Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Our country wasn't meant to be governed by the elite, but it has pretty much come to that. Not sure how best to reverse that. Term limits?
TJR
TJR
GOP 2012 Budget Plan has $4T in Cuts!
- Thread starter Thomas Rogers
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
Paul Maurer 2
Well-Known Member
Term limits- that was a popular thing to say you were for, until you got elected. The country is run by the rich and powerful, for the very rich and powerful. For example, the amount of money spent by the health care industry to dilute, demonize and prevent health care reform could have paid for a free preventive health care exam for every kindergarten child in this country.
Robert Thomas
Well-Known Member
I emailed my Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. I gave my recommendation and thoughts regarding the current lack of a budget. He promptly wrote me back and thanked me for my impute and told me the actions he was taking. Unfortunately, his form letter was about a completely unrelated matter.
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
:cheeky::cheeky:
:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
:cheeky::cheeky:
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
Congressmen get the per-diem for all 365.25 days of the year?
Sometimes I wonder why Congress is a salaried position at all. A "career politician" is inherently out of touch with the America he is charged with representing. If Congressmen ran their own businesses, I doubt we'd have had seen our government take such a turn towards socialism. None of the Founding Fathers were career politicians, and didn't they design America to not be run by career politicians, as they had seen it fail for centuries? (Europe's dukes/barons/lords/kings--all career politicians)
George Washington had a plantation. Jefferson had a plantation. I doubt many of our representatives know how to use a shovel.
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
If any would, they'd be the ones that are probably better left in office.
KL,
I don't know if Congressmen collect their $250 per diem when Congress is not in session, or if they are back home on the golf course, but that is still alot of money to pay someone who is doing nothing.
I agree with TJR. This country is beng run buy wealthy elitists who have no concept of what the average guy is dealing with because of the decisions, or even lack of decisions.
Also, who the hell made the rule that Congress and the Senate would police their own members??? That sure has worked out well to get rid of cooruption, hasn't it ???? It appears that the foxes are in charge of guarding the chicken coop.
Why not have ethical rules for the Senate and Congress that have some teeth. Let the trial take place in the public courts not behind closed doors with all of your coorupt drinking buddies. If you betray the people's trust, you are run out of office on a rail, Fined, sent to prison, and banned from ever running for public office again. They need to be publicly shamed...maybe do like they do to sex offenders...make them put a sign in their front yard so all the neighbors know that a crooked politician lives there and publish a list of names and addresses on the Internet !!!
The only way we can take back control of our is to take the money out of politics by banning all campaign donations. Campaigns would be controlled by the government. You would not be about to use your own money, and if you wanted to donate money, it would all go into a single fund. Candidates would be given a share of that money to spend on their campaign in an account that the government would pay for the TV ads etc. If there a primaries then the list of candidates would be narrowed down to those candidates getting the most votes....and if their are 10 candidates the candidate receiving the fewest votes is dropped from the campaign as a candidate. His name will no longer appear on any further primary ballots and his campaign account is closed.
Accepting any money from anyother sources would be a criminal offense and subject to a fine and a prison offense.
The only way we the people will regain control of our country is to get the big money out of politics and let the common man with common sense become the leaders of this country not just the coorupt or wealthiest men.
...Rich
I don't know if Congressmen collect their $250 per diem when Congress is not in session, or if they are back home on the golf course, but that is still alot of money to pay someone who is doing nothing.
I agree with TJR. This country is beng run buy wealthy elitists who have no concept of what the average guy is dealing with because of the decisions, or even lack of decisions.
Also, who the hell made the rule that Congress and the Senate would police their own members??? That sure has worked out well to get rid of cooruption, hasn't it ???? It appears that the foxes are in charge of guarding the chicken coop.
Why not have ethical rules for the Senate and Congress that have some teeth. Let the trial take place in the public courts not behind closed doors with all of your coorupt drinking buddies. If you betray the people's trust, you are run out of office on a rail, Fined, sent to prison, and banned from ever running for public office again. They need to be publicly shamed...maybe do like they do to sex offenders...make them put a sign in their front yard so all the neighbors know that a crooked politician lives there and publish a list of names and addresses on the Internet !!!
The only way we can take back control of our is to take the money out of politics by banning all campaign donations. Campaigns would be controlled by the government. You would not be about to use your own money, and if you wanted to donate money, it would all go into a single fund. Candidates would be given a share of that money to spend on their campaign in an account that the government would pay for the TV ads etc. If there a primaries then the list of candidates would be narrowed down to those candidates getting the most votes....and if their are 10 candidates the candidate receiving the fewest votes is dropped from the campaign as a candidate. His name will no longer appear on any further primary ballots and his campaign account is closed.
Accepting any money from anyother sources would be a criminal offense and subject to a fine and a prison offense.
The only way we the people will regain control of our country is to get the big money out of politics and let the common man with common sense become the leaders of this country not just the coorupt or wealthiest men.
...Rich
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
If the government controls all the money for the campaign, and there is corruption in the government, then how do we expect to keep government corruption out of the campaigns?
I don't see the Obama administration equally helping a Republican campaign under this idea, and I don't think the then-outgoing Bush administration would have equally helped Obama, Hilary, and McCain. (Or all the others who were weeded out in the primaries)
Futhermore, with the strict penalties for campaign violations, what is to stop the government from falsely claiming that a candidate who is against their interests violated these rules, thus taking him out of the race and punishing him in society? I know that if I were in power, the temptation to throw my opposition into jail on BS charges would be mighty powerful. Every tin-pot third world dictator would agree.
As you say, the government policing itself is ineffective.
So if a candidate donates his own money to this communal Government fund, and he doesn't make enough votes to stay in the race, he runs the risk of forfeiting his money. Worse, the money will (in part or in whole) go to his former competition? That's pretty brutal, if I were a candidate I wouldn't put my money into that. Certainly such a system would minimize donations to the fund. However, a political campaign across the 4th largest country in the world requires lots of cash. Where would the difference between what is needed and what is donated come from? My first, and only answer, to that is taxpayer money.
I don't give my money to the current campaign funds on my tax returns, I don't want to be forced to either.
Just a thought, but if I were a rich man who wanted to get in on politics & use my great financial wealth to give me a leg up on my opponent, under your system I could still bribe the committee responsible for doling out the campaign money. As the saying goes, every man has his price.
(And is having the wealthiest man win such a bad thing? It's not the money, it's the man who has it.)
Ultimately, whomever gets into office, by whatever system we instate will be the pawn of lobbyists.
I don't see the Obama administration equally helping a Republican campaign under this idea, and I don't think the then-outgoing Bush administration would have equally helped Obama, Hilary, and McCain. (Or all the others who were weeded out in the primaries)
Futhermore, with the strict penalties for campaign violations, what is to stop the government from falsely claiming that a candidate who is against their interests violated these rules, thus taking him out of the race and punishing him in society? I know that if I were in power, the temptation to throw my opposition into jail on BS charges would be mighty powerful. Every tin-pot third world dictator would agree.
As you say, the government policing itself is ineffective.
So if a candidate donates his own money to this communal Government fund, and he doesn't make enough votes to stay in the race, he runs the risk of forfeiting his money. Worse, the money will (in part or in whole) go to his former competition? That's pretty brutal, if I were a candidate I wouldn't put my money into that. Certainly such a system would minimize donations to the fund. However, a political campaign across the 4th largest country in the world requires lots of cash. Where would the difference between what is needed and what is donated come from? My first, and only answer, to that is taxpayer money.
I don't give my money to the current campaign funds on my tax returns, I don't want to be forced to either.
Just a thought, but if I were a rich man who wanted to get in on politics & use my great financial wealth to give me a leg up on my opponent, under your system I could still bribe the committee responsible for doling out the campaign money. As the saying goes, every man has his price.
(And is having the wealthiest man win such a bad thing? It's not the money, it's the man who has it.)
Ultimately, whomever gets into office, by whatever system we instate will be the pawn of lobbyists.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yippers. Whenever we see anyone invest 10 million dollars to get a job that will pay only 1 million dollars over about 4 years, we need to be watchful over that person.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen,
Exactly. Anyone that will pay into a system to get a job, then have to pay those that he is indebted to to keep the job probably should be watched closely.
A better system is to earn the job and keep it on one's own merits.
TJR
Exactly. Anyone that will pay into a system to get a job, then have to pay those that he is indebted to to keep the job probably should be watched closely.
A better system is to earn the job and keep it on one's own merits.
TJR
KL,
Reread my post. I think I said that candidates would no longer be able to use there own money to run for office and not body can donate money to a specific candidate.
Also, when I say that the campaign funds are controlled by the government, it would be funded by the government, but not be in the hands of the politicians, but rather in a special Election Agency similar to the GAO (Governement Accounting Office). This Election Agency would insure that all candidates for public office are eligable, and that they have completed their applications completely and accurately and on-time.
The Election Agency would also be responsible for monitoring campaign ads to insure that all rules are being followed and that no candidate is being favored or allowed to violate any of the election rules. Of course they would have written laws that they must follow and if there is any question about the interpretation of the law, they can have a fast-track to the Supreme court to insure that things are run
Of course, anything man has his hands in and there is money involved, then cooruption can exists, but it does take the money out of the hands of the politicians and makes it less likely that someone can "Buy" a political office. As it exist now, there is way too much cooruption in the election campaigns, and way too much mud slinging.
Surely there is a better way to run an election that takes away the ability for someone to use their wealth to buy their way into winning an election. As it is now, the candidate who has the most money is his/her war chest is likely the candidate who wins the election. Most candidates are funded with money from large corporations, political action committees, and even their own money. Elections are about people electing the candidate of their choice, not by the candidate who has the most money.
...Rich
Reread my post. I think I said that candidates would no longer be able to use there own money to run for office and not body can donate money to a specific candidate.
Also, when I say that the campaign funds are controlled by the government, it would be funded by the government, but not be in the hands of the politicians, but rather in a special Election Agency similar to the GAO (Governement Accounting Office). This Election Agency would insure that all candidates for public office are eligable, and that they have completed their applications completely and accurately and on-time.
The Election Agency would also be responsible for monitoring campaign ads to insure that all rules are being followed and that no candidate is being favored or allowed to violate any of the election rules. Of course they would have written laws that they must follow and if there is any question about the interpretation of the law, they can have a fast-track to the Supreme court to insure that things are run
Of course, anything man has his hands in and there is money involved, then cooruption can exists, but it does take the money out of the hands of the politicians and makes it less likely that someone can "Buy" a political office. As it exist now, there is way too much cooruption in the election campaigns, and way too much mud slinging.
Surely there is a better way to run an election that takes away the ability for someone to use their wealth to buy their way into winning an election. As it is now, the candidate who has the most money is his/her war chest is likely the candidate who wins the election. Most candidates are funded with money from large corporations, political action committees, and even their own money. Elections are about people electing the candidate of their choice, not by the candidate who has the most money.
...Rich
Your Election Agency would then become the most powerful agency in the country and the possibility for corruption would just shift to a new location. The only check on government corruption when no one is watching is the morals of good men. No amount of laws, agencies, or public pressure can change that.
Kevin Lang
Well-Known Member
I already read it. You said this:
Richard L said:
That says that a candidate can't use his own money to run his own campaign, but he could donate his money to the government's giant communal coffer. My post followed this train of thought.
If the voting public would consider candidates on more than their 30-minute infomercials and flashy ads, we wouldn't have so much an issue with the "buying office" issue.
How would your system eliminate mud slinging? Your system just gives all the candidates an equal amount of money. They can still use it to buy ads that denigrate their opposition, right?
On Donald Trump, while he didn't start out begging in the streets and then work his way up to opulence, it looks as though his father did. So Trump is 2nd-generation wealth. No one seemed to take issue with that concerning President Kennedy. Trump also improved upon his wealth and continues making ventures to further that aim, while President Kennedy rode the coat-tails of family wealth.
KL,
ps: Ooops, I corrected the above quote...must have had another unrelated quote stored on my clipboard.
The Election Agency pays for the ads and would screen the ads before they are approved for airing or publishing in newspapers. The candidate cannot make accusations or personal attacks on anyother candidate. He cannot make statements about money, taxes, savings, or the voting record of his opponents without having documented evidence before the ad can appear.
Candidates would be limited to only expressing their viewpoints and solutions they propose. They can also disagree with their opponents ideas and viewpoints, but they cannot attack him, or question his honesty, or patriotism.
Also, the candidate must appear in every campaign ad and approve the content. That way he cannot later claim that an over zealeous campaign staffer got it wrong...The candidate is ultimately responsible for any lies, misquotes, exaggerations or inaccuracies....Kind of like how CEO's must sign off on their company/corporate quarterly statements attesting to their accuracy.
Of course this is never likely to happens because it would requir approval by our lawmakers who prefer to be loose and free with the lies and BS to get elected.
...Rich
ps: Ooops, I corrected the above quote...must have had another unrelated quote stored on my clipboard.
The Election Agency pays for the ads and would screen the ads before they are approved for airing or publishing in newspapers. The candidate cannot make accusations or personal attacks on anyother candidate. He cannot make statements about money, taxes, savings, or the voting record of his opponents without having documented evidence before the ad can appear.
Candidates would be limited to only expressing their viewpoints and solutions they propose. They can also disagree with their opponents ideas and viewpoints, but they cannot attack him, or question his honesty, or patriotism.
Also, the candidate must appear in every campaign ad and approve the content. That way he cannot later claim that an over zealeous campaign staffer got it wrong...The candidate is ultimately responsible for any lies, misquotes, exaggerations or inaccuracies....Kind of like how CEO's must sign off on their company/corporate quarterly statements attesting to their accuracy.
Of course this is never likely to happens because it would requir approval by our lawmakers who prefer to be loose and free with the lies and BS to get elected.
...Rich
Last edited by a moderator:
Les
Well-Known Member
Cutting the budget 1% means nothing, both sides should be ashamed. Cut spending and get the 47% of the non-paying population to contribute.
That 47% supposedly can't afford to contribute. Cigarettes and lottery tickets are just too expensive. They are capturing that segment with higher taxes on cigarettes and the lottery is just a tax on the dumb anyway.
Mark K 2
Well-Known Member
Why do so many Congress people have bad hair? Ryan has Eddie Munster hair, for example.
