Anti-Corruption and Public Interest Act

[Curious George]

I'm unconvinced that your changes would improve things.
This is in part due to some erroneous beliefs, eg, that the
wealthy don't pay for infrastructure.
"Oligarchs" are a boogeyman....attacking them won't fix
underlying problems any more than attacking illegal immigrants,
capitalists, blacks, whites, atheists, fundies or misogynists.

I agree that oligarchs and corporations are often used as boogiemen. I also agree that the change will have less impact than intended. After all, with enough money corporations can and do lobby the people and utilize propaganda in order to raise popular support.

I disagree that such laws are of little benefit. Reducing revolving door politics, decreasing backroom dealing, and increasing political transparency at little to no cost to the taxpayer is a very good move and will likely increase confidence in government and strengthen the nation.

 

[icehorse]

1 - Then we need to vote in candidates who oppose subsidizing businesses.
2 - Could you be specific about the subsidies?

1 - Yup, and this bill is perhaps an opening salvo towards that end.
2 - In this case the subsidies I'm thinking of are indirect - as they often are. Specifically, if Walmart and Amazon are NOT paying living wages to their full time workers (which if often the case), then us taxpayers are paying for things like food stamps for those workers. Bezos and the Waltons get a few more billions, we pay for their employees to eat.

They both pay real estate taxes which pay for fire & police services.
Moreover, they pay higher rates than homeowners.
They also pay fuel, property & income taxes which build & maintain roads.
If you don't think they pay enuf, how do you calculate this?

Not an easy task to be sure. But it wouldn't be any fun if it was easy

The way I'd approach this is to look at the budget requirements the government has, and make sure we have the revenue we need. As long as our infrastructure is getting weaker, our people are poorly educated, basic healthcare isn't assured, and so on, AND some corporations are raking in record profits, we clearly don't have a balanced, sustainable system.

That said, I'm not a knee-jerk supporter of Bernie Sanders-esque policies. Free college? Not so sure. But if we don't figure out how to make a high school degree mean something valuable, we're sunk - we're headed towards 3rd world status. I think that there are fundamentals like education that are more important strategically than much of our defense spending. There are many generals in the Pentagon who say they don't need the budget we give them. Our spending priorities are out of whack. And guess who benefits from a bloated defense budget? The oligarchs who are also arms makers.

 

[Revoltingest]

1 - Yup, and this bill is perhaps an opening salvo towards that end.
2 - In this case the subsidies I'm thinking of are indirect - as they often are. Specifically, if Walmart and Amazon are NOT paying living wages to their full time workers (which if often the case), then us taxpayers are paying for things like food stamps for those workers. Bezos and the Waltons get a few more billions, we pay for their employees to eat.

That's not a subsidy. Government would have to support those
people to an even greater extent if they were unemployed.
Amazon & Walmart are saving the taxpayer money.

But there has been a question about the USPS subsidizing
Amazon's shipping costs.

Not an easy task to be sure. But it wouldn't be any fun if it was easy

The way I'd approach this is to look at the budget requirements the government has, and make sure we have the revenue we need. As long as our infrastructure is getting weaker, our people are poorly educated, basic healthcare isn't assured, and so on, AND some corporations are raking in record profits, we clearly don't have a balanced, sustainable system.

"Raking in record profits"....what a catastrophe!

And guess who benefits from a bloated defense budget? The oligarchs who are also arms makers.

The voters want more war, & the re-elect politicians who start & continue wars.
Arms manufacturers benefit, but they don't cause this spending.
This points towards the problem with making oligarchs the problem.
Politicians are doing what the voters (majority of'm) want.
Just look at the last election....Hillary got more votes than anyone,
but she voted to start & continue wars in Congress. And the Democrat
Party squashed the one non-war monger to challenge her, ie, Bernie.

 

[icehorse]

That's not a subsidy. Government would have to support those
people to an even greater extent if they were unemployed.
Amazon & Walmart are saving the taxpayer money.

That seems like a false dilemma. How about a higher minimum wage?

"Raking in record profits"....what a catastrophe!

That's just insulting. I've already given you the context for this idea.

The voters want more war, & the re-elect politicians who start & continue wars.

Got any citations for that?

Arms manufacturers benefit, but they don't cause this spending.
This points towards the problem with making oligarchs the problem.

I disagree. Arms manufacturers are maybe in the top 15 categories of all lobbyists.

This points towards the problem with making oligarchs the problem.
Politicians are doing what the voters (majority of'm) want.

No they don't. The majority of new laws go against what the majority want.

 

[Revoltingest]

That seems like a false dilemma. How about a higher minimum wage?

There's no dilemma at all.
Those companies employ workers who couldn't find a better job.
So they'd be worse off without those jobs at those companies.
As for the higher min wage....
AI is increasingly making low skill workers less useful.
Would it have the effect you intend for more than a few years.?
It would certainly tip competitive advantages towards more
automated non-brick & mortar sellers.

That's just insulting. I've already given you the context for this idea.

Record profits are a good thing.
We all enjoy increased tax revenue in addition to healthy commerce.

Got any citations for that?

Nixon was re-elected after continuing the Vietnam War.
GW Bush was re-elected after starting 2 wars in his first term.
Obama was re-elected after continuing the wars.
Moreover, approval for the wars increased when he was
elected (as evidenced by the disappearance of protests).
Presidents see that voters generally like war.

I disagree. Arms manufacturers are maybe in the top 15 categories of all lobbyists.

Do you have any evidence that they make pro-war policy?
No one has offered any yet.
But we have clear cause & effect correlation with voting & war.

No they don't. The majority of new laws go against what the majority want.

"Got any citations for that?"
We still see re-election of these legislators behind these laws the majority supposedly dislikes.

 

[icehorse]

Those companies employ workers who couldn't find a better job.
So they'd be worse off without those jobs at those companies.
As for the higher min wage....
AI is increasingly making low skill workers less useful.
Would it have the effect you intend for more than a few years.?
It would certainly tip competitive advantages towards more
automated non-brick & mortar sellers.

All of this in the context of rising wealth and income inequality. Does the current path seem in any way sustainable to you? Who is going to buy stuff from Walmart and Amazon of no one has any jobs?

Record profits are a good thing.
We all enjoy increased tax revenue in addition to healthy commerce.

Again, in the correct context, I have nothing against record profits. But we're headed away from "healthy commerce" if we don't have a large, financially secure middle class. And we're losing that. The current trends in income and wealth inequality cannot be sustained.

Nixon was re-elected after continuing the Vietnam War.
GW Bush was re-elected after starting 2 wars in his first term.
Obama was re-elected after continuing the wars.
Moreover, approval for the wars increased when he was
elected (as evidenced by the disappearance of protests).
Presidents see that voters generally like war.

This is a HUGE correlation / causation leap.

Do you have any evidence that they make pro-war policy?

I never said they did. I only said they lobby for more arms deals.

 

[Revoltingest]

All of this in the context of rising wealth and income inequality. Does the current path seem in any way sustainable to you? Who is going to buy stuff from Walmart and Amazon of no one has any jobs?

Now we're facing a different problem, one which you proposals won't fix.
What will we do with an enormous segment of the population which
cannot do work which is worth what they'd cost?
We'll eventually begin seeing a nascent Star Trek economy, ie, people
don't need to work to work. (Of course, the STTNG idea that everyone
would then be employed in self improvement is a bigger fantasy than
teleportation or warp drive.)

Again, in the correct context, I have nothing against record profits. But we're headed away from "healthy commerce" if we don't have a large, financially secure middle class. And we're losing that. The current trends in income and wealth inequality cannot be sustained.

Poco's proposals won't even begin to address that.
I suspect that it'll eventually become something like what the Cato
Institute proposed decades ago....a basic guaranteed income with
much lower marginal tax rates.

OK, it won't be anything so sensible.
But a guy can dream.

This is a HUGE correlation / causation leap.

Not huge.
We have high correlation.
We have explanation.
Voters re-elect politicians who wage war.
If they didn't like these wars, they'd vote for non-hawks.
This is far far more cromulent than the Military Industrial
Complex conspiracy theory.

I never said they did. I only said they lobby for more arms deals.

This doesn't cause our problem of massive foreign military adventurism.
It's just different companies competing for pieces of the pies.
(The pies include not just domestic military sales, but also foreign,
which require difficult to get US federal government approval.)
Back in the day, Northrop had difficulty getting domestic contracts for
political reasons (CA lacked congressional power, & it was non-union.)
But F-5 fighters were popular overseas.....simple, cheap, upgradable,
great dog fighters, capable weapons platform, survivable.

 

[icehorse]

Now we're facing a different problem, one which you proposals won't fix.
What will we do with an enormous segment of the population which
cannot do work which is worth what they'd cost?
We'll eventually begin seeing a nascent Star Trek economy, ie, people
don't need to work to work. (Of course, the STTNG idea that everyone
would then be employed in self improvement is a bigger fantasy than
teleportation or warp drive.)

I never claimed that this proposal would fix everything, of course it won't. I agree that this new issue that you're bringing up is a problem. That said, getting oligarchs to pay for what they use in our society is a part of the solution.

Poco's proposals won't even begin to address that.

Really, you cannot separate the message from the messenger?

Ok, again it seems that you've inferred that I think reining in the oligarchs will solve all of our problems. I do not think that. But! I do think that all our of problems will be far easier to solve once we've got the oligarchs under control.

But F-5 fighters were popular overseas.....simple, cheap, upgradable,
great dog fighters, capable weapons platform, survivable.

Then why is "defense" spending such a big ticket item in our budget?

 

[Revoltingest]

Really, you cannot separate the message from the messenger?

My post was not about Pocahontas, just her message.
But as I pointed out much earlier, the problems relate to the messenger.

Then why is "defense" spending such a big ticket item in our budget?

People like a government which plays policeman to the world.
Most voters abhor the kind of isolationism I want.
They want us to protect Israel, to attack Iran, to protect Syrians,
to fix dictatorships, & to spread democracy (by force).
And this foreign adventurism is expensive, perhaps even more than
strictly defensive measures because of the massive labor costs.

 

[icehorse]

Americans Not Convinced U.S. Needs to Spend More on Defense

To be fair, we've slid a bit away from the OP, but okay. I'm with you when it comes to not wanting to be the military cops of the world. (But I think we ought to be the economic leaders.)

But again, if what you're saying was true, then why would the masters of war spend si much on lobbying?

 

[Revoltingest]

But again, if what you're saying was true, then why would the masters of war spend si much on lobbying?

Almost missed this (cuz no alert).
Lobbying is part of how companies compete for contracts.
I remember Northrop's YF17 competing against what became the F16.
Northrop lost that contract, but the Navy wanted a dual engine carrier
based aircraft. So they bought the F18. But due to politics, they
awarded that contract to McDonnell Douglas rather than the company
who designed the plane.
Northrop also lost the contract for the A9 to Fairchild's A10 (which was
initially rated unacceptable due to some gun & high angle of attack problems).
Why does one company get a contract, but not another? Lobbying plays a role.
Were it not for F5 overseas sales, Northrop would'a been financially crippled.
And getting approval for sales to foreign governments required....

Spoiler: Hint

Lobbying

Btw, as I recall, Northrop got into some legal hot water for bribing foreign officials.
Some countries are even more corrupt than ours.
But there was no domestic bribery.

 

[icehorse]

But there was no domestic bribery.

We've gotten a bit off track, but overall, not bad for this type of discussion

Again, I don't need to claim conspiracies or bribery to claim that in many ways, we're still an oligarchy. I have heard many times that the generals have said they don't need this piece of hardware or that piece of hardware, but we end up getting that hardware anyway. So we have generals and the people saying we can trim defense spending. So why doesn't it happen?

Because those oligarchs who also happen to be the masters of war, want more profits.

 

[Revoltingest]

We've gotten a bit off track, but overall, not bad for this type of discussion

Again, I don't need to claim conspiracies or bribery to claim that in many ways, we're still an oligarchy. I have heard many times that the generals have said they don't need this piece of hardware or that piece of hardware, but we end up getting that hardware anyway. So we have generals and the people saying we can trim defense spending. So why doesn't it happen?

Because those oligarchs who also happen to be the masters of war, want more profits.

Politicians award contracts.
Contractors will sell whatever they can, but they
don't tell government what products to buy.
The "oligarchs" in this case are the elected leaders.
The A10 sales were due to Fairchild's political clout.

 

[Curious George]

My post was not about Pocahontas, just her message.
But as I pointed out much earlier, the problems relate to the messenger.

No, your posts have been about umderlying problems and the only comnection is the messenger.

People like a government which plays policeman to the world.
Most voters abhor the kind of isolationism I want.
They want us to protect Israel, to attack Iran, to protect Syrians,
to fix dictatorships, & to spread democracy (by force).
And this foreign adventurism is expensive, perhaps even more than
strictly defensive measures because of the massive labor costs.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, your posts have been about umderlying problems and the only comnection is the messenger.

You're ignoring my criticism of the message.
Perhaps you're too emotionally connected to the messenger, eh?

 

[icehorse]

Politicians award contracts.
Contractors will sell whatever they can, but they
don't tell government what products to buy.
The "oligarchs" in this case are the elected leaders.
The A10 sales were due to Fairchild's political clout.

Why do politicians award contracts?

 

[Curious George]

You're ignoring my criticism of the message.
Perhaps you're too emotionally connected to the messenger, eh?

Lol, not a fan of the messenger. I focus on issues not people. Your only criticism of the actual message was questioning whether it would produce enough benefit and speculating that it might eliminate some of the expertise.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do politicians award contracts?

They're in the business of exercising power.
Spending taxes on weapons lets them project power around the world.
And they could be used for defense too.
This exercise of global of power is rewarded by voters.
And staying in office is the primary goal.

 

[Revoltingest]

I focus on issues not people.

Not in this case.

 

[Curious George]

Not in this case.

How has anything I said related to the person?

This seems like another tangent to pursue instead of you actually addressing the issue.