Government Corruption: Is it too late to stop it?

[Foxfyre]

In the religion forum, Derideo_Te and I got off topic a bit in the religions forum, and I have excised a piece of that discussion and moved it here to the Politics Forum where it belongs.

I had just said something to the effect that we need to remove government's ability to use our money to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. I further proposed that most Americans agree with that, but because 50% of Americans are receiving some form of direct government benefit, too few have the character or will to give up that benefit in order to accomplish serious reform.

His response with my disclaimer that this is plucked out of his full context in that discussion and therefore this should not be considered his whole or unqualified opinion on this matter:

As for government corruption and your figure of 50% of Americans receiving benefits that figure is way too low. Virtually 100% of all taxpayers are receiving the benefit of tax rates that are too low. The same applies for mortgage deductions and then there are the endless loopholes in the tax laws. That only addresses the issue of government income. When it comes to spending the corruption is far, far worse.

So what do ya'll think? Is the problem a government that takes money from the taxpayer and uses it in unethical ways for its own benefit?

Or is the problem that we aren't paying enough taxes, get too many tax breaks, as well as what the money is spent on?

(I fully expect DT to explain a fuller interpretation of his quotation up there. If he objects to it being used in this way--I didn't get his permission--I will delete this thread if I still can, or ask Admin to remove it.)

Okay have at it, everybody. . . .

Or is the problem that we aren't being taxed enough and

 

[Foxfyre]

The basic premise here is that because government can take and use our money for the benefit of those in government, that becomes their primary motive in just about everything.

The ONLY way I see to address that kind of corruption is to remove their ability to take and use our money for the benefit of anybody that does not also benefit everybody else regardless of demographics, socioeconomic status, or political leanings.

Example: An interstate highway system is used by and/or benefits everybody, rich and poor alike. In addition to increasing our common defense capabilities, anybody with a car can use it to get across country and everybody receives goods and services that are transported more efficiently because it is there. An interstate highway system, most especially designed and developed in cooperation with the various states, is a legitimate project for the federal government.

Another paved road and bridge in Madison County, Iowa, would benefit a small constituency in one state and would not be a legitimate project for the federal government.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Remove the power from those who abuse it most.

• Balanced budget amendment
• Strict, short term limits
• Publicly-funded elections

We can only do what we can do.



.

 

[Foxfyre]

.

Remove the power from those who abuse it most.

• Balanced budget amendment
• Strict, short term limits
• Publicly-funded elections

We can only do what we can do.



.

Do you really think that is all we can do?

Balanced budget amendment: but what is to limit what the budget wil be? Who it will serve and benefit? And how much of the people's taxes can be taken to balance it?

Strict, short term limits: how do you get around such a policy removing important experience developed from tenure from the mix and moving the power to the bureaucrats that the novice politicians will be required to increasingly lean on for information? Term limits work on church boards and in charity organizations. But the infinite complexities necessary for the federal government to do its job requires a lot more knowledge and the consequences of amateurism affect a lot more people in far more serious ways.

Publicly funded elections? How do you do that without requiring people to fund them? How much shall the funding be? Who decides that? How do you accomplish that without removing the right of free speech of the people to speak out for the candidate of their choice?

 

[Erand7899]

The basic premise here is that because government can take and use our money for the benefit of those in government, that becomes their primary motive in just about everything.

The ONLY way I see to address that kind of corruption is to remove their ability to take and use our money for the benefit of anybody that does not also benefit everybody else regardless of demographics, socioeconomic status, or political leanings.

Example: An interstate highway system is used by and/or benefits everybody, rich and poor alike. In addition to increasing our common defense capabilities, anybody with a car can use it to get across country and everybody receives goods and services that are transported more efficiently because it is there. An interstate highway system, most especially designed and developed in cooperation with the various states, is a legitimate project for the federal government.

Another paved road and bridge in Madison County, Iowa, would benefit a small constituency in one state and would not be a legitimate project for the federal government.

You are quite correct in your assessment, but you do not differentiate the different levels of government. A paved road and/or bridge in Madison County, Iowa, is proper if it is funded and built by the county or state. It is not proper for the federal government to be building that road or bridge.

It is the natural tendency for government to grow in size and power, and it is natural for government to extend that power to the maximum reach possible. Consequently, it is the duty of citizens of that government to strongly oppose all attempts of government to grow in size and power. Like fire, a government that is beyond the means of its citizens to control, will become destructive to everything around it.

History has amply demonstrated that government closest to the people is the easiest government for the people to control. Consequently, our founders designed government to disperse political power amongst three branches of the federal government and amongst two levels of state and federal government. For the past seventy years, the federal government has been busy usurping the political power of the states, and concentrating all political power in Washington DC.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Citizens United pretty much kills any chance of ending any sort of corruption...actually it legalized it. Yea! Power to the people (by people I mean corporations who aren't really people but want to be treated like ppl until they decide they're not people anymore)

 

[jwoodie]

Yes. Unionization of public employees, combined with political contributions to the elected officials with whom they are "bargaining," is the very definition of corruption. Equivalent activities in the private sector are prosecuted as felonies.

 

[Foxfyre]

The basic premise here is that because government can take and use our money for the benefit of those in government, that becomes their primary motive in just about everything.

The ONLY way I see to address that kind of corruption is to remove their ability to take and use our money for the benefit of anybody that does not also benefit everybody else regardless of demographics, socioeconomic status, or political leanings.

Example: An interstate highway system is used by and/or benefits everybody, rich and poor alike. In addition to increasing our common defense capabilities, anybody with a car can use it to get across country and everybody receives goods and services that are transported more efficiently because it is there. An interstate highway system, most especially designed and developed in cooperation with the various states, is a legitimate project for the federal government.

Another paved road and bridge in Madison County, Iowa, would benefit a small constituency in one state and would not be a legitimate project for the federal government.

You are quite correct in your assessment, but you do not differentiate the different levels of government. A paved road and/or bridge in Madison County, Iowa, is proper if it is funded and built by the county or state. It is not proper for the federal government to be building that road or bridge.

It is the natural tendency for government to grow in size and power, and it is natural for government to extend that power to the maximum reach possible. Consequently, it is the duty of citizens of that government to strongly oppose all attempts of government to grow in size and power. Like fire, a government that is beyond the means of its citizens to control, will become destructive to everything around it.

History has amply demonstrated that government closest to the people is the easiest government for the people to control. Consequently, our founders designed government to disperse political power amongst three branches of the federal government and amongst two levels of state and federal government. For the past seventy years, the federal government has been busy usurping the political power of the states, and concentrating all political power in Washington DC.

Ah but I did differentiate. I made a point to be clear that I was referring to the federal government.

Yes, the folks of Iowa are at liberty to authorize and build as many roads and bridges as they want and the federal government should have no say or involvement in that of any kind EXCEPT as would affect their neighbors. A roadbed for instance that would affect the flow of a stream utilized by folks in the neighboring state, might need some fderal negotiations to avoid infringement on the rights of others. But otherwise, no federal monies or involvement should be involved in an Iowa state or county or city road project.

It IS a legitimate function of the federal government to monitor and regulate air, water, etc. that nature declares the states must share.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Remove the power from those who abuse it most.

• Balanced budget amendment
• Strict, short term limits
• Publicly-funded elections

We can only do what we can do.



.

Do you really think that is all we can do?

Balanced budget amendment: but what is to limit what the budget wil be? Who it will serve and benefit? And how much of the people's taxes can be taken to balance it?

Strict, short term limits: how do you get around such a policy removing important experience developed from tenure from the mix and moving the power to the bureaucrats that the novice politicians will be required to increasingly lean on for information? Term limits work on church boards and in charity organizations. But the infinite complexities necessary for the federal government to do its job requires a lot more knowledge and the consequences of amateurism affect a lot more people in far more serious ways.

Publicly funded elections? How do you do that without requiring people to fund them? How much shall the funding be? Who decides that? How do you accomplish that without removing the right of free speech of the people to speak out for the candidate of their choice?

Balanced budget amendment: but what is to limit what the budget wil be? Who it will serve and benefit? And how much of the people's taxes can be taken to balance it?
Our "leaders" would have to work together (imagine that) to decide what spending and taxes would be to keep the budget balanced. That's the point. Each party has to justify its agenda. Currently, we just continue to sink into the abyss.

Strict, short term limits: how do you get around such a policy removing important experience developed from tenure from the mix and moving the power to the bureaucrats that the novice politicians will be required to increasingly lean on for information? Term limits work on church boards and in charity organizations. But the infinite complexities necessary for the federal government to do its job requires a lot more knowledge and the consequences of amateurism affect a lot more people in far more serious ways.
No doubt some expertise would be lost, but the benefits are worth it. Mechanisms would be put in place to streamline processes and education of the representatives so that ramp-up time and effort would be minimized. Bottom line: These people are not special. They are not royalty. They become stale with time but maintain the significant electoral advantage of incumbency. They are replacable, and we simply have to have processes in place that assure smooth transistions and effective functionality.

Publicly funded elections? How do you do that without requiring people to fund them? How much shall the funding be? Who decides that? How do you accomplish that without removing the right of free speech of the people to speak out for the candidate of their choice Publicy-funded elections means that elections are paid for with tax dollars, that's the point. Our "leaders" have to decide how public funds are dispersed, and since they would be operating under a Balanced Budget Amendment, their motivation would be to minimize public money spent. This would put more responsibility on media outlets to cover candidates. Secondly, people can speak out for their candidate all they want, I'm a First Amendment purist. But money is not speech. Money is money, speech is speech. And I have little doubt that this environment would motivate bright entreprenuers to find a free-market approach to bringing the candidates to the people in other ways.


No idea is perfect, every idea of this scope has weaknesses. But our "leaders" and the system in which they operate are failing us. I think this plan is a clear net improvement. We either choose to fix the system, to effect REAL "change", or we just keep bending over and whining. Our choice.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

.

Remove the power from those who abuse it most.

• Balanced budget amendment
• Strict, short term limits
• Publicly-funded elections

We can only do what we can do.



.

Do you really think that is all we can do?

Balanced budget amendment: but what is to limit what the budget wil be? Who it will serve and benefit? And how much of the people's taxes can be taken to balance it?

Strict, short term limits: how do you get around such a policy removing important experience developed from tenure from the mix and moving the power to the bureaucrats that the novice politicians will be required to increasingly lean on for information? Term limits work on church boards and in charity organizations. But the infinite complexities necessary for the federal government to do its job requires a lot more knowledge and the consequences of amateurism affect a lot more people in far more serious ways.

Publicly funded elections? How do you do that without requiring people to fund them? How much shall the funding be? Who decides that? How do you accomplish that without removing the right of free speech of the people to speak out for the candidate of their choice?

Balanced budget amendment: but what is to limit what the budget wil be? Who it will serve and benefit? And how much of the people's taxes can be taken to balance it?
Our "leaders" would have to work together (imagine that) to decide what spending and taxes would be to keep the budget balanced. That's the point. Each party has to justify its agenda. Currently, we just continue to sink into the abyss.

Going back to my original premise, the abyss is created by the politicians having the ability to use our money to buy votes, to keep themselves in power, to enrich themselves, and it doesn't seem to take those who go to Washington, whether as elected representatives, whether appointed to positions, or whether as federal employees, to make their own benefits far more important than anybody elses. Unless you remove that motivation, you cannot fix the problem with a balanced budget. They'll just balance it on our backs like they do without a balanced budget mandate.

There is an old maxim of management: You cannot fix corrupt people by changing the system. You cannot fix a corrupt system by changing the people. We have corruption on both fronts. But in this case, the system corrupts the people. Take away their ability to benefit themselves via their positions, elected, appointed, or employed, and you remove most of the corruption from all fronts as well as getting rid of baseline budgeting that is the biggest stumbling block in the process of reforming the budget process.

Strict, short term limits: how do you get around such a policy removing important experience developed from tenure from the mix and moving the power to the bureaucrats that the novice politicians will be required to increasingly lean on for information? Term limits work on church boards and in charity organizations. But the infinite complexities necessary for the federal government to do its job requires a lot more knowledge and the consequences of amateurism affect a lot more people in far more serious ways.
No doubt some expertise would be lost, but the benefits are worth it. Mechanisms would be put in place to streamline processes and education of the representatives so that ramp-up time and effort would be minimized. Bottom line: These people are not special. They are not royalty. They become stale with time but maintain the significant electoral advantage of incumbency. They are replacable, and we simply have to have processes in place that assure smooth transistions and effective functionality.

But without removing ability to benefit themselves from EVERYBODY in government, the problem continues. Those going to Washington can still pass laws and ensure policy and regulations that will benefit them personally when they return home. And they can still do it at your and my expense. The legislators are only the tip of the iceberg. It is an infestation that permeates it all.

Publicly funded elections? How do you do that without requiring people to fund them? How much shall the funding be? Who decides that? How do you accomplish that without removing the right of free speech of the people to speak out for the candidate of their choice Publicy-funded elections means that elections are paid for with tax dollars, that's the point. Our "leaders" have to decide how public funds are dispersed, and since they would be operating under a Balanced Budget Amendment, their motivation would be to minimize public money spent. This would put more responsibility on media outlets to cover candidates. Secondly, people can speak out for their candidate all they want, I'm a First Amendment purist. But money is not speech. Money is money, speech is speech. And I have little doubt that this environment would motivate bright entreprenuers to find a free-market approach to bringing the candidates to the people in other ways.

No idea is perfect, every idea of this scope has weaknesses. But our "leaders" and the system in which they operate are failing us. I think this plan is a clear net improvement. We either choose to fix the system, to effect REAL "change", or we just keep bending over and whining. Our choice.

The amount the candidates themselves have to spend is not and has never been a serious problem. The amount that advocates on their behalf have to spend is the major problem. If you have a media that supports one candidate over another, they can rig the coverage to favor that candidate without involving any money at all. And how do you say that George Soros or the Koch Brothers or any oil tycoon or any environmental group is not allowed to run an ad that blatantly or covertly supports a particular candidate without violating their right to free speech?

But remove the candidate's ability to benefit anybody at all unless they benefit everybody regardless of their circumstances or political leanings, and all that money either dries up or it is wasted. Media has no incentive to favor a candidate any more and just might go back to actually reporting the news again. Organizations and corporations go back to the drawing board on how they will raise funds or make profits or persuade the people.

We would likely get public servants instead of career politicians running for office again. And the federal government would need a tiny fraction of the people's money that it takes now, which of course was the Founder's intent for the federal government all along.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. Unionization of public employees, combined with political contributions to the elected officials with whom they are "bargaining," is the very definition of corruption. Equivalent activities in the private sector are prosecuted as felonies.

But take away the federal government's ability to benefit or support those unions, and most of that that corruption goes away.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes. Unionization of public employees, combined with political contributions to the elected officials with whom they are "bargaining," is the very definition of corruption. Equivalent activities in the private sector are prosecuted as felonies.

But take away the federal government's ability to benefit or support those unions, and most of that that corruption goes away.

But that will leave behind a vacuum that will be filled with corporations corrupting government for their own benefit. Something that is currently happening and costing taxpayers trillions of dollars.

In order to eliminate corruption there needs to be something along the lines of a constitutional amendment that has the following aspects;

1. All spending must be covered by current revenues.

2. If spending exceeds revenues for any year then there must be automatic tax increases for that year to cover spending. If spending decreases then there must be automatic tax cuts.

3. Deficit spending to cover emergencies must be fully paid off within a decade of it occurring. Automatic tax increases must be applied to cover 10% plus interest of the deficit spending.

4. All elected members of Congress must recuse themselves from spending bills that involve their own districts and/or interests.

5. Failure to recuse themselves means that they are banned from holding any public office for life. This ban extends to acting as a lobbyist in any capacity.

6. Any elected member of Congress who is found to have voted in any manner that benefits themselves, their districts and/or interests will be held personally liable to repay those funds to the treasury.
​

Granted this is somewhat simplistic but as a first draft it is somewhere to start.

 

[editec]

Government Corruption: Is it too late to stop it?

Yes, but let me explain...that is the wrong question.

The LAWS DEFINING OUR SYSTEM are designed to benefit a privileged few and their servants.

You cannot correctly call it corruption because it is the LAW.


If there is a right winger or a left winger on this board who disagrees with the above, I'd like to hear from you.

You see, citizens?

We all know something is happening here and we all do not like it.

The problem isn't that we want VERY different things, I suspect.

The problem is that we do not know how to achieve what we want.

Your neighbors are NOT the enemy.

Your leaders?

Well you have to take that on a case by case basis, but they are the people who create and execute the laws of the land, do they not?

So who to blame?

 

[Sallow]

In the religion forum, Derideo_Te and I got off topic a bit in the religions forum, and I have excised a piece of that discussion and moved it here to the Politics Forum where it belongs.

I had just said something to the effect that we need to remove government's ability to use our money to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. I further proposed that most Americans agree with that, but because 50% of Americans are receiving some form of direct government benefit, too few have the character or will to give up that benefit in order to accomplish serious reform.

His response with my disclaimer that this is plucked out of his full context in that discussion and therefore this should not be considered his whole or unqualified opinion on this matter:

As for government corruption and your figure of 50% of Americans receiving benefits that figure is way too low. Virtually 100% of all taxpayers are receiving the benefit of tax rates that are too low. The same applies for mortgage deductions and then there are the endless loopholes in the tax laws. That only addresses the issue of government income. When it comes to spending the corruption is far, far worse.

So what do ya'll think? Is the problem a government that takes money from the taxpayer and uses it in unethical ways for its own benefit?

Or is the problem that we aren't paying enough taxes, get too many tax breaks, as well as what the money is spent on?

(I fully expect DT to explain a fuller interpretation of his quotation up there. If he objects to it being used in this way--I didn't get his permission--I will delete this thread if I still can, or ask Admin to remove it.)

Okay have at it, everybody. . . .

Or is the problem that we aren't being taxed enough and

It isn't "we" that aren't taxed enough..it's a very few billionaires that aren't taxed enough.

These people saw fit to pay themselves 100s of times what people that actually do the work make or develop schemes to slosh money around and pluck out what they want.

Right now, trillions sit in offshore accounts, not getting taxed and not adding to the economy.

And this is by design. This is what happens when money is speech and corporations are people.

They bankrupt the only thing that curtails their ability to do what they want.

The government.

And that comes with the cheers of conservatives.

Who then, laughably, complain, when these sorts of realities start to effect them personally.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. Unionization of public employees, combined with political contributions to the elected officials with whom they are "bargaining," is the very definition of corruption. Equivalent activities in the private sector are prosecuted as felonies.

But take away the federal government's ability to benefit or support those unions, and most of that that corruption goes away.

But that will leave behind a vacuum that will be filled with corporations corrupting government for their own benefit. Something that is currently happening and costing taxpayers trillions of dollars.

In order to eliminate corruption there needs to be something along the lines of a constitutional amendment that has the following aspects;

1. All spending must be covered by current revenues.

2. If spending exceeds revenues for any year then there must be automatic tax increases for that year to cover spending. If spending decreases then there must be automatic tax cuts.

3. Deficit spending to cover emergencies must be fully paid off within a decade of it occurring. Automatic tax increases must be applied to cover 10% plus interest of the deficit spending.

4. All elected members of Congress must recuse themselves from spending bills that involve their own districts and/or interests.

5. Failure to recuse themselves means that they are banned from holding any public office for life. This ban extends to acting as a lobbyist in any capacity.

6. Any elected member of Congress who is found to have voted in any manner that benefits themselves, their districts and/or interests will be held personally liable to repay those funds to the treasury.
​

Granted this is somewhat simplistic but as a first draft it is somewhere to start.

Sometimes simplistic is the best place to start. Occam's razor and all that. But let's take your proposals one at a time:

1. All spending must be covered by current revenues My problem with this is you must first limit the revenues and what they are allowed to spend money on, or there is nothing to stop them from using this rule as justification to raise taxes to whatever level they think they can get away with.

2. If spending exceeds revenues for any year then there must be automatic tax increases for that year to cover spending. If spending decreases then there must be automatic tax cuts. My response to this is the same as in No. 1.

3. Deficit spending to cover emergencies must be fully paid off within a decade of it occurring. Automatic tax increases must be applied to cover 10% plus interest of the deficit spending. You have to first determine what is an emergency, or a self serving politicians will see everything he wants as an emergency.

4. All elected members of Congress must recuse themselves from spending bills that involve their own districts and/or interests This, in my opinion, would be an exercise in futility. These guys for decades now have been cutting backroom deals--I'll support THAT if you support THIS.

5. Failure to recuse themselves means that they are banned from holding any public office for life. This ban extends to acting as a lobbyist in any capacity. See No. 4 above.

6. Any elected member of Congress who is found to have voted in any manner that benefits themselves, their districts and/or interests will be held personally liable to repay those funds to the treasury. I like the thought but completely impractical. In fact some quite legitimate, noble, and proper legislation that benefits everybody is going to benefit the politician who votes for it. A rule like this is a certain prescription for endless accusations, speculation, conspiracy theories, and lawsuits. And does not address the issue of bribing groups who will in turn fund them and/or vote to keep them in power and/or shout down opposition to what they want to do.

Far better is to remove ALL ability for the federal government to benefit ANYBODY in a way that does not benefit EVERYBODY, and return all other programs to the states where the Founders intended such programs to be. And eliminate the politician's ability to amass great fortunes at tax payer expense by limiting him/her to a salary from which he will pay for his own healthcare, retirement, etc.

 

[DiamondDave]

And shallow with the call to tax OTHERS more again.. Mr. Subjective Equal treatment when it benefits him, and subjective unequal treatment of others when it benefits him... the epitome of liberal greed

It is only too late for this government when we allow them to keep taking our rights, slowly but surely... and they have been.. and if it continues it will come to a tipping point that we will not be able to come back from without the downfall of the current system

 

[Foxfyre]

And shallow with the call to tax OTHERS more again.. Mr. Subjective Equal treatment when it benefits him, and subjective unequal treatment of others when it benefits him... the epitome of liberal greed

It is only too late for this government when we allow them to keep taking our rights, slowly but surely... and they have been.. and if it continues it will come to a tipping point that we will not be able to come back from without the downfall of the current system

This is my fear. That those in government--those elected, those appointed, and those entrenched in powerful bureaucratic positions-- have managed to bribe enough Americans to keep their mouths shut and/or go along with anything so as not to lose whatever benefits they are receiving, that we no longer have the will to demand honesty, integrity, and good government from those we elect to high office.

Again, 50% of Americans who are receiving some kind of direct federal benefit may see the corruption and hate it, but it is really difficult to muster the character to vote against your own interests and give up even a small benefit that you are receiving. And those we have elected to high office are quite deliberately trying to get some kind of benefit to more Americans and thereby control them. Remember it is not THEIR money they use to do this, but ours.

One example: we see ads on television all the time now encouraging people to apply for food stamps. The number of people on food stamps has already doubled since 2008. I'm sorry, but I'm simply too jaded to see that as compassion or having any motive other than to solidify the base for ever more intrusive, authoritarian, and oppressive goverment.

And I honestly do believe this is the last generation that will have any ability to turn that around. And I do wonder if it is already not too late.

 

[lynn63]

How can current spending be limited to current revenue when income is well below inflation in costs?

 

[Foxfyre]

Government Corruption: Is it too late to stop it?

Yes, but let me explain...that is the wrong question.

The LAWS DEFINING OUR SYSTEM are designed to benefit a privileged few and their servants.

You cannot correctly call it corruption because it is the LAW.


If there is a right winger or a left winger on this board who disagrees with the above, I'd like to hear from you.

You see, citizens?

We all know something is happening here and we all do not like it.

The problem isn't that we want VERY different things, I suspect.

The problem is that we do not know how to achieve what we want.

Your neighbors are NOT the enemy.

Your leaders?

Well you have to take that on a case by case basis, but they are the people who create and execute the laws of the land, do they not?

So who to blame?

Who is to blame is those who assume the authority and ability to take one citizen's money and give it to another citizen. That, in a nutshell, is the crux of the problem and the one thing that the Founders were determined that the federal government would never have the power to do.

Fix that one problem, and it doesn't matter who is rich, who is poor, who benefits, or who doesn't so far as the federal law is concerned. All are equal under the law.

He who robs Peter to pay Paul, however, can always count on the support of Paul.

 

[FA_Q2]

Government Corruption: Is it too late to stop it?

Yes, but let me explain...that is the wrong question.

The LAWS DEFINING OUR SYSTEM are designed to benefit a privileged few and their servants.

You cannot correctly call it corruption because it is the LAW.


If there is a right winger or a left winger on this board who disagrees with the above, I'd like to hear from you.

You see, citizens?

We all know something is happening here and we all do not like it.

The problem isn't that we want VERY different things, I suspect.

The problem is that we do not know how to achieve what we want.

Your neighbors are NOT the enemy.

Your leaders?

Well you have to take that on a case by case basis, but they are the people who create and execute the laws of the land, do they not?

So who to blame?

Who is to blame is those who assume the authority and ability to take one citizen's money and give it to another citizen. That, in a nutshell, is the crux of the problem and the one thing that the Founders were determined that the federal government would never have the power to do.

Fix that one problem, and it doesn't matter who is rich, who is poor, who benefits, or who doesn't so far as the federal law is concerned. All are equal under the law.

He who robs Peter to pay Paul, however, can always count on the support of Paul.

^this.

There is a mountain of corruption in the government and the people screaming about citizens united are completely off base. They are pulling their hair out because of the expression of the symptom of the problem rather than the cause. Before citizens united, government was just as corrupt and will continue no matter what you do about direct compensation.

What we need is to get the government out of selectively propping people and businesses up. Remove that power, which consists of 90 percent of congresses actual power, and you are left with a government that is far less corrupt, far freer and ultimately far better for the people. Unfortunately, it will NEVER happen because bureaucracies do not cede power, they garner it.

CC made a good example of the effectiveness of our leaders to focus people elsewhere also. There you have a case of an individual so infuriated with a ruling that UPHOLDS FREEDOM OF SPEECH because of they have shifted the focus from corruption of power to political commercials. That is it in a nutshell. That corruption does not go away when the commercials are ended, it just uses another venue. Gingrich anyone?