Forum Post: What I think we need
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 6, 2011, 4:52 p.m. EST by Thephotogod
(0)
from Dalton, GA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
What I think we need: Term limits, 2 terms just like the President No donations by Corporations, Groups, PACs, etc. Limit donations to individuals only and no donation more than $1000 per year. Reinstate all financial regulations put in place after the great depression. Finally, Pink slip Congress. push for recall votes in every state of every congressman and senator. That should get their attention.
Feet on the street.
You do realize that one of the regulations during the Great Depression was that banks couldn't have branches all over the place, right? THat's why thousands of banks failed in the US verses NONE in Canada where banks could be spread across the country. In the US a bank serving a wheat-industry town was completely at the mercy of the wheat farms. When that industry took a hit, the bank lost deposits and couldn't loan money and went under. It couldn't rely on other branches in iron-industry areas and fishing-industry areas, and financial-sector areas to support it.
But you knew this . . .
I agree with term limits in both the senate and the house. If they are good, they'll get elected to some other office after their time is up...but politicians are a waste of oxygen most of the time especially the ones in congress for 40 years.
I agree with all of that except term limits. If my district gets a great rep who is honest and truly represents the will of the constituency, I don't want to have to get rid of him/her.
Which happens how often?
Well I am an old fart, so I can actually remember good representation. I think we could have that again if we removed the corporate influence in Washington. Then politicians would actually be accountable to their constituency and we can keep them or get rid of the via the ballot box, as intended.
I'm not saying that a good representative is not possible; it is. Although it's almost logically impossible from the outset (as discussed in "The Republic"). Even if a few good representatives were sacrificed by term limits in order to get rid of a host of bad ones, it's still a net win. Until we can cultivate a system of getting good representation on a whole, term limits seem necessary to attempt to mitigate the damage.
I think corruption free voting is a system is a system of getting good representation. There is nothing wrong with voting--we just need to get the corporate influence and it's resultant corruption out of politics.
I disagree. The reason I disagree is that I don't think a corrupt system of voting is the problem, just a symptom. As an example, democrats are in power and things get worse. Then republicans are in power and things get worse. The conclusion that people draw from this? Maybe democrats need another shot. Instead of the obvious conclusion that MAYBE BOTH DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS ARE BOTH WRONG?!
The corruption in voting doesn't deal with the real issue: the fact that the voters are ignorant. If democrats and republicans are both a problem and 98% of the 99% are voting for them.... where do you start pointing fingers now?
I define advertising as an awareness. (We're having this event over here) I define marketing as a persuasion. (Come to our event and you'll get laid and have tons of friends and be popular) So why does marketing exist? Because people are incapable of making up their own minds for their own reason. If everyone voted for who they thought was the best candidate, media and corporations couldn't spin it. They wouldn't consider who was "electable". They'd just vote for who they thought would do the best job. It's easy to look at the television and blame it for corruption in voting, but I am inclined to blame the feeble minded person on the other end who lets a random 30 second blip determine what they think without attempting to understand anything for themselves. We can talk about all kinds of voting reforms, but unless we address the stupidity of the voters, we're going to keep getting a stupid result.
I didn't mean to suggest that corruption in voting is the only problem. I agree that both parties are corrupt--bought and paid for by big corporations who fund their campaigns, insure their reelections. This is why politicians do the bidding of the corps and not the people. While we're at it, we should severely curtail corporate power in general (reinstate limited charters, no right of corporations to own property, etc.). That would eliminate the big-corp controlled media as well as a lot of other evilness.
I disagree most strongly with your assertion that people are too stupid to choose their own leadership. If your belief is that people are incapable of self-governance and therefor need a dictator to make the decisions for them, I hope your system never comes to fruition. We have plenty of examples of populations who had no voice in their own governance and it never seem to work out very well for the people. Tyranny is not something I can get behind you on.
I'm completely against tyranny as well. My view is that people are incapable of self-governance and therefore we should have as little governance as possible to encourage self-governance. As little as we can get away with doing for others, the more they would (hopefully) be inclined to do for themselves and their communities. I'd like governance to become more localized, communal, and voluntary.