Campaign donations.

[Boss]

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 ).

I don't understand the purpose of this exercise we're doing. To limit corruption you simply punish it more vigorously. Nothing else will ever work better. To end the unethical exploitation of federal regulations by corporatists (not corruption), you limit the number of exploitable opportunities and amount of power that can be exploited.

 

[Boss]

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.

Okay, but look at it like this... With a 0% corporate tax rate, what advantages can the corporatist exploit to gain an advantage over the 0% rate? You can't have less than 0% tax, so there is nothing to gain. Remember, the corporatist is different from the free market capitalist. And it doesn't just come down to the corporatist owning a corporation. A corporatist is someone who seeks to use government and exploit government regulations/power to their capitalist advantage. No corporate tax, nothing to leverage, no power or advantage to gain. You've taken that from the corporatist and the true free market capitalists are the beneficiaries. Same applies to over-regulation. Remove them and there is nothing to exploit.

 

[dblack]

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 ).

Corruption isn't really the biggest problem though. It's what's being delivered. It doesn't really matter to me whether Congress grants favors to special interest groups because they were bribed, or because they genuinely think it's the right thing to do. The problem is that they can grant favors to special interest groups.

 

[CultureCitizen]

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.

And yet , putting a toll to ensure everyone pays for a service works. It even works if you make the larger trucks pay more.
And it works even beter if an automated system collects the money from an account linked to a tag.
So we have :
a ) A regulation which is straightforward : you must pay a certain amount to use this service
b ) A barrier ( it is really hard to pass the toll without paying...unless...)
c) A control mechanism ( the collector at the toll or a camera plus the tag reader) .

Now , regarding my previous post in which it is not the rules, but the simplicity and the rule of law ( the control mechanisms), I will digress into an anecdote.

While I was on a trip in Colombia some twenty years ago , I noticed the toll barrier was a rather sturdy heavy metalic which had to be manually operated by a soldier and not the usual light piece which could be opened automatically by a machine . I then asked the taxi driver why did they put so much resources into the toll system.

"You'll see", he explained," We used to have light barriers, but then sometimes large trucks would simply accelerate and shatter the barrier, this would happen because they either had no money to pay the toll or because they were carying drugs and they would not risk to a random inspection. So now the army is in charge of the toll barrier."

Now, given the actual situation at that time, and following your line of thought, one could argue that forcing the large eighteen wheelers into paying is useless , because they would find the way to pass without paying ( specially if they had certain amount of illegal goods) , so only cars should pay a toll or no toll fees should be collected at all.

That would be a solution , indeed. But is it the only solution ? or the best solution to the problem ?

Final note: I was told that in spite of having the army waching the toll , from time to time a truck would still try to pass without paying.

 

[Boss]

And yet , putting a toll to ensure everyone pays for a service works. It even works if you make the larger trucks pay more.

But things don't work this way with corporatists and unethical politicians. The toll is put in place and the law abiding average person pays it while the corporatist gets the politician to grant him a pass. He gets a sticker on his truck which no one else can have. Or maybe the corporatist uses his influence to have his own private road built around the toll road? That's the reality of what's happening, in spite of all your laws and regulations. Those who control power are able to manipulate the laws and exploit an advantage. Eliminate the power, that's the solution to this.

And it works even beter if an automated system collects the money from an account linked to a tag.
So we have :
a ) A regulation which is straightforward : you must pay a certain amount to use this service
b ) A barrier ( it is really hard to pass the toll without paying...unless...)
c) A control mechanism ( the collector at the toll or a camera plus the tag reader) .

Not a thing here about the corrupt or how you've thwarted them. All kinds of systems will work brilliantly in an environment where there is no corruption, but everyone is not honest and full of integrity. The more complex you make the system, the more areas it can be corrupted.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

And yet , putting a toll to ensure everyone pays for a service works. It even works if you make the larger trucks pay more.
And it works even beter if an automated system collects the money from an account linked to a tag.
So we have :
a ) A regulation which is straightforward : you must pay a certain amount to use this service
b ) A barrier ( it is really hard to pass the toll without paying...unless...)
c) A control mechanism ( the collector at the toll or a camera plus the tag reader) .

Now , regarding my previous post in which it is not the rules, but the simplicity and the rule of law ( the control mechanisms), I will digress into an anecdote.

While I was on a trip in Colombia some twenty years ago , I noticed the toll barrier was a rather sturdy heavy metalic which had to be manually operated by a soldier and not the usual light piece which could be opened automatically by a machine . I then asked the taxi driver why did they put so much resources into the toll system.

"You'll see", he explained," We used to have light barriers, but then sometimes large trucks would simply accelerate and shatter the barrier, this would happen because they either had no money to pay the toll or because they were carying drugs and they would not risk to a random inspection. So now the army is in charge of the toll barrier."

Now, given the actual situation at that time, and following your line of thought, one could argue that forcing the large eighteen wheelers into paying is useless , because they would find the way to pass without paying ( specially if they had certain amount of illegal goods) , so only cars should pay a toll or no toll fees should be collected at all.

That would be a solution , indeed. But is it the only solution ? or the best solution to the problem ?

Final note: I was told that in spite of having the army waching the toll , from time to time a truck would still try to pass without paying.

Apples and Oranges.

You are trying to compare the governing over the governed, with governing over the governing.

Parents can make their kids clean their rooms. But can the kids make the parents clean theirs?

Government putting a regulation over a truck, is not the same government putting a regulation on government.

The government is never going to pass a law they themselves can't wiggle out of. Any law to control government, will do more to control us, than it ever will the government, and the government will make sure of that.

As I said before... even if you did manage to get the government to pass a law controlling themselves, they'll just violate it. We've already seen it. Bill Clinton. Clear evidence of campaign law violations. Al Gore using the VP Office to shake people down for money. It was all documented, all exposed, and nothing happened to any of them. Gore almost became president after violating all the laws.

What difference will yet another law make? Would it be better if Al Gore had violated 20 laws instead of only 10?

 

[Boss]

The government is never going to pass a law they themselves can't wiggle out of.

Strongest argument for Article V Conventions!

 

[Andylusion]

The government is never going to pass a law they themselves can't wiggle out of.

Strongest argument for Article V Conventions!

... cough... The government is NEVER going to pass a law they themselves can't wiggle out of.

The moment you give the same people who can wiggle out of existing laws, the ability to rewrite the entire constitution, you really think that's going to result in anything good?

Our constitution is a rare thing. It's the product of a group of people who sacrificed heavily, and had a distinct belief in a higher law, that had an authority over them.

Now you want to replace that constitution, written by those men, with one written by people who have sacrificed absolutely nothing, many have lived their entire lives off the tax payers, who have no authority in their lives higher than themselves.

Call me cynical, but I see very little reason to assume that anything good would come from this.

Lastly, your argument appears similar to the other poster, and thus my reply is the same. The other poster seems to think that if we just had yet another law, that would fix the problem. You seem to think, if we just had another constitution, that would fix the problem.

My answer is the same to both... if they are not willing to follow existing laws, what good would another law do? If the politicians in government are not willing to follow the existing constitution, what purpose would a new constitution have?

 

[whitehall]

Should campaign donations have a low ceiling ( e.g. the minimum wage of a day per election) ?

My position follows :
A) Greed is the engine that makes capitalism move.
B) Most of the elements in the system are fueled by greed.
C) Politicians beneffit from large donations from persons and corporations
D) Politicians will want to keep the donations flowing as they recieve a beneffit from them.
E) From D, it follows large donnors and corporations will have a leverage on the policies dictated by the recipients of their donations.

... I somehow get the impression this line of though went unnoticed by the Supreme Court .

Share your thoughts.

The problem with semi-literate liberals is that they are fed liberalism in school like pablum. It goes down easy but they don't know what's in it. A person who claims that the will to succeed and do better and provide for a family is nothing but a symptom of greed is not only a hypocrite but a freaking idiot.

 

[Boss]

The government is never going to pass a law they themselves can't wiggle out of.

Strongest argument for Article V Conventions!

... cough... The government is NEVER going to pass a law they themselves can't wiggle out of.

The moment you give the same people who can wiggle out of existing laws, the ability to rewrite the entire constitution, you really think that's going to result in anything good?

Our constitution is a rare thing. It's the product of a group of people who sacrificed heavily, and had a distinct belief in a higher law, that had an authority over them.

Now you want to replace that constitution, written by those men, with one written by people who have sacrificed absolutely nothing, many have lived their entire lives off the tax payers, who have no authority in their lives higher than themselves.

Call me cynical, but I see very little reason to assume that anything good would come from this.

Lastly, your argument appears similar to the other poster, and thus my reply is the same. The other poster seems to think that if we just had yet another law, that would fix the problem. You seem to think, if we just had another constitution, that would fix the problem.

My answer is the same to both... if they are not willing to follow existing laws, what good would another law do? If the politicians in government are not willing to follow the existing constitution, what purpose would a new constitution have?

Okay, so you are one of those? The ones who don't really have an answer or solution aside from anarchy. Well, I doubt we'll collapse into anarchy as a nation, but you're entitled to the opinion.

I do not want a new constitution, I said nothing about any new constitution and Article V conventions have nothing to do with a new constitution. The conventions of states are outlined in Article V of the Constitution as a means for state governments to reign in power of an over-expansive federal government. This is the constitutional tool we are given to deal with the problem of a federal government who thinks they are above the law or will of the people.

Once the Article V conventions adopt new constitutional amendments, the power is removed from the federal government and returned to the people and states where it belongs. I don't care if they don't like it in Washington, their power is removed so they don't have to like it.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Okay, but look at it like this... With a 0% corporate tax rate, what advantages can the corporatist exploit to gain an advantage over the 0% rate? You can't have less than 0% tax, so there is nothing to gain. Remember, the corporatist is different from the free market capitalist. And it doesn't just come down to the corporatist owning a corporation. A corporatist is someone who seeks to use government and exploit government regulations/power to their capitalist advantage. No corporate tax, nothing to leverage, no power or advantage to gain. You've taken that from the corporatist and the true free market capitalists are the beneficiaries. Same applies to over-regulation. Remove them and there is nothing to exploit.

How capitalist of you. However, some on the left believe we should simply and merely and definitely not in any "cultish" manner, Use capitalism for all of its worth.

Be forewarned however, that the socialism of Statism may be required to bailout laissez-fare capitalism's laziness in learning external based (foreign) metrics, to the Institution of money based markets. Thus, the socialism of fixing Standards in law, could be gainfully employed to provide market based metrics via that form of socialism, blazing that trail for capitalism to merely capitalize on.

For example; through recourse to the socialism of our laws established by the collective of our elected representatives in their offices of public, even assembled, our tax codes could be fixed to a Standard of general Taxes, sufficient to pay for unemployment compensation and corporate tax sufficient to induce change more conducive to rational choice theory than to the greater Socialism of mere rule-of-State law and that form of regime, in this case, as an additional example, of ending the distinction for capital gains whenever wages for labor don't outpace inflation.

 

[Boss]

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.

Okay, but look at it like this... With a 0% corporate tax rate, what advantages can the corporatist exploit to gain an advantage over the 0% rate? You can't have less than 0% tax, so there is nothing to gain. Remember, the corporatist is different from the free market capitalist. And it doesn't just come down to the corporatist owning a corporation. A corporatist is someone who seeks to use government and exploit government regulations/power to their capitalist advantage. No corporate tax, nothing to leverage, no power or advantage to gain. You've taken that from the corporatist and the true free market capitalists are the beneficiaries. Same applies to over-regulation. Remove them and there is nothing to exploit.

How capitalist of you. However, some on the left believe we should simply and merely and definitely not in any "cultish" manner, Use capitalism for all of its worth.

Be forewarned however, that the socialism of Statism may be required to bailout laissez-fare capitalism's laziness in learning external based (foreign) metrics, to the Institution of money based markets. Thus, the socialism of fixing Standards in law, could be gainfully employed to provide market based metrics via that form of socialism, blazing that trail for capitalism to merely capitalize on.

For example; through recourse to the socialism of our laws established by the collective of our elected representatives in their offices of public, even assembled, our tax codes could be fixed to a Standard of general Taxes, sufficient to pay for unemployment compensation and corporate tax sufficient to induce change more conducive to rational choice theory than to the greater Socialism of mere rule-of-State law and that form of regime, in this case, as an additional example, of ending the distinction for capital gains whenever wages for labor don't outpace inflation.

The problem is, your solution merely shifts power to another group of self-interested parties. The same problems will continue to persist. Eventually, you will socialize yourself into a box (or cage) where the authority and control of power outweighs the powers of freedom. Then, we all become slaves of the state.

We have a pretty reliable system of regulation by government. They don't fail to at least warn us of potential dangers. They ensure we have safe food to eat and water to drink... air to breathe... They make efforts to clean up nuclear waste and other contaminations to the environment. I think most of us realize a common sense value in this. It's where we draw the line that is important.

We can say the same for government regulations on finance and securities, anti-trust and trade policies, things that prevent monopoly capitalism and define corrupt practices. We elect people to make the legislation on these things. It has worked fairly well up until the past 20 years where we've started electing rock stars instead of people of integrity.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Okay, but look at it like this... With a 0% corporate tax rate, what advantages can the corporatist exploit to gain an advantage over the 0% rate? You can't have less than 0% tax, so there is nothing to gain. Remember, the corporatist is different from the free market capitalist. And it doesn't just come down to the corporatist owning a corporation. A corporatist is someone who seeks to use government and exploit government regulations/power to their capitalist advantage. No corporate tax, nothing to leverage, no power or advantage to gain. You've taken that from the corporatist and the true free market capitalists are the beneficiaries. Same applies to over-regulation. Remove them and there is nothing to exploit.

How capitalist of you. However, some on the left believe we should simply and merely and definitely not in any "cultish" manner, Use capitalism for all of its worth.

Be forewarned however, that the socialism of Statism may be required to bailout laissez-fare capitalism's laziness in learning external based (foreign) metrics, to the Institution of money based markets. Thus, the socialism of fixing Standards in law, could be gainfully employed to provide market based metrics via that form of socialism, blazing that trail for capitalism to merely capitalize on.

For example; through recourse to the socialism of our laws established by the collective of our elected representatives in their offices of public, even assembled, our tax codes could be fixed to a Standard of general Taxes, sufficient to pay for unemployment compensation and corporate tax sufficient to induce change more conducive to rational choice theory than to the greater Socialism of mere rule-of-State law and that form of regime, in this case, as an additional example, of ending the distinction for capital gains whenever wages for labor don't outpace inflation.

The problem is, your solution merely shifts power to another group of self-interested parties. The same problems will continue to persist. Eventually, you will socialize yourself into a box (or cage) where the authority and control of power outweighs the powers of freedom. Then, we all become slaves of the state.

We have a pretty reliable system of regulation by government. They don't fail to at least warn us of potential dangers. They ensure we have safe food to eat and water to drink... air to breathe... They make efforts to clean up nuclear waste and other contaminations to the environment. I think most of us realize a common sense value in this. It's where we draw the line that is important.

We can say the same for government regulations on finance and securities, anti-trust and trade policies, things that prevent monopoly capitalism and define corrupt practices. We elect people to make the legislation on these things. It has worked fairly well up until the past 20 years where we've started electing rock stars instead of people of integrity.

did you miss the point about providing better recourse to rational choice theory than to "purchasing" better privileges and immunities with any sufficiency of capital, under our form of Capitalism.

 

[Circle_Breaker]

For every dollar donated, one dollar should go towards the national debt.

 

[Boss]

For every dollar donated, one dollar should go towards the national debt.

It sounds like a good sentiment, however... You've just effectively doubled the cost to run for office. This means it will now cost a challenger twice as much to take on the powerful incumbent who has the advantage of holding power. Is that a "fair" system of elections? And why have you done this? To pay on the national debt? The national debt is over $17 trillion, with another $100 trillion in unfunded liability. Even the most extravagant political campaigns of all time, would not begin to pay the interest on the national debt, much less pay toward the debt itself.

 

[Boss]

did you miss the point about providing better recourse to rational choice theory than to "purchasing" better privileges and immunities with any sufficiency of capital, under our form of Capitalism.

It's because you are speaking in platitudes and I don't philosophize in platitudes except under my own terms. Look, there is not a better system than American free enterprise and the capitalist free market. It's not even a remotely close competition, really. There is nothing that has ever worked better at producing collective prosperity for all over the long haul. In at least 95% of all instances you can cite, the private sector can handle better through free market capitalism than the government.

A classic example of this is the US Postal service. It was originated in a time where it was virtually impossible for the private sector to provide nationwide delivery of post. There was no entity capable of that task, so the government took on the monumental challenge, and that worked for years. But by the late 20th century, technology and capability of the private sector was ready to meet that challenge, so we see the emergence of UPS and FedEx. And they knock the socks off the old antiquated postal service. Now we are burdened with keeping the dinosaur alive.

The government education system is another area. Our public schools are embarrassing on the world stage. It's a system which has broken down at the fundamental level and is not working to educate our children. 99.999% of the "political" problems in America today are the direct result of our functioning illiteracy. The level of Stupid knows no bounds. But... over in the private sector, where free market educators are competing for dollars based on results, the best and brightest are being produced. But we're stuck keeping the dinosaur alive.

 

[danielpalos]

did you miss the point about providing better recourse to rational choice theory than to "purchasing" better privileges and immunities with any sufficiency of capital, under our form of Capitalism.

It's because you are speaking in platitudes and I don't philosophize in platitudes except under my own terms. Look, there is not a better system than American free enterprise and the capitalist free market. It's not even a remotely close competition, really. There is nothing that has ever worked better at producing collective prosperity for all over the long haul. In at least 95% of all instances you can cite, the private sector can handle better through free market capitalism than the government.

A classic example of this is the US Postal service. It was originated in a time where it was virtually impossible for the private sector to provide nationwide delivery of post. There was no entity capable of that task, so the government took on the monumental challenge, and that worked for years. But by the late 20th century, technology and capability of the private sector was ready to meet that challenge, so we see the emergence of UPS and FedEx. And they knock the socks off the old antiquated postal service. Now we are burdened with keeping the dinosaur alive.

The government education system is another area. Our public schools are embarrassing on the world stage. It's a system which has broken down at the fundamental level and is not working to educate our children. 99.999% of the "political" problems in America today are the direct result of our functioning illiteracy. The level of Stupid knows no bounds. But... over in the private sector, where free market educators are competing for dollars based on results, the best and brightest are being produced. But we're stuck keeping the dinosaur alive.

dude, your platitudes are your own, and they sound like propaganda and rhetoric that has been obsolete for decades.

Did you know that you only appeal to ignorance with it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

John Kitzhaber Cylvia Hayes face mounting exposure to criminal charges as investigations expand OregonLive.com

I wonder if Cylvia Hayes would have received all these consulting dollars if the government of
Oregon didn't have the power to regulate and require "green energy"?
If Oregon didn't have the money to give to connected friends of Cylvia?

 

[Boss]

dude, your platitudes are your own, and they sound like propaganda and rhetoric that has been obsolete for decades.

Did you know that you only appeal to ignorance with it?

It's not propaganda or rhetoric. Name any other system of economy which has produced as many millionaires and billionaires as free enterprise, free market capitalism? There is nothing obsolete about that fact and nothing ignorant about it.

It amazes me that a major political party has come to power in America by brazenly attacking our principles of freedom and free market commerce. What you and your entire left-wing movement deserve is to be run out of this country with pitchforks and torches and forced to go live in some Eurotrash socialist shit hole for about 50 years like the East Germans. Maybe if you have to see a couple generations of your illiterate kids having to literally beg for food, it would make you appreciate what so many have spilled their blood to protect here.

But I am sure your stupid little head is full of Utopian nonsense, like most good little commies.

 

[danielpalos]

Your appeal to ignorance is duly noted.