Billionaire Koch Brothers Have Given More Than $100 Million to right wing causes...

[Ben]

YouTube- Billionaires Charles & David Koch Give $100 Million to Right-Wing Causes - Democracy NOW! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cW_3xO3w90)

[Ben]

Covert Operations

The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama.

by Jane Mayer (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/bios/jane_mayer/search?contributorName=jane%20mayer)

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/30/100830fa_fact_mayer

[JerseyMike]

Is that any different from billionaires waging a war against Bush?

[Faldur]

George Soros anyone?

[Amsterdamage]

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c199/archontireq/captain-obvious-8-ranting.jpg


welcome to politics

[Ben]

Is that any different from billionaires waging a war against Bush?

I'm not a fan of either party. They're essentially separate wings of the same party. The business party.
What the Koch brothers are attempting to do and doing very well (and even George Soros does this too) is trying to undercut democracy. Now, look, some people don't believe in democracy. If you're running a Fortune 500 company you loathe democracy and want it to fail. For the simple reason: democracy is bad for business.
And businesses are very RATIONAL entities. They're trying to maximize profits. (They're what's called: rational wealth maximizers.) And to maximize shareholder return ya gotta beat down democracy. Democracy is a threat to rational self interest. That's understandable.

[NYBURBS]

I'm not a fan of either party. They're essentially separate wings of the same party. The business party.
What the Koch brothers are attempting to do and doing very well (and even George Soros does this too) is trying to undercut democracy. Now, look, some people don't believe in democracy. If you're running a Fortune 500 company you loathe democracy and want it to fail. For the simple reason: democracy is bad for business.
And businesses are very RATIONAL entities. They're trying to maximize profits. (They're what's called: rational wealth maximizers.) And to maximize shareholder return ya gotta beat down democracy. Democracy is a threat to rational self interest. That's understandable.

Rational self-interest and democracy need not be separate entities. An issues arises when there aren't sufficient safeguards to protect individuals against tyranny of the majority.

[trish]

Rational self-interest and democracy need not be separate entities. An issues arises when there aren't sufficient safeguards to protect individuals against tyranny of the majority. Agreed. I would only add that issues arise when there aren't sufficient safeguards to protect individuals against the tyranny of the majority, or the tyranny of the rich and powerful, or the tyranny of the supremely self-interested.

[rameses2]

Is that any different from billionaires waging a war against Bush?RRRight...The Saudi Billionaires? The American Petroleum Billionaires? Or the KBR/Halliburton BILLIONAIRES?339377

[Ben]

YouTube- Covert Operations: The Billionaire Brothers Who Are Waging War Against Obama (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI9BztKTQgA)

[Silcc69]

I wish all of these corporate people would stay out of politics. Sorros and Koch brothers.

[russtafa]

i have always hated democracy, but iam an old fascist

[Ben]

Agreed. I would only add that issues arise when there aren't sufficient safeguards to protect individuals against the tyranny of the majority, or the tyranny of the rich and powerful, or the tyranny of the supremely self-interested.

It certainly isn't fair when the few control the many. And likewise it isn't fair when the many control the few. So, what's the solution, the answer???????

[Ben]

Milton Friedman on equality -- and liberty...

YouTube- Liberty and Equality? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKxCWheH5Vk)

[Ben]

And on the left Noam Chomsky:

YouTube- Noam Chomsky: Prospects for Democracy Part 3 - Adam Smith, Corporate Personhood (1994) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsYlVXZylb0)

[Ben]

Published on Wednesday, September 8, 2010 by Creators.com (http://www.creators.com/opinion/jim-hightower/two-multibillionaire-brothers-are-remaking-america-for-their-own-benefit.html) Two Multibillionaire Brothers Are Remaking America for Their Own Benefit

by Jim Hightower

There's a difference between being paranoid and being suspicious. Paranoia is mental disturbance; suspicion is a rational deduction.For example, if you suspect that America's economy, politics, government, media, judiciary and practically every other system has been wired to favor corporate interests over every other interest in our country, you're deducing, not hallucinating. From the infamous Wall Street bailout to the Supreme Court's shameful decree that corporations have more political rights than humans, we see again and again that corporate might overwhelms what's right.
This is not by accident, but by the deliberate, relentless efforts of corporatists to bend our nation's institutions to their will. Take one huge corporation you've probably never heard of, even though your consumer dollars are financing its right-wing agenda.
Do you buy Northern tissue, Brawny paper towels, Dixie cups or Vanity Fair napkins? These well-known brands are owned and produced by Koch Industries (pronounced "coke") in Wichita, Kan. Koch is also a major producer of oil, gas, timber, coal, cattle, refined petroleum, asphalt, polyethylene plastic ... and much, much more.
Charles and David Koch, who control this family-owned empire, have a net worth of $14 billion each, ranking both in a tie for the 19th richest person on the planet. They boast of being "self-made" billionaires, though they had a little help from Daddy. Fred Koch started this namesake business, and his sons got a leg up on their climb to billionairedom by inheriting Fred's company. They also inherited something else: a burning ideological commitment to right-wing politics (Daddy Fred helped found the John Birch Society).
Charles and David have used the wealth they draw from Koch Industries to fuel a network of three Koch Family Foundations, which have set up and financed a secretive army of political operatives dedicated to achieving the brothers' antigovernment, corporate-controlled vision for America.
This force includes national and state-level think tanks, Astroturf front groups, academic shills, university centers, political-training programs, fundraising clearinghouses, publications, lobbyists and various other units useful to their ideological cause. They spend freely on dozens of ideologically grounded right-wing groups to influence schoolteachers and high-school curricula, state and federal judges, lawyers and legal scholars, conservative policy thinkers and media producers, city-council candidates and local party activists.
Their aim is to shove the country's national debate to the hard right, discombobulate the public's progressive wishes, and alter government policies to advance corporate interests generally and the Kochs' own interests specifically.
Americans for Prosperity, the third-largest recipient of Koch foundation largesse, is the brothers' overtly political unit. Essentially, it is a front group for mass-producing front groups. Much like McDonald's churns out Big Mac franchises, AFP can pop out a grass-rootsy-looking, cookie-cutter political operation on demand. Its menu includes such garnishes as hoked-up studies, alarmist talking points, deceptive attack ads, divisive hate messages, celebrity and religious endorsers, and a menagerie of media stunts.
Consider the "tea bag" rebellion. No one professes more hatred for the two-party, business-as-usual political system in Washington than those angry Americans who're caught up in the tea-bag rallies. Yet unbeknownst to most of the mad-as-hellers who have showed up, it was AFP's Republican-tied lobbyists and political functionaries who cynically financed, organized and orchestrated the very first tea-bag protest. AFP has steadily co-opted the tea-bag faction to make it a front for the corporate agenda, and many of the tea-bag groups have devolved into subsidiaries of the Republican Party.
Indeed, AFP has become the Astroturf-to-Go Store, fabricating and spreading fake grass-roots organizations all across the country, including Patients United Now (anti-health care reform), Hot Air Tour (anti-global warming), Free Our Energy (pro-offshore drilling), No Stimulus (tried to kill Obama's economic recovery plan) and Save My Ballot Tour (tries to keep workers from joining unions).
It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you - and they are! While such corporate elites as the Kochs are a tiny minority of Americans, they are able to hide their own selfish agenda behind front groups, surreptitiously skewing our public debate, agenda and policies to serve themselves. Ultimately, what they are out to get is nothing less than America's essential uniting ethic of the common good, replacing our democracy with their corporate kleptocracy.
© 2010 Creators.com
National radio commentator, writer, public speaker, and author of the book, Swim Against The Current: Even A Dead Fish Can Go With The Flow (http://jimhightower.com/store/swim_against_the_current), Jim Hightower has spent three decades battling the Powers That Be on behalf of the Powers That Ought To Be - consumers, working families, environmentalists, small businesses, and just-plain-folks.

[PomonaCA]

I wish all of these corporate people would stay out of politics. Sorros and Koch brothers.


I wish the politicians would stay out of business, namely taxing and regulating it to death. That might save a few jobs.

[Ben]

I wish the politicians would stay out of business, namely taxing and regulating it to death. That might save a few jobs.

Exactly. Let's have a fully free market. No taxes. No state intervention. None.
A free market means: no state intervention. No public roads. All roads should be private. A private police force. Let's not hold back. Let's not be hypocrites.
We have to fully engage ourselves in the free market. No public firefighters. This, too, needs to be private. The markets will only -- and should -- serve the people with market power. Market power is crucial. If ya don't have inordinate market power, well, tough. A private unregulated mass market will serve the interests of people....

[PomonaCA]

Exactly. Let's have a fully free market. No taxes. No state intervention. None.
A free market means: no state intervention. No public roads. All roads should be private. A private police force. Let's not hold back. Let's not be hypocrites.
We have to fully engage ourselves in the free market. No public firefighters. This, too, needs to be private. The markets will only -- and should -- serve the people with market power. Market power is crucial. If ya don't have inordinate market power, well, tough. A private unregulated mass market will serve the interests of people....


Now you're exaggerating. That means that your ideas, absent exaggerated emotion, are empty. You can't compete on ideas so instead you compete on emotions.

[Ben]

Now you're exaggerating. That means that your ideas, absent exaggerated emotion, are empty. You can't compete on ideas so instead you compete on emotions.

Yes.... I'm completely exaggerating.... Because I'm exasperated by some of these free marketeers.
I mean, some so-called free marketeers support a private police force. I think that's insane.
I think, too, firefighters NEED to be public. Police, too. Again, there are some who say we should privatize everything. I mean, well, if you support that I guess there isn't anything I can say/write to deter you from that thinking. (They say that the level of care would go up. Because of private ownership. Ya know, if you own a car, well, ya care about that car. Same with a house. That then is an argument for slavery. If you own someone you are going to care about them. So let's bring back slavery.
It means private ownership over a person brings up the level of concern about that "property" ownership. Therefore you'll care about them.)

[PomonaCA]

Yes.... I'm completely exaggerating.... Because I'm exasperated by some of these free marketeers.
I mean, some so-called free marketeers support a private police force. I think that's insane.
I think, too, firefighters NEED to be public. Police, too. Again, there are some who say we should privatize everything. I mean, well, if you support that I guess there isn't anything I can say/write to deter you from that thinking. (They say that the level of care would go up. Because of private ownership. Ya know, if you own a car, well, ya care about that car. Same with a house. That then is an argument for slavery. If you own someone you are going to care about them. So let's bring back slavery.
It means private ownership over a person brings up the level of concern about that "property" ownership. Therefore you'll care about them.)

"Completely exaggerating" is another play on emotions.

See, you can't make a point without misrepresenting the other guys point. That's why you exaggerate.

[trish]

I wish the politicians would stay out of business, namely taxing and regulating it to death. That might save a few jobs. Isn't this also an exaggerated and extreme way of characterizing U.S. tax policy and U.S. regulatory policy?

Our taxes are so low (compared to the rest of the western democracies) we don't have enough revenue to maintain our infrastructure. Our regulatory system (policy and enforcement) are so poor we can barely stabilize our economy or keep our food disease free. Meanwhile Tea-Partiers hold sign's that say, "GET YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE." Ben's example of slavery is an excellent demonstration that the people (as a government) have an interest and a moral obligation to regulate commerce.

[tsafficianado]

Isn't this also an exaggerated and extreme way of characterizing U.S. tax policy and U.S. regulatory policy?

Our taxes are so low (compared to the rest of the western democracies) we don't have enough revenue to maintain our infrastructure. Our regulatory system (policy and enforcement) are so poor we can barely stabilize our economy or keep our food disease free. Meanwhile Tea-Partiers hold sign's that say, "GET YOUR GOVERNMENT HANDS OFF MY MEDICARE." Ben's example of slavery is an excellent demonstration that the people (as a government) have an interest and a moral obligation to regulate commerce.

wow, making it up as we go along there Trish?
Actually, the average and top corporate combined tax rates for corporations in the US are higher than those for ANY nation in the entire friggin world except Japan, and their TOP rate is 40% and in the US it is combined 51%. And no i'm not gonna cite it for you, Google national corporate tax rates.
As for the concerns about food-borne illness, most of it is due to poor preparation. Perhaps we need to pay someone from the FDA to work each fast food slop shop at about $100,000 a pop to reduce this incidence of people having to hustle to the can. Of course, that would up the cost of those 79 cent burritos you and yer pals like to scarf down at Taco Hell.
And as for the poor underfunded regulatory agencies, maybe they would get more work done if they weren't spending most of their time surfing porn sites. By the way Trish, you dun work at the SEC do ya? Just sayin
SEC Porn Problem: Officials Surfing Sites During Financial Crisis, Report Finds


SEC Employees Exposed Downloading, Uploading Pornography at Work



The Securities and Exchange Commission (http://www.sec.gov/) is the sheriff of the financial industry, looking for crimes such as Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Madoff/), but a new government report obtained by ABC News has concluded that some senior employees spent hours on the agency's computers looking at sites such as naughty.com, skankwire and youporn as the financial crisis was unfolding.
Report exposes financial regulators surfing for porn on government time.


"These guys in the middle of a financial crisis are spending their time looking at prurient material on the Internet," said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland and former director of the Office of Economics at the U.S. International Trade Commission.
"It's reckless, and indicates a contempt for the taxpayer and the taxpayer's interest in monitoring financial markets," Morici said.
The investigation, which was conducted by the SEC's internal watchdog at the request of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, found 31 serious offenders during the past two and a half years. That's less than 1 percent of the agency's 3,500 employees but 17 of the alleged offenders were senior SEC officers whose salaries ranged from $100,000 to $222,000 per year.
Related



The SEC would not comment on any specific cases, but said it takes inappropriate use of government resources seriously and deals with abuses on a case-by-case basis.
Some of the big offenders are still on the job, according to sources.

Eight Hours a Day Spent on Porn Sites

One senior attorney at SEC headquarters in Washington spent up to eight hours a day accessing Internet porn, according to the report, which has yet to be released. When he filled all the space on his government computer with pornographic images, he downloaded more to CDs and DVDs that accumulated in boxes in his offices.
An SEC accountant attempted to access porn websites 1,800 times in a two-week period and had 600 pornographic images on her computer hard drive.
Another SEC accountant used his SEC-issued computer to upload his own sexually explicit videos onto porn websites he joined.
And another SEC accountant attempted to access porn sites 16,000 times in a single month.
In one case, the report noted, an employee tried hundreds of times to access pornographic sites and was denied access. When he used a flash drive, he successfully bypassed the filter to visit a "significant number" of porn sites.
The employee also said he deliberately disabled a filter in Google to access inappropriate sites. After management informed him that he would lose his job, the employee resigned.

[Amsterdamage]

so...we're actually expected to believe that highly paid employees of a top security agency, like SEC is, are so stupid that they think they can access porn sites thru their work computer without being monitored?

please, i'm insulted by whoever came up with this bogus report

[tsafficianado]

well gee, if you can actually read it's right there in the report, as reported by among others National Public Radio, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, ABC News and others.
and judging by yer pic i seriously doubt this is the first time you've been insulted

[yodajazz]

so...we're actually expected to believe that highly paid employees of a top security agency, like SEC is, are so stupid that they think they can access porn sites thru their work computer without being monitored?

please, i'm insulted by whoever came up with this bogus report

I think the problem with such stories, is that a few bad people does not mean everyone, or even a large number of other people were doing it. People get fired from jobs everyday, in every industry. Some police take bribes, some teachers have sex with their students. But the overall functioning of police and education, has little to do with these incidents.

However, I admit that the 16,000 times in one month, looks a little suspicious. That would be like 800 times a day at 5 days, times 4 weeks.

[Ben]

Who's Defending The Billionaire Brothers Buying Our Democracy?

Who's Defending The Billionaire Brothers Buying Our Democracy? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e3WHH4tlJE&list=UU1yBKRuGpC1tSM73A0ZjYjQ)

[yodajazz]

Giving to the arts, is good. Undermining democracy is not. The real job for the government is to benefit the most people, and to promote the common good. When you have people with an too much influence, subverts the process.

[trish]

The post-modern deconstruction of the First Amendment is well underway. Money is speech. (Voting is not, since it's perfectly fine to suppress the vote).

http://nyti.ms/1pQzTFN

http://nyti.ms/1fwnYLU

http://nyti.ms/1fwqnGu

[buttslinger]

Those Damn Coke Bros got a ton of my cash,........

I'm selling my vote on eBay. Is that legal? (call me, Koch bros)

Obama is sometimes mistaken for the BOSS of the country, he is actually a civil servant, and is constrained by his job description.
When it comes to two people haggling over the price of a brand new Chevy, Obama can't take sides.

Obama can ask Americans to be good citizens, but the Koch brothers can make people do absolutely anything for money.

It's kind of good "The Brothaz" spend their dirty money here. They could take their 100 million to Haiti and practically own the whole government.

Some of our Wall Street Tycoons make Putin look like Pollyanna. That's got to make you Proud to be an American. Admit it.

[trish]

Haiti is still recovering from the 2010 earthquake. They could use one tenth of a Koch billion.

[Ben]

Rational self-interest and democracy need not be separate entities. An issues arises when there aren't sufficient safeguards to protect individuals against tyranny of the majority.

For the Koch brothers -- who've a combined net worth of roughly 80 billion bucks -- to pursue their self interest harms our democracy. If we even have one. Plutocracy, now, is the more apt word.
But when you concentrate wealth, you concentrate power. So, them pursuing their own interests -- and thus controlling our government, our politicians -- renders democracy a farce.
And: the few controlling the many is wrong... and the many controlling the few is wrong. So, what's the solution???

www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6H2IwFj5aY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6H2IwFj5aY)

[Ben]

The Kochs would be frightened of the new finance minister of Greece...

"We are going to destroy the Greek oligarchy system"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJP1Ysx47fo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJP1Ysx47fo)

[Odelay]

The Kochs would be frightened of the new finance minister of Greece...

"We are going to destroy the Greek oligarchy system"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJP1Ysx47fo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJP1Ysx47fo)

Umm, at this point I'm not sure anything scares the Kochs. They've worked within the current system to affect laws and Supreme Court judgements to the point where they can amass almost a billion dollars to affect the next race for President. Throughout this effort they haven't been touched. Not by the state. Not by the political opposition. Not by a spurned candidate or group on there own side. Not by rabble with pitchforks, torches and shotguns who hate what they're doing.

They're doing their thing within a nation of sheep and no one seems capable of standing up to them, much less stopping them.

The only one I see who might have the will to face the Kochs, though not the capability, is Bernie Sanders. But alas, not only does he look like Yitzhak Rabin, he would probably share the same fate if he got anywhere close to gaining that capability.

[trish]

They're doing their thing within a nation of sheep and no one seems capable of standing up to them, much less stopping them.Baaaa... baaaa...
Thanks to Citizens United (what a lovely name)
it's comes down to "My Baaaaazilionaire bigger than your baaaaazillionaire."

[dreamon]

Democratic Donor Tom Steyer was the largest individual donor in 2014

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/tom-steyer-campaign-donor-103617.html

[dreamon]

Steyer poured over $74 million into the 2014 midterm elections

http://www.forbes.com/sites/katiasavchuk/2014/11/03/billionaire-tom-steyer-on-money-in-politics-spending-74-m-on-the-election/

[trish]

The headline is a bit of a misnomer. It should read Tom Steyer Was The Largest Donor of Disclosed Political Contributions in 2014.

[dreamon]

The headline is a bit of a misnomer. It should read Tom Steyer Was The Largest Donor of Disclosed Political Contributions in 2014.

So you have no issue with Steyer giving $74 million, but when the Kochs do it, they're buying elections?

Our country is going to shitter because people are too stuck in their own parties, without realizing the "two" main parties are really the one and same.

[trish]

We don't know who was the largest individual donor in 1914, only the individual donor who disclosed the largest sum (this was my only point in post#39_a simple fact for which you downthumbed me). Neither the Kochs nor Steyer, as far as we know, are breaking the law. I do have an issue with the Supreme Court decision on Citizen's United (which I think my post #35 made clear enough) and with Congress's foot dragging on campaign finance reform. I don't believe the law should allow individuals to contribute those sums of money to political campaigns. Do I have an issue with anyone being allowed to spend that much money on a political campaign? Yes. But it's neither an issue I have with the Koch brothers nor Mr. Steyer. It's an issue I have with the Supreme Court and the Congress. Do I have an issue with the Kochs? Yes, a number of issues; but they are all political. I can hardly fault them for taking advantage of their wealth and a lax set of laws that do indeed advantage the wealthy.

[trish]

I do disagree with you on your last point. The two parties seem to me to be very different in important ways. I don't think, for example, that Gore would have invaded Iraq.

[trish]

May I ask you dreamon how many of your opinions I downthumbed? I'm just trying to have a discussion. It'd be more helpful if you tell us what it is about a particular post that you object to and why, rather than downthumbing the whole post.

[broncofan]

I do disagree with you on your last point. The two parties seem to me to be very different in important ways. I don't think, for example, that Gore would have invaded Iraq.
I completely agree. Both parties have been involved in Middle Eastern affairs, but it was an exceedingly bizarre move to attack Iraq to remove Hussein from power. Even when Iraq committed aggression against a neighboring state and gassed a hundred thousand Kurds we did not attempt a regime change. The cost of that decision has been extraordinary. I don't even understand the view that the parties are the same, when frankly they take different positions on so many issues.

[dreamon]

I do disagree with you on your last point. The two parties seem to me to be very different in important ways. I don't think, for example, that Gore would have invaded Iraq.

John Kerry, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, John Edwards, Tom Daschle, Maria Cantwell, Jay Rockwell.

All of these Democrats voted yes to the illegal war in Iraq.

The only prominent Dems to vote no were Ted Kennedy and racist Robert Byrd.

[trish]

John Kerry, Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, John Edwards, Tom Daschle, Maria Cantwell, Jay Rockwell.

All of these Democrats voted yes to the illegal war in Iraq.

The only prominent Dems to vote no were Ted Kennedy and racist Robert Byrd.There are more Congressmen than prominent ones and the Republicans do own the War in Iraq. It would never even had occurred to Gore to invade Iraq. It took Bush/Cheney wreck the budget with an additional war in the MiddleEast, never mind the people it killed.

In post #41 that I mentioned the War in Iraq was just one issue where the parties large differ. Another is the Affordable Care Act. I’m guessing you don’t like the ACA, but certainly it stands as a significant difference between the parties. Had McCain and Palin won in 2008 we would not have the ACA.

A minor issue of contention between the parties, but one’s that in the news now is the KeyStone Pipeline.

The parties disagree what to do with the immigrant children arriving at our border from Central America. Up until now they largely disagreed on just about every aspect of Immigration.

And the list goes on. But on another topic...

I noticed you downthumbed my post #40 but haven’t yet said why. It was an answer to your question in post #39 and I thought you would’ve agreed with it. It would surprise me if you thought we should fault the Koch brothers and Mr. Steyer for spending their money the way they see fit. So am I right in thinking you downthumbed the post for suggesting we pass stricter campaign finance laws and for finding fault with Citizens United. Then on the other hand, that can’t be it, ‘cause you didn’t downthumb anyone else who suggest the latter. Hmmm I’m puzzled. Oh, I know, you’re just trigger happy. Guess I’m lucky you’re not allowed to carry firearms on the web.

By your response to post #42 I assume you don’t think it would be helpful to share with us what is is about a particular post you find objectionable and why. Am I right about that. If not why?

[broncofan]

In response to your post dreamon, there is a difference between conceiving an idea and supporting it once that idea has been presented. It was the Bush administration who were hellbent on attacking Iraq and manufactured a case in support of it.

Bush and his cronies argued that Iraq had WMD, that it was trying to obtain uranium in Niger, and that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11. I have a lot of trouble believing that any Democratic presidential candidate in 2000 would have as commander in chief decided to invade Iraq on such a weak pretext. That includes those who supported the invasion once the administration put together a package of falsified evidence.

What about the respective parties' stances on gay marriage? Or health care? Or taxation? Or spending? Or women's rights, including both abortion and contraception?

[dreamon]

What about the respective parties' stances on gay marriage?

Neither actively support it, one side says they do, one side says they don't, neither does anything about it.


Or health care?

The Republicans invented the system the Democrats took national.


Or taxation?

They both support higher taxes.


On spending?

They both support spending more money.


Or women's rights, including both abortion and contraception?

Abortion may be one issue where they differ. Congratulations on finding one minor social issue where they differ.

[broncofan]

Gay marriage-Many Republicans support amendments to state constitutions to ban gay marriage. I can't think of any Democrats who have been active in trying to achieve that (maybe you'll be able to find one if you look hard). There are also a ton of interest groups that donate to the Republican party that actively lobby for some of these state initiatives to alter their state constitutions.
Health care- Some Republicans may have helped develop the health care system but when it came time to implement it, there was complete division. Republican presidential candidates even said they would do everything they could to repeal PPACA if elected. Republican activist groups helped to argue the personal mandate was unconstitutional.
Taxes-The parties have historically disagreed on the estate tax, which Republicans call the death tax and want to eliminate. They historically disagree on capital gains tax, which Republicans want to eliminate. Republicans have called for eliminating the dividend tax, calling it a double tax. They also are reluctant to increase the tax rate for the highest tax bracket.
Spending-Republicans have recently called for a balanced budget, despite the fact that Bush helped to increase the national debt significantly. They want to reduce so-called entitlements. They opposed parts of the stimulus package by Obama as well. Democrats would prefer to balance the budget by increasing taxes rather than significantly cutting programs.

When you analyze politics like a five year old, of course everything seems the same.

[broncofan]

Congratulations on finding one minor social issue where they differ.
I bet most women don't think abortion is a minor social issue.

[fred41]

I bet most women don't think abortion is a minor social issue.

It's not, but it really is overplayed by the parties.
Since this is something that the parties do "more obviously" differ on it is still brought up at elections...but I really think it's practically a red herring at this point. Every one in politics pretty much understands that during a primary election, people in both parties have to cater somewhat to their extreme ends. With the Republicans that would be with the religious right who view ALL abortions as murder...with the Democrats it's the shrill left who think it's NEVER murder ...even when the kid is practically adult sized already. In those type of cases, in IMHO...it really isn't a women's right issue anymore....and I think most moderates line up somewhere in the middle on this.
But there are tons of Republicans, that during a primary will tote the party line even when you know they don't really mean it...and we know this by things they've said in the past......it's why most politicians have a bit of a waffle in their history.
...and abortions are not going to become illegal again regardless who wins.

...and just for the record, I don't have a problem with abortions...I think they should probably be carried out more often, but I also think at some point in time you are actually killing a human being, but it is sometimes a necessary evil.

[broncofan]

I agree with you on abortion. It's mostly noise now because it's settled law.

The longer the Court's precedent stands the less likely they are to disrupt it. But they have in the past altered the way they interpreted Constitutional issues, the one that comes to mind most is the commerce clause.

It's conceivable that the Supreme Court could at least alter their rulings. Right now, states can pass laws to regulate abortion as long as they are not an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion. There is a lot of disagreement over what regulations are unduly burdensome. I can't remember some of them...waiting periods, notifying parents, notifying father of the child, counseling prior to getting the abortion, and some apparently aimed at discouraging at least some women from having an abortion. It's unlikely that the Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade, but I think at least Scalia believes that the right to privacy underpinning the decision is a made up right.

But I agree with you that it's mostly a talking point for their respective bases. The only reason it's not more contested though is because it's been taken out of the political realm and decided by the judiciary (which is more stable and unelected).

[broncofan]

I want to point out though that dreamon's point was that the party's differences are insignificant. But had there never been an ideological split on abortion, there would not have been a Roe v. Wade. The split continues, but because of the Court's holding it is now only fought at the margins. There are people who stridently oppose the right of women to have an abortion under any circumstance and that is why we've seen laws aimed at curtailing the right (such as informed consent instructions that claim abortion can cause breast cancer).

[dreamon]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/theprotojournalist/2014/08/12/339560577/the-bush-obama-quiz-whats-the-difference

[dreamon]

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/5_ways_obama_has_doubled_down_on_george_w_bushs_po licies/

[trish]

The fact that Obama didn’t set out to dismantle everything George Bush ever done in his presidency goes not one iota toward demonstrating an equivalence between the Democratic and the Republican parties. In fact one may take that to be a significant distinction between the outlook of the two parties. Hell, the Republican Party would dismantle everything the Democrats accomplished going all the way back to and including the New Deal. That Republicans were able to use the filibuster (more times than any time it has ever been used in the past) to roadblock closing Guantanamo, roadblock campaign finance reform, tax reform etc. etc. is hardly evidence that Republicans have no political differences with Democrats. Listening to you one would think Republicans love both Obama and his policies. Tell us, do you think Rand Paul could have closed Guantanamo in 2009 were he president? Do you think McCain would even have wanted to?

Anyone with a brain can see there are deep seated political distinctions between the goals, outlooks and projects of the two major parties. Do you think the Koch brothers flipped a coin to decide which party they wanted to support with their billions?

The system of checks and balances is meant to force compromise, so that the country doesn’t dangerously swerve back and forth, each swing undoing the legislative projects of the prior administration. So yes, when things are well oiled, the actions of the Nation reflect on balance the ambitions of both parties. Inactions are indicators of disagreement. One can safely say there is a lot of disagreement in Washington these days: disagreement that belies the differences between the two major parties.

The current Republican Party (including their Tea Bagger elements--here’s your chance to exercise some PC outrage and downthumb this post) are for undoing The Affordable Care Act. They’re for the privatization of prisons, the privatization of social security, the privatization of public lands for lumbering, mining and fracking. They want to bomb Iranian nuclear power stations and send soldiers into the Ukraine. They’re against same sex marriage, the Dream Act, and Roe v Wade. These are not the deeply help convictions and aspirations of the Democratic party or very many of its subscribers.

[trish]

Abortion may be one issue where they differ. Congratulations on finding one minor social issue where they differ.This from someone who seems to think the legalization of marihuana is a pressing issue.

[dreamon]

This from someone who seems to think the legalization of marihuana is a pressing issue.
When I have ever said that?

I don't smoke weed anymore, so while I do think it should be legal, it doesn't really matter all that much to me.

[trish]

When I have ever said that?

I don't smoke weed anymore, so while I do think it should be legal, it doesn't really matter all that much to me.Didn't say it was a quote did I? But you did start a thread in the Politics/Religion Forum either on the topic of Nancy Grace or the legalization of marihuana. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and opted for the legalization issue.