2 Questions

[zeke]

OK so you admit your proposal is unworkable because the incumbent will always have the advantage.
Special interests support those they think will win. Note the shift in money towards the GOP recently. Same people supported the Dems in 2010.
And as I said, you would have to repeal the 1A to make that happen.

My plan was to get money-grubbing out of the system and prevent our representatives from selling their votes to the highest bidder. I never said anything about solving the name recognition advantage of incumbents. That was ALL YOU trying to muddy the waters.

My point is it is impossible to get money out of the system. Every attempt thus far has been a failure. And it should be. Money is a proxy for power and voice, as the SUpreme Court realized. Silencing people's voices is what fascists do.

Who would of thought that this idea, that those with the most money have the most power and voice, who would have thought that was what the writers of the COTUS had in mind. Money as a proxy for power and voice in our form of government. Hmmmmm????

That's just hard for me to believe. And I thought you rethugs were big COTUS supporters.

This is nothing new, as FDR fought against it in the thirties:

'We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace--business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs.

We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob."

Correct me if I am wrong but we have never had the SCOTUS sanctify the idea that those with the most money have the most power and the biggest voice.

This idea has been given a legitimacy so that we may never turn it back. In which case, us little people shouldn't even bother voting. The outcomes will become prearranged. If they aren't already.

 

[candycorn]

I really cant stand this 'money in politics' is the problem excuse.

That is NOT the problem, it is a symptom. Money does nothing more than buy political hopefuls ads on TV and other places. That is not how a politician wins. they win by garnering votes.

You're kidding right?

Ads? I can think of a lot of other uses for money than purchasing TV ads.

You're right of course....an engaged electorate is the optimal goal but everything from the types of legislation not introduced to legislation with built-in-loopholes is directly tied to where the money came from.

 

[Darkwind]

1. Those financial institutions own our politicians.

2. Those financial institutions own our politicians.

Yes, the financial industry has been like that so long that many think it's how it is supposed to be, a monstrous parasite sucking money from everything and everyone only to make it evaporate every time a crash occurs.

What do the Unions have to do with this?


I kid...I kid........


maybe......lol

 

[Redfish]

.

Since this thread would no doubt end up becoming divided along political lines, I figured I would post it in "Politics".

Two questions:

1. Why, after all we've learned, do we still have financial institutions that are Too Big To Fail?

2. Why, after all we've learned, have we not instituted or re-instituted something like Glass Steagall?

.

1. Lobbyists and political contributions

2. Lobbyists and political contributions


solutions

1. term limits
2. ban lobbying
3. ban PACs
4. limit political contributions to $1000 per person
5. term limits(repeat)

 

[Redfish]

How is this a party issue?

Really? Do some research. You might find which party proposed and passed this legislation and then you might find which party has fought against this legislation since the moment it was passed.

You do know we are run by a two party political system. And that most legislation is proposed by one or the other.

with the exception of obamacare, legislation is passed by votes from both parties.

 

[zeke]

.

Since this thread would no doubt end up becoming divided along political lines, I figured I would post it in "Politics".

Two questions:

1. Why, after all we've learned, do we still have financial institutions that are Too Big To Fail?

2. Why, after all we've learned, have we not instituted or re-instituted something like Glass Steagall?

.

1. Lobbyists and political contributions

2. Lobbyists and political contributions


solutions

1. term limits
2. ban lobbying
3. ban PACs
4. limit political contributions to $1000 per person
5. term limits(repeat)

Hey which Republican is promoting those ideas? I will vote for them. Which Democrat is promoting those ideas? I will vote for them. I'd vote for anyone with those ideas. Except you redfish. jk dude.

 

[Redfish]

.

Since this thread would no doubt end up becoming divided along political lines, I figured I would post it in "Politics".

Two questions:

1. Why, after all we've learned, do we still have financial institutions that are Too Big To Fail?

2. Why, after all we've learned, have we not instituted or re-instituted something like Glass Steagall?

.

1. Lobbyists and political contributions

2. Lobbyists and political contributions


solutions

1. term limits
2. ban lobbying
3. ban PACs
4. limit political contributions to $1000 per person
5. term limits(repeat)

Hey which Republican is promoting those ideas? I will vote for them. Which Democrat is promoting those ideas? I will vote for them. I'd vote for anyone with those ideas. Except you redfish. jk dude.

those are things that the tea party is promoting. go to a tea party rally, you might find that you have a lot in common.

 

[FA_Q2]

I really cant stand this 'money in politics' is the problem excuse.

That is NOT the problem, it is a symptom. Money does nothing more than buy political hopefuls ads on TV and other places. That is not how a politician wins. they win by garnering votes.

You're kidding right?

Ads? I can think of a lot of other uses for money than purchasing TV ads.

You're right of course....an engaged electorate is the optimal goal but everything from the types of legislation not introduced to legislation with built-in-loopholes is directly tied to where the money came from.

And the point was is that there is no legislation that you or anyone can introduce that will change that. None.

DO you really think that the seven figures Gingrich makes as a 'historian' are because the work he accomplishes?

They are going to find a way to influence politics as long as the voters allow this to happen. Law is not going to take the place of voter responsibility. No matter what laws we pass to control funding elections, it will change nothing.

 

[occupied]

.

Since this thread would no doubt end up becoming divided along political lines, I figured I would post it in "Politics".

Two questions:

1. Why, after all we've learned, do we still have financial institutions that are Too Big To Fail?

2. Why, after all we've learned, have we not instituted or re-instituted something like Glass Steagall?

.

1. Lobbyists and political contributions

2. Lobbyists and political contributions


solutions

1. term limits
2. ban lobbying
3. ban PACs
4. limit political contributions to $1000 per person
5. term limits(repeat)

Hey which Republican is promoting those ideas? I will vote for them. Which Democrat is promoting those ideas? I will vote for them. I'd vote for anyone with those ideas. Except you redfish. jk dude.

those are things that the tea party is promoting. go to a tea party rally, you might find that you have a lot in common.

Went to one, I don't care if those people believed exactly what I do, I would not join up with anyone who acts that hatefully and thinks that fatalistically. Where's the optimism? Why stand around trying scare each other like 12 year-olds telling ghost stories?

 

[candycorn]

I really cant stand this 'money in politics' is the problem excuse.

That is NOT the problem, it is a symptom. Money does nothing more than buy political hopefuls ads on TV and other places. That is not how a politician wins. they win by garnering votes.

You're kidding right?

Ads? I can think of a lot of other uses for money than purchasing TV ads.

You're right of course....an engaged electorate is the optimal goal but everything from the types of legislation not introduced to legislation with built-in-loopholes is directly tied to where the money came from.

And the point was is that there is no legislation that you or anyone can introduce that will change that. None.

DO you really think that the seven figures Gingrich makes as a 'historian' are because the work he accomplishes?

They are going to find a way to influence politics as long as the voters allow this to happen. Law is not going to take the place of voter responsibility. No matter what laws we pass to control funding elections, it will change nothing.

Well, one thing that will happen is that you will end up with some politicians who actually go into the game (at least) with wanting to do what is best for their districts. Getting money out of the equation allows them to do that instead of spending their time raising money or having to look favorably at their supporters while seeking to punish those that didn't support her/him.

Legislation forcing air/print media to give free coverage to federal office seekers/holders every 2 years is one step we could take to that end.