Jim

Simple- Were there limits on corporate financing on attack ads by corporations before the ruling - YES Are there any limits now - NO Is my opinion of the ruling based on the idea that moneyed interests now have a greater advantage than those without resources - of course it is. Any real-world perspective leads to the same conclusion. If you're arguing that the overall outcome of free speech is better than this negative fallout - then that's your opinion. But to say that this gives no advantage to the entity with the bigger cash pile is false.

You have to be kidding. I think what you are saying is that McCain Feingold was too broad and limited speech - maybe. And that the ruling opens up speech for all, which is a good thing. But you're ignoring the direct - real world consequences. And it's not a political problem that affects real reform - it's MONEY sloshing around the system problem.

That's clear - I hear ya. I just think the hope that Congress will grow a pair is naive and the public got 8D again. Any freedom of speech for the small guy will get drowned in the comparative tidal wave of corporate money and influence; adding to the current unbalance.

Oh yea, Congress is going to jump on this one. Again - I'm not agruing that there was an issue to resolve - I'm saying the outcome went way, way beyond what the court was being asked to resolve and the consequeces give additional power to moneyed inerests.

I agree with what you say the case was about. But - the decision is much broader than that. While the case brought by the plaintiffs was not about money, the majority found it necessary (for some unknown reason) to address money. It's very clear. The decison lifts limits on financing of political ads. There used to be limits and now there are none.

I call BS on this statement, which is disingenuous at best. Sure there still are direct contribution limits but, duh, they will be overwhelmed by the indirect limits. The ruling specifically releases corporations from having to form PACs as middlemen and the financing constraints around PACs. They can now funnel money directly into whatever PR program they wish, with no limits. Does the author really think it's reasonable to equate the financial power of Exxon with even the largest Unions in the country? I don't think so. Yes, there are some issues that needed parsing out but there have always been limits on free speech, particularly in recognizing the unbalanced power of large corporations. The Supreme 5 sidestepped the relative narrow question in front of them to take on an issue that was not it play. And Congress devoted to real campaign finance reform? I'll take my chances that the Easter Bunny is real first. Say you're a congressman from a small rural district and you've been making noise about strong bank reform and making some headway. What's to prevent Goldman or whoever from throwing money at a local Swiftboat process? So now that congressman will be more reluctant to take on controversial issues because he doesn't want to disturb the firms with deep pockets. In addition, the 24 states that have campaign finance laws will be affected. You've addressed several of your concerns, all of which could well stand some legislative reform. As Ira correctly stated, however, none of these issues were at issue in this case. No kidding they weren't part of the case but ARE directly affected by the decision made by the SC. The SC went way beyond the question that was being asked. Are you saying these elements are not a direct outcome of the decison?

An interesting question, but not the one that was in front of the SC. I don't think anyone in the case, or here, was advocating a gag on all organized speech, but recognizing the need for some limits because of the potential and realized effect that large institutions can have on the democratic process. Easy solutions? - No. But the baby was thrown out with the bathwater on this decision. It's getting to be all money all the time - from lobbying, direct contributions, and not this.

Here's the deal - there are limits on how much say, Exxon, can give to, say McCain's re-election committe - which is controlled by McCain and his assistants. Those are still in place. There used to be limits on how much money corporations could use for funding attack ads (or support ads) that don't specifically say "go vote for John McCain." Typically a Political Action Committee would form in support of a candidate - not by the candidate but by supporters. There is not supposed to be coordination between the PAC and the candidate (in theory). The PAC would then garner money from corporate and individual doaners that would pay for ads. These proved very powerful in the Swiftboat ads against John Kerry. Now there are no limits to how much money corporations can spend on such ads. They do not have to form PACs, the associated financial limits are gone. Corporations can now pay directly for attack ads with no limits.

I call BS on this statement, which is disingenuous at best. Sure there still are direct contribution limits but, duh, they will be overwhelmed by the indirect limits. The ruling specifically releases corporations from having to form PACs as middlemen and the financing constraints around PACs. They can now funnel money directly into whatever PR program they wish, with no limits. Does the author really think it's reasonable to equate the financial power of Exxon with even the largest Unions in the country? I don't think so. Yes, there are some issues that needed parsing out but there have always been limits on free speech, particularly in recognizing the unbalanced power of large corporations. The Supreme 5 sidestepped the relative narrow question in front of them to take on an issue that was not it play. And Congress devoted to real campaign finance reform? I'll take my chances that the Easter Bunny is real first. Say you're a congressman from a small rural district and you've been making noise about strong bank reform and making some headway. What's to prevent Goldman or whoever from throwing money at a local Swiftboat process? So now that congressman will be more reluctant to take on controversial issues because he doesn't want to disturb the firms with deep pockets. In addition, the 24 states that have campaign finance laws will be affected.

Dude - it's not a rodent. Genus Ochotonidae in the Lagomorpha family (rabbits and hares). Sheesh!

start by mandating that insurance companies are non-profit Couldn't agree more. There are some good models across the globe to follow where there is a private health insurance market but the profit is very constrained, prices for services are standardized, and there are subsidies for low income folks. I could go for that. Problem is that the pharma and insurance firms are standing on the neck of Congress. Or rather - they have paid Congress to stand on public's neck. With all the money flowing and the continual equating money with speech by the Supreme Five, I'm not optimistic in change anytime soon.

Did FW hack jb's password?

Had some tracking issues while competing in track in college. I'd agree - get a second opinion from a sports ortho - ask around for a referral. Exercises helped solve the problem for me, no surgey. I've had to modify my exercise regime 35 years later - but you should have some good miles in you yet. Good luck.

symmetry spire, Mt Moran,Teewinot, Irene's arete http://cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/903711/Tetons_Symmetry_Spire#Post903711

Wrong - deregulation doesn't just mean the repel of existing laws. Under the Bushies they systematically ignored their power to regulate under existing laws. One of the best examples is when the CFTC tried to regulate default swaps under their jursidiction - they got hammered big time by Greenspan and his Ayn Rand groupies. Also under the Bushies, the amount of capitalization that financial institutions were required to keep was significantly reduced - allowing them to take larger bets with less backup. The "let the markets regulate themselves" was the rule and Greenspan just kept shovelling low interest rates into not one, but two bubbles, which turned out to be nothing more than a international Ponzi scheme.

I'm not sure what this has to do with a leash. A clumsy person could fall on an ax if it were leashed or not. What I have seen first hand is someone dropping into a crevasse with an unleashed ax and them watching their ax go clanging into the dark pit. That kinda put an end to the trip. I've also seen someone trip, fall, and then leave their planted ax behind that was leashed! So I guess "hang on" is still the first rule. I'll go with SS's advice; use a leash on the glacier, functional length, discretion when switchbacking.

I'd still say the overall package is reasonable. That said - there has been an increased tax burden over the past 25 years on the individual vs. the corporate entity. Combine this with the restrictions placed on state and local governments regarding Tim Eyman's wako-ness and there is little wiggle room. The idea that there is some bloated bureaucracy living off the public dole is baseless. Spend any time with federal, state, or local employees these days and you will quickly understand what they are up against. They are stuck in a difficult place - and floating bond measures, as unpalatable as it is during a recession, seems to be the only choice. Unless of course you don't mind 50 kids per classroom, parks closed, and services curtailed. It's a big hole and one that has been dug over a couple decades. Foreign adventures, unprescedented flow of capital to the upper class, and reducing of corporate taxes - that's were our money has gone.

The real estate tax rates are pretty reasonable in Seattle: There's two rates: One for downtown & near north (Belltown/Queen Anne) 10.82722 per thousand. On a "low" priced building assessed at 400K = $4330.88 The rest of the city is more reasonable: 8.68790 per thousand. On the same 400K = $3475.16 Especially considering there is no income tax rate - the taxes here are not a burden. Unless you are in the lower income brackets and then are acutely aware of our regressive sales tax. Taxes and death; nothing is free. Get used to it.

Is English your second language?

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/mbs/conditions/road_conditions_report.shtml

No. Not at all. It's just tongue wagging. But robust power grabs as Bushie was good at is a good example of trying to consolidate executive power and marginalize the legislative branch. That was concerning. I'm sure Scalia was muttering under his breath STFU.

Scary? Using the bully pulpit to tell the Dems to get off thier butts? As far as the Supreme Court - nothing he or anyone can do until one of the conservataives goes feet up. I thought the recent Supreme decision was an odd display of ignoring quite a load of precedent.

General amnesia on how we got here. Good example is the hearing going on today on how the Bushies gave away the taxpayer farm to AIG and their note holders.

Surly has a good rep - but not cheap. If you're looking for a bargin I would suggest visiting this place: http://www.bikeworks.org/ in Seattle. They refurbish donated bikes and have a shop and salesroom. They have several nice steel frame bikes hanging on the wall now. Full disclosure: I volunteer here and rebuild bikes and such.