which business sectors support you Prez candidate?

[Cruella]

Get rid of the pork and ear marks. That should cut a chunk of it out. Also have blind bids on government contracts, so that when the bids are submitted and awarded, no one knows which companies are involved.

 

[David Hilbert]

Why not make it illegal for politicians and government to show favor toward any individual or group? If government had to treat all people equally under the law, nobody would have a reason to "buy" a politician... They wouldn't be able to get anything for their money, no tax breaks, no subsidies, no special favors of any kind. Problem solved... Why do you oppose placing the ban on government?

Please restate your post. I cannot understand your question

 

[David Hilbert]

including unions ?

If it's BIG money, yep. You righties always bitch about union contributions, but they are dwarfed by corporate contributions.

 

[GenSeneca]

just curious, how would you see this accomplished ?
what process could you use to ensure the showing of no favor ?

With the law(s) of course. Rather than using the law to ban private individuals and groups from lobbying for political favors, ban government's ability to give favor - ban earmarks, ban subsidies, ban tax breaks, ban government from being able to provide any and all benefits an individual or group may look to aquire through lobbying. Once politicians and political parties are no longer allowed, by law, to grant these political favors, the money used to secure these favors will disappear.

Lobbyist: Hello Mr. Politician, I have a giant pile of money here for you if you can use your political clout to get my company a tax break or subsidy to give us an advantage over our competition...
Politician: Government is forbidden by law to grant any such benefits.
Lobbyist: So I can't use this money to buy an unfair advantage from government?
Politician: No, you cannot. Perhaps if you invested that money into your company and created a superior product or service, you wouldn't need government to grant you an unfair advantage.
Lobbyist: I guess I'm out of a job...

 

[GenSeneca]

Please restate your post. I cannot understand your question

You want to ban individuals and groups from making "big" donations while totally ignoring the reason they make "big" donations in the first place - to get political favors from government. It's like banning people from purchasing the service but keeping it legal for poiticians to provide and sell the service. Such a policy is doomed to fail because it does absolutely nothing to address the underlying cause - the ability of politicians and government to grant special privileges. Pursuing your policy would lead to an explosion in corruption and cronyism, the very things you hope to eliminate, because you would leave the disease unchecked while focusing on a mere symptom of the disease.

So to reiterate my question... If you really want to cure the disease, why don't you support banning politicians and government from having the ability to grant special privileges?

 

[David Hilbert]

You want to ban individuals and groups from making "big" donations while totally ignoring the reason they make "big" donations in the first place - to get political favors from government. It's like banning people from purchasing the service but keeping it legal for poiticians to provide and sell the service. Such a policy is doomed to fail because it does absolutely nothing to address the underlying cause - the ability of politicians and government to grant special privileges. Pursuing your policy would lead to an explosion in corruption and cronyism, the very things you hope to eliminate, because you would leave the disease unchecked while focusing on a mere symptom of the disease.

So to reiterate my question... If you really want to cure the disease, why don't you support banning politicians and government from having the ability to grant special privileges?

These "special privileges" they might aren't evident at times. I think to limit money coming in and make it illegal for a lawmaker to accept special favors or "big" money from anyone. If he does, and it can be proved in court, he'd face prison time

 

[GenSeneca]

These "special privileges" they might aren't evident at times. I think to limit money coming in and make it illegal for a lawmaker to accept special favors or "big" money from anyone. If he does, and it can be proved in court, he'd face prison time

You're still not getting it... If government retains the ability to show favor to one group over another, then your policy will not have the desired effect. Instead, your policy will cause an explosion in cronyism and corruption.

You guys are too hung up on the idea that money is the problem, government is the problem. It is the ability of government to show favor to certain groups that attracts the money. Fix government and the money dries up. Outlaw the legal donation of money and it will simply drive those donations underground and create a black market for political favoritism.

 

[Gipper]

You guys are too hung up on the idea that money is the problem, government is the problem.

Of course government IS the PROBLEM. It has been the PROBLEM for a long time...and yet, when we have bubbles burst and the economy tanks, the Left and all their friends blame Capitalism, when the perpatrator is GOVERNMENT imposing socialist policies!!!

We now live in a nation were the government is huge, overbearing, coercive, and outrageously expensive while continually causing great harm. But, many on the Left do not agree. They WANT MORE government. This is why it is impossible to find middle ground with the Left. Their goals are different than freedom loving Americans.

 

[TheJPRD]

That "frontal assault" is quite well deserved. This thread was about ridding our politics from the deleterious effects of money. Do you excuse the oil companies from buying politicians just because of their bad PR? Maybe they ought to spend that money correcting the causes of that bad PR instead of buying politicians to compensate from it.

A "well-deserved" frontal assault, huh? I'd call it a "back-door misdirection"! This is a fine example of leftwing oversimplification and misdirection. David tells us that Oil Companies are buying conservative politicians. His entire thread has concentrated on those evil oil & gas giants. Take a closer look at the data, conservatives!

Those evil Oil & Gas companies donated $1.5 million to Romney, only 50% more than they donated to Obama. At the same time, David fails to mention that ambulance-chasing Lawyers & the big Law Firms donated (wait for it)...... $12.4 million to Obama.... more than 8 times what those evil Oil companies gave to Romney. Does anyone else find it odd that those profit-gouging Oil companies can only afford to give Romney 12% of what the lawyers who sue them give to Obama??

The big Oil & gas companies didn't even outspend the Movie/TV/Music industry. That industry (aka "the Democrat Propaganda Machine") gave Obama TWICE the money given to Romney by big Oil! Typical liberal who looks at one little piece of data that fits his predjudices, and ignores the more-important Big Picture! It's important for Conservatives to remember that liberals are virtually always... Wrong!

 

[David Hilbert]

A "well-deserved" frontal assault, huh? I'd call it a "back-door misdirection"! This is a fine example of leftwing oversimplification and misdirection. David tells us that Oil Companies are buying conservative politicians. His entire thread has concentrated on those evil oil & gas giants. Take a closer look at the data, conservatives!

Those evil Oil & Gas companies donated $1.5 million to Romney, only 50% more than they donated to Obama. At the same time, David fails to mention that ambulance-chasing Lawyers & the big Law Firms donated (wait for it)...... $12.4 million to Obama.... more than 8 times what those evil Oil companies gave to Romney. Does anyone else find it odd that those profit-gouging Oil companies can only afford to give Romney 12% of what the lawyers who sue them give to Obama??

The big Oil & gas companies didn't even outspend the Movie/TV/Music industry. That industry (aka "the Democrat Propaganda Machine") gave Obama TWICE the money given to Romney by big Oil! Typical liberal who looks at one little piece of data that fits his predjudices, and ignores the more-important Big Picture! It's important for Conservatives to remember that liberals are virtually always... Wrong!

Funny, my daughter is a lawyer working for a major law firm, but no one at her firm chases ambulances. She's too busy flying to Japan for conference at Mitsubishi for her client, GE, to chase any ambulances

 

[TheJPRD]

Funny, my daughter is a lawyer working for a major law firm, but no one at her firm chases ambulances. She's too busy flying to Japan for conference at Mitsubishi for her client, GE, to chase any ambulances

I hope your daughter has an enjoyable and profitable trip to Japan. Was this post of yours supposed to be a rebuttal to the fact that Lawyers and Law firms gave 8 TIMES the amount of money to Obama as Oil Companies gave to Romney? If it was, you failed miserably!

You can demogogue all Oil companies, and I can refer to all lawyers as "ambulance chasers". Neither of us would be 100% correct with our statements. Liberal Democrats love to place folks into nice little "groups" to be loved or hated in their entireties. "White Men" are always bad (Unless they're willing to admit that they're to blame for all the worlds problems........, in which case they're good Democrats). "African-Americans" are always good (except for Allen West and Clarence Thomas of course). "Hispanics" are usually good (except for Marco Rubio and some others who are devout Christians). "Asians" are a group that confuses liberal Dems (Afterall, many of them insist on self-discipline and ambition in their children, and a lot of them are disgusting Capitalists too). "Women" are almost always good (though black women are better than white ones, and Sarah Palin is worse than any white man). These are just a few examples of the oversimplified "baskets" that Democrats use, much as you're using "Oil Companies" as one of your "bad" baskets.

The intent of my post was NOT to lump all lawyers into a category named "BAD". There are well-intentioned lawyers and bad-intentioned ones. The intent of my post was to demonstrate that your vilification of Oil companies is an outrageously-oversimplified view. If it's "Bad" that Oil companies gave $1.5 million dollars to Romney, it's far worse that Lawyers gave $12.4 million dollars to Obama! Make sense now?

 

[Cruella]

I think I love you JPRD.

 

[dogtowner]

I hope your daughter has an enjoyable and profitable trip to Japan. Was this post of yours supposed to be a rebuttal to the fact that Lawyers and Law firms gave 8 TIMES the amount of money to Obama as Oil Companies gave to Romney? If it was, you failed miserably!

You can demogogue all Oil companies, and I can refer to all lawyers as "ambulance chasers". Neither of us would be 100% correct with our statements. Liberal Democrats love to place folks into nice little "groups" to be loved or hated in their entireties. "White Men" are always bad (Unless they're willing to admit that they're to blame for all the worlds problems........, in which case they're good Democrats). "African-Americans" are always good (except for Allen West and Clarence Thomas of course). "Hispanics" are usually good (except for Marco Rubio and some others who are devout Christians). "Asians" are a group that confuses liberal Dems (Afterall, many of them insist on self-discipline and ambition in their children, and a lot of them are disgusting Capitalists too). "Women" are almost always good (though black women are better than white ones, and Sarah Palin is worse than any white man). These are just a few examples of the oversimplified "baskets" that Democrats use, much as you're using "Oil Companies" as one of your "bad" baskets.

The intent of my post was NOT to lump all lawyers into a category named "BAD". There are well-intentioned lawyers and bad-intentioned ones. The intent of my post was to demonstrate that your vilification of Oil companies is an outrageously-oversimplified view. If it's "Bad" that Oil companies gave $1.5 million dollars to Romney, it's far worse that Lawyers gave $12.4 million dollars to Obama! Make sense now?

ok

game, set, match