Billionaire Asshole Shoots Off His Mouth Again

[TaraJo]

Neither convinced nor not convinced that we require revolution.

That kinda depends on what you consider a revolution. If we had a non-violent revolution where the people woke up, took back control of the government and the corporately owned media (which the plutocrats use to control our thoughts and keep us on their side), I'm all on board with that.

And this is really nothing new. It's been happening for as long as I know. Just look at American history; when slavery existed, the slave owners were insisting that regulations (aka freeing the slaves) would put them out of business. When we did away with child labor, they insisted that it would put a lot of businesses out of business. When basic labor laws came in like workplace safety laws, all that was heard is how detrimental it would be on business.

As far as his idea, I can actually see a benefit to it. As it is now, rich bastards are damn good at finding loopholes to avoid paying taxes and a lot of rich people actually have a net gain in taxes because of those loopholes. I'd just love to be able to eliminate the ability for a lot of them to vote, not to mention a lot of them, for the first time ever, would have an incentive to actually pay taxes.

[DeistPaladin]

That kinda depends on what you consider a revolution. If we had a non-violent revolution where the people woke up, took back control of the government and the corporately owned media (which the plutocrats use to control our thoughts and keep us on their side), I'm all on board with that.

Fortunately, we've (still) got a system that allows for non-violent and legal revolution at the ballot box. This is why their gerrymandering and voter suppression is such a big concern.

[TaraJo]

That kinda depends on what you consider a revolution. If we had a non-violent revolution where the people woke up, took back control of the government and the corporately owned media (which the plutocrats use to control our thoughts and keep us on their side), I'm all on board with that.

Fortunately, we've (still) got a system that allows for non-violent and legal revolution at the ballot box. This is why their gerrymandering and voter suppression is such a big concern.

Even at the ballot box they have a lot of power. Their control of the media decides who gets the most attention, not to mention politicians buy advertising and pay for campaigns with money donated by the wealthy.

[Clueless Morgan]

Neither convinced nor not convinced that we require revolution.

And this is really nothing new. It's been happening for as long as I know. Just look at American history; when slavery existed, the slave owners were insisting that regulations (aka freeing the slaves) would put them out of business. When we did away with child labor, they insisted that it would put a lot of businesses out of business. When basic labor laws came in like workplace safety laws, all that was heard is how detrimental it would be on business.

Here, let me help you with that:

Even at the ballot box they have a lot of power. Their control of the media decides who gets the most attention, not to mention politicians buy advertising and pay for campaigns with money donated by the wealthy.

I don't recall a time in my life where "campaign finance reform" and the need for campaign finance transparency was not being touted as necessary and urgent - "Get money out of politics!" everyone cries - and yet nothing ever seems to happen with regards to this topic...

[DeistPaladin]

I don't recall a time in my life where "campaign finance reform" and the need for campaign finance transparency was not being touted as necessary and urgent - "Get money out of politics!" everyone cries - and yet nothing ever seems to happen with regards to this topic...

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it, what's needed is a complete and total ban on any and all paid political advertisement. The Post Office, being a government institution, would also be banned from delivering any mail that calls for any political action or endorses any candidate or party. This would be considered using tax dollars and public resources for a private political campaign.

Free speech should be free and you can't purchase more.

[Anomalocaris]

http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/14/investin...?hpt=hp_t2

Tom Perkins' big idea: The rich should get more votes

Perkins: $1M in taxes should get 1M votes

Time to roll out the guillotine!

Why? Perkins is much more useful to his political opponents alive then dead.

If those seeking to punish the wealthy with truly prohibitive tax rates needed an agent provocateur in the billionaire camp, they could not possibly have found a better one than Perkins.

[Minimalist]

"Get money out of politics!" everyone cries - and yet nothing ever seems to happen with regards to this topic...

Except the people giving and getting the money. And, oh yeah, they write the laws.

---

The mythology of the founding of America is almost as piss poor as the mythology behind jesus and mohammed. Reality has become obscure by distance.

http://www.iefd.org/articles/constitutio...he_few.php

In twelve of the thirteen states (Pennsylvania excepted), only property-owning White males could vote, probably not more than 10 percent of the total adult population. Excluded were all indigenous First Nation people ("Indians"), persons of African descent, women, indentured servants, and White males lacking sufficient property. Property qualifications for holding office were so steep as to exclude even most of the White males who could vote. A member of the New Jersey legislature had to be worth at least 1,000 pounds. South Carolina state senators had to possess estates worth at least 7,000 pounds clear of debt (equivalent to more than a million dollars today). In Maryland, a candidate for governor had to own at least 5,000 pounds of property. In addition, the absence of a secret ballot and of a real choice among candidates and programs led to widespread apathy.2

[Ryantology]

The mythology of the founding of America is almost as piss poor as the mythology behind jesus and mohammed. Reality has become obscure by distance.

http://www.iefd.org/articles/constitutio...he_few.php

In twelve of the thirteen states (Pennsylvania excepted), only property-owning White males could vote, probably not more than 10 percent of the total adult population. Excluded were all indigenous First Nation people ("Indians"), persons of African descent, women, indentured servants, and White males lacking sufficient property. Property qualifications for holding office were so steep as to exclude even most of the White males who could vote. A member of the New Jersey legislature had to be worth at least 1,000 pounds. South Carolina state senators had to possess estates worth at least 7,000 pounds clear of debt (equivalent to more than a million dollars today). In Maryland, a candidate for governor had to own at least 5,000 pounds of property. In addition, the absence of a secret ballot and of a real choice among candidates and programs led to widespread apathy.2

This is precisely what conservatives want when they talk of 'founding fathers' and turning back the clock so as to reflect their intentions: a nation in which voting rights are restricted only to extremely wealthy white males, and in which everybody else has rights only to the point that the plutocrats decide to permit.

[Minimalist]

It's supposed to be a secret.

[Tonus]

What, that the ultra-wealthy enjoy a level of access that is shameful? I think that Perkins simply wants to codify something that might already exist in practice. Gotta fill those "board" positions with someone, after all.