Originally intended as a family blog it is now a more extended family place for civil discussions of religion and politics – you know those things we shouldn’t talk about and need to. It is also a free forum for any and all ideas included recent cat stories. Please share and comment as you see fit. You may contact me at hughdrennan@gmail.com to ask for writing privileges.
Tell it to millionaire candidates Steve Forbes and H. Ross Perot, who had unlimited personal campaign war chests... but the public decided it didn't like their message.
As long as more is being spent on dog food or cosmetics each year, there's really not much of a problem.
And as long as none of the "solutions" proposed involve censoring anything. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The "solution" proposed by "Move To Amend", an anti Citizens United group, includes the Federal government punishing people for criticizing candidates.
They want strict voter-photo-ID laws for average folks to vote and unlimited, anonymous campaign spending by the most powerful elites in the land who get to tell the average folks what to think. Sounds legit...
What if all the millions and billions that are going to electioneering now were actually going to something useful or productive? I wonder what this massive diversion of economic energy will cost the country. It's basically a new cost of government, a new tax.
OK so we're spending 5x as much on campaigns, it's not like government and politicians have gotten 5x better as a result. It's an unproductive diversion of economic energy that yields NO beneficial product.
Buddy Roemer ran for president in the GOP primaries this cycle. He refused all contributions over $100..same results as Forbes & Perot..with considerably more savings.
"...elites in the land who get to tell the average folks what to think. Sounds legit..."
Sorry, we still have a First Amendment. Which gives everyone, even those you single out for derision, the right to tell us things.
"What if all the millions and billions that are going to electioneering..."
Then we would have China, where the right of the people to speak out on such important matters as politics and elections (which you dismiss as "electioneering") is prohibited.
When all is said and done, the money spent on this most important matter is less than is spent on dog food or cosmetics.
If you want to save money, why not ban spending on cosmetics? You'd save more money, and you would not be killing open discourse among citizens.
"It's an unproductive diversion of economic energy that yields NO beneficial product."
That's the type of thing they say in China as one of the many reasons they can't let popular control, discussion, and decisions pollute their political process. Its just an inconvenience that gets in the way of the divine rule of the elites.
Tell it to millionaire candidates Steve Forbes and H. Ross Perot, who had unlimited personal campaign war chests... but the public decided it didn't like their message.
ReplyDeleteAs long as more is being spent on dog food or cosmetics each year, there's really not much of a problem.
And as long as none of the "solutions" proposed involve censoring anything. Unfortunately, this is not the case. The "solution" proposed by "Move To Amend", an anti Citizens United group, includes the Federal government punishing people for criticizing candidates.
They want strict voter-photo-ID laws for average folks to vote and unlimited, anonymous campaign spending by the most powerful elites in the land who get to tell the average folks what to think. Sounds legit...
ReplyDeleteWhat if all the millions and billions that are going to electioneering now were actually going to something useful or productive? I wonder what this massive diversion of economic energy will cost the country. It's basically a new cost of government, a new tax.
OK so we're spending 5x as much on campaigns, it's not like government and politicians have gotten 5x better as a result. It's an unproductive diversion of economic energy that yields NO beneficial product.
Buddy Roemer ran for president in the GOP primaries this cycle. He refused all contributions over $100..same results as Forbes & Perot..with considerably more savings.
ReplyDelete"...elites in the land who get to tell the average folks what to think. Sounds legit..."
ReplyDeleteSorry, we still have a First Amendment. Which gives everyone, even those you single out for derision, the right to tell us things.
"What if all the millions and billions that are going to electioneering..."
Then we would have China, where the right of the people to speak out on such important matters as politics and elections (which you dismiss as "electioneering") is prohibited.
When all is said and done, the money spent on this most important matter is less than is spent on dog food or cosmetics.
If you want to save money, why not ban spending on cosmetics? You'd save more money, and you would not be killing open discourse among citizens.
"It's an unproductive diversion of economic energy that yields NO beneficial product."
That's the type of thing they say in China as one of the many reasons they can't let popular control, discussion, and decisions pollute their political process. Its just an inconvenience that gets in the way of the divine rule of the elites.