By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 04 May 2012
Edit Thread
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

My solution would be to limit the length of the election season. Six months from stem to stern, with a severe limit on airtime purchasing, would do much to keep costs down.

Wouldn't that just lengthen the influence of "free" campaigning in the way of Fox News and MSNBC like things.  Or those "fake news reports" a while back.

But they would have to do so completely on their dime (well, funded by advertisers, but raising revenue entirely through traditional broadcast revenue channels), which would in turn mean that their commentary would at least have to be what the people want to see

Why?

I mean, why couldn't say... if say Exon Mobile doesn't like Barack Obama, why can't they say to MSNBC or a local news station "We are pulling our sponsership because we feel you aren't doing enough to talk about how while Unemployment is 8.1% the Particpation rate is down 5% so it's really more like 11%.

How do you stop that?  Why wouldn't the money earmarked for campaigning still get used.  Just in more nefarious ways that hurt the country more?

Then we just have to go start beating sense into businesses, as in why they're bothering to earmark rent-seeking in the first place when they could be doing more to expand their business with that kind of funding. We should not have to accept this waste as the status quo.

So... outright authoritarianism then?  That was a quick jump... i mean... really?

Otusde which... right now buisnesses DON'T have anything else to spend it on.   They have record profits, and yet, there is no real demand increase.  The only signfiicant demand increase we've really had has been fake government demand, which buisnesses were smart enough not to expand into because it's a losing proposition.

It's why we have record profits, but an unemployment rate that would be 11% if the partcipation rate was the same as when Obama took office and had 8.1 unemployment.  (Unemployment was just announced today to be the lowest since January 2009... you know, not counting the huge participation rate drop.)

If I were wrong and you were right and money does matter, then it would make sense to spend money to get a president in who you think would be better for the economy and buisness.  Companies normally would rather expand their pie then get a bigger piece of what exists afterall.

While if I'm right... it's not really being wasted anyway, because there is nowhere to go with that money anyway.... and hey there is more money to hire people like you... which  you'll use to buy stuff theoretically... granted, only some of those types of jobs would be permanent which is a bummer... but at least there will be some increase in permanent demand.