Super Rich

All I can say is WOW!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1337721.html


Login with Facebook to see what your friends are reading Enable Social Reading i
Ken Griffin, Billionaire Romney Backer, Says Super Rich Have 'An Insufficient Influence' On Politics By Alana Horowitz
Posted: 03/11/2012 3:17 pm Updated: 03/11/2012 3:32 pm


A billionaire backer of Mitt Romney said that the wealthy have "an insufficient influence" on politics and policy.

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Ken Griffin, founder of the hedge fund Citadel was asked if he thought rich people had too great of an influence on politics.

"I think they actually have an insufficient influence," he responded. "Those who have enjoyed the benefits of our system more than ever now owe a duty to protect the system that has created the greatest nation on this planet."

He also told the Tribune that he believes he should be able to donate an unlimited amount of money to Super PACs.

According to FEC filings, Griffin recently donated $100,000 to Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney Super PAC. He gave $2,500 to Romney personally, as well as to a slew of other Republican candidates and groups. His wife has also donated to Romney.

As the Huffington Post's Dan Froomkin reported, Romney's hedge fund backers (including Griffin) stand to profit big from their donations. A second Obama term could mean more and higher taxes on the ultrawealthy. Private equity or hedge fund moguls comprise over half of the donations to Restore Our Future, according to the New York Times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

All I can say is WOW!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1337721.html


Login with Facebook to see what your friends are reading Enable Social Reading i
Ken Griffin, Billionaire Romney Backer, Says Super Rich Have 'An Insufficient Influence' On Politics By Alana Horowitz
Posted: 03/11/2012 3:17 pm Updated: 03/11/2012 3:32 pm


A billionaire backer of Mitt Romney said that the wealthy have "an insufficient influence" on politics and policy.

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Ken Griffin, founder of the hedge fund Citadel was asked if he thought rich people had too great of an influence on politics.

"I think they actually have an insufficient influence," he responded. "Those who have enjoyed the benefits of our system more than ever now owe a duty to protect the system that has created the greatest nation on this planet."

He also told the Tribune that he believes he should be able to donate an unlimited amount of money to Super PACs.

According to FEC filings, Griffin recently donated $100,000 to Restore Our Future, a pro-Romney Super PAC. He gave $2,500 to Romney personally, as well as to a slew of other Republican candidates and groups. His wife has also donated to Romney.

As the Huffington Post's Dan Froomkin reported, Romney's hedge fund backers (including Griffin) stand to profit big from their donations. A second Obama term could mean more and higher taxes on the ultrawealthy. Private equity or hedge fund moguls comprise over half of the donations to Restore Our Future, according to the New York Times.

---

Do you disagree that we are the greatest nation on this planet? I think you do. I think you hate America and its founding principles.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/15/opinio...acs/index.html


Super PACs a disaster for democracy
By Fred Wertheimer, Special to CNN
updated 12:39 PM EST, Wed February 15, 2012

The Citizens United ruling that gave rise to super PACs was one of the worst in Supreme Court history, Fred Wertheimer says.

Super PACs get unlimited funds from super rich, corporations, unions to spend in elections
Fred Wertheimer: Super PACs reportedly raised $181 million in two years, half from 200 people
Super PACs push citizens to sidelines, he says, by buying a candidate's election
Super PACs must be required to disclose donors and expenditures, Wertheimer says
Editor's note: Fred Wertheimer is president of Democracy 21, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that supports campaign finance reform.
(CNN) -- In 1907, Congress banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in the wake of the robber baron-era scandals. In 1947, the ban was formally applied to corporate expenditures and extended to cover labor unions.
In 1974, Congress enacted limits on individual contributions to federal candidates and political committees in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Citizens United case declared the corporate expenditure ban unconstitutional, holding that independent expenditures could not be constitutionally limited in federal elections, and implicitly that corporations could give unlimited amounts to other groups to spend, as long as the expenditures were made independently from the supported candidate. Subsequently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in the SpeechNow case held that the limits on individual contributions to groups that made independent expenditures were unconstitutional.
Thus was born the super PAC.

Fred Wertheimer
And thus was born the national campaign finance scandals that are unfolding daily in the 2012 elections.
Super PACs are federally registered political action committees that raise unlimited contributions from the super rich, corporations, labor unions and other entities and spend these funds to make "independent" expenditures in federal elections.
They are an unmitigated disaster for the American people.
A recent study by Demos and the U.S. Public Interest Group found that, as Politico reported, "Super PACs raised about $181 million in the last two years -- with roughly half of it coming from fewer than 200 super-rich people."
The man behind super PACs Obama reverses position on super PACs What exactly are Super PACs? How super PACs work
The study also found that 93% of the itemized contributions raised by super PACs came in contributions of $10,000 or more, with more than half of this money coming from just 37 people who each gave $500,000 or more.
Super PACs are a game for millionaires and billionaires. They are a game for corporations and other wealthy interests. Meanwhile, citizens are pushed to the sidelines to watch the corruption of our democracy.
In the 2012 presidential election, an even more insidious version of the super PAC was born -- the candidate-specific super PAC. Every significant presidential campaign has had a super PAC -- created and run by close associates of the candidate -- that raises unlimited contributions to spend only to support that presidential candidate.
Presidential candidate-specific super PACs are simply vehicles for the presidential candidates and their supporters to circumvent the limits on contributions to candidates enacted to prevent corruption. Most of the super PAC money has been spent on attack ads.
We already have seen Sheldon Adelson and his wife give $10 million to the presidential super PAC supporting Newt Gingrich. One couple! $10 million!
The claim that these presidential super PACs are operating "independently" from the presidential candidates, as is required by law, is absurd and has no credibility.
Last week, President Barack Obama reversed course and agreed to send Cabinet members, White House staff and campaign officials to speak at and participate in fundraising events for Priorities USA Action, the allegedly "independent" super PAC supporting Obama's re-election. Days later, Mitt Romney's campaign announced that senior Romney campaign aides would do the same and appear and speak at fundraising events for Restore Our Future, Romney's allegedly "independent" super PAC.
Sound independent?
According to the Supreme Court's view, a corporation that spends $30 million to elect a senator will not be able to buy corrupting influence over the senator's positions because the corporation has not "coordinated" its expenditures with the senator.
Democracy 21 believes these super PACs are indeed engaging in illegally coordinated activities and is requesting the Justice Department to investigate.
Super PACs corrupt our political system in two ways.
First, super PACs allow a relatively few super-rich individuals and other wealthy interests to have greatly magnified and undue influence over the results of our elections.
Second, super PACs allow the super rich and wealthy interests to buy influence over government decisions, in the event the candidate wins.
The Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case that unleashed this is built entirely on a fiction: that "independent" expenditures by corporations cannot have a corrupting influence on federal officeholders.
This is fantasy, not reality.'


Keep reading by clicking on link.

Election Corruption: How Super PACs have infected our political election system and ways to change it

published by Abubakr on Wed, 02/22/2012 - 09:01


With the impending 2012 elections arriving, it is imperative that we analyze how these campaigns finance themselves primarily with Super PACs. Holistically, the conference will accomplish a thorough understanding of Super PACs by exploring their initial Supreme Court case, their previous effect on an election campaign, proposed policy that could eliminate or impede corrupting aspects, and speculation on how they will affect future elections especially the 2012 election. Super PACs are essentially funds set up by a group of people supporting a certain person; this can be anybody, but for the purpose of the paper it will be a candidate. Furthermore, Super PACs are independent of the candidate, supposedly cannot be influenced by the candidate unless he addresses it publicly, and they have limits on what they can and cannot achieve. One’s primary incentive to donate to a Super PAC is that, unlike customary donations, there is no limit to how much one can donate. The caveat of this system is that eventually the donors name and amount given must be reported after a certain point. However, the influence of the Super PACs will already be done by this time. One should question why corporation, wealthy business men would donate millions of dollars to these elections without expecting compensation.



Unlike many of the contemporary news stations role on the story, a direct look at the Citizens United case that permitted these programs to operate will be extensively examined. A thorough understanding of why there was bi-partisan support for and against these called programs due to freedom of speech and corruption potency is imperative for understanding this case. Furthermore, the most effective way to understand the impact of Super PACs is to examine previous elections. Although Super PACs are a recent phenomenon, specific and conclusive models can be generated in order to create an understanding on how Super PACs have an influential sway on results due to their abilities. It is also imperative to understand how candidates use their Super PACs effectively and bypass their supposed limitations in order to achieve their goals. Moreover, by examining the cause and effect cycles of candidates, one can create policies that can effectively combat potentially corrupting and detrimental aspects of Super PACs. It is interesting to note that many of the supporters of Super PACs would eliminate Super PACs in favor for a more transparent but direct system of donations. What is undeniable by critics and supporters is the effect that Super PACs will have on the 2012 election. Although it may be difficult to fully speculate, a proper and accurate forecast on effects of Super PACs for the 2012 election can be assessed with expert prediction as well as personal projections in coordination with the previous election effects. It is fully expected that the profound impact of Super PACs will be shown through a case study on the matter as expected by even the supporters of Super PACs. This impact will instead argue that Super PACs effect on elections is more detrimental, and they should be limited further or eliminated even though it might infringe on what some people consider ‘free speech.’



Draft Conference Paper and Presentation Materials:


Abubakr Ziaullah



Sarah Workman



Conference Paper



I. Introduction



I would like to begin by asking the audience, by a show of hands, if you believe that, under the predominant clauses of the law, you have equal and fair electoral power in the coming election. Under the presumed conditions, does your vote count as much as everybody else’s vote whether rich, poor, influential or not? Although the aforementioned questions were response biased, I would relieve the audience in affirming that the power of their vote still stands in this country.



However, I would like to explore another way in which our electoral system is being hijacked by those with enough financial assets that they can force even sincere politicians into enacting the donor’s personal ambitions. Now, I am sure that many of you are aware of Super PACs existence, and how they are the new median between third party individuals or corporations and political candidates, but in order to most effectively understand Super PACs, one must first look at the court case that first created them: the Citizens United and Federal Election Committee. My research question entails how this case created an atmosphere in which politicians are forced to conceive toward the wishes of their donors in order to have a reasonable chance in any current election. This will begin with a discussion of the Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission case, what Super PACs are essentially, and what have they already done in elections.



Its a long article.
http://siteslab.org/pit-dev/proposal...tem-and-ways-0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong

Do you disagree that we are the greatest nation on this planet? I think you do. I think you hate America and its founding principles.

---

I wonder if he disagree's that America is the greatest nation on Earth.

No, he just doesnt respond to IDIOTIC statements. " i think he hates America". That officially qualifiies you as a far, far, far, (i should go on. lol) right extremist par excellence or else a complete imbecile. Probably BOTH. lmfao.

Capitalism, Version 2012
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: March 13, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/op...2.html?_r=1&hp
David Rothkopf, the chief executive and editor-at-large of Foreign Policy magazine, has a smart new book out, entitled “Power, Inc.,” about the epic rivalry between big business and government that captures, in many ways, what the 2012 election should be about — and it’s not “contraception,” although the word does begin with a “C.” It’s the future of “capitalism” and whether it will be shaped in America or somewhere else.

Rothkopf argues that while for much of the 20th century the great struggle on the world stage was between capitalism and communism, which capitalism won, the great struggle in the 21st century will be about which version of capitalism will win, which one will prove the most effective at generating growth and become the most emulated.

“Will it be Beijing’s capitalism with Chinese characteristics?” asks Rothkopf. “Will it be the democratic development capitalism of India and Brazil? Will it be entrepreneurial small-state capitalism of Singapore and Israel? Will it be European safety-net capitalism? Or will it be American capitalism?” It is an intriguing question, which raises another: What is American capitalism today, and what will enable it to thrive in the 21st century?

Rothkopf’s view, which I share, is that the thing others have most admired and tried to emulate about American capitalism is precisely what we’ve been ignoring: America’s success for over 200 years was largely due to its healthy, balanced public-private partnership — where government provided the institutions, rules, safety nets, education, research and infrastructure to empower the private sector to innovate, invest and take the risks that promote growth and jobs.

When the private sector overwhelms the public, you get the 2008 subprime crisis. When the public overwhelms the private, you get choking regulations. You need a balance, which is why we have to get past this cartoonish “argument that the choice is either all government or all the market,” argues Rothkopf. The lesson of history, he adds, is that capitalism thrives best when you have this balance, and “when you lose the balance, you get in trouble.”

For that reason, the ideal 2012 election would be one that offered the public competing conservative and liberal versions of the key grand bargains, the key balances, that America needs to forge to adapt its capitalism to this century.

The first is a grand bargain to fix our long-term structural deficit by phasing in $1 in tax increases, via tax reform, for every $3 to $4 in cuts to entitlements and defense over the next decade. If the Republican Party continues to take the view that there must be no tax increases, we’re stuck. Capitalism can’t work without safety nets or fiscal prudence, and we need both in a sustainable balance.

As part of this, we will need an intergenerational grand bargain so we don’t end up in an intergenerational civil war. We need a proper balance between government spending on nursing homes and nursery schools — on the last six months of life and the first six months of life.

Another grand bargain we need is between the environmental community and the oil and gas industry over how to do two things at once: safely exploit America’s newfound riches in natural gas, while simultaneously building a bridge to a low-carbon energy economy, with greater emphasis on energy efficiency.

Another grand bargain we need is on infrastructure. We have more than a $2 trillion deficit in bridges, roads, airports, ports and bandwidth, and the government doesn’t have the money to make it up. We need a bargain that enables the government to both enlist and partner with the private sector to unleash private investments in infrastructure that will serve the public and offer investors appropriate returns.

Within both education and health care, we need grand bargains that better allocate resources between remediation and prevention. In both health and education, we spend more than anyone else in the world — without better outcomes. We waste too much money treating people for preventable diseases and reteaching students in college what they should have learned in high school. Modern capitalism requires skilled workers and workers with portable health care that allows them to move for any job.

We also need a grand bargain between employers, employees and government — à la Germany — where government provides the incentives for employers to hire, train and retrain labor.

We can’t have any of these bargains, though, without a more informed public debate. The “big thing that’s missing” in U.S. politics today, Bill Gates said to me in a recent interview, “is this technocratic understanding of the facts and where things are working and where they’re not working,” so the debate can be driven by data, not ideology.

Capitalism and political systems — like companies — must constantly evolve to stay vital. People are watching how we evolve and whether our version of democratic capitalism can continue to thrive. A lot is at stake here. But if “we continue to treat politics as a reality show played for cheap theatrics,” argues Rothkopf, “we increase the likelihood that the next chapter in the ongoing story of capitalism is going to be written somewhere else.”

Most liberals hate America and it's founding. Even Obama hates the founding of individual liberty. He prefers a collectivist approach as do you. Call it what it is.

I see you are becoming a disciple of the Glen Becks and Russ Limbaugh's school of unhinged insults.
If you actually believed half of what you say here I would seriously be concerned for your mental health.

And this coming from a guy who called himself a "centrist". lmfao.

I can only believe from some of his responses that he is illiterate. One can keep hoping he will learn to read some of the articles i post and then carry on an intelligent conversation about them.



Capitalism, Version 2012
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: March 13, 2012

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/14/op...2.html?_r=1&hp
David Rothkopf, the chief executive and editor-at-large of Foreign Policy magazine, has a smart new book out, entitled “Power, Inc.,” about the epic rivalry between big business and government that captures, in many ways, what the 2012 election should be about — and it’s not “contraception,” although the word does begin with a “C.” It’s the future of “capitalism” and whether it will be shaped in America or somewhere else.

Rothkopf argues that while for much of the 20th century the great struggle on the world stage was between capitalism and communism, which capitalism won, the great struggle in the 21st century will be about which version of capitalism will win, which one will prove the most effective at generating growth and become the most emulated.

“Will it be Beijing’s capitalism with Chinese characteristics?” asks Rothkopf. “Will it be the democratic development capitalism of India and Brazil? Will it be entrepreneurial small-state capitalism of Singapore and Israel? Will it be European safety-net capitalism? Or will it be American capitalism?” It is an intriguing question, which raises another: What is American capitalism today, and what will enable it to thrive in the 21st century?

Rothkopf’s view, which I share, is that the thing others have most admired and tried to emulate about American capitalism is precisely what we’ve been ignoring: America’s success for over 200 years was largely due to its healthy, balanced public-private partnership — where government provided the institutions, rules, safety nets, education, research and infrastructure to empower the private sector to innovate, invest and take the risks that promote growth and jobs.

When the private sector overwhelms the public, you get the 2008 subprime crisis. When the public overwhelms the private, you get choking regulations. You need a balance, which is why we have to get past this cartoonish “argument that the choice is either all government or all the market,” argues Rothkopf. The lesson of history, he adds, is that capitalism thrives best when you have this balance, and “when you lose the balance, you get in trouble.”

For that reason, the ideal 2012 election would be one that offered the public competing conservative and liberal versions of the key grand bargains, the key balances, that America needs to forge to adapt its capitalism to this century.

The first is a grand bargain to fix our long-term structural deficit by phasing in $1 in tax increases, via tax reform, for every $3 to $4 in cuts to entitlements and defense over the next decade. If the Republican Party continues to take the view that there must be no tax increases, we’re stuck. Capitalism can’t work without safety nets or fiscal prudence, and we need both in a sustainable balance.

As part of this, we will need an intergenerational grand bargain so we don’t end up in an intergenerational civil war. We need a proper balance between government spending on nursing homes and nursery schools — on the last six months of life and the first six months of life.

Another grand bargain we need is between the environmental community and the oil and gas industry over how to do two things at once: safely exploit America’s newfound riches in natural gas, while simultaneously building a bridge to a low-carbon energy economy, with greater emphasis on energy efficiency.

Another grand bargain we need is on infrastructure. We have more than a $2 trillion deficit in bridges, roads, airports, ports and bandwidth, and the government doesn’t have the money to make it up. We need a bargain that enables the government to both enlist and partner with the private sector to unleash private investments in infrastructure that will serve the public and offer investors appropriate returns.

Within both education and health care, we need grand bargains that better allocate resources between remediation and prevention. In both health and education, we spend more than anyone else in the world — without better outcomes. We waste too much money treating people for preventable diseases and reteaching students in college what they should have learned in high school. Modern capitalism requires skilled workers and workers with portable health care that allows them to move for any job.

We also need a grand bargain between employers, employees and government — à la Germany — where government provides the incentives for employers to hire, train and retrain labor.

We can’t have any of these bargains, though, without a more informed public debate. The “big thing that’s missing” in U.S. politics today, Bill Gates said to me in a recent interview, “is this technocratic understanding of the facts and where things are working and where they’re not working,” so the debate can be driven by data, not ideology.

Capitalism and political systems — like companies — must constantly evolve to stay vital. People are watching how we evolve and whether our version of democratic capitalism can continue to thrive. A lot is at stake here. But if “we continue to treat politics as a reality show played for cheap theatrics,” argues Rothkopf, “we increase the likelihood that the next chapter in the ongoing story of capitalism is going to be written somewhere else.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

I see you are becoming a disciple of the Glen Becks and Russ Limbaugh's school of unhinged insults.
If you actually believed half of what you say here I would seriously be concerned for your mental health.

And this coming from a guy who called himself a "centrist". lmfao.

---

Another distortion by the liberal. Another lie. Bad tactics my friend, and very bad form. But, I understand. You are unable to help yourself. Your extreme rigid left wing beliefs have become your addiction. You will resort to lying to support them.

I post articles worth discussing and he posts long held prejudices. Ridiculous RANTS. Joining Russ Limbaugh and Glenn Beck in the gutter.

Why not address the article and argue the points? Cant i quess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SiriuslyLong

Another distortion by the liberal. Another lie. Bad tactics my friend, and very bad form. But, I understand. You are unable to help yourself. Your extreme rigid left wing beliefs have become your addiction. You will resort to lying to support them.

---

Just sticking with the facts. You wrongly cite Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck....... I have nothing to do with them. ZERO. You are a liar. It's not a problem for you, just a tactic.

All i said is you are sounding exactly like them. And you are. Go listen to their rants about hating liberals.

It aint no lie. If I put all your comments about Liberals together on this page I think any objective person would agree.

You seem to have trouble refuting facts that I post in some of the articles on this thread. You would be better served arguing your position if you stuck to those facts and tried to dispute them rather than spewing silly hate talk about liberals. You really need to grow up a little. It makes me think you arent who you say you are.

When you finally acknowledge just how many wrong predictions mr. Schiff has made over many years I will know that you are stage 1 of being willing to admit truths that counter your rigid
ideological predisposition. I wont hold my breath.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Havakasha

All i said is you are sounding exactly like them. And you are. Go listen to their rants about hating liberals.

It aint no lie. If I put all your comments about Liberals together on this page I think any objective person would agree.

You seem to have trouble refuting facts that I post in some of the articles on this thread. You would be better served arguing your position if you stuck to those facts and tried to dispute them rather than spewing silly hate talk about liberals. You really need to grow up a little. It makes me think you arent who you say you are.

When you finally acknowledge just how many wrong predictions mr. Schiff has made over many years I will know that you are stage 1 of being willing to admit truths that counter your rigid
ideological predisposition. I wont hold my breath.

---

I don't need them to tell me why liberals are off base. Anyone with normal American DNA can figure that out.

You don't argue facts. Saying solar will grow isn't a fact.

Here's one for you from your buddy Schiff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9hFeHDJAIU