Quote:
Originally Posted by mookiemookie
So long as the inmates are running the asylum, you're going to end up with laws that favor the upper class at the expense of everyone else. I say ban all campaign contributions that do not come from individuals. That'd be a great start.
|
I might agree with that as long as that includes unions, too. I'd then eliminate the cap though, as long as the money was 100% public. No limits on personal contributions, but they must be made in the open, for everyone to see. No organization can contribute in your name, so it's a 100% personal decision.
Of course open contributions would mean a union boss could check his guys contributions, and they could face sanctions for not toeing the line... As could management guys if they were the other way (Wall street splits money pretty evenly between parties on average, though).
Campaign stuff is non-trvial.
Putting Geithner in charge is definitely more of the same (compared to W).
<EDIT> On Topic: We spend about $20,000 per person at or below the poverty line for programs to help people at or below the poverty line. Could the government
improve outcomes with less money? I think so. So large cuts in spending, but large improvements for the poor into the bargain. Not talking about slashing what the poor GET, but slashing what we SPEND. The two things seem very disconnected. You can argue about ending any direct payouts to business, or eliminating the dept of agriculture, but I'll just agree they need to go away, too.