$200 million democracy

[andyfox]

Heard today that President Bush is starting to raise money for his reelection, and that the goal is $200 million. He has already raised over $145 million for congressional Republicans.

I am sure the Democrats will try to match this.

My question is what kind of democracy can we possibly have when money talks this loudly?

[HDPM]

First, we really don't want a democracy. To the extent we have one, money will always speak loudly. One example that people don't mention is all the freeloaders on social security, medicare, medicaid, and other forms of welfare. The government has essentially bought their vote becuase they can't realistically be expected to vote for candidates who would cut these programs. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

That said, I think plenty of money has been raised by both sides. And I don't think there should be any limits or regulations on donations EXCEPT the requirement of absolute disclosure. Underfunded candidates can win and candidates who took millions from companies that were obviously buying them would do so at their own peril. As much as I distrust the electorate, people are smart enough to know when candidates are bought and paid for.

A shorter way of saying all this is that the jukebox is the perfect metaphor for democracy. Those with money and bad taste get to inflict their preferences on everybody else if they have the cash. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[adios]

I'll answer your question with a question /forums/images/icons/smile.gif. Is it the process or the citizens? Put another way, why does it cost so much money to get elected?

[andyfox]

"First, we really don't want a democracy."

Not quite sure who the "we" is here. I know I want a democracy. No question in my mind the Constitution did not really want one either, but that's a whole 'nother story.

"I think plenty of money has been raised by both sides."

I agree, and that's the point: we are guaranteed to only have two parties, and that's quite anti-democratic. Underfunded candidates rarely win. All candidates from both parties are bought and paid for.

[MMMMMM]

As usual, what we have is imperfect but still the best in the world.

One common theme we hear is liberals comparing our system to some idealistic, utopian goal or view--and of course we always come up short.

As someone once said, capitalism and representative democracy are terrible systems, but they're the best terrible systems ever tried.

So money matters in everything. Water matters in everything. Food matters in everything. So...what???

Even in the animal kingdom, things like food and territory and water matter. Money is just an advanced, liquid form of value. Value matters.

Everybody gets a vote. What they do with it is up to them.

A few more random thoughts: I don't see the rich people who gripe about economic inequalities giving away most of their money. Instead, they want the government to do the dirty work of taking money by force from all rich people and redistributing it. Somehow this makes them feel a bit better. I also don't see people who would never kill a deer becoming vegetarian. Instead, they frown on hunting while paying butchers to do their dirty work. Somehow this makes them feel better. But killing or taking by proxy is not different than doing it yourself. Actually, it's worse--because by employing a proxy, people are willing to kill more, or take by force more (steal), than they otherwise would if they had to do it themselves.

So regarding money and democracy: if you can think of a way to have money not matter in elections, let's hear it. However I suspect we won't hear any suggestions because there probably aren't any workable ways to make money--or water--or food--or energy--irrelevant in this world, in politics, in the workplace, or in elections. The best we can probably do is ensure that everyone gets one vote regardless of income, wealth, creed or color.

[andyfox]

There are rich people who do a lot of charitable work and a lot of rich people who give away a lot of their money. Ted Turner (your hero, no doubt /forums/images/icons/smile.gif ) is an example. Bill Gates is now giving tons of money for philanthrpic causes.

And I'm sure there are people who are against killing deer who have become vegetarians because of it.

I'm not sure what the answer is to the connection between politics and money. I am sure that it is not possible to have clean politics when so much money is involved.

[Jimbo]

Andy why would anyone want a Democracy where Al Gore would have become elected president. Our form of government is a safely adjusted democratic model which prevents such a dangerous occurrance as the above from happening. Thank your lucky stars!!!

[andyfox]

"Andy why would anyone want a Democracy where Al Gore would have become elected president."

There's no accounting for taste.

Anyway, most people are more concerned that the New York Yankess spend $200 million to win baseball games than that the major parties spend that much to win the presidency.

Thank my lucky stars indeed! /forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[MMMMMM]

Yes they give a lot of money but they don't give most of their money. I don't know the political views of Gates, but if Ted Turner wants to help the poor or underprivileged more, then let him do more of it personally, instead of advocating that the government take more by force (steal) from others for this purpose.

Some people who are against hunting have become vegetarians. But most haven't, and they pay butchers to kill more animals than they would probably ever kill if they had to do it themselves.

So...it isn't possible to have 100% clean politics. Surprise, surprise. Somehow I think that would be the case whether or not money is involved. Power is involved and to many that's just as intoxicating a prize as money (note the vast corruption in the biggest communist governments in history).

Wanting things in this world to be 100% clean is a fine ideal. But it's just that, an ideal--and as always, workable solutions are generally far less than 100% ideal.
I guess that's just the way God made the world;-)

We are always faced with a gulf regarding our dreams and ideals vs. reality. While striving for better is a worthy goal, the trap I see so many falling into is an unbalanced focus on flaws, leading to self-loathing or loathing of our system. Of course there's always room for improvement but it is a monumental error to base one's reckoning on how closely facts meet ideals rather than on how well we deal with facts.

[HDPM]

It is not possible to have clean politics when people are involved.

[andyfox]

The government does everything by force. Unless anarchists take over, we're going to have some government. Taxes are not stealing, so long as we have a democracy/elected government.

I understand government was dirty before big money got involved. My point is that when it takes so much money to get elected, the potential for abuse is increased.

[andyfox]

No doubt. But when people and $200 million (or $400 million) are involved, the dirtiness undoubtedly increases.

[MMMMMM]

I agree that taxes, when used for purposes such as are called for in the Constitution (providing for the common defense, etc.) are not theft. However when taxes are used to take money from some people in order to simply give it to others, I do think that is a form of legalized theft. In other words: build a bridge with my money, pay a policeman or a fireman, fix a road--that's fine--but if I want to give to someone less fortunate I'll do that myself (and at times I do). Taking money by force from Family A to give it directly to Family B is theft, legalized or not. And estate taxes are theft as certainly as if the government backed a moving van up to your house after you died and carted off half of all your belongings.

[Cyrus]

"One example that people don't mention is all the freeloaders on social security, medicare, medicaid, and other forms of welfare. The government has essentially bought their vote becuase they can't realistically be expected to vote for candidates who would cut these programs."

Sorry but the people on welfare and other such "freeloading programs" are among those less likely to vote. No one cares about how they feel about any candidate whatsoever and no candidate pays them more mind than is necessary for a photo op, at best.

[MMMMMM]

Well if money didn't exist it would be something else then. Power tends to corrupt and people tend to get corrupted. I think the money issue is a canard and HDPM's point stands. If the money involved were less the corruption would still emerge and be motivated-influenced-controlled by other factors.

If you take $200 million out of the formula something else will fill the void in one way or another and there will still be some unavoidable corruption. At least until we all become saints or at least a more highly evolved species.

[HDPM]

No, the AARP freeloaders on social security are among the worst for actually showing up to the polls. The geezers who steal my money are notorious for voting. Granted, many other freeloaders don't vote, thank goodness, but the social security folks do. I think it is moral to take social secuity as restitution for prior money stolen, but only if you are willing to end the program immediately if given the vote to do so. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[Zeno]

"Put another way, why does it cost so much money to get elected? "


Because propaganda is not cheap, and persuasive lies are expensive to pander to the mob.


Le Misanthrope

[Zeno]

"Anyway, most people are more concerned that the New York Yankess spend $200 million to win baseball games than that the major parties spend that much to win the presidency. "




Well, at least you admit it. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

Go Mariners. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

-Zeno.

PS Almost time for another "Baseball Talk" post. I'll get on it soon.

[Ray Zee]

money will always rule elections. but it is the job of us to see that those elected are not givng any special favors to the donators. the whole idea of donating to a candidate is to have what he stands for win. not to get favors from him after the election. that part needs to be stopped.

[Zeno]

I think this is a good point. That the ease of money flow will enhance corruption, entice the wrong people into politics and concentrate power/influence into too few groups. This can ultimately lead to unstable conditions that can affect our "democracy" in a very negative way. As almost everyone has pointed out, we will always have some dirty dealing, backroom chicanery and corruption in the political process. The problem is keeping this dirty part of politics at a tolerable level and not letting the abuses that can spring from it to become overwhelming. At what point this occurs will vary from nation to nation, depending on whatever inane form of political and governmental institutions exist.

Has the US reached a point where something should be done? And if so, What?

I like the idea of elections being done under the gun – only so many days and everyone gets the same amount of money. This would appeal to me as it limits the amount of time that the politicians can spew out their mumbo-jumbo, lackluster lies, and bland blather for the mob of morons to lick up with glee. It would be more entertaining if they were a time limit; thus the imbecilities would have to increase at a more exponential rate until the very shrillness of it all would gag a maggot. To draw out such dealings is real only a form of torture. Just be done with it – and move on to other stupidities.

Well, that solves it all, does it not? /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

-Zeno

[MMMMMM]

Yep that's the hard part, because special favors can often be done on the QT. I'm doubt we could ever completely stop it.

Pork barrel politics is also very bad IMO. My idea for a partial solution to the pork barrel would be to simply axe almost all federal spending that could be handled satisfactorily on a state or local level, and a lot of other federal programs as well. Get federal spending down to the bare bones of what the Constitution calls for and maybe a few other really necessary things like safety and environmental standards. I think it's rather absurd to have the federal government promising special things to state senators who in turn have promised these things to their constituencies. Does anyone know how much of our federal budget today is for things not called for in the Constitution? The special interests lobbies are huge and I bet practically none of them represent things which the Constitution describes as areas appropriate for federal spending. I have a copy of the Constitution (from Dover;-))so I'll scan it for related material before going to sleep.

[andyfox]

Amendment XVI does not specify the purposes for which income taxes can be used. Section 8 of Article I does list specifics for which "Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises" can be used; providing for the "general Welfare" is listed.

[MMMMMM]

hmm. And where is it in the Constitution that a graduated tax shall be used to provide for the general welfare? And wasn't the meaning of "general Welfare" back then more likely to have to do with things like maintaining town roads, etc., rather than income redistribution? As Neal Boortz points out, a graduated or progressive tax is nowhere in the Constitution, but it is declared early in the Communist Manifesto. And the top 10% of earners in the USA already pay over 50% of the total income tax.

I'm not opposed to using a tax to pay for things important to the general welfare--such as firefighting--but I think charity should be voluntary. If some people think more money should be given to charity, well then let them give more, or let them start an organization dedicated to raising--not taking--money for such purposes.

[HDPM]

I agree that general welfare probably did not mean charitable handouts, which we now call welfare, or worse "entitlement programs." It is certainly against the general welfare to have redistributive taxes and handout programs. All should be immediately abolished on the federal level. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

[Cyrus]

"The geezers who steal my money are notorious for voting. I think it is moral to take social security as restitution for prior money stolen, but only if you are willing to end the program immediately if given the vote to do so."

I do hope we are in full joking mode here and you are not really suggesting that all Social Security pensioners should not be allowed to vote or something.

In the same joking vein, then, I'd say that voting is far less weighty as compensations go than ol' moolah. Old people just don't have enough time left to vote, in order to compensate for the money (and time) the government has stolen from their lives.

[HDPM]

Full joking mode I dunno. Partial joking mode certainly. I don't think we can take the vote away from people, even though their votes are bought and paid for by the government. I think social programs pose a great threat to our republic because of this. I don't trust the government very much, and the more money the government has to lavish on people, the more freedom we lose. I hope someday we will have enough politicians with courage that we could phase out social security. I doubt it will happen though. And most people do believe in socialism to one degree or another I must admit. I just resent people thinking they have a mortgage on my life for their own comfort. Getting old is a lifestyle choice. You don't have to. Nobody asked you to keep living. Your call. So to somehow say that because you chose to live for X number of years means you can force me to pay for your leisure is crazy. The whole premise of social security is nuts. I don't care if I starve to death when I'm old, I'd rather that than be guilty of stealing somebody's work from them by force. I will take social secutity if I happen to live long enough, but only because the restitution is owed to me for the money stolen by the bastards all these years. I would also renounce my claim to restitution if the program were abolished. And I would support a phase out. Even though immediate abolition of the program can be justified, I would feel bad about the people who would die because they were crazy enough to trust the government. The people on social security have an expectation of getting something, however misguided. I don't want to kill off the geezers, but I would like to live in a country where charity is optional. And social security is basically charity by force. Which is theft.


Now the joke I really want to do: I want to own a little hotel with a sign that advertises "AARP Rates" When somebody asks for the rate, we'd say OK, and hand them a bill for like $750 per night. They'd say what's this rate? "The AARP rate you money stealing gun grabbing commie. Just making up for what you steal." /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[andyfox]

"Getting old is a lifestyle choice. You don't have to."

Yeah, but I look at it like folding 7-2o for three bets. You don't have to, but to not do it is suicide.

/forums/images/icons/smile.gif

[andyfox]

"the top 10% of earners in the USA already pay over 50% of the total income tax."

Of course they do. They have over 50% of the total income. Way over 50%.

The Constitution is supposed to be a living document. What the general welfare was in 1789 is different from what it is in 2003.

[andyfox]

It is certainly in the general welfare to have redistributive taxes and handout programs. That's why we have such a stable political system; those programs have stifled any mass leftist political organization.

[HDPM]

Isn't the second amendment a cheaper way of doing that? /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[MMMMMM]

No, I don't think it is in the general welfare.

Redistribution is a highly inefficient system.

The more capitalistic our society gets (as opposed to socialiastic), the higher the average standard of living will become. Socialism is a highly inefficient system which also provides disincentives and encourages laziness. It has virtually nothing to recommend it.

Look at it this way: In which society will there be more money left over for charity? In a society which has a higher GNP, a higher average income, and a more growing economy, or in a socialistic society? In the socialistic society the charity is assured by force of law, but there is less total pie to be divided due to greater inherent inefficiencies in the system and lesser incentives to production and work. The trap is in thinking that it is better to have the spread between the bottom and the top narrower even if it means the average income is less and the GNP is less. But the growth of the economy as a whole, and the average income as a whole, have more long-term impact on the wealth of the country as a whole and thus too on even on the bottom tiers. To extrapolate and see howe this is true in real terms just look at Cuba or the former USSR. There is no reason in hell the former USSR should have gone broke based on its natural resources, its human resources, and its technology. Yet it did because it had a system which discouraged production and encouraged mediocrity. No matter how level you try to make personal wealth through legislation, the more you try to level it, the poorer the country gets as a whole. Communism causes lack of competition and thus declining standards and production overall for everyone. Lesser degrees of socialism do the same thing but in proportion.

The more competitive a society is, the more it achieves and the richer it gets. This benefits everyone eventually. The reverse is also true.

If you're worried about Communists gaining a toehold here due to inequalities I think their days are essentially done, regardless of inequalities in the USA. Theirs is a failed and fruitless philosophy and our economic engine is too diverse and growing and advanced to be threatened by any such movement.

I'l bet if we cut ALL welfare programs in less than 8 years there would be far fewer people below the poverty line than today. Now: I do think there's place for emergency aid such as food stamps on a very limited short-term basis. And I would like to see work farms where broke or homeless people could go and have free room and board provided along with a basic wage which they could save for maybe 6 months to get back on their feet. I think that would be a great idea. The homeless or broke could just show up, get free room and board, and labor 12 hours a day 6 days/week for around minimum wage. They could sleep on cots in a great big barracks, lights out at 9:00 P.M. And they could save practically every penny of their earnings for up to their 6-month stay which should be enough to get them back on their feet in the real world. No drugs no alcohol and just good old-fashioned hard work and a good night's sleep every night. That, along with a few thousand dollar bankroll accumulated during this time period, would do it for most of them I suspect. Actually this would be a better safety net than all the welfare programs we currently have today--and a more meaningful one as well. Today the homeless are really in trouble as you can't get even food stamps (let alone a job) without an address. But a well-run, safe, clean work farm would be just the thing. I know I would have been glad to have had such a place to go in order to just work, sleep and save money a few times in my life.

[andyfox]

I'm not sure if the USSR is a good example of how a socialist economy goes broke because they probably spent far too much on their military, breaking the bank. China might well be a better example. The system, as it was under Mao, was a disaster. Deng changed things, reasoning that socialism was indeed a leveler under Mao, but everyone was poor, and this was unaccpetable. Since the encrouagement of capitalist arrangements, the parts of the country that have been in the forefront, notably Southeast China and Shanghai, have flourished, having experienced economic growth and wealth creation at a pace unparalleled in history.

But here we're talking about countries that had a hardcore socialist system with no capitalism. In our country, we have a capitalist system with some socialist policies. Our welfare arrangements have been adjusted as social unrest and political exigencies have dictated.

When our economic system broke in the 1930s, the policies instituted by the Roosevelt administration were partly to stem the tide of leftist stirrings. They really didn't do too much to fix the depression; it took World War II to do that.

Wasn't welfare benefits substantially cut during the Clinton administration?

[MMMMMM]

I'm postulating that, as a general effect, any increase or decrease in socialist policies is accompanied by a corresponding decrease or increase in the overall health of the economy: that there is an inverse correlation of a very general sort.