PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Jaybird180 on October 28, 2015, 06:18:00 AM
-
This is an article about the hush-money that Congressman Hastert paid to keep quiet about a past indiscretion - $3.5m.
http://www.wrex.com/story/30371422/2015/10/28/hastert-set-to-plead-guilty-in-hush-money-case (http://www.wrex.com/story/30371422/2015/10/28/hastert-set-to-plead-guilty-in-hush-money-case)
My point in bringing this up is that I am an advocate of integrity in politics. The man made a past mistake, fine but it's the lying and the cover-up that I can't stand ('let him among us without sin cast the first stone').
The question for discussion - who would vote for a politician with 'average Joe' money?
-
I hate to say it, and some of my colleagues will jump on me I'm sure but the money is really starting to kill our political system. The "donor class" is steering politics and government at this point and the citizenry be damned. Remember Obama saying those on Wall Street should be in prison? Who went to prison? Where is Eric Holder working now?
We're now seeing the money influence the polls on the "R" side of things in Iowa. The Club for Growth did a huge buy to run ads against Trump and true to form his number have plummeted in Iowa. I'll bet they thought it would help Jeb, but instead it boosted Carson to the lead.
-
I hate to say it, and some of my colleagues will jump on me I'm sure but the money is really starting to kill our political system. The "donor class" is steering politics and government at this point and the citizenry be damned. Remember Obama saying those on Wall Street should be in prison? Who went to prison? Where is Eric Holder working now?
We're now seeing the money influence the polls on the "R" side of things in Iowa. The Club for Growth did a huge buy to run ads against Trump and true to form his number have plummeted in Iowa. I'll bet they thought it would help Jeb, but instead it boosted Carson to the lead.
I have mixed feelings on this. I hear what you're saying, but isn't the citizenry us?
For example, I contribute to the NRA-ILA, with the intent that the NRA will lobby on my behalf. I also contribute to the Wisconsin CPA society PAC to do the same. Without pooling together with like-minded people, the individual doesn't have much of a voice. But why can't we pool our resources in our own self interest?
If I wanted to individually lobby against a gun control measure, the only people that might listen to me would be my one congressman, and two senators. That's it. I would have no access to other congressmen who would have sway over decisions on my life, because I'm not a constituent. So I choose to pool my resources.
As for Club for Growth, I didn't see the ads, but having lived in Iowa for 9 years, Iowans don't get buffaloed by the next seller of magic tonic. They are a skeptical state, and I sense they are starting not to buy the Trump show.
And if CFG is supporting Bush, I'm going to be pissed.
-
Remember the Campaign "Finance" bill? McCain's pathetic attempt at PC pandering?
Before the internet where people can look just about anything up, and make their won decisions, money OWNED everyone in government, including the watchdogs.
The only real difference since McCain Feingold is that several (not too many - but some) republicans are making a half-hearted attempt to comply, while democrats just keep selling out and for more money all the time.
Look at that stellar example of fiscal integrity, Hilary Clinton. She embodies political corruption, and is the front runner to be crowned by dems the world over - living AND dead.
-
I hate to say it, and some of my colleagues will jump on me I'm sure but the money is really starting to kill our political system. The "donor class" is steering politics and government at this point and the citizenry be damned. Remember Obama saying those on Wall Street should be in prison? Who went to prison? Where is Eric Holder working now?
We're now seeing the money influence the polls on the "R" side of things in Iowa. The Club for Growth did a huge buy to run ads against Trump and true to form his number have plummeted in Iowa. I'll bet they thought it would help Jeb, but instead it boosted Carson to the lead.
The scary thing is a lot of money comes from media outlets, or those that own/run media outlets like CEO Brian Roberts at Comcast. Comcast owns NBC, and MSNBC, as well as operating as a cable company. Brian Roberts is an avowed leftist, Obama bundler, friend, and supporter. NBC, MSNBC, and Comcast are all far left in bias. This is the same as Disney who owns ESPN, and ABC in a partnership with Hearst Corp. All leftist outfits, that promote leftist policy.
-
As much as I hate to say this, and I really really hate to say this, to some degree things are as they should be. The CEO of GM has a lot more on the line than I do, guy is in charge of factories and dealerships and jobs and stuff. Me, its must me, Mrs. Steingar, the dogs, and Rosie the tortoise. The CEO of GM should have more access than I.
-
The CEO of GM didn't build the company nor is he taking personal risk on the success of his ideas. He is by definition AN EMPLOYEE.
-
The CEO of GM didn't build the company nor is he taking personal risk on the success of his ideas. He is by definition AN EMPLOYEE.
Yes and no. He didn't build the company, on that you are correct. However, most of the pay structure is based on company stock. If the price of the stock tanks due to his actions his pay drops accordingly. In that regard there is inherent personal risk.
You are also correct in that he is an employee since the board of directors runs the big picture.
-
In that regard, he is on an incentive pay structure. In some circles, it would be akin to commission based pay. No problem there.
Again - would any of you guys vote for a politician who lived like the average American? The one who couldn't afford to pay-off someone to cover his tracks and also who wasn't worth extorting to get him to sign a bill that screws his constituents.
-
In that regard, he is on an incentive pay structure. In some circles, it would be akin to commission based pay. No problem there.
Again - would any of you guys vote for a politician who lived like the average American? The one who couldn't afford to pay-off someone to cover his tracks and also who wasn't worth extorting to get him to sign a bill that screws his constituents.
Sure. Marco Rubio fits that bill.
-
In that regard, he is on an incentive pay structure. In some circles, it would be akin to commission based pay. No problem there.
Again - would any of you guys vote for a politician who lived like the average American? The one who couldn't afford to pay-off someone to cover his tracks and also who wasn't worth extorting to get him to sign a bill that screws his constituents.
To your question; absolutely.
-
In that regard, he is on an incentive pay structure. In some circles, it would be akin to commission based pay. No problem there.
Again - would any of you guys vote for a politician who lived like the average American? The one who couldn't afford to pay-off someone to cover his tracks and also who wasn't worth extorting to get him to sign a bill that screws his constituents.
To your question; absolutely.
I concur. I totally would - but I don't see that it is even possible outside of local political campaigns (where I do just that).
In national politics, our congresscritters simply have too much power, and money is now pretty much the most critical factor.
-
As much as I hate to say this, and I really really hate to say this, to some degree things are as they should be. The CEO of GM has a lot more on the line than I do, guy is in charge of factories and dealerships and jobs and stuff. Me, its must me, Mrs. Steingar, the dogs, and Rosie the tortoise. The CEO of GM should have more access than I.
I've been struggling with this one as well. It feels wrong, and yet I can't fault the argument there on principle. In a pragmatic sense - and this is true in society in general - some people's lives DO matter more than others. It is a bigger loss to society that, say, an Elon Musk should die than that I should, and so it leads me to think that he should be able to influence policy decisions more than I can. And he does.
The challenge here is that power really does corrupt, and access is power and money is access. If we take money out of the equation upfront, I am fairly certain it will find its way to influencing things through the back door, as it always does. I think it's just that most people don't deal well with the "in your face" aspect of reality - as long as things are hidden, they apparently don't exist, but as soon as you can actually SEE the reality of national politics, it gets folks riled up.