Another testimony to the Tea Party's rationality!

[Openmind]

Which is exactly why we need to view the const as a law that specifically says that one group of people cannot be given any special rights or privileges. The rich are not supposed to get special treatment nor are they supposed to be singled out for penalty.

and since they are, mayve it demonstrates that the Constitution has been used at times not as effectively or fairly as it was intended.

And since we have given so much advantages tobig corps and the power of money, especially under the Bush administration, it seems that now, the power of big money trumps the intent of the constitution, and we have lostour way (fair, unadulterated by big money, electoions) to amend the constitution to rectify the wrongs in our system.

 

[Dr.Who]

and since they are, mayve it demonstrates that the Constitution has been used at times not as effectively or fairly as it was intended.

And since we have given so much advantages tobig corps and the power of money, especially under the Bush administration, it seems that now, the power of big money trumps the intent of the constitution, and we have lostour way (fair, unadulterated by big money, electoions) to amend the constitution to rectify the wrongs in our system.

Corporatism is indeed the gravest threat to our country. Amendments may be needed. But to stop corporatism an amendment is not needed - all we need to do is to follow the const. A regular run-of-the-mill law prohibiting congress from making laws that favor only some people and especially from making laws in exchange for contributions would do it. Maybe just congressional policy would be enough.

In this world the corporations are like spoiled children who ask their parents for whatever they want. It is up to congress to be the adults and tell them that laws cannot be made that play favorites.

 

[Openmind]

Corporatism is indeed the gravest threat to our country. Amendments may be needed. But to stop corporatism an amendment is not needed - all we need to do is to follow the const. A regular run-of-the-mill law prohibiting congress from making laws that favor only some people and especially from making laws in exchange for contributions would do it. Maybe just congressional policy would be enough.

In this world the corporations are like spoiled children who ask their parents for whatever they want. It is up to congress to be the adults and tell them that laws cannot be made that play favorites.

I can agree with all of this.

 

[dogtowner]

Corporatism is indeed the gravest threat to our country. Amendments may be needed. But to stop corporatism an amendment is not needed - all we need to do is to follow the const. A regular run-of-the-mill law prohibiting congress from making laws that favor only some people and especially from making laws in exchange for contributions would do it. Maybe just congressional policy would be enough.

In this world the corporations are like spoiled children who ask their parents for whatever they want. It is up to congress to be the adults and tell them that laws cannot be made that play favorites.

I believe its already against the law to take money for legislation. Clearly this is easy to avoid. What you seek is, of course, desirable but I fear that the devil is in the details here.

I favor removing money from political campaigning altogether. Also easier said than done.

 

[Dr.Who]

I believe its already against the law to take money for legislation. Clearly this is easy to avoid. What you seek is, of course, desirable but I fear that the devil is in the details here.

I favor removing money from political campaigning altogether. Also easier said than done.

We seem to have little trouble keeping our policman and judges from taking bribes - why is congress treated so special? As near as I can tell few policemen take bribes but all congressman do.

Money could not be removed entirely since it is the medium that is used by private citizens to express themselves - free speech and all. It is also their property to do with as they want. A congressman's vote on the other hand is not a matter of personal property or even preference - it is his job to represent the people in his district rather than to represent lobbyists who give more than some other lobbyist.

When a private person gives money that is an example of a right being upheld, but when the congressman does not represent the people in his district that is a betrayal of an official trust.

 

[Dr.Who]

I can agree with all of this.

Even the part where congress does not favor some people over others?

 

[Openmind]

Even the part where congress does not favor some people over others?

Absolutely. . .right now they are favoring the wealthy over the rest of us. . .

And, it is obvious that people who cannot take care of themselves have to receive assistance!

Either that, or be euthanized!. . .which, I think you will admit, is a BIG stretch. . especially for a "Christian" nation!

 

[dogtowner]

We seem to have little trouble keeping our policman and judges from taking bribes - why is congress treated so special? As near as I can tell few policemen take bribes but all congressman do.

well there is little to bribe cops and judges for generally speaking (obviously that does not apply to organized crime who do it with some regularity). I guess the devil is in the details (definition of "is" as it were).

Money could not be removed entirely since it is the medium that is used by private citizens to express themselves - free speech and all. It is also their property to do with as they want. A congressman's vote on the other hand is not a matter of personal property or even preference - it is his job to represent the people in his district rather than to represent lobbyists who give more than some other lobbyist.

Only if one alters the law to say n$ no = free speech. thats a court decision as its not stated anywhere (so far as I know). replace the current model of campaigning (ads every which way) with statements of platform. if someone wants to pony up for debates fine, if candidates want to pony up for expenses to talk or debate, fine. Now just try and tell me you would miss the endless ads ?

When a private person gives money that is an example of a right being upheld, but when the congressman does not represent the people in his district that is a betrayal of an official trust.

well as evidenced at how limits are made a mockery of now, they will just find ways to beat the system irrespective of any rules. I'm not arguing the concept, I don't like influence peddling regardless of it's nature, its just that the only way to kill the beast is to suck the blood from it. I suspect we can agree that moeny is the blood in this beast.

 

[dogtowner]

Absolutely. . .right now they are favoring the wealthy over the rest of us. . .

also
they favor minority students over non-minority ones (affirmative action)
lower income over higher income (progressive taxation etc)

And, it is obvious that people who cannot take care of themselves have to receive assistance!

but from where...

Either that, or be euthanized!. . .which, I think you will admit, is a BIG stretch. . especially for a "Christian" nation!

but certainly a valid approach in socialized medicine.

 

[Dr.Who]

Absolutely. . .right now they are favoring the wealthy over the rest of us. . .

And, it is obvious that people who cannot take care of themselves have to receive assistance!

Either that, or be euthanized!. . .which, I think you will admit, is a BIG stretch. . especially for a "Christian" nation!

We are talking about congress and what congress does.

So clearly you mean that congress should be the ones taking care of them.

And in doing so you contradict yourself when you said "absolutely [some people should not be favored over others]"

You say that no one should be favored over others and then almost in the same breath you imply strongly that some should be favored over others.

The only right answer is that congress favors no one but that those who need to be taken care of are taken care of by you and I.

The notion that they be euthanized is a false choice and if you know what that means it is beneath you to mention it. The only people who actually consider euthanasia are progressives in health care as Dogtowner alluded to.

 

[Dr.Who]

well as evidenced at how limits are made a mockery of now, they will just find ways to beat the system irrespective of any rules. I'm not arguing the concept, I don't like influence peddling regardless of it's nature, its just that the only way to kill the beast is to suck the blood from it. I suspect we can agree that moeny is the blood in this beast.

Yes I agree. And yes people will always find ways to give no matter how hard one tries to stop them. But there are only about 500 congressmen - and their rights are not violated if we inspect the funds they get because they are in their job and an employer has a right to see how an employee does his job.

It is both practical and upholds rights if we look at what congressmen do and not at what donors do.

Of course congress makes the laws that would then police congress...

 

[BigRob]

and since they are, mayve it demonstrates that the Constitution has been used at times not as effectively or fairly as it was intended.

And since we have given so much advantages tobig corps and the power of money, especially under the Bush administration, it seems that now, the power of big money trumps the intent of the constitution, and we have lostour way (fair, unadulterated by big money, electoions) to amend the constitution to rectify the wrongs in our system.

I like the attempted swipe at Republicans with your money statement...either you intentionally left out that Democrats get just as much money, or you don't realize it, which is pretty stupid really.

 

[BigRob]

Yes I agree. And yes people will always find ways to give no matter how hard one tries to stop them. But there are only about 500 congressmen - and their rights are not violated if we inspect the funds they get because they are in their job and an employer has a right to see how an employee does his job.

It is both practical and upholds rights if we look at what congressmen do and not at what donors do.

Of course congress makes the laws that would then police congress...

I may have missed some of this thread, but we already are able to inspect who gives money to what elected officials etc.

 

[dogtowner]

I may have missed some of this thread, but we already are able to inspect who gives money to what elected officials etc.

like the max donations to HRC from sweatshop asian garment workers in NYC. inspect doesn't make much difference.

I know what I want is impossible b ut I don't believe anything else can work. and I'm weary of efforts whose only impact is to make it difficult for less monied candidates. but thats a whole other thread.

 

[Openmind]

I like the attempted swipe at Republicans with your money statement...either you intentionally left out that Democrats get just as much money, or you don't realize it, which is pretty stupid really.

Obviously the Democrats are also subject to greed!

Obviously they also receive money from some big corporations!

But I'm not sure if the "payback" is as bad. . . because, Republicans just "buy in" that "elite are better" crap. . .Democrats are a little bit more sceptical and will be glad to take the money, then many still vote their conscience.

It's simple. . .why do you think ALL the GOP Congress member vote EXACTLY the same thing. . .while some Democrats do find the courage (for better or worse) of voting away from party line?