j_b

Has, as expected, this ruling opened the floodgates of corporate money into elections? yes. So, how is an arcane discussion about my understanding of the exact language going to help? Anyway, didn't we have that discussion already earlier this year?

Spare us the fear-mongering about Robespierre and the libertarian nonsense about the "dictatorship of the majority": somehow, the peons can't vote on what's a right, only the 5 corporatists appointees of the Reagan/Bush administrations on the supreme court can do that. So apparently somebody is voting, it's just that they don't represent the popular consensus on whether corporations or the wealthy have the right to buy an election. What a surprise!!! As if Cambodia 76 reflected the popular will. You need to have your head examined.

hmmm, most euro countries lost 1%/yr during WW1. Vietnam lost ~.5%/year during the Vietnam war. Very different graph if one starts plotting all the relevant blood baths. Anyone cares to guess where Iraq would fit?

Classic appeal to victim-hood by a supporter of plutocratic rule. It's only next week that you'll claim to be for democracy, just not today. Hayekians and other neocons do believe the peons are too stupid to govern themselves, which explains their support for dictatorships as a lesser evil

Your stupidity is mind numbing.

are all would be libertarians blithering idiots? seriously?

Why? You don't know how to use a search engine? "Obama raised eyebrows at his State of the Union address last month by criticizing the high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose the ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment. Seventy-two percent, moreover, support the idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate the limits the court lifted. The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it." http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenumbers/2010/02/in-supreme-court-ruling-on-campaign-finance-the-public-dissents.html

Boy, that was fun! let's see what other major corporate interference with government we can solve in a jiffy ... "Fed up with a bloated financial sector being the main source of bribe money on the hill? well then, just stop telling them how to run the wall street casino, and stop trying to prevent them from practicing usury rates. How do you think we got rid of usury in the past and reigned in wild speculation after the great depression? Well, we just let them make their own rules, that's what we did"

"Fed up with the fossil fuel industry funding the denial of science and buying congress into doing nothing? Well, just stop trying to control CO2 emissions and the oil industry will stop interfering with government. See, that was easy."

Despite your repeated tries to have that largely irrelevant discussion, ~80% of Americans are against Citizens United and think that corporations/the wealthy shouldn't be able to buy elections, with or without disclosure. People aren't really falling for your side-show.

let's see the numbers since you pretend to know so much. The central government has control over nothing in Somalia. There are NO regulations to speak of. You appear to know fuckall about Somalia and the role of regulations. how could you say all of this with his cock in your mouth? I am amazed.

Except that we all know that you don't want any rules over business whatsoever, so spare us the empty rhetorics. You have no argument beyond stating they always try to subvert the rules. No. A progressive tax according to income and capital gain level is what is needed. A flat tax is effectively regressive despite the "fair" sounding name. Half of corporations pay essentially no taxes in any given year and tax evasion is widespread among the wealthy. No more free ride for the uber-rich and their toadies. If you don't want to pay taxes commensurate to your take you can go live in Somalia where I hear government (the instrument of the taxpayer) is just the way you like it: very small. Objective standard? Partisan motives? ROTFL more partisan than the financial industry fucking over main street and buying congress? We all can tell who are the corporate shills. What have you ever said to reign in a financial sector gone wild? Typical ideological nonsense from you. Some drugs are clearly detrimental to humans and they can't all be dealt with in the same fashion.

So in order to avoid corporations taking over government, we shouldn't regulate corporations? More of the same brilliant logic! In the last couple weeks alone you have told us that 1) wealthy individuals will always try to circumvent the rules and taxation so we shouldn't have rules and taxation, 2) that democracy was so messy that we'd be better off not preventing plutocrats buying politicians and now, 3) that we shouldn't regulate corps because it'll incite them to take over government. What's next? that employers will always go for the bottom labor cost so there is no point in having anti-slavery laws? Where the hell do you get that stuff, it's hilarious.

For-Profit College Students Most Likely Defaulters as Rates Continue Upward Climb The number of college students who defaulted on their federal student loans climbed in the fiscal year that ended in September 2008, according to new government data.. And once again, those who attend for-profit colleges and universities were the most likely to default. Direct Loan and Federal Family Education Loan Programs The grim numbers came as no surprise, given that the timeframe roughly aligns with the start of the recession. But they come at a politically charged time, as for-profit colleges fight proposed regulations that would cut off federal aid to some programs if too many students default on loans or don’t earn enough after graduation to repay them. Figures from the U.S. Department of Education show 7 percent of borrowers of federal student loans defaulted within two years of beginning repayment, up from 6.7 percent the previous year and 5.2 percent the year before that. Default rates crept up in all sectors of higher education — from 3.7 to 4 percent for private nonprofit schools, 5.9 to 6 percent for public nonprofit schools, and 11 to 11.6 percent for for-profit schools. The default rate for students at public two- to three-year programs — which covers the vast majority of community colleges — was 10.1 percent in fiscal year 2008, the new data shows. At for-profit schools, the rate was 12.6 percent in two- to three-year programs. However, only 13 percent of community college students took out student loans in 2008-08, compared to 97 percent of students at two-year for profit colleges. The new data covers borrowers whose first loan repayments came due between Oct. 1, 2007, and Sept. 30, 2008, and who defaulted before Sept. 30. 2009. “Even before the economy went down, student borrowing had doubled in this decade,” said Patrick Callan, president of the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education in San Jose, Calif. “More students borrowed and they borrowed more money, and they’re now they’re going out in a very tough economy.” The Education Department stressed the for-profit default rates. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, repeating what has become his mantra on the fastest growing segment of higher education, voiced concern about excessive debt and useless degrees while simultaneously highlighting the sector’s positive contributions. “The data …tells us that students attending for-profit schools are the most likely to default,” Duncan said in a statement. “While for-profit schools have profited and prospered thanks to federal dollars, some of their students have not. Far too many for-profit schools are saddling students with debt they cannot afford in exchange for degrees and certificates they cannot use. This is a disservice to students and taxpayers, and undermines the valuable work being done by the for-profit education industry as a whole.” Students at for-profit schools represented 26 percent of federal loan borrowers but 43 percent of all defaulters in 2008-09, the department says. http://www.ccweek.com/news/templates/template.aspx?articleid=2102&zoneid=3

Don't confuse the activism of closet Federalist Society judges and other corporatists on the supreme court for real world concern great enough to prevent reigning in the role of corporate money in the total take over of our government.

sure, but a lot fewer than at for profit colleges. For profit colleges have full knowledge of that fact too.

Like for profit colleges with students who haven't a hope in hell of repaying their loans?

One would think that fact that the boundaries between speech with political implications and "political" speech are clearly too complex, subjective, and laden with value judgments renders you incapable of marshaling so much as a coherent argument here would temper your enthusiasm for entrusting Congress with that power. Particularly if the evangelo-pluto-fascist hordes ever secure a majority there. The alternative being that your logic is too twisted to justify arguing against it: the existence of nuances and subtleties has never been an argument for letting everything go, but you appear to be an expert at making inferences that have no reason to be.

"Democracy is so complicated. It'd be so much simpler if the plutocrats could buy all the votes they needed"

"Interest groups are spending five times as much on the 2010 congressional elections as they did on the last midterms, and they are more secretive than ever about where that money is coming from. The $80 million spent so far by groups outside the Democratic and Republican parties dwarfs the $16 million spent at this point for the 2006 midterms. In that election, the vast majority of money - more than 90 percent - was disclosed along with donors' identities. This year, that figure has fallen to less than half of the total, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post. The trends amount to a spending frenzy conducted largely in the shadows. The bulk of the money is being spent by conservatives, who have swamped their Democratic-aligned competition by 7 to 1 in recent weeks. The wave of spending is made possible in part by a series of Supreme Court rulings unleashing the ability of corporations and interest groups to spend money on politics. Conservative operatives also say they are riding the support of donors upset with Democratic policies they perceive as anti-business. "The outside group spending is primarily being driven by the political climate," said Anthony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College who studies campaign finance. "Organized groups are looking at great opportunity, and therefore there's great interest to spend money to influence the election. You've got the possibility of a change in the control of Congress." The increase in conservative spending has come both from established groups and from groups only a few months old. On the left, major labor groups such as the Service Employees International Union have also ratcheted up their expenditures compared with 2006 but are unable to keep up with groups on the right. One of the biggest spenders nationwide is a little-known Iowa group called the American Future Fund, which has spent $7 million on behalf of Republicans in more than two dozen House and Senate races. Donors for the group's ad campaign have not been disclosed in records the group has filed with the Federal Election Commission. ad_icon The group recently entered a previously sleepy race in its home state of Iowa, announcing that it would devote up to $800,000 to campaign against Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley of Waterloo. The campaign kicked off with a commercial alleging that Braley "supports building a mosque at Ground Zero." Braley denies supporting construction of the proposed Islamic cultural center near the World Trade Center site, saying it's a zoning issue for New Yorkers to decide. The ad, part of a nationwide campaign of similar mosque-themed spots, is the brainchild of Larry McCarthy, a media strategist who gained renown for creating the racially tinged "Willie Horton" commercials against Democratic presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis in 1988. "Folks across America should be worried about these anonymous groups that go into an election and try to buy a favorable result," said Braley spokeswoman Caitlin Legacki. "People have no idea where the money came from. It's difficult to take recourse." [..] While the interest-group money has primarily helped Republicans, Democrats have proved better at raising money for the party itself and for individual candidates. Those donations must, by law, come from individuals and are limited in size. Much of the interest-group spending, by contrast, has been based on large contributions from well-heeled donors and corporations. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/03/AR2010100303664.html?hpid=topnews

If it were true, Republicans would have proposed a one-paragraph bill that demanded disclosure. But they didn't for the simple reason that they don't want their corporate sponsors known. what's the ratio of corporate to union money? (2 orders of magnitude difference?) Aren't Unions democratic organizations with a voting membership by opposition to corporations? Nice try but you fail in being convincing that Unions are the same as corporations.

The Secret Big-Money Takeover of America Robert Reich Former Secretary of Labor; Professor at Berkeley; Author, 'Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future' Posted: October 7, 2010 05:55 PM Not only is income and wealth in America more concentrated in fewer hands than it's been in 80 years, but those hands are buying our democracy as never before -- and they're doing it behind closed doors. Hundreds of millions of secret dollars are pouring into congressional and state races in this election cycle. The Koch brothers (whose personal fortunes grew by $5 billion last year) appear to be behind some of it, Karl Rove has rounded up other multimillionaires to fund right-wing candidates, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is funneling corporate dollars from around the world into congressional races, and Rupert Murdoch is evidently spending heavily. No one knows for sure where this flood of money is coming from because it's all secret. But you can safely assume its purpose is not to help America's stranded middle class, working class, and poor. It's to pad the nests of the rich, stop all reform, and deregulate big corporations and Wall Street -- already more powerful than since the late 19th century when the lackeys of robber barons literally deposited sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators. Credit the Supreme Court's grotesque decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, which opened the floodgates. (Even though 8 of 9 members of the Court also held disclosure laws constitutional, the decision invited the creation of shadowy "nonprofits" that don't have to reveal anything.) According to FEC data, only 32 percent of groups paying for election ads are disclosing the names of their donors. By comparison, in the 2006 midterm, 97 percent disclosed; in 2008, almost half disclosed. Last week, when the Senate considered a bill to force such disclosure, every single Republican voted against it -- thereby revealing the GOP's true colors, and presumed benefactors. (To understand how far the GOP has come, nearly ten years ago campaign disclosure was supported by 48 of 54 Republican senators.) Maybe the Disclose Bill can get passed in lame-duck session. Maybe the IRS will make sure Karl Rove's and other supposed nonprofits aren't sham political units. Maybe pigs will learn to fly. In the meantime we face an election that marks an even sharper turn toward plutocratic capitalism than before -- a government by and for the rich and big corporations -- and away from democratic capitalism. As income and wealth has moved to the top, so has political power. That's why, for example, it's been impossible to close the absurd tax loophole that allows hedge-fund and private-equity managers to treat much of their income as capital gains, subject to a 15 percent tax (even though they're earning tens or hundreds of millions a year, and the top 15 hedge-fund managers earned an average of $1 billion last year). Why it proved impossible to fund expanded health care by limiting the tax deductions of the very rich. Why it's so difficult even to extend George Bush's tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent of Americans without also extending them for the top 2 percent - even though the top won't spend the money and create jobs, but will blow a $36 billion hole in the federal budget next year. The good news is average Americans are beginning to understand that when the rich secretly flood our democracy with money, the rest of us drown. Wall Street executives and top CEOs get bailed out while under-water homeowners and jobless workers sink. A Quinnipiac poll earlier this year found overwhelming support for a millionaire tax. But what the public wants means nothing if our democracy is secretly corrupted by big money. Right now we're headed for a perfect storm: An unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top, a record amount of secret money flooding our democracy, and a public in the aftershock of the Great Recession becoming increasingly angry and cynical about government. The three are obviously related. What can you do? 1. Read Justice Steven's dissent in the Citizens United case, so you're fully informed about the majority's pernicious illogic. 2. Use every opportunity to speak out against this decision, and embarrass and condemn the right-wing Justices who supported it. 3. In this and subsequent elections, back candidates for congress and president who vow to put Justices on the Court who will reverse it. 4. Demand that the IRS enforce the law and pull the plug on Karl Rove and other sham nonprofits. 5. If you have a Republican senator, insist that he or she support the Disclose Act. If they won't, campaign against them. 6. Support public financing of elections. 7. Join an organization like Common Cause, that's committed to doing all this and getting big money out of politics. (Personal note: I'm so outraged at what's happening that I just became chairman of Common Cause.) 8. Send this post to your friends (including any tea partiers you may know). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-secret-bigmoney-takeo_b_754938.html

Obama and the “Superman” School Predators Tue, 10/12/2010 A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford “Waiting for Superman” is pure propaganda for the hedge funders that seek to “create a private market in for-profit educational services that can be traded on the stock market and bet on derivatives.” Obama has deployed his presidential bully pulpit as a booster for this “bait-and-switch” scam of a film, and for the underlying privatizing project. The corporate media, right-wing billionaires like the Wal-Mart family, Bill Gates and President Obama, are all in the same business. They are trying to create a private market in for-profit educational services that can be traded on the stock market and bet on derivatives but whose costs will be borne by the public. They project this public educational market to be potentially worth trillions of dollars – at virtually no risk to finance capital. That’s why the hedge funds are now so deep into charter schools. But, to transform the public schools into a privately-exploitable market requires great volumes of skillful propaganda, to convince the public that Wall Street and hedge funds will “save” public education. The movie “Waiting for Superman” is the latest, and slickest, of this corporate propaganda. It is a profoundly predatory film, in character with the predatory finance capitalists that are its biggest boosters. The film shamelessly exploits five Washington, DC school kids and their desperate parents, seeking to win a lottery placement in a charter school exemplified by a 24-hour public charter boarding facility called The Seed School, where student life is “centered around dorms…named for a college or university,” each housing 12 to 15 kids. There are only 15 students for each teacher. On its face, this truly does seem to be a public educational wonderland. But, as mass propaganda for urban charter schools, it is the most cruel and evil bait-and-switch imaginable. The nation’s public schools are in the deepest crisis in memory. It is a money crisis, which has led to the most draconian educational cutbacks in modern times. Teachers have been fired by the tens of thousands, curriculum scaled back to the bone all across the country – yet this film callously dangles a 24-hour prep school as a real and palpable possibility for the millions of educationally underserved in the inner cities. A live-in prep school is supposed to stand in for charter schools as a whole, despite the fact that more charter schools perform worse than their traditional public school counterparts than those that test better, nationwide. “Waiting for Superman” is a scam and a sham, that has been catapulted into the national political conversation by a $2 million marketing grant from the Emperor, himself, Bill Gates. In the most perverse sense, it is appropriate that Washington, DC’s Seed School is featured, since Gates and the hedge fund billionaire parasites consider their cash contributions to charter schools as “seed money” from which will grow a hybrid, publicly-funded school system where profiteers will flourish. In the last decade, these finance capitalists have enlisted a cadre of Democratic politicians to wage war against teachers and against the very idea of public education, exploiting the historical grievances of Black parents, especially. Barack Obama is the highest expression of the success of this privatizing project, so it is no surprise that he endorsed “Waiting for Superman” as only a president could, hosting the film and the five kids at the White House. But do not be fooled. The film performs the same function for the corporatizing of American education as the movie “Exodus” did for the founding of Israel. This ain't “Roots.” Rather, it sets the stage for the uprooting and destruction of public education. http://blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obama-and-%E2%80%9Csuperman%E2%80%9D-school-predators

Carl is using a Lowe Hummingbird with a circular adze and what looks like a North Wall Hammer (Chouinard). It was pretty much state of the art in the early 80's. I have both these tools and occasionally use them.

I guess you couldn't come up with greater than anecdotal evidence that public land management is over-funded and unusually wasteful so you came up with a lame comment. Somehow I am not too surprised since it's par for the course with most "small government" types (who weren't really concerned about "big government" when regressives controlled government. Go figure ....)