I rarely see the libertarian-right so much as acknowledge the reality of any social collective, so color me surprised when your definitions fail to arbitrarily carve out only the private, pro-capital groups as ok

[Edited on February 6, 2012 at 11:21 AM. Reason : .]

2/6/2012 11:21:02 AM

same but the opposite

im not gonna argue that money as speech isnt a problem, but banning specific groups aint the solution.

it'd be better to combat the effect of all money on politics rather than single contribution types with uneven (and ineffective) enforcement.

GE promoting a candidate under the guise of being pro wind power (when in reality they're pro getting paid and would abandon wind the second the subsidies disapear) is pretty bad if people watching the ad dont understand the reality why GE supports wind power.

On the other hand the political parties having a monopoly on the media at all levels of politics is about a billion times worse.

that said i have no fucking clue how to fix the system. most fixes i would consider would be around stuff like election laws. Letting more people onto the ballot, swithing to IRV, etc... but those all hurt the established parties so theres no chance of it happening.

2/6/2012 11:35:33 AM

If you could decentralize some of the power of the federal government or eliminate its ability to provide subsidies and other kickbacks you could lessen the impact of larger groups on everyone else.

lol at that ever happening tho.

2/6/2012 12:01:44 PM

Am I the only one who finds it bizarrely anti-free speech to require a group to apply to the government before they can run ads?

Shouldn't I be able to make a TSB political action group, donate anonymously, and then have the group hire someone to proliferate the message that the group agreed on?

How on Earth can we not allow that and still be consistent with the free speech values our nation was founded on?

2/6/2012 12:25:53 PM

Quote :

"I don't see how individual people were in any way having their freedom of speech infringed upon in the old system."

Individual people have no mechanism to speak without first coming together to form a group. As such, any law which restricts the formation of groups or impairs the ability of groups to speak is infringing on the individual's freedom of speech.

Remember the words of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

2/6/2012 12:26:29 PM

Quote :

"Am I the only one who finds it bizarrely anti-free speech to require a group to apply to the government before they can run ads? Shouldn't I be able to make a TSB political action group, donate anonymously, and then have the group hire someone to proliferate the message that the group agreed on? How on Earth can we not allow that and still be consistent with the free speech values our nation was founded on?"

It is anti free speech. That's why opposition to Citizens United is kind of bogus. It's not as if this opened the floodgates for corporations to influence politics. The ship sailed long ago on that front.

The whole "corporate personhood" thing is a load of bullshit. Corporations are still restricted from donating directly to candidates, but yes, they can run ads or release potentially persuasive clips.

2/6/2012 1:59:33 PM

Quote :

"Corporations are still restricted from donating directly to candidates"

Well it seems obvious that preventing direct payments, from either companies or people, to politicians is a very very fundamental anti-corruption thing. We need a wall of separation in order to have a democracy that is sustainable for any period of time. A major problem we have right now is that subtle payments like cushy lobbying firm jobs can't be prevented without restricting people's freedom.

I don't know what the answer is, because the fundamental job mandate for politicians is that they make decisions that have a high value differential for companies who's sole purpose for existing is making money. It's like building a house out of hyper flammable material. Something is going to catch on fire, but it has to be contained somehow.

Ultimately human governance isn't possible without relying on the good intentions of people at some level. That's kind of scary.

2/6/2012 2:36:00 PM

The answer is pretty simple: decentralization as outlined in the Constitution. Corruption will exist as long as government exists, all we can control is what scale it happens on. With a powerful federal government covering a massive piece of territory, we get corporations lobbying for perpetual war to guarantee profits and things of that nature. Things that only a government of that size can pull off. Take most regulation down the state level and we avoid a lot of those problems.

2/6/2012 2:42:43 PM

Quote :

"We need a wall of separation in order to have a democracy that is sustainable for any period of time."

All evidence to the contrary, I guess. Most U.S. States have no such restriction for local/state elections. And we are fairly alone among first world nations to have such a separation. We ourselves had no such restriction for well over a century and a half.

There is a fundamental mistake being made here. We see corporations running our government and then assume they are buying that influence through contributions. Well, we have banned such contributions for decades, yet corporations still run our government. We need to realize they are not buying that influence through donations to candidates, but through other much harder to observe associations. It is these alternative channels of influence that we need to marginalize, yet what we have actually done is render them ever more influential by clamping down on contributions through campaign finance reform.

2/6/2012 2:50:32 PM

2/6/2012 3:38:43 PM

If a company could give to a candidate personally, I mean, put money straight in their pocket, and do so anonymously...

Do I really need to speculate on that? That would be banana republic quality stuff there. So these claims that other countries allow donations to candidates/politicians are obviously nuanced with a large number of qualifiers.

2/6/2012 3:40:55 PM

You cannot give large sums of cash to a political campaign anonymously. Political opponents are going to ask where the campaign got the money, and run ads speculating who it was (Satan, Chinese, oil companies, etc).

2/6/2012 4:11:37 PM

But not being allowed to give as much money as I want to a candidate anonymously is an attack on my freedom of speech. My rights are being infringed upon.

2/6/2012 9:07:49 PM

But not by Congress. I refer you yet again to the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law..."

2/6/2012 9:16:01 PM

Yeah, I mean if I'm running against someone for senator there's absolutely no reason I shouldn't be allowed to run an ad about how my opponent is a communist and a known faggot. If someone did try to prevent me from running this ad, it would be an affront to my God-given right to say anything I want as many times as I can afford to say it to a large audience. I don't actually have any facts to back this up, but that's no reason to suggest I shouldn't be allowed to SAY these things.

2/6/2012 9:25:22 PM

SCOTUS has already ruled that lies do not count as protected speech. Hence state laws against slander.

As for speech that is factually true, the antidote to speech you don't like is more speech, not having the police arrest your opponents.

[Edited on February 6, 2012 at 9:45 PM. Reason : .,.]

2/6/2012 9:40:28 PM

Slander sounds like a made up word those corrupt assholes on the Supreme Court created to take away my rights. The Constitution says that I can say whatever I want. It doesn't say anything about taking away someone's rights simply because they're lying. These laws are unconstitutional, plain and simple.

2/6/2012 9:52:55 PM

You don't understand the Constitution or federal versus state law.

2/6/2012 11:02:28 PM

I understand that there shouldn't even be a federal government. What more is there to know?

2/6/2012 11:52:14 PM

Quote :

"Priorities USA raised just $4.1 million in 2011 between its super PAC and related nonprofit organizations, officials have said. That sluggish pace put it far behind its Republican rivals, in part because many major Democratic donors said they did not feel the Obama campaign was supportive of the effort. Messina said that “senior campaign officials as well as some White House and Cabinet officials will attend and speak at Priorities USA fundraising events,” but will not solicit donations during the appearances. Obama, the first lady and Vice President Joe Biden will not appear at Priorities USA events, he said. Messina singled out Restore Our Future, a super PAC supporting GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney, for particular criticism, noting that it “raised $30 million in 2011 from fewer than 200 contributors, most of them from the financial sector.” "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/02/06/gIQAVqnWvQ_story.html

2/7/2012 12:18:08 AM

^^ Glad you've come to your senses. Anarchist is still daft, but still a major improvement over what you used to pretend to be.

2/7/2012 12:45:06 AM

My real motivation is that I've been wanting North Carolina to invade those assholes in South Carolina for a long time now. The only thing standing in the way of this is the federal government, IMO.

2/7/2012 12:49:33 AM

Never going to happen. If anything, South Carolina might invade North Carolina.

2/7/2012 1:15:13 AM

2/7/2012 10:16:09 AM

Shoulda spray-painted a picture of Bart Simpson over that.

2/7/2012 11:33:16 AM

sad we can't donate some of our experienced OWS protestors to help out in the Syria nightmare going on


they would be like "THIS is what a revolt is like?? fuck that"

[Edited on February 8, 2012 at 1:35 PM. Reason : ,]

2/8/2012 1:35:16 PM

Quote :

"But not being allowed to give as much money as I want to a candidate anonymously is an attack on my freedom of speech."

see, here's the thing. why should people be allowed to donate to political campaigns anonymously. Seems to me like if you are engaging in speech, that carries with it an implicit assumption of identification of the speaker. if you feel it is important enough to speak out, you should have the balls to say who you are while you are at it

2/9/2012 1:01:06 PM

26 Billion Settlement for Foreclosure Fraud

Quote :

"After months of painstaking talks, government authorities and five of the nation’s biggest banks have agreed to a $26 billion settlement that could provide relief to nearly two million current and former American homeowners harmed by the bursting of the housing bubble, state and federal officials said. It is part of a broad national settlement aimed at halting the housing market’s downward slide and holding the banks accountable for foreclosure abuses. Despite the billions earmarked in the accord, the aid will help a relatively small portion of the millions of borrowers who are delinquent and facing foreclosure. The success could depend in part on how effectively the program is carried out because earlier efforts by Washington aimed at troubled borrowers helped far fewer than had been expected. Still, the agreement is the broadest effort yet to help borrowers owing more than their houses are worth, with roughly one million expected to have their mortgage debt reduced by lenders or able to refinance their homes at lower rates. Another 750,000 people who lost their homes to foreclosure from September 2008 to the end of 2011 will receive checks for about $2,000. The aid is to be distributed over three years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/business/states-negotiate-25-billion-deal-for-homeowners.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all?src=tp

Perfect strategy. On one hand, the administration can claim to have cracked down on the banks, despite the fact that the banks got/are getting away with system-wide fraud. On the other hand, they get to give out free money. Excellent play.

[Edited on February 9, 2012 at 1:36 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2012 1:24:42 PM

So those of us who are responsible, bought sensibly, and pay our mortgages are going to bail out those poor souls who were victimized by predatory lenders. I love America.

2/9/2012 1:31:46 PM

Actually we've only bailed out the predatory lenders. And maintained their recent tax and continue paying their 15% effective tax rates. Meanwhile, those poor souls who manage to get back on their feet again will be paying for those bailouts through taxes for generations.

And for the record, before the housing crash, buying a house on mortgage was considered one of the wisest investments you could make, as the value of those properties was rising higher than the interest rates on mortgages. Calling them irresponsible is completely ignoring the climate at the time they made those decisions, and it's a bit unreasonable to expect them to have as comprehensive a knowledge of the climate as predatory lenders who made their living convincing people the loans were a good idea.

[Edited on February 9, 2012 at 2:01 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2012 1:59:03 PM

Quote :

"And for the record, before the housing crash, buying a house on mortgage was considered one of the wisest investments you could make"

Buying ENRON was a great investment at one point too.(although Enron lied to get investors, in this case most people lied to get loans...or where simply given loans they wanted. So maybe not the best analogy) Its a HOME, look at it that way. If you buy your home knowing you cant afford it but counting on the value to go up so you can... you get what you deserve if your risk doesnt pay off. Sorry.

Same thing for all the people who get interest only or ARM loans. When interest rates go up they will claim they were discriminated against bc now they have higher rates than the people who got fixed rates (and who paid MORE for them at the time to lower their risk).

[Edited on February 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM. Reason : .]

2/9/2012 3:06:05 PM

^^yeah thats bullshit. if they had bought houses they could afford they wouldnt have been foreclosed on, regardless of if the house retained the purchased value.

no fucking sympathy for people too dumb to understand how basic finance works.

[Edited on February 9, 2012 at 3:08 PM. Reason : ^^]

2/9/2012 3:08:40 PM

^yep. IM a victim.. someone gave me the loan in the amount I asked for so I could buy a home I wanted. Im a victim, they financed my mistake....they should have stopped me... Im a victim.

2/9/2012 3:11:39 PM

i lost my life savings in the stock market betting on POG futures!!! someone save me!!

2/9/2012 3:13:03 PM

I don't know what the fuck you guys are talking about, but it certainly has nothing to do with this settlement. The $26 billion and the terms of the agreement apply specifically to charges against the banks for foreclosure fraud. Things like "robo-signing", forged signatures, and improper document preparation. In other words, actual crimes committed by the banks. Thankfully, this settlement doesn't completely protect them from future criminal charges, which is probably why it's so small.

Way to jump the gun and blame poor people though. Really shows your true colors.

2/9/2012 3:23:36 PM

didnt you know? liberals somehow think the human condition is improved through risk minimization.

2/9/2012 3:23:46 PM

Quote :

"I don't know what the fuck you guys are talking about, but it certainly has nothing to do with this settlement. The $26 billion and the terms of the agreement apply specifically to charges against the banks for foreclosure fraud."

Let me ask you a couple questions. So you are telling me that banks foreclosed on houses that the borrowers were current on? Or are you saying that sure the borrower wasnt paying their mortgage but the lender didnt have all the paperwork, so fuck the lender?

And if this was a penalty to banks bc they didnt dot all their i's, then why: "At least $17 billion will go to reducing the principal owed by homeowners who are both underwater and behind on their mortgages."

WTF does this do? THese people havent lost any money in a market where they are underwater until they sell. Whats next a fucking auto bailout for everyone with a car they are underwater on? And reducing their principle doesnt change their mortgage payment at all. They would have to get a new loan. So Im not sure what they hell this does other than buys votes in an election year. Talk about a shakedown by the govt.

I would LOVE to know how many of these foreclosures, etc were purchases made just to get that 8k new home tax credit our govt pimped out.

2/9/2012 3:43:03 PM

man i love this country for its fairness and equality

they are so fair to specific sets of dumbasses, creeds, and races. i wouldn't have it any other way.

2/9/2012 4:57:11 PM

I think you guys are giving the banks too much credit here. No pun intended, really.

We all know how the housing bubble got created, or at least we should. Rates slashed by the Fed with the stated intention of boosting home sales and other consumer spending. Demand artificially inflated, home prices follow, everyone wants to buy a house with a low interest loan because it's the investment of a lifetime. Everyone does. Very little work done on the part of the banks to ensure ability to pay, ARMs getting handed out like candy.

Just like student loans and other areas getting pumped full of cheap credit, the banks have simply failed to do the job that would be required of them in a free market. With a hard currency, these banks would eventually have their notes redeemed. People would get suspicious when their loan amounts far exceeded their deposits. With government backing that prevents banks from ever failing, we get leviathan banks that control the levers of our political system.

With the banks having no incentive to do their research, borrowers with limited ability to pay have every reason take out as much as they can and then make no payments. Peter Schiff said this exact thing in 2005 or 2006. He essentially stated that you should get a mortgage with no money down, get a 1-3% interest rate on it, pay interest only while you're staying there, and when the rates do get jacked up, just stop paying, and you'll be able to stay there for free for a year or more.

Everyone is gaming the system, and why the fuck not? Out of some altruistic notion of doing "what's right"? Please. Banks are still using mark-to-myth, so fuck 'em. This is a sinking ship, and people are going to take anything that isn't nailed down like it's the last night at the Jackpot.

[Edited on February 9, 2012 at 6:17 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2012 6:06:24 PM

Quote :

"yep. IM a victim.. someone gave me the loan in the amount I asked for so I could buy a home I wanted. Im a victim, they financed my mistake....they should have stopped me... Im a victim."

This is fucking retarded. Emphasis on retarded.

2/9/2012 6:32:11 PM

Regardless of whether or not a homeowner can pay back its loan, if a bank falsifies documents in order to start the foreclosure process (because they did a shitty job of keeping up with paperwork, etc) then a crime has been committed. Fraud is fraud.



Its hard for me to think in sums of billions of dollars, but when I saw 25 billion, I knew it was a slap on the wrist.

This blog pretty much sums it up for me:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/02/the-top-twelve-reasons-why-you-should-hate-the-mortgage-settlement.html

and one of the worst outcomes IMO:

Quote :

"1. We’ve now set a price for forgeries and fabricating documents. It’s $2000 per loan. This is a rounding error compared to the chain of title problem these systematic practices were designed to circumvent. The cost is also trivial in comparison to the average loan, which is roughly $180k, so the settlement represents about 1% of loan balances. It is less than the price of the title insurance that banks failed to get when they transferred the loans to the trust. It is a fraction of the cost of the legal expenses when foreclosures are challenged. It’s a great deal for the banks because no one is at any of the servicers going to jail for forgery and the banks have set the upper bound of the cost of riding roughshod over 300 years of real estate law. "

2/9/2012 7:01:46 PM

Maybe that's a reflection of the fact that most foreclosures were justified despite the fact they were carried out illegally. Let's be honest, most of the people who got foreclosed on should have been foreclosed on. The banks failed to keep up with documentation though, which is illegal. This settlement is a reflection of that and there are mountains of evidence to support this claim. Bottom line: they broke the law and got called on it big time.

What are the implications of this? I'm not sure. Obviously it's an election year and this was probably highly politically motivated. I wouldn't be surprised if the checks started rolling in around the time the national conventions are happening. But as far as buying more time and keeping people in their homes I don't know too much about that.

[Edited on February 9, 2012 at 7:41 PM. Reason : ]

2/9/2012 7:40:13 PM

The settlement is nothing more than a slap on the wrist as Terd said and the banksters will be allowed to walk into the sunset on this one. Greed wins again! This is nothing more than a political stunt to make it look like the Obama admin held their feet to the fire.

[Edited on February 10, 2012 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

2/10/2012 10:14:35 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/10/hose-belgian-firefighters-soak-police

this is how your protest-

2/10/2012 10:18:11 AM

Quote :

"WASHINGTON--If liberal demonstrators try to crash this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, the largest annual gathering of conservatives, attendees here say they'll be ready. For weeks before the conference, conservative activists donned old jeans and hooded sweatshirts and went "undercover" at Occupy DC's downtown encampment. They sat in on meetings where Occupiers discussed plans to disrupt CPAC. Each day, the infiltrators posted what they heard to a private Google group of CPAC attendees and bloggers. Those who attended the meetings said they heard plans to cause "mayhem" at the upcoming conference and even threats of physical violence. Lachlan Markay of the conservative Heritage Foundation documented the reports and now conference attendees and organizers say they have made preparations to absorb any demonstrations."

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/cpac-braces-possible-occupy-infiltration-204131941.html


The war is beginning. Here we see the first published use of spies between two rivals.

2/10/2012 11:23:58 AM

you make it sound so sinister-

occupy protesters have been infiltrating CPAC dressed as ron paul supporters, lol.

[Edited on February 10, 2012 at 11:57 AM. Reason : -]

2/10/2012 11:56:58 AM

I'm analyzing what leads up to a civil war.

What were some signs that a civil war would happen before the civil war started? I missed this lesson in high school. Why couldn't a compromise be reached through diplomacy?

This civil war is going to between the people and the rich. There's less than 1% of the population that's rich, but hold 95% of the power in Washington and the Military. There's 99% of us who (combined) earn about 5% stake in Washington's policies. Let's face it, without google and wikipedia, SOPA would have been passed.

In other words, I feel a civil war coming on because the two sides will never reach a compromise willfully.

2/10/2012 12:55:48 PM

Except that 99% of the 99% go on with their daily lives supporting their families because it's the best thing to do for their families. Those people aren't going to give up anything to even do something so small as attend a protest.

You're making it sound like 75% of the population feels disenfranchised which isn't even close to accurate..

2/10/2012 1:29:25 PM

Let's not forget that some 19% of the population thinks they're in the top 1%, lol.

2/10/2012 1:42:21 PM

^^^what about those folks who arent "rich" but "comfortable" and would happily fight the 99% to maintain the status quo?

[Edited on February 10, 2012 at 2:10 PM. Reason : -]

2/10/2012 2:04:58 PM