Change we can believe in.

I believe that in order to start chipping away at the corruption which is our government, there are a couple things that should be implemented.

Term limits. That is the first place we should start.

Next, and I will use President Obama as an example, as he is the most prevalent, since he is seeking re-election. President Obama is trying to raise one billion dollars 1,000,000,000.00 for his campaign. Tell me how that in itself does not reek of corruption. That is one billion favors that he will owe someone.

I have a solution, though. We should end contributions to campaigns. We should have a government owned channel that will post commercials 24 hours a day, for anyone who wants to watch, or be brainwashed. If it is on a specific channel, then the less politically inclined would not have to watch, or miss their favorite program.
New sources and media would not be allowed to show favoritism towards a certain candidate, and would have to remain unbiased in any dealings towards said candidates, or else face a fine by the FCC.
If the candidates are allowed a specific allotted amount to use on campaigning, and it would be deemed against the law to accept funds from anyone towards the campaign, and if violated, it would be treated as a bribe, and both the contributer and the candidate would receive jail time, and the candidate would be nullified. as a presidential hopeful. That being said, we should expand our voting system, to allow more than one person the opportunity to represent a party. We, the people, should be able to vote, and let the majority rule on election day.
Its a start, and it is change I can believe in. Feel free to discuss.

You have to see past this two party oligarchy, you have to see past this stupid soap opera called politics. With it's meaningless talk, and it's corruption. Seems like the presidents on a reality t.v. show now days. Ever wonder why all the presidents are "moving forward" and not charging people like bush and Cheney for war crimes? Ever wonder why we're firing teachers to balance the budget, but we just got into another war, built a new laser gun, and paying and building new killing machines, most of which we're not even aloud to know about?

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people."
Theodore Roosevelt
www.brainyquote.com...

This mans warning has gone unheard.

I just wonder why none of our fine politicians are willing to do the right thing and use their mountains of cash from campaign donations to help pay off the countries debt...

That would be some good "change" for the country, yes?

Its no secret that they are living quite comfortably in life and if they were really interested in "change" and fixing this country why not contribute the donation money towards paying off the debt of the country?

The right thing for them to do is put their money where their mouths are and try campaining in a manner of showing they are the RIGHT person for the job and NOT winning because they have the biggest mountain of donation cash...

Right? Yes?

Politicians, limit their own terms, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, It's been tried they won't pass it. You really think that they will limit their own access to the gravy train that is the government. Think they will give up the graft that comes from the lobbists. Truely you must be young and idealistic.
Sorry dude don't really mean to be insulting. I've been around a few years and It ain't gonna happen. That's not to say it doesn't need to happen but they aren't going to do it.

Money talks, Bull# walks....

Originally posted by lonegurkha
Politicians, limit their own terms, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, It's been tried they won't pass it. You really think that they will limit their own access to the gravy train that is the government. Think they will give up the graft that comes from the lobbists. Truely you must be young and idealistic.
Sorry dude don't really mean to be insulting. I've been around a few years and It ain't gonna happen. That's not to say it doesn't need to happen but they aren't going to do it.

edit on 4/9/2011 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

I am not that young. I only stated that I believe that is something that should happen. Of course they would never go for it.

reply to post by thorazineshuffle


Unfortunately should and would are two different things. The barrel of money that the lobbists dole out will see that it never happens. After all, the incumbants only need to be bought once, then they are owned because any disclosure of their graft acceptance will end their career. I used to wonder how a politician with an average amount of money could, after a couple of years in office, be suddenly wealthy. When I followed the money and saw the changes in their political positions, I had my answer. I have thought for a number of years now that the system can't be changed.

Today we are seeing the exit of our constitutional rights. Bills like the patriot act have gutted the constitution. We are seeing the end of the great american experiment with a democratic republic. Tyranny will reign in the very near future.

Originally posted by thorazineshuffle
Term limits. That is the first place we should start.

We have term limits. The people just fail to exercise them. But I guess we could use one more thing the Government needs to control because it is becoming more and more obvious that the American people just cannot handle self-government and personal responsibility.

Next, and I will use President Obama as an example, as he is the most prevalent, since he is seeking re-election. President Obama is trying to raise one billion dollars 1,000,000,000.00 for his campaign. Tell me how that in itself does not reek of corruption. That is one billion favors that he will owe someone.

It gives a strong perception of corruption indeed and in politics...perception is everything.

I have a solution, though. We should end contributions to campaigns. We should have a government owned channel that will post commercials 24 hours a day, for anyone who wants to watch, or be brainwashed. If it is on a specific channel, then the less politically inclined would not have to watch, or miss their favorite program.

Surprisingly I think that politicians would love this. It gives them political cover and keeps the sheep focused on whatever pathetic television program is currently retaining the attention of the people. In a Constitutional Republic, the need for the People to be engaged in and understand politics is much higher than any other type of system. The corruption and junk we see today in Washington is a direct result of the People being "less politically inclined
and always catch their favorite program.

New sources and media would not be allowed to show favoritism towards a certain candidate, and would have to remain unbiased in any dealings towards said candidates, or else face a fine by the FCC.

So....restrict free speech? This was struck down out of the current atrocious Campaign Finance Law via the Citizen's United ruling. This would also further perpetuate the notion that the Government (FCC) 'owns' the airwaves (the air all around you).

The People here are again to blame. We all continue to provide 'news' stations with ratings by watching them, so they continue the model of blending news with opinion. Maybe its because we see an entertainment value in it. Sort of a quasi reality program. Start exercising your consumer powers and reject the models presented by the major networks and we might see some semblance of unbiased journalism return.

What about if I start a blog and it becomes popular. Am I barred from throwing in my support for a candidate?

If the candidates are allowed a specific allotted amount to use on campaigning, and it would be deemed against the law to accept funds from anyone towards the campaign, and if violated, it would be treated as a bribe, and both the contributer and the candidate would receive jail time, and the candidate would be nullified.

No need for due process right? Just assume its a bribe and throw em in jail! If candidates are allowed a certain amount to spend, but are unable to accept contributions, are you proposing that only self-sufficient candidates that can maintain a campaign and its cost be allowed to run? So much for inclusion of all the People. By your plan, only those well enough off would be able to run due to the restriction and instant jail without due process could run for any office.

That being said, we should expand our voting system, to allow more than one person the opportunity to represent a party. We, the people, should be able to vote, and let the majority rule on election day.
Its a start, and it is change I can believe in. Feel free to discuss.

Then start voting in your gubernatorial elections. It is also to note that a person is not barred from running if they didn't make the primary. Those are just for the major parties to choose their front-runner. A person can still represent a party if they didn't make the primary, just not in a official capacity. So what? I will agree it is high time to break the paradigm of party voting and thinking they must be backed by one or the other to be viable.

With all that, I commend you for presenting a plan. Even if I disagree with it. You aren't complaining, you are attempting to provide solutions.