Total Posts:120|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Demonetize US Politicians:Possible?

glodt2123
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 11:41:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am just curious as to what people think about the contributory nature of American Politics and policy. How you believe it effects individuals in this country as a whole.

There are some who would argue that in a capitalistic society. The monetary nature of the political system goes hand in hand.

I disagree. And believe it has been an inflationary trend with no visible ceiling.

I think for a healthy political and capitalistic society to develop. It is necessary to take the money out of campaigns. Put a cap on spending. And stop having the largest business in the country influencing the lives of the people.

My .02. What do you think?
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 11:43:53 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Demonetize campaigns? Yes.

Demonetize politician salaries? No.

Without a salary only people who are already rich can afford to run for office.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 11:47:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 11:43:53 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
Demonetize campaigns? Yes.

Demonetize politician salaries? No.

Without a salary only people who are already rich can afford to run for office.

Agreed, in the context of "democracy". I think that removing a politician's salary makes as much sense as forcing any government employee to work for free. Sorry DMV workers, now you have to work in Hell, but you have do it for nothing.
glodt2123
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 11:52:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I am speaking more specific to political campaigns.

Of course they must be paid a salary. But regarding campaigns. Do you think it is possible? And if so . . . how? I do not think there is any law strong enough to do it. Because there will always be a loop hole. Maybe it can reign in spending. Which would be a step in the right direction.

But generally speaking. To be a politician in the US. You have to in many regards have been groomed to do so. And generally speaking outside of President Obama. Have come from some line of wealth or from a political family.

Take into account. Out of the 44 Presidents this country has seen. Two of which. 12 years of my lifetime have been in the same family (Bush).

There is no way you can chalk that out to having representative representatives.
glodt2123
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 11:55:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 11:51:53 AM, comoncents wrote:
It is a free country.
Let them spend what they want on the campaign.

You still consider this country free?
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 11:56:18 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 11:55:20 AM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 11:51:53 AM, comoncents wrote:
It is a free country.
Let them spend what they want on the campaign.

You still consider this country free?

For the most part.
I will push for the next prez to make it more free, but yes it is free.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 11:56:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 11:55:20 AM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 11:51:53 AM, comoncents wrote:
It is a free country.
Let them spend what they want on the campaign.

You still consider this country free?

It should be.

It isn't presently legal to spend whatever you want on a campaign. Though those laws are blatant violations of the first amendment.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 11:59:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 11:56:18 AM, comoncents wrote:
At 12/24/2009 11:55:20 AM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 11:51:53 AM, comoncents wrote:
It is a free country.
Let them spend what they want on the campaign.

You still consider this country free?

For the most part.
I will push for the next prez to make it more free, but yes it is free.

Mitt Romney spent a lot of money and McCain won.
Ron Paul raised a lot of money and did not even get close.
Jon Corzine spent a bunch, and nothing.
glodt2123
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:00:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I do not think it is the case any more.

You have the right to fight and dispute violations of your civil liberties at your own expense.

But they are violated on a repeat basis by state and federal law.

This is a mild example. But none the less relevant. I live in Los Angeles. Likely one of the least free and most highly regulated cities in the country. And it is illegal for my dog to put it's paws on the sand of all but 2 or so small stretches of beach where freight ships come in.

If I want to take her to a beach I drive an hour and a half. Even though I am 12 miles from water. Or I will be fined and possibly have the animal taken away.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:02:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 11:56:59 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/24/2009 11:55:20 AM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 11:51:53 AM, comoncents wrote:
It is a free country.
Let them spend what they want on the campaign.

You still consider this country free?

It should be.

It isn't presently legal to spend whatever you want on a campaign. Though those laws are blatant violations of the first amendment.

It does suck that they have to divulge everything in the press and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:04:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:00:32 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
I do not think it is the case any more.

You have the right to fight and dispute violations of your civil liberties at your own expense.

But they are violated on a repeat basis by state and federal law.

This is a mild example. But none the less relevant. I live in Los Angeles. Likely one of the least free and most highly regulated cities in the country. And it is illegal for my dog to put it's paws on the sand of all but 2 or so small stretches of beach where freight ships come in.

If I want to take her to a beach I drive an hour and a half. Even though I am 12 miles from water. Or I will be fined and possibly have the animal taken away.

For the most part it is free, compared to some countries.

The greatest thing about america is the freedom to move if you do not like it. It will be different in another state. or even in another part of cali, LA is weird,
glodt2123
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:12:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It isn't presently legal to spend whatever you want on a campaign. Though those laws are blatant violations of the first amendment.

I disagree. The whole premise, and in my opinion what made this country great . . . at one point in time. Was the fact that power and preservation of rights was "protected" for the people by the people. Not the government. There is no guarantee to a right of privacy for the government. Or it would be legal for policy meetings to be held in private with votes in private.

And an individual interested in being involved in government and influencing public policy is willfully forfeiting his or her right to fiscal privacy regarding their campaign.

In my opinion.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:16:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:12:49 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
It isn't presently legal to spend whatever you want on a campaign. Though those laws are blatant violations of the first amendment.

I disagree. The whole premise, and in my opinion what made this country great . . . at one point in time. Was the fact that power and preservation of rights was "protected" for the people by the people. Not the government. There is no guarantee to a right of privacy for the government. Or it would be legal for policy meetings to be held in private with votes in private.


They are "the people" with rights.
And they are not in government until elected.

And an individual interested in being involved in government and influencing public policy is willfully forfeiting his or her right to fiscal privacy regarding their campaign.

In my opinion.

That violates the first amendment.

It is not right.
glodt2123
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:21:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:16:51 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:12:49 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
It isn't presently legal to spend whatever you want on a campaign. Though those laws are blatant violations of the first amendment.

I disagree. The whole premise, and in my opinion what made this country great . . . at one point in time. Was the fact that power and preservation of rights was "protected" for the people by the people. Not the government. There is no guarantee to a right of privacy for the government. Or it would be legal for policy meetings to be held in private with votes in private.


They are "the people" with rights.
And they are not in government until elected.

And an individual interested in being involved in government and influencing public policy is willfully forfeiting his or her right to fiscal privacy regarding their campaign.

In my opinion.

That violates the first amendment.

It is not right.

My biggest problem is the lack of regulation on the regulators. Or their "club" card regarding the rules.

So you think it should be legal for a Mexican drug cartel to fund a political campaign? And that bit of information should be withheld from public record?

I think it would be dangerous to have absolute non disclosure. And people looking to be in office and shape the policy that effects everyone else in my opinion no longer have the right to conceal their funds. Because chances are those are the interests they stand for and represent. And the only thing history has taught about politicians is that they lie.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:23:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:12:49 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
It isn't presently legal to spend whatever you want on a campaign. Though those laws are blatant violations of the first amendment.

I disagree. The whole premise, and in my opinion what made this country great . . . at one point in time. Was the fact that power and preservation of rights was "protected" for the people by the people. Not the government.
Politicians are people too. There is no such thing as "The people," only individuals.

There is no guarantee to a right of privacy for the government.
Irrelevant. I said first amendment, not fourth.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:24:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:21:16 PM, glodt2123 wrote:

So you think it should be legal for a Mexican drug cartel to fund a political campaign? And that bit of information should be withheld from public record?

If he were Mexican American drug cartel and it is his money, yes.

Do you want people telling you what you can or can not do with you money?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:24:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So you think it should be legal for a Mexican drug cartel to fund a political campaign? And that bit of information should be withheld from public record?
It's far more important that it should be legal. People have a right to speak, with their mouths or with their money. No one should be obligated to make things a matter of public record that are not a part of PERFORMING (not pursuing) the office, but this is far less important.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:27:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Btw, if someone is receiving donations from someone you don't like, or not disclosing their budgets and sources in readable format, there is a very simple solution for you without pointing a gun at them (i.e. making a law about it)-- that solution is, don't vote for them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
glodt2123
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:27:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:23:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:12:49 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
It isn't presently legal to spend whatever you want on a campaign. Though those laws are blatant violations of the first amendment.

I disagree. The whole premise, and in my opinion what made this country great . . . at one point in time. Was the fact that power and preservation of rights was "protected" for the people by the people. Not the government.
Politicians are people too. There is no such thing as "The people," only individuals.

There is no guarantee to a right of privacy for the government.
Irrelevant. I said first amendment, not fourth.

I understand the difference between the first and fourth amendment.

The first amendment prohibits a state sponsored religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on freedom of speech or the press.

I don't see a correlation between privacy of campaign funds and the first amendment.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:30:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:27:35 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:23:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:12:49 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
It isn't presently legal to spend whatever you want on a campaign. Though those laws are blatant violations of the first amendment.

I disagree. The whole premise, and in my opinion what made this country great . . . at one point in time. Was the fact that power and preservation of rights was "protected" for the people by the people. Not the government.
Politicians are people too. There is no such thing as "The people," only individuals.

There is no guarantee to a right of privacy for the government.
Irrelevant. I said first amendment, not fourth.

I understand the difference between the first and fourth amendment.

The first amendment prohibits a state sponsored religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on freedom of speech or the press.

I don't see a correlation between privacy of campaign funds and the first amendment.

infringing on the freedom of speech and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:30:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:27:35 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:23:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:12:49 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
It isn't presently legal to spend whatever you want on a campaign. Though those laws are blatant violations of the first amendment.

I disagree. The whole premise, and in my opinion what made this country great . . . at one point in time. Was the fact that power and preservation of rights was "protected" for the people by the people. Not the government.
Politicians are people too. There is no such thing as "The people," only individuals.

There is no guarantee to a right of privacy for the government.
Irrelevant. I said first amendment, not fourth.

I understand the difference between the first and fourth amendment.

The first amendment prohibits a state sponsored religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on freedom of speech or the press.

I don't see a correlation between privacy of campaign funds and the first amendment.

Campaign funds are a means of making speeches to a wider audience, by means of facilitating press access, holding public events, etc. Note, present law, and your advocacy, not only mandates disclosure but also forbids certain uses.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
glodt2123
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:31:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:24:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So you think it should be legal for a Mexican drug cartel to fund a political campaign? And that bit of information should be withheld from public record?
It's far more important that it should be legal. People have a right to speak, with their mouths or with their money. No one should be obligated to make things a matter of public record that are not a part of PERFORMING (not pursuing) the office, but this is far less important.

So you do not think it is important to know who the guys is representing. And what their ideology is? And who he owes a favor to?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:33:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:31:15 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:24:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So you think it should be legal for a Mexican drug cartel to fund a political campaign? And that bit of information should be withheld from public record?
It's far more important that it should be legal. People have a right to speak, with their mouths or with their money. No one should be obligated to make things a matter of public record that are not a part of PERFORMING (not pursuing) the office, but this is far less important.

So you do not think it is important to know who the guys is representing. And what their ideology is? And who he owes a favor to?
I think it is important to know all of these things-- which is why I will vote against anyone who fails to disclose any of these things. I will not, however, point a gun at them for it. If I want to introduce a gun into the situation, I can usually find a better excuse anyway.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
glodt2123
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:34:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:30:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:27:35 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:23:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:12:49 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
It isn't presently legal to spend whatever you want on a campaign. Though those laws are blatant violations of the first amendment.

I disagree. The whole premise, and in my opinion what made this country great . . . at one point in time. Was the fact that power and preservation of rights was "protected" for the people by the people. Not the government.
Politicians are people too. There is no such thing as "The people," only individuals.

There is no guarantee to a right of privacy for the government.
Irrelevant. I said first amendment, not fourth.

I understand the difference between the first and fourth amendment.

The first amendment prohibits a state sponsored religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on freedom of speech or the press.

I don't see a correlation between privacy of campaign funds and the first amendment.

Campaign funds are a means of making speeches to a wider audience, by means of facilitating press access, holding public events, etc. Note, present law, and your advocacy, not only mandates disclosure but also forbids certain uses.

Yes. But campaigns are over inflated. Reaching people and getting your word out does not have the same geographic obstacles it used to.

What is wrong with an individuals ideas getting them in office? As opposed to the cash of their counterpart? If that were the case. Then perhaps there would not be the same families going into power every 4 to 8 years.
glodt2123
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:35:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:33:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:31:15 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:24:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So you think it should be legal for a Mexican drug cartel to fund a political campaign? And that bit of information should be withheld from public record?
It's far more important that it should be legal. People have a right to speak, with their mouths or with their money. No one should be obligated to make things a matter of public record that are not a part of PERFORMING (not pursuing) the office, but this is far less important.

So you do not think it is important to know who the guys is representing. And what their ideology is? And who he owes a favor to?
I think it is important to know all of these things-- which is why I will vote against anyone who fails to disclose any of these things. I will not, however, point a gun at them for it. If I want to introduce a gun into the situation, I can usually find a better excuse anyway.

Who is talking about using or pointing a gun?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:37:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:34:22 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:30:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:27:35 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:23:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:12:49 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
It isn't presently legal to spend whatever you want on a campaign. Though those laws are blatant violations of the first amendment.

I disagree. The whole premise, and in my opinion what made this country great . . . at one point in time. Was the fact that power and preservation of rights was "protected" for the people by the people. Not the government.
Politicians are people too. There is no such thing as "The people," only individuals.

There is no guarantee to a right of privacy for the government.
Irrelevant. I said first amendment, not fourth.

I understand the difference between the first and fourth amendment.

The first amendment prohibits a state sponsored religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on freedom of speech or the press.

I don't see a correlation between privacy of campaign funds and the first amendment.

Campaign funds are a means of making speeches to a wider audience, by means of facilitating press access, holding public events, etc. Note, present law, and your advocacy, not only mandates disclosure but also forbids certain uses.


Yes. But campaigns are over inflated. Reaching people and getting your word out does not have the same geographic obstacles it used to.
That's for them to judge, not you.
You have a right to eat the food you earn. Is "You were overinflated" a valid defense to violating your right to eat by stealing your food?


What is wrong with an individuals ideas getting them in office? As opposed to the cash of their counterpart?
An individual's ideas do get them in office. Their ideas help them earn money to spread their ideas, or convince donors to spend money to spread them-- no amount of money will ever get, say, Cody Franklin elected president of the United States without a vast cultural shift, you have my personal guarantee.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/24/2009 12:39:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/24/2009 12:35:35 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:33:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:31:15 PM, glodt2123 wrote:
At 12/24/2009 12:24:47 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
So you think it should be legal for a Mexican drug cartel to fund a political campaign? And that bit of information should be withheld from public record?
It's far more important that it should be legal. People have a right to speak, with their mouths or with their money. No one should be obligated to make things a matter of public record that are not a part of PERFORMING (not pursuing) the office, but this is far less important.

So you do not think it is important to know who the guys is representing. And what their ideology is? And who he owes a favor to?
I think it is important to know all of these things-- which is why I will vote against anyone who fails to disclose any of these things. I will not, however, point a gun at them for it. If I want to introduce a gun into the situation, I can usually find a better excuse anyway.

Who is talking about using or pointing a gun?

Put a cap on spending. And stop having the largest business in the country influencing the lives of the people.
How the hell else are you going to stop them? Sounds to me like you're advocating a law.

Law is nothing more and nothing less than the sum of the guns the lawgiver commands and his skill in directing them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.