patrick.net

tts says

That was already addressed (ie. petitions) for the penniless.

What petitions? How can you gather millions of signatures without campaign donations? Campaign volunteers' time is legally considered political donation, and legally required to be reported at least at minimum wage per hour.

For accounting purposes sure but most of these people get paid nothing for their time and that has been true for decades.

There is hardly any difference between donating time vs. donating money. Time is money. Should the political coercive machine be run by people whose time is worth the least? or should a high productivity individual be allowed to donate hours in exchange for many more hours from someone else?

BTW, personally I consider donation cap a farce. People should be allowed to donate as much of their own time or money. Better yet, the government should just sell additional votes instead of taxation.

Of course, but then that is why we have a system in place to replace them if they get corrupted. Which is the best that you can reasonably do when you consider that everyone can get corrupted over time. However not everyone starts out that way.

It's not even close to being the best that one can reasonably expect. Elections come around once every 2 or 4 years, and most of bureaucracy is becoming more and more shielded from political elections. Contrast with that, people vote with their wallets and feet every minute of the day. That's why the corporations and their whorish bought-and-paid-for political agents want to limited people's choices: by introducing more and more regulations and taxes.

You refuse to consider it possible that any government regulator or official can do his or her job either competently or ethically and refuse to consider it possible to have a good government and in fact believe they're all evil and enslave people. If you believe this to be true there is nothing to talk about WRT government reform since its all pointless anyways or at least schizophrenic.

Power corrupts. It is impossible for anyone to stay competent, ethical and incorruptible for an entire career of decades. At least there are not nearly enough of them to fill the millions of bureaucratic positions in the sort of big government that you have in mind. Give me 10,000 examples of government bureaucrats and employees who are volunteering to cut his/her own pay and benefits in half to match the private sector income level, then we can start talking about clean bureaucrats; I'm only asking for less than 1 out of every 1000!

The truth is that every office holder needs to have food, clothes, shelter, transportation, medicine, education their kids, caring for their parents, keeping their spouse happy/content. Such very human needs combined with the coercive power in the hands are deadly combinations. When you can find enough saints and even Gods to fill the offices in a "big government" we can then start to talk about your ideal bureaucracy.

So what's YOUR solution to the bribes that got us into this mess?

tts says

It was the straw that broke the camel's back. There were ongoing problems with the Confederation since it was set up, mostly involving interstate trade and the economy in general. All of that was tied to the "strong state/weak federation" mindset of the Confederation. The Confederation would've been dissolved irregardless of the Rebellion at some point.

That's only according to the Hamiltonian imperial aspirants who wanted to build an American Empire in the mirror image of the British Empire. Why would a strong federal government even be necessary for conducting interstate trade/commerce at all? The drug trade seems to be thriving despite federal ban. In fact, the Prohibition experience proves that federal regulations on trade only result in chaos (when they tread heavily; and irrelevant when they don't).

OK so if gov. are all evil and enslave their people just some slightly less so then others then what is the point of even trying to pick one or another?

Choosing the lesser of two evils is all we can do as human beings living in real life.

What is with this fascination with a unsustainable brief period in time in a place that has known almost nothing but war and brutal poverty before and after? If for a second you are happy in a place that is at all other times hell would you call it heaven too?

So contrary to your earlier accusation that I somehow made it up, you now do agree that Somalia was actually doing better during the brief period when there was no national government in the 1990's, better than the country before or since. Well, that's an improvement. As for the "fascination," I'm not the one keep telling others to go to Somalia (which is not in anarchy now anyway, and is worse after having a government installed back in place, ironically).

So what's YOUR solution to the bribes that got us into this mess?

Reduce the concentration of power. Individuals, including the individuals seeking profit under the guises of corporations, unions (which are also incorporated entities) and governments, bribe/buy (corrupt) services only because they can see "return on investment." When the vast majority of the population refuse to see themselves and their neighbors and fellow men/women ordered around by such nexus of power, there won't be much "corrupt service/power" to buy. Power corrupts; if you want to reduce corruption, reduce power!

Reality says

Reduce the concentration of power.

How?

I say by publicly funded elections, so you don't have to be backed by big money (which is big power) to get into Congress.

Reality says

So contrary to your earlier accusation that I somehow made it up, you now do agree that Somalia was actually doing better during the brief period

No I don't. I only posted that to show how illogical and inconsistent your thinking is. Why don't you start posting some articles or something to back up what you're saying since as I noted before doing quick and dirty google's on early 90's and late 80's Somalia brings up all sorts of nasty pages on the civil war during that time period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia#Somalia.2C_1980-90
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War

Reality says

Choosing the lesser of two evils is all we can do as human beings living in real life.

Except you're building a narrative where choice is impossible if not an illusion altogether. After all if all gov's enslave and repress you have no choice at all. Unless you're going to start word bending definitions and such, which is total nonsense because words have meaning you know, there is no way your view makes any sense. Either internally or when it has to interact with the real world.

Reality says

That's only according to the Hamiltonian imperial aspirants who wanted to build an American Empire in the mirror image of the British Empire.

Which Alternate Earth are you from anyways? No one is going to take you seriously if post this stuff, least of all me.

Reality says

In other words, a state religion would work fine only if the priests were honest and saintly.

Nope. I'm assuming some are always corrupt, which you admit to be true yourself. No system of government will be perfect if for no other reasons than because it has people running it but "mostly works well" or even "good" is quite possible and indeed up until the last few decades was certainly true.

Reality says

A big corporation can only be one side of a trade/exchange;

Of course but they drive and focus the corruption in ways that handful of selfish senators or congressmen wouldn't. Usually they focus their bribery on perpetuating themselves and weakening their competitors as you're already noted. In time this makes them become more and more powerful. Eventually they can even suborn the state itself unless stopped. They are also not answerable to the electorate by voting and can and will influence the electorate outside of the political system.

tts says

Stop thinking in terms of "what's good for GM/Ford is what's good for the people of America."

I don't think this, not even vaugely. You're reading things into my posts that aren't there if you do.

Reality says

Consumers should have the right to choose with whom they want to do business

You say this and then support policies and ideologies which have time in and time out produce monopolies and oligopolies. The cognitive dissonance is stunning to behold here.

Reality says

What petitions?

I already mentioned a petition signed by a few hundred should be enough. And I already mentioned limiting the number of politicians able to run. This is pointless to talk about at all with you though right? Anything involving government regulators or officials automagically turns all people involved into porn watching jerks who steal from the public. Oh and all those governments will enslave and repress you too no matter what. The system of government matters not at all nor who runs it. Government= repression + slavery in your book.

You said that not me. The only political view consistent with this sort of thinking is anarchy so off to Somalia with you then, enjoy paradise or something.

How?

I say by publicly funded elections, so you don't have to be backed by big money (which is big power) to get into Congress.

On the contrary. "Public" funding would be enormous concentration of power. There is no such thing as an acting "public" that makes decision for himself. There are only individual bureaucrats acting in the name of "the public." Letting such individuals wield all the resources that can go into the election process is guaranteed to result in self-perpetuating dictatorship/dynasty like in North Korea.

There is nothing wrong with people spending their own money to make political expressions. Money does not buy victory per se and letting people waste their own money on elections is no worse than letting people waste money on yachts (creating jobs in different industries in which they themselves have no expertise). The only real problem with "big money" is having the Federal Reserve printing money and propagandizing itself and its associates.

You're very wrong, but very useful to the people who take away your freedom with their bribes, both the corporations and the unions. They should give you a bonus. Good luck with that.

Public funding of campaigns is the exact opposite of concentration of power. Public funding would allow anyone to get elected, even people like you. Right now, you have no chance, and that's how they like it. You even defend your own lack of power!

The rules just need to be short, clear, and very public. The top 10 signature-getters get the funding and get on the ballot. Done.

There is definitely something very wrong with letting billionaires and corporations spend far more money on political advertising than you can. Where is your lobbyist?

Funny that you don't like the Federal Reserve but you want to keep all their member banks in control over government. Do you really think anything will ever happen to the Federal Reserve under our current system of bribery?

Reality says

There is nothing wrong with people spending their own money to make political expressions.

There is if you're like the Koch Bros. and have billions to spend on a misinformation campaign and do lots of other scummy things that would reasonably land other people in prison.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-02/koch-brothers-flout-law-getting-richer-with-secret-iran-sales.html

When money is speech the rich rule.

tts says

Nope. I'm assuming some are always corrupt, which you admit to be true yourself. No system of government will be perfect if for no other reasons than because it has people running it but "mostly works well" or even "good" is quite possible and indeed up until the last few decades was certainly true.

You are kidding yourself if you think any system of government worked "mostly well" or even "good" until the last few decades. You are forgetting the massive scandals and wars to divert unfavorable attentions throughout history, including US history. People were sick of the politicians and political corruptions in the 60's, 30's, 20's, 1900's, `890's, 1870's, 1850's, 1830's, 1800's. Heck even George Washington quit because he was sick of the partisan squabbles between Hamilton and Jefferson.

Power corrupts. Monopolistic power breeds corruption. There is no way around it. That's why the founding fathers came up with "necessary evil" and "lesser evil" to describe the government that they have no choice but to put together. It's not a god-like benevolent being, but an evil, a necessary evil that is somewhat less evil than a more interventionist alternative.

Of course but they drive and focus the corruption in ways that handful of selfish senators or congressmen wouldn't. Usually they focus their bribery on perpetuating themselves and weakening their competitors as you're already noted. In time this makes them become more and more powerful. Eventually they can even suborn the state itself unless stopped. They are also not answerable to the electorate by voting and can and will influence the electorate outside of the political system.

Senators and Congressmen do not work in isolation. Politicians work in groups and cliques. They are far more nefarious than corporations that are routinely replaced by competition. In fact, most American industrial families are by the way side within a generation or two, except for those who parlayed their fortune into politics . . . then we political dynasties!

I already mentioned a petition signed by a few hundred should be enough. And I already mentioned limiting the number of politicians able to run.

How? How do you limit the number of candidates to only a handful when the office is for the POTUS or even governorship? Heck, if you are laying out millions of dollars on the buffet table as public campaign funding, what's to prevent hundreds and thousands of people signing up for any and all offices? Let me see, let the existing politicians' old boys network decide who can run who can not? Like I said, either you are so dumb as unable to see what's the equivalent of two moves ahead in a chess game, or you are intentionally advocating the monopolization of the political process by a few political family dynasties.

This is pointless to talk about at all with you though right? Anything involving government regulators or officials automagically turns all people involved into porn watching jerks who steal from the public.

That's exactly what monopolistic power / job security without competition does. Porn watching, or other past-time much less stressful than actual work, is precisely what people will do if they are not answered to consumers who are free to switch service providers. Do you really want to know how much work hours are spent on internet surfing? You are doing it yourself right now! My only saving grace is that I'm surfing on my own dime as I work for myself.

Oh and all those governments will enslave and repress you too no matter what. The system of government matters not at all nor who runs it. Government= repression + slavery in your book.

Which part of "Power corrupts; absolutely power corrupts absolutely" don't you understand? What happened to the founding fathers' warnings about the need for vigilance to keep a Republic? Apparently lost on you.

You say this and then support policies and ideologies which have time in and time out produce monopolies and oligopolies. The cognitive dissonance is stunning to behold here.

How? Almost every single monopoly in American history has been the result of government granted monopoly. Profit attracts competition, and new technology constantly come up with new ways of doing things that displaces out-sized economic rent positions.

You said that not me. The only political view consistent with this sort of thinking is anarchy so off to Somalia with you then, enjoy paradise or something.

You are the one who is obsessed with Somallia . . . and doing it yet again even now! Somalia is not in anarchy now; their living standards were actually improving faster under anarchy in the 1990's than under all the governments before or since. How ironic that you imperialist types keep bringing up Somalia.

The desire for smaller government does not necessarily mean advocacy for anarchy. As the consummate liberal George Orwell observed, government is the result of some people's desire to put the jackboot on someone else' face. In other words, people in a society collectively deserve the government that they get: it's their rapacious desire towards their neighbors that keep the rapacious government in place, usually to their own detriment.

tts says

There is if you're like the Koch Bros. and have billions to spend on a misinformation campaign and do lots of other scummy things that would reasonably land other people in prison.

When money is speech the rich rule.

Stop confusing expression with "doing." First Amendment right regarding freedom of expression was put in place in recognition of the fact that if the government were given the power to regulate expression, the rich and powerful are far more likely to wield that power against others than being regulated.

Reality says

Stop confusing expression with "doing." First Amendment right regarding freedom of expression was put in place in recognition of the fact that if the government were given the power to regulate expression, the rich and powerful are far more likely to wield that power against others than being regulated.

This doesn't even make any sense by itself much less in reply to what I posted. The rest of what you're saying is typical handwaving with nothing to back it up. When you start getting serious and back up what you're saying with facts and such I'll start replying to you again, until then enjoy shifting your goal posts around and arguing over the usage of "doing" or whatever.

You're very wrong, but very useful to the people who take away your freedom with their bribes, both the corporations and the unions. They should give you a bonus. Good luck with that.

Limiting government is about preventing it from taking freedom from anyone . . . ergo no point to bribe; government officials have no freedom-depriving power for sale.

Public funding of campaigns is the exact opposite of concentration of power. Public funding would allow anyone to get elected, even people like you. Right now, you have no chance, and that's how they like it. You even defend your own lack of power!

I have no desire to run for office: power corrupts. OTOH, if there's $10M public funding buffet table laid out for every candidate, I may consider throwing my hat in, to run on the platform that I would do absolutely nothing and let people enjoy their natural freedom for a few years. Now tell me, what's to prevent thousands if not millions of people doing likewise? How would "the public" come up with the money?

The rules just need to be short, clear, and very public. The top 10 signature-getters get the funding and get on the ballot. Done.

Still exhibiting your inability to see two moves ahead: in order to be among the top 10 signature-getters in the US (to run for POTUS) or even in a state (to run for governorship or senate) . . . chances are that to be on the ballot would require millions of signatures. How would the candidate do that without hiring people or accepting volunteers (whose time are political contributions)? With ban against private political contributions in place, no candidate can do either. Do you really want to make all campaigns for the higher offices about who can personally knock the most number of doors in a 2-6 year window?

There is definitely something very wrong with letting billionaires and corporations spend far more money on political advertising than you can. Where is your lobbyist?

Most billionaires are not electable, partly because they are billionaires, and they know it. How did Meg Whitman fare? Would Bill Gates have any chance whatsoever?

Where you can kneecap political corruption is not in limiting political speech (i.e. yet another government power that can be bought and paid for, and turned against you), but in limiting the power of government, so the politicians have less to sell to the doners.

Funny that you don't like the Federal Reserve but you want to keep all their member banks in control over government. Do you really think anything will ever happen to the Federal Reserve under our current system of bribery?

Yes, so long as people are allowed to make political donations to anti-FED candidates. If and when the government is the only one who can decide what kind of political expression is allowed and funded, the central bank would indeed be perpetrated (that is, until the whole "superstructure" goes down with it).

tts says

This doesn't even make any sense by itself much less in reply to what I posted. The rest of what you're saying is typical handwaving with nothing to back it up. When you start getting serious and back up what you're saying with facts and such I'll start replying to you again, until then enjoy shifting your goal posts around and arguing over the usage of "doing" or whatever.

You are the one who is handwaving in fantasy land . . . and being a shameless hypocrite on top of that.

You couldn't even keep track of what form of government Somalia has when repeatedly telling people to go there if they desire anarchy.

Please answer how you would restrict the length of candidate list under your public-funding scheme where no one is allowed to make political donations; i.e. any signature list would have to be what the candidate can personally collect (no time from others allowed, which would be just a form of political donation)

You still need to come up with the list of 10,000 government bureaucrats and employees who have volunteered to cut their own salaries and benefits in half to match the private sector income . . . that's less than 1 out 1000 government bureaucrats and public employees! If you can't even come with that, how can you possibly start making the selfless assumption about the same bureaucrats and public employees?

Stop surfing and get back to work. You are not likely to be self-employed. If you can enjoy less-stressful activities like surfing instead of working while during paid hours . . . it would only be humanitarian to have the understanding that other people, including bureaucrats and public employees, would do the same. Hiring more police and prison wardens to haul them into jail would just result in even more people surfing on public dime.

If all it took was money to win office then why didn't Perot win in '92?

Why didn't McMahon win in CT? She spent 50 million of her own money and lost against Blumental that spent only 2 million.

What about Scott Brown and how he won even though Coakley spent five times as much as he did?

I can see the money argument in the past..before the internet, before recorders that can skip commericals etc.

Advertising can actually turn people off after awhile and thus those people might not get in. Advertising as a concept does not exactly help. How many ads for Amazon.com broadcast on tv ? And yet it is one of the largest retailers on the planet.

Signatures to get on a ballot is fine but not all positions work like that. Even with public elections party structures of both major parties won't die off..even others (constitution, libertarian, green) won't either. If a position is apolitical that's fine but if more than a few run then naturally the parties will have more of an advantage. Local elections tend to not be as political as state and national. But outside of that it would be harder.

Patrick I know what you mean by banks. My checking was in a small one..which was bought by a national one which was bought by a international one. But there's a local one 1/16 of a mile down the street. Not all places sell out. My town had a retailer go under (Caldors it was a north east chain) walmart wanted to come in. The town offered that area..they wanted to be right by the highway..take it or leave it..walmart didn't open but there's enough of them around.

Most of major brick and mortal retail is dying due to the internet. Walmart hasn't significantly grown in the past ten years. There are Fjords that have less rocky patters than their stock price.

tts says

Yea that is corruption/incompetence. It certainly does happen but I think it'd be far less common if the regulators/officials weren't getting kick backs from these people.

I'm actually on a board and we don't get paid anything from the town or any company for that matter. Most don't, we're all volunteers. When contracts are made up usually the companies offer things such as free wifi for libraries, free tv's for schools etc. The issue I see is how long the contracts usually are (ten years). Cable has significant competition with satellite and now FIOS. it is mostly internet services that keep them afloat. AOL was huge 15 years ago because they could squeeze $20 a month from people ($240 a year) Comcast can do that at $50 ($600 a year)

Cable contracts can be odd. Verizon tried to buypass all local governments in Mass and said why don't you just give us a state license but they were turned down.

I should note that some of what is on cable is free. Free to air satellites have religious, non profit, educational and foreign programming. This hasn't been updated in a few months but most still should be there
http://www.ftalist.com/english.php If you see larger dishes (say 1m in diameter) in immigrant communities that's what these are.

I'd also add that there was an ability to have encrypted over the air tv (Chicago was filled with this in the late 70's to mid 80s)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ON-TV

Now there was a company that tried doing this more recently but they went under
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USDTV The sad part is that since the companies are now owning more content (comcast with nbc) it makes it a bit harder to negociate distribution.

If someone had some deep pockets they could rock the industry with some licensing. Over the air hdtv looks pretty good. Over the air pretty much can buypass cables contracts.

mdovell says

If all it took was money to win office then why didn't Perot win in '92?

He was doing great until he backed out and then tried to rejoin the race.

mdovell says

What about Scott Brown and how he won even though Coakley spent five times as much as he did?

Coakley screwed up her campaign and pumped huge amounts of cash into it towards the end but it was too late by that point.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/01/21/coakleys_failure_to_communicate/

mdovell says

I can see the money argument in the past..before the internet, before recorders that can skip commericals etc.

Most voters are low info. and easily swayed by image, tons of studies back this up time and again, its very depressing and I hate it but its true:

http://ts-si.org/politics/30787-candidate-appearance-most-likely-to-sway-low-info-voters

mdovell says

I'm actually on a board and we don't get paid anything from the town or any company for that matter.

OK how common is this because from what I've read this normally isn't the case.

mdovell says

Over the air hdtv looks pretty good.

It does but few stations seem to support it and the reception is limited to say the least.

Reality says

You are the one who is handwaving in fantasy land . . . and being a shameless hypocrite on top of that.

I've posted far more links and data to back up what I'm saying and you still haven't even tried to validate what you're saying about Somalia which still wouldn't even refute my point here:

"What is with this fascination with a unsustainable brief period in time in a place that has known almost nothing but war and brutal poverty before and after? If for a second you are happy in a place that is at all other times hell would you call it heaven too? "

You're not even willing to do some simple googleing and cut and pasting to back up what you're saying. Why in the world would anyone take you seriously?

Reality says

Stop surfing and get back to work. You are not likely to be self-employed.

Hahah nice ad hom again. I'm posting here during the day so I must be slacking off at work you suggest? I couldn't possibly be on an off day after doing my normal 3 12hr weekly shift. Nope, no one anywhere works 12hr shifts, which BTW is normally 3 days a week, sometimes 4 but that leaves 3-4 days off in a row.

Coakley did screw up...supposedly only 3% of her advertising was online..she tried to change it on the last few days but it was not enough.
Still she spent five times as much..just like McMahon spent 25x as much.tts says

OK how common is this because from what I've read this normally isn't the case.

Local governments where I am have various boards. Some are library trustees, others might be council on aging, disability commissions, school committee, anything related to bodies of water (ponds, lakes, rivers), recycling (we just got curbside) is also one. Terms are a few years.

There has been a trend also of community channels becoming quasi governmental. This can be a mixed bag. On one hand usually there is a fee charged to cable users that becomes donated to the budget of the channel but one could argue that independence might be a bit harder to control. Usually as long as there are disclaimers channels can get away with quite an amount on tv.

In all due respects the only real action is when contracts are ironed out. Here's a commission where that is going on right now
http://www.mhcrc.org/content.asp?n=ops&s=ops_publichearing They benefit a bit by that they bought out NBC and regulations are having them give a bit more back (lower high speed internet)

Some boards publish their minutes. This one seems to go back quite a bit
http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/Agendas.asp?CCBID=4

tts says

I've posted far more links and data to back up what I'm saying and you still haven't even tried to validate what you're saying about Somalia which still wouldn't even refute my point here:

"What is with this fascination with a unsustainable brief period in time in a place that has known almost nothing but war and brutal poverty before and after? If for a second you are happy in a place that is at all other times hell would you call it heaven too? "

You're not even willing to do some simple googleing and cut and pasting to back up what you're saying. Why in the world would anyone take you seriously?

What's there for me to invalidate? Read your own quoted text above, you are agreeing with me that Somalia was better during the period anarchy than the governments it had before or since. What's there for me to invalidate? If you really want a detailed analysis of Somalia from people know the realities on the ground in Somalia, here are three:

http://mises.org/daily/2066

http://mises.org/daily/2701

http://mises.org/daily/5418

Do I think Somalia, even in its anarchy period, was heaven? Not at all. It was however better than itself during the Siad Barr regime that was in power for decades immediately prior to the anarchy period and better than the civil war/invasion/piracy that is the current Somalia after outside powers tried and succeeded in imposing a central government there.

You are the one keep mistakenly assuming that somehow Somalia is still under anarchy now, which it is not.

Hahah nice ad hom again. I'm posting here during the day so I must be slacking off at work you suggest? I couldn't possibly be on an off day after doing my normal 3 12hr weekly shift. Nope, no one anywhere works 12hr shifts, which BTW is normally 3 days a week, sometimes 4 but that leaves 3-4 days off in a row.

Now you are just lying through your teeth to cover your track. What does that kind of hypothetical unusual schedule have to do with you? Absolutely nothing.

Still patiently waiting for your answers to the following:

(1) Please answer how you would restrict the length of candidate list under your public-funding scheme where no one is allowed to make political donations; i.e. any signature list would have to be what the candidate can personally collect (no time from others allowed, which would be just a form of political donation)

(2) You still need to come up with the list of 10,000 government bureaucrats and employees who have volunteered to cut their own salaries and benefits in half to match the private sector income . . . I'm asking for a list of less than 1 out 1000 government bureaucrats and public employees! If you can't even come with that, how can you possibly start making the selfless assumption about the same bureaucrats and public employees? an assumption that is of critical importance to make your bureaucratic regulatory state workable at all.

Crickets. . .

Reality says

What's there for me to invalidate? Read your own quoted text above, you are agreeing with me that Somalia was better during the period anarchy than the governments it had before or since.

Actually I'm not, I disputed that and post links a ways up the page WRT to the multiple back to back civil wars in Somalia in the late 80's and 90's up to the 2000's. But that is totally moot since even if there was brief period in time Somalia was a paradise or whatever it has since then descended into de facto anarchy.

Reality says

You are the one keep mistakenly assuming that somehow Somalia is still under anarchy now, which it is not.

There is a government but its a joke, everyone knows the country is a failed state, even worse off than Afghanistan or North Korea.

Reality says

Now you are just lying through your teeth to cover your track. What does that kind of hypothetical unusual schedule have to do with you? Absolutely nothing.

That is the exact shift I work. There is nothing hypothetical or unusual about it. Plenty of people work 12hr shifts and 3 days is the norm since if you go over that you have to get paid OT unless you're salary which I'm not. Good job calling me a liar without a shred of proof too BTW. Stay classy brosef!!

Reality says

(1) Please answer how you would restrict the length of candidate list under your public-funding scheme where no one is allowed to make political donations

A law would be passed saying no more than 30 candidates, which I've already said several times now IIRC.

Reality says

(2) You still need to come up with the list of 10,000 government bureaucrats and employees who have volunteered to cut their own salaries and benefits in half to match the private sector income

No I don't, you just randomly started saying this for no reason and it makes no sense at all in this discussion. Wages of public employees are a whole other subject. Its a complete non sequitor. Go beat down your own strawmen I'm not doing it for you.

Blah this is a waste of time. You can't even try to argue coherently and your links are a joke too.

TO THE IGNORE LIST WITH YOU *shazaam*

e: omg this thread is like half the length now so rooomy

mdovell says

In all due respects the only real action is when contracts are ironed out. Here's a commission where that is going on right now
http://www.mhcrc.org/content.asp?n=ops&s=ops_publichearing They benefit a bit by that they bought out NBC and regulations are having them give a bit more back (lower high speed internet)

Some boards publish their minutes. This one seems to go back quite a bit
http://www.ci.issaquah.wa.us/Agendas.asp?CCBID=4

Thanks for posting this. The meeting notes seem straight forward to read but there are a ton to read through. Feel like playing some games n' stuff right now but I'll try to slog through them over the next few days. Might be some interesting tid bits.

tts says

Actually I'm not, I disputed that and post links a ways up the page WRT to the multiple back to back civil wars in Somalia in the late 80's and 90's up to the 2000's. But that is totally moot since even if there was brief period in time Somalia was a paradise or whatever it has since then descended into de facto anarchy.

Then why the heck did you keep bringing up Somalia? The current chaos in Somalia is the result of outside powers trying to impose a government. The Somali experience actually showed that chaos is the result of overly interventionist government not anarchy per se, just like the gangs running some the streets of America (and entire cities in Mexico) due to drug wars and Prohibition. "De facto anarchy" is a nonsense description. There are de jure governments in all those cases, and their stupid policies and actions are the reasons for the chaos. Chaos and anarchy are two different concepts altogether.

There is a government but its a joke, everyone knows the country is a failed state, even worse off than Afghanistan or North Korea.

There was no state after the fall of Siad Barr regime until the UN/US tried to impose one. The population saw drastic improvement in standards of living after the fall of Siad Barre regime and before the re-imposition of central government.

That is the exact shift I work. There is nothing hypothetical or unusual about it. Plenty of people work 12hr shifts and 3 days is the norm since if you go over that you have to get paid OT unless you're salary which I'm not. Good job calling me a liar without a shred of proof too BTW. Stay classy brosef!!

Let's see you stop posting tomorrow, the day after tomorrow, and the day after that. LOL.

A law would be passed saying no more than 30 candidates, which I've already said several times now IIRC.

What kind of BS sense does that make? How do you decide which 30 make the cut and the remaining thousands getting cut off? Just pull 30 names out of your rear end? or should the names flow from the barrel of your gun?

No I don't, you just randomly started saying this for no reason and it makes no sense at all in this discussion. Wages of public employees are a whole other subject.

No it is not a whole other subject. If the bureaucrats feel that they are entitled to the out-sized pay despite their own wages and benefits being more than double that of the average worker in the private sector, they'd most likely feel entitled to use that "public" creditcard for their own lunches and shopping/vacation trips, which most social workers and government officials with "public" creditcards do! The next is only a small step to sell whatever other power they have for their own benefits.

If you can not even find 1 out of 1000 willing to stand up and acknowledge that themselves are overpaid and willing to give the money back, you don't have the millions of saints/gods that you need to run your idealistic bureaucratic system.

Its a complete non sequitor. Go beat down your own strawmen I'm not doing it for you.

You are simply incapable of making a counter argument.

Blah this is a waste of time. You can't even try to argue coherently and your links are a joke too.

These links are not only detailed studies but also provide links to even more first-hand accounts. Your whimsical response shows that your earlier demand for reference was simply in bad faith. You never considered examining any evidence contrary to your fantasy dreamland.

TO THE IGNORE LIST WITH YOU *shazaam*

Yes, close your eyes, and keep dreaming. . . such is the sad state of wannabe fascist regressives nowadays. I should have known just by looking at that atavistic avatar of yours.

I am surprised it hasn't been brought up but some of the post office is already outsourced. Stamps.com allows people to print stamps from home for packages and letters etc.

Even with just stamps you can buy stamps in supermarkets and drug stores..so the outright demand for post offices (not the whole service..just post offices) is being drained from all around.

Yes there are some things that legally must be sent in the mail (census, certified letters, court orders, jury duty notices). But for everything else it is a hard argument either with technology or competition.

Yesterday Apple's announcement was kinda minor..but they announced that iphone users will be able to send cards to one another.
Card company american greetings dropped 6% on that news
www.dailyjournal.net/view/story/6358c6009bd240b28fc07d1137e32c11/US-TEC--Apple-Greeting-Cards/

If people really want to "save" the post office the answer is really simple. Send more mail..much more mail. If you want a cheap hobby by all means take up shortwave. When you receive signal you can request what is called a QSL. It is normally a card but varies dramatically. Even countries we don't have relationships often times will send materials back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QSL

Just read an interesting piece about USPS being in the red only because it has been bailing out the Federal Government:

http://redtape.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/07/8191425-twisted-government-accounting-behind-postal-service-woes

So using the USPS more won't help it from going broke. It's the Federal Gov't and stupid accounting practices (if the article above has any credence) that is the root of the Post Office's problems.

our government at it's finest moment.

Bear Stern was near the bottom of the list, so far as the large investment banks go. They were 'allowed' to go under by the PTB. Coincidence?

I had a CD at Wells Fargo but hated them so much that I moved it to a small bank when it came due.

Then Wells bought that small bank, so my CD was back at Wells again.

So when it came due again, I moved it to another small bank, and again Wells bought the bank and it was back at Wells again.

So I've moved my money out of Wells yet again.

I give you an A+ for your efforts!

You know, I think this is an accurate if over-simplified summary of the political opinions in the US:

* The right thinks that the free market should handle everything.

* The left wants to protect labor rights.

* Corporations hate both the free market and labor rights. They both cut into monopoly profits.

So if corporations can just get the right and left to destroy each other, corporations will rule America! Or has it already happened?

Nailed it.

Lazy and stupid people just don't get it and waste their lives and then complain about other people's success which is their failure ! It's very simple ! Live within your means and work hard and smart ! Fruits will come to you. Just try it ! Make immediate sacrifices for long term benefits.

EInvestor says

Make immediate sacrifices for long term benefits.

Yes, and say your prayers. You won't be rewarded in this life, but there is a heaven waiting for you in the next.

marcus says

EInvestor says

Make immediate sacrifices for long term benefits.

Yes, and say your prayers. You won't be rewarded in this life, but there is a heaven waiting for you in the next.

I feel this market really does punish the hardworking dual income family who saves and sacrifices.

marcus says

WAit. Aren't you the same moron who wants to see public worker unions ended

Yes. Because we shouldn't go from one set of masters to another. Whats the difference if instead of being enslaved by corporate masters, people are enslaved by union masters. Same shit, different name.

You'd see it better if you were outside the box.

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

Bear Stern was near the bottom of the list, so far as the large investment banks go. They were 'allowed' to go under by the PTB. Coincidence?

Bear's 500m call triggered LTCM's collapse, which cost a lot of people money.
When their turn came they were kicked off the cliff with naked shorts.
It is and amazing story (of predatory criminality):
“On Tuesday, March 11th, 2008, somebody – nobody knows who – made one of the craziest bets Wall Street has ever seen. The mystery figure spent $1.7 million on a series of options, gambling that shares in the venerable investment bank Bear Stearns would lose more than half of their value in nine days or less. It was madness – “like buying 1.7 million lottery tickets,” according to one financial analyst.”
Bear’s stock would have to drop by more than half in a matter of days for the mystery figure to make a profit. And that is what happened.
As Taibbi explains, “the very next day, March 12, Bear went into a free fall…Whoever bought those options on March 11th woke up on the morning of March 17th having made 159 times his money, or roughly $270 million. This trader was either the luckiest guy in the world, the smartest son of a bitch ever or…Or what?”
http://www.deepcapture.com/rolling-stone-reports-that-naked-short-selling-killed-bear-stearns-and-lehman-brothers/

FortWayne says

You'd see it better if you were outside the box.

If you saw something real, you would be able to explain it without resorting to weird hyperbolic phrases about "union thugs" or the "union bosses" only interested in themselves. Whenever you share your view it's more than a little obvious that you know nothing about unions other than the most cliche negative aspects, which are all things that can be dealt with and reformed.

The ultimate fact is that without collective bargaining, public workers get screwed and it lends itself to workers in general being exploited worse. Because public sector jobs are simply part of a bigger market of jobs.

What you are arguing for for is all jobs paying less, and this trend towards what you call a form of slavery, getting worse. You're just too thick to realize it.

FortWayne says

Yes. Because we shouldn't go from one set of masters to another. Whats the
difference if instead of being enslaved by corporate masters, people are
enslaved by union masters. Same shit, different name.

There are men who sincerely believe that "ALL women are either bitches or whores, or both!" Imagine the women they interact with longer than 10 seconds, with that self-fulfilling prophecy at play.

Seriously, though- comparing corporate interests (in the interest of the corporation and its management only at the expense of the workers) and union interests (working in favor of workers) is ridiculous on the face of it, even given that there are many corrupt self-serving unions out there, and also some genuinely caring, giving corporations.

There was a time when I was quite anti-union for the usual reasons as a competent earner in my own right. Given the concentration of wealth and ascent of American oligarchy, I think unions are very much needed again today. This presupposes unions genuinely concerned with workers not themselves, of course.

Automan Empire says

and also some genuinely caring, giving corporations.

I don't agree with this point. They "care" or "give" as part of a marketing, or tax advantaging gambit. They are Green, or philanthropic, or whatever, to position in the public's perception. Catch a C suite executive breaching his fiduciary duty by "caring" without an explanation of the financial benefit and he has pulled the rip-cord on his Golden Parachute.

Automan Empire says

Seriously, though- comparing corporate interests (in the interest of the corporation and its management only at the expense of the workers) and union interests (working in favor of workers) is ridiculous on the face of it, even given that there are many corrupt self-serving unions out there, and also some genuinely caring, giving corporations.

Unions are also corporations. Union members are clients of a corporate entity called "the union." It's just like warehouse memberships like Costco membership, except the unions makes you pay the membership due even if you do not wish to be a member.

by eliminating your low-cost option for mail.

you cant be serious, given the much wider cheaper alternatives available ?

i mean really ? but a used durable Laptop for under $100 or cheap tablet and use public wifi to send and receive emails..

put the old dying horse to rest for gods sake... poor think is in pain !

The US Post Office is self-funding and does not use tax money.

Oh ! say it aint so Joe.. LOL! and where does the cash to cover deficit spending come from .. or will come from ?

"which mandated $5.5 billion per year to be paid into an account to pre-fund retiree health-care, 75 years into the future, a requirement unique among organizations and businesses in the U.S"

" The USPS lost US$ 15.9 billion in 2012, and its revenue was US$ 65.2 billion."

And it's why your cellphone bills are among the highest in the world for worse service than in other countries. Look at numbers 3 and 37.

did you consider foreign telecoms are govt owned and thus subsided by tax dollars.

seriously, are their telecom equipment cheaper than ours ? operators paid less ?