rich and powerful in the SB5 election.
even john kasich learned and now opposes the right to work initative
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2012/06/03/kasich-stepping-on-toes-because-hes-doing-whats-right.html
gosh a ruddiessleeper;1190879 wrote:It's hard to win against Union dollars, Kasich just wants to get paid off like his left leaning buddies.
FatHobbit wrote:The people have spoken
it is always nice to get the opinion of those in support of plutocracy.gut;1190887 wrote:The "rich" outspent the "common man" 7.5 to 1. Hmm, since the rich are paying 80% of the taxes, that seems a reasonable amount for their voice to be heard. Still only 1 vote, but the guy paying the check is ENTITLED to be heard and to voice his opinion how that money be spent.
Quite honesty you can make the case American politics have been hijacked by people bickering over how to spend someone else's money (and increasingly, money that no one has). People who are actually successful and have made money SHOULD be more vocal about the direction of this country.
Because mob rule is real effective. While far from perfect, I value the input of successful businesspeople far more than the ignorant and short-sighted masses who just want another handout and don't care where it comes from or what the consequences are. In this case, the people who pay the bills are also the voice of reason. Although, to be fair, I'd settle for Washington just being able to live paycheck-to-paycheck like the masses.isadore;1190968 wrote:it is always nice to get the opinion of those in support of plutocracy.
Gosh a ruddies, what a selective view of handouts. Government has been supporting these “successful” businessmen from the get go. From protective tariffs in the 1790s, to government supported canal and railroad construction in the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century, that leads into financial support for airlines and corporate agriculture, subsidies to oil companies, tarp, auto bailout and on and on. And of course their army of lobbyist winning them one break from the government after another. And when the working people and the poor, you know the people who send their kids off to fight our wars, win a benefit, horror of horrors. Tax breaks should only go to the rich at least in your world.gut;1191001 wrote:Because mob rule is real effective. While far from perfect, I value the input of successful businesspeople far more than the ignorant and short-sighted masses who just want another handout and don't care where it comes from or what the consequences are. In this case, the people who pay the bills are also the voice of reason. Although, to be fair, I'd settle for Washington just being able to live paycheck-to-paycheck like the masses.
Just saying that if I wanted financial planning advice I'm not going to ask someone who's broke. Unless they want to continue to be broke, maybe the broke people should listen more to the people they are taking the money from.
Truer words have never been spoken.isadore;1191025 wrote:... Tax breaks should only go to the rich at least in your world.
yes a giant step toward plutocracyCon_Alma;1191110 wrote:Truer words have never been spoken.
Until an even percentage by all is paid there's no reason to given someone paying less in taxes a break.
I don't think you understand what that word means, if you did you'd know we live in the farthest place from plutocracy when we have people not only not paying their weight, but also taking money. There is such a thing as negative tax liability, and many Americans enjoy it.isadore;1191124 wrote:yes a giant step toward plutocracy
I got a pretty good idea what it means. A government controlled by money where the effect of campaign contributions and paid lobbyist magnify the influence of the rich and corporations. And another giant step toward the full establishment of that plutocratic state what was Citizens United decision. And what do we find on this site, people in service to plutocracy pushing the idea we need to take money from those in need to make the super rich even richer.Manhattan Buckeye;1191131 wrote:I don't think you understand what that word means, if you did you'd know we live in the farthest place from plutocracy when we have people not only not paying their weight, but also taking money. There is such a thing as negative tax liability, and many Americans enjoy it.
Just the opposite in Ohio where SB 5 was defeated...you can't have it both ways. Money talks, bullshit walks. This is the perfect example to illustrate that ballot referendums are a bad idea, and they should be rejected out of hand no matter how good the cause may seem. That is why the country was set up as a republic and representative democracy.they spend millions while the rich and powerful spents tens of millions to buy an election
yes our national government is a representative democracy, but each state has its own constitution. Many have moved closer to direct democracy based on the will of the people who have ultimate sovereignty.HitsRus;1191225 wrote:Just the opposite in Ohio where SB 5 was defeated...you can't have it both ways. Money talks, bull**** walks. This is the perfect example to illustrate that ballot referendums are a bad idea, and they should be rejected out of hand no matter how good the cause may seem. That is why the country was set up as a republic and representative democracy.
And so Wisconsin has spoken....just like Ohio did earlier. Ultimate soveriegnty appears to hinge on who spends the most money. Not a good way to run a government...state or federal.Many have moved closer to direct democracy based on the will of the people who have ultimate sovereignty.
Right. Nothing like excluding certain public unions to get rid of public unions. Ohio deserves what it gets.derek bomar;1191250 wrote:SB5 would have passed if it would have excluded cops n firefighters
gosh a ruddies we will never know, what we do know for sure was that it was convincingly defeated, big time.derek bomar;1191250 wrote:SB5 would have passed if it would have excluded cops n firefighters