Campaign donations.

[dblack]

The general asumption of representative democracy is that group of persons holding office will improve the general conditions of the population , and if not they will be voted out of office.

of course if that was true we would not need a Constitution, we would merely trust the people to vote for the right guys.[/QUOTE
Exactly!

 

[CultureCitizen]

Correct! Which coincides with the views of the founders who understood, just the very nature of government existence, it perpetually grows more powerful as freedoms of the individual decline. Government can't do anything else.

Yes , but they also loathed the power of corporations. Thomas Jefferson feared not only big government but also big corporations. He wanted the US to have a terrain as level as it was possible ( at least within his slaver context). He founded a public university ( not a private one ) which shows how much he valued education in the pursuit of equallity of oportunities.

"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

Isn't the US approaching this point ? I personally think this is very related to the topic we are discussing.

Thomas Jefferson
The end of democracy... Quotation Thomas Jefferson s Monticello
http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/049/0600/0642.jpg

 

[Boss]

Correct! Which coincides with the views of the founders who understood, just the very nature of government existence, it perpetually grows more powerful as freedoms of the individual decline. Government can't do anything else.

Yes , but they also loathed the power of corporations. Thomas Jefferson feared not only big government but also big corporations. He wanted the US to have a terrain as level as it was possible ( at least within his slaver context). He founded a public university ( not a private one ) which shows how much he valued education in the pursuit of equallity of oportunities.

"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

Isn't the US approaching this point ? I personally think this is very related to the topic we are discussing.

Thomas Jefferson
The end of democracy... Quotation Thomas Jefferson s Monticello
http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/049/0600/0642.jpg

We can debate how different the views of Jefferson were from what our views are today but they didn't have anything like what we have today in terms of industrial corporations. The Industrial Revolution was just being born. Ironically, it came of age as a direct result of American free market capitalism and free enterprise.

What you are saying about Jefferson is true, however this is why he favored small limited federal government. As Ben Franklin told the woman who asked what kind of government we had been given, "A Republic, if you can keep it, madam!"

Then, is this (one of my favorites):
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler

 

[CultureCitizen]

Correct! Which coincides with the views of the founders who understood, just the very nature of government existence, it perpetually grows more powerful as freedoms of the individual decline. Government can't do anything else.

Yes , but they also loathed the power of corporations. Thomas Jefferson feared not only big government but also big corporations. He wanted the US to have a terrain as level as it was possible ( at least within his slaver context). He founded a public university ( not a private one ) which shows how much he valued education in the pursuit of equallity of oportunities.

"I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country."

"The end of democracy and the defeat of the American Revolution will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."

Isn't the US approaching this point ? I personally think this is very related to the topic we are discussing.

Thomas Jefferson
The end of democracy... Quotation Thomas Jefferson s Monticello
http://memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/049/0600/0642.jpg

We can debate how different the views of Jefferson were from what our views are today but they didn't have anything like what we have today in terms of industrial corporations. The Industrial Revolution was just being born. Ironically, it came of age as a direct result of American free market capitalism and free enterprise.

What you are saying about Jefferson is true, however this is why he favored small limited federal government. As Ben Franklin told the woman who asked what kind of government we had been given, "A Republic, if you can keep it, madam!"

Then, is this (one of my favorites):
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy--to be followed by a dictatorship.”
― Alexander Fraser Tytler

My point here is that you can't downsize and weaken the state if you do not take measures to downsize and control companies which compete in size with the government. It's an act of balance.

 

[Clementine]

I think socialism is fueled by greed. It's favored by those who want to live off the labors of workers.

I would rather we make it easier for people to throw their hat in the ring for president and once parties decide on a candidate, I'd be willing to help pay for weekly public debates where they are required to answer questions in detail and understand that we will hold them to their word or fire them. Instead of having elections something only the wealthy and connected can participate in, public funding instead of private donations would be fair. No more trashy ads where they exaggerate about opponents instead of telling us what they are about.

We all hate campaign ads. I like putting candidates on the spot with debates. That is the best way to judge them.

 

[Boss]

My point here is that you can't downsize and weaken the state if you do not take measures to downsize and control companies which compete in size with the government. It's an act of balance.

I'm a free market capitalist. I want government to have as little to do with companies as companies have to do with government. I want to be free to go out there and compete against other capitalists fairly in the market instead of competing against those who managed to get a corrupt politician in their pocket. I want to be free to bid on and win government contracts based on price and not because of political influence and favoritism. I want my business to succeed because my idea was good and not because the government bailed me out. If I fail, I want it to be because of my own actions and not because the government decided to make winners and losers.

I favor free market capitalist policies which help free market capitalists.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Companies and corporations have a great deal to do with government.

Why else do you think that lobbyists exist?

They pay off the politicians, and in doing so, contribute a great deal of money towards their next election.

And then..................they call in the favors after they're elected.

I guess that an Oligarchy is better than Democracy, because those who make the most know the best./sarcasm.

 

[CultureCitizen]

We all hate campaign ads. I like putting candidates on the spot with debates. That is the best way to judge them.

Nice , I like debates too.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I'm a free market capitalist. I want government to have as little to do with companies as companies have to do with government. I want to be free to go out there and compete against other capitalists fairly in the market instead of competing against those who managed to get a corrupt politician in their pocket. I want to be free to bid on and win government contracts based on price and not because of political influence and favoritism. I want my business to succeed because my idea was good and not because the government bailed me out. If I fail, I want it to be because of my own actions and not because the government decided to make winners and losers.

I favor free market capitalist policies which help free market capitalists.

Well Boss, I like free market too , until it stops being free, and I only like the market while there is equality of oportunity.
In other words : It's rather unfair competing against a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

Does a poor person have the same chances of a rich one of completing college ? No. It is therefore necesary to take some measures to level the playing field .
Do insurance companies promote competition between healthcare providers ? No , hence some rules must be changed so that there is actual competition.
Is it healthy to have banks that are too big to fail ? No, hence we must split them and avoid bail outs.

So while I am not a big fan of having the government medling in every industry and of perpetual handouts, but I do think government regulation is extremely important to ensure the free market works and that there is equality of oportunity for all citizens.

 

[dblack]

So while I am not a big fan of having the government medling in every industry and of perpetual handouts, but I do think government regulation is extremely important to ensure the free market works and that there is equality of oportunity for all citizens.

And that's why it's worth so much money to control politicians.

 

[Clementine]

Companies and corporations have a great deal to do with government.

Why else do you think that lobbyists exist?

They pay off the politicians, and in doing so, contribute a great deal of money towards their next election.

And then..................they call in the favors after they're elected.

I guess that an Oligarchy is better than Democracy, because those who make the most know the best./sarcasm.

There have been cases where lobbyists were positive. The intent was for everyone to have a voice, even the minorities, so sending representatives to speak in Washington was the way to go. Of course, like anything else, there are those who use everything to their own advantage and now it's about buying support.

Lobbyists can be good, but there needs to be rules and they need to be adhered to. Speaking to congress is okay. Bribing them with money or gifts should be a crime.

 

[Boss]

I'm a free market capitalist. I want government to have as little to do with companies as companies have to do with government. I want to be free to go out there and compete against other capitalists fairly in the market instead of competing against those who managed to get a corrupt politician in their pocket. I want to be free to bid on and win government contracts based on price and not because of political influence and favoritism. I want my business to succeed because my idea was good and not because the government bailed me out. If I fail, I want it to be because of my own actions and not because the government decided to make winners and losers.

I favor free market capitalist policies which help free market capitalists.

Well Boss, I like free market too , until it stops being free, and I only like the market while there is equality of oportunity.
In other words : It's rather unfair competing against a one legged man in an ass kicking contest.

Does a poor person have the same chances of a rich one of completing college ? No. It is therefore necesary to take some measures to level the playing field .
Do insurance companies promote competition between healthcare providers ? No , hence some rules must be changed so that there is actual competition.
Is it healthy to have banks that are too big to fail ? No, hence we must split them and avoid bail outs.

So while I am not a big fan of having the government medling in every industry and of perpetual handouts, but I do think government regulation is extremely important to ensure the free market works and that there is equality of oportunity for all citizens.

But there is never equality of opportunity for all citizens in a free market system. We don't live in a Utopian universe where all things can be fair always. It's just not our universe of reality, nice place, would love to go live there some day, but it's not where we currently reside in this old life.

In this universe, fairness is a tricky little concept to follow because what is "fair" to you may be "unfair" to me. Most of the time, when Congress passes some law to "make things more fair for some" they automatically make things unfair for others. We've all heard or used the expression "fair enough" ...well what does it mean? It means that something may or may not be perfectly fair but it's fair enough not to quibble over. This should tell anyone that "fairness" is subjective. It all depends on where your perspective is.

All the things you mentioned about college, health care and banks... these are subjects we could start threads on independently and talk for days about what is "fair" and our opinions are all going to differ on that. We're not all going to agree on what is "fair" but we have to settle on something.... fair enough? And so, that's how Congress works, that's how legislation works, that's how we have civil society.

You continue to miss my point about government regulation and free market capitalism. The more you promote this regulation switchboard in DC, the more of a weapon the Corporatist has to use at their disposal to their advantage. They influence the power, they write the new health care law, they've bought their president. Those who suffer are the independent private sector free market capitalist, the entrepreneur, the upstart small business person.... those are the ones who must jump through the government hoops and comply with the massive regulations.... the Corporatists laugh all the way to the bank.

My argument is simple, take that power away from the Corporatist. If the federal government has no power over free market capitalism there is nothing for the Corporatist to exploit. There's no advantage to be gained. No more power to be manipulated. THAT is a "level playing field" in free market capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

The general asumption of representative democracy is that group of persons holding office will improve the general conditions of the population , and if not they will be voted out of office.

Correct! Which coincides with the views of the founders who understood, just the very nature of government existence, it perpetually grows more powerful as freedoms of the individual decline. Government can't do anything else.

I believe the 17th Amendment is unnecessary and improper in modern times due to the non-Tax burden imposed on the People instead of their State legislatures who are being paid for their cushy, part-time jobs to secure their several and sovereign, State privileges and immunities.

 

[CultureCitizen]

My argument is simple, take that power away from the Corporatist. If the federal government has no power over free market capitalism there is nothing for the Corporatist to exploit. There's no advantage to be gained. No more power to be manipulated. THAT is a "level playing field" in free market capitalism.

I do get it Boss, I just need evidence of that theory of yours.
In a previous post I already gave examples of how government spending and intervention are unrelated to the level of corruption. In every country in the list below the govenrment spending is above that of the US ( except Switzerland and Singapore) .
You can , as Toddster did, disregard my sources , but then you should provide your own sources to proove your statement.

Here are my sources
2012 Corruption Perceptions Index -- Results
Expense of GDP Data Table

And my evidence :
Country Corruption Index 2012 % of gov spending
Singapore 87 12.7
Switzerland 86 16.5
Australia 85 26.3
Sweden 88 30.9
Norway 85 34.3
Finland 90 39.2
Denmark 90 43.1
New Zealand 90 46.3

The above list contains the countries with the lowest level of corruption. They are all long standing peacefull democracies with strong institutions and a certain degree of transparency.
The % of the gdp of government spending varies from 12.7 of singapore to 46 of new zeland.
With such a big variation in the GDP and such a small variation in the corruption index I can conclude these two variables show no correlation. Therefore adecuate controls are the main variable at play here. Furthermore I would argue that "limiting the donations" to only citizens and setting a low ceiling for donations ( e.g US $100) would serve as a control for the aforementioned corruption.

 

[Boss]

The above list contains the countries with the lowest level of corruption.

Lowest level of corruption by who's standards and according to what? Is this based on the number of corrupt parties caught in the act or wild speculation? I just wonder because if we can know how much corruption is happening specifically, seems like we would prevent it. In other words, I am not worried too much about the corrupt people in your index, I'm worried about the ones who didn't participate in the study or didn't get busted.

They are all long standing peacefull democracies with strong institutions and a certain degree of transparency.

Again.... according to whom? By what standards? Are they Constitutional representative republics like us, with free enterprise and free trade? Transparency? ....like Obama, Clinton or Bush?

...would serve as a control for the aforementioned corruption.

Wow... So explain this secret you have for ensuring that the corrupted will obey this law against corruption again??? (*doing my Wilder/WillieWonka face)

 

[CultureCitizen]

Again.... according to whom? By what standards? Are they Constitutional representative republics like us, with free enterprise and free trade? Transparency? ....like Obama, Clinton or Bush?

At least Australia and Switzerland have a significant amount of free trade and transparency.

Now , Boss, I 'll be waiting for the proof of your theory .

 

[Boss]

Again.... according to whom? By what standards? Are they Constitutional representative republics like us, with free enterprise and free trade? Transparency? ....like Obama, Clinton or Bush?

At least Australia and Switzerland have a significant amount of free trade and transparency.

Now , Boss, I 'll be waiting for the proof of your theory .

Well it should be simple enough to prove less federal power means less corruption in federal power. Less government intervention is less opportunity to exploit by the corrupt. Fewer regulations to exploit means less of them will be exploited. These are all proven by statistical logic.

 

[Boss]

Again, Culture.. you don't fix the corruption problem by frantically passing more restrictions. The corrupt aren't following the ones on the books already. It just presents them more ways to exploit the rest of us who aren't corrupt. You stop corruption by punishing it severely.

I can't remember where, I think it's Saudi Arabia or Pakistan... when they catch you stealing they cut off your hands. Do you think they have much trouble with petty theft or shoplifting? Not suggesting we go to that extreme, but my point is this is how you stop corruption. I guarantee, if we started handing out mandatory 25-year prison sentences for those caught trying to bribe or influence a public figure or accepting any kind of quid pro quot as a public figure, we'd see a drastic decline in corruption.

If people like Charlie Rangel were made an example of and publicly humiliated by being marched out of the chamber in shackles for not paying his taxes... that sort of thing would stop happening. As it stands, we give them a mild slap on the wrist and forget about it. Our president lies under oath and because he is politically popular, that's turned into "no big deal" and is mocked by claiming it was "all about a blow job" and the right is castigated for trying to hold him accountable.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Well it should be simple enough to prove less federal power means less corruption in federal power. Less government intervention is less opportunity to exploit by the corrupt. Fewer regulations to exploit means less of them will be exploited. These are all proven by statistical logic.

Mmm ... I am recalling the discussion we had on corporate tax.
As you might remember I started searching sources and found that the tax rate did not matter much as the effective tax rate remained almost equal ( between 10% and 15%). I therefore had to admit you were right.
In this case the evidence I have found so far doesn't support your thesis ( e.g. government downsizing = less corruption and corporativism ) .

Yes, your viewpoint seems logic at least in part (it doesn't address the BIG problem of the revolving door) , but the data from around the world doesn't support it ( govt spending and corruption levels seem unrelated ).

I would argue simple, less convoluted laws and government transparency play a more significant role than the size of the government budget. If I were to assign a weight ( intuitively ) to the factors that play into corruption I would put them like this ( 1 = less important , 10 = more important ) :

simple laws: 5
governance (rule of law) : 9
revolving door : 8
budget size : 3
transparency : 3

To advance in our discussion I would ask you to ponder these factors and asign a weight on them ( you may add other factors that you consider important ).

 

[Boss]

In this case the evidence I have found so far doesn't support your thesis ( e.g. government downsizing = less corruption and corporativism )

Not sure why you're having a problem comprehending this. If you ban rock concerts, you're going to eliminate the problem of kids getting stoned at rock concerts. No? If you suspend the speed limit laws, police will write fewer tickets for speeding. Right? This is nothing more than the law of statistical averages. Fewer avenues of corruption means less corruption.