I'm unsure of the soundness of such a revision. Any system can be gamed. The point about transparency is pretty strong, though.

(November 19, 2014 at 12:29 pm)Heywood Wrote: The last 30 years has seen all boats rise....so yes growing the pie economics works bitches.

The last thirty years have seen inequitable rises; while the pie is growing, some shares are growing faster than others, as well.

(November 19, 2014 at 11:37 am)Heywood Wrote: I was arguing with my liberal friend again and he claimed the that all money donated to campaigns should be pooled into one giant pot and then equally distributed among the candidates. His rationale was that if we did it this way, people could not buy off candidates.

I counter that such a system is bad because it would ultimately lead to the government having to decide which candidates are legitimate candidates who get the money and which aren't. This of course would ultimately be abused by whoever is in power.

What are your thoughts on publicly financed elections?

Setting a limit on how much can be spent seems more reasonable.

two things
1. All boats have NOT risen, maybe in your little bubble on FOX news they have, but the real world works more hours for less on a percentage basis.

2. After this last election, how can we stand by and allow our politicians to be purchased by the highest bidder. Yes republicans won, but the dem's took just as much money as their counter parts. Less money would only be a good thing, however it is done

(November 19, 2014 at 1:21 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm unsure of the soundness of such a revision. Any system can be gamed. The point about transparency is pretty strong, though.

(November 19, 2014 at 12:29 pm)Heywood Wrote: The last 30 years has seen all boats rise....so yes growing the pie economics works bitches.

The last thirty years have seen inequitable rises; while the pie is growing, some shares are growing faster than others, as well.

While their slice might be proportionally smaller today than it was 30 years ago(in terms on income which is not a good measure) it is still a larger slice than it was 30 years ago. What would the poor rather have? Half a 6 inch pizza or one quarter a 24 inch pizza?

If you looked at the consumption pie instead of the income pie, I imagine the the poor's slice is growing proportionally faster than the rich's. I'm not sure how you would go about measuring this. Perhaps go and measure the amount that rich people throw away versus the amount that poor people throw away. The rich probably still throw more stuff away but the amount that poor people throw away is likely catching up.

In a sane world: All campaigns would be publicly financed. To determine eligibility, potential candidates would petition for signatures, and, say, the top ten petitioners are allowed to have their names on ballots. Depending on the level of election, a certain amount of money is divided equally between all candidates, who have to make public how every penny of it is spent. Any candidate who knowingly receives and utilizes private funding, fails to disclose expense records or otherwise abrogates these limitations will be subject to federal prosecution for election fraud, as will private parties who knowingly supply financing to help alter the outcome of an election, even if it is not done with a candidate's consent.

Private money does not belong in public elections, period. It is the real voter fraud.

(November 19, 2014 at 1:37 pm)polar bear Wrote: two things
1. All boats have NOT risen, maybe in your little bubble on FOX news they have, but the real world works more hours for less on a percentage basis.

2. After this last election, how can we stand by and allow our politicians to be purchased by the highest bidder. Yes republicans won, but the dem's took just as much money as their counter parts. Less money would only be a good thing, however it is done

Money is speech so wanting less of it in a campaign is equivalent to wanting less speech in a campaign. I don't think we want less speech in a campaign. What we want is to equalize the amount of speech. A very progressive consumption tax would do just that coupled with making campaign contributions by corporations and people non tax deductible would begin to do that.

(November 19, 2014 at 7:17 pm)Heywood Wrote: Money is speech so wanting less of it in a campaign is equivalent to wanting less speech in a campaign.

You might as well shed the already-flimsy pretense of representative democracy and just allow people to purchase votes. How about a thousand dollars per? No individual limit. That sounds like a perfectly pristine Republican idea. It sounds like the very apotheosis of Republican thinking, insofar as any such thing exists. It's not unfair! Anybody can purchase a vote! If you can't afford to, it's your own fault! You're just too lazy to work for it!

I'm surprised none of them have come up with it.

(November 19, 2014 at 7:14 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote: In a sane world: All campaigns would be publicly financed. To determine eligibility, potential candidates would petition for signatures, and, say, the top ten petitioners are allowed to have their names on ballots. Depending on the level of election, a certain amount of money is divided equally between all candidates, who have to make public how every penny of it is spent. Any candidate who knowingly receives and utilizes private funding, fails to disclose expense records or otherwise abrogates these limitations will be subject to federal prosecution for election fraud, as will private parties who knowingly supply financing to help alter the outcome of an election, even if it is not done with a candidate's consent.

Private money does not belong in public elections, period. It is the real voter fraud.

It cost time(which is money) and money(which is money) to go out and collect signatures to get on a ballet. To get people to sign your petition, you have to campaign.....but to campaign you need money which can only come from the government....However the government will only give you money if you have enough signatures.....which require you to spend government money to get....but the government won't give you that money unless you have enough signatures...

You have good intentions, but there are unintended consequences.....namely you create another barrier of entry into the political arena.

(November 19, 2014 at 7:17 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 1:37 pm)polar bear Wrote: two things
1. All boats have NOT risen, maybe in your little bubble on FOX news they have, but the real world works more hours for less on a percentage basis.

2. After this last election, how can we stand by and allow our politicians to be purchased by the highest bidder. Yes republicans won, but the dem's took just as much money as their counter parts. Less money would only be a good thing, however it is done

Money is speech so wanting less of it in a campaign is equivalent to wanting less speech in a campaign. I don't think we want less speech in a campaign. What we want is to equalize the amount of speech. A very progressive consumption tax would do just that coupled with making campaign contributions by corporations and people non tax deductible would begin to do that.

No, money is not speech, humans use their vocal cords, and communications. Money is not physically part of your DNA when you are born. Money has no rights, humans do.

Now is that saying rich people do not have rights? You know damned well that is not what I am claiming.

Our First Amendment is an anti monopoly law. It is good enough to say no one has absolute power over issues of religion, or speech, and everyone has a right to appeal to the government for " a redress of grievance".

Now why do you think somehow rich people should not be subject to the same anti monopoly concepts as expressed in the First Amendment? Because those with the most money don't have to follow the same rules the rest of us with less money?

Again this is stupid magical thinking that the private sector cannot become abusive in the same manor a one party state or a theocracy can become. If the First Amendment is good enough for politics and religion then I do not see why rich people should be immune to the same anti monopoly concepts other sectors of society are subject to.

When you argue "money is speech" you are justifying classism. The same classism the Russians suffered from before the Soviet Union and Stalin. NO NO NO NO, that is not justifying Stalin. All he did was shift wealth and power from one class to one party, but he result was the same, A MONOPOLY of absolute power.

Anti monopoly has to apply to the rich and the private sector as much as it does to politics and religion.

(November 19, 2014 at 7:17 pm)Heywood Wrote:

(November 19, 2014 at 1:37 pm)polar bear Wrote: two things
1. All boats have NOT risen, maybe in your little bubble on FOX news they have, but the real world works more hours for less on a percentage basis.

2. After this last election, how can we stand by and allow our politicians to be purchased by the highest bidder. Yes republicans won, but the dem's took just as much money as their counter parts. Less money would only be a good thing, however it is done

Money is speech so wanting less of it in a campaign is equivalent to wanting less speech in a campaign. I don't think we want less speech in a campaign. What we want is to equalize the amount of speech. A very progressive consumption tax would do just that coupled with making campaign contributions by corporations and people non tax deductible would begin to do that.

and corporations are human beings...I got your point of view loud and clear. Totally disagree with you but at least we know who you get your marching orders from