What issue would unite people on the right and the left

[nobodyknows]

The rich buying politicians is corruption in my opinion.

Mine too, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. They basically pay politicians to look the other way and in some cases to actually pass legislation that will help to enrich them even further.

But hey, it's a free market and everybody is free to pay off the politicians, no??

Edit: That said I do believe that a smart politifian/organization could get a grass roots movment going by waging a "war" on corruption. I mean it seems everyone likes a good war these days??

 

[Moonbeam]

Mine too, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. They basically pay politicians to look the other way and in some cases to actually pass legislation that will help to enrich them even further.

But hey, it's a free market and everybody is free to pay off the politicians, no??

Edit: That said I do believe that a smart politifian/organization could get a grass roots movment going by waging a "war" on corruption. I mean it seems everyone likes a good war these days??

I understand what you are saying and take your point, but I think that war by it's very nature is the violence of mass insanity. The outcome could be worse than the disease.

 

[MotF Bane]

Mine too, but it's just the tip of the iceberg. They basically pay politicians to look the other way and in some cases to actually pass legislation that will help to enrich them even further.

But hey, it's a free market and everybody is free to pay off the politicians, no??

Edit: That said I do believe that a smart politifian/organization could get a grass roots movment going by waging a "war" on corruption. I mean it seems everyone likes a good war these days??

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

What we would need is a leader whom Diogenes would consider an honest man.

 

[Fern]

I think probably 90+% of Americans would support a balanced budget amendment, or a federal spending cap amendment. I think about 1% of politicians support it however.

Well, I'm not really for a balanced budget amendment etc.

I think we should be saving (paying down the deficit) in 'good times', and I think some deficit spending can be a good idea in bad times.

Could we agree in priciple to an amendment that would force that? (Saving in good times, extra spending in bad times.) The mechanics can be worked out afterwards.

Fern

 

[Moonbeam]

Well, I'm not really for a balanced budget amendment etc.

I think we should be saving (paying down the deficit) in 'good times', and I think some deficit spending can be a good idea in bad times.

Could we agree in priciple to an amendment that would force that? (Saving in good times, extra spending in bad times.) The mechanics can be worked out afterwards.

Fern

I prefer to get money out of elections because, while it would be great to control spending, I would rather money be spent intelligently and taxes collected appropriately. I would rather also go into debt on a program that benefits the majority of people rather than special interests. In short, I think a fiscally responsible bought government would still suck. I would prefer a sloppy but honest one. Let's get a good one first then work for cost consciousness.

 

[nobodyknows]

I understand what you are saying and take your point, but I think that war by it's very nature is the violence of mass insanity. The outcome could be worse than the disease.

I agree, but it seems to me that is a risk one would run into on any issue that the vast majority of people would support, so???

 

[Mursilis]

Well, I'm not really for a balanced budget amendment etc.

I think we should be saving (paying down the deficit) in 'good times', and I think some deficit spending can be a good idea in bad times.

I would think, as a practical matter, that any balanced budget requirement would have some crisis provisions, to allow for deficit spending in times of true national emergency. Maybe, say, a 2/3 majority would be required to approve any appropriations not immediately funded. Congress has at times passed important measures with large, bi-partisan majorities, so if the nation were threatened and deficit spending were truly necessary, I imagine building a 2/3 majority would not be difficult in either chamber.

 

[Mursilis]

I prefer to get money out of elections

But you can't. You're asking to take water out of the ocean.

I would rather also go into debt on a program that benefits the majority of people rather than special interests. In short, I think a fiscally responsible bought government would still suck. I would prefer a sloppy but honest one. Let's get a good one first then work for cost consciousness.

A gov't fueled on debt is never, in the long-term, sustainable.

 

[heyheybooboo]

It would be great to reign in the plutocracy but I see little room for 'agreement' from some folks.

The SC ruling on corp contributions is a good example --- being that it threw out 100 years of precedence (with an effective return to the plutocratic 'Gilded Age').

Let's see if Congress soon takes action on the 'inheritance tax'. If not, there will be a massive transfer of 'untaxed wealth' this year.

Any bets?





--

 

[StageLeft]

Collect all my posts where somebody disagreed with me and see how many of those posters I called a piece of shit. Please use your head and knock it off with the sweeping generalities. You are completely wrong about this, you dumb shit head.

I've just tallied your responses in this thread. 19 responses, I consider 8 of them insulting, so 42%, if we're running the numbers.

 

[Mursilis]

The SC ruling on corp contributions is a good example --- being that it threw out 100 years of precedence (with an effective return to the plutocratic 'Gilded Age').

It's precedent, and so what? So did Brown v. Board of Education, and that was a good thing.

 

[Linflas]

It would be great to reign in the plutocracy but I see little room for 'agreement' from some folks.

The SC ruling on corp contributions is a good example --- being that it threw out 100 years of precedence (with an effective return to the plutocratic 'Gilded Age').

Let's see if Congress soon takes action on the 'inheritance tax'. If not, there will be a massive transfer of 'untaxed wealth' this year.

Any bets?





--

It did no such thing but why let the facts get in the way of some great demagoguery?

 

[heyheybooboo]

It's precedent, and so what? So did Brown v. Board of Education, and that was a good thing.

That would be a non sequitur.

Corporations have specific funds to which their employees may contribute for political purposes, ergo, their right of 'free expression' through the use of those specific funds. If an employee disagreed with the political position of the corporation they are 'free' to stop contributing to the fund.

The use of the 'segregated' political fund has not impacted the 'free expression' of the corporation in any manner, nor has it violated the equal protection clause.

What the SC ruling did was allow the by-pass of the specific political funds for the use of 'general revenues' of the corporation for political purposes, regardless of the stance of its employees or shareholders. Ain't no equal protection, there.

It's funny (haha) that you would bring up Brown as your example because it held that Plessy clearly violated the equal protection clause.

It did no such thing but why let the facts get in the way of some great demagoguery?

You are full of shit and have no 'facts'. Your understanding of the Constitution is 'nil'.


--

 

[daniel49]

I've just tallied your responses in this thread. 19 responses, I consider 8 of them insulting, so 42%, if we're running the numbers.

Lower percentage then I envisioned...perhaps if you averaged in his responses from his last 10 new threads?



Hmmm uniting...how about Pelosi resigning?

 

[Patranus]

There is no issue that will unite the left and the right.

The issue that has united the right and the center however is Obama.

The right doesn't have to unit the the left. The left however has to unit with the center.

 

[Moonbeam]

I've just tallied your responses in this thread. 19 responses, I consider 8 of them insulting, so 42%, if we're running the numbers.

Well the poster said I insulted everyone who disagrees with me. How many did I insult who disagreed with me. Was it 100%. And don't forget I often insult people who agree with me too.

And further, many of those I insult are looking to be insulted by what they post. I want to make those types happy.

 

[Moonbeam]

Lower percentage then I envisioned...perhaps if you averaged in his responses from his last 10 new threads?



Hmmm uniting...how about Pelosi resigning?

Now there's an idiotic idea.