Comments on: Do these look in need of subsidies?

By: Jack Lohman

Jack Lohman — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:25:39 +0000

Oh, please, you clearly must know better than that. Campaign checks were handed out on the floor of congress and nobody went to jail. If cash didn’t buy favors it wouldn’t be given. And if you don’t know the codewords for cash, then I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.

By: Shoebox

Shoebox — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:10:53 +0000

Well, there’s lobbying and there’s “lobbying.” Last I looked, cash in hand was and is still illegal…just ask Jack Abramoff.

By: Jack Lohman

Jack Lohman — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:44:26 +0000

Yeah, Shoebox, but lobbying and lobbying with cash in hand are two very different things. The former is needed; the latter is corrupt.

By: Shoebox

Shoebox — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:40:15 +0000

I think the local versus national is more a function of the time. There really wasn’t any “national” i.e. TV, radio even newspapers…everything was very local. I’d also be willing to bet the “lobbying” was no less intense.

By: steveegg

steveegg — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:28:01 +0000

On the national level, there wasn’t a lot of money flowing into politics back then. Locally, that’s another story.

By: Jack Lohman

Jack Lohman — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:25:31 +0000

I guess, Shoebox, McCain has to noodle it too. He supports it.

It puzzles me that otherwise sharp people can support our pay-to-play political system when they wouldn’t accept the identical corruption if it occurred in their own business. It’s called “spending your employer’s (taxpayers) money for payola money on the side (campaign contributions).”

Go figure.

By: Shoebox

Shoebox — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:19:02 +0000

Aw come on Steve, are you saying that the era of Rockefeller and other industrial magnates was bereft of money influence in politics?

By: steveegg

steveegg — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:06:10 +0000

Public financing? Surely you can’t be serious (or are you Shirley?). The last entity that should be running campaigns is government.

The problem is not necessarily the amount of money, or even its source, but its necessity due to the power of government. If government were the size it was in, say, 1908, we wouldn’t need to discuss campaign finance “reform”.

By: Shoebox

Shoebox — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:35:30 +0000

Jack,
Eye’s are rolling…I’ve got to noodle that one a bit

Dad29, I know but they’re the team we’ve got and there are some who still have backbones.

By: dad29

dad29 — Tue, 06 May 2008 14:27:54 +0000

It's time for Republicans to show some backbone republicans....backbone....same sentence. WRONG!!

By: Jack Lohman

Jack Lohman — Tue, 06 May 2008 13:57:18 +0000

Shoebox, even McCain is unhappy with the McCain-Feingold bill. It was hijacked and gutted by McConnell and DeLay and the 527’s came out on top. Trouble is, they didn’t expect the Dems to do better at raising money from the wackos.

But there is a solution, and it’s called public funding of campaigns, which McCain supports. And before you roll your eyes, it costs just $5 per taxpayer per year (which is a hell of a lot less than the $1300 per taxpayer it is currently costing us in special interest favors).

See http://www.wicleanelections.org/opposing-arguments.html for more details.

By: Shoebox

Shoebox — Tue, 06 May 2008 13:39:38 +0000

Jack,
No disagreement on the impact of money influencing at all levels. However I think it’s tilting at windmills to suggest there’s a way to fix it without significant unintended consequences i.e. McCain and 527s. I’m of the belief that the solution to this problem will only be solved over a long time by refocusing at the local level and “rearing” folks who are principled conservatives…it may be just as much wishful thinking as others but I think it is more likely to generate some benefits sooner.

By: Jack Lohman

Jack Lohman — Tue, 06 May 2008 13:28:58 +0000

Well, Shoebox, I’m a McCain supporter and No, I don’t think Barack or Hillary will fix it. Nor will McCain, unless we get the money out of the political system (as he’d like to do). But right now the politicians on both sides of the isle are owned mostly by the corporate interests who outspend unions by 7-to-1. And they own the democrats too. The problem is that our politicians are NOT owned by the people, and until we fix that we can only expect more of the same.

By: Shoebox

Shoebox — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:56:52 +0000

Jack,
The MSM must be providing your definitions. Conservatives don’t belive in corporate welfare. Moneyed political system? Have you looked at whose getting money from where lately? It’s not even Repulicans, let alone conservatives. But the one I love “tax breaks for the rich.” Taxes for people who don’t pay taxes is called welfare, another thing us awful Conservatives think ought to be seriously reduced.

If you think any of what you ID will be fixed with Barack or Hillary, you’re up for some real disappointing times ahead.

By: Jack Lohman

Jack Lohman — Tue, 06 May 2008 12:13:48 +0000

Price subsidies are not needed, they are bought and paid for by special interests. Check the campaign contributions of Archer Daniels Midland and you’ll get the picture. But conservatives have protected our moneyed political system for years because it also fosters tax breaks for the rich. How are you liking the results so far? How long do you think our country can stay on top with our corrupt political system driving us to the bottom?