cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
KNAPPer
Senior Contributor

Re: Unions, Associations & the Constitution

That would be a bitter pill, but the way I see it, we would save billions and billions in special interest and big money under the radar deals. Congress, the Presidential candidates and state officers would have to pay a lot more attention to what the voters want. It's all a big mess and people smarter than me are going to have to figure out what to do. Also, think about the tea baggers having to accept public funding in order to run and then they would have to be civil in public debates. That would stain their drawers. The bottom line is we have to find a way to make elections not about raking in millions of dollars and owing favors for their campaign or election. More public funding, less corporate, special interest and big money funding. The main drawback I can see is that it would become a war of political action committees and the disinformation they spew around. We can't ban them. I guess there is no good answer after all.

Samnospam
Advisor

Re: Unions, Associations & the Constitution

You so realize Obama killed any chance of public financing?
dagwud
Senior Contributor

Re: Unions, Associations & the Constitution

Don, I'm not happy about our current campaign rules and limits and would like to see much stricter limits on donations from corps and individuals.  It simply is not fair for big corps and wealthy individuals like Perry and Soros to use their deep pockets to have so much more influence in our elections and our government policies then the average citizen.

 

 

 

Our Supreme Court like courts in England have determined corporations are individuals and should be granted the same freedom of speech which translates into their having the right to make political donations.  I say fine then just put a strict $1000 campaign limit on all individuals and corps.

 

 

Both parties are very good at perpetuating falsehoods and twisting the truth.   Lately Repubs have seemed to excel at this better then Dems but Dems are still doing a good job convincing America that Repubs are the party of wealthy donors.  Did you know that of the top twenty political donors in 2010 that 10 of them were unions donating almost all of their money to Dems.   We are talking serious money as some of these unions donated close to $9 million in 2010 which was an off year or midterm election.

 

 

Dems had 7 of the top 10 individual donors in 2010 and 14 of the top 20.  The top twenty averaged around $300,000 each in political donations.  

 

 

It should be obvious to all that we need some serious campaign finance reforms.   As Knapper points out we need to do more to limit the special interest influence on our politicians be it from corps or wealthy individuals.  I still believe that term limits would help to achieve this goal.

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: Unions, Associations & the Constitution

You don't like government power and influence but you want government to decide who you can't vote for. You already have the right to vote against your congressman but you want the right to remove mine as well.

GoredHusker
Senior Contributor

Re: Unions, Associations & the Constitution

You got that out of dagwud's post?  Apparently, I need to brush up on my comprehensive reading. 

wehav
Senior Contributor

Re: Unions, Associations & the Constitution

Isn't it amazing how like gangs unions are?

 

 

dagwud
Senior Contributor

Re: Unions, Associations & the Constitution

"You don't like government power and influence but you want government to decide who you can't vote for. You already have the right to vote against your congressman but you want the right to remove mine as well."

 

 

Was that direct to me Don?  If so I am confused and could use some help to better understand what you are saying.

man of steel
Senior Contributor

I'll help you out Dag

Don seems to want to let you have the choice of who represents you. Everything is fine right there. He also wants that right. Still fine. He also feels you have the right to remove corruption by voting your own representation out if they are so inclined to be that way. Still fine.

 

Where he goes of kilter is he doesn't feel you have the right to help remove the corruption caused by HIS Reps. He would like to send his own rep, corrupt or not.

 

With his willingness to allow the corrupt to be seated in our government, his right of representation has just overriden your right to have an honest government of the people. By the people . AND FOR THE PEOPLE.

 

He seems to belive his right to yell "fire" is more important that your right to watch the show

kraft-t
Senior Advisor

Re: Unions, Associations & the Constitution

Perhaps you do need the brush up. By definition those that want term limits are trying to accomplish by rule of law what they cannot accomplish at the ballot box.

 

Think not?   Well time and time again those that favor term limits are given the option to fire their incumbant congressman. Every two years in fact. Yet, I think you will find that they reelect their favorite candidate and those same folks serve for decade after decade.

 

If they truely believe in term limits then they would certainly vote their man out whether he is a good representative or not. It looks like that is not the case, so what do they really want?

 

I submit that they want to get rid of other elected officials and are willing to sacrifice their own favorite pol in order to remove the pols from other districts. But given the choice, they will vote for their candidate of choice no matter how long he has served.

 

It would be interesting to ask Dag, how many times he has voted for Chuck Grassley or any other pol for that matter.  If he really believes in term limits he wouldn't have voted for anyone more than twice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

dagwud
Senior Contributor

Re: Unions, Associations & the Constitution

Don, I am also in favor of ending our stupid farm payments which have had the opposite effect that they had intended.  However I still take the payments as long as that is the policy because it would be hard for me to remain competitive with other farmers who are taking the payments.  

 

 

You suggest that since I am in favor of term limits then I should not vote for Grassley or others.   Here is one back at you.  You are constantly telling us we need to raise taxes instead of cutting spending to solve our debt problem.  Can I assume then that you willing pay higher taxes then you are legally required to pay?   You are not bound by law to take advantage of the numerous tax deductions available to you.   If you show us a copy of your tax returns then I'll tell you my past voting history.

 

 

By the way you are once again wrong as you try to claim you know what others are thinking.   I am not in favor of term limits because I think it is way to get rid of politicians who can not be beaten at the ballot box.   I am in favor of term limits because I don't think a democracy is best run by the same people being in charge for decades.   I firmly believe that allowing politicians to remain in office for a very long period only increases the chances of corruption and bribery.   I also believe allowing the same Congressmen and women to remain in office for so long stifles new ideas and approaches to solving our problems.  Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?

 

 

 

I'm curious if you are in favor of term limits for presidents?   Would you be in favor of having the same person president for 20 or 30 years?