$6 billion Dollars!!!
That’s not a typo! The election campaigns, the Presidential, House and Senate cost $6 billion, mostly spent on “attack” ads. Just plain obscene! How many hungry families in this country could we have fed, even housed, or put to work with 6 billion dollars? The election system in this country has become totally skewed. A system based on how much money a candidate can garner to even be considered a candidate, which has automatically precluded other viable candidates for so long. Other viable candidates are automatically ignored and have little, if any, visibility whatsoever.
We desperately need to reverse Citizens United by Amendment or whatever means possible -- an imperative. There is, in fact, an Amendment pending and you can sign onto the Petition for an Amendment to Citizens United at www.movetoamend.org. In addition, election reform is a MUST. Our election system is a sham! We need to get the money out of the election process, set dollar limits for Presidential races, House and Senate, as well as set limits of air time. And, apparently, Dylan Ratigan, formerly of MSNBC TV, has already thought about it and come up with “Get the Money Out” http://getmoneyout.com Go there and sign up.
This is all without mention of the redistricting (gerrymandering) and all the illegal attempts to suppress voting using inordinate measures to do so. We need to press for laws to be enacted to prevent the kind of suppression attempts we’ve seen in this past election. No citizens should have to have such experiences, as it is their inherent right to vote, period.
B. E. Murphy
Visit us at:
Santana James
8:25 am on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Sounds like we've got a libertarian on our hands. I like it.
Bob
2:17 pm on Wednesday, December 5, 2012
Don't be fooled by Murphy. It doesn't bother him that Obama spent a billion dollars in return for huge taxpayer payouts against the national interest (Remember "Solyndra"?), or for vastly mandating that people lose freedom by being forced to buy someone's product (insurance industry in Obamacare), or that unions are empowered by the Dems to cheat non-union contractors out of a chance to work on federally funded construction projects through corrupt "PLAs". He just wants eliminate those organizations believing in personal freedom and lessening the burden and tyrrany of government from supporting candidates financially.
He's just fine with letting unions, scumbags like George Soros (who funded Move on.org) and campaign fund "bundlers" like the folks from Solyndra bribing Dems for favors bribe his candidates as much as they want. He just wants conservative groups crippled.
He's about as far from "liberarian" as you can get!
Mike F.
3:16 am on Saturday, December 8, 2012
You bring up George Soros.
I ask this: How much money did the Koch brothers dump into the Tea Party?
Bob
9:06 am on Saturday, December 8, 2012
Far less than George Soros, who pretty much funded your organization as a left wing propaganda conduit, has spent over the years and the amount your unions have contributed to cheat the other 90% of workers out of an opportunity to fairly compete for work funded by state and Federal taxdollars!
B. E. Murphy
10:58 pm on Friday, December 7, 2012
The only thing I can surmise from these comments is that, basically, the thrust of my "message" became "lost!"
Bob
9:10 am on Saturday, December 8, 2012
Well, considering the "thrust" of your deceptive message was to cut off right thinking campaign funds while maintaining the corrupting influence of unions and dem cronies, I'd have to say you're right!
B. E. Murphy
12:43 pm on Saturday, December 8, 2012
Bob,
Do you really think and believe that spending $6 billion on election campaigns is O.K.? You don't think that's beyond overboard?
Do you really think and believe that it's O.K. for mega-corporations, not just here in the U.S., but elsewhere in the world, have the right to contribute to our campaigns? Are you trying to say that that's a just and fair way to conduct elections?
Unions? Obviously, your stance towards them is clear. And if you had your way, you'd have no representation for workers whatsoever . . . . and the results would be? You know the answer to that!
Nonetheless, you have still missed the point, or have chosen to!
Bob
9:57 am on Sunday, December 9, 2012
Murphy, it's clear you know nothing about election law.It's technically illegal for foreign interests to directly contribute to US campaigns, but of course the dishonest fund a way to get that done.
Clinton found a way to launder money from the Chinese interests to whom he gave away missile technology (Remeber Loral?) and Obama was able to get foreign money through numerous indiviual conduits.
The fact is that the solution to lessening the influence of those who hate America and wiosh to see it wweaker, less prosperous and less influential (like Obama and Soros) s to educate the public about the realities of TRUE fairness, the value of freedom and liberty. That will take resources because we have network news misinforming and deceiving the public daily.
We're currently running a $1.3 TRILLION deficit that has done little to correct our structural problems, so investment of a few billion to remove those creating this "debt bomb" by educating the people is money well spent, esepcially when it's voluntarily given.
The problem is that in November the message was lost by the Romney, GOP house and Senate leadership because they are still part of the problem, not the solution!
B. E. Murphy
12:07 pm on Sunday, December 9, 2012
I'm sure you know about the super PACS . . .. that is the means by which corporations or any ilk, venue funneled donations. Congress attempted to pass a law requiring disclosure of the entities making those donations, but by was blocked by Republican lawmakers, thus, the "invisible" donations.
Your 3rd paragraph is asinine. Corporate greed and the Military Industrial Complex are the real reasons we have difficulties with progress. I firmly believe in education, and monies should be there to educate our children properly. Mainstream media is a source of constant misinformation because of its corporate ownership/consolidation and its very slanted views.
I don't know where your deficit figure comes from first of all. The deficit was driven up by the Bush Adm.'s two unfunded wars, the Bush Tax Cuts (for 10 years alone, cost Americans $2.4 trillion, plus an additional two years at $600 billion), a Bush Adm. pharmaceutical deal for drugs, the recession caused by the reckless and criminal banksters and more, all inherited by the current Obama Adm., and the constant call for more monies to fund those wars and others of our aggressive (illegal) adventures elsewhere and more continue to add to that deficit.
And, your point was?
Bob
5:40 pm on Sunday, December 9, 2012
Please take the time to actually read about the current Fedeal budget and deficit. This year, the destructive Obama budget, that even the Democratic Congress rejected without a SINGLE approving vote, is $1.3 Trillion in deficit, more than double that of ANY Bush-Pelosi-Reid budget.
Tell me, what is Obama's plan to deal with his huge deficit that will decimate programs and prosperity for our children in the future? His "tax the rich" plan will only raise a MAXIMUM of $65 billion per year. That won't even make a dent in his $1.3 trillion annual deficit.
If you are more concerned about who's donating money to fight his evil, destructive policies, than fixng his budgetary mess, you'r part of the problem, not the solution!
THAT'S my POINT!
B. E. Murphy
6:57 pm on Sunday, December 9, 2012
Your facts are skewed!
Obama's "tax the rich" plan? It is not a "tax the rich" scheme! After 12 years of the Bush Tax cuts and all the ill-afforded tax loopholes by the Tax Code, it is simply time, really, way past time, that the top 2% begin paying their "fair share" of the taxes.
It is you who took the message and went off on a tangent! You really did not "get" the message, period!
Arthur Huff
8:29 pm on Monday, December 10, 2012
Ughhhh I can't stand when people say "fair share" when talking about people who give one of every three dollars they earn to the government. But at least you put it in quotes. I do however agree with the theme of your article. He who has the most campaign money shouldn't win elections. It's a shame that it has come down to that. Not to mention that a third party is basically impossible.
B. E. Murphy
12:00 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Arthur, I believe that taxes should be paid proportionate to income, first of all. There are many, many, such as Romney, who pay only 15% or less, when they have offshore accounts, and many, many deductions already, without the Bush Tax cuts. I realize there may be some sorts of mitigating circumstances, but, generally, I would say I would be glad to pay one-third in taxes if my income were upwards of $250,000, whatever is a "fair share."
As to the "theme," I'm glad you "got it!" Plus, I believe to spend monstrous amounts of money on elections is just plain wrong!c
Arthur Huff
7:43 pm on Wednesday, December 12, 2012
I'm with you on the deductions and loopholes. Fixing that end of things would solve some problems. But would you really be "glad" to pay so much in income tax? Or rather, if you had a choice would you want to pay 30% instead of 33%? With the utter lack of efficiency our government operates with how could anyone be "glad" to give them so much of their own hard-earned money?
B. E. Murphy
7:03 pm on Thursday, December 13, 2012
I don't think anyone is really "glad" about paying taxes, period, but if I made the kind of money that commanded 33%, I would be "gladder!" As to inefficiency on the part of the government, I certainly would agree with that on a number of levels. All those involved with the military industrial complex have been gaining profits by leaps and bounds over these past 12 years, yet pay little or no taxes. As to waste by our government (which I hope you consider to be part of the inefficiency). Can't help but to recall the $9 billion cash sent by our government to Iraq (in the early stages of the Iraq invasion during the Bush Adm.) No big deal! There was some stink about it, but, apparently, not enough to warrant a full scale investigation and the "theft" of our monies just drifted into oblivion. And the phonied up bills of Halliburton, KBR, etc. and a whistleblower, who wound up "gagged." Oh, and Guantanamo, built and serviced by none other than Halliburton, for the purposes of "torturing" enemy combattants, 98% of whom were guilty of nothing more, nor less, than being in the wrong place at the wrong time (Bush even said so). But, despite the violation of all national/international laws, Guantanamo still exists and tortures! Oh, then there's something weird about Homeland Security purchasing 450 million rounds of hollow-point ammunition (outlawed by the UN -- once entering subject, it frays and causes serious damages to organs), and for how much money? And who complains!
B. E. Murphy
7:21 pm on Thursday, December 13, 2012
(Arthur, ran out of room above.) Even the Social Security Adm. bought 174,000 rounds of hollow-bullets, which they explain as "normal" for their agents.
The problem is that people first need to become aware and understand the waste and inefficiency, which no one is going to get through mainstream ("MSM") media . . . the MSM lets you know as much as THEY want you to know and that's that (owing to specific corporate ownership). But there are many sources that people, if they choose to do so, can find the truth, including radio stations/TV stations that expound the truth.
Anyway, I've gone on a bit more than I cared to, but the point of it all is this: Taxes? There should be equitable "sharing" of them, on a pro rata basis based on income. As to our grievances with paying them, that is where YOU, ME and ALL AMERICANS come in. Given the controls exhibited by our government today (corporate and MIC controls), it is up to us, the PEOPLE to voice our discontent with the way/means our monies are being spent, and if we continue to be "snookered" in, i.e., paying our taxes, and witnessing inefficiency, waste and illegal behavior. Criminals don't stop being criminals, unless and until they are "arrested." So far, in 12 years, there have been no "arrests." So, of course, the criminals continue to be criminals and the problems continue resultantly!
Bob
10:18 am on Monday, December 10, 2012
Your ignorance of the facts would astound me, were it not for your affiliation with Move On and George Soros.
Here's the facts regarding how "the rich" are paying far MORE than their fair share,
"Let’s see, according to the latest IRS data, which takes into consideration all forms of federal taxation, the top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all federal taxes despite earning only 26 percent of all income. Further, the top 1 percent paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 14.3 percent of household income. As you can see, it is difficult to comprehend how anyone can conclude that the wealthy aren’t already paying a disproportionate share of the taxes in our country.
Now let me address the concerns of the Warren Buffetts of the world, who lament that their federal tax rate is lower than their secretary’s: again using the latest IRS data, people who make $1 million or more had an average tax rate of 20.4 percent in 2010; filers who earned $30,000 to $50,000 had an average tax rate of 4.8 percent; and those who made between $50,000 and $100,000 paid 7.7 percent. These figures show that the more you make, the more you pay — exactly the result our tax system is designed to produce."
Please note that these figures include payroll taxes, NOT just income taxes.
If you just consider income taxes, the "rich" are even more unfairly treated. the top 1% pays about 40% of all federal income taxes, and the top 10% pays about 70% of the income taxes.
Bob
10:20 am on Monday, December 10, 2012
Clearly, those that work the hardest and smartest and earn the most are already paying FAR more than their fair share. Those that aren't are those, who due to their lack of ambition and sloth, aren't paying ANYTHING to support our government services although they are making parasitic use of them.
B. E. Murphy
8:14 pm on Monday, December 10, 2012
I feel want to reply to any of your latest entries, quite frankly, but I will briefly respond to this one. All I can say to you is SHAME ON YOU, on behalf of all Americans, who have worked hard and long in this country, served for this country, consistently paid their taxes right down the line, including their FICA taxes, and CHEATED no one! At most, if an employee lost his/her job, he/she might have partaken of the Unemployment Insurance and, COBRA, if one could even afford it, while in search for other employment.
". . . . . The adults were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of "$$$$$$$" danced in their heads.. . . . . .. "
Bob
9:42 pm on Monday, December 10, 2012
I have no problem with those that worked hard, served their nation honorable in the military, and paid their proportionate share of the costs of our governments.Oif course you know that, but since you had no cogent response, you had to fabricate a false postion for me that you could criticize.
That's the typical "moveon" MO, and you're not very good at it yet.
I have no problem with those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves needing government assistance after a long career in givng more than they take as do upper income people.
What I DO have a problem with is those who drop out of school because they're too lazy to do the work, become parents on the public dole before they pay a nickel in taxes, and create a generational culture of living off the sacrifices of others, you know, the people Obama and moveon count on to vote for them in massive numbers every election!
Those of us paying MORE than our fair share are getting pretty sick of your dishonest claim about us NOT paying our fair share, and it's time we fought the "big lie" you're spreading at every opportunity.
Bob
10:33 am on Monday, December 10, 2012
It also appears you know nothing of the effects of the "Bush" tax cuts in the early 2000s. They actually INCREASED revenues, especially from upper income earners, following the cuts.
Here's how it works. When deciding whether to make a taxable event such as selling a stock, business or investment property, there's a "tipping point" on return that makes making the taxable event worthwhile.
For example, if you set a goal of a 20% after tax return on a long term investment and the captital gains rate is 10%, the value of the invetment has to be 22% to make the transaction worthwhile. If the captial gains rate is 20%, the value has to increase by 24% to make the transaction happen.
If the return before tax is 23%, you make the sale when the Cap gains are 10%, but NOT at 20% capital gains rate.
The result of the higher rate is that you've LOST 2% from the aborted sale, and the lower rate would have INCREASED revenue by the 2% lower tax.
If you don't understand this, you have no business discussing the issue with any authority, and you should have NO business affecting tax policy
BUTCH
12:58 pm on Thursday, December 13, 2012
IF U UNDERSTAND THE COPIAL cipher u can figger out what this BS is about?
Tell us about your bonuses and short selling to buy back later in insider transactions of securities etc.
It sounds like u need to sell your second and third home pay the millions in fines and take a enema to clean out the system, how many clients and investors have been screwed who have drank your KOOL AID and now have no rainy day fund or retirement?