Sen. Bernie Sanders said Tuesday night that the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United ruling allows the wealthiest Americans to essentially buy democracy.
"With the Citizens United decision, the Supreme Court said to all these billionaires, 'Go for it!'" said Sanders, a Vermont Independent, during an appearance on The Ed Show. "You're tired of buying coal companies and gambling casinos; you know what you can buy now? You can buy the United States government."
Terms like 'plutocracy' and 'oligarchy' are inflammatory but they are "exactly what is happening right now," he said. "You can own the United States government, you can own various states, you can own county commissioners, you can own governors—pretty good deal."
Sanders said that to counter the Citizens United ruling, he plans to help pass the DISCLOSE Act, originally introduced by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and later modified by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI). The act would require full political contribution disclosure, and mandate that the individuals sponsoring political ads state their support within the ads themselves.
Leave a Comment:
Waaaa Waaaaa Eddie sure know how to pick'em for his PLAYBOOK. Where did you dig this Cluck up. Waaa Waaaa
B. Sanders - Youve Got It RITE !!!!!
Hey MD look the guy who buys the Fox news fake outrage out of the mind of that sister molesting rabbit terrorizing nut case from Alabama and he has the nerve to talk down Ed for having a sane person on his show like Bernie. Gee and then he wonders why we can't stand his phony rants around the vine.
Oh, you mean this one, liar?
Obama Signs STOCK Act Into Law
By The Associated Press 04/ 4/12 12:32 PM ET
WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama signed legislation Wednesday barring members of Congress, the president and thousands of federal workers from profiting from nonpublic information learned on the job, calling it an embodiment of the fundamental American value of fair play.
Obama said the move to bar insider trading among lawmakers would assure everyone "plays by the same rules."
"It's the notion that the powerful shouldn't get to create one set of rules for themselves and another set of rules for everybody else," Obama said.
"If we expect that to apply to our biggest corporations and our most successful citizens, it certainly should apply to our elected officials," Obama said.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/04/obama-signs-stock-act_n_1402669.html
And the re reg is back under another new name already. Whine complain attack banned re reg repeat. Here is a clue people do not like Mr I won't Take a Stand Romney. Funny how you righties are always whining about Obama but not once do you ever mention what Mittens plans are, maybe because he has no plans that he is willing to take a stand on. Gee got to love a candidate that says vote for me and you'll see my plans after. I'm sorry but I'm not buying that pig in a poke.
Chris, Obama also signed sweeping Banking Reform. Now Moody's has downgraded 15 US Banks. Great job Obama. Maybe he can find the CEO's jobs in his administration, they did for their Banks what Obama is doing for our entire Country.
And what is Mittens going to do ez? Who knows he won't say in fact the only thing he says is vote for me and find out.
Whom, Sounds like a Democrat doesn't he, "We have to pass the Bill to see what is in it". We already know what Obama wants to do and what he has or hasn't done. Romney could only de better.
Really ez you have to stop projecting republican traits onto democrats. What is wrong with your critical thinking skills when you can't understand that no one is like you tea bagged republicans, going through life incapable of change is not going to work in a world that is in constant change. You can not go back to the past you can only move forwards no matter what Fox news and the GOP tell you they can not bring back the 1950's.
What will happen if Obama wins again? Depends on the GOP, and the outcome of the 2012 elections. If the GOP remains the majority in the Senate, there will be no appreciable change. The war declared on January 20, 2009 against President Obama and the people of the USA, will be sustained. The GOP does not care one whit about our country or its people. They care about their racist, power-mongering selves.
If the GOP loses their majority, things will likely radically change. We will probably see significant positive change in legislation for the greater good. The Democratic Party, and independents, will likely band together to finally disinfect Washington, D.C. of the filth and stench that has carried over from the Bush-Cheney Regime
The war on Obama was declared on November 5th, 2008. Mike Pence sent him a letter saying, "If you think this changes anything, forget it."
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had released several changes to the STOCK Act earlier this week that broadened the bill’s disclosure requirements and insider-trading ban to the executive branch and ensured that lawmakers convicted of a crime couldn’t collect their pensions.
It also puts in place tougher rules on public officials participating in initial public offerings.
But the bill also scrapped a provision that would have required so-called political intelligence firms to disclose their activities much like lobbyists already do – much to the dismay of Democrats who favored tougher rules on the industry.
The changes did not sit well with senators behind the provisions that Cantor ditched.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) earlier this week slammed the House for deleting his amendment targeting the political intelligence industry, which tracks action on Capitol Hill and then sells the information to investors. Instead, the House bill requires just a study of the industry’s activities within 12 months.
“It’s astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision,” Grassley said.
And Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who co-authored with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) an amendment to crack down on public corruption using a number of measures, said he was “deeply disappointed” his provision had disappeared from the House bill.
The two “no” votes Thursday were by Reps. John Campbell (R-Calif.) and Rob Woodall (R-Ga.)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72670.html
Whom, It is you Democrats that want to go back to the 1950's. Remember the cries for more Manufracturing jobs. Standing on an assimbly line putting lug nuts on a car as it passes by is as 1950's as it gets. And guess what, you are right, you can't go back. Those days are gone and gone for good.
Why not, It's been for sale for years. And I think you can get a discount if you buy them all together, instead of just one or two congresspeople or senators at a time.
I believe that this is called, in classical political history,
FASCISM
That is right.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
1 or Fas·cism: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
2: very harsh control or authority
Examples of FASCISM
Yes. Great post.
And don't forget the crucial distinguishing feature: a mixing or merging of corporate and political leadership. First George the Bush, now . . . Mitt Romney!
The richest one percent of Americans controlled 34.6% of the wealth in 2007 (Domhoff 2009). Senator Sanders just said that now this has been raised to about 40% of the national wealth by 2012. This type of wealth concentration will bring back the horrible bloody strikes of the 19th and 20th centuries. American middle class and working class people are being put into a hole in the ground that they can not work their way out of. Wealth inequality on this level means a downhill spiral for the middle class. Here are some statistics from an article that should get your attention. Here is an article by Mike Snyder, 2010, "The Middle Class in American is Radically Shrinking here are the Stats to Prove it", The Business Insider. This information was taken directly from U.S. Senator Bernie Sander's official Senate website.
The quote starts here with the statistics proving the middle class is in decline:
"Here are the statistics to prove it:
• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income."
Quote stops here: Please go to Senator Bernie Sanders website and subscribe to his newsletter to get more informed about wealth inequality. Do it today folks because the GOP is starting an oligarchy that will run our democracy into the ground.
83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
That's because very few people are willing to take on what little risk there is in owning stocks over a long period of time. They feel that investing in SS is playing it safe.
Most people don't want to take the risk of investing their retirement savings into stocks. They simply can't afford the risk. For the rich folks stocks are just a little game they play with some of the pocket change.
It's interesting that when a thread is about citizens united righties post off topic comments. It's impossible to rationally defend the citizens united ruling.
fore-what's more amazing is they went from trickle down is good to not being a 1%er is better....they didn't get to be a 1%er with trickle down and now they think citizens united is the new way.............still ain't gonna be a 1%er righties.................you don't belong to the club..........
What you liberls cannot understand is that everytime you come up with some hair-brain scheme to " be fair" or "help the little guy", you hurt the little guy and he falls further behind. See the community reinvestment act!
Except we have proven that it has been the Reagan legacy creating everything you are whining about. The Gop under Reagan put corporations before the people you just can't admit your GOP economics have been a failure since they came up with the ideal in 1890. Typical tea bagged republican blame everyone else for the GOP failures.
Perhaps Sen. Sanders can be bought, but I do not think every politician can be bought. Obama can't be bought, for example. Soros would never sell him.
That lie won't fly. So what is Mittens cabinet going to look like? Exxon Mobile in charge of the US energy commission. Or Bain running the department of the interior, who knows Mittens is just saying vote for me and find out.
I see Supidita, Panhead, Barney, Teas for everyone and all his other puppet dequises is back. BashOBAMa.....Breaking the rules and re-reging.
If these people are not stopped, they will not only run our democracy into the ground they will own us. You take a few people with several billion dollars each, they can buy their own army. This has happened all over the world. Government as we know it now will no longer exsist. No, I'm not drinking the kool-aid. Why else would they want to part with their hard earned job creating money. Their nothing but hatful greedy bastards.
I can only say GOD help your America!!!!
Okay, so BHO is god and Romney is the devil? PUH-LEEEEZE!!! You Ed Schultz minions may as well make up your minds Obama has had his chance to make good on his promises and he's failed to make any real progress. Time to step aside and give someone with real-world experience (not just nebulous experience) a chance to make things right.
Maybe he would have made more progress if your GOP "make Obama a one term President" do nothing congress had of wanted to help the country as well.
Obama Campaign needs to Quickly put the FEAR of God into voters of a Romney Presidency and the contrasted difference such a Republican Presidency would mean to them at the dinner table and a job. Too many voters will let distracting social issues cloud their rational judgement when they go into the voting booth otherwise. USE Fear...the Republicans do it and with much less cause.
Seeing your tie on Tuesday night Ed, I wanted to be able to get free from HIV?AIDS disability and return to work at AT&T, one of the worst down sizers, off shore, off load, etc. of work in the 1980 and 1990s, if I still had a job there after 25 years of service...my entire adult life.
We went from a 7.5 day 40 hr paid work week to working three jobs at one time and expected to get results...often just what management wanted to see in faulty results. There was a huge scandal between Arthur Anderson Accounting and AT&T upper management as to how to streamline productivity (and lay off workers) with huge kick backs to AT&T management from AA. Obviously they did this with several corporations before AA got caught in corruption, cut stock and ran with the money leaving corporations and their employees in a financial swamp.
Thanks for all you do. GREAT Tie.
James Evans
Tucson, AZ
imwolfman --Of course, Obama was stymied from day one by the party of NO when they decided that they would make Obama a one term president. If they had cooperated by compromising at least 50% of the time, then at least more things would've been behind us. The republican party has failed this country by their belligerent tactics.
No we want you tea bagged republicans to leave like you should have left 200 years ago after all if you had your way the US would still be a British colony, bunch of traitorous leaches.
The right winged trolls offer zero solutions for America's problems that were caused by supply side economics. These apologists for the plutocrats want to set up an oligarchy where the top one percent rules everything. We will lose our democracy if we do not start taxing the top one percent at a higher rate. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has said in a 2010 report that the Bush tax cuts and the two wars paid both paid for by borrowing helped cause the trillion dollar deficits we are now facing. The recession of 2008 can also be laid squarely at the feet of the Republicans for pushing for the deregulation of the Glass-Steagall act of 1932 with the 1999 Graham-Leach-Bliley Act. This allowed Wall Street investment banks to make horrendous gambles with the derivatives market causing the mortgage backed securities fiasco leading directly to the 2008 Great Recession. The Federal Reserve and the Federal Government took about $9 trillion in various types of financial bailouts to keep the American financial system from melting down. So when the GOP talks about deregulation just remember its the middle class that has to pay for their bailout bills.
Bernie Bernie Bernie, ya can't use words like plutocracy or oligarchy. ya might cause Boehner to start crying again and that mandate stuff would make the whole GOP start crying.....ya know how they are about mandates............
Right says the guy who votes to give the Koch brothers more corporate welfare then whines when the Koch brothers over pays him at 5 cents a word he thinks he is entitled to more after all thinking of new names to re reg under is hard work for him.
BHO. There you go with your "socialist" BS again and again not one damn example to back up your accusation. And we're suppose to take you serious? Don't think so.
Re-reg, BHO......is golfing less than bush and he brought the boys out of Iraq and killed OBL. But you think you are cool. Barack is so much cooler!!!!!!!
TM yep he gave himself away like normal, its like he believes he is thumbing his nose at the mods.
The alleged "poor" are sucking this country dry not the rich!!
"On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an "unconditional war on poverty in America." At the time, the poverty rate in America was around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing. Between then and now, the federal government spent roughly $12 trillion fighting poverty, and state and local governments added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a decade. Clearly, we have been doing something wrong."
http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/american-welfare-state-how-we-spend-nearly-$1-trillion-year-fighting-poverty-fail
The republicans sure have you duped. Even though wealth continues to go to the very wealthy with less going to the rest of us you still blame the impoverished. You're what I call a lost cause.
yep been doin something wrong..............at least there's an admission of sorts........
Fore
Is there anything in that Cato article that is inaccurate?
The Cato article -
Like I said, the wealthy are getting wealthier and more middle-class folks are slipping into poverty. The division of wealth in this country is out of control.
The right argues against its own best interest.
The NRA is destroying America along with the billionaires!
I loathe the NRA...........I score them an F-
Big deal, unions have been spending millions on political campaigns for years. I don't see any difference.
Well that is because you close your eyes whenever you don't want to see what the GOP does that way you can live your life in denial.
Meanwhile, GE CEO Jeffery "the Job Czar to President Obama" Immelt takes 165 million dollars in tax payer funded stimulus and bailout, ships and OUTSOURCES jobs to China and India while shutting down domestic plants and slashing the wages of those remaining by 35-50 percent.
Well give credit where credit is due after all it was the GOP that insisted those tax loop holes were put into the tax codes so corporations could take advantage of them that is why corporations hire teams of tax lawyers to find those loop hole gifts from the GOP. Gee just can't grasp how business works can you. What you think because GE sponsors MSNBC that somehow they won't use the GOP gifts given to them. Really are you that naive. Or do you think because GE owns MSNBC that they are democrats boy no wonder the GOP likes people like you, so easy to pull your strings to get you to whine about the evil things the GOP does then fools you into looking everywhere except the GOP for the problems they tell you is happening. BTW what is Mittens position on this? Oh yeah thats right he has no position you have to put him into office to find out what his position is.
whom
When a corporation makes a profit some of it goes into building up the business and some goes to the shareholder that pays taxes on that profit.
If you were a shareholder you'd understand how it works. Give it a whirl..become a capitalist..it's really a lot of fun. Like Mark Knopfler said..."Money for Nothin'"
whom- exactly what GOP tax "loopholes" are you talking about- loopholes is a talking point with no substance- a specific reference to the IRC would be helpful in understanding the point you are trying to make-
Wrong again 54. Just because you don't have access to those loop holes nor can you use them doesn't mean they do not exist. You righties whine about GE getting a rebate back while paying 0 taxes, there was a law that allowed small business to take tax credits for research after the GOP got done with that law GE was able to write off their research because their lawyers found that the way the law was worded GE could take advantage of that and write off their research costs. Why do you think corporations have teams of tax lawyers who do nothing but find tax credits meant for small businesses that they can use for big corporations. Really 54 if you took the time to research tax Loop holes you would find out how the tax code has been manipulated by law makers to put such tax loop holes into the tax code.
What I would like to know 54 is just how come you deny tax loop holes when both sides talk about them an have been for as long as I can remember. You ask any liberal or left leaning person on this blog and everyone of them can tell you that tax loop holes are a fact, yet you act like this is the first time you ever heard of them. Did you forget that Obama wanted to end a tax loop hole that let the wealthy write off their expenses for buying private jets? The GOP stopped that dead.
Whom. Notice how much of that corporate "profit" has built up the business? IF that were the case, wouldn't they need to hire someone? OH crap, screwed that one up. They do hire people. Just not in the USA.
whom
The reason corporation and individuals have tax lawyers is because the tax laws are so complicated. Why are they complicated? Because tax lawyers contribute billions to Democrat politicians to keep the tax law complicated.
Here's my tax plan....send the IRS 10% of your income...period.
btw "Tax loopholes" is a term that's used in most big city ghettos as an excuse for the plight of the alleged poor. It's easy to blame "tax loopholes" for one's own failures.
http://www.politicususa.com/gop.html
Well now.
So although the deal is done in terms of the Republican party's 2012 chosen
one, the jury appears to be out as to whether the establishment is going to come
together behind Romney. Take this Associated Press headline from early May: "GOP
Leaders Start to Rally Around Romney (Sort Of)." The article goes on to say
"Republican party leaders are starting to rally around Mitt Romney, but it's not
exactly a stampede of support for the expected GOP presidential nominee."
I find all of this back door mumbling highly encouraging. There's no arguing
that the economy remains in dire straits and Obama's second term requires more
of a "take no prisoners" approach than has been the norm of the last four years.
However, more than a slice of conventional wisdom suggests that this is finally
the year the Tea Party-hijacked GOP gets taken to the shed. If some of the
biggest Republican names are unable to publicly condone Romney's candidacy, why
should the mainstream voter be any different?
So if these people who are putting their money behind this puppet candidate all want something. Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmm what might it be. It certainly is to do anything for this country.....may be to fill up their already overflowing bank accounts? So they can have more, while we have to give up our freedom?
whom you and I may not be that different on this issue- my challenge was in effect your assertion that all loopholes are derived from the GOP and further by implication all loopholes are evil- first (and still not sure what you mean by a loophole) specific tax provisions that permit for example corporations to deduct certain kinds of expenses or provide for enhanced deprecation or amortization exits as a result of both parties and typically at the insertion of a specific representative or senator with little or no debate-
second- tax loopholes can and do serve a valuable function (although I suspect it is in the eye of the beholder) - to the extent that in some instances they change behavior- for example I believe currently there is a tax credit (which I assume we would all agree is a tax loophole) for hiring a military veteran.
with respect to the expense/depreciation of jet aircraft- a jet is no different then any other equipment purchased by any business- and the tax code permits that business to depreciate over time the cost- depreciation is a line item which reduces income and therefore would reduce the amount of income subject to tax- I do not think it is good tax policy to go through and pick and choose what equipment can be depreciated - more to the point the aircraft thing did not set well with President Obama's favorite billionaire- W. Buffet and as I recall the Obama administration did not really push that concept-
REX, WHOM AND ALSO CHRIS AND OTHERS ON HERE are absolute idiots. Money can not and does not buy elections. People vote. Have you people lost your minds over freedom of speech. You lefties love freedom of speech as long as it is your speech. You hate my freedom speech. You hypocrites.
Right then there is reality. Why don't you try living in it for once. Freedom of speech is not going around spewing 34 years of republican lies and not being called on it. You might have the right to say what you want but we have the right to tell you why you are wrong.
"republican lies" is another term used by those that can't measure up.
IT'S NOT ME , IT'S THE REPUBLICANS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL
Oh My, so many dust bunnies. We need to clean house.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/opinion/sunday/what-sheldon-adelson-wants.html?_r=2
What Sheldon Adelson Wants
No American is dedicating as much of his money to defeat President Obama as Sheldon Adelson, the casino magnate who also happens to have made more money in the last three years than any other American. He is the perfect illustration of the squalid state of political money, spending sums greater than any political donation in history to advance his personal, ideological and financial agenda, which is wildly at odds with the nation’s needsPublished: June 23, 2012
Mr. Adelson spent $20 million to prop up Newt Gingrich’s failed candidacy for the Republican nomination. Now, he has given $10 million to a Mitt Romney super PAC, and has pledged at least $10 million to Crossroads GPS, the advocacy group founded by Karl Rove that is running attack ads against Mr. Obama and other Democrats. Another $10 million will probably go to a similar group founded by the Koch brothers, and $10 million more to Republican Congressional super PACs.
That’s $60 million we know of (other huge donations may be secret), and it may be only a down payment. Mr. Adelson has made it clear he will fully exploit the anything-goes world created by the federal courts to donate a “limitless” portion of his $25 billion fortune to defeat the president and as many Democrats as he can take down.
One man cannot spend enough to ensure the election of an unpopular candidate, as Mr. Gingrich’s collapse showed, but he can buy enough ads to help push a candidate over the top in a close race like this year’s. Given that Mr. Romney was not his first choice, why is Mr. Adelson writing these huge checks?
The first answer is clearly his disgust for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, supported by President Obama and most Israelis. He considers a Palestinian state “a steppingstone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people,” and has called the Palestinian prime minister a terrorist. He is even further to the right than the main pro-Israeli lobbying group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which he broke with in 2007 when it supported economic aid to the Palestinians.
Mr. Romney is only slightly better, saying the Israelis want a two-state solution but the Palestinians do not, accusing them of wanting to eliminate Israel. The eight-figure checks are not paying for a more enlightened answer.
Mr. Adelson’s other overriding interest is his own wallet. He rails against the president’s “socialist-style economy” and redistribution of wealth, but what he really fears is Mr. Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on companies like his that make a huge amount of money overseas. Ninety percent of the earnings of his company, the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, come from hotel and casino properties in Singapore and Macau. (The latter is located, by the way, in China, a socialist country the last time we checked.)
Because of the lower tax rate in those countries (currently zero in Macau), the company now has a United States corporate tax rate of 9.8 percent, compared with the statutory rate of 35 percent. President Obama has repeatedly proposed ending the deductions and credits that allow corporations like Las Vegas Sands to shelter billions in income overseas, but has been blocked by Republicans.
Mr. Obama’s Justice Department is also investigating whether Mr. Adelson’s Macau operations violated the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, an inquiry that Mr. Adelson undoubtedly hopes will go away in a Romney administration. For such a man, at a time when there are no legal or moral limits to the purchase of influence, spending tens of millions is a pittance to elect Republicans who promise to keep his billions intact
Dave
Rex says you're a typical moron. He must have found out you have a job. In Liberaland only morons are self reliant.
Dave: You are typical moron who believes that the Citizen United case has no impact on our electoral system. What corporate money does is it allows access to policy makers that ordinary working class citizens are denied. Harold Hamm has given large sums to the Super-PAC's that support Mitt Romney. Harold Hamm got to testify in front of a House committee on energy pushing them to keep the $4 billion in tax subsidies for oil and gas companies. Harold Hamm is an Oklahoman oil man who drills out in the Bakken oil basin in western North Dakota. Now, Harold Hamm sits on the Romney campaign as an energy adviser. Will Harold Hamm want to see more solar, wind, geothermal, coal gasification and CO2 sequestration, or biomass fuels developed? Will Harold Hamm push for ICE bullet trains, like the Germans have? Guess what? Harold Hamm is going to push for more oil and gas drilling including more "fracking" that uses 2.5 million gallons of water per well. We are not even sure that fracking is safe for the environment. Ever been to western North Dakota? I have many, many, many times and the most precious thing in arid western North Dakota is fresh water. Fresh water is a limited precious resource in arid western North Dakota. Limited drilling is all that should be done in western North Dakota. America needs 55 MPG turbo-diesel cars, mass transit buses, and bullet trains like the German ICE (Inner Cities Express) and a coherent national energy program that gets America totally off of imported OPEC oil by huge array of green energy initiatives including biomass and IGCC power plants with CO2 sequestration.
Once the natural gas fever has broken and all the fast money is in Harold Hamm's pocket guess who will get to clean up his pollution and filth? The taxpayers of North Dakota will pay for his clean up because Harold Hamm will have bankruptcy attorneys working through a contractor so he is liable for nothing. This is the way oligarchies work: the rich get richer and the working class and shrinking middle classes get to pay for the bills to clean Mr. Hamm's filthy, fracking, mess that will contaminate ground water for generations meaning ranching and livestock and people will also pay an awful price for Mr. Hamm's quick money gains. But this is the way the United States works: the oligarchs that run the corporations get to make all the money and we the people who pay the taxes and fight the wars get their bills and bailout costs when they screw up and lose. Go read about the Summittville mine disaster in Colorado to see how the "public always pays for the polluter" when the polluter goes bankrupt. Oligarchs rig the laws and the loopholes in the system so we the people always get stuck for their bills.
Corporations can now outspend normal contributors because corporations have almost unlimited resources to spend. When someone gets outspent $7 to $1 in an election I don't care who they are they have a tremendous advantage of super-saturating the media with their negative attacks. The outspent candidate is at a terrible disadvantage because it gets nearly impossible to get their message out. In large part Walker won in Wisconsin because of the huge amount of money he raised from corporate oligarchs. The plutocrats want to tear America down rather than build it up.
this whole argument assumes that the average American voter is an idiot and is incapable of making an informed decision and that American voter's whole decision process will be determined by negative ads- you all may think that American voters in general are idiots- but I do not- I have yet to see any empirical data that would even remotely support the concept that if one candidate spends 6 times as much as the other candidate- than that candidate will win- where is the correlation- let alone any cause and effect- even assuming there is some correlation- where is the tipping point- 3 to 1- , 4 to 1, 5-1 or what.
The reality is that x % of voters will vote for President Obama and y% for Rommey (unfortunately there is not option to voter for "other")- the election will be decided by the difference.
If you are a regular Fox news viewer then in all likely hood you are one of the most misinformed people in the united states.
Rex...
How is that $200 a barrel oil working out? I hope you bought a bunch of futures at$150 so you could make a huge profit...
just saying...
I read that fox news viewers scored 4 points lower than people who only watch the Daily Show on their knowledge of what's going on in the world. The Daily Show is a comedy show for gods sake! But then so is Fox news.
Rex you words are like water going though Stomy's sieve!
Slack...
The left is always innocent, haven't you learned that yet from out esteemed colleagues on this board. They have never done anything wrong...
just saying...
You people still do not get it. it don't matter about money. anybody can donate any amount what is wrong with that. That is why we have separate bodies so there are checks and balances. if it were not for the republicans in congress Obama could ram his socialist policies through. So all the money he spent in 2008 to, as you people call it " to steal the election" is bogus as it is today. You are just mad at nothing and your getting beat at your own game.
Rex, I could not disagree more. I am not an Idiot you may not be, but no amount of money spent on an election could sway me one way or the other. Probably not you either. So why do you think all the other Amercians that vote are Idiots. Your argurment doesn't hold up. It is against the law.
And Rex just an FYI..........green energy is a myth and will never happen in our lifetime, so you better love your gas and oil and quit dreaming in a world of make believe.
So wrong you are renewable energy has BIG OIL shaking in it boots! Read it and weep!
A New Leaf: New Catalyst Boosts Artificial Photosynthesis as a Solar Alternative to Fossil Fuel
Scientists have found a single catalyst for artificial photosynthesis that could create storable solar energy in a liquid or gaseous form for use in transportation or electric power generation. But can the fuel be made efficiently?
By Charles Q. Choi | June 13, 2012 | 10
Alternative Energy and the Future of Our Fuels Novel fuels, "green" sources and new technologies will enable us to get around in more environmentally friendly ways » June 11, 2012
RUTHENIUM CRYSTALS: Two separate groups of researchers working on two separate parts of the photosynthetic reaction happened to be using the same class of catalyst--ones with an atom of the metal ruthenium (seen here) surrounded by organic molecules. Image: Courtesy of Periodictableru, via Wikimedia Commons
Supplemental Material
Sunlight can provide more than enough energy to meet our needs—in theory. In practice, the skies are sometimes covered with clouds—and whether fair or overcast, the sun daily disappears behind the horizon. To get around these limitations, scientists have worked for years on new ways of converting sunlight into chemical energy, artificial forms of photosynthesis that would store solar energy in liquid or gaseous form—a "solar fuel." For years, they have sought a chemical catalyst that can perform this complex feat of chemical processing. Now some researchers think they may have found it.
Thomas Meyer came upon the solution almost by accident. Meyer, a chemist at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and director of its Energy Frontier Research Center in Solar Fuels, noticed that two separate groups of researchers working on two separate parts of the photosynthetic reaction happened to be using the same class of catalyst—ones with an atom of the metal ruthenium surrounded by organic molecules. One group used this type of catalyst to split water into hydrogen and oxygen; the other one was splitting carbon dioxide into carbon monoxide and oxygen. "Finding a single catalyst that does both was a big surprise," Meyer says.
By combining the two steps and using the same catalyst, Meyer realized that they could reproduce photosynthesis in its entirety. Whereas natural photosynthesis, after multiple reactions, converts water, carbon dioxide and sunlight into oxygen and energy-rich fuels such as sugar, Meyer's version converts water and carbon dioxide into oxygen, hydrogen and carbon monoxide—and the latter can be combined with hydrogen to eventually make a fuel such as methanol.
These findings suggest that it may be feasible to take carbon emitted from, say, a coal plant and use it to make a liquid fuel such as methanol that replaces or supplements fossil fuels for transportation or electricity generation. How would it work? Carbon dioxide-laden water from a fossil-fuel plant would pass across ruthenium catalyst membranes, which would trigger artificial photosynthesis, breaking it down into oxygen as well as constituents that can be converted to fuel. Electrical energy to drive the catalytic reaction would come from solar-power cells—although eventually researchers might be able to modify the catalyst to absorb sunlight directly. "That really would make it like photosynthesis," Meyer says. He and his colleagues detailed their findings online June 4 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The work is "a very interesting result from the point of view of fundamental science," says Princeton University chemist Andrew Bocarsly, who did not take part in this research. "It could be a dramatic simplification of a natural system, which could be very useful from a pragmatic point of view." (Bocarsly is working on ways of splitting carbon dioxide to create carbon monoxide, which can then be used to manufacture methanol and other fuels. Massachusetts Institute of Technology chemist Dan Nocera is developing cobalt-based catalysts that split water.)
Meyer's finding, however, needs further development before it is ready for commercial-scale use. For instance, Meyer's ruthenium catalyst is not very energy efficient when it comes to splitting carbon dioxide. It requires 1.65 volts to drive the reaction. By contrast, Bocarsly's system can turn carbon dioxide into methanol, "an arguably much more useful molecule, with 0.2 volts." Meyer acknowledges this drawback, and he's working on improving the process so that it works faster and needs less voltage. "We're continuing the process of iteration to make things better," he says.
Nevertheless, Meyer's experiment with the ruthenium catalyst, the first to do photosynthesis in its entirety, is a potentially big practical breakthrough.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=artificial-photosynthesis-fuel-alternative
Dave: You are picking the wrong guy to argue with because I can out argue you. You are obviously a conservative. Money in politics buys access to policy makers who return give those donors favors in the form of deregulation, tax cuts, and government subsidies and government contracts. These are not opinions just look at the NRA today scoring the vote on the contempt of Congress vote for Mr. Holder. The NRA gives lots of money to candidates opponents who support gun control. If money was not important to election outcomes, how come Karl Rove courts billionaires and multimillionaires to give money to his Super-PAC American Crossroads? Give me a seven to one advantage in money in a political campaign and I can make an American hero look like the worst kind of criminal or lunatic by smearing their name endlessly with a river of lies that he is can not fight back against. These negative ads to influence voters choices. So say what you want the facts are on the side of public financing and keeping corporate special interest money out of the system. Montana was owned in the 19th and early 20th centuries by mining interests where corruption, bribery, and kickbacks were the order of the day. So in 1912 they made corporate donations illegal for state elections in Montana. I guess state's rights don't mean anything to conservatives when it restricts corporations from spreading their filth by corrupting Montana's electoral system.
What happens if a Congressman votes against a special interest, say the oil and gas industry because they are screwing his state by overcharging consumers or leaving them an environmental disaster to clean up? The oil and gas lobby can go back to that Congressman's district and immediately drop say, two million dollars worth of negative advertisements directed against him? Will that Congressman think twice about voting against the oil and gas industry despite the fact that the voters in his home district are being ripped off by them? The Citizen's United decision and the recent overturning of the Montana case by the Supreme Court is a disastrous outcome for our democracy. America has become a plutocracy run by corporate special interests who are just like the Mafia gangsters. Its exactly like our Supreme Court under Justice Roberts reincarnated Al Capone and made him in charge of our government. This is what the Supreme Court has done for America: made it a plutocratic state run by corporate mafia bullies.
Mr Hamm donated huge vast sums of dollars and will probably donate many millions of dollars more to Super-PACs that support conservative causes. Mitt Romney as president will do what Mr. Hamm tells him to do when it comes to energy policy. Romney won't listen to working stiffs like me because I do not have millions of dollars to send Mr. Romney's Super-PACS. While political scientists never really argue that a certain amount of money guarantees victory it certainly helps influence the outcome. When corporations can give unlimited funds to elections from the country courthouse, to the statehouse, to the White House and Congress it seriously erodes our democracy. Corporations can out raise unions many times over so spare me the rubbish about union money. Unions are only about 11% of the work force so corporations have all the advantages. Sorry, money is power in any system. The GOP is run by corporate special interests who are becoming the new Mafia oligarchy. Our democracy is dying in front of our very eyes because the Montana law was an excellent law that worked well for over 100 years. We have a radical right winged activist Supreme Court.
We need public financing in our electoral system. We are approaching the bad old days when the corporate trusts in the 19th and early 20th centuries owned everything the way they wanted. If we do not stop this the GOP will undermine the New Deal. Democrats are mobilizing and going to fight to the end of the earth. The plutocrats will not take over our democracy period. When I served on active duty for 20 years I always felt like I served with the best America had to offer. People concentrated on getting the mission accomplished so deployed soldiers could accomplish their mission and return home to their families. The radical Tea Party conservatives represents the worst that America has to offer by their selfishness, ignorance, and demanding tax cuts during a time of two wars. President Eisenhower would puke in shame of the modern GOP today because conservatives want to tear the country down.
Dave: This is a reprint of another conservative who was in denial about peak world oil production. Flat earth conservatives don't like facts, science, and information. The oil geologists are the ones talking about peak world oil. Go read Thomas Friedman's book "Hot, Flat, and Crowded" where he maintains that the countries that invest in green technology will hold significant advantages in the 21st century global economy dominated by industrializing Asia. Also you need to look at what the state of Iowa has done with wind energy. Iowa is getting about 20% of its electricity from wind and its helped keep electricity rates down low.
You seem to think you can arrogantly wish away the global economy where the BRIC's and the Asian-Pacific rim countries will be producing more than 200 million cars in the coming decades. Rising oil demand from the BRIC's and the Asian-Pacific rim countries is an absolute fact. You need to go to the library and read about the amount of industrialization that is going on in all of these countries. Don't bother telling me about the recession either in these countries because its temporary. I am talking about long term trends for conventional oil. Forget about tar sands and oil shale because that is a whole different discussion that can fill a book.
Peak oil is a reality. Professor Kenneth S. Deffeyes, wrote a book "Beyond Oil". He has 50 years as an oil geologist, uses Professor Hubbert's statistical analysis methods that accurately predicted U.S. peak oil production in 1970 and peak oil production in the Former Soviet Union back in the 1980's. Hubbert predicted peak world oil in the fall of 2005. Perhaps he may or may not be a few years off but essentially, no oil man of real significance or oil geologists argue about peak world oil just when it will happen. Old oil men like T. Boone Picken's don't believe that we will be able to produce more than 85 million barrels per day when demand goes up. Peak oil means that we won't run out of oil tomorrow, but we won't be able to produce 90 million barrels per day when we want. Generally, people have tried to dispute Hubbert's bell shaped oil curve analysis and have failed to do so. About 80% of the world's oil comes from oil fields found before 1973. This fact despite tens of billions spend on drilling technologies. More cost inputs for drilling but less return and finds of new oil as old fields dry up. Here are some facts for you to ponder:
1. Out of 54 oil producing countries in the world 40 of those countries have long since reached peak oil production. Peak production has occurred despite increasing investments in technology for drilling including hydraulic fracturing. Officials in the other 14 oil producing countries are saying they don't think that more oil can be produced at current levels let alone produced at increased levels (Truecost blog website, "Is Peak oil real? A list of countries past peak", 2009).
2. The International Energy Agency has said that the age of cheap conventional oil is over with. We are entering a brave new world where demand for oil outstrips supply. The World Energy Outlook 2010, by the International Energy Agency concluded that peak world oil happened in 2006. Some argue that is will happen before 2020. The variable estimates come from OPEC countries that keep their oil reserves secret. Saudi Arabia is believed to have already reach peak production many years ago. The International Energy Agency is made up of experts such as petroleum engineers whose business it to apply the best science to these questions. Currently conventional sources of oil is at 85 million barrels per day. Many experts expect this level of production to start falling off soon, especially after the world recession ends.
3. The International Energy Agency also concluded that unconventional sources of oil production (tar sands, oil shale) are increasingly going to have to make up the difference. This statement is an extremely dubious proposition and almost widely optimistic scenario. Future projections anticipate 96 million barrels per day of demand. Unconventional sources of oil will have to meet the demand in coming years will have to make up more demand for oil as the 85 million barrels of conventional crude oil drops off steadily. Unconventional source of oil such as tar sands and oil shale have huge environmental challenges. Huge amounts of fresh water are consumed in these processes. Arid places like Colorado, have no extra fresh water to waste because they are short fresh water for people, food production and livestock. Alberta has massive issues with toxic waste from its tar sands production. Birds, wildlife die from polluted waters. People are thought to get cancer. Also tar sands oil is very acidic and corrodes steel in oil pipelines causing horrible oil spills that are hard to clean up.
4. Hydraulic fracturing has at best a limited future. Hydraulic fracturing will consume about 2.5 million gallons of water for one well. Pollution and the question of toxicity aside, the supply of water is a very serious question. How sustainable is hydraulic fracturing when it is reported that after a few years of fracturing the oil well starts to dry up dramatically so new wells have to constantly be drilled. Regulations and lawsuits are expected that will slow or diminish the fever of "fracking".
I lived in Europe for four years while in the military. I also traveled widely and read volumes of information. I road on their train system everywhere and it was wonderful. You could get on a fast moving British train and get wherever you wished to go. The buses were excellent too. The British also live in row houses with small yards in front and back. The British have nice parks everywhere for families and the public to walk in. You will see French TGV bullet trains, lots of mass transit, and Americans driving small turbo-diesel cars that get 50 MPG soon right here in North America. Peak world oil production is probably already past and Hubbert will be proven right. Oil geologists are already arguing about what can be done to make up for the decline in oil production. The age of cheap oil is gone forever and so is the American love affair with the SUV and four wheel drive pick up trucks. The Ford Fusion 1.0 liter three cylinder turbocharged engine is a model of America's future as is the French TGV bullet train and the commuter bus. The American energy future can be found in Europe because the Europeans have been dealing with this energy problem for many decades because Europe has little oil. Welcome to the 21st century global economy.
Dave: Come on let's see you prove Professor Hubbert wrong about world peak oil. Skeptics have been trying for over 40 years to prove professor Hubbert wrong and can not do it. Here is an article that you can look at that further talks about peak world oil production.
by Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrare, "The End of Cheap Oil",
Scientific American, March 1998
Here is another source for you to look at to get fueled up on peak oil.
Paul Roberts, 2004, "The End of Cheap Oil, On the Edge of a Perilous New World", NY: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Indeed Rex your right on about oil/fossil fuels, we get all kinds of things from oil and we have seen what the Koch Brothers have done to try in VAIN to discredit science the truth. But the game is over. Its like trekking across the dessert with only enough water to get you half way before you run out! Its suicide for sure. We must make the transition before we run out. We got along without oil at one time believe it or not and we will again. And those who refuse to plan for the future, are planning to fail!
Stormguy: Remember back in 2008 oil spiked up to $148 per barrel with about a 2% shortage on the world market. Energy prices certainly exacerbated the 2008 recession along with the real estate crash and financial crisis. I am talking years down the rode when I talk about these topics, not tomorrow morning. Peak world oil production does not mean we run out of oil tomorrow it just means that prices will go up so high in the coming years and decades that oil becomes so expensive that it become irrelevant because no one can buy it any more. Someday peak world oil production and demand for oil from the Asian-Pacific Rim countries and the BRIC's will drive up the price of oil inexorably. Let's say the oil men and the oil geologists are correct in their thinking that 85 million barrels of oil produced per day is all that we can get from conventional sources of oil. What happens when the world market demands 95 million barrels per day? Remember back in the 1970's a five percent shortage of oil on the global market caused oil prices to quadruple. If a major regional war between Iran and Israel take place we could see oil prices immediately spike up to $200 per barrel. Cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, sea mines, and terrorism would rapidly destroy oil infrastructure and disrupt supertanker shipping in the Persian Gulf. The U.S. military could eventually beat back an Iranian attack but it can do nothing to protect America from the high oil spikes analysts predict at $200 per barrel or higher.
I constantly point out that the U.S. Department of Defense is taking peak oil projections quite seriously. The cost of fuel for the DOD is huge. The promotion of solar, wind, and electric hybrid vehicles is being promoted aggressively by the Department of Defense for all the services including the Coast Guard and Guard and Reserve components. Bases in California and in the Southwestern U.S. are building and planning on building solar panels, wind farms, coal to liquid fuels for the Air Force and Navy, and other green energy projects. FT Hood has plans to build up solar panels. Warren Air Force Base Wyoming is building wind farms. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Sullivan of the U.S. Army, has pointed out in speeches that energy conservation and green energy are critical for our military readiness. F-15 Strike Eagles are engaged in an ongoing program for utilizing alternate fuels. The Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and now Leon Panetta both have endorsed aggressive measures to reduce the Department of Defense's oil and energy consumption.
Sources:
The Department of Defense Energy Blog, there are endless articles here about all the events, programs, and initiatives taken by the Department of Defense to save money and energy.
Go to the Department of Defense webpage and type in "DOD Sustainability" go listen to the Pentagon Channel video section. Go listen to General Sullivan talking about green energy and energy conservation systems so we can have more tooth and less logistical tail to our forces. General Sullivan said that in WW I the average soldier required one gallon of fuel per day to maintain himself, today keeping that soldier in the field requires 22 gallons of fuel per day. The average infantry platoon will use 400 lbs of batteries while out in the field on an operation.
I am a little bit surprised at how uninformed many civilians are about what the Department of Defense has been doing to save energy. These are huge programs worth many billions of dollars that will be spent regardless of who gets elected to Congress or the White House. The Army does not do things because of ideology. The U.S. Army and all the rest of the military services make decisions about resource allocation based on the best information from science, engineering, and the recommendations of economists, and military officers and reports from enlisted leaders based on combat or training experience. The military is a no B.S. organization when it comes to spending the taxpayers money. The military only spends money on green energy programs because it improves military readiness by helping reduce energy costs.
My argument is simple, the U.S. Army is taking a German or European type approach towards energy saving but fitting it into American culture. If the U.S. military is investing billions of dollars annually into green energy because of peak oil shouldn't the civilian sector be doing exactly the same? General Sullivan talks about fuel convoys being targets for enemy road side bombers in Iraq and Afghanistan. The amount of fuel saved by the military translates into lives saved if fewer fuel trucks get blown up we get lower casualties. Military officers who have to write letters home to families of the fallen or visit soldiers who are amputees in hospitals are taking green energy and energy conservation as duty for those who have sacrificed much for our country.
If you are a conservative what do you think now about green energy and peak world oil? It would be nice if conservatives would be as forward thinking as the U.S. military and start living in the 21st century global economy dominated by the Asian-Pacific and the BRIC countries. Facts are inconvenient things for flat earth conservatives don't you think? Maybe "flat earth" conservatives think they are smarter than General Sullivan Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? The problem is that the U.S. Army is about 20 years ahead of "flat earth" conservatives who are living in denial about the real world all around them. It also needs to be pointed out that the civilian cabinet level agencies are pushing energy conservation and green energy just like the military is and who is elected this November won't change any of it. In fact the race for green energy is going to do nothing but intensify and accelerate these coming years by the government. The BRIC countries and Asian-Pacific rim countries will give us no quarter on energy supplies in the 21st century global economy.
USDA suggests food stamp parties, games to increase participation
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/27/usda-suggests-food-stamp-parties-games-to-increase-participation/#ixzz1z2nogm6C
While spending on the food stamp program has increased 100 percent under President Barack Obama, the government continues to push more Americans to enroll in the welfare program.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has embraced entire promotional campaigns designed to encourage eligible Americans to participate in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.
A pamphlet currently posted at the USDA website encourages local SNAP offices to throw parties as one way to get potentially eligible seniors to enroll in the program.
“Throw a Great Party. Host social events where people mix and mingle,” the agency advises. “Make it fun by having activities, games, food, and entertainment, and provide information about SNAP. Putting SNAP information in a game format like BINGO, crossword puzzles, or even a ‘true/false’ quiz is fun and helps get your message across in a memorable way.”
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/27/usda-suggests-food-stamp-parties-games-to-increase-participation/#ixzz1z2nYsipQ