Forum Post: why are we electing people to hold office for 20 - 30 years?
Posted 12 years ago on April 8, 2012, 8:31 a.m. EST by Dell
(-168)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
That's what breads corruption - we get what we deserve. If you are voting for someone who has served more than 2- 3 terms you are perpetuating the problem. two terms for senators then out - four terms for congressmen. Anyone keeping them in office longer than that has no-one to blame but themselves.
NO- you are saying that you get cancer because you are born
Corruption is caused by big money flowing into our system by rich people and rich entities that want to buy favors.
Just to pick an arbitrary number, what if all donations to candidates by anyone who cannot vote for them are banned. [ corporations cant vote ]
and limit the contributions to $1000 per voter per House & Senate race. So a koch brother would be limitted to $2000. And so would you. Comments please?
Limiting campaign contributions will not do anything.
Instead of donating directly to the candidate, the Kochs and the rest of the wealthy will just fund their own ads promoting their candidates and political agenda.
If you say you cannot run your own media campaigns, then you would have to shut down all media and ban all political talk. Otherwise every newspaper, blog, radio show and tv show who talks about a candidate will be guilty of illegal political contributions.
So long as you have some people who get paid 50,000 times more than others, you will have some people who wield 50,000 times more political power.
You can never get money out of politics. So long as you have enormous, unfair income inequality, you will have enormous, unfair political inequality.
And so long as you have some people with 50,000 times more political power than others, your society is not democratic.
You raise a good point
but the key to the current super-pac mess is the Citizens United decision and Buckley decision.
If money is NOT free speech, campaign finance laws CAN be enforced
As you know, I'm as anti-capitalist as anyone on this site, but that decision was correct. Money is speech. And there is nothing you can do to limit the amount of money people spend on politics.
If a constitutional amendment is passed, these decisions can be gone
There are Article III methods too McCain-Feingold worked until SCOTUS killed it
It is pointless to limit the amount of 30 second ads about a candidate on a media program that can spend all day, every day promoting some candidate.
In other words, if you won't let me buy $1 million worth of advertising on some media program, I will just spend that money creating my own media program.
There is no difference between Murdoch spending his own money on ads promoting his candidate and spending his money building the Fox News network that promotes his candidate.
The only way to close every loophole is to just limit all political talk which would obviously be tyrannical.
McCain Feingold DID close most loopholes until SCOTUS killed it This problem IS SOLVABLE If the legislature/president wanted a campaign spending law, and there was a firm commitment to it - the legislature could en voke Article III which can be used to bar the supreme court from ruling on any particular subject - such as campaign finance reform
SCOTUS was correct in killing it because it only unfairly closed some holes.
You cannot have the FEC allow Michael Moore to run his anti-Bush Fahrenheit 9/11 movie but not allow Citizens United to run their anti-Clinton movie. That is unfair. And you can't therefore ban all political media, including movies, for every person and every company except media companies like Viacom or Fox which was what McCain-Feingold did because that is unfair to non-media companies like Exxon and unfair to citizens who do not own a media empire with enormous reach. And you cannot ban all political speech before a campaign including media companies because that is tyrannical and violates everyone's freedom of speech.
Campaign finance reform is just a poor attempt to try to cover the obvious truth: So long as you have some people who have as much as 50,000 times more income than everyone else, they will have 50,000 times more political power, which means societies with huge income inequality can never be democratic.
SCOTUS didn't need to go as far as they did, merely to decide in favor of Citizens United.
With two bought out and corrupted parties, citizens united doesnt matter.
With a population that is too lazy to start anything new, citizens united doesnt matter.
When the nation is more concerned with Dancing with Chefs, CU doesnt matter.
Everyone wants to focus on CU, instead of the idiot masses that the money controls via campaign commercials.
Just another distraction.
You are insulting "masses" - what would gravity do without masses?
CU is being attacked by 12 amendments already IN CONGRESS
There is a case TODAY - that MAY - if SCOTUS reviews it - overturn CU [Montana - ATP]
[Removed]
Get rid of CU and you still have a moronic population that is hell bent on only voting for Dems and Reps, 100 years of bullshit continues
[Removed]
Thank you for proving my point....
Wow....
[Removed]
"Corruption is caused by big money flowing into our system by rich people and rich entities that want to buy favors." And who is taking the bait? govt doles out benefits of all kinds to manipulate behavior. They give tax breaks when they want you or an industry to behave in a certain way. they give students financial aid when they want people to go to school etc. everybody's got their hand out.
wanting people to go to school benefits AMERICA giving money to oil companies helps oil stock holders letting frackers destroy our water helps frackers government is here to help AMERICA - not big oil or frackers or polluters
giving money to oil companies keeps prices down just like when you subsidize anything else. Why don't you tell the govt to lower the gas tax? they make 3 bucks for every - 1 the oil companies keep without even doing any of the work.
you are very dense
oil prices are set by the world and oil subsidies goto stock holders
If oil companies costs go up - prices go up on the world market or any market. What do you think - they are going to absorb that lol? Then the govt skims off the top 3-1 in taxes what the oil companies earn on a gallon of gas without even doing any work.
Companies don't pay taxes - the consumer does. All costs - taxes & otherwise are passed on to the consumer. Eco 101 - take a class or read a book once & awhile.
who signs your paycheck? david or charles?
see - running from reality. typical. cant make your case so you make a pointless assertion about me being employed by the Kock brothers. Why don't you tell me which fact you are disputing. It's is more productive.
And if the government cuts the gas tax to 0 how does that effect my home heating oil? or oil speculation? If we want to encourage g
as consumption, why dont we give each taxpayer $5 for each gallon they buy ?
costs go down - price goes down basic. What is the govt doing with all that tax money? give it right back to them & their favored friends. So are you still for high gas taxes?
If you're really so concerned about people earning money without doing any of the work, why aren't you upset about hedge funds, speculators and bankers? There is ZERO value added to society by their "work." In fact, their demand to earn unjustifiable returns and gatekeeper attitude has severely depressed economic activity for thirty-plus years. C'mon, kiddo. You gotta do a lot better than that!
since when is the goal adding value to society? it's that whole mode of thinking that keeps you down. I am a Banker so be careful when you are thinking you know what you are talking about on the subject.
Since the invention of the wheel, moron. You can change the subject all you want. Every time you do it, you prove what a chump you really are. Call yourself a banker? LOL! (And I really did laugh out loud at that one!)
"since the invention of the wheel the goal is to add value to society." hmm interesting. who''s idea is this?
That's not my quote. But since you asked, um, only everyone's. LOL!
"However many holy words you read, however many you speak, what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
"I never see what has been done; I only see what remains to be done."
"To live a pure unselfish life, one must count nothing as one's own in the midst of abundance."
~ Buddha
Buddha was a Libertarian
We need to deal with the corrosive influence of money in politics, but I do also think term limits are necessary. It seems like the crooks are usually the ones who have been in office the longest.
I don't normally comment on your posts but I think your audience might actually be interested in this answer for a change...
Career politicians are indeed most susceptible to corruption but career politicians can be voted out of office. Lobbyists are forever. Do you think it would be better to have Capitol Hill crammed with newbie lawmakers and veteran lobbyists all the time? "Model legislation, boys! Just sign on the dotted line -- no writing, no thinking, no sweat involved." Lawmaking as a paint-by-numbers coloring book is already enough of a reality as it is without inviting an entire class of totally inexperienced legislators to the hill.
And here's the kicker... it can work both ways. Imagine our own little post-earthquake nuclear meltdown (a la Fukushima) and all the outcry about the nuclear industry that would sweep public opinion. And imagine the "model legislation" introduced by the Sierra Club the very next week, which is passed into law by a Congress more bent on staying in favor than doing its job. It might be legislation I would like (though I doubt it because the SC is as dumb as their detractors), but I know for sure it wouldn't be legislation that you would like.
So, be careful what you wish for. It's not public service that's the problem, it's money. Everyone knows it. So let's stop pretending that we can tinker at the edges and fix anything. Money is the brackish water in the political swamp and until it's drained, we have no idea how many alligators there really are in there. Drain the swamp and the rest is easy by comparison. If you care about a legitimate process, that's where your focus should be. But if you just care about "winning," then by all means, carry on carrying on.
we need people there who are willing to do the right thing and risk losing their seat over making a career out of it. You wont get rid of the money that has always been there and always will. Bribery is in every system around the world. You need to pick leaders who are not hooked on power. We get what we deserve. Say I went door to door and told everyone face to face in my district I promise to step down after two terms in congress, I tell them I will not respond to any lobbyist, Take no money from any organization. I will only take 5 dollar donations and vote against all pork barrel spending or any expansion of government. I hand it to them on a silver platter. If they vote for the guy with the fancy TV add - who's to blame?
"You wont get rid of the money that has always been there and always will."
That's the line of the corporatist. you don't WANT to get money out of politics because it serves your ends or the ends you think will help you down the road. You like money corruption because it favors your side of the aisle. That's all there is in your arguments and nothing else. In a totally corrupted system, to imagine that anyone running for office can be considered trustworthy, independent or otherwise, is stunningly naive or indicative of corruption itself. You don't fool me, kiddo. I just like to put things on the record now and then.
name a system that isn't corrupted by money? It's the politician making a career out of his seat. why is money a problem now as opposed to 150 years ago?
150 years ago was before the Supreme Court codified the spending of money as an expression of speech, and even before the advent of "personhood" for legal fictions. See Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad and Buckley v. Valeo. Educate yourself... if you care... which I know you don't. Whatever.
so you disagree with the supreme court-congratulations - I disagree with them on many issues as well. what is your point?
You asked: "why is money a problem now as opposed to 150 years ago?"
I answered: "150 years ago was before the Supreme Court codified the spending of money as an expression of speech..."
You are capable of reading English, yes?
No - they upheld the Constitution instead of changing it's meaning as you had hoped. Money has always been there are you kidding?
I actually agree with someone who I think is a troll...
It's been mentioned that we shouldn't have "rookie" politicians running the country. But why should we have career politicians who are jaded and cynical about their work running our country? Why should we have people who have been in Washington for so long as to have completely forgotten what happens outside our placid political epicenter?
If we limited the amount of terms in Congress, would we see the dismantle of our well-oiled machine, or would we see a surge of driven and ideological individuals who are willing to do the absolute best they can.
Most people after many years of the same job end up cynical. They've been their so long they elect an air of arrogance towards anyone with varying opinion. "You can't teach an old dog new tricks." If we accept that aphorism, then why should we expect John McCain to understand the problems of young Americans?
Lobbying and career politicians are a problem.
Because we are f*ckin dumb. Thats it.
Vote out ALL crooked,back stabbing,money sucking, corporate stooge INCUMBENTS!!!! All of them! Both Reps and Dems! Each and every one of them is the same. If a few of them seem "agreeable" to you, guess what. They are the ones assigned to keep your demographic apeased. Save yourselves, save us all, VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS.
You don't know what your typing about. Try using a brain.
they will never put a mandate on this and i dont think they should
I agree, but crooks, con men, and liars get reelected over and over again because they give their voters free stuff. Voters let their greed dictate how they vote.
Where do you live that they give you swag for voting?
Or are you associated with ALEC?
Didn't you see Romeny on primary day in WI, it was election fraud, but since he's a Republican it doesn't count.
Fraud is an accurate description of the entire (R)epelican't party these days.
They are still running on the "I am not a crook" meme, created by Nixon.
He was and they still are.
Great minds? Or is that too immodest?
[-] -2 points by factsrfun (2718) 1 day ago "I am not a crook" speaking of things that just can never sound good ↥like ↧dislike reply edit delete permalink
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-1-arent-all-evildoers/
The wrong wingers really hate it when you point that out to them.
Reality frightens them, I suppose.
"Truth is enemy to all that would strive to control."
Opps, .....I did it again...
Thus they create and support propaganda mills like CATO, ALEC, Heritage and so many more.
Media is the message..........................:)
Truth be damned.
Haven't you ever read the literature sent out that itemizes all the pork sent back to the home district? People are convinced everyone in congress is crooked, except for their own representative, he's ok because he gets things for their district.
I was in a union, I helped pay for all that free stuff for Mississippi and other low wage States.
I didn't get no free stuff, I was "forced" to help out conse(R)vative States the HATE me.
[Removed]
exactly. everybody wants something for nothing.
so who is the problem? we get what we ask for
There is enough blame to go around for everyone. We get the government we deserve.
exactly
[Removed]
[Removed]
[Removed]
I don't want rookie, amateur or virgin Representatives going up against seasoned, experienced professional Lobbyists representing me, but the 1% who employ those lobbyists SURE DO!!!
Just who are you working for??
Register and Vote! Register and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!
right - so you get what yo ask for - no problems then -
Who did you say you worked for??
why do you ask?
It's interesting to know who employs a person who advocates a bias against fair democratic representation. Or whom you are advocating for.
Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!
I think he works for Hewlitt Packard and trying to give Dell a bad name.......LOL.
http://www.alternet.org/media/154875/the_science_of_fox_news%3A_why_its_viewers_are_the_most_misinformed/
Share and enjoy
More bad news for FLAKESnews aficionados............LOL
It really does make you dumb. Confidently dumb.
Proving once again that conse(R)vatives really are brain lazy.
Tanks Jiffy.....bookmarked.
Most people think "Everyone other than the guy I vote for is corrupt".
So this is what you get - they shake their head that the corrupt get into power and that their neighbors vote for the 30 year incumbent but defend themselves doing the same thing. They've shook hands with him at a bbq and he smiled and was nice...
then we get what we ask for dont we.
[Removed]