Why I think there are still poor people and people without medical care

I don't like it. Theoretically, it's interesting, but there is no practical way to enforce it.

What's to stop me from padding your pockets 2 years from now, in the next election cycle for a vote today?

What's to stop me from threatening to back your opponent or to run 527 type ads against you during re-election?

What's to stop me from donating to your party for a vote? A fellow congressman (and likewise, you get paid for his votes)?

How about I pay you today, and you owe me "X" votes over the next 6 years of your Senate term?

It's endless the # of end runs you could do around the system. Of course, you need someone to enforce and investigate the payments. Who does this? How are they any more accountable than those useless POSs like Alberto Gonzalez or Mike Mukasey? Can we hold up every vote to until the investigations are done?

And that's just talking about traceable money. Not the really seedy and corrupt stuff in foreign accounts, in hookers and drugs, in gay bathroom encounters etc.

I think returning more power back to the states, particularly the power over education and health, would be a good first step. Make the lobbyists work 50 fronts. Allow for local values, traditions etc to influence state politics. There is no reason why a country this large, has to have a uniform education system. 50 different systems provides differentiation, and the opportunity for creativity.

Maybe the answer for making the government more accountable isn't making it bigger and/or more complex , but an answer as simple as making it smaller.

 

Of course you wouldn't accept it.

I think its a myopic view.

Take a look at the proposed housing legislation that I referenced earlier.

Its not yet legislation and is only representative of the Senate side of a proposed bill.

The total cost is estimated to be about $15 billion over a number of years.

The give away to the housing industry builders is $6 billion

$6 billion. That is many times the total cost of the upcoming presidential election including all the money raised by all 20 candidates plus the big money yet to be raised for the general election.

The $6 billion has been widely criticized by economists and people with common sense. There has been little commentary on the words of the head of the builder association that has not pumped any of probably several million dollars into anticipated congressional and presidential campaigns this year.

Its a great payoff for the builders association. Pump a bunch of millions of dollars into some campaigns and get a $6 billion gift return from the federal govt.

The return would do nothing for the housing crisis. It would not solve existing bad mortgages, bad debt, the loss of equity and value that is depressing aggregate wealth.

Its a pure gift.

Take all the money out of politics. Make it tight as can be. Don't worry about the ideas you offered...."I'll pay you this year for votes next year...or I'll pay you next year for votes this year.

ban it all for years to come.

Make it tight as can be.

You want some more savings.

Make this so tight and absolute you scarcely need a federal elections commission.

Bingo. They asked for about $60 million for the next fiscal year. They spend $8 million on managing federal payments for elections. Well most of the candidates aren't asking for fed funds anymore.

The $8 million isn't being well spent.

But eliminate 90% of the remaining $52 million....and you've saved $45 million.

Fund the damn federal election for president at $500 million.

Net loss to the feds....about $450 million.

But add back savings on every stupid federal give away legislation that returns billions to special interests that fund elections and the savings are enormous.

Why should legislators listen to anyone but their conscience and perspective if they aren't getting money from any aggregate financial source.

If you investigate the industries and specific businesses that are funding this and past elections you see a consistent series of sources that fund elections.

Its outrageous. Its simply legalized corruption.

Do you realize that the largest medical program passed under Bush's administration, the drug medication legislation received projections for costs over a decade of ranges between $500 million and $1.2 trillion.

One of the essential big additions of costs was excluding the govt from negotiating best prices. Private insurers were allowed to do so.

Negating the ability of the govt through medicare/medicaid was an outrageous gift to the pharmaceutical companies. It made no sense to anyone, accept administration allies. The push to get that aspect of the legislation passed was described by legislative members as the most twisted horrible example of legislation, threats and arm twisting in memory.

I don't mean to just bash this administration with regard to these actions....but take all private money out of the political system and legislators are no longer beholden to special interests.

That would be an incredible payoff.

If you think the proposed payoff to the home building industry is outrageous take a closer look at the drug legislation that passed.

10 year estimates of costs from lowest end to highest end range between $500 billion to $1.2 trillion.

Estimate that 20% might be accountable to the inability of medicare/medicaid to negotiate prices. (that is the single largest component of the insurance package.

Okay.....that 20% ranges between $100 -600 billion over 10 years.

That is $10-60 billion/year at the widest range.

Do you realize how many elections that can pay for.

That example makes the payoff to the housing industry look like chump change.

Get rid of 100 examples of that per year.....and you have an enormously different system operating.

Its a very simple equation.


The vast majority of the political system is paid for by special interests of all types.

Get rid of the money they put into elections and the system changes dramatically.

You want one more different example of extraordinary bloat that the public has scarecly seen.....

The cost of contractors. Don't even consider the Blackwater's and others in Iraq.

Check out this article......http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/01/intel_contractors/index1.html

Per the article.....the cost of a govt paid intelligence officer....fully loaded with benefits = about $126,500/year.

What is the cost of a fully loaded contractor doing the same work? About $250,000/year.

The article cites one agency of about 14,000 employees being roughly 1/2 contractor.

Take a measly estimate of about 10,000 such contractors across the board not earning.....but billing about $250,000/year...or about $125,000/year more than the same guy being paid by the govt....and the cost of that is about $1.25 billion/year.

Bingo.....that pays for an election...fully funded by govt savings....while getting the same service.

btw...the same article references that SAIC, a major intelligence contractor spent about $1.3 million on lobbying in the year reported.


I would suggest that eliminating private funding of elections....eliminating the ability of industries, special interest groups etc. from funding elections would pay for itself probably to the tune of 1,000 or 1 million to one if not more.

Make the regulations so air tight....and you wouldn't have to worrry about any of those what ifs you proposed. There wouldn't be any.

It would be refreshing.

 

Up front, I'm willing to admit there are no "perfect" solutions, so please don't interpret my criticisms as condemnations.

I better understand now what you are talking about.

Problems I still see are...

1) Political free speech is enabled by the ability to advertise. Stripping away the ability of individual citizens to support a candidate through donations is a big attack on political free speech.

2) You're setting funding guidelines for the electoral process. Who determines who gets a slice of the pie? In other words, who determines who is a worthy candidate, and who is not? Also, a major campaign expense is meeting 50 states worth of ballot access requirements. This is more than just tinkering with funding, it's a fairly broad re-write of the electoral process. A Constitutional Amendment.

3) This would mean an end to all policy/politically oriented non-profit organizations. You'd have to wipe out the 503(c)s, and the 527s.

The reason I mention the above, it is likely that no one would have heard of Ron Paul under such a system. No one would have heard an argument for the gold standard, or for non-interventionist foreign policy. There would have been no one to challenge the red state fascism of Rudy Giuliani or the war mongering of McCain. While some people may not like Paul or his message, it was important to hundreds of thousands of voters.

On principle, I oppose this, because we're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In order to clean up government, we're going to sacrifice liberty (free political speech).

As far as bashing this administration, feel free. I'm an equal opportunity basher. I think partisanship is a form of mental retardation. Why vote on party lines? Vote for the best person, who most reflects your values and perspectives. Even if it's the 5th most likely out of 5 candidates.

This world is sorely lacking in principles, and due to that, reasoned actions.

Re: special interests paying for everything...

This is a natural consequence of consolidating purchasing, law and monopoly power in one city. Of course people are going to hire lobbyists. Right now, if I want to get action for Oriental Heterosexual Clown Lawyers, I have to go to Washington and lobby. I have to hire a lobbyist, or I have to become a lobbyist. It's the only way the Oriental Heterosexual Clown Lawyers can be heard.

Again, perhaps it's time to apply Occam's Razor. If government gets more wasteful and corrupt as it grows, then the answer to those problems may be to shrink it. With less power and influence, will come less lobbying, bribes and corruption. It's not like thieves rob equally from empty and full houses.

I'm not talking about anything crazy, extreme or new. Just Constitutional government. A Republic, if we can keep it.

 

Standard law enforcement methodology suggests one follows the money.

Simply connect the dots. Evaluate legislation that might suggest the legislation is a payback for campaign contributions. Total the cost of the legislation.

Take that money.....probably divide it by a 1,000 or a vastly higher number and you have more federal money that could fund elections than is going to be spent this year.

Election funding is legalized corruption. Its that simple. Just follow the money.

Now with a small portion of those funds every element you discussed could be funded.

You might 503's and 527's to exist. Change the dynamics so that membership and fund raising becomes hugely apparant and visable to the public.

If I'm Ghengis Khan and I'm supporting the I love America Campaign and I support the political fortunes of some character who is the reincarnation of Hitler....let the country be hugely aware of my money funding the process.

Nothing hidden when it comes to funding for political statements.

Frankly, when you compare the cost of legislation that pays off campaign contributors from special interests......you have a level of govt expense that renders the free speech argument meaningless and trivial.

But if you want to speak freely through other groups then do so....but part of that speech entails revealing every Tom, Dick, and Harry that contributed a $1 to the group, what they do....how they earned it etc.

I virtually guarantee you would see enormous changes in how the legislative and govt funding process works.

Frankly there are an enormous number of physical lobbiests in the DC representing interest groups without big money to underwrite politics.

Take out the special interests and their ability to underwrite campaigns and that levels the playing field amongst lobbiests in terms of access to politicians and it eliminates the money aspect of buying votes.

I know politicians hate the idea. But take out the money and you have a radically different government and one that would directly address so many of the complaints you have brought forth.

 

Again, who decides who gets election funding? How do you stop people from shilling for a candidate in the media, and providing a campaign boost? I could pay Air America and Fox News radio hosts to hype up my candidate. How is that traceable? What if we have 300 candidates for President? Do they all get equal funding? What about every other elected position? This could get very, very expensive. Congressional and Senatorial primaries, then Congressional and Senatorial general elections.

Campaign donations are already transparent. Donations over $200 have to be fully disclosed.

On the contrary, the free speech issue is everything. Simply put, I'm not for putting the government in charge of the government, and eliminating "we the people" from the process.

The only way to shoo away special interests, is to take away or limit the power of the government to favor them.

It's like the poorly conceived drug war, or prohibition before that. Making the drugs illegal didn't shut down the drug trade, it just drove sellers and users further underground, and required them to use illegal and black market/off book means financing themselves.

I don't know if you've ever done anything criminal or not, but you don't seem to have a criminal mind Earl. The law is always steps behind the bad guys, otherwise crime would have been eliminated in the west already. For every regulation, agency, barrier etc., there will be some guy figuring out a smarter way to beat the system.

It seems you're pretty enthusiastic about using "the system" to improve "the system", which in my mind has been a failure when it comes to discipline. Like letting a drug addict hold onto his stash and expect him not to smoke any of it.

And I particularly don't like the idea of punishing the citizen who wants to become a political activist by limiting his opportunity to participate in the process or promogulate his self-interest.

It could be mostly just me. I find that once people get bit by the limited, smaller government bug, they have a very hard time rationalizing additional government for any purpose, let alone policing the government.

Appreciate the discourse.

 

Donate all the cash to me, help me build my Empire, and I shall solve all problems.

Free Beer, Free Cheese, Free Society.
Power through Empire,
Freedom through Empire,
Beer through Empire.

>.>

<.<

*Back to your original programming*

 

I believe in free speech for people.

I do not believe corporations should have free speech because they are not people.

But the courts have ruled in favor of "Corporate personhood" See Wikipedia on the topic, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood_debate

A true abomination.

 

Hallelujah Sister! We can agree on all of that.

 

My bribery and corruption senses are tingling.

 

Debate over corporate personhood or, increasingly, the means to toss corporate shields aside by "piercing the corporate veil," I would ask - why shouldn't corporations enjoy rights to free speech?

You would argue in favor of censorship over what a corporation may or may not say, then? If so, since all kinds of other entities aren't "people," either, should these, too, be censored? For instance, advertising and promotional materials of Corp C's, Corp S's, LLC's, GP's - these should be subject to censorship? To this forum, and a former subject of debate: Wikipedia - "Wikipedia Foundation, Inc." - this, too, should be subject to censorship?

I'd ask - please explain exactly what you mean, here.

 

Corporations are not people, therefore they should not be afforded the same rights as people. Simple to me. I'll try to make it clearer.

In the past, to share your opinion, you would literally stand on a soapbox & talk to the town folk in the public square. Can't do that anymore, at least not effectively. People don't gather in one place now. If you try that in a shopping mall, you'll be thrown out, because it's private property. Ask me how I know

Increasingly, the only way to promote a particular point of view is to spend money for TV or radio time, or billboards, or whatever. That's difficult enough for the average person to do.

But it isn't difficult at all for corporations to pay for time & space to promote their commercial interests.

People offer opinions about how the world could be a better place.
Corporations promote their position for profits.

Corporate shields and the corporate veil are part of a completely different issue, relating to whether or not people are hiding behind a corporation to avoid liability. You can start a different thread about that if you like, and if you want to promote that practice.

It's completely beyond my comprehension that anyone would think a paper document for a profit making venture should have equal rights with humans.

Maybe you could explain why you find that acceptable.

 

Actually, Kaethy, the issue of corporate shields and piercing the corporate veil is precisely related to your topic, since you are discussing the issue of corporate personhood, and it is precisely over this issue that the idea of both the corporate shield and its counterpart, "piercing the veil," rests. That said, I took no issue here - hence, I said "aside," as in, another topic, or another thread.

What I do take issue with is censorship, in all its spectra outside of some extremely narrow limits ("Go kill _____"). Libertarians, at least as far as I know of their philosophy, should get awfully testy at the notion that the state, or anyone, may tell private entities what they may or may not say. Yours is, in essence, a strongly statist philosophy, which goes by the logic:

1. Corporations have at their disposal material means to make propaganda not afforded individuals.

2. Individuals are too stupid not to be swayed by "incorrect" information.

3. Censorship should be an available means to curb the undue swaying of the individual mind.

Why this doesn't ring alarm bells on the part of anyone who states a belief in free speech seems patently obvious, at least to me. Please tell me - what government entity decides what corporations may and may not say? What may corporations - and LLC's, PC's, Corp. C's, Corp. S's, GP's - say? What may they not say?

In the instance of this forum, a simple, concrete example. I will again ask: Wikipedia is a corporation - "Wikipedia Foundation, Inc." Please describe how you would institute curbs to Wikipedia's right to say what it would on its private site.

And others applauding such a philosophy - please describe how you can rectify this with a concomitant support of free speech, an essential aspect of "liberty" in a free society.

 

I agree with this so much. I'm not sure what our societies would look like, because you know that business would somehow seek protection from law by gaining natural rights if possible, but truly the fact that businesses can operate as persons has created a lot of bad situations, and I can't think of any good ones right now. Nice post.

 

The issue at hand is free speech - wherever it takes place.

I take issue with a broad exertion of censorship. I repeat:

 

I just re-read this:

It also isn't difficult for wealthy individuals to do - precisely that, pay for time and space that the "average" person cannot afford. By this logic, not only "corporations" (and LLC's, GP's. etc.), but wealthy people should now be censored.

I am astounded that the same people decrying "socialism" in America maintain a straight face while clapping loudly their approbation for such a view as is being expressed here. Bald statism.

Actually, I'm not astounded. Apparently constitutionalism sounds great as a sound byte, unless its defense contradicts one's personal views.

 

Are you talking about me, or Kaethy?

 

In Kaethy's dissemblance of free speech, I'm talking about Kaethy.

In your support of Kaethy's stand, I'm talking about you.

By extension, anyone who mouths platitudes about supporting free speech while supporting censorship, I'm talking about them.

In the instance of this forum, we have a perfect example:

In short, in supporting curbs to free speech on the part of those - wealthy individuals, corporations, whom- and whatever - who can, unlike "average people":

I'm calling a spade a spade.

 

Why can't you just speak english? Simple yes or no. You trying to start something with me?

 

I don't try to start something, and this isn't a child's sandbox, Guerilla - no one is playing "tag," and there will be no big brother at the corner to stop bullies. I speak directly, in the Mutha' country's good English. You're adopting debunked's apparent tactics of late to play the emotional pandering card does you zero good.

If you seriously wish to attempt the obvious difficulty of applauding Kaethy's censorship of corporations and wealthy people while vociferously protesting your defense of free speech, that's your problem. Nevertheless, I will continue to point things up as I see them.

Now, seemed pretty clear to me, but was it "dissemblance" that rocked your world. Platitudes? Spade? Rewritten:

Now, it's clear the two of you support censorship of corporations and wealthy people. Open question to anyone else - how wealthy do you have to be when the censorship trigger is tripped? Which government entity will oversee the censorship? What will be the grounds for censorship?

 

Care to source where I approved of censorship?

Or is this another one of your deals where you attribute a position to someone then pursue them relentlessly about it, until everyone feels bad?

I have a problem with corporations having legal personhood. Period.

And don't lecture me on statism. As someone who approves of the state using coercion to influence freedom of association and the right to private property, you've got zero credibility on the issue.