|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
29th May 2017, 11:03 PM | #1 |
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
|
Why Can't We Drain the Swamp?
Trigger Warning
Why can't we? Because the RNC and DNC are the effective madames of a house of ill repute called the US Congress. Wanna chair a major committee? Work the phone bank (on the public's dime while you're supposed to be attending to the business of Congress) and raise more than a million dollars for the party, and you get your committee. Won't or can't do it? Forget about Ways and Means... you're going to be on the Committee for Beautification of Interstate Highway Toll Plazas. The below should be mandatory reading, not just for the many foreign onlookers who find the US system to be train-wreck fascinating, but to Americans, too. We're woefully ignorant of our own machinations. http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/price-of-power You might want to secure eyeglasses or any dangling earrings before reading. You may find yourself shaking your head so much that you lose them. |
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable. |
|
29th May 2017, 11:06 PM | #2 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
Must resist addressing the false equivalency....
OK, too much money, it affects both parties. |
29th May 2017, 11:46 PM | #3 |
Proud Award Award recipient
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,018
|
As a "foreign onlooker who find the US system to be train-wreck fascinating", I would suggest that you can't drain your swamp as long as campaign financing isn't seriously addressed.
To give an example, a French presidential campaign can't spend more than +/- 22 million € (half of which is reimbursed by the state, if the campaign accounting is approved). That would translate to something like 100 million $ if you adjust for the larger US population. Adjust that further to account for geography, and you get, say 150 million $ per campaign. A lot less than what the campaigns spend. The difference is even bigger for parliamentary elections. Again taking France as an example, a parliamentary campaign in a district can't spend more than +/- 70,000 € (amount is somewhat variable, depending of the number of registered voters in the district). Where do campaigns get their money from in France? Only physical persons can donate money to a campaign, and there is a maximum amount per person per year. Businesses are not allowed to donate. Citizens United, yay! |
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan |
|
29th May 2017, 11:57 PM | #4 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,571
|
|
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
30th May 2017, 12:01 AM | #5 |
Nasty Woman
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 96,386
|
|
30th May 2017, 12:17 AM | #6 |
Mostly harmless
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Nor Flanden
Posts: 38,373
|
Installing a billionaire in the White House because the rich have too much influence in Washington always looked like a bit of a non sequitur to me.
|
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky |
|
30th May 2017, 12:28 AM | #7 |
Non credunt, semper verificare
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,571
|
It is a combination of negative and positive mechanism. Whether we like it or not, in the swamp are a lot of people which knows the in and outs of the administration working, some industry working, political maze etc... Draining a swamp would remove that know how. The negative aspect is money, and money "speaks" in the US. (ETA: yes the "citizen united" decision and having various similar group being able to donate , is a large corrupting influence).
Think of something similar to lobbyist making laws , those are mostly industry outsider. But would it be better to have people utterly not knowing the industry making its regulation ? That is non sense. Naturally it would be better to have people more neutral, knowing the industry (or as above the swamp) but with less ties to politic/industry. Problem is, such "birds" are pretty rare. thus : the swamp. |
30th May 2017, 12:34 AM | #8 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th May 2017, 12:36 AM | #9 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
I fear it is inevitable. I can recommend this short video which basically explains all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs the longer any system of government runs, the more "swampiness" it will accumulated. In a way, the US system is too stable for its own good, and the US territory is too unassailable for any external existential threat that could force internal change. Change can only come in moments of great crisis: if someone other than Bush/Cheney had been in charge on 9/11, that might have been a chance to get rid of some of the worst swamp critters. But they let the crisis go to waste on a war that benefited hardly anyone. The accumulating of wealth in the hands of the 0.1% (with no end of further wealth transfer upwards in sight) clearly points to a crisis point at which the system MUST change if the US is to survive as a country. Once a massive "draining" of influence peddling and re-distribution of wealth has occurred, we will have bought ourselves another few decades before we are back in the middle of the Atchafalaya Basin. |
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
30th May 2017, 01:00 AM | #10 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 28,963
|
No system is perfect. If you want to "get money out of politics" essentially you have to curtail free speech to some extent. It's a trade off.
In Japan, there are no political advertisements on TV. Instead, each candidate is given some free air time on NHK (even the insane ones), and they can talk for like 5 minutes or some predetermined time limit. No fancy over-produced campaign ads with stock images and music designed to pull at your heart strings or induce fear and loathing. They just have to make their case in their own words. Is this an intolerable limitation on the freedom of speech? |
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. William Shakespeare |
|
30th May 2017, 02:11 AM | #11 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,110
|
We can. We just don't want to.
"Drain the Swamp!" they said, then chose a swamp creature who promptly filled it even higher. Did they feel betrayed? Trump’s approval ratings
Quote:
|
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good. |
|
30th May 2017, 02:52 AM | #12 |
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
|
The point of the article, and of the thread, was that this is not a Republican problem. It's a US problem. The article, as I can see many didn't read it, is detailing the sort of pay-for-play system that both (BOTH!) parties have in effect in Congress.
Call me a Pollyanna but I'd kinda like that the congress critters with the most knowledge in an area were chosen to head committees or to be the minority head. "How good can you raise money" is not a criteria I want to hear about whether it's Gowdy or Waters. There's even mention that some of these folks carry over their campaign contributions so they don't have to man the phone banks and just pay directly into the party coffers. If I contribute to Al Sharpton's campaign for Congress, I want him spending that money, as we all would, to "Get Whitey". I don't want him ponying up my money to the DNC so he can become chairman of the Committee on Chakra Realignment. |
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable. |
|
30th May 2017, 02:54 AM | #13 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th May 2017, 02:59 AM | #14 |
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
|
|
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable. |
|
30th May 2017, 03:00 AM | #15 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th May 2017, 03:03 AM | #16 |
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 41,468
|
|
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable. |
|
30th May 2017, 03:13 AM | #17 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
Yea, so where is the evidence again?
Democrats only play the money game because if they don't, they lose. They are often wanting to impose campaign finance reform, but it takes a majority of congress to do so and the moneyed interests keep it from happening. The problem only exists because Republicans are agents of corporations. So, unless the public wakes up and votes in a liberal president and congress and we get the conservative hacks out of SCOTUS, the swamp will be full of money. |
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th May 2017, 03:21 AM | #18 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
30th May 2017, 03:23 AM | #19 |
Other (please write in)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
|
This article gives a sample time schedule, with about half a person's time spent on getting donors. It also says this about the cause of the "hated" problem:
Quote:
|
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn |
|
30th May 2017, 03:23 AM | #20 |
Orthogonal Vector
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 53,184
|
And the rich inherently have more value than the worthless prolls that is basis social darwinism. That is why they need to have disproportionate voices. A billionare is fundamentaly a better human being, smarter, more moral than a poor person. That is the basis of our entire system after all.
|
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin |
|
30th May 2017, 03:24 AM | #21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th May 2017, 04:04 AM | #22 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
Citizens United is of course a massive problem, since it basically tore up the "arms control" agreement between the parties when it came to donations.
But even before, it seems to me that there are too many elections on all levels of government. Longer terms and more appointments would reduce the elections on which big money can be spend, which in turns makes it easier to monitor undue influences on the remaining races. Representatives shouldn't have to spend a significant amount of their time fund-raising for their next election. Sheriffs, DAs and Judges shouldn't be selected by vote. Voting districts should be bigger to make gerrymandering harder and (again) reduce the total number of elections. I don't think that even the Koch brothers are especially happy with the current systems, since even $1billon in war chest didn't get their guy elected (not quite true, they got plenty of state and local posts for their puppets). Consider what would happen if the Gates Foundation decided to buy the next 10 years of elections... |
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
30th May 2017, 05:46 AM | #23 |
NWO Litter Technician
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Looks like Finland. Smells like Finland. Quacks like Finland. Where the hell am I?
Posts: 15,161
|
|
__________________
When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord, in his wisdom, doesn't work that way. I just stole one and asked Him to forgive me. - Emo Philips
|
|
30th May 2017, 05:49 AM | #24 |
Дэлво Δελϝο דֶלְבֹֿ देल्वो
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: North Tonawanda, NY
Posts: 11,679
|
Even if the subject here were limited to just campaign financing, that wouldn't make any sense. But also, it isn't. The "game" we're talking about here isn't just campaign financing; it's choosing which members of their own party to support and promote based on how much money they bring to the party, and taking money for political favors once they're already in office. It's not about winning or losing elections when it's not even about an election at all. And Democrats even work this way despite the fact that it causes them to lose.
For example, in the most recent Presidential election, the party threw its support behind a classic Corporate Democrat Machine candidate over the guy who is the most popular politician in the country, and managed to lose what should have been a cake-walk against a mentally ill acid-tripping baboon with lower approval than any President has ever had at an equivalent time in his term. And they're currently still using the "but we'd lose!" excuse for not even giving a moment's consideration to Medicare-for-all, which has the support of about three fourths of their party base, a plurality of Republican voters, and a 60% majority overall, while of course totally coincidentally taking money from medical industries. They don't care what the voters want if it interferes with their income stream. "Moneyed interests" couldn't do anything at all if Democrats wouldn't listen to them, especially during Democrat legislative majorities. But those have happened, and their behavior didn't change at all. The real division you're looking for isn't between the parties; it's between corporate Democrats and issue-driven populist Democrats. And since you want to focus on campaign financing, it's about how little campaign support the latter get with the former running things. |
30th May 2017, 05:55 AM | #25 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
I doubt what you say is true. Hillary had more votes that the orange baboon, and there was much foul play by the Republicans which is why Trump won. Bernie would likely have ran into the same issues. It is very hard to win against cheaters. Also, the country was progressing forward under these "corporate Democrats."
When was the last time Democrats had all three branches of government again? |
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th May 2017, 05:56 AM | #26 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
This makes it sound like rich people and companies are not lining up to throw money at politicians to get what they want. It sounds like the parties have to rely on making rich people reluctantly give like it is NPR trying to get you to renew your donation.
Does that make it less swampy than alleged? |
30th May 2017, 06:00 AM | #27 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
Re: Citizens United
The Citizens United decision had exactly zero to do with campaign contributions. That's not an opinion. It's just fact. It's the ruling. Read the Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Originally Posted by wikipedia
|
30th May 2017, 06:04 AM | #28 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
But the rich people are in exactly the same trap as the politicians:
looking at the sums spend it might seem that companies must be getting so much more influence because they are spending so much more on lobbying and campaign donations - but all their are doing is maintain an equilibrium. So if their competitors spend more, they have to spend more: it's a classical arms race where everyone would be better of with clear enforceable laws instead of an upwards spiral. |
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
30th May 2017, 06:06 AM | #29 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
The OP link was short on sources. I agree with the general tenor, and I have heard Congressmen say it for many years, that the fundraising demands were making it too difficult to actually govern. Sometimes that is from retiring legislators who cite it as the reason for retirement, but that link made it sound like there's a literal pay to play rule.
I don't find it impossible to believe that, but I'm a bit surprised, and a little skeptical, that it is so literal. If it's true, then it ought to be ended, although I have no idea how to actually do that. |
30th May 2017, 06:06 AM | #30 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
30th May 2017, 06:07 AM | #31 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
Citizens United was about Super-PACs, not direct contributions: the effect was huge.
|
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
30th May 2017, 06:10 AM | #32 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
30th May 2017, 06:11 AM | #33 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
They are a total waste, sometimes lethally so: we see this all the time in biology, where individuals' fitness to attract mates comes at the cost of the fitness of the species as a whole (see peacocks etc.).
The race for more money, more campaign donations, more defense spending are all not for the benefit of society but for the individual: a typical case where the invisible hand of the market plunges into the toilet. |
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
30th May 2017, 06:13 AM | #34 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 32,635
|
|
__________________
1. He'd never do that. 2. Okay but he's not currently doing it. 3. Okay but he's not currently technically doing it. 4. Okay but everyone does it. 5. He's doing it, we can't stop him, no point in complaining about it. 6. We all knew he was going to do it which... makes it okay somehow. 7. It's perfectly fine that's he's doing it. |
|
30th May 2017, 06:14 AM | #35 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
30th May 2017, 06:15 AM | #36 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
I think Trump got crushed in the money race.superPACs are not the reason he won.
I was wrong. The numbers were close on president. https://www.opensecrets.org/outsides...umm.php?disp=R |
30th May 2017, 06:18 AM | #37 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
30th May 2017, 06:19 AM | #38 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
30th May 2017, 06:22 AM | #39 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,244
|
|
30th May 2017, 06:25 AM | #40 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,789
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|