kickaha: (Default)
[personal profile] kickaha
So what exactly was the change in fundamental direction that made the just-passed bailout plan better?

There, that should work...

Graft, plain and simple. "Vote for this, and we'll make one of your donating constituents happy!"

Lovely.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-03 06:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] georgmi.livejournal.com
Bad link, dude.

(Though the last time somebody sent me a CNN link, it was also bogus; CNN seems to take down their stories as fast as they put them up.)

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-03 06:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kickaha.livejournal.com
Thanks - a second round through the LJ editor mangled it via over zealous (and broken) auto-detection of the link.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-03 06:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] georgmi.livejournal.com
Those look like pretty small potatoes, really. Many of them are merely continuing pork that already existed.

Mmm, pork and small potatoes. I'm hungry.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-03 06:59 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kickaha.livejournal.com
The point is, they have no business on this bill. The fact that they're on as riders to buy votes is just disgusting.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-03 07:12 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] arthane.livejournal.com
Yup, it's disgusting, but that's the way politics and power always works. It's disgusting here, but it's just as disgusting in China, Africa, Russia, and Europe. *sigh* Haven't seen a real cure for corruption yet.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-03 07:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kickaha.livejournal.com
How about instituting some basic rules?

1) No politician will be allowed to accept a donation from a corporation.
2) No politician will be allowed to accept a donation from a citizen who is not a direct part of their home constituency.
3) No bill, rider, or line item will be allowed if it benefits solely citizens from a single state.

Boom. Narrows the focus of the elected officials to the *people* they are supposed to represent. Forces them to spend more time working for inter-state benefits... because let's face it, if they're there at the *federal* level looking for *local* funding, something is wrong.

I'd also eliminate lobbying completely. Corporations can go hang, for all I care.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-03 08:18 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] franktheavenger.livejournal.com
Yeah, good luck with that. What, you think politicians get into politics because they want to help people? You're smarter than that. :p

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-03 08:21 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kickaha.livejournal.com
Oh hell, I know it's a total pipe dream, but the current system is so fucked it needs scrapping.

Viva la revolución.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-03 09:56 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] georgmi.livejournal.com
Have I not been saying exactly that for the past twenty years?

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-03 11:41 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] actsofcreation.livejournal.com
I would amend 1) to be

1) No politician will be allowed to accept a donation from any person or entity who is not a living biological citizen.

I would also *strongly* recommend a 'single topic bill' amendment such as many states have forbidding a bill to pertain to more than a single topic.


(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-04 12:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kickaha.livejournal.com
Yup, and yup.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-04 01:06 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] arthane.livejournal.com
Yeah, I'd go with this one. Corporation "personhood" is a problem in a lot of ways, in my opinion. While I don't think I'd go so far as to eliminate lobbying altogether (I think that kind of goes against the first amendment), I do agree that corporations shouldn't be treated as "people" for the purposes of redress of grievances.

The "single topic bill" idea is a good one, to my mind... Which is why it'd never even get introduced, much less passed.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-04 01:20 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kickaha.livejournal.com
None of this would get introduced, much less passed.

*People* have 1st Amendment rights. Corporations only have them through the fiction of "personhood". Get rid of that, and there's absolutely no reason that I see why a corporation, as in a lobbying firm, can't be blocked from access to Congress. Individual lobbyists would have to be solo operatives in such an environment, greatly reducing their effectiveness.

If *people* want to talk to Congress, great. I wish they would more often.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-04 05:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] actsofcreation.livejournal.com
The point of my rewording is that just as corporations shouldn't be allowed to donate, neither should unions, the elk club, PACs, PTAs, etc. None of those are biological *citizens* of the US.

(no subject)

Date: 2008-10-04 08:36 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kickaha.livejournal.com
Yeeeesssss, on that we completely agree.

Yeah, if this was the alternative

Date: 2008-10-03 11:52 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ssandv.livejournal.com
I'd prefer the original bad bailout.

It's scary, I agree largely with Paul Krugman on this one. Sure sign of the apocalypse there.

Re: Yeah, if this was the alternative

Date: 2008-10-04 12:36 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] kickaha.livejournal.com
Yeah, cats and dogs, living together... *mass hysteria*.

And then there's the Twinkie...

Profile

kickaha: (Default)
kickaha

January 2020

S M T W T F S
   1234
5678 91011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags