Exactly... lol... Even the World Cup committee is getting in on the action.Bertster7 wrote:
Look at FIFA....Turquoise wrote:
Why not?
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Should People Be Able to Sell Their Votes?
i chargeSEREMAKER wrote:
are they doing chariety work now ?eleven bravo wrote:
some of us arent customers
Tu Stultus Es
Lobbying is also counter productive since millions are aware of it and don't fully understand the details of it. Many candidates run on full disclosure and transparency platforms because of this. All candidates are aware of the POPULAR anti-lobby sentiment and they usually capitalize on it. Remember Obama prohibited registered lobbyists from serving on transition teams that address areas in which a lobbyist has worked? Well he certainly wasn't the first candidate to try and gain public trust by by at least appearing to distance himself from lobbying.
There has been effort in restricting what lobbyist may and may not do. For instance, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA). Lobbyist are regulated. From all appearances, the majority of lobbyists are in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). Occasionally we have someone step out of line, but they are quickly found out, usually by a political opponent. There is nothing the opposing party wants more than to catch the opposition getting money illegally or legally. During the election season (when most lobbyist step up contributions) there is no shortage of political attacks revolving around funding. If the political opposition doesn't catch it then there are a thousand other media outlets that would love to break a story. So, if they are in compliance with the law how is it corruption? If it's legal and you still don't like it then it is a problem with the law, and it should be changed.
Also consider a lobbyist can serve a variety of agendas. It's not all guns and money. There are lobbyist advocates in DC for the public interests such as human rights, public safety, and the enviroment as well. It's pretty easy to say that the lobbyist of DC need to burn in a fiery pit of hell. To be honest doing that requires very little mental effort. Candidates know exactly which buttons to push to make people mad.The anti-lobbying sentiment is used as a political rallying point. Anyone that simply thinks that the woes of DC are attributed to the actions of lobbyist is a child and is being manipulated like one.
..and yes, there are bad apples in the lobbying profession, just as there are in any other. However, To paint all lobbyists with the same brush as those who abuse the law is unfair.
There has been effort in restricting what lobbyist may and may not do. For instance, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA). Lobbyist are regulated. From all appearances, the majority of lobbyists are in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA). Occasionally we have someone step out of line, but they are quickly found out, usually by a political opponent. There is nothing the opposing party wants more than to catch the opposition getting money illegally or legally. During the election season (when most lobbyist step up contributions) there is no shortage of political attacks revolving around funding. If the political opposition doesn't catch it then there are a thousand other media outlets that would love to break a story. So, if they are in compliance with the law how is it corruption? If it's legal and you still don't like it then it is a problem with the law, and it should be changed.
Also consider a lobbyist can serve a variety of agendas. It's not all guns and money. There are lobbyist advocates in DC for the public interests such as human rights, public safety, and the enviroment as well. It's pretty easy to say that the lobbyist of DC need to burn in a fiery pit of hell. To be honest doing that requires very little mental effort. Candidates know exactly which buttons to push to make people mad.The anti-lobbying sentiment is used as a political rallying point. Anyone that simply thinks that the woes of DC are attributed to the actions of lobbyist is a child and is being manipulated like one.
..and yes, there are bad apples in the lobbying profession, just as there are in any other. However, To paint all lobbyists with the same brush as those who abuse the law is unfair.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Good points, but if anything, you seem to have proven that even the politicians that aim for the anti-lobbying sentiment are just as self-serving as the ones in deep with corporate interests.
Why should we trust any of them?
Why should we trust any of them?
Most everyone who is employed is self serving. Some occupations require service to others as well. In fact, it may be a condition of their employment. Fail in that service and you're unemployed.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
what a shocker, altruism isnt the guiding philosophy for lobbyist.
Tu Stultus Es
That's not really what I'm getting at though. The premise behind our government is to represent the public's interests. For the most part, the public's interests are either ignored or even subverted by our government.Kmar wrote:
Most everyone who is employed is self serving. Some occupations require service to others as well. In fact, it may be a condition of their employment. Fail in that service and you're unemployed.
The reason why I made this thread was to ask an honest question about why our votes can't be bought and sold legally. It seems no less ethical to sell your vote than it does to farm out the crafting of laws to think tanks and lobbyists in general.
Bravo, I'm sure nothing is shocking for you. I guess I should have asked you personally the answer to this thread's question, since you already know everything.eleven bravo wrote:
what a shocker, altruism isnt the guiding philosophy for lobbyist.
I understand your intent. Sort of an "if you can't beat them join them" approach. There is a difference though. Voting is an individual right. It is a guaranteed voice. Whereas lobbying is not. There is nothing guaranteed with lobbying. Not to mention that lower economic classes would be more tempted to sell. So rather than vote with their heart, they will sell out of need. It will also empower the candidate with the most money. This to me would appear to be the opposite direction we need to go. It gives the wealthy an(other) upper-hand, for they would be given the luxury of keeping their vote.Turquoise wrote:
That's not really what I'm getting at though. The premise behind our government is to represent the public's interests. For the most part, the public's interests are either ignored or even subverted by our government.Kmar wrote:
Most everyone who is employed is self serving. Some occupations require service to others as well. In fact, it may be a condition of their employment. Fail in that service and you're unemployed.
The reason why I made this thread was to ask an honest question about why our votes can't be bought and sold legally. It seems no less ethical to sell your vote than it does to farm out the crafting of laws to think tanks and lobbyists in general.
You actually used to be able to sell your vote. That is one of the reasons we now have a secret ballot. It is hard to prove you voted a certain way. I suppose an absentee ballot would enable you to sell your vote though.
In a sense we all do sell our votes, the currency is promises. I guess in this way it could be considered similar to lobbying efforts. However, lobbying carries the stench of greed. .. deserved or not.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I don't see the problem in buying votes, politicians blatantly buy votes by promising tax adjustments, govt spending, welfare changes etc using money derived by taxing voters.
How many people cast their vote based on what they think is best for the country compared with calculating their net income depending on who makes government?
Elections are generally decided by parties convincing the masses they will be financially better off, or by rich people paying for campaigns to fool the masses to vote against their own interests.
How many people cast their vote based on what they think is best for the country compared with calculating their net income depending on who makes government?
Elections are generally decided by parties convincing the masses they will be financially better off, or by rich people paying for campaigns to fool the masses to vote against their own interests.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
What if someone promised higher taxes and offered money for your vote?
What if you were in a pinch and needed to make a mortgage payment?
Are you familiar with buyers remorse? We are simply too impulsive to handle something like this.
I don't see how this changes anything besides putting the economically challenged in an unfair position. We need less disenfranchisement and class warfare.
.. and again, this brings us back to the candidate with the most money wins. Possibly without even campaigning.
What if you were in a pinch and needed to make a mortgage payment?
Are you familiar with buyers remorse? We are simply too impulsive to handle something like this.
I don't see how this changes anything besides putting the economically challenged in an unfair position. We need less disenfranchisement and class warfare.
.. and again, this brings us back to the candidate with the most money wins. Possibly without even campaigning.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Thing is, how much could a company realistically afford to pay for a vote in order to make a difference in an election? Say they bought 1,000,000 votes for $100 each. That'd be 100 million dollars. Would that be enough to swing an election?
EDIT: Actually yeah I guess it would be given only a small percentage of eligible voters actually vote.
EDIT: Actually yeah I guess it would be given only a small percentage of eligible voters actually vote.
Last edited by ghettoperson (2010-12-30 01:28:10)
I once saw a breakdown .. if you took what presidential candidate (x) paid for in political advertising, and divided it by the votes they got it came up to less than 6 bucks per vote.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
whoop, found it, http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2 … o-cast-it/
Xbone Stormsurgezz
What if someone promised lower taxes for you but your children will be saddled with crippling debt?Kmar wrote:
What if someone promised higher taxes and offered money for your vote?
Thats the other side of the 'jam today' equation.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-12-30 03:34:01)
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
The problem is lower taxes PLUS higher spending.. federal revenues often increase with lower taxes.Dilbert_X wrote:
What if someone promised lower taxes for you but your children will be saddled with crippling debt?Kmar wrote:
What if someone promised higher taxes and offered money for your vote?
Thats the other side of the 'jam today' equation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Bullshit.Kmar wrote:
The problem is lower taxes PLUS higher spending.. federal revenues often increase with lower taxes.Dilbert_X wrote:
What if someone promised lower taxes for you but your children will be saddled with crippling debt?Kmar wrote:
What if someone promised higher taxes and offered money for your vote?
Thats the other side of the 'jam today' equation.
That was true during Reagan's era, but only because tax rates were so high before he cut them.Kmar wrote:
The problem is lower taxes PLUS higher spending.. federal revenues often increase with lower taxes.Dilbert_X wrote:
What if someone promised lower taxes for you but your children will be saddled with crippling debt?Kmar wrote:
What if someone promised higher taxes and offered money for your vote?
Thats the other side of the 'jam today' equation.
Revenues also went up with Bush's tax cuts, but his spending increases far exceeded the revenue gains.
Now that Bush's cuts have been extended, talk of any further cuts should be rejected, because there is a lot of evidence to suggest that we've reached a point where further cuts would decrease revenue rather than increase it, and spending is already so high that any potential gains would still not cover current spending.
About the only income taxes we probably should cut are the corporate rates, since most of our economic peers have lower corporate taxes. When it comes to personal taxation, America is already on the low end of the OECD countries.
id sell my vote tbh. they are all cunt politicians and failed policies. why should i care.
Wow. You make an excellent point.DrunkFace wrote:
Bullshit.Kmar wrote:
The problem is lower taxes PLUS higher spending.. federal revenues often increase with lower taxes.Dilbert_X wrote:
What if someone promised lower taxes for you but your children will be saddled with crippling debt?
Thats the other side of the 'jam today' equation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Buying/selling governmental votes is inherently anti-democratic.
Anyone who tries to call such a system a "corporate democracy" is as idiotic as the people who came up with names like "Democratic German Republic", and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". If we were able to buy & sell votes, we would not be living in a democracy, we would be living in a corporate state.
Anyone who tries to call such a system a "corporate democracy" is as idiotic as the people who came up with names like "Democratic German Republic", and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". If we were able to buy & sell votes, we would not be living in a democracy, we would be living in a corporate state.
You're right about Bush and his spending. The first thing the we need to do is cut spending.Turquoise wrote:
That was true during Reagan's era, but only because tax rates were so high before he cut them.Kmar wrote:
The problem is lower taxes PLUS higher spending.. federal revenues often increase with lower taxes.Dilbert_X wrote:
What if someone promised lower taxes for you but your children will be saddled with crippling debt?
Thats the other side of the 'jam today' equation.
Revenues also went up with Bush's tax cuts, but his spending increases far exceeded the revenue gains.
Now that Bush's cuts have been extended, talk of any further cuts should be rejected, because there is a lot of evidence to suggest that we've reached a point where further cuts would decrease revenue rather than increase it, and spending is already so high that any potential gains would still not cover current spending.
About the only income taxes we probably should cut are the corporate rates, since most of our economic peers have lower corporate taxes. When it comes to personal taxation, America is already on the low end of the OECD countries.
Where are you getting all of your evidence regarding cuts? As far as comparing America to other countries and their taxes, that is pointless. The US is fairly unique in its structure and size when compared to other oecd countries. That matters, especially when you add in what we pay in state and local taxes.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Not only that, it's going to cause even more wealth disparity. Buying and selling votes will empower the wealthy even more.Pubic wrote:
Buying/selling governmental votes is inherently anti-democratic.
Anyone who tries to call such a system a "corporate democracy" is as idiotic as the people who came up with names like "Democratic German Republic", and "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". If we were able to buy & sell votes, we would not be living in a democracy, we would be living in a corporate state.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Why? You have the right not to sell your vote.Pubic wrote:
If we were able to buy & sell votes, we would not be living in a democracy, we would be living in a corporate state.
I object to the govt buying votes using my taxes via baby bonuses and the extensive pork-barreling already in progress.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
You said it yourself. We have to cut spending first. Considering the deficits we're already running right now, do you really think further cuts in taxes would result in large enough revenue gains to cover the current deficits? I seriously doubt that simply because of the law of diminishing returns.Kmar wrote:
You're right about Bush and his spending. The first thing the we need to do is cut spending.
Where are you getting all of your evidence regarding cuts? As far as comparing America to other countries and their taxes, that is pointless. The US is fairly unique in its structure and size when compared to other oecd countries. That matters, especially when you add in what we pay in state and local taxes.
Going back to Reagan's figures, the top tax bracket was about 70% back then. He first knocked the rates down to 50%, so it's no wonder that a massive surge in government revenues occurred, because a 20% drop is pretty huge. The next drop happened in 1987 where it went further down to 38.5%. Again, the starting point was high enough and the drop was large enough that another surge in revenues occurred.
If you dropped our current rates down by 20%, that would put the highest bracket at about 15%, and the revenue gains wouldn't likely be that high -- nowhere near as high as the ones that Reagan's era produced. Mathematically, it would be extremely unlikely, at least.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Should People Be Able to Sell Their Votes?