Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't vote, because my solution isn't listed: return to limited government. As long as Washington DC has so much power and so much money, people will lobby and spend money to try to gain access to it. If you pass rules and regulations to try to limit buying and selling of influence, the deals will just go under the table, as happens in Mexico, for example.
And how does state rights figure into the picture... our federal government is corrupt, financed by big money who don't represent the average American and states rights will help fix this how?
Abuse of power at the state level is naturally limited to some extent, because people can move from one state to another. It's the whole '50 laboratories of democracy' thing.
When power shifts from the state or local level to the federal level, there is no such option, or at least not for most of us who are not willing to relocate to another country. Look at the redistricting map from 2010. Many of the states that lost population and seats are known for corruption.
Term limits IMO would make things worse. Under term limits, unelected party bosses would control who gets to run, and would become puppet masters. It's already like this to some extent, but a guy like Ron Paul on the right, or Jim McDermott on the left, can build some degree of independence from party bosses. Under term limits that would disappear.
Public funding of campaigns would not work either. It would leave all the power and money of DC intact, and people would still find ways to tap into that pot of gold. The only difference is that now the taxpayer would now have one more bill to pay.
If you eliminate corporate money from politics, the "you didn't build that" crowd will pick all the flesh off our free enterprise system. Most corporations are playing defense in Washington, trying not to get put out of business by ignorant or malicious politicians.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 23 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,555 posts, read 16,542,682 times
Reputation: 6040
Quote:
Originally Posted by wutitiz
Abuse of power at the state level is naturally limited to some extent, because people can move from one state to another. It's the whole '50 laboratories of democracy' thing.
When power shifts from the state or local level to the federal level, there is no such option, or at least not for most of us who are not willing to relocate to another country. Look at the redistricting map from 2010. Many of the states that lost population and seats are known for corruption.
If you eliminate corporate money from politics, the "you didn't build that" crowd will pick all the flesh off our free enterprise system. Most corporations are playing defense in Washington, trying not to get put out of business by ignorant or malicious politicians.
Ar...are you serious?
Where does the "you didn't build this" crowd get their vast resources to lobby with? Do you even have a lick of knowledge how DC works? Politicians, from both parties, get their funding from private interest groups, usually front for corporations. If what you said was true all corporations would support the Republican/Libertarian Party but that isn't the case. IT companies, for instance, donate heavily to the Democratic Party despite them being "anti-business". Meanwhile financial institutions like banks donate to Republicans. This is because some companies are tied to a certain party. When Republicans win student loan interest rates went up, when the Democrats won taxes on IT corps went down etc.
Eliminate the cancer that is the Conservative element
I would eliminate any political party, whose ideology has more in common with that of the Klan, than not. This essentially kicks out the GOP and all of its candidates, any Conservative PACs, and any company who supports their cause. Bigots don't belong in politics.
Any move by Conservatives must be monitored and completely squashed. They promote racism and bigotry by the gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts. Our system is corrupt because of their participation in it. Anytime the ideology of a political organization reeks that badly, it stands to reason that they will attempt every imaginable illegal, unfair tactic in a desperate attempt to sucker in support.
These choices mean nothing because Conservatives are participating.
Our political system is corrupt and average Americans are no longer represented by those we elect. If we had a one time shot at changing the system, what types of reform could you support?
Our "system" isn't corrupt. But, people can become corrupt. Our system is fine, except that we need to ensure that only those eligible to vote can vote. We have, over the years, made it easier and easier for voter fraud.
Another thing that I think we need to change is to go back to the appointment of Senators. Senators are to represent the State's interests. They are not the "peoples" representatives. The "peoples" representatives are our Congressman. That's why the House is called "the People's house."
You cannot have "public financing" of campaigns because that would require huge tax increases which would fall on only a few (the so-called "rich"). Corporation have a right to "vote" with their money, because so much of what Congress does affects a business's ability to grow and make a profit. It is business that "makes" the economy, not government; but, government economic policy has a huge affect on the economy. Pro-business policy means an expanding economy, while anti-business policy (high corporate taxes, and over regulation) have a negative effect on the economy, because they impede corporate expansion and profit. When businesses are able to expand and grow, machinery and equipment are purchased, new plants are built, and jobs are created. This is what happens in an expanding economy, and results in personal incomes increasing, homes being purchased, and the improvement of living standards for all.
Where does the "you didn't build this" crowd get their vast resources to lobby with? Do you even have a lick of knowledge how DC works? Politicians, from both parties, get their funding from private interest groups, usually front for corporations. If what you said was true all corporations would support the Republican/Libertarian Party but that isn't the case. IT companies, for instance, donate heavily to the Democratic Party despite them being "anti-business". Meanwhile financial institutions like banks donate to Republicans. This is because some companies are tied to a certain party. When Republicans win student loan interest rates went up, when the Democrats won taxes on IT corps went down etc.
Umm, there is a little truth in what you say, but...Dems get disproportionate and HUGE contributions from public employee unions, an indirect tax on the rest of us since we all pay public employee salaries that fund the dues that fund the Dem machine. Virtually none of this money goes to (R)'s.
When you see someone advocating limits on corporate money in politics, with no corresponding limits on union money, you are looking at a partisan Dem at war with the other party.
Umm, there is a little truth in what you say, but...Dems get disproportionate and HUGE contributions from public employee unions, an indirect tax on the rest of us since we all pay public employee salaries that fund the dues that fund the Dem machine. Virtually none of this money goes to (R)'s.
When you see someone advocating limits on corporate money in politics, with no corresponding limits on union money, you are looking at a partisan Dem at war with the other party.
Elimination of, or at least reform of, public employee unions would be a giant step in reducing institutional corruption. FDR famously opposed unions for government employees. Until around 1960 even the head of the AFL-CIO said that public sector unions were an unworkable idea.
The basic problem is that public sector union money goes to put people in office, and then those same people have to turn around and negotiate the union contracts. I am a union guy. If I tried to slip money to management to try to get in place a contract negotiator who would be favorable to me, I would wind up in jail. It's called a kickback. In public sector union dealings this is business as usual.
In my state and probably most states there is a strict prohibition on using public (taxpayer) money in campaigns. People have gotten in trouble for using copy machines in state offices for political campaigns, as well they should. But when it comes to public sector unions, that principle flies out the window, and public money goes to turn campaigns.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Eliminate the cancer that is the Conservative element
