How do you reconcile these?

[Foxfyre]

I have a possible solution that some people wouldn't want to hear, that would make it a LITTLE less corrupt of a process.

This is 2010, right?

Money shouldn't have anything to do with Campaigns.

Candidates should get equal face-time on a public access channel, a 10-minute bio, perhaps, we'll iron out the details later.......................and a few debates.

No bought and paid for publicity, or travelling for speaches, etc.

Just that public access channel. That's all.

I couldn't agree to this because it would be an infringement on free speech and also make it impossible for a relative unknown but competent contender to compete with the well known candidate. The unknown has to have the means to get his name out there and those of us who want that well-known candidate defeated and gone should be able to participate in that process.

Far better to put the restraints on them after they are elected, and I think that would automatically rein in a lot of campaign excesses. There wouldn't be much use in funneling a gazillion dollars to a candidate if that candidate was prohibited by law from paying you off later.

It's actually perfect for the unknown. They get to be seen as much as the guy with 6 bagillion dollars.

In other words, your money doesn't get to determine your advertising thus determine your name recognition thus determine your election..............and average uncorruptible Joe Schmoe suddenly has a chance to do the un-thinkable: a non-rich candidate!

But the guy with a bazillion dollars is already well known, more especially if he is an incumbant. His name is a household word. All he has to do is keep his smiling mug out there and he's gonna be elected because most of the electorate doesn't know the other guy and most people will not vote for the unknown.

So what objection do you have to controlling runaway campaign money by simply making it impossible for a candidate to benefit contributors after the election?

 

[G.T.]

I couldn't agree to this because it would be an infringement on free speech and also make it impossible for a relative unknown but competent contender to compete with the well known candidate. The unknown has to have the means to get his name out there and those of us who want that well-known candidate defeated and gone should be able to participate in that process.

Far better to put the restraints on them after they are elected, and I think that would automatically rein in a lot of campaign excesses. There wouldn't be much use in funneling a gazillion dollars to a candidate if that candidate was prohibited by law from paying you off later.

It's actually perfect for the unknown. They get to be seen as much as the guy with 6 bagillion dollars.

In other words, your money doesn't get to determine your advertising thus determine your name recognition thus determine your election..............and average uncorruptible Joe Schmoe suddenly has a chance to do the un-thinkable: a non-rich candidate!

But the guy with a bazillion dollars is already well known, more especially if he is an incumbant. His name is a household word. All he has to do is keep his smiling mug out there and he's gonna be elected because most of the electorate doesn't know the other guy and most people will not vote for the unknown.

So what objection do you have to controlling runaway campaign money by simply making it impossible for a candidate to benefit contributors after the election?

Well for one, there may be instances where contributors would have benefitted from a policy regardless of whether or not they contributed, and if you're banning them ever benefitting from public policy, then you may be banning justice in many cases.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's actually perfect for the unknown. They get to be seen as much as the guy with 6 bagillion dollars.

In other words, your money doesn't get to determine your advertising thus determine your name recognition thus determine your election..............and average uncorruptible Joe Schmoe suddenly has a chance to do the un-thinkable: a non-rich candidate!

But the guy with a bazillion dollars is already well known, more especially if he is an incumbant. His name is a household word. All he has to do is keep his smiling mug out there and he's gonna be elected because most of the electorate doesn't know the other guy and most people will not vote for the unknown.

So what objection do you have to controlling runaway campaign money by simply making it impossible for a candidate to benefit contributors after the election?

Well for one, there may be instances where contributors would have benefitted from a policy regardless of whether or not they contributed, and if you're banning them ever benefitting from public policy, then you may be banning justice in many cases.

No, I don't think you are understanding yet what I am saying.

When I vote for somebody, I absolutely expect that person to pass laws, policy, regulation that will benefit me. I expect to be benefitted because I believe there will be potential to benefit all individuals or small businesses or whatever. So yes, people who don't want Cap and Trade will of course vote for the candidate who opposes that. The guy who doesn't want his company hamstrung by government run healthcare will vote for the candidate who pledges to do what he or she can to roll that back. Etc.

What I am talking about is that if Congress was not able to pass out any form of benefit, contribution, no bid contracts, etc., if one business is benefitted, so will all its competitors be benefitted. If one person receives a benefit, everybody receives the same benefit. It would be a felony and would cost a member his/her Congressional seat to dispense special favors or benefits to some targeted individuals or groups and exclude others.

 

[beowolfe]

How do you reconcile hands-off style Capitalism..........................(ASSUMING YOU'RE FOR)

With bought-and-paid-for (back room deal-based) Government? (ASSUMING YOU'RE AGAINST)

Lemme know.

You cannot reconcile it, but you can write it all off as original sin playing out in very complex ways in a very complex society.

Not very comforting, I admit, but at least that explanation makes sense.

Maybe I've been living in la-la land, but the more I learn the less the information makes any sense at all.

I'm sure someone feels me on thaT.

It's always been some combination of the two all the way back to the first POTUS.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

How do you reconcile hands-off style Capitalism..........................(ASSUMING YOU'RE FOR)

With bought-and-paid-for (back room deal-based) Government? (ASSUMING YOU'RE AGAINST)

Lemme know.

The first is allowing the market to make decisions based on the economics of supply and demand. The second is allowing the government to make those same decision based on bribery and dishonesty. What exactly do I need to reconcile? Do you have to reconcile your support of police with the fact that some police commit criminal acts?

The second (to prohibit) requires laws, a.k.a. "regulations" to prevent.

The second is not the market, it is the government.

 

[G.T.]

No, it's a fusion. It's an entity from the market that has money, and seeks to buy power.

 

[MaggieMae]

How do you reconcile hands-off style Capitalism..........................(ASSUMING YOU'RE FOR)

With bought-and-paid-for (back room deal-based) Government? (ASSUMING YOU'RE AGAINST)

Lemme know.

The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act answers both hypotheses:

The law mandated the separation of commercial and investment banking in order to protect depositors from the hazards of risky investment and speculation, and it worked well for 50 years. Community lending banks fell within the purview of different regulations, mostly to protect the customer, and deposits were insured by the FDIC.

To your first scenario, allowing investment banks to run amok with no oversight finally got us into the current mess (hands-off capitalism).

To your second, Democrats in the 80's easily fell under the spell of Reaganomics, so when banking industry lobbyists started working hard behind the scenes to get Glass-Steagall repealed, by the time Clinton took office, the whole damned lot of them thought it was such a great idea that he signed off on the bill (back-room deals).

 

[MaggieMae]

Your thread isn't getting much action I think because you've asked one of those questions that everybody has to answer the same way or look like an idiot.

Let's put it this way:

1) Would you favor unrestricted capitalism if. . . . .

2) It included sufficient regulation to prevent any person or entity from infringing on the Constitutional, legal, civil, or human rights of any other person or entity. . . . and . . . .

3) It was accompanied by iron clad laws preventing Congress or the Administation from dispensing any form of charity, benevolence, benefit, or advantage to ANY person or entity?

For some reason, I thought he was talking only about the banking mess and financial reform. Don't ask me why.

So thanks for redirecting my thought process to the more general questions posed. However, items 2) and 3) seem to contradict 1). You're imposing sufficient regulation and iron clad laws on capitalism. It's either unrestricted or it isn't.

 

[MaggieMae]

Your thread isn't getting much action I think because you've asked one of those questions that everybody has to answer the same way or look like an idiot.

Let's put it this way:

1) Would you favor unrestricted capitalism if. . . . .

2) It included sufficient regulation to prevent any person or entity from infringing on the Constitutional, legal, civil, or human rights of any other person or entity. . . . and . . . .

3) It was accompanied by iron clad laws preventing Congress or the Administation from dispensing any form of charity, benevolence, benefit, or advantage to ANY person or entity?

I have a possible solution that some people wouldn't want to hear, that would make it a LITTLE less corrupt of a process.

This is 2010, right?

Money shouldn't have anything to do with Campaigns.

Candidates should get equal face-time on a public access channel, a 10-minute bio, perhaps, we'll iron out the details later.......................and a few debates.

No bought and paid for publicity, or travelling for speaches, etc.

Just that public access channel. That's all.

C-Span could devote its third channel (C-Span3) to just balanced campaign speeches and presidential debates. And of course the Internet is cheap, if not free. They can beat each other up there.

 

[MaggieMae]

How do you reconcile hands-off style Capitalism..........................(ASSUMING YOU'RE FOR)

With bought-and-paid-for (back room deal-based) Government? (ASSUMING YOU'RE AGAINST)

Lemme know.

The first is allowing the market to make decisions based on the economics of supply and demand. The second is allowing the government to make those same decision based on bribery and dishonesty. What exactly do I need to reconcile? Do you have to reconcile your support of police with the fact that some police commit criminal acts?

As far as I know, supply and demand continue to dictate markets in a capitalist society. Do you have examples, on a large scale that is, where it does not?

As for bribery and dishonesty, I assume those are choice words used to define compromises made off the record, and I have to tell you that such deals have been made since the first Congress met. It's highly unlikely that you'll ever get 435 House members and 100 Senators to all agree on everything, so there will always be give and take. What you see live on C-Span isn't the whole show, trust me.

 

[The Rabbi]

How do you reconcile hands-off style Capitalism..........................(ASSUMING YOU'RE FOR)

With bought-and-paid-for (back room deal-based) Government? (ASSUMING YOU'RE AGAINST)

Lemme know.

Major troll thread.
If we send you a billygoat will you delete it?

 

[MaggieMae]

I couldn't agree to this because it would be an infringement on free speech and also make it impossible for a relative unknown but competent contender to compete with the well known candidate. The unknown has to have the means to get his name out there and those of us who want that well-known candidate defeated and gone should be able to participate in that process.

Far better to put the restraints on them after they are elected, and I think that would automatically rein in a lot of campaign excesses. There wouldn't be much use in funneling a gazillion dollars to a candidate if that candidate was prohibited by law from paying you off later.

It's actually perfect for the unknown. They get to be seen as much as the guy with 6 bagillion dollars.

In other words, your money doesn't get to determine your advertising thus determine your name recognition thus determine your election..............and average uncorruptible Joe Schmoe suddenly has a chance to do the un-thinkable: a non-rich candidate!

But the guy with a bazillion dollars is already well known, more especially if he is an incumbant. His name is a household word. All he has to do is keep his smiling mug out there and he's gonna be elected because most of the electorate doesn't know the other guy and most people will not vote for the unknown.

So what objection do you have to controlling runaway campaign money by simply making it impossible for a candidate to benefit contributors after the election?

How would you go about controlling it? Quid pro quo really isn't against the law. All politicians promise they won't favor campaign contributors once elected, but they all do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, it's a fusion. It's an entity from the market that has money, and seeks to buy power.

It is only a fusion if the first is not true.

 

[MaggieMae]

But the guy with a bazillion dollars is already well known, more especially if he is an incumbant. His name is a household word. All he has to do is keep his smiling mug out there and he's gonna be elected because most of the electorate doesn't know the other guy and most people will not vote for the unknown.

So what objection do you have to controlling runaway campaign money by simply making it impossible for a candidate to benefit contributors after the election?

Well for one, there may be instances where contributors would have benefitted from a policy regardless of whether or not they contributed, and if you're banning them ever benefitting from public policy, then you may be banning justice in many cases.

No, I don't think you are understanding yet what I am saying.

When I vote for somebody, I absolutely expect that person to pass laws, policy, regulation that will benefit me. I expect to be benefitted because I believe there will be potential to benefit all individuals or small businesses or whatever. So yes, people who don't want Cap and Trade will of course vote for the candidate who opposes that. The guy who doesn't want his company hamstrung by government run healthcare will vote for the candidate who pledges to do what he or she can to roll that back. Etc.

What I am talking about is that if Congress was not able to pass out any form of benefit, contribution, no bid contracts, etc., if one business is benefitted, so will all its competitors be benefitted. If one person receives a benefit, everybody receives the same benefit. It would be a felony and would cost a member his/her Congressional seat to dispense special favors or benefits to some targeted individuals or groups and exclude others.

Surely you don't expect your elected representative to ONLY vote for bills that YOU approve of. He/she has many other constituents to try to please, in addition to yourself. Also, they are elected to serve ALL Americans, which is why they have long and heated debates on their respective chamber floors and why certain clauses get added, amended, or omitted. What you expect is impossible. You can vote for the person who most nearly reflects your needs and values, but that's about it. You seem to be treating this like an article of clothing you purchase that you expect to be a perfect fit, color and style on YOU, and if not, you want to be able to get a refund.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's actually perfect for the unknown. They get to be seen as much as the guy with 6 bagillion dollars.

In other words, your money doesn't get to determine your advertising thus determine your name recognition thus determine your election..............and average uncorruptible Joe Schmoe suddenly has a chance to do the un-thinkable: a non-rich candidate!

But the guy with a bazillion dollars is already well known, more especially if he is an incumbant. His name is a household word. All he has to do is keep his smiling mug out there and he's gonna be elected because most of the electorate doesn't know the other guy and most people will not vote for the unknown.

So what objection do you have to controlling runaway campaign money by simply making it impossible for a candidate to benefit contributors after the election?

How would you go about controlling it? Quid pro quo really isn't against the law. All politicians promise they won't favor campaign contributors once elected, but they all do.

I would do it by passing a law making it illegal for Congress to give taxpayer monies or special favors to anybody. That should take care of it nicely.