Government Corruption: Is it too late to stop it?

[Derideo_Te]

But take away the federal government's ability to benefit or support those unions, and most of that that corruption goes away.

But that will leave behind a vacuum that will be filled with corporations corrupting government for their own benefit. Something that is currently happening and costing taxpayers trillions of dollars.

In order to eliminate corruption there needs to be something along the lines of a constitutional amendment that has the following aspects;

1. All spending must be covered by current revenues.

2. If spending exceeds revenues for any year then there must be automatic tax increases for that year to cover spending. If spending decreases then there must be automatic tax cuts.

3. Deficit spending to cover emergencies must be fully paid off within a decade of it occurring. Automatic tax increases must be applied to cover 10% plus interest of the deficit spending.

4. All elected members of Congress must recuse themselves from spending bills that involve their own districts and/or interests.

5. Failure to recuse themselves means that they are banned from holding any public office for life. This ban extends to acting as a lobbyist in any capacity.

6. Any elected member of Congress who is found to have voted in any manner that benefits themselves, their districts and/or interests will be held personally liable to repay those funds to the treasury.
​

Granted this is somewhat simplistic but as a first draft it is somewhere to start.

Sometimes simplistic is the best place to start. Occam's razor and all that. But let's take your proposals one at a time:

1. All spending must be covered by current revenues My problem with this is you must first limit the revenues and what they are allowed to spend money on, or there is nothing to stop them from using this rule as justification to raise taxes to whatever level they think they can get away with.

2. If spending exceeds revenues for any year then there must be automatic tax increases for that year to cover spending. If spending decreases then there must be automatic tax cuts. My response to this is the same as in No. 1.

Perhaps we should look at this in a little more depth. The current problem is that there is no connection between spending and revenues. By linking all spending directly to tax revenues it turns every increase in spending into a de facto tax increase. Anyone voting for that increased spending is voting for a tax increase. Anyone who votes for tax increases has to answer to the electorate.

This means that there is an incentive for people in congress to not vote for increased spending bills because they know that they will be held accountable.

3. Deficit spending to cover emergencies must be fully paid off within a decade of it occurring. Automatic tax increases must be applied to cover 10% plus interest of the deficit spending. You have to first determine what is an emergency, or a self serving politicians will see everything he wants as an emergency.

Agreed. Wars and disaster relief qualify as emergencies only.

4. All elected members of Congress must recuse themselves from spending bills that involve their own districts and/or interests This, in my opinion, would be an exercise in futility. These guys for decades now have been cutting backroom deals--I'll support THAT if you support THIS.

5. Failure to recuse themselves means that they are banned from holding any public office for life. This ban extends to acting as a lobbyist in any capacity. See No. 4 above.

Sarbanes-Oxley holds executives personally accountable for the accuracy of their financial statements. They can be imprisoned and made to pay for any damages. This is an attempt to do something similar for members of congress. This thread is about government corruption and this concept is an attempt to address it. Something of this nature should be feasible.

6. Any elected member of Congress who is found to have voted in any manner that benefits themselves, their districts and/or interests will be held personally liable to repay those funds to the treasury. I like the thought but completely impractical. In fact some quite legitimate, noble, and proper legislation that benefits everybody is going to benefit the politician who votes for it. A rule like this is a certain prescription for endless accusations, speculation, conspiracy theories, and lawsuits. And does not address the issue of bribing groups who will in turn fund them and/or vote to keep them in power and/or shout down opposition to what they want to do.

Far better is to remove ALL ability for the federal government to benefit ANYBODY in a way that does not benefit EVERYBODY, and return all other programs to the states where the Founders intended such programs to be. And eliminate the politician's ability to amass great fortunes at tax payer expense by limiting him/her to a salary from which he will pay for his own healthcare, retirement, etc.

Your goal is idealistic. How do you intend to address it in practical terms?

 

[ClosedCaption]

If you choose to believe that leaving the power of corporations to give unlimited funds to a candidate will somehow not effect how that candidate votes, that's your business. It's foolish. If you choose to believe that govt will not prop up certain businesses over another, while allowing unlimited campaign contributions, again, no logical way you can believe both things to be true at the same time, but knock yourself out.

No one can deny these facts
1. Money is power
2. Money influences the Ppl it's given too
3. Corruption occurs from the want of money and power

If everyone agrees on those simple facts. You cannot explain how Xitizens United didn't create a legal framework to keep corruption going. No one can. You can CALL it something else (free speech) but the foundation based on those 3 facts maintains that corruption is now legal.
Now the ONLY way you can catch someone in a corruption situation is literally catching them with a suitcase of cash and a recording of them saying cash is in exchange for a favor.
Instead of that, just have the campaign mgr arrange a large contribution (legal) and the pols create a law to favor that company (legal).

The way to explain it to rw'ers is think about the unions. Dont you believe they buy favors from pols? How? With smiles? Now think about corporations? Don't you believe they buy favors from pols? How? With smiles?

 

[Foxfyre]

But that will leave behind a vacuum that will be filled with corporations corrupting government for their own benefit. Something that is currently happening and costing taxpayers trillions of dollars.

In order to eliminate corruption there needs to be something along the lines of a constitutional amendment that has the following aspects;

1. All spending must be covered by current revenues.

2. If spending exceeds revenues for any year then there must be automatic tax increases for that year to cover spending. If spending decreases then there must be automatic tax cuts.

3. Deficit spending to cover emergencies must be fully paid off within a decade of it occurring. Automatic tax increases must be applied to cover 10% plus interest of the deficit spending.

4. All elected members of Congress must recuse themselves from spending bills that involve their own districts and/or interests.

5. Failure to recuse themselves means that they are banned from holding any public office for life. This ban extends to acting as a lobbyist in any capacity.

6. Any elected member of Congress who is found to have voted in any manner that benefits themselves, their districts and/or interests will be held personally liable to repay those funds to the treasury.
​

Granted this is somewhat simplistic but as a first draft it is somewhere to start.

Sometimes simplistic is the best place to start. Occam's razor and all that. But let's take your proposals one at a time:

1. All spending must be covered by current revenues My problem with this is you must first limit the revenues and what they are allowed to spend money on, or there is nothing to stop them from using this rule as justification to raise taxes to whatever level they think they can get away with.

2. If spending exceeds revenues for any year then there must be automatic tax increases for that year to cover spending. If spending decreases then there must be automatic tax cuts. My response to this is the same as in No. 1.

Perhaps we should look at this in a little more depth. The current problem is that there is no connection between spending and revenues. By linking all spending directly to tax revenues it turns every increase in spending into a de facto tax increase. Anyone voting for that increased spending is voting for a tax increase. Anyone who votes for tax increases has to answer to the electorate.

This means that there is an incentive for people in congress to not vote for increased spending bills because they know that they will be held accountable.



Agreed. Wars and disaster relief qualify as emergencies only.

4. All elected members of Congress must recuse themselves from spending bills that involve their own districts and/or interests This, in my opinion, would be an exercise in futility. These guys for decades now have been cutting backroom deals--I'll support THAT if you support THIS.

5. Failure to recuse themselves means that they are banned from holding any public office for life. This ban extends to acting as a lobbyist in any capacity. See No. 4 above.

Sarbanes-Oxley holds executives personally accountable for the accuracy of their financial statements. They can be imprisoned and made to pay for any damages. This is an attempt to do something similar for members of congress. This thread is about government corruption and this concept is an attempt to address it. Something of this nature should be feasible.

6. Any elected member of Congress who is found to have voted in any manner that benefits themselves, their districts and/or interests will be held personally liable to repay those funds to the treasury. I like the thought but completely impractical. In fact some quite legitimate, noble, and proper legislation that benefits everybody is going to benefit the politician who votes for it. A rule like this is a certain prescription for endless accusations, speculation, conspiracy theories, and lawsuits. And does not address the issue of bribing groups who will in turn fund them and/or vote to keep them in power and/or shout down opposition to what they want to do.

Far better is to remove ALL ability for the federal government to benefit ANYBODY in a way that does not benefit EVERYBODY, and return all other programs to the states where the Founders intended such programs to be. And eliminate the politician's ability to amass great fortunes at tax payer expense by limiting him/her to a salary from which he will pay for his own healthcare, retirement, etc.

Your goal is idealistic. How do you intend to address it in practical terms?

For me the bottom line is that in order to reduce spending, you have to limit what the politicians and bureaucrats are allowed to spend money on. If the federal government is prevented from using the people's money to excise favor from any demographic or group, and if the tax structure is distributed proportionately without respect for political party or socioeconomic status, the people themselves will demand austerity and discipline from their elected leaders. Only those who have no dog in the fight, i.e. those who pay little or no federal taxes, don't care how much the government spends, most especially if they can get some of it.

And once politicians can no longer benefit themselves personally without benefitting everybody, the career politicans go out of business and you have true public servants running for office who are interested in doing things better instead of what will enrich them.

Most of the corruption in government and among the beneficiaries of government benevolence/largesse is eliminated immediately.

And it is accomplished with an iron clad Constitutional amendment prohibiting any member of Congress or any bureaucrat from enacting any law or regulation that will benefit any state, locality, person, entity, organization, or demogrraphic that does not benefit all without respect to political affiliation or socioeconomic status. As quickly as it can be accomplished without creating chaos, ALL social programs will be transferred to the states who will also fund them.

Also baseline budgeting will be ended so that there is incentive for government to be economical and save instead of waste money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In the religion forum, Derideo_Te and I got off topic a bit in the religions forum, and I have excised a piece of that discussion and moved it here to the Politics Forum where it belongs.

I had just said something to the effect that we need to remove government's ability to use our money to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. I further proposed that most Americans agree with that, but because 50% of Americans are receiving some form of direct government benefit, too few have the character or will to give up that benefit in order to accomplish serious reform.

His response with my disclaimer that this is plucked out of his full context in that discussion and therefore this should not be considered his whole or unqualified opinion on this matter:

As for government corruption and your figure of 50% of Americans receiving benefits that figure is way too low. Virtually 100% of all taxpayers are receiving the benefit of tax rates that are too low. The same applies for mortgage deductions and then there are the endless loopholes in the tax laws. That only addresses the issue of government income. When it comes to spending the corruption is far, far worse.

So what do ya'll think? Is the problem a government that takes money from the taxpayer and uses it in unethical ways for its own benefit?

Or is the problem that we aren't paying enough taxes, get too many tax breaks, as well as what the money is spent on?

(I fully expect DT to explain a fuller interpretation of his quotation up there. If he objects to it being used in this way--I didn't get his permission--I will delete this thread if I still can, or ask Admin to remove it.)

Okay have at it, everybody. . . .

Or is the problem that we aren't being taxed enough and

Low tax rates are not a benefit unless you think that the government owns people's labor. If there is anything that will cause me to join an armed rebellion against the government it is them insisting that people are their property.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

Remove the power from those who abuse it most.

• Balanced budget amendment
• Strict, short term limits
• Publicly-funded elections

We can only do what we can do.



.

I do not want elections funded by taxes. No one has yet proven to me that this will change anything, and, until they do, I will fight it. I have the same visceral reaction to the government funding a candidate that I do to them funding newspapers. Plus, there are some serious problems I have seen from personal observation since San Francisco started funding the election for the mayor. Everyone might have the same amount of money, but that doesn't give them access to the other resources needed to actually win an election.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But that will leave behind a vacuum that will be filled with corporations corrupting government for their own benefit. Something that is currently happening and costing taxpayers trillions of dollars.

In order to eliminate corruption there needs to be something along the lines of a constitutional amendment that has the following aspects;

1. All spending must be covered by current revenues.

2. If spending exceeds revenues for any year then there must be automatic tax increases for that year to cover spending. If spending decreases then there must be automatic tax cuts.

3. Deficit spending to cover emergencies must be fully paid off within a decade of it occurring. Automatic tax increases must be applied to cover 10% plus interest of the deficit spending.

4. All elected members of Congress must recuse themselves from spending bills that involve their own districts and/or interests.

5. Failure to recuse themselves means that they are banned from holding any public office for life. This ban extends to acting as a lobbyist in any capacity.

6. Any elected member of Congress who is found to have voted in any manner that benefits themselves, their districts and/or interests will be held personally liable to repay those funds to the treasury.
​

Granted this is somewhat simplistic but as a first draft it is somewhere to start.

This is why you shouldn't be posting about politics, you don't think.

1. Sounds great.
2. Until we hit this. Why the fuck should people be forced to pay more just because the government wants to spend more? If the idea is to keep spending within revenues we shouldn't automatically increase taxes, which only increases revenues in fantasies anyway.
3. There you go again with automatic tax increase to cover increased spending. If a business starts spending more money, and raises its prices to cover it, what happens?
4. Which will absolutely end horsetrading to get earmarks only in the dreams of drooling idiots.
5. That doesn't even make sense.
6. That was hilarious. Tell me something, who is going to find them guilty? The people who got the money? A special commission that gets its funds from the people they are judging? Their fellow congresscritters who benefit from the horsetrading? God?

Comeback when you have something serious to add to the conversation, your puerile ideas don't even address the problems you think we have, have, much less the problems we actually have.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In the religion forum, Derideo_Te and I got off topic a bit in the religions forum, and I have excised a piece of that discussion and moved it here to the Politics Forum where it belongs.

I had just said something to the effect that we need to remove government's ability to use our money to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. I further proposed that most Americans agree with that, but because 50% of Americans are receiving some form of direct government benefit, too few have the character or will to give up that benefit in order to accomplish serious reform.

His response with my disclaimer that this is plucked out of his full context in that discussion and therefore this should not be considered his whole or unqualified opinion on this matter:

As for government corruption and your figure of 50% of Americans receiving benefits that figure is way too low. Virtually 100% of all taxpayers are receiving the benefit of tax rates that are too low. The same applies for mortgage deductions and then there are the endless loopholes in the tax laws. That only addresses the issue of government income. When it comes to spending the corruption is far, far worse.

So what do ya'll think? Is the problem a government that takes money from the taxpayer and uses it in unethical ways for its own benefit?

Or is the problem that we aren't paying enough taxes, get too many tax breaks, as well as what the money is spent on?

(I fully expect DT to explain a fuller interpretation of his quotation up there. If he objects to it being used in this way--I didn't get his permission--I will delete this thread if I still can, or ask Admin to remove it.)

Okay have at it, everybody. . . .

Or is the problem that we aren't being taxed enough and

It isn't "we" that aren't taxed enough..it's a very few billionaires that aren't taxed enough.

These people saw fit to pay themselves 100s of times what people that actually do the work make or develop schemes to slosh money around and pluck out what they want.

Right now, trillions sit in offshore accounts, not getting taxed and not adding to the economy.

And this is by design. This is what happens when money is speech and corporations are people.

They bankrupt the only thing that curtails their ability to do what they want.

The government.

And that comes with the cheers of conservatives.

Who then, laughably, complain, when these sorts of realities start to effect them personally.

Why aren't they fit to earn their money? Why should John Mackey pay higher taxes simply because you don't like the fact that he is better than you at what he does?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps we should look at this in a little more depth. The current problem is that there is no connection between spending and revenues. By linking all spending directly to tax revenues it turns every increase in spending into a de facto tax increase. Anyone voting for that increased spending is voting for a tax increase. Anyone who votes for tax increases has to answer to the electorate.

Not true, the current problem is we are spending way too fucking much. Current revenues are higher than they were at anytime during the Bush years, yet we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars more than we have. We cannot possibly raise taxes enough to cover that, despite your belief in the magic of money.

This means that there is an incentive for people in congress to not vote for increased spending bills because they know that they will be held accountable.

Huh? We have people voting for tax increases right now, and they won reelection. All they have to do is pretend that the tax increase won't hurt the little people, just like they are now.

Agreed. Wars and disaster relief qualify as emergencies only.

Because we cannot possibly plan for disaster relief, setting aside some money to cover the expenses. It isn't like the GDP is $15 trillion. Then we have them giving disaster money to favored groups, like religious institutions, which is supposedly illegal.

Sarbanes-Oxley holds executives personally accountable for the accuracy of their financial statements. They can be imprisoned and made to pay for any damages. This is an attempt to do something similar for members of congress. This thread is about government corruption and this concept is an attempt to address it. Something of this nature should be feasible.

Did you know that Congress passed a law that would hold anyone, regardless of who they are, financially responsible for violating the civil rights of anyone under the color of authority?

Guess what, the courts immediately gutted it because it made judges responsible if they abused their power. Then, in order to keep other government officials quiet about this, they gutted it from anyone in the government, giving them various degrees of immunity based on their political power.

That is the lesson you need to learn, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. In order for this to work you have to give someone power to enforce it. Whoever has that power will use it to help themselves. The only way to limit corruption is to limit power.

Your goal is idealistic. How do you intend to address it in practical terms?

By comparison I bet you think you are being piratical.

Simple fact, you want to increase the power of government. Doing that only makes things worse, you cannot find a single example of a powerful government that cared more about the people under its control than it did its own survival. That means that we do not need to justify our demands for a less powerful government, nor do we need to make it practical. You need to figure out how you can justify a government that has the power to raise taxes without a vote, and tell me how that actually works in the real world.

 

[westwall]

In the religion forum, Derideo_Te and I got off topic a bit in the religions forum, and I have excised a piece of that discussion and moved it here to the Politics Forum where it belongs.

I had just said something to the effect that we need to remove government's ability to use our money to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. I further proposed that most Americans agree with that, but because 50% of Americans are receiving some form of direct government benefit, too few have the character or will to give up that benefit in order to accomplish serious reform.

His response with my disclaimer that this is plucked out of his full context in that discussion and therefore this should not be considered his whole or unqualified opinion on this matter:

As for government corruption and your figure of 50% of Americans receiving benefits that figure is way too low. Virtually 100% of all taxpayers are receiving the benefit of tax rates that are too low. The same applies for mortgage deductions and then there are the endless loopholes in the tax laws. That only addresses the issue of government income. When it comes to spending the corruption is far, far worse.

So what do ya'll think? Is the problem a government that takes money from the taxpayer and uses it in unethical ways for its own benefit?

Or is the problem that we aren't paying enough taxes, get too many tax breaks, as well as what the money is spent on?

(I fully expect DT to explain a fuller interpretation of his quotation up there. If he objects to it being used in this way--I didn't get his permission--I will delete this thread if I still can, or ask Admin to remove it.)

Okay have at it, everybody. . . .

Or is the problem that we aren't being taxed enough and

Yes, by peaceful means I believe it is too late.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you choose to believe that leaving the power of corporations to give unlimited funds to a candidate will somehow not effect how that candidate votes, that's your business. It's foolish. If you choose to believe that govt will not prop up certain businesses over another, while allowing unlimited campaign contributions, again, no logical way you can believe both things to be true at the same time, but knock yourself out.

No one can deny these facts
1. Money is power
2. Money influences the Ppl it's given too
3. Corruption occurs from the want of money and power

If everyone agrees on those simple facts. You cannot explain how Xitizens United didn't create a legal framework to keep corruption going. No one can. You can CALL it something else (free speech) but the foundation based on those 3 facts maintains that corruption is now legal.
Now the ONLY way you can catch someone in a corruption situation is literally catching them with a suitcase of cash and a recording of them saying cash is in exchange for a favor.
Instead of that, just have the campaign mgr arrange a large contribution (legal) and the pols create a law to favor that company (legal).

The way to explain it to rw'ers is think about the unions. Dont you believe they buy favors from pols? How? With smiles? Now think about corporations? Don't you believe they buy favors from pols? How? With smiles?

I can deny the first one. The government does not have power because it has money, it has money because it has power. To simplify it for people that think three word sayings are totally accurate, power is money.

Gates was perfectly willing to leave politics out of his life. I am willing to bet that plenty of people told him that not lobbying the government was a bad idea, and that no business would be able to grow as big as Microsoft did without paying the government off. He didn't believe them, and he was wrong.

The problem is not the money, it is the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In the religion forum, Derideo_Te and I got off topic a bit in the religions forum, and I have excised a piece of that discussion and moved it here to the Politics Forum where it belongs.

I had just said something to the effect that we need to remove government's ability to use our money to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. I further proposed that most Americans agree with that, but because 50% of Americans are receiving some form of direct government benefit, too few have the character or will to give up that benefit in order to accomplish serious reform.

His response with my disclaimer that this is plucked out of his full context in that discussion and therefore this should not be considered his whole or unqualified opinion on this matter:

As for government corruption and your figure of 50% of Americans receiving benefits that figure is way too low. Virtually 100% of all taxpayers are receiving the benefit of tax rates that are too low. The same applies for mortgage deductions and then there are the endless loopholes in the tax laws. That only addresses the issue of government income. When it comes to spending the corruption is far, far worse.

So what do ya'll think? Is the problem a government that takes money from the taxpayer and uses it in unethical ways for its own benefit?

Or is the problem that we aren't paying enough taxes, get too many tax breaks, as well as what the money is spent on?

(I fully expect DT to explain a fuller interpretation of his quotation up there. If he objects to it being used in this way--I didn't get his permission--I will delete this thread if I still can, or ask Admin to remove it.)

Okay have at it, everybody. . . .

Or is the problem that we aren't being taxed enough and

Yes, by peaceful means I believe it is too late.

It is never too late.

 

[westwall]

In the religion forum, Derideo_Te and I got off topic a bit in the religions forum, and I have excised a piece of that discussion and moved it here to the Politics Forum where it belongs.

I had just said something to the effect that we need to remove government's ability to use our money to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. I further proposed that most Americans agree with that, but because 50% of Americans are receiving some form of direct government benefit, too few have the character or will to give up that benefit in order to accomplish serious reform.

His response with my disclaimer that this is plucked out of his full context in that discussion and therefore this should not be considered his whole or unqualified opinion on this matter:

So what do ya'll think? Is the problem a government that takes money from the taxpayer and uses it in unethical ways for its own benefit?

Or is the problem that we aren't paying enough taxes, get too many tax breaks, as well as what the money is spent on?

(I fully expect DT to explain a fuller interpretation of his quotation up there. If he objects to it being used in this way--I didn't get his permission--I will delete this thread if I still can, or ask Admin to remove it.)

Okay have at it, everybody. . . .

Or is the problem that we aren't being taxed enough and

Yes, by peaceful means I believe it is too late.

It is never too late.

I hope you're right.

 

[Foxfyre]

In the religion forum, Derideo_Te and I got off topic a bit in the religions forum, and I have excised a piece of that discussion and moved it here to the Politics Forum where it belongs.

I had just said something to the effect that we need to remove government's ability to use our money to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. I further proposed that most Americans agree with that, but because 50% of Americans are receiving some form of direct government benefit, too few have the character or will to give up that benefit in order to accomplish serious reform.

His response with my disclaimer that this is plucked out of his full context in that discussion and therefore this should not be considered his whole or unqualified opinion on this matter:

As for government corruption and your figure of 50% of Americans receiving benefits that figure is way too low. Virtually 100% of all taxpayers are receiving the benefit of tax rates that are too low. The same applies for mortgage deductions and then there are the endless loopholes in the tax laws. That only addresses the issue of government income. When it comes to spending the corruption is far, far worse.

So what do ya'll think? Is the problem a government that takes money from the taxpayer and uses it in unethical ways for its own benefit?

Or is the problem that we aren't paying enough taxes, get too many tax breaks, as well as what the money is spent on?

(I fully expect DT to explain a fuller interpretation of his quotation up there. If he objects to it being used in this way--I didn't get his permission--I will delete this thread if I still can, or ask Admin to remove it.)

Okay have at it, everybody. . . .

Or is the problem that we aren't being taxed enough and

Yes, by peaceful means I believe it is too late.

That is my fear, but I'm not ready to believe it yet. I keep thinking that there is still enough spirit of freedom and self governance left in the American psyche that if enough of us keep speaking the truth and the concepts, we may be be able to persuade enough to fix it.

But then I do have 'eternal optimist' up there under my screen name and this indeed may be a pipe dream.

Can enough of those who pay little or nothing in federal taxes be convinced that it is in the long term interest to start paying a uniformly assesed flat tax now?

Can enough of those who get food stamps or other benefits from the federal government to give them up or trust their local and state governments to handle these programs? Can enough people be persuaded to take responsibility for their local governments and clean those up to the point they will trust them more than (an equally but less obvious about it) corrupt federal government?

Can enough people be persuaded to take back their unaloienable right to self governance instead of giving government more and more power to take care of them in hopes that it will?

 

[westwall]

In the religion forum, Derideo_Te and I got off topic a bit in the religions forum, and I have excised a piece of that discussion and moved it here to the Politics Forum where it belongs.

I had just said something to the effect that we need to remove government's ability to use our money to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal fortunes. I further proposed that most Americans agree with that, but because 50% of Americans are receiving some form of direct government benefit, too few have the character or will to give up that benefit in order to accomplish serious reform.

His response with my disclaimer that this is plucked out of his full context in that discussion and therefore this should not be considered his whole or unqualified opinion on this matter:



So what do ya'll think? Is the problem a government that takes money from the taxpayer and uses it in unethical ways for its own benefit?

Or is the problem that we aren't paying enough taxes, get too many tax breaks, as well as what the money is spent on?

(I fully expect DT to explain a fuller interpretation of his quotation up there. If he objects to it being used in this way--I didn't get his permission--I will delete this thread if I still can, or ask Admin to remove it.)

Okay have at it, everybody. . . .

Or is the problem that we aren't being taxed enough and

Yes, by peaceful means I believe it is too late.

That is my fear, but I'm not ready to believe it yet. I keep thinking that there is still enough spirit of freedom and self governance left in the American psyche that if enough of us keep speaking the truth and the concepts, we may be be able to persuade enough to fix it.

But then I do have 'eternal optimist' up there under my screen name and this indeed may be a pipe dream.

Can enough of those who pay little or nothing in federal taxes be convinced that it is in the long term interest to start paying a uniformly assesed flat tax now?

Can enough of those who get food stamps or other benefits from the federal government to give them up or trust their local and state governments to handle these programs? Can enough people be persuaded to take responsibility for their local governments and clean those up to the point they will trust them more than (an equally but less obvious about it) corrupt federal government?

Can enough people be persuaded to take back their unaloienable right to self governance instead of giving government more and more power to take care of them in hopes that it will?

When I first found out that DHS had bought all that ammunition I was concerned. Then when I discovered they had ordered 200+ APC's I truly became convinced that they will launch some sort of pre-emptive strike. The question is against whom...

 

[ClosedCaption]

If you choose to believe that leaving the power of corporations to give unlimited funds to a candidate will somehow not effect how that candidate votes, that's your business. It's foolish. If you choose to believe that govt will not prop up certain businesses over another, while allowing unlimited campaign contributions, again, no logical way you can believe both things to be true at the same time, but knock yourself out.

No one can deny these facts
1. Money is power
2. Money influences the Ppl it's given too
3. Corruption occurs from the want of money and power

If everyone agrees on those simple facts. You cannot explain how Xitizens United didn't create a legal framework to keep corruption going. No one can. You can CALL it something else (free speech) but the foundation based on those 3 facts maintains that corruption is now legal.
Now the ONLY way you can catch someone in a corruption situation is literally catching them with a suitcase of cash and a recording of them saying cash is in exchange for a favor.
Instead of that, just have the campaign mgr arrange a large contribution (legal) and the pols create a law to favor that company (legal).

The way to explain it to rw'ers is think about the unions. Dont you believe they buy favors from pols? How? With smiles? Now think about corporations? Don't you believe they buy favors from pols? How? With smiles?

I can deny the first one. The government does not have power because it has money, it has money because it has power. To simplify it for people that think three word sayings are totally accurate, power is money.

Gates was perfectly willing to leave politics out of his life. I am willing to bet that plenty of people told him that not lobbying the government was a bad idea, and that no business would be able to grow as big as Microsoft did without paying the government off. He didn't believe them, and he was wrong.

The problem is not the money, it is the government.

Not talking about Govt having power from money, I said money is power, right?

So you are saying that money is not power, is that right?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes, by peaceful means I believe it is too late.

It is never too late.

I hope you're right.

Look at it this way, if we try my way, and fail, we can still use your method.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you choose to believe that leaving the power of corporations to give unlimited funds to a candidate will somehow not effect how that candidate votes, that's your business. It's foolish. If you choose to believe that govt will not prop up certain businesses over another, while allowing unlimited campaign contributions, again, no logical way you can believe both things to be true at the same time, but knock yourself out.

No one can deny these facts
1. Money is power
2. Money influences the Ppl it's given too
3. Corruption occurs from the want of money and power

If everyone agrees on those simple facts. You cannot explain how Xitizens United didn't create a legal framework to keep corruption going. No one can. You can CALL it something else (free speech) but the foundation based on those 3 facts maintains that corruption is now legal.
Now the ONLY way you can catch someone in a corruption situation is literally catching them with a suitcase of cash and a recording of them saying cash is in exchange for a favor.
Instead of that, just have the campaign mgr arrange a large contribution (legal) and the pols create a law to favor that company (legal).

The way to explain it to rw'ers is think about the unions. Dont you believe they buy favors from pols? How? With smiles? Now think about corporations? Don't you believe they buy favors from pols? How? With smiles?

I can deny the first one. The government does not have power because it has money, it has money because it has power. To simplify it for people that think three word sayings are totally accurate, power is money.

Gates was perfectly willing to leave politics out of his life. I am willing to bet that plenty of people told him that not lobbying the government was a bad idea, and that no business would be able to grow as big as Microsoft did without paying the government off. He didn't believe them, and he was wrong.

The problem is not the money, it is the government.

Not talking about Govt having power from money, I said money is power, right?

So you are saying that money is not power, is that right?

I know what you said, you were wrong. The only way money is power is if you get the government on your side, if you don't all money is a target.

No, money is not power.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Jesus christ, A guy worth a million has just as much power as a guy with $1. You're lying to yourself.

Take govt totally out and you're saying that money has no value unless govt is involved? ok, skippy

 

[Misty]

Flat tax no loopholes
Term limits for congress
No more lobbyists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Jesus christ, A guy worth a million has just as much power as a guy with $1. You're lying to yourself.

Take govt totally out and you're saying that money has no value unless govt is involved? ok, skippy

Do yourself a favor, take that money out of your pocket and look at what it says. Then come back and tell me that something that the government made up, and forces on people, has value without that government. Or can I still spend Confederate money even though that government no longer exists?