'how public union employees and taxpayers got scammed'

[ElKabong]

Good read

http://reason.com/archives/2011/02/24/how-public-employees-and-taxpa

Public employees have been cramming the Wisconsin state Capitol to protest the governor's plan to cut their take-home pay and gut their collective bargaining rights. You can't blame them for objecting when the state reneges on a deal. But they should have been protesting years ago, when politicians and union leaders struck a bargain that was too good to be true.

Government workers have long accepted a tradeoff. They get lower pay than they might get in the private sector, but better retirement benefits. They give up some current luxuries for more security later on. The great majority of them have pension plans with guaranteed payouts—an option that has largely disappeared from the private sector.

~~read the rest at the above link~~

[mostpost]

Republicans say Democrats are in bed with unions. Democrats say Republicans are in bed with big business. Both are right. What is the solution? No private contributions to specific political campaigns. A mandatory levy on everyone of voting age (registered or not.) The money collected to be divided among the political offices being contested in that election. Just as an example, say you would allot $100M to the national presidential campaign. 80% of that money would be divided equally among the Democratic and Republican candidates. The other 20% would be divided among third party candidates. US Senate and house races would be allocated according to the particular economy of the region. In other words it costs a lot less to campaign in South Dakota than in California.

A lot of details would need to be worked out, but I think this would be a good start. If both major party candidates had the same amount of money, then how efficiently they spent that money would be a good indicator of how good an office holder they might be.

[bigmack]

Republicans say Democrats are in bed with unions. Democrats say Republicans are in bed with big business.
This chart look a tad lopsided to you?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/chart1.png
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/chart2.png

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

[johnhannibalsmith]

Republicans say Democrats are in bed with unions. Democrats say Republicans are in bed with big business. Both are right. What is the solution? No private contributions to specific political campaigns. A mandatory levy on everyone of voting age (registered or not.) The money collected to be divided among the political offices being contested in that election. Just as an example, say you would allot $100M to the national presidential campaign. 80% of that money would be divided equally among the Democratic and Republican candidates. The other 20% would be divided among third party candidates. US Senate and house races would be allocated according to the particular economy of the region. In other words it costs a lot less to campaign in South Dakota than in California.

A lot of details would need to be worked out, but I think this would be a good start. If both major party candidates had the same amount of money, then how efficiently they spent that money would be a good indicator of how good an office holder they might be.

This is an excellent start. At least acknowledging the absurdity of it all means there is a chance at deconstructing the problems and approach the road to solutions. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[mostpost]

This chart look a tad lopsided to you?

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/chart1.png
http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/chart2.png

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
The difference is that Republicans have made no secret of their desire to totally destroy unions. Democrats, on the other hand, only want to make the playing field a little closer to fair. Kind of like the difference between the racing secretary assigning a powerful horse 130 lbs. or shooting him as he leaves the gate.
I do commend you on providing a meaningful post.

[bigmack]

I do commend you on providing a meaningful post.
:lol: You're about 2 notches below hcap in debate. My involvement on your side for a week showed how weak your side is. Step up your game to the best of your ability. :rolleyes:

You missed the point. Show me where "BigBiz" is behind Rep's with contributions.

[mostpost]

:lol: You're about 2 notches below hcap in debate. My involvement on your side for a week showed how weak your side is. Step up your game to the best of your ability. :rolleyes:

You missed the point. Show me where "BigBiz" is behind Rep's with contributions.

Thank you for honoring me by placing me only two notches below the great hcap. An insult would have been to place me 100 notches above (fill in any conservative name here)

I will show you tomorrow, unless something more important comes up.

[Mike at A+]

Republicans say Democrats are in bed with unions. Democrats say Republicans are in bed with big business. Both are right. What is the solution? No private contributions to specific political campaigns. A mandatory levy on everyone of voting age (registered or not.) The money collected to be divided among the political offices being contested in that election. Just as an example, say you would allot $100M to the national presidential campaign. 80% of that money would be divided equally among the Democratic and Republican candidates. The other 20% would be divided among third party candidates. US Senate and house races would be allocated according to the particular economy of the region. In other words it costs a lot less to campaign in South Dakota than in California.

A lot of details would need to be worked out, but I think this would be a good start. If both major party candidates had the same amount of money, then how efficiently they spent that money would be a good indicator of how good an office holder they might be.
Some very good ideas. I would take it a step further and make the candidates anonymous. Candidates put their policies in writing on the internet and every local newspaper. We don't know their names, we don't know their party affiliation, we don't know their nationality or skin color. We know them as "Candidate A from Party X", "Candidate B from Party Y" etc.

[boxcar]

The difference is that Republicans have made no secret of their desire to totally destroy unions. Democrats, on the other hand, only want to make the playing field a little closer to fair. Kind of like the difference between the racing secretary assigning a powerful horse 130 lbs. or shooting him as he leaves the gate.
I do commend you on providing a meaningful post.

And the the Dems aren't pandering to Unions for megabucks in contributions?
Unions are the Democrats's paymasters! :bang: :bang:

Dems love money. Money is their god. Never forget this. And the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.

Boxcar

[ElKabong]

on the surface, Mosty's suggestion looks ok. Then you think, what if an Adolph Hitler ran for pres...would you be ok with him getting taxpayer funds to get his "message" across? (The Germans were fooled) Not me.

[Capper Al]

Only registered voters as individuals should be allowed to contribute not corporations or unions. And they should only be able to donate to candidates that are on their own ballot that they may vote for, not some other district. These contributions should have an agreed upon fixed limit per race type, i.e the presidential candidates should be able to collect more money than the congressmen. That's it. Keep it simple.

[Capper Al]

The difference is that Republicans have made no secret of their desire to totally destroy unions. Democrats, on the other hand, only want to make the playing field a little closer to fair. Kind of like the difference between the racing secretary assigning a powerful horse 130 lbs. or shooting him as he leaves the gate.
I do commend you on providing a meaningful post.

Both Fox News and MSNBC have shown another donor list for the last election only. 7 out of the top ten donators where corporations. The other 3 were unions. What the posted list in this thread doesn't include is money spent on the indirect campaigns, or negative adds. The bottom line is the Republicans have a much better money machine than the Dems when all is added together.

How and when the money flows is important also. When the bankers wanted welfare in 2008, the corporation contribution either stopped from going to the Republicans or was sent to the Dems.

[Tom]

I sat, no contributions from anyone, period.
Let''s use the election process to see who is clever enough to figure out how get their message out without anyone helping them.

One man, one vote, nothing more. If someone want to further their cause, let them do it by convincing enough others to support it. No contribution to any candidate ever.

It is bribery.