Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 78 of 78

Thread: If You Had the Power...

  1. #61
    [QUOTE=parafly;4008714]Campaign Finance Reform

    Outlaw political donations and fundraisers. Funding needed to run a campaign would come from a public escrow account, split evenly between candidates who meet a certain signature threshold to run for office. Bottom line, limit the power of special interests and transform politics from "who has the most money" to "who has the better ideas."

    Also, as others have stated, term limits.[/QUOTE]

    If you want to limit the power of "Special Interests" we should equally limit the power of government to regulate "special interests".

    As an example how can the energy department come up with a reasonable energy policy that takes into consideration our current and future needs without having the energy producers at the table?

  2. #62
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,927
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4008705]In today's world, money is speech. It pays for advertising. And with the cost of that, how could you set limits? Candidates simply won't raise enough money to put their stupid faces out there enough to at least inform the public on their positions[/QUOTE]

    I have a very different belief in what constitutes speech.

    If you support a Politician, your speech is to volunteer and assist that politician. Paying him money is not speech, it's corruption. I'm sorry, there is no argument that will budge me from this one, I've heard every reasoning int he book.

    Less Advertising would mean more Public Speeches, more being out amongst the Public int heir jurisdiction. Thats a win/win. TV ads are not creating a better Country, and having corruption pay for them is worse.

  3. #63
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=TerminatorJet;4008709]One of the biggest examples of conservative hypocrisy is how so-called "constitutional conservative" tea party-esque douchebags calling for an end to "judicial activism." Those darned lib moonbats nominating communist muslims to serve on the Federal Courts to push sharia and mandatory abortions. Oh really?


    Two Words for the conservatives: [B]"Citizens United."[/B]

    [B]Biggest example of judicial activism and perversion of the constitution EVER and it was politically motivated to help, omfg!, Republicans![/B]

    Cue some loser trying to explain that's not the case when it absolutely was.[/QUOTE]

    Great post :rolleyes:

  4. #64
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4008722]I have a very different belief in what constitutes speech.

    If you support a Politician, your speech is to volunteer and assist that politician. Paying him money is not speech, it's corruption. I'm sorry, there is no argument that will budge me from this one, I've heard every reasoning int he book.[/QUOTE]

    Are you ok with a private citizen spending his or her own money to a television network to buy airtime to explain why they think their candidate is the better one?

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4008722]
    Less Advertising would mean more Public Speeches, more being out amongst the Public int heir jurisdiction. Thats a win/win. TV ads are not creating a better Country, and having corruption pay for them is worse.[/QUOTE]

    The television people are not in the business of televising public speeches if it isn't going to make them money somehow.
    Last edited by JetPotato; 04-25-2011 at 05:08 PM.

  5. #65
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,519
    I would follow Hong Kong's lead and implement a 15% flat income tax.

  6. #66
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,927
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4008726]Are you ok with a private citizen spending his or her own money to a television network to buy airtime to explain why they think their candidate is the better one?[/QUOTE]

    Thats a tough one tbh, if following the line Ken and I (across the Isle!) have been running.

    First instict is to say yes, but then of course we are de-equalizing the vote. Those with money would have more power than the rest, because they could buy airtime to flog X. And of course it's an obvious loophole to be exploited by Corps. and Unions and the like too, the CEO/Head will jsut run adds "personally".

    So No. Being on TV is not a right either, and corrupts the system as well.

    You want to speak? Go on down to the park and speak. Bring as big a soapbox as you want. Best of luck. Better yet, vote. Thats the best speech I can think of.

    No answer is perfect, as this clearly proves.

  7. #67
    I'm a big believer about money polluting the system. However I believe it's our government through its complicated taxing policy and regulations that have brought in most of the money. As long as the Government can be bribed it will be bribed and the flip side of that is as long as Government can shake down constituents it will shake down constituents.

    Asking our government officials to devise a scheme that would take away their power to shake money from corporations, unions and other special interest groups is highly unlikely to happen. In fact we saw plainly when the Republicans held all the branches of power followed by Democrats holding all the branches that unity of power creates more shake downs and more bribes.

  8. #68
    English is the official language.No more press 1 for English 2 for Spanish

  9. #69
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,919
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4008720]If you want to limit the power of "Special Interests" we should equally limit the power of government to regulate "special interests".

    As an example how can the energy department come up with a reasonable energy policy that takes into consideration our current and future needs without having the energy producers at the table?[/QUOTE]

    I'm not really seeing the connection. The government needs to regulate in the best interest of society, and if they fail to do so, they will be replaced.

    Why do energy producers need financial access to politicians in order to have a seat at the table?

  10. #70
    [QUOTE=parafly;4008741]I'm not really seeing the connection. The government needs to regulate in the best interest of society, and if they fail to do so, they will be replaced.

    Why do energy producers need financial access to politicians in order to have a seat at the table?[/QUOTE]

    Because without it politicains won't give you a seat. You would have to be out of your mind to invest billions in energy and have it fully at risk of "Public Policy" whatever that is?

  11. #71
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,927
    [QUOTE=parafly;4008741]I'm not really seeing the connection. The government needs to regulate in the best interest of society, and if they fail to do so, they will be replaced.

    Why do energy producers need financial access to politicians in order to have a seat at the table?[/QUOTE]

    Do you think your average Politician knows the first thing about drilling for Oil or the technology behind advanced Solar Cells?

    To regulate in the best interest of society, the regulator must be ultra-educated on the topic being regulated. Your average Pol is only ultra-educated in how to get elected.

    Hence my suggestion to end lobbying, but replace ti with Congressional Invites for field experts (from all sides of an issue), and to make that testimony public.

  12. #72
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    6,919
    [QUOTE=Winstonbiggs;4008743][b]Because without it politicains won't give you a seat.[/b] You would have to be out of your mind to invest billions in energy and have it fully at risk of "Public Policy" whatever that is?[/QUOTE]

    Under current conditions, you are probably right. However, campaign finance reform would need to come with additional provisions which wouldn't be too radical or difficult to implement.

    As Warfish suggested, we could institute a new system where certain industries subject to regulation are given a political voice by law, and the opinions and debates from all points of view are made public. This would allow politicians to make informed policy decisions and give the public access to vital information pertaining to federal regulation.

    It goes without saying that power yields corruption, and we should do our best to implement a system where political corruption is held to a minimum. Taking financial influence out of politics is a big step in the right direction.

  13. #73
    [QUOTE=parafly;4008782]Under current conditions, you are probably right. However, campaign finance reform would need to come with additional provisions which wouldn't be too radical or difficult to implement.

    As Warfish suggested, we could institute a new system where certain industries subject to regulation are given a political voice by law, and the opinions and debates from all points of view are made public. This would allow politicians to make informed policy decisions and give the public access to vital information pertaining to federal regulation.

    It goes without saying that power yields corruption, and we should do our best to implement a system where political corruption is held to a minimum. Taking financial influence out of politics is a big step in the right direction.[/QUOTE]

    I forgot this was the benevolent dictator thread where we get to make the rules. :D

  14. #74
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4008730]Thats a tough one tbh, if following the line Ken and I (across the Isle!) have been running.

    First instict is to say yes, but then of course we are de-equalizing the vote. Those with money would have more power than the rest, because they could buy airtime to flog X. And of course it's an obvious loophole to be exploited by Corps. and Unions and the like too, the CEO/Head will jsut run adds "personally".[/QUOTE]

    Nope. This is why you publish who private donors are. People with money should be allowed to spend it however they like, as I know you will agree. But the CEO of Exxon better do it out of his own account, and I want traceability to prove it. His company doesn't get a say, but he does.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4008730]
    So No. Being on TV is not a right either, and corrupts the system as well.

    You want to speak? Go on down to the park and speak. Bring as big a soapbox as you want. Best of luck. Better yet, vote. Thats the best speech I can think of.

    No answer is perfect, as this clearly proves.[/QUOTE]
    I can't even believe my ears. Eyes? Whatever. You're as libertarian as they come, but you want to restrict a man's right to spend his money as he wishes to express his opinion.

    By the way, the internet is free. So anyone can use that.

  15. #75
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,927
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4008863]Nope. This is why you publish who private donors are. People with money should be allowed to spend it however they like, as I know you will agree.[/quote]

    No, I don't. "Spending" it on a Political Candidate is Corruption, not Speech.

    [QUOTE]I want traceability to prove it[/QUOTE]

    You have it now, and it's meaningless. This is not an answer to our systems problems.

    [QUOTE]You're as libertarian as they come, but you want to restrict a man's right to spend his money as he wishes to express his opinion.[/QUOTE]

    Yep, even for me there are ideals higher that pure freedom. One is that the system of Govt. we choose is not influenced by money, i.e. that elections are not and con not, be bought.

    I maintain that in an election of equals, the one supported by the rich man will win every time. And thats just not right. My rule is generally that freedom ends when it infringes upon the freedom or rights of others. In this case, by "spending" your money to buy a politican, not only have yu bought more political power than your supposedly equal fellows, you've also bought more favor from the paid for Politician than your supposedly equal fellows. To me, that breaks the "when others freedom ends" rule.

    [quote]By the way, the internet is free. So anyone can use that.[/QUOTE]

    Within which, many a solution may lie.
    Last edited by Warfish; 04-25-2011 at 08:22 PM.

  16. #76
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4008936]No, I don't. "Spending" it on a Political Candidate is Corruption, not Speech.[/QUOTE]

    True much more if organizations are making the donations. When it comes to the individual, this is much less of a problem. We've established this is this situation we're discussing.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4008936]
    You have it now, and it's meaningless. This is not an answer to our systems problems.
    [/QUOTE]

    Again, we're not discussing our current system. We talking a hypothetical one in which organizations/companies are out of the mix. So this clearly IS a solution to the problem that you posed - that a CEO could simply dip into company funds. I'm telling you with this, he can't.

    [QUOTE=Warfish;4008936]
    Yep, even for me there are ideals higher that pure freedom. One is that the system of Govt. we choose is not influenced by money, i.e. that elections are not and con not, be bought.

    I maintain that in an election of equals, the one supported by the rich man will win every time. And thats just not right. My rule is generally that [B]freedom ends when it infringes upon the freedom or rights of others[/B]. In this case, by "spending" your money to buy a politican, not only have yu bought more political power than your supposedly equal fellows, you've also bought more favor from the paid for Politician than your supposedly equal fellows. To me, that breaks the "when others freedom ends" rule.
    [/QUOTE]

    Explain to me how the man who wants to buy a 30 second spot to express his opinion has not has his rights infringed upon.

    You're sounding an awful lot like your Comrade rich-hating friends. How many times have I seen you defend a man's right to do what he wishes with his hard-earned money?

    That guy is expressing an opinion. He's not forcing anyone to pull the lever in the ballot box for his guy. The poor guy that disagrees with him has the exact same amount of votes as the rich guy on election day: ONE. Both men have a [I]personal responsibility[/I] to pick the guy that best represents them. Each has a [I]personal responsibility[/I] to decide if the message in that commercial is one they support or oppose. Each has a [I]personal responsibility[/I] to do whatever research they need to do on their own to make an informed decision.

    Sorry, WF, but you're being grossly inconsistent on this issue.

  17. #77
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,557
    WF:

    Two registered voters, Bob and Jim, live in a remote rural area, very far from their local polling place. Neither could make the trip on foot. In anticipation of election day, Bob buys a car so that he can go vote. Jim can't afford a car.

    The government tells Bob he can't buy a car because this would be unfair to Jim.

    Sounds good, huh.

  18. #78
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    greenwich village, NYC
    Posts
    8,159
    Take a look at the party platforms when running for President through the years... very interesting to see the ebb and flow of ideology. From the late 30's through the 50's the Republican platform consistently requested an amendment to the Constitution to establish equal rights for women. That appeared to end with Nixon in 1960. Also, Republican platforms were often in support of the direct election of the President by popular vote.

    As you read through from the 1920's to the 60's you realize how dramatic a turn Goldwater made in 1964, and the influence his platform had on Reagan. Interesting stuff.

    [URL]http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php[/URL]

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us