schlaufuchs
Break My Heart
Ummm proportional representation and limits on campaign contributions.
I think simplifying the job itself would be a much better solution. The corruption just isn't worth it.No, they do need time to really get to know the job. Just not unlimited time.
Ummm proportional representation and limits on campaign contributions.
I think simplifying the job itself would be a much better solution. The corruption just isn't worth it.
No, they do need time to really get to know the job. Just not unlimited time.
Why?
Isn't this the same thing as #1?
How would this help?
What IS a rolling balanced budget?
This I can agree with, but 18 is too many. Not sure if 4 is enough though. Maybe 8?
The member of Congress should only get support from the people they represent.
Not quite. 2 parts of covering the same thing.
Too many districts are drawn to benefit one party over the other. This does not allow people to have their views represented.
It's a mistake to balance the budget in every year. But over time the budget does need to be balanced. A rolling balanced budget means that for any 10 years in a row, the budget averages out to balanced.
Members of Congress do take time to master the job.
I find it kind of restrictive to free enterprise to forbid donating to congressmen freely. What kind of a punishment would you use for that?
The only difference I saw was "Except your local representative" was removed in #2.
How would we accurately draw them without bias? It seems to me that means they should all be the same size in population, or as close as possible. But how do you do that?
Utlimately, we should probably just pick a way to do the districts, and leave them as is forever. That way, there would be no redrawing to benefit parties.
Why is balancing it every year a mistake? I think a better philosophy is only spend what you have.
By year 18, you are pretty much already corrupt. I agree 4 years isn't enough time, but isn't the senate or house easier than the Presidency? I think 8 years is enough.
Members of Congress represent the American people. Not businesses.
Maybe it can't be done entirely. But the less bias the better.
Representation changes as the Census tells us that the population changes.
It makes recessions much worse. For no real gain.
Whatever.
Not going into debt?
Is that a word of agreement, or agreeing to disagree?
I don't agree, but not strongly enough to argue it further.
That's not a very convincing argument.2. Increasing the Size of the House: Personally, I think legislatures work best when everyone knows who everyone is. That means voters know who their guy in congress is, and those guys in congress know each other. Increasing the size of Congress would make that harder.
That sounds great in theory, but often turned out to be somewhat dangerous when people actually tried it...[...] killing all members present. Elect real people.
Corporations and unions aren't just any groups. They receive special protections from the state (limited individual liability for investors in a corporation, government enforced bargaining rights for unions). At the Framing, corporations were very unfavored entities and seen as creatures of narrow grants of privilege from the state. It would likely seem strange to the Framers that state-chartered entities should have the same degree of liberty as an individual or an unincorporated association of people. If you want to donate as a collective, do it as an unincorporated association.Well Citizens United http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission is a very recent decision so you can't blame it for the current state of Congress. Also if i may take an unpopular position, it is the correct decision. You can donate to candidates, but not as part of a group? It does appear to violate the first amendment. Why would you lose your free speech rights when you join together with others?
metatron said:That sounds great in theory, but often turned out to be somewhat dangerous when people actually tried it...
Corporations and unions aren't just any groups. They receive special protections from the state (limited individual liability for investors in a corporation, government enforced bargaining rights for unions). At the Framing, corporations were very unfavored entities and seen as creatures of narrow grants of privilege from the state. It would likely seem strange to the Framers that state-chartered entities should have the same degree of liberty as an individual or an unincorporated association of people. If you want to donate as a collective, do it as an unincorporated association.
Thats a good post and you made a good point. However my personal problem with it is you take citizens, who make up unions and corporations, and you end up limited their free speech rights. I think the concerns are understandable, but overblown. Some states already allowed this is state elections and we have yet to see the doomsday scenarios predicted. We can agree to disagree.
There is no restriction of foreigners owning corporations, but there are limits on foreign donations to campaigns. Also, corporations and unions are given special protections against other citizens. If you as a citizen are the sole owner of a corporation and your corporation breaches a contract with me, I can generally only sue and collect from the corporation. As a citizen, you are protected from me prevailing against you as an individual in such a situation. This is true even if your corporation doesn't have the assets to pay me in full for the lawsuit. If you want to strip that government protection away, then we can start talking about giving rights to corporations under some sort of association-of-citizens theory.Thats a good post and you made a good point. However my personal problem with it is you take citizens, who make up unions and corporations, and you end up limited their free speech rights.