Pelosi: Congressional pay cut undermines dignity of the job

Quote from TRNT : Free society does not mean you will be free to buy (off) a politician. If it was legal to put a limit on campaign contributions, it is legal to reduce that limit. And if it is/were not legal, it is about time to make it legal. We need to: 1. drastically reduce the limit people can contribute to politician's campaigns. 2. disallow politicians to invest in individual stocks and accept money for speeches et al.

I agree with all that. I'm just saying it's not possible.

If I have a Million dollars that I want to buy TV time and run a commercial for some candidate/issue I support, there is nothing anyone should be able to do to stop me (assuming good taste in advertising). You can try and limit the candidate directly, but all the indirect "help" is out of reach.

Quote from Favrerox : I agree with all that. I'm just saying it's not possible. If I have a Million dollars that I want to buy TV time and run a commercial for some candidate/issue I support, there is nothing anyone should be able to do to stop me (assuming good taste in advertising). You can try and limit the candidate directly, but all the indirect "help" is out of reach.

I could be wrong but I thought spending your money on an "issue" is ok but on a "candidate" is not.

Quote from TRNT : I could be wrong but I thought spending your money on an "issue" is ok but on a "candidate" is not.

Yup. You think that voters don't know what "issue" defines each candidate?

Quote from Favrerox : Yup. You think that voters don't know what "issue" defines each candidate?

But would that not be a better system than what we have now?

I am kinda baffled why not more people )on both sides of the isle) complain about money in our elections. I think that is our biggest problem.

Quote from TRNT : But would that not be a better system than what we have now? I am kinda baffled why not more people )on both sides of the isle) complain about money in our elections. I think that is our biggest problem.

I hear a lot of people complain about money in the elections. It not just elections though and that's where it's hard to limit when/where outside money has influence. Personally I think they should ban any public broadcast advertising for elections. (TV, radio, etc)

Quote from Favrerox : I hear a lot of people complain about money in the elections. It not just elections though and that's where it's hard to limit when/where outside money has influence. Personally I think they should ban any public broadcast advertising for elections. (TV, radio, etc)

Amen.

Quote from 124nic8 : Just don't pretend they are the kind of employees I was talking about. But I've since realized there are a lot of owners of companies who want to see their employees take a pay cut so they can increase the owner's share.

So what?

Seriously, wtf does that matter to you other than a perverse emotional appeal? Such a thought/notion is entirely irrelevant. Such a notion reveals more about you than it does about evil, greedy business owners.

Quote from TRNT : If we do not eliminate the influence of money, term limits would have a small effect. If we eliminate the influence of money in our election and politics, then corrupt people, be it term limited or not, are more likely to be voted out of the office.I think discussions of term limits distract from the more important problem of influence of money.

Simple: reduce the size and influence of government.

Once you recognize the purpose of money in politics, then the answer is glaringly evident.

Money is a proxy for interests. Interests exist because of government action. Government action comes in the form of legislation and regulation. Individuals and groups rightfully petition the government to either advantage themselves or protect themselves from government action.

Reduce the scope and impact of government and there's less incentive to seek government favor or protection.

Simple.

But then that conflicts with a liberal's need to nanny me around.

Quote from jonsmith74 : Simple: reduce the size and influence of government. Once you recognize the purpose of money in politics, then the answer is glaringly evident. Money is a proxy for interests. Interests exist because of government action. Government action comes in the form of legislation and regulation. Individuals and groups rightfully petition the government to either advantage themselves or protect themselves from government action. Reduce the scope and impact of government and there's less incentive to seek government favor or protection. Simple. But then that conflicts with a liberal's need to nanny me around.

Yes, eliminate the gov altogether and you have eliminated corruption altogether.

However, I think gov is necessary. I am not for throwing out the baby with the bath water. Just because we may not have a perfect gov, it does not mean we should give up on the concept of gov or even severely reduce its scope and power. Gov is us. Some gov power is good; some is bad. Gov regulating ins cos is good. Gov imprisoning people indefinitely is bad. Gov passing laws to give yet another advantage to the wealthy is bad. Gov can be improved. Let's start with reducing the influence of the greedy heartless super rich.

We all have to chip in to support our gov. (I hope someone will pick that line as his signature. )

Quote from TRNT : Yes, eliminate the gov altogether and you have eliminated corruption altogether. However, I think gov is necessary. I am not for throwing out the baby with the bath water. Just because we may not have a perfect gov, it does not mean we should give up on the concept of gov or even severely reduce its scope and power. Gov is us. Some gov power is good; some is bad. Gov regulating ins cos is good. Gov imprisoning people indefinitely is bad. Gov passing laws to give yet another advantage to the wealthy uis bad. Gov can be improved. Let's start with reducing the influence of the greedy heartless super rich. We all have to chip in to support our gov. (I hope someone will pick that line as his signature. )

I neither said eliminate govt or severely reduce it's scope.

You guys are still missing the point and that is why money exists in politics.

So you eliminate that money... What then? You're still left with individuals and groups that will petition their government officials for advantage or relief.

Notwithstanding your need to believe that politicians are bought, the core issue is not the money, but the scope and power of government. There's not an area of our life not regulated in some way by the local, state, and national government. Hence, we naturally seek to gain advantage or relief within that framework.

By the way, you are aware that the rich are hardly the only recipients of government benefits, advantages, etc., right? I mean, half the country is exempt from federal taxes and despite this receive "refunds". Small businesses and minority owned businesses receive massive govt transfers.

Quote from jonsmith74 : So what?

I was clarifying/correcting a previous assertion. I was previously referring to managers who want their employees well compensated. Which you would know if you'd read the thread.

Quote : Seriously, wtf does that matter to you other than a perverse emotional appeal? Such a thought/notion is entirely irrelevant. Such a notion reveals more about you than it does about evil, greedy business owners.

It is as relevant as this ^ opinion.

Quote from 124nic8 : I was clarifying/correcting a previous assertion. I was previously referring to managers who want their employees well compensated. Which you would know if you'd read the thread. It is as relevant as this ^ opinion.

Well, thank you for completely undermining your own assertion.

Quote from jonsmith74 : Well, thank you for completely undermining your own assertion.

The original assertion still stands. I just clarified to whom I was not referring: owners who profit from lowering their employees' wages.