A good letter. But it may be missing something important.Weren't most of the really muddy TV ads produced by PACs and SuperPACs
funded by anonymous unlimited donations from who knows who?Perhaps
the first step would be to overturn Citizens United and come up with some
campaign finance laws that contain real teeth.
People need to know things that could hamper someones chance at being an
effected officer. Besides isn't that protected by the First amendment of
the Constitution of the United States. Libel needs to be dealt with. However
we employ the representatives. If someone works for you or is applying for a
job you need to know if they will or won't be good employees. Some things
people need to know.
Speak for yourself, Nicholas. Sweeping generalities are nice but generally
untrue and always misleading. Do you really think all the money the Super PACs
poured onto the airwaves had that much influence? I'd call it a big waste
of money, but what it really did was took money out of the pockets of one group
that has too much and transferred it to the pockets of another group that has
too much. The net effect was negligible.
Nice sentiment, never gonna happen.
I don't think 235 years of precedence will change when you have the 4th
Estate as deep into corporate greed as the politicans.
Why would anyone make a political choice based on advertising? Are we a nation
of ignoramuses who are expected to believe what a candidate says about himself
or what a PR firm says about a candidate? Do we blindly believe the "near
slander" paid for by a candidate when he feels he needs to attack his
competition?In a Presidential election, the candidates are well
known. They have histories. It is easy to see how they handled large problems.
We can clearly see that Obama's solution to budget problems is to fly
around in Air Force One and "campaign" for higher taxes and unlimited
spending. He did that for his first four years and he's doing it again. It
should not be a surprise to anyone.Nothing that Obama said about
Romney could change history and nothing that Romney said about Obama could
change history.Lazy people never research a person's history.
Lazy reporters never question candidates.Ad agencies and media
outlets made billions. Nothing changed. Nothing will change. The histrionics
Actually Mike the President has not campaigned for "unlimited" spending.
The ACA alone has over 700 billion is medicare savings. His 2013 budget has
thousands of proposed budget cuts (you can look at it on line) and the CBO
projects that by 2015 the annual deficit will be below the GWB 2008 budget.
Wheter all that happens is still an unknown, but it's patently false to say
he campaigned on "unlimited" spending.
I have to agree with Mike when he writes, " Are we a nation of ignoramuses
who are expected to believe what a candidate says about himself or what a PR
firm says about a candidate?"And when he says, "Lazy people
never research a person's history."Those comment explain
why Romney managed to get 47% of the nation's votes (there's that 47
again), and why Republicans manage to be returned to office after trying so hard
to wreck the nation.
Already some people are citing Obama's "campaign promises" about
the costs of Obamacare (and the "savings" promised to the American
people). They haven't done their home-work. They haven't asked
"how" $700 billion can magically be saved without taking $700 billion
from somewhere else. There is no such thing as a perpetual motion
machine and there is no such thing as "savings" of any kind in
Obamacare. If Obama says something often enough, does a "lie" transform
into the "truth"?For years, Obama has demanded that the
"rich guy" be taxed at a higher rate. The CBO has told us that taxing
the "rich guy" at Obama's proposed rate would increase revenues by
$60 billion a year. Obama told us he needed to raise revenues by $800 billion a
year. That's 13 times more tax revenue than the "rich guy" is
going to pay. Now Obama is telling us that he needs $1.6 TRILLION more in
revenue to fund his programs. That's 26 times more than taxing the
"rich guy" will produce. Who's going to pay those
taxes?Watch out. YOUR wallet is under attack. You just don't
know it yet, campaign promises notwithstanding.
Mike there's no magic to it and the President has said where ther 700
billion in savings is coming from. It's coming from monies not spent. Not
spent on, administrative costs, not spent on reimbursements to providers, not
spent on medicines etc. It only has to come from some where if it's going
to be spent. Monies not spent are just savings.
Mike Richards,Are people influenced by political advertising? The
folks whose job it is to get their candidate elected sure think so. They
aren't spending those billions for laughs.Does that mean that
the voters get good information? No. But advertising does influence
people's behavior. If not, capitalism is inefficient (and I do not think
that claim would bear up under scrutiny).Here is my prediction.
Despite all the talking heads saying that advertising doesn't make much of
a difference, when the next tight election comes around, political commercials
will carpet bomb the viewing area. Depend on it.Money matters.
Let's look at the $700 billion that Obama is going to save Medicare. Who
is not going to be paid? If something is saved, money is not being spent.
Healthcare providers who take Medicare patients will not be paid at the same
rate that they're paid today. How many doctors take Medicare
without requiring the patient to pay the difference? How many seniors cannot
find doctors and hospitals who will treat them at current Medicare rates?Ask your own doctor whether he will take new Medicare patients. My
doctors will not. They say that already they're losing money on Medicare
patients. The government rejects needed services and underpays others. Cutting
payments to doctors and hospitals is the surest method of excluding seniors from
health care. Is that what you want? Is that part of the, "take
a pain pill and deal with it" philosophy, that Obamacare is accused of
having?Instead of blindly accepting Obama's talking points, dig
a little into the real world. It's not going to be the world that Obama is
"selling".Mudslinging caused many senior citizens to vote
for Obama because they didn't accept the truth. Already, the
"truth" is changing.
JThompson we can talk about your facts later the point to this discussion is
that Boener and the Reprublicans say that Obama is unwilling to make any cuts
in welfare services..yet you yourself claim that he's cutting it to the
point of limiting services...which is it?
"Let's look at the $700 billion that Obama is going to save
Medicare."Several posters have written to criticize Obama about
the $700 billion in savings.Did you all forget that Paul Ryan touted
the same savings number in his plan?
Let't not confuse limiting payments to doctors with welfare. The
government has the right to limit welfare payments when the recipient has made
no forced contribution to that "program". We are charged for Medicare.
We are charged for Social Security. The government forced us to participate
with the promise that we would receive the promised benefits when our time came
to receive those benefits. There was no "means test" when it came time
to pay. There can be no "means test" when it's the governments
turn to keep its end of the deal.The government spent the money it
received for Social Security and for Medicare. It has no authority to underpay
doctors to correct that misuse of funds. Limiting spending is
required. Underpaying for services rendered is not the way to limit
spending.Putting people to work so that they are no burden to
government is the only way to correct Obama's mess, campaign promises not
withstanding. He's going to prove that Romney's campaign statements
was 100% correct.
Seriously, my post here this morning was pretty benign, and well under 200
words. Yet it got canned.
I wondering which is worse...Those who are influencted by political
TV ads,orThose who walk into a voting boot, select the letter
"R" (or granted, some for the letter "D") and then walk out.
Especially fro the right.No matter. The voters did the right thing. They
chose the left.
LDS Liberal,So...which candidate with the letter R after his/her
name did you vote for in this past election?
JoeCapitalist2Orem, UTLDS Liberal,So...which candidate
with the letter R after his/her name did you vote for in this past election?9:06 a.m. Dec. 3, 2012================ I wrote
in Jon M. Huntsman Jr. for POTUS.When you write in, there is no party
letter next to or assocaited with it.BTW - I also voted for a few
local candidates who happened to have the letter R.But it was not the
reason I voted for them.No party "owns' me, I'm
a Free man.
How do you stop 200 years of mud-slinging?
@J ThompsonThere absolutely IS a means test when it comes time to
pay.In 2012, every dollar that you earn in excess of $110,100 is
exempt from the Social Security portion of FICA. So, the bottom 4 quintiles pay
Social Security FICA on 100% of their earned income, while the top 20% of income
earners pay Social Security FICA on less than 100% (and in some cases, much less
than 100%) of their earned income. Add to that the fact that there is no FICA
tax at all on capital gains (an income source biased heavily toward the top
quintile), and there is clearly a de facto means test on paying FICA.With regard to eliminating mudslinging -- it's a laudable goal, but as
others have said, it ain't gonna happen. Truth-in-campaign-advertising and
campaign finance reform are political third-rails, and nobody is about to touch
them any time soon.
I am trying to figure out how you can get unbiased information through the
media? You have many different news networks that are highly biased towards
liberals and just a couple that are conservative. No network is free from bias,
so how is a lazy american supposed to get the critical information about a
politician without any bias?
SG in SLC:Yet another diatribe about how rich people are not
"paying their fair share" because the FICA tax is capped at $110K of
earnings.Social Security was sold to the American people as a kind
of "forced retirement savings plan". Have money taken out of your
earnings and placed in a "trust fund" so that you will have something to
draw upon in your golden years. Pay in a limited amount, get back a limited
defined benefit once you retire.In reality it is instead a Ponzi
scheme, since all the money you pay in is immediately withdrawn to pay current
retirees (but that is beside the point). It was never intented to be a general
tax where rich people have to pay in $100 for every $1 they get back. So you
must either cap the amount that must be paid in each year or you have to pay
people like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett $100,000 a month in social security
payments when they retire.401(k) contributions are also capped, but
people like you won't complain about that because I own my 401(k) balance,
not the government (for now at least).