• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

We definitely need more money in politics

W

WFFaithful

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
18,466
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Davie County
http://www.southernstudies.org/2013/09/mccutcheon-supreme-court-case-could-give-money-mor.html

"A case brought by an Alabama businessman and the Republican National Committee, McCutcheon seeks to lift the aggregate limit -- currently set at $123,200 -- on how much an individual can donate directly to federal candidates, parties and traditional political action committees during a two-year election cycle. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs threatens to exacerbate the muffling of the poor while widening margins of inequality. Oral arguments are scheduled to begin Oct. 8."
 
They earned more political influence by working hard and therefore earning more money. It's science.
 
Further, I think you new-money assholes think you are holier than thou, and that you have somehow worked harder or made better decisions, when in fact it is shit like in the linked proposal which give you the leg up on the blue collar people who arguably work harder than you in their work boots and overalls than you pussies in your penny loafers and oxford shirts with the deck stacked in your favor. :noidea:
 
WakeandBake said:
Further, I think you new-money assholes think you are holier than thou, and that you have somehow worked harder or made better decisions, when in fact it is shit like in the linked proposal which give you the leg up on the blue collar people who arguably work harder than you in their work boots and overalls than you pussies in your penny loafers and oxford shirts with the deck stacked in your favor. :noidea:
Click to expand...

Hey, those are silver dollar loafers to you. #idriveadodgestratus
 
Ok, its settled then. Once we get rich people to stop using their money to influence politics and politicians, we can proceed to some other vices. I say we procede by eliminating each of the seven deadly sins one at a time. What do you suggest? Which sins should we get rid of first after we get rid of some of the advantages that having lots of money conveys? Success, after all, is just a matter of good intentions.
 
sailordeac said:
Ok, its settled then. Once we get rich people to stop using their money to influence politics and politicians, we can proceed to some other vices. I say we procede by eliminating each of the seven deadly sins one at a time. What do you suggest? Which sins should we get rid of first after we get rid of some of the advantages that having lots of money conveys? Success, after all, is just a matter of good intentions.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:



 
WakeandBake said:
No.

I am of the opinion that the janitor and the investment banker deserve equal representation.
Click to expand...

They have equal representation. Its just that the janitor is too fucking stupid to vote for someone who represents his best interests. He'd rather rely on skin color or religious beliefs.
 
damn I love when I bring this shit out of you self-congratulatory rednecks with money. Gold Jerry, GOLD!
 
WakeandBake said:
damn I love when I bring this shit out of you self-congratulatory rednecks with money. Gold Jerry, GOLD!
Click to expand...

I am sadly none of those. And my point was to shit on people who vote for (insert one of two parties here) because of things that have nothing to do with their own advancement.
 
WakeandBake said:
No.

I am of the opinion that the janitor and the investment banker deserve equal representation.
Click to expand...

One contributes more in taxes in a year than the other does in a lifetime while he uses less government services.
 
Caturdayredux said:
One contributes more in taxes in a year than the other does in a lifetime while he uses less government services.
Click to expand...

A man who works and earns just enough money to live - but not enough to contribute 100k+ to PACs - uses more government services than the investment banker?

I'm not following. Please explain..
 
5787187357_a8f9597877_z.jpg
 
Wake n bake does not understand the term work or the value of a certain skill set to the economy. He believes it only means physical toil.

I know people like this. They believe that the person working 60 hrs a week at a desk (accountants, finance people-I'm leaving out lawyers because they suck, etc) do less "work" than the guy digging a ditch for 37.5 hrs/week.

Nothing more to see here.
 
Last edited:
Hulka, what is your definition of work?
 
PhDeac said:
Hulka, what is your definition of work?
Click to expand...

Ph, Im my view, I think that work is multileveled. The Med student at his desk or at a lecture is "working" the PhD candidate working on his thesis is "working" even though they are not getting paid for it because this "toil" will allow them to better perform their endpoint job.

Work in and of itself is what you produce and what impact does it have on the economy. Therefore, people that actually pay for their education, are "working" but the economical rewards will be deferred.

There is more, but I don't have time right now.

Really good question.
 
Sgt Hulka said:
Wake n bake does not understand the term work or the value of a certain skill set to the economy. He believes it only means physical toil.

I know people like this. They believe that the person working 60 hrs a week at a desk (accountants, finance people-I'm leaving out lawyers because they suck, etc) do less "work" than the guy digging a ditch for 37.5 hrs/week.

Nothing more to see here.
Click to expand...

How long/deep/wide would a ditch be if a guy worked digging it for 37.5 hours/week? Why would we need such a ditch? Would it eventually be necessary to pay another guy to fill in the ditch?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top