Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
everyone is on the same playing field and are no longer selling themselves to large donors.
everyone is on the same playing field and are no longer selling themselves to large donors.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
- Status
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Not sure if this is a sincere question or a devil's advocate question, but I'll bite.
Easy. you take money out of the equation by making it a constant. You can't explain a variable (who wins an election) with a constant (access to election funds). Money isn't out of the process, but with a little algebra, you can remove it from both sides, essentially removing it from the process.
In theory, its great. In practice, I have lots of questions. How do we determine which candidates qualify for election funds? How do we regulate non-election-fund spending? From a political perspective, would this effectively rule out candidates who aren't already a household name? If so, how could we level the playing field?
I'm all for campaign finance reform. I'm just not sure which reforms. I'd probably be satisfied to work piecemeal and trim away the worst excesses.
Not sure if this is a sincere question or a devil's advocate question, but I'll bite.
Easy. you take money out of the equation by making it a constant. You can't explain a variable (who wins an election) with a constant (access to election funds). Money isn't out of the process, but with a little algebra, you can remove it from both sides, essentially removing it from the process.
In theory, its great. In practice, I have lots of questions. How do we determine which candidates qualify for election funds? How do we regulate non-election-fund spending? From a political perspective, would this effectively rule out candidates who aren't already a household name? If so, how could we level the playing field?
I'm all for campaign finance reform. I'm just not sure which reforms. I'd probably be satisfied to work piecemeal and trim away the worst excesses.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
We have "Clean Elections" here in Maine and it has worked pretty well. People who never dreamed of running for office can now run for the Legislature because they don't have to whore themselves out to Big Business or Big Labor and they know they aren't going to get massively outspent - every candidate has the exact same amount of money. It's actually about how well you campaign, how well you connect with voters - not about who will write you the largest check.
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
I wish that were true. Unfortunately, it seems to me that removing overt money from politics will do little to stop, and may encourage, more covert money (a/k/a bribery). I wish I were wrong.
My preference instead would be to reform legislators' pay, benefit, and practices. There is no reason why Anthony Weiner should be receiving a pension worth over $1 million, for example.
I wish that were true. Unfortunately, it seems to me that removing overt money from politics will do little to stop, and may encourage, more covert money (a/k/a bribery). I wish I were wrong.
My preference instead would be to reform legislators' pay, benefit, and practices. There is no reason why Anthony Weiner should be receiving a pension worth over $1 million, for example.
Last edited:
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
I wonder why you chose Anthony Weiner as an example, rather than Duke Cunningham or Larry Craig...
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Of course it's easier to be outraged about a "disgraced" congressman. But out of curiosity, would you defend any retired congressman's pension or acting congressman's pay as being just?
Of course it's easier to be outraged about a "disgraced" congressman. But out of curiosity, would you defend any retired congressman's pension or acting congressman's pay as being just?
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
For current members, considering how expensive it is, their salary is probably too low. For retirees? Hell no. They get way too much money and benefits and it is far too easy to qualify.
For current members, considering how expensive it is, their salary is probably too low. For retirees? Hell no. They get way too much money and benefits and it is far too easy to qualify.
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Because I had happened to read the story about his pension a few days ago and it was easy to find the links. You want to post links to other politicians' pension numbers too, be my guest, good luck on your search!
What offended me about Weiner's pension was his relatively short term in office compared to the relatively large payout he received. Regarding his kerfluffle, that didn't bother me at all, it made no sense to me why he had to resign over it.
I don't know how many times I'd repeat that I am against career politicians of either party. It's like asking me if I prefer thieves or robbers in office, can I please get a third option?
Because I had happened to read the story about his pension a few days ago and it was easy to find the links. You want to post links to other politicians' pension numbers too, be my guest, good luck on your search!
What offended me about Weiner's pension was his relatively short term in office compared to the relatively large payout he received. Regarding his kerfluffle, that didn't bother me at all, it made no sense to me why he had to resign over it.
I don't know how many times I'd repeat that I am against career politicians of either party. It's like asking me if I prefer thieves or robbers in office, can I please get a third option?
Last edited:
duper
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
This is an interesting, and apparently very common, bit of cynicism to me, in the sense that in almost every other profession, experience is generally considered a good thing. I suppose politics is a bit like prostitution in that way: a few years experience is good, but nobody wants you after 30 years on the job.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Here's an interesting perspective for all of us who think there is too much money and influence dominating our politics.
The "conventional" solutions all involve either regulation or disclosure. Some people want to put various controls, donation limits, expenditure limits, what have you. Some want to allow only government-provided funds. Some people argue that you are using chewing gum to fix cracks in a dam, best to channel the water rather than be overwhelmed by it, and so require full disclosure of who is giving how much to whom. (the cynic in me likes this last approach).
For some reason, I've been thinking about Bobby Kennedy's inspirational slogan lately. I can still hear his voice resonate with passion as he says it:
Here's a radical two-part suggestion to remove the outsize influence of money from political campaigns. First, however, we use simple logic, of the "emperor's new clothes" variety.
ask, "why is there so much money in politics in the first place
to be continued, sorry about that....
Here's an interesting perspective for all of us who think there is too much money and influence dominating our politics.
The "conventional" solutions all involve either regulation or disclosure. Some people want to put various controls, donation limits, expenditure limits, what have you. Some want to allow only government-provided funds. Some people argue that you are using chewing gum to fix cracks in a dam, best to channel the water rather than be overwhelmed by it, and so require full disclosure of who is giving how much to whom. (the cynic in me likes this last approach).
For some reason, I've been thinking about Bobby Kennedy's inspirational slogan lately. I can still hear his voice resonate with passion as he says it:
Here's a radical two-part suggestion to remove the outsize influence of money from political campaigns. First, however, we use simple logic, of the "emperor's new clothes" variety.
ask, "why is there so much money in politics in the first place
to be continued, sorry about that....
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Step One: Prohibit members of congress from serving as lobbyists, private counsel, consultants (or even ersatz "historians") once they leave office?
The less government spends, the less benefit there is in controlling the purse strings. Which means the less benefit there will be in getting elected. But the government will always spend. And it will always regulate (a market without rules isn't a market. It's anarchy). So there will always be risk of corruption.
Step One: Prohibit members of congress from serving as lobbyists, private counsel, consultants (or even ersatz "historians") once they leave office?
The less government spends, the less benefit there is in controlling the purse strings. Which means the less benefit there will be in getting elected. But the government will always spend. And it will always regulate (a market without rules isn't a market. It's anarchy). So there will always be risk of corruption.
huskyfan
New member
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
I'm not sure I'd trust Media Matters on Rushgate. and you have to distinguish between national and local advertisers. the irony here is that while he may lose advertisers in the short term, it also sends his ratings through the roof, which attract advertisers, which make more money for Rush and his stations, which makes him more likely to shoot his mouth off, which means he loses advertisers, etc.
I'm not sure I'd trust Media Matters on Rushgate. and you have to distinguish between national and local advertisers. the irony here is that while he may lose advertisers in the short term, it also sends his ratings through the roof, which attract advertisers, which make more money for Rush and his stations, which makes him more likely to shoot his mouth off, which means he loses advertisers, etc.
huskyfan
New member
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
a question. forgive me if I missed this previously, busy and not keeping up with the discussion.
why the outrage over what Rush said and not over other comments by Colbert, Olbermann, Marer, Matthews, etc? seriously I don't get it. Maher backs Rush with the freedom of speech angle. I'm not seeing a whole lot of feminist outrage over any of these comments, which I find sad and depressing.
a question. forgive me if I missed this previously, busy and not keeping up with the discussion.
why the outrage over what Rush said and not over other comments by Colbert, Olbermann, Marer, Matthews, etc? seriously I don't get it. Maher backs Rush with the freedom of speech angle. I'm not seeing a whole lot of feminist outrage over any of these comments, which I find sad and depressing.
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Someone sent me this very interesting perspective about the original Sandra Fluke comments....
http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/03/08/aftermath/
Someone sent me this very interesting perspective about the original Sandra Fluke comments....
http://www.thebigquestions.com/2012/03/08/aftermath/
MountieBoyOz
Eater of Worlds
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Food for thought: MST3K gets cancelled and a decade later Minnesota goes bankrupt. Coincidence? I think not!
Food for thought: MST3K gets cancelled and a decade later Minnesota goes bankrupt. Coincidence? I think not!
duper
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
To be honest, i haven't listened to her comments, but I thought she was saying that contraceptives should be covered by insurance. Am I wrong? Because if that's what she asked, that is VERY different than asking someone else to pay for them.
duper
Well-known member
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
I'm trying to understand the point of this question. Do you believe that, on average, people who use birth control take less out of insurance than they pay in?
Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Yes, a good first step. A very very good first step.
Even more fundamental, we need to re-define the relative roles of the individual, society, and government. Many roles that "should" be played by society have been abdicated to government instead, and to me that is the crux of the problem. In essence, we do not have enough grown-ups; nearly everyone is stuck in a permanent state of adolescence, the first rule of which is "what about me?" or perhaps "where's mine?" (or a more recent variant, "pay attention to me!")
Look at how many rules are already on the books. Much more time should be spent editing, condensing, co-ordinating, integrating existing laws with each other, paying attention to their collective impact, much less time spent passing new ones. We should be eliminating obsolete laws and streamlining the code into something that people can understand and live with. Get a real good workable set of laws, meet for three months every year to review and tweak them, that's it. Legislator would be a part-time job, sort of glorified jury duty. No salary, just a per diem based pro-rata on your earned income from your "real" job. You don't get rich, you don't have to take a major pay cut, you don't make it a full-time career (the executive branch is different; this ideal is just for legislators).
We once policed ourselves socially; shame was a powerful regulatory tool that everyone could exercise without needing government approval.
We once valued personal integrity. Now, it's "what can I get away with?" The more we delegate functions that properly belong in the realm of self-control to government, the more we become squirrels in the wheel in the cage. Social organizations, neighborhood organizations, were our way of policing shared values; we did not need to pass laws and hire regulators anywhere at all near the extent we do today. (Read Ben Franklin's autobiography, for example, it is amazing!)
As soon as a privilege (e.g., someone shares their food with me as an act of compassion) becomes a right (whatever food stamps are called today) the reciprocity is broken. Reciprocity is the essence of civil life.
"Human rights" essentially were intangible. that made sense in an age where scarcity was just a drought or a blight or a plague or an infestation away. How could any one person have a "right" to any particular thing? At best, everyone had a "right" to share in society's bounty because everyone had a responsibility to contribute to society's bounty.
At its core, all government is about coercion. I get that. Coercion is an essential feature of government; you cannot govern without it. We all voluntarily agree to a certain degree of coercion in our lives as a price of getting along. What I am saying is that we had other, better avenues of coercion available that we've let atrophy and have become over-reliant on government.
(I am using "property rights" not to refer to any one particular thing but to refer to the right to have those things you "own" recognized as exclusively yours).
I'm not sure if this makes me a "Marxist" or not; it certainly does make me "Marxian."
Yes, a good first step. A very very good first step.
Even more fundamental, we need to re-define the relative roles of the individual, society, and government. Many roles that "should" be played by society have been abdicated to government instead, and to me that is the crux of the problem. In essence, we do not have enough grown-ups; nearly everyone is stuck in a permanent state of adolescence, the first rule of which is "what about me?" or perhaps "where's mine?" (or a more recent variant, "pay attention to me!")
Look at how many rules are already on the books. Much more time should be spent editing, condensing, co-ordinating, integrating existing laws with each other, paying attention to their collective impact, much less time spent passing new ones. We should be eliminating obsolete laws and streamlining the code into something that people can understand and live with. Get a real good workable set of laws, meet for three months every year to review and tweak them, that's it. Legislator would be a part-time job, sort of glorified jury duty. No salary, just a per diem based pro-rata on your earned income from your "real" job. You don't get rich, you don't have to take a major pay cut, you don't make it a full-time career (the executive branch is different; this ideal is just for legislators).
We once policed ourselves socially; shame was a powerful regulatory tool that everyone could exercise without needing government approval.
We once valued personal integrity. Now, it's "what can I get away with?" The more we delegate functions that properly belong in the realm of self-control to government, the more we become squirrels in the wheel in the cage. Social organizations, neighborhood organizations, were our way of policing shared values; we did not need to pass laws and hire regulators anywhere at all near the extent we do today. (Read Ben Franklin's autobiography, for example, it is amazing!)
As soon as a privilege (e.g., someone shares their food with me as an act of compassion) becomes a right (whatever food stamps are called today) the reciprocity is broken. Reciprocity is the essence of civil life.
"Human rights" essentially were intangible. that made sense in an age where scarcity was just a drought or a blight or a plague or an infestation away. How could any one person have a "right" to any particular thing? At best, everyone had a "right" to share in society's bounty because everyone had a responsibility to contribute to society's bounty.
At its core, all government is about coercion. I get that. Coercion is an essential feature of government; you cannot govern without it. We all voluntarily agree to a certain degree of coercion in our lives as a price of getting along. What I am saying is that we had other, better avenues of coercion available that we've let atrophy and have become over-reliant on government.
(I am using "property rights" not to refer to any one particular thing but to refer to the right to have those things you "own" recognized as exclusively yours).
I'm not sure if this makes me a "Marxist" or not; it certainly does make me "Marxian."
Last edited:
- Status