That's what Trump is for

Citizens United created a ridiculous system. Both sides, Democrat and Republican, have been forced to adhere to the views of Soros, Steyers, the Koch Brothers, Adelson, and more. Candidates, at this point, have almost become unable to express their own views, because their views might not bring in the money.

Thanks for the video by the way. Refreshing to see Sanders criticize both left-wing and right-wing videos. Was impressed by that, because I thought he would buckle under "liberal" donations. At least he's consistent

However on the point you made in your comment. I haven't been able to get concrete numbers but the amount of money poured in state and local elections (where a majority of laws that effect the everyday lives of regular citizens are produced) is a fraction of that spent on federal elections. That being said there is a tremendous amount of opportunity for fringe-candidates or ones with federally unpopular political views to get elected. These people then get a strong political platform upon which to expand their message and get more people interested. I think we need to solve the problem of "political corruption" from the ground up. Elect more local and state representatives who refuse to use the money donated by super pacs, interest groups, lobbyists, and corporations. This will create a new generation of morally superior politicians (hopefully). I'm not for making political donations illegal, because I don't see the constitutional argument supporting that position.

@Jai

1) on stuff
-->"Bernie simply saying Koch Brothers giving millions in political donations is disingenuous on his part"

No it is not, it is just a fact, and as you came to realize apparently, Bernie Sanders is against money in politics, wether the money goes to the Democrats or the Republicans. He is also the only one not using Super Pacs, and refuse any donation above ~3000$ (don't rememeber the exact figure). Martin Shkreli actually tried to donate to Sanders (the maximum amount allowed), and Sanders refunded him.

-->"You can't criticize banking institutions without acknowledging the benefits they provide in terms of employment and national wealth creation"

I fail to see how banks create wealth. Speculation is a zero-sum game, the make money by investing in people that actually create the wealth, on speculation and on loans.

But my issue is also about the whole system, not only greedy billionaires. This week, Oxfam released a study showing that the gap between the richest people and the rest is increasing every year. The top 1% now owns more than the rest 99% of the world combine. 62 people now own as much as half the world (3.5Billion people), and their wealth has increased by $500Billion in just 5 years. It makes me sick that we allow this to happen. The system needs to be changed, and it starts by stopping the Billionaires from gaming the system. That's it.

2) Dodd-Frank
-->"I'm sad to see you thought I was lying about Dodd-Frank allowing bigger banks to buy out smaller ones."

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and consider that this was an honest mistake from your part.
Here is what i said:
**I actually don't know every details of american politics, but i have no reason to believe that your statement is false**
**(...)and that i have no reason to contradict**

I also said that:
**i don't know enough about it to make an informed judgement yet.**

So it would make no sense for me to argue for or against your statement. Maybe Dodd-Frank was the primary cause for the banks to get bigger, or maybe it is more complicated than that, i don't know. I can only doubt that if it is really the case, i can only doubt that it was the initial intention. Bernie Sanders voted for it, and Bernie Sanders has made it clear that he wants to break up the Banks. So him voting for a motion that purposedly made the banks bigger doesn't make sense.
I don't take your word at face value, because i'm not really putting that much trust in your judgement. And even if you are wrong, it doesn't mean that you lied, it just means that you are wrong.

Maybe i'll take the time to get informed on Dodd-Frank, and we can discuss it then. But for now i don't see the point in continuing the discussion on the matter. (and we still have 3 other open topic, wich is already too much imo)


3)banks
So we seem to agree on that. People don't have any other option offered to them than giving their money to the banks. So all the stuff about 'having the right and option", mutually agree "contract", is a bogus argument. Where we disagree is that i think that the government should impose some regulations on them, while you don't seem to think that this should be the case. In fact, maybe this is fundamentally where the two of us disagree. I think that on any area affecting people's well being, the government should make regulation to protect the citizens against corporate greed. This is true for the Banks, Health Care, or policies to protect the environement (the water, the air), i'm also in favor of regulating house renting prices, etc. You seem to be in favor of an unregulated free market (correct me if i'm wrong)

4)obamacare
Again, i'm don't know the issue about obamacare enough to comment on it. What i've seen is that the majority of people are in favor of it. I also watched SciShow's host Hank Green interview with Obama from last year, where he thank him for his laws on health care, wich allows him afford the medicine he has to take for his chronic disease.

5)on lobbyng=corruption
ability to give money to any politician - "This is true political freedom"
In a society where everyone made the same amount of money, i'd say that you are right. But as we know, this is far from being the case. And allowing anyone to give any amount to politician actually means that whoever got the money have controls who gets elected, and therefore where to lead the country. You think that it is freedom, but it is just a form of discrimination. There are first class citizens who's voice weight more than the rest (and by voice i mean money).

Here is how elections are handled in France, and i think that it is a good system (far from perfect):
-> Any physical person can donate to political campains, with a ceiling of 4600€/person
-> Corporations can't donate
-> Political Parties are also publicly funded, depending on how much elected representative the party has (independant from campains)
-> There is a ceiling on how much a candidate can spend on his campain, which depends on the number of inhabitants in the region for regional elections, and amount to about 38Millions € for presidential elections
-> For presidential elections, candidates are refunded by the government. If they get more than 5% of the votes, they can get a refund for up to ~50% of the ceiling (4.7% of the ceiling if they get less than 5% of the votes)
For regional elections, their is a similar system of refunding.

What are you thoughts on that system?

Edited 1/20/2016 21:27:03

@Hitchslap

1) Bernie Sanders is against money in politics, wether the money goes to the Democrats or the Republicans. He is also the only one not using Super Pacs, and refuse any donation above ~3000$

Its $2700 - that's the maximum a single individual can give to a candidate per election, much less than the ceiling of 4800 euros in France. Also I think you forgot to include Donald Trump in the list of people not using (or refusing) to use money from Super Pacs. Also 72% of Trump's unsolicited donations (about $2.8 million) came from donations of $200 or less. So its a bipartisan issue.

http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contriblimits.shtml - This link provides a chart of what people can donate and how much to different elections in the US. Its a nice visual explanation.

2) Bernie Sanders voted for it, and Bernie Sanders has made it clear that he wants to break up the Banks. So him voting for a motion that purposedly made the banks bigger doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense to me either. The only thing that would explain it is 1) he did not understand the Dodd-Frank legislation and what it would end up causing or 2) he's a hypocrite. If 2 is correct than his criticism against big banks is entirely negated and he has no authority on the matter. If 1 is correct than I think that speaks to his ability (or lack of) to be president.

3) I fail to see how banks create wealth. Speculation is a zero-sum game

Banks provide a service to consumers. A service based business always creates wealth for the larger economy. When they provide a loan of $10,000 for Person A to build a business, that business will later create wealth for the economy by paying taxes, employing people, and producing a good or service. Without that initial loan of $10,000 that person may not have been able to create that business. Plus Banks employ actual physical people you must remember - bank clerks, IT specialists, financial advisers, guards and money transfer security personnel, construction crews to build banks, etc. Banks are huge sources of national wealth in any economy. As I mentioned before: "n 2014, finance and insurance represented 7.2 percent (or $1.26 trillion) of U.S. gross domestic product."

4) I think that on any area affecting people's well being, the government should make regulation to protect the citizens against corporate greed. This is true for the Banks, Health Care, or policies to protect the environement (the water, the air)

This is the heart of why we disagree. I think this political difference on the role of the government in regulating society is because of the fundamental difference between France (and much of Europe) and America. You have to understand two separate things: America has historically distrusted socialist political and economic policies because we have been a pure-capitalist society until the 1930s, and the US constitution naturally favors a smaller government (indeed our Founding Fathers believed a smaller government means a freer people). No where in the Constitution is the Federal Government given explicit power to regulate banks (and in the current day example, break them up by force). In fact I'll read you the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.". The federal government can only control things its explicitly given the power to do so, such as organizing a military or conducting foreign policy or levying taxes. This is the most confusing thing for European people (based on observation) to understand because they are used to a historically more powerful central government that essentially has broad powers to regulate and control. Don't misinterpret me. I don't believe in a completely unregulated free market, but I do believe that regulation must be constitutional. The bailout the big banks and financial institutions got in 2008 was not constitutional and the federal reserve artificially controlling the money supply and interest rates is unconstitutional.

3) What i've seen is that the majority of people are in favor of it.

I'm sorry to say you're absolutely wrong (see polling: http://www.gallup.com/poll/182318/americans-slightly-positive-toward-affordable-care-act.aspx). 50% disapprove of Obamacare (and it used to be 56%), 23% of families say its hurt them, and 32% don't believe that Obamacare will actually help improve their healthcare situation. So yes Obamacare has helped some people get life insurance but at what cost to society? Premiums increased, drug prices increased, and other people are being unwillingly forced to pay for other people's services. The American public is not for Obamacare.

5) And allowing anyone to give any amount to politician actually means that whoever got the money have controls who gets elected

I think you're falling into the trap of oversimplification. Just because I donate a billion dollars doesn't mean I control the political process of what laws are made and who gets elected. You're ignoring the fact that so many variables and factors go into lawmaking and political elections, some of which I mentioned before: party ideology, election year pressure, constituent pressure to pursue certain laws, opposing lobbyists and super pacs who want you to create a law, gerrymandering. Also I don't see how you can attribute political donations to discrimination - that is an insulting stretch. At the end of the day my vote matters as much as Sheldon Adelson's and Tom Steyer's. They don't have more political power than me and to say so is incredulous. Grassroots movements are powerful. Look at how well Cruz and Trump are doing.

Also there are campaign finance limits to how much people can donate. You make it seem like every billionaire can spend unlimited amounts on a single candidate, which isn't true. Look at: http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml#Contribution_Limits. All that Citizen United did was: "make it legal for corporations and unions to spend from their general treasuries to finance independent expenditures related to campaigns, but did not alter the prohibition on direct corporate or union contributions to federal campaigns." The uproar about FEC vs. Citizen United is highly exaggerated because the ability to donate money to political campaigns is a protected constitutional right. Do you actually know what a Political Action Committee is (PAC)? A PAC is a type of organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaign for or against candidates, legislation, or ballot initiatives. Its a way for people to get involved in the political process. If you don't like the message one pac is supporting than you can donate to another. Its not like there's 5 or 6 or 7 PACS...there are 4,611 PACs as of 2009. That's a whole lot of diversity of viewpoints. You want to see real political corruption go spend a couple of months in India. To attribute the US political system with fraud and corruption and bribery which you are describing is exaggeration...complete hot air.

Both of you are absurd.

Is a Risk website REALLY the place to debate this?

But just to join in with a few points:

Again, i'm don't know the issue about obamacare enough to comment on it. What i've seen is that the majority of people are in favor of it. I also watched SciShow's host Hank Green interview with Obama from last year, where he thank him for his laws on health care, wich allows him afford the medicine he has to take for his chronic disease.

Most *poor* people aren't for Obamacare. The people who are for it are:

1). Upper Lower Class Inner City People (who make ~30,000- ~40,000 a year)
2). People who don't understand how it works
3). People who are lucky enough to be in the small economic niches where it benefits them.
4). People who think its helping poor people but are rich enough that it doesn't effect them.

Is a Risk website REALLY the place to debate this?
But just to join in with a few points:

What a hypocrite ^

4). People who think its helping poor people but are rich enough that it doesn't effect them.

You do realize that the cost of healthcare on a national average is still lower than those of the bush 43 era when accounting for inflation.

Also, the profit margin of these health corporations has declined, which is a rational thing, as it should be illegal to make a profit off of your health, which is what these corporations are doing.

Problem with big vs small business / dilemma

Either we are oppressed by the handful of people who form the government, or we are oppressed by a handful of affluent citizens who puppeteer the government

Remember comrades

War is when the government tells you who the enemy is.

But they call it a revolution when you figure it out for yourself.

The bricks we throw today will be used to build the schools of our education tomorrow.

Fascism is merely capitalism muddied with murder

When i give food to the poor,they call me a saint. When i ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.

The Democrat candidates have together a net worth of 86.5 million. Don't let them lecture you on wealth inequality.

One day, we will ask work for a yield that gives return based on our hardship. Until then we must struggle against the regime comrades

Also, the profit margin of these health corporations has declined, which is a rational thing, as it should be illegal to make a profit off of your health, which is what these corporations are doing.

If they weren't making a profit no one would be offering health insurance, and then how (and who) would you pay for the incredible costs of hospitalization and disease treatment? America has 300 million people and tend to be very very unhealthy. If the government were to pick up those costs (which is unconstitutional), it would bankrupt us.