Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Prosopagnosiac posted:

Cross posting from the general chat thread:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/commen...f_here_we_both/

Looks like Abramoff has seen the error of his ways and wants to "change the system man".

I lost my draft reply with sources and specific examples when the last thread closed; to summarize, the impact of Citizen's United (CU) within the system dynamics of campaign finance is to eliminate a barrier which disproportionately benefited Republicans / rewarded petitions for regulatory exemption, as demonstrated through public records.

Seriously: Abramoff views CU as a systemic threat to the status que in policy development. You can give unlimited sums directly to candidates, enough so that the candidate's campaign need not develop networks beyond you. You're a billionaire and you can do direct spends. Why pay Abramoff a fee?

FECI's contribution limits made it so that you'd need to hire Abramoff to deliver votes on policy; his job is to maximize the reward from a petition while minimizing associated costs. Now, it is the mere perception of liquidity which bends the will of policy. This is a very good thing.

In the data, you'll start recognizing common names used on disclosure forms. Cursory research and journal/university dataset subscription access provide means to establish funding records of associations. Individuals can be tagged and matched to these association in several layers. In addition, tax records from broadcast and media disclosure provide proxy through which one may estimate the source, objective, and target of spending. When rates accurately researched, one can figure out how much which paid for what when where and how.

In simple: Past contribution history predicts future contributions. Associative layers modify the source, reason, and result/impact/policy produced of contributions.

There are several small networks which can be observed within inter- and intra-layer links. The statistical analysis indicates a very strong probability for the correlation between contributions made prior to policy change sponsored/cosponsored being non-random.

The historical impact of FECI has been to increase the size of central party bureaucracy. In addition, advocacy organizations were funded to provide various legitimizations for regulatory exemption. As various studies have discussed, the return on investment for lobbying is between $300:$1 and $400:$1, depending on the industry, supporting the thesis which Piketty has been developing in that the rate of change within past wealth is an accurate predictor of future wealth, i.e. the rich naturally get richer and the poor...less so. Individuals who invest through means accessed depending upon determination generate greater future wealth. Past contributions predict future wealth status; the more one falls out of the regulatory purview of state bureaucracies, the greater the increases in their rates of wealth generation, instances of associative links, and prestige class of associative layers. One example I immediately recall is: Country Club->Union League->City Club->McArthur Foundation Board->[Bureaucratic advisory title]. When one compares other records, a strong non-random correlation is observed between board membership and other board member and or organization contribution / political expenditures.

As the FEC provided regulatory disclosure, one striking trend which emerges is the difference between instances of a name occuring in disclosed donations and instances/quantity of advertisement spending for titled political adverts. Now, I'm not besmirching anyone by saying there are different interpretations of the legality of grey contributions; how does one classify statistically signifcant non-random reduction in broadcast rates for specific party organizations on which may be predicted by associative donations to interest groups/political parties by a PID and individual distance from ownership/stake/board of said broadcaster?

What Citizen's United has done is remove the bullshit, which makes spending on non-exemptory issues more likely to occur. For example,

http://m.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/09/16/130916fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

Self-interest, yes; before, with the dataset built from the 1,000 wealthiest individuals in America, 1970 and 2010, one can narrow their examination of political contributions to a comprehensible field, versus ~250,000 significant records otherwise; the >%97 of spending is associated with the 1,000 wealthiest datasets anyways.

Gonna post while I got it and continue with a second.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

My Imaginary GF posted:



the >%97 of spending is associated with the 1,000 wealthiest datasets anyways.

Gonna post while I got it and continue with a second.

So. Nixon and Johnson, with the private planes and briefcases of cash. Congress realizes it had delegated too much power to the President and that FDR's Supreme Juarices tended to side with the Unitary Executive over our Congress. Now, I'm a big fan of FDR and what he was trying to do. However. There is a reason that there can only be one FDR.

Time: FDR was President long enough to build a network where his initial power, as demonstrated by getting others to do what you want, built to a point where, due to the checks and balances of our government, his presidency was able to last long enough whereby he saw increases in his executive powers from having his supreme court appointments. The balance the court provides is to err on the side of their nominators; in recent times, we can see a clear trend for the court, post-Bush II, to rule on the side of limiting executive authority. This is due to the long-term impact of FDR's Presidency on the court and Johnson's being in the right place, at the right time, with the right court composition, to advance the causes of egalitarianism through federal programs. Kennedy was independently wealthy; Johnson was truly poor, and established his power through personap relations. The delegation of responsibility for various power bases, i.e. Chicago asking how many ballot boxes to lose in the river, allowed cohesive messaging at the state-level, and for the President to focus on legislative policy. The same processes occur in the Nixon administration.

However, with the court reaffirming Johnson's executive power, Nixon came into office with an honest mindset. He was correct: When the President does something, that makes it legal. Otherwise, how can one justify the legalities of Bush II's administration? Hell, just last afternoon it was leaked that we've had 120 combat troops deployed in Somalia since 2007, without direct public Congressional authorization. Wiretaps, surveillance, drones: they're legal under the authority of the Executive Branch. You can kill an American citizen convicted in trial by absentia, so long as they aren't (yet, may get interesting cases in the future/Syrian issue tangent) on American soil.

Now, I'm only most familiar with the system dynamics of Midwestern politics, 2004-2012. In states which pass term limits, political power is concentrated in the hands of a very small group, if group at all. Politicians hate risk. Everyone hates risk; so why risk your job when you go for your interview with the boss to discuss plans and be afforded 20-years of job security, in exchange for party loyalty? If you play the internals right, you'll go from House to Member, from Senate to Senator. And the job's not hard, its drat fun at time, and the stress of elections can be minimized with algorithmic precision. All you need to do is vote if ever asked. You don't have to; you can talk about it. And if it comes to ever being told, you vote if you value your career.

Now, this internal system doesn't allow for much bipartisanship. And you'll see in the record, the impact of contributions post-limits versus the real rate of occurance/expenditure versus airtime received, that those with a sincerely held economic interest play by the rules of taute societe. With such a high ROI, exponential growth in wealth occurs for the donative class; this growth is only checked by inflation, life's true flat tax on lenders and redistribution of wealth to borrowers, death, creation of an institutional foundation and its backbone infrastructure, and/or a combination of the above. In sum, the richest find means to redirect state authority to themselves if provided enough time.

Now, in Abramoff's system, the Speaker yields authority by being the central organizer and distributor for the RNC/DNC. In the dynamics of contributions flow, limits serve as a breaker curcuit. Yes, billionaires are as lazy as you, too. People are people; we naturally go the paths of least resistance, with determination required for those less travelled. A Pritzker invites you to meet the family, and our country's history is made. A Koch joins you at lunch and calls up a Cargill, and soon enough you're a thousand miles away and running for Senate as a reformed extremist.

This has all been done before; however, limits on contributions when spending has quantifiable impact upon votes, messaging, time, future regional wages, federal dollars returned to district, voter participation/feeling of engagement, etc. Limits + Will = Way. Usually through state infrastructure/other middlemen; it truly is a coincidence when one state's county party gets a 40k contribution and then sends out 5 checks. Truly, multiplied by number of counties in state if you so generously wish. CU eliminated that need. Now its direct to/for the candidate/position, wire the money to a local market broadcaster (whose controlling interest you just so happen to own) @ standard rate, charge opposition rate for higher demand, recoup between 130% - 230% of initial expenditure, modified by correlative strenth and class of associations within the state of expenditure. Don't think Murdochs spend so much in politics for nothing.

With CU? No need. Just air the commercial and write off the cost, although without IRS/FCC-sanctioned modification in broadcast rates. Seriously, if you want a beneficial policy change, engeneer an increase in tax which would have impact solely on political broadcasts carried over public airwaves regulated and liscenced by your state.

My point is, CU makes politicians loyal to patrons for issues, rather than centralized party institutions for ideology. This individual loyalty has, in our nation's past, allowed the passage of some of our most progressive and egalitarian legislation; its a direct path upward within the branches, and is how FDR/LBJ got into wielding their authority.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

moebius2778 posted:

Some questions:

1) The obvious question would seem to be: who are the centralized party institutions loyal to? And if they are not loyal to the patrons of the party, why not? How does loyalty transfer when it is processed through multiple organizations?

2) I don't see how you've shown that the individual loyalty has "allowed the passage of some of our most progressive and egalitarian legislation". You've shown that such legislation passed while such individual loyalty existed, but I'm not convinced that such loyalty was either necessary or sufficient to pass the legislation. Was it necessary, and if so, why? Was it sufficient, and if so, why?

1) Apologies for not better communicating the construct. From what I've seen, thenselves. It all depends on the state and well organized a movement is. Fearful respect is what I have for Speaker Pelosi.

About to pass out, will try to better communicate later. If you're asking specific indivisuals, take this to PM.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Evil Fluffy posted:

What makes you think that congress has the authority to micromanage the Commander in Chief? Unless those 120 are going to war with Somalia their authority begins and ends with funding.

Watch Congress defund the CIA. Both publicly and privately. That's happened, when? And I'm not saying there's a Hoover, but, with the NSA/CIA programs, do you really want to take that risk? I'm really not a believer in conspiracy; only that which has been documented in the press. Its data, not metadata, that you can get. What safeguards exist to prevent this from being used against an outside agent?

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Fried Chicken posted:

It isn't that it is cheap, it is that if you use it you then you get a tax credit. Hence why it is loaded into everything

Then to offset the taste (since it gets added to things that don't call for sugar) they dump in a bunch of salt.

So you get the 1-2 punch of a bunch of sugar and high sodium

It seems there's a growing trend to replace with, literally, wood.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Jerry Manderbilt posted:

I heard that the Han Dynasty tried trickle-down economics and that it was a huge factor in the country's fragmentation for several hundred years as the wealthy became too powerful and unruly.*

*Disclaimer: Ancient China isn't my area of expertise.

From what I've read, Han fell for several reasons, the first and foremost being the collapse of the bureaucracy and public order in the face of millions of internal migrants, individuals/bandits who were starving to death due to the overdependence upon regular irrigation from the Yellow River and the failure of the levy system, a means for increasing food production beyond Malthusian limits and allowed for the urbanities of the Han to exist. This has more information: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140619125052.htm

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich
What I don't get is, if they really wanted to impeach Obama, why not do it for something like his use of surveillence technology against domestic citizens?

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Zeroisanumber posted:

Are you trying to argue that Goons aren't gross and unelectable?

Some of us have been elected before.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Hedera Helix posted:

Isn't the actual day-to-day experience of being a politician centered around fundraising? Why would anyone ever want to put themself through that?

Because of all the alcohol you get in the process.

E: Quick clarifying story, had a friend in grad school from Boehner's district whose family once dated within Boehner's family. The alcohol part played some consideration into his position. Or so I've heard.

My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Aug 4, 2014

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Femur posted:

Because our government is weak by design; due to fracturing, there is no real power. This a false dichotomy of course because a legitimate government by definition has complete control, and absolute power. We have exerted this absolute power at times of need.

Anyways, the only value in personally going through the sideshow called politics is because it is a ticket to the country club. It is a sign of legitimacy. It's for the useless scions that you know will be a black hole, so you buy him some titles and such so he is not destructive, and add to your brand and claim. Judges and politicians are welcome everywhere, tickets to a claim. ancient hinese saw this too, the civil services exam was a great boon initially

Maybe it's just my world view because Imperial China is interesting to me. US politics by is completely useless, you guys got an official rank that "whip" a choice :bang: This weakness is good and by design through.

It seems the best thing possible is to limit the damage and let luck handle the rest. Term limit and harsh and enforced estate tax is needed and is achievable in any future populist movement. I don't know long we can keep the rest of the world as 2nd class citizens. The military is 60%+ of our budget, we got death drones now. Such feats of engineering are used on goat herders, talk about building a better mousetrap .

The IRS should get the NSA's budget and clout. It's not like they get to keep it.

At first I misread your mispelling as a reference to Sinuhe. And then I got to the part about term limits: Have you ever worked in state politics in a state with term limits, and a state without? If anything, term limits are one of the most centralizing and concentrating means of enforcing partisanship.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Femur posted:

I've heard that, and really, I just want to make the position one that is attainable for more. giving an idealist a chance within their lifetime. Wouldn't it be great if former politicians commonly walk amongst us and tell us their experience? I believe it a numbers game, increase the possibility of connection, and accountability.

I am not that well read, so that was just my opinion. The Estate tax I believe to be fact. Taxes has to be collected, they should get all personal info. As long as it is funded heavily, and tied to metric with a little lag, and transparency, I see no problems?

Man cannot beat the immortality of numbers, and it's bullshit we gotta carry around their memory.

So what you do is this: Since corporations are not people, and only people can die, you put all your money in a Family Trust. You may pay some accounting fees, and when you structure it right, you'll just use the trust's credit card for anything and wire money directly from it to various campaigns [with the added benefit of attribution to any member of the trust, no matter its actual governing structure]. In effect, you've just limited the ability of wealth to be passed down intergenerationally between the middle class.


Former politicians do walk among us. That's why we have elections, to hold the real shitheads accountable and feel like we have buy-in. What works better is to broaden the base of individuals with buy-in, so long as the positions meet the following requirements to avoid the collosal motherfuck of a corrupt system that is Chinese politics:

1. Elected positions should pay an above-average salary, with generously defined benefits and lifetime pensions

2. No matter what, always pay the civil servants. Always, always, pay them on-time, on-schedule, direct-deposit, and never, ever, with red envelopes.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Femur posted:

Whatever the current situation is, giving the IRS power will change the dynamic. They are like beggars now, on respect really. Tax law is not a firm thing, Things can be argued if resources were put forth.

Your situation , how are shares and ownership transferred? The records are there, you NSA level review this case. There has to be an exchange somewhere. I don't care about cost of living x100 per child or whatever. Be generous on the exception, I don't care.

The IRS is being humiliated right now for doing her job.

And I believe we are saying the same thing in increasing the base. A change like yours probably requires a bigger revolution than what I feel is attainable. Increase everyone's pay!

If I may ask, where you from?

Its a family trust, its duly registered with the IRS and all the necessary reports are automatically filed. There's only tax when it pays out; however, its possible to issue premium shares with options, have an auditor's valuation peg them as worth 1 cent each, and deposit those in your IRA. All completely tax-exempt. And when the options expire, the trust buys back the shares at -preset amount, depending how much your trust has in it; could be $1 a share, could be $100, or $50,000 if you have the assets.

Now, this system works for a reason: anyone who goes through this process will have to hire an accountant and attorney versed in these matters. The trusts' funds are invested and return a generous rate of capital, which is in almost all forms tax-exempt. Why? Because the trust reinvests the funds in the economy; without this system, the dollar would be losing market share as the world's currency.

There is, of course, a natural-occuring taxation system that is almost 100% determined on an honest future-risk perception market basis: inflation.

I am quite against revolutions, thankyouverymuch, unless they are in my national interest, then I am quite for those revolutions and feel more foreign aid should flow freely. I am for expanding certain, impactful elements of bureaucratic structures, when there is an evidence base behind the economic benefits via multiplier effects of those structures.

Hell, anyone who wants part of the systen can form their own self-governing body. That's why towns can go from unincorporated to incorporated, and if the towns offer better services then elsewhere, will attract more citizens.

Edit: also, when referring to alphabet-agencies, you use the letters. For instance, instead of writing, 'The IRS does a great job,' the stylistically correct way would be "IRS does a grest job." There are no genders assigned to acronyms.

My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Aug 4, 2014

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Femur posted:

I simply mean revolution in thinking.

Through I imagine the world economy will have collapsed before my future, so that will not matter.

The records are all there, and you just can just take it after death.

Take what after death? The trust never dies; its a self-governing body which elects its own board of governance, and all of this in public records if you know where to look.

If you're saying, 'appropriate the assets after death,' that is creating a systemic incentive to destroy self-governing bodies, or even people, for their assets. Eventually that incentive cauzed a Rubicon moment and the whole house comes crashing down.

A 'revolution in thinking' cannot ever be a top-down process. To do so would control everything, while managing nothing. Awareness is worth nothing without well-managed organization.


E: And no need to be too jaded, the world economy will certainly look different 'in your time,' and difference should be embraced, nurtured, and have its strengths incorporated into stakeholders of an adaptive, self-governing system.

E2: final edit before bed,

Shear Modulus posted:

Not just partisanship, but a complete inability by officeholders to build authority on the law, letting lobbyists gain authority and influence much more easily.

I do agree with your sentiment. What you call "an inability by officeholders to build authority on the law," I call partisanship. I like lobbyists. Every official meeting they hold is a matter of public record, with their employer/purpose declared, which makes it so much easier to research who wants what from whom, why, how they're going to get it, when, and how much it cost them. If you then call up a friend of that individual with this information, you'll know the exact range in which to expect a contribution with 95% confidence interval.

My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Aug 4, 2014

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Raenir Salazar posted:

Don't we have a secret handshake or shibboleth we use to identify each other in public?

Bumperstickers on our jalopie field cars.

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

Aurubin posted:

My house has stairs in it. I brought protection.

Bonus if said at an NRA, AARP, or IAFF event.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

My Imaginary GF
Jul 17, 2005

by R. Guyovich

zoux posted:

These immigrant kids probably have Ebola, says Indiana Republican.


Also I understand that each of these children actually hides a spooooky skeleton inside of them! Be afraid of children!!

Perhaps...it would be safer to fund a national sanitorium system with universal coverage, just to be safe.

  • Locked thread