VERY IMPORTANT VIDEO 2 MINUTES!: MONEY IN POLITICS

Robert Reich Explains Why Citizens United Needs To Go
by Beth Buczynski
February 19, 2012
10:08 pm

http://youtu.be/Qq-9A9CGTYU

"The Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling did more than just grant corporations the same rights of speech and privacy as individuals: it gave those corporations and their billionaire owners license to use obscene amounts of money to drown out our voices in elections and take over our government.

But thanks to brave public servants like Sen. Bernie Sanders and Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock, we the people are fighting back against this corporate takeover of the federal government. In the past year, seven Democratic Senators, including Illinois’ Dick Durbin, Tom Udall, New Mexico, introduced a constitutional amendment that would overturn the Citizens United decision. And just last week 50 organizations presented letters to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees requesting hearings on the need to overturn Citizens United.

If you’re not sure why it’s so important to fight for this amendment, the below video from Robert Reich and Common Cause will explain why 2012 needs to be the year Citizens United goes away for good."



http://www.care2.com/causes/robert-r...#ixzz1mwuGrKdo

is it just me or does anyone see the irony that liberals are concerned about big companies taking over government but not about big government taking over american citizens?

is it just me or does anyone see the irony that liberals are concerned about big companies taking over government but not about big government taking over american citizens? Originally Posted by satexasguy

Great observation.

is it just me or does anyone see the irony that liberals are concerned about big companies taking over government but not about big government taking over american citizens? Originally Posted by satexasguy

If that's all you got out of this Tex I applaud and support you, republicans can wear that corporate badge all day if you want, I'll side with the middle class myself.

By the way, every republican president since Ford grew government by large margins compared to democratic presidents. What's more amazing is that the founder of "small government" St Ronnie himself President Reagan grew government by a whopping 189%!! That's right 189% and the Bushco's were twice that of Clinton and so far of Obama

NOW PUT THAT IN YO' PIPE AND
SMOKE IT!!!! LOL!

If that's all you got out of this Tex I applaud and support you, republicans can wear that corporate badge all day if you want, I'll side with the middle class myself.

By the way, every republican president since Ford grew government by large margins compared to democratic presidents. What's more amazing is that the founder of "small government" St Ronnie himself President Reagan grew government by a whopping 189%!! That's right 189% and the Bushco's were twice that of Clinton and so far of Obama

NOW PUT THAT IN YO' PIPE AND
SMOKE IT!!!! LOL! Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

With the exception of Bush 2 all of those republican presidents had a democratic congress. Clinton had a republican congress for 6 years that prevented him from expanding government. The republican congress Bush 2 had was fired in 06 for failing to control spending. Now we have Obama who massively increased spending with his democratic congress in the first 2 years. Thank god for the Tea Party members that got elected in 2010.

With the exception of Bush 2 all of those republican presidents had a democratic congress. Clinton had a republican congress for 6 years that prevented him from expanding government. The republican congress Bush 2 had was fired in 06 for failing to control spending. Now we have Obama who massively increased spending with his democratic congress in the first 2 years. Thank god for the Tea Party members that got elected in 2010. Originally Posted by Laz

Nothing but excuses, excuses, and more excuses. Your party had the Presidency for 20yrs and never once reduced the size of government, so much for that bullshit mantra of "SMALL GOVERNMENT".

BRAVO! Laz, Bravo.

Nothing but excuses, excuses, and more excuses. Your party had the Presidency for 20yrs and never once reduced the size of government, so much for that bullshit mantra of "SMALL GOVERNMENT". Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

I have said it before and I will say it again. Control of congress is more important than control of the presidency. The president can only propose or request things and veto bills he does not like. Congress can bundle and pass things to get around the president.

Numbers don't lie, let's look at the numbers for Fed Gov nonmilitary expansion by President:

"Let’s start with President Carter.

Start: Total nonmilitary personnel was 2,883,000
End: Total in nonmilitary personnel was 2,875,000.

Result: Federal government nonmilitary employees shrunk by 8,000 employees under Carter.

- President Reagan:

Start - 2,875,000 nonmilitary federal employees.
End - 3,113,000.

That is an INCREASE of 238,000 under Reagan

- George H.W. Bush.

Start - 3,113,000
End - 3,083,000

That is a REDUCTION of 30,000 employees.


President Bill Clinton
Start - 3,083,000 and by the END of his TWO TERMS he reduced the number of Federal employees to 2,703,000.

That is a reduction of 380,000 federal employees.


President George W. Bush
Start - 2,703,000
End - 2,756,000,

Which is an INCREASE of 53,000 employees.

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels."

So, what about Obama?!?

The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

So it comes to mind that those who claim to be Reagan small government conservatives and blame Democrats for growing government are either lying to the American people or are themselves willfully ignorant.

http://http://www.opm.gov/feddata/Hi...tSince1962.asp

If I read your numbers correctly Obama increased fed non military employees in two years by more than Bush 2 did in 8 years. What was your point again? Republicans lost in 06 because the country felt they were failing to do their jobs. The democrats lost and the tea party was created for the same reason in 2010.

As for Clinton you keep ignoring the republican congress that forced him to be moderate. I will give him credit for working with and finding compromises with them but he does not deserve sole credit for those years.

If I read your numbers correctly Obama increased fed non military employees in two years by more than Bush 2 did in 8 years. What was your point again? Republicans lost in 06 because the country felt they were failing to do their jobs. The democrats lost and the tea party was created for the same reason in 2010.

As for Clinton you keep ignoring the republican congress that forced him to be moderate. I will give him credit for working with and finding compromises with them but he does not deserve sole credit for those years. Originally Posted by Laz

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

"The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels."

So, what about Obama?!?

The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

So it comes to mind that those who claim to be Reagan small government conservatives and blame Democrats for growing government are either lying to the American people or are themselves willfully ignorant.

http://http://www.opm.gov/feddata/Hi...tSince1962.asp

BRAVO! Laz, Bravo. Originally Posted by RoboSpike

Laz - Obama spends money.

RoboSpike - Bravo! Laz, Bravo!!

LOL!!

The small government, lean and mean political party, seems to be the Democratic Party. President Clinton reduced the size of the federal government’s nonmilitary employees by OVER 10%.

"The “so called” small government President Reagan INCREASED the nonmilitary size of government by almost 10%.

In fact, Democratic president Bill Clinton reduced the size of the federal government employee size to PRE- REAGAN levels."

So, what about Obama?!?

The Reagan conservatives, in fact the entire GOP TODAY are trying to frame President Obama as a big government liberal but again, the numbers don’t lie.

By the end of 2010, the United States STILL has less employees on the books than we did back in 1980 even though the population has grown from 226,545,805 to approximately 330,000,000 in 2010.

TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 1980 — 2,875,000
TOTAL NONMILITARY EMPLOYEES IN 2010 — 2,840,000

We have 35,000 less nonmilitary employees under President Obama than we had 30 years ago.

So it comes to mind that those who claim to be Reagan small government conservatives and blame Democrats for growing government are either lying to the American people or are themselves willfully ignorant.

http://http://www.opm.gov/feddata/Hi...tSince1962.asp Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

This is a great example of trying to take credit for something that does not exist. You talk about how all the Reagan increased the fed govt and Clinton reduced it without considering who controlled Congress.

Under Obama there are 35,000 less employees than 30 years ago (I will accept that your research is accurate) as if that is a good thing while criticizing Bush 2 for increasing the number of employees. I agree that Bush 2 and the republican congresses he had deserve criticism for that. But you hide Obama's increase in govt by showing there are 35,000 fewer than 30 years ago. By that standard Bush 2 was great since there were 119,000 fewer govt employees at the end of his terms than 30 years ago.

Smoke and mirrors BS.

This is a great example of trying to take credit for something that does not exist. You talk about how all the Reagan increased the fed govt and Clinton reduced it without considering who controlled Congress.

Under Obama there are 35,000 less employees than 30 years ago (I will accept that your research is accurate) as if that is a good thing while criticizing Bush 2 for increasing the number of employees. I agree that Bush 2 and the republican congresses he had deserve criticism for that. But you hide Obama's increase in govt by showing there are 35,000 fewer than 30 years ago. By that standard Bush 2 was great since there were 119,000 fewer govt employees at the end of his terms than 30 years ago.

Smoke and mirrors BS. Originally Posted by Laz

Since when do republicans consider all these other factors that your complaining about when it comes to Obama?!? Would you like me to chronicle the obstructionism that occurred from a filibustering republican minority in the senate that blocked everything that Obama tried to do to fix the economy regardless of whether it was good for America or not ?!?
You don't want that because it'll be another one of those inconvenient truths for you to deny.

And your math is incorrect, your not adjusting for population growth 30yrs ago to present.

Since when do republicans consider all these other factors that your complaining about when it comes to Obama?!? Would you like me to chronicle the obstructionism that occurred from a filibustering republican minority in the senate that blocked everything that Obama tried to do to fix the economy regardless of whether it was good for America or not ?!?
You don't want that because it'll be another one of those inconvenient truths for you to deny.

And your math is incorrect, your not adjusting for population growth 30yrs ago to present. Originally Posted by 1NEMESIS

Just in case you have not noticed I do look at all the facts.

Have you ever considered that the things Obama wanted to do to fix the economy were not beneficial. I know that you think anything proposed by Obama has to be great but there are many people that disagree with you. I would be happy to discuss any specific proposals you want to address. Thank god the republicans blocked as much as they could. I am annoyed they did not or could not block more of those genius ideas like cash for clunkers.

If my numbers are wrong so are yours. I used your data. If you want to adjust for population changes then you also need to consider technology and productivity enhancements. That could get a little complex but have fun if you want.