Here's the problem: money in politics in the U.S. It's gummed things up pretty badly, led to the economic problems we still face globally, and created a number of feedback loops that feed money back to those who pump money into politics. We may have even set things up for a bigger house of cards in the future.

One proposed solution is to limit the effect of money in politics by amending the U.S. Constitution via an act of Congress; another is to pass legislation to fix the problem; a third is to call a Constitutional Convention, giving citizens and state legislatures the power to amend the Constitution.

What do you think would work the best, and why?

Here are some opinions on the matter for background information, if you're interested:Video: How to Get Our Democracy Back

Constitutional Framework « Gryphon's Aerie

No.

I think that you need to take these lobbyists out. They keep adding in special interest programs within these bills which keeps creating more and more corruption. This has got to end soon because it will be one of the many reasons this country will fail.

 

 

I think spending needs to stop, and there needs to be smaller government. These bailouts (not all) but some were a big mistake... bailing out companies to save them that in return used that money to give bonuses. In some regard let the market go it's course, the companies that work right will flourish and the ones that don't will fail, as they should.

Most people in Congress have not read the Constitution or understand it. Most our laws are in direct violation of it. Either have a convention and the laws/government or completely do away with the Constitution and have them stop acting like they know about it and uphold it.

Most people in Congress have not read the Constitution or understand it. Most our laws are in direct violation of it. Either have a convention and the laws/government or completely do away with the Constitution and have them stop acting like they know about it and uphold it.

 

i agree... the founders would be extremely disappointed if they ever knew what direction we moved the country in.

=the_gloaming09;3957201]I think that you need to take these lobbyists out. They keep adding in special interest programs within these bills which keeps creating more and more corruption. This has got to end soon because it will be one of the many reasons this country will fail.

>>Well, how do we take the lobbyists out? Will Congress pass a law to keep them out? That's the question.

 

 

 

I think spending needs to stop, and there needs to be smaller government. These bailouts (not all) but some were a big mistake... bailing out companies to save them that in return used that money to give bonuses. In some regard let the market go it's course, the companies that work right will flourish and the ones that don't will fail, as they should.

>> Fair enough. But to limit spending, wouldn't we need to control the feedback loop that keeps demanding spending on certain things, and then feeds money back into politics?

If we hadn't had the bailouts, the claim is that the whole economy here would have collapsed, and with it the global economy. Perhaps the firms are too big to fail - and have dis-economies of scale? One suggestion (by Eliot Spitzer) was to break up the big firms, to limit their concentration of power, and create real competition between the new "banks". Would this be possible, and how?

>>Well, how do we take the lobbyists out? Will Congress pass a law to keep them out? That's the question.

 

I don't know if you can take the lobbyists out. It's so integrated within the system it'd probably be near impossible. I think that Congress should pass a law that Lobbyists are not allowed within the legislative process and that laws should be passes solely on the purpose for the people. I doubt that Congress will pass a law because of the lobbyist helping with current laws. But it would be more fair. Ultimately it should be up to the people to let their elected officials know what they think of a certain bill.

 

 

>> Fair enough. But to limit spending, wouldn't we need to control the feedback loop that keeps demanding spending on certain things, and then feeds money back into politics?

If we hadn't had the bailouts, the claim is that the whole economy here would have collapsed, and with it the global economy. Perhaps the firms are too big to fail - and have dis-economies of scale? One suggestion (by Eliot Spitzer) was to break up the big firms, to limit their concentration of power, and create real competition between the new "banks". Would this be possible, and how?

Perhaps the whole economy would've collapsed. I think that we should've had the initial bailouts to help the banks out, but some of these companies should've wen't out of business. It was the small businesses that started this country and with all the big companies it seems almost impossible. Perhaps you're right in that some of them are too big to allow them to fail. Even so these CEO's should be somehow reprimanded for their poor use of spending.

 

We just have to though stop borrowing from China. Glenn Beck brought up an interesting factoid recently. In WWI England was in such debt that the US bought the debt. They were at the time a massive empire. However the US bought so much of Englands, debt that by the end of WWII we were able to pretty much tell England what they should do. And now they are no longer the mighty empire controlling bits all around the world as they once were. If we keep going in the direction we are now China will become the new superpower (if they aren't already).

If we hadn't had the bailouts, the claim is that the whole economy here would have collapsed, and with it the global economy.

 

Like it did in the major crisis in history that didn't have bailouts? Most often when their is not a bail out at first their is a sharp sudden decline, a quick depression then the problems are solved and a quick recovery. When you bail out you only slow down the decline, then slow down and retard the recovery. History has shown a quick deep depression in the long run is more healthy then a long drawn out reccession/depression/recession-then slow recovery.

 

If Japan had a quick collapse, no one bailed out the assets would have passed on to the competent and the ones capable of producing efficiently, allowing wealth to be built and spread around the nation. But when you step in and bailout you keep the money/power/assets in the hands of the fools who caused the problem bringing about more problems, as we've seen Japan have for over 2o years now.

 

Charles, we don't suspend all our doctors in America and replace them with mentally retarded hobo's and then wonder why the medical system is in such a mess. You can't expect efficiency, productivity and wealth creation to come from the worst people holding the power and assets. That has been the plague upon Japan, instead of dealing with it, they threw copious amounts of money at the incompetent in government and the private sector not allowing the efficient to do what they must to move the economy along, and in the end create wealth and jobs.

 

We just have to though stop borrowing from China. Glenn Beck brought up an interesting factoid recently. In WWI England was in such debt that the US bought the debt. They were at the time a massive empire. However the US bought so much of Englands, debt that by the end of WWII we were able to pretty much tell England what they should do. And now they are no longer the mighty empire controlling bits all around the world as they once were. If we keep going in the direction we are now China will become the new superpower (if they aren't already).

 

If we can't borrow, we can't spend and bailout. People want government spend like crazy, yet not to borrow? Our economy has had such a long period of the incompetent controlling the major sectors, that we've lost productivity, thus a large amount of the ability to create wealth. Without creating wealth, the government shouldn't massively expand and borrow. It's like getting your salary cut along with hours and increasing your spending by putting everything on a credit card. Eventually it will come back and bite you in the ass.

 

Then with a war upon our productivity we cannot for the sake of the economy tax more. For that would only increase the decline in real wealth creation. Thus the solution, tax less and spend less because the other options always lead to bankruptcy and ruin.

Well, then to reform it, what would truly work best? Unlikely as you say that Congress would limit their lobbyists, and outside of that then, what do you think would work?

True - small and medium-sized companies started with the beginning, and some grew large and powerful over time. But given the size of these firms now, "too big to fail" means market forces can't truly work, and eliminate the bad actors. Breaking them up is Spitzer's argument, but would a congress beholden to them in part be willing to do that for the sake of the country?

The comparisons of England & the U.S., vs. U.S. & China with the buying of debt might be part of the equation, but England began loosing colonies in Africa shortly after WWII, and was partly devastated from the effects of the war. Lots of other factors may have been involved as well. But if we are to limit spending to limit the need to sell bonds to China and elsewhere, then how best to accomplish that? And who is really buying the bulk of the U.S. bonds - the Chinese people, the Chinese government, or Chinese business owners?

tl;dr

First of all Gov't spending needs to stop/slow down. The wars in Iraq and Afganistan were terrible decisions financially because of how much money we put to those efforts. Now Obama keeps having these bailouts and spending more and more money. This is why I don't like Obama and the democrats because they just think that continuous spending is the solution to the problem. Like Nick mentioned in the end it's like a credit card that will bite you in the ass.

 

Secondly Obama needs to get his head straight and focus on the economy and jobs. He spent almost all of his first year focusing on healthcare, and issue which only a small majority are in trouble with... the majority of Americans seem happy with it. It's only been until now that he's realized "oh... jobs are important to work on". We need to create jobs, and at the same time stop outsourcing. Perhaps give an incentive to companies that if they do not outsource they will get a big tax break, or if they continue to outsource taxes increase.

 

Of course I am neither a politician, economist, or anything. I just follow the news and make the best decision I can on what I see. I dunno what the answer is but clearly what we are doing now is not the answer.

But given the size of these firms now, "too big to fail" means market forces can't truly work,

 

No such thing as "too big to fail". It means "Too big off an effect(affect?) on my wallet, election, friends wallet, election, other friends company and easy money". The "too big to fails" would hurt their industry and many wealthy people in this nation, and no one wants to piss off the rich, especially when they've bought the elections and politicians. "Too big to fail" is Keynesian words for too big to fail for the elites. In the long run letting the "Too big to fails" actually fail has proven to be good for the average joe and economy. You let the fools who can't do anything right, work for the one who can, creating wealth and spreading it around. That term is one of the biggest lies created in human history, to rape and pillage our citizens of their rights and money. It's a con by the elite in government and private sector working together.

 

England began loosing colonies in Africa shortly after WWII, and was partly devastated from the effects of the war.

Colonies cost too much, sucking wealth from the nation. It was in England's overall economic benefit to lose it's empire.

 

But if we are to limit spending to limit the need to sell bonds to China and elsewhere, then how best to accomplish that? And who is really buying the bulk of the U.S. bonds - the Chinese people, the Chinese government, or Chinese business owners?

 

Well, we'd have to massively cut spending and size of government to free up money to pay back our loans. What we will do is print our way out, which isn't technically a default but just as bad.

 

China has greatly slowed their purchases of Treasuries along with most the world. The Federal Reserve bought about 80% of Treasuries last year! We are printing money, to buy our own bonds! That has never worked out well in the end. In fact the Fed was 150% of the Mortgage Backed Security(MBS) market last year. So basically the Fed has been the bond market, printing trillions to support it. China has said not to do this, sound money or they'd stop buying our bonds. They still hold a large amount of Treasuries but probably won't buy many more new ones.

Like it did in the major crisis in history that didn't have bailouts? Most often when their is not a bail out at first their is a sharp sudden decline, a quick depression then the problems are solved and a quick recovery. When you bail out you only slow down the decline, then slow down and retard the recovery. History has shown a quick deep depression in the long run is more healthy then a long drawn out reccession/depression/recession-then slow recovery.

 

If Japan had a quick collapse, no one bailed out the assets would have passed on to the competent and the ones capable of producing efficiently, allowing wealth to be built and spread around the nation. But when you step in and bailout you keep the money/power/assets in the hands of the fools who caused the problem bringing about more problems, as we've seen Japan have for over 2o years now.

Perhaps you're right Nick, but when the concentration of wealth is in a very, very few major players, then the fear and panic may have caused such a contraction, and with it runs on all stocks, a curtailing of purchases, and a cycle of unemployment unseen in this country or in any other country. How long it might have lasted seems speculative to me. True - we haven't gotten rid of the main trouble, but the alternative looked pretty disaster prone. Hindsight now. At this point in time, what then?

 

Charles, we don't suspend all our doctors in America and replace them with mentally retarded hobo's and then wonder why the medical system is in such a mess. You can't expect efficiency, productivity and wealth creation to come from the worst people holding the power and assets. That has been the plague upon Japan, instead of dealing with it, they threw copious amounts of money at the incompetent in government and the private sector not allowing the efficient to do what they must to move the economy along, and in the end create wealth and jobs.

Hobos might actually do a better job because they know what it feels like to have medical problems, but that's another matter.. To let the raw market forces do what they may - that's one of the options the leaders chose not to take. Given that the same or worse house of cards has been set up, we may come to this point again! But is there another way forward? Would a convention or amendment change the game enough to correct the problems without a major train wreck?

 

 

 

If we can't borrow, we can't spend and bailout. People want government spend like crazy, yet not to borrow? Our economy has had such a long period of the incompetent controlling the major sectors, that we've lost productivity, thus a large amount of the ability to create wealth. Without creating wealth, the government shouldn't massively expand and borrow. It's like getting your salary cut along with hours and increasing your spending by putting everything on a credit card. Eventually it will come back and bite you in the ass.

That's an interesting look at it, Nick! But spending when a recession hits makes sense if the rebound will boost the economy enough to pay back the borrowed money, plus some economic gain. I'm all for cutting the federal budget if that helps, but not equally as some like to do - there's a difference between cutting aid for critical things vs. pork-barrel projects.

Stopping that massive expansion, and the massive incompetence is the question then. How best to accomplish that?

 

Then with a war upon our productivity we cannot for the sake of the economy tax more. For that would only increase the decline in real wealth creation. Thus the solution, tax less and spend less because the other options always lead to bankruptcy and ruin.

I'm not asking to tax more - I agree we should tax less. I do however feel that the tax burden needs to be distributed more equitably, and the cuts need to be made where the most wasteful areas are. But taxing and spending less is only possible if the government is responsive to our will as citizens, is it not? How do we get to this point?

I'm not asking to tax more - I agree we should tax less. I do however feel that the tax burden needs to be distributed more equitably, and the cuts need to be made where the most wasteful areas are. But taxing and spending less is only possible if the government is responsive to our will as citizens, is it not? How do we get to this point?

 

the government will continue doing what it's doing. People will revolt eventually. We can already see from the elections in Virginia, NJ, and Massachusets that people are not happy especially with the whole health care plan. Perhaps it's a wake up call for them to realize the people are not happy w/ business as usual. Our elected officials need to be listening to the people that voted them in, instead of the special interest groups.

How do we get to this point?

 

By massively decreasing the size of government. The only way is to get voters to get more involved and vote in fiscally responsible congressmen who will cut the size of government and the spending. The bigger government gets the less it is capable of listening to its citizens. OR we can wait til the shit hits the fan and we collapse and there is no way we can have the government the size it is and is forced to massively downsize. Which will kill the economy.

 

I do however feel that the tax burden needs to be distributed more equitably,

 

If is what you truly want, the rich would pay less and the poor more. Because even if you hate it the rich pay almost all the taxes in the nation. Only fair tax is a sales tax.

I totally agree w/ you nick

I totally agree w/ you nick

 

Great minds.......or something like that.:cool:

the government will continue doing what it's doing. People will revolt eventually. We can already see from the elections in Virginia, NJ, and Massachusets that people are not happy especially with the whole health care plan. Perhaps it's a wake up call for them to realize the people are not happy w/ business as usual. Our elected officials need to be listening to the people that voted them in, instead of the special interest groups.

Sure, people aren't happy - who can blame them! But picking from the other side of a revolving door doesn't change the way the door works. Maybe the choice they have made will be worse than before - it's happened before! Revolutions don't always come out for the better either. Roulette.

It might have that effect - to wake people up - but is that alone enough to get incumbents to do the right thing? Hmm. It might, or it might not. Considering that the money falls towards both sides, no matter who gets in, they would have to be working against the money that backs them..

Yes, I would love for them to listen to our will! That's why I keep thinking an amendment to limit the money in politics might be the answer - to work against their moneyed backers sounds like a bit of long shot, given the nature of the machine.. Or should it be called The Matrix?

Great minds.......or something like that.:cool:

 

haha exactly.

 

 

Sure, people aren't happy - who can blame them! But picking from the other side of a revolving door doesn't change the way the door works. Maybe the choice they have made will be worse than before - it's happened before! Revolutions don't always come out for the better either. Roulette.

It might have that effect - to wake people up - but is that alone enough to get incumbents to do the right thing? Hmm. It might, or it might not. Considering that the money falls towards both sides, no matter who gets in, they would have to be working against the money that backs them..

Yes, I would love for them to listen to our will! That's why I keep thinking an amendment to limit the money in politics might be the answer - to work against their moneyed backers sounds like a bit of long shot, given the nature of the machine.. Or should it be called The Matrix?

 

I see what you mean by revolutions not working for the best, but at this point I don't really see any other way for things to be different. The government will continue doing what it's doing unless people start to speak up and act.

 

What ideally we need is a politician that is truthful and someone who does for the good of the people and country rather than special interests. But that's like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

No such thing as "too big to fail". It means "Too big off an effect(affect?) on my wallet, election, friends wallet, election, other friends company and easy money". The "too big to fails" would hurt their industry and many wealthy people in this nation, and no one wants to piss off the rich, especially when they've bought the elections and politicians. "Too big to fail" is Keynesian words for too big to fail for the elites. In the long run letting the "Too big to fails" actually fail has proven to be good for the average joe and economy. You let the fools who can't do anything right, work for the one who can, creating wealth and spreading it around. That term is one of the biggest lies created in human history, to rape and pillage our citizens of their rights and money. It's a con by the elite in government and private sector working together.

 

..As all the major players has houses of cards built just like the next guy's, I think the immediate panic would have collapsed them all, and spread throughout the markets. It's not that they shouldn't have failed, but the consequences would have been so severe as to have been very disabling for a time to many people the world over. Yes, I do think poorly managed investment firms, businesses, etc. should be allowed to fail, but given their enormity, they were most of the market. But that's all water over the spillway - given the fact they they're sill operating with the same flawed principles, then what do we do now? Can the influence buying be stopped so legislation is strengthened and enforced to break up these near-monopolistic entities? Would an amendment limiting the influence of money do it, and would we be better off pressuring legislators to get there, or state conventions?

 

 

Colonies cost too much, sucking wealth from the nation. It was in England's overall economic benefit to lose it's empire.

How so? Extracting valuable minerals while reimbursing the citizens living in the colonies very little, while unfair, sounds like a way to prop up an economy controlling those resources - no? I think the loss of the colonies would have reduced England's economic strength at the time - although the areas under control certainly deserved their independence, just as we did as a former colony.

 

 

Well, we'd have to massively cut spending and size of government to free up money to pay back our loans. What we will do is print our way out, which isn't technically a default but just as bad.

Yes, we do do the daffy things first. But the printing of money does help some sectors of the economy - logging companies and paper mills that make the paper the money is printed on, and the ink companies do pretty well!:laugh3:

 

China has greatly slowed their purchases of Treasuries along with most the world. The Federal Reserve bought about 80% of Treasuries last year! We are printing money, to buy our own bonds! That has never worked out well in the end. In fact the Fed was 150% of the Mortgage Backed Security(MBS) market last year. So basically the Fed has been the bond market, printing trillions to support it. China has said not to do this, sound money or they'd stop buying our bonds. They still hold a large amount of Treasuries but probably won't buy many more new ones.

Yes, that is bizarre. The government could cash them in, but then it would only be paying itself in the end!:laugh3: Who dreamed up this creative accounting method??

haha exactly.

 

 

 

 

I see what you mean by revolutions not working for the best, but at this point I don't really see any other way for things to be different. The government will continue doing what it's doing unless people start to speak up and act.

 

What ideally we need is a politician that is truthful and someone who does for the good of the people and country rather than special interests. But that's like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

Unless people start to speak up and act - true. We may be at that point. But the direction that takes is what I'm asking. It may need to be more sever before anyone takes corrective action, but then again, it seems as good a time as any to act.

YES!! Getting the selection process to favor the honest candidates with the best ideas, not ones that work for the special interest groups - that's the question. If we use enough iron, we might find that the stack is stacked in favor of needles.;)

Unless people start to speak up and act - true. We may be at that point. But the direction that takes is what I'm asking. It may need to be more sever before anyone takes corrective action, but then again, it seems as good a time as any to act.

YES!! Getting the selection process to favor the honest candidates with the best ideas, not ones that work for the special interest groups - that's the question. If we use enough iron, we might find that the stack is stacked in favor of needles.;)

 

ha... it's just filtering out all the hay to find those needles.

 

finding an honest politician is so hard to come by. It would be so great to have someone tell the people the truth of what is happening even if it was ugly. I would at least have a lot more respect. If I was running I would say that I can't promise anything, but will try to the best of my ability to get things done right. of course I'd never run for office.

 

Though many people wouldn't vote for someone who can't make a promise, I'd have more respect because at least they have a realistic approach to politics in that promises are broken ALL the time

ha... it's just filtering out all the hay to find those needles.

 

finding an honest politician is so hard to come by. It would be so great to have someone tell the people the truth of what is happening even if it was ugly. I would at least have a lot more respect. If I was running I would say that I can't promise anything, but will try to the best of my ability to get things done right. of course I'd never run for office.

It's the process more than the people I think. Make the playing field level, and turn on the lights - then we would have a better way of knowing who's who, and if they would work for us or not. I think many of them want to do the right things, but fear and expediency makes them side with the lobbyists.

Though many people wouldn't vote for someone who can't make a promise, I'd have more respect because at least they have a realistic approach to politics in that promises are broken ALL the time

Today, I think this would be a top selling point! No promises, except the promise to work for the will of the people.. I don't see why not - by now, one would think the average citizen's level of cynicism is at an all-time high. Who wouldn't want to vote for an honest broker? You would face enormous sums of money spent on TV ads, radio spots, and the like, which makes it extremely difficult to succeed though.. That's where I think we need to start - by limiting the money behind the scenes - maybe even offer free air time, in exchange for the broadcaster's privilege of using the frequencies they do.

*bump* :)