I'm feeling a little buzzed, so i'll give you a topic...
Campaign finance- is it unconstitutional? or should we be approaching the problem from a different angle?
To give a crash course of why campaign finance is somewhat ruining America (among other countries) is that it gives unnecessary leverage to those with heaping piles of money. Politicians need to get elected so they campaign to get their name out--nothing wrong with that. They need money to campaign and so businesses that feel a particular politician will support their interests will donate money to said politician to try and help get him elected. When that particular politician gets elected, he is then (unofficially) obligated to 'pay back' the contributor(s) in 'favors'. These favors can be anything from subsidy support to endorsement of a particular policy.
Where this can go awry is when a politician takes the 'obligation' he has to pay back his contributors as a higher priority than that of the people that really matter- eg the ones that voted his ass into the position. This is why we have enormous tobacco subsidies rather than a useful healthcare system (among other things) and why most financial banks have a firm grip on most of Washington's balls.
This cant be fixed by taxing the rich more than any other person (i'm referring to percentages not monetary amounts). if there is one thing i definitely will support on the right-wing politics, its that one cannot 'take'. No matter how one looks at it, under the current economic system we enable wealth to be made. Sadly, even immorally. However, it is legal. That is the problem. The correction is not to take what is rightfully theirs (because it is, we allowed it to happen/it was a legitimate loophole in the system/etc), and to take what is rightfully a possession of someone else is stealing. Plain and simple. Taxation is not stealing merely for the fact that it is legalized. so what could be a solution?
Set limits on campaign finance so the politicians cant dig themselves in too deep, therein enabling our policy-makers to do what we elected them to do? Sadly, campaign finance falls under the territory of free speech. Anyone is allowed to spend any amount of money they wish in any way they wish (dont get technical on me people, you know what i mean), and support anyone they wish with said money. One cannot argue against one of the founding pillars of our constitution.
So, we must argue with another piece of our constitution! Though Campaign finance(CF) falls under free speech, there is another way around it. Essentially, CF is what enables those with more money more leverage in the political realm. In essence, a loophole in the free speech argument allows a kind of plutocracy. the problem is not necessarily the money, but the leverage itself.
We must then, create a way in which we dont not assail anothers' rights, yet regain the leverage we are guaranteed by our democracy. In the way, i believe that we should find a way to give the people more leverage over the elected candidates. To put it simply, every elected official (congress, senate, executive) should be subject to a much easier form of ejection/impeachment. It is, after all, a very foundational piece of our national constitution that if a regime no longer serves the interests of the people, it is in the peoples right to remove that regime and replace it with another that is more suitable (look it up, its there!).
Obviously, as the position of authority gets higher, it will be more difficult to impeach. But in terms of congress and senate officials, an annual 'review' should be instated, and if certain policies are not being worked at hard enough, or enabled when it is clear that they could have been (essentially, if the official is not serving the interests of the majority but that of the plutocracy/campaign finance chaps) then they should be easily removed from their position. Probably by another vote-popular movement.
As for who would replace the official, I'm sure if a popular movement were mobilized to remove an official, a person within that movement would be more than capable of filling the position. If not, there could be any number of mechanism for replacement--a runner up of the elections (if favored by majority of course) for example.
There are other options of course. But as for an option that respects the idea of privacy as well as democracy, the way to go seems to be to find a way to increase the political leverage of the people. Preferably, the increase must be at least equal to the influence of the ones financing the politicians. In this way, the politicians will no longer be fully swayed by the rewards of serving the lobbies (for example). They will also be swayed by the fact that if they do no do as their electors wish, they can be removed from their office at the tip of the hat.
It doesn't hurt every now and then to remind our leadership that they still need to fear their people....
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
This is a Mind Dump
So its been a while. blah blah blah. Enough small talk. I've only got a little bit of time, but I've got a get my head around this somehow. So lets get right to it.
For some reason, even though there was a seemingly near-criminal investigation into the financial world post-crisis, there is no one in prison.
oh, my bad, ONE guy is in prison.
and probably just because SOMEONE had to go. Someone had to feed the masses rage-hunger
Without going into too much detail, there is an ABUSRD amount of evidence to put quite a few people in prison from anything from money laundering, to fraud and embezzlement--among other things. But all we (the public) got for being blatantly used and taken advantage of was one man.
I only need to illustrate the absurdity of this using one simple parallel. In trading, one cannot trade with oneself. there must be at least two people involved for it to be a 'trade'. So why, if our economy was demolished by financial securities TRADING, is there only one man behind bars?
would i be satisfied if they threw another guy in and called it a day? Of course not. That would just mean one less thing for me to be furious about.
These men are in fact criminals. There are precedents for this. I cannot take out a student loan and spend most of it in a casino rather than on books and food. However, a bunch of financial bankers can take OUR money and use it for a 'pseudo-casino'.
The fact that this occurred, was exposed, and yet there has been essentially no consequences for the actions of the few bankers is painful. Clearly, the finance boys have a diamond studded collar around the dogs in the government, and a firm grip on their balls.
Or I'm sorry, there is no negative coercion going on. Consider this is DC men we're talking about, its definitely positive coercion. And by positive coercion i mean that the men and women that are supposed to be representing the interests of the people of the United States and paying off their debts at the expensive of ours.
I'll leave my angry views on campaign finance for another post, but in short, the reason practically nothing gets done in terms of policy is because lobbies pay for elected officials campaigning to get elected. If/when the official gets elected, that money spent on annoying plastic signs and commercials needs to be paid back. Not in money, necessarily, but in favors. Favors, or government backing of certain areas, protection from foreign markets, etc.
Or in the case of said financial sector, we bail them out when they lose it all on the roulette table. Why? look how much money those guys are making--if Goldman Sachs decides to support say....Obama, the amount of other lobbies he needs to ask for campaign financing is very very low.
the problem becomes when Goldman Sachs loses a few hundred billion performing illegal activities.Because then our elected official (in this case Obama) is very strongly obligated to repay Goldman Sachs for the oodles of money he cost them to get elected.
Was there ever a real debate about the bailout for the banks? I strongly doubt it. in fact, i think the 'debates' were just a show to make it seem we were not being swindled.
To make matters even more atrocious, for the second time this year, the US government has avoided a government meltdown at the very last minute.
What seems all too convenient for me, is that the US credit rating is no longer a AAA rating. Even with the debt ceiling increased, its no longer AAA. its not in a BAD rating, but its not the flawless rating we've had since, practically, our formation. These potential 'meltdowns' our government keeps having has been weakening the credit rating and thereby making our financial assets not a guaranteed solid investment. THe flip side of that coin is that if one trades them on the, oh i dunno, financial market that Goldman Sachs (among others) got in trouble with in 2008, they essentially become more valuable. mainly more valuable in that they are more risky, therefore the spreads are larger, and therefore, there is more money to be made.
Which according to a report by Keiser Report (financial publication), thats exactly what theyve been doing.
For me, it seems pretty obvious that the government is tossing more than just a bone to the financial market. Its beginning to look like they're tossing them the entire roast. Our roast. I'm alright if politicians want to pay their debts. But when they start paying their debts and making them a priority over ours, i think there should be some serious consequences.
It astounds me that the title of our politicians is still technically 'civil servant'. In my opinion, 'civil servants' should be like they were throughout the rest of history. You get paid to compensate for participating in government (but not the highest wage, nor the lowest), and you are a SERVANT or the people. A representative. Neither of those titles can afford half the things a politician makes.Nor should they.
ARGH.Lets just vote them all out, make campaign finance limits, and start fixing whats wrong with this country.
Thats my rant. If you bitch enough or provide a good enough argument i'll give you evidence to back my harsh words above.
Call this the last straw for me. If i can find a way to get even ONE more of these to answer for this catastrophe i'll consider my life to have fulfilled something great.
For now, my next goal is simple. Have the words 'Masters in Finance Law" printed (among others) on my final degree.
For some reason, even though there was a seemingly near-criminal investigation into the financial world post-crisis, there is no one in prison.
oh, my bad, ONE guy is in prison.
and probably just because SOMEONE had to go. Someone had to feed the masses rage-hunger
Without going into too much detail, there is an ABUSRD amount of evidence to put quite a few people in prison from anything from money laundering, to fraud and embezzlement--among other things. But all we (the public) got for being blatantly used and taken advantage of was one man.
I only need to illustrate the absurdity of this using one simple parallel. In trading, one cannot trade with oneself. there must be at least two people involved for it to be a 'trade'. So why, if our economy was demolished by financial securities TRADING, is there only one man behind bars?
would i be satisfied if they threw another guy in and called it a day? Of course not. That would just mean one less thing for me to be furious about.
These men are in fact criminals. There are precedents for this. I cannot take out a student loan and spend most of it in a casino rather than on books and food. However, a bunch of financial bankers can take OUR money and use it for a 'pseudo-casino'.
The fact that this occurred, was exposed, and yet there has been essentially no consequences for the actions of the few bankers is painful. Clearly, the finance boys have a diamond studded collar around the dogs in the government, and a firm grip on their balls.
Or I'm sorry, there is no negative coercion going on. Consider this is DC men we're talking about, its definitely positive coercion. And by positive coercion i mean that the men and women that are supposed to be representing the interests of the people of the United States and paying off their debts at the expensive of ours.
I'll leave my angry views on campaign finance for another post, but in short, the reason practically nothing gets done in terms of policy is because lobbies pay for elected officials campaigning to get elected. If/when the official gets elected, that money spent on annoying plastic signs and commercials needs to be paid back. Not in money, necessarily, but in favors. Favors, or government backing of certain areas, protection from foreign markets, etc.
Or in the case of said financial sector, we bail them out when they lose it all on the roulette table. Why? look how much money those guys are making--if Goldman Sachs decides to support say....Obama, the amount of other lobbies he needs to ask for campaign financing is very very low.
the problem becomes when Goldman Sachs loses a few hundred billion performing illegal activities.Because then our elected official (in this case Obama) is very strongly obligated to repay Goldman Sachs for the oodles of money he cost them to get elected.
Was there ever a real debate about the bailout for the banks? I strongly doubt it. in fact, i think the 'debates' were just a show to make it seem we were not being swindled.
To make matters even more atrocious, for the second time this year, the US government has avoided a government meltdown at the very last minute.
What seems all too convenient for me, is that the US credit rating is no longer a AAA rating. Even with the debt ceiling increased, its no longer AAA. its not in a BAD rating, but its not the flawless rating we've had since, practically, our formation. These potential 'meltdowns' our government keeps having has been weakening the credit rating and thereby making our financial assets not a guaranteed solid investment. THe flip side of that coin is that if one trades them on the, oh i dunno, financial market that Goldman Sachs (among others) got in trouble with in 2008, they essentially become more valuable. mainly more valuable in that they are more risky, therefore the spreads are larger, and therefore, there is more money to be made.
Which according to a report by Keiser Report (financial publication), thats exactly what theyve been doing.
For me, it seems pretty obvious that the government is tossing more than just a bone to the financial market. Its beginning to look like they're tossing them the entire roast. Our roast. I'm alright if politicians want to pay their debts. But when they start paying their debts and making them a priority over ours, i think there should be some serious consequences.
It astounds me that the title of our politicians is still technically 'civil servant'. In my opinion, 'civil servants' should be like they were throughout the rest of history. You get paid to compensate for participating in government (but not the highest wage, nor the lowest), and you are a SERVANT or the people. A representative. Neither of those titles can afford half the things a politician makes.Nor should they.
ARGH.Lets just vote them all out, make campaign finance limits, and start fixing whats wrong with this country.
Thats my rant. If you bitch enough or provide a good enough argument i'll give you evidence to back my harsh words above.
Call this the last straw for me. If i can find a way to get even ONE more of these to answer for this catastrophe i'll consider my life to have fulfilled something great.
For now, my next goal is simple. Have the words 'Masters in Finance Law" printed (among others) on my final degree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)