“Money changes everything
Money changes everything
We think we know what we’re doin’
We don’t pull the strings
It’s all in the past now
Money changes everything”.
Tom Gray
Right back to the “Founding Fathers” who were all very wealthy landowners (several with slaves!) and or wealthy craftsmen. They may have cared about getting away from British rule, but I doubt they cared all that much for the servants & slaves (other than that they got hard work out of them)
It’s funny, many on the left complain about how much the right can now spend on election campaigns, seemingly forgetting, the left spends just as much (many times more (welfare is buying votes in my opinion))
The problem isn’t campaign spending. The problems don’t even lay within the politicians themselves as no amount of spending can force me to vote either way. The problem lays within those of you who would rather practice partisan politics instead of looking at individual candidates.
I would say you are partially correct, grim509. But the problem lies with the voters. Another comment mentioned that the Founding Fathers were rich and they were but they still retained that old sense of noblesse oblige, the requirement to help the less fortunate.
Today, most voters will only vote for the candidate who promises them the best deal. Any candidate who speaks the real truth and I mean the real truth, will never get elected.
You can look at all the individual candidates you want but sadly they do all start to look pretty much alike. They are telling people what they want to hear and not what they need to hear. It is sort of like the pastor who goes from preaching and gets into meddling in stuff his members don’t like. Policiticians stick to the “preaching” and stay well away from the “meddling” lest they lose an election.
As a registered Democrat, I can’t help a Republican I could conceivably vote for get nominated. And an individual who could win the Republican nomination isn’t going to be anyone I could conceivably vote for. If I could conceivably vote for that person, they wouldn’t be running as a Republican in the first place. I’m sure the sentiment is the same on the other side of the aisle.
I’ve got nothing against fiscal conservatism, but until they disassociate themselves from the social conservatives I can’t see myself ever voting for a GOP candidate.
Nice call, Tex. One guy I met at the Goodwill was crabbing that O had wasted money coming to Kazoo because they had to bring his helicopter even as he rode in on his jet. Big waste.
Since I knew he was a retired army guy from our early conversation, I said I agreed we needed to cut waste.
“let’s get rid of the VA. I meant, you go guys served, what, 2 years and they get benefits and guys went 20, but, heck, they don’t do anything any more and we still pay them. Cut out that wasteful system and we’d save a ton of money.”
He nearly choked and went into a rave about how Normandy anniversary had just passed and…Ranted for quite a while.
Not that I didn’t agree O was wasting tax money on it, LIKE EVERY PRESIDENT HAS OVER THE YEARS, but I then asked him to define waste and he walked off.
Yes, we want to get rid of the fat that WE define as fat.
Throw in cutting free medical and retirement for our reps and Sens and Prez, throw in getting rid of the oil depletion allowance and pro-rated taxes on native land oil profits, add special taxes on money sent out of the country for private accounts and a pay back plan to those who have paid into the SS system all their lives and now face a severe cut because it was used as a Congressional and Presidential “discretionary fund” over the decades and eliminate the special status of exemption from the anti-trust law for insurance companies, breaking their financial stranglehold on the economy and then we can really talk about some legit cuts in the social programs and stricter standards for entry and quicker exit into the job market.
not really fritzoid. I consider myself an independant conservative, but am adimittedly basically a republican when it comes to my voting trends. However, I do plan on voting to re-elect my democrat congressman because he votes the way I feel he should on most issues. There are conservative dems, and liberal republicans out there. I honestly feel my congressman should be a republican and not a democrat because of his stance on most issues are in line more with the republican base.
fritz – there used to be interesting, intelligent, principled Republicans. In my district a lot of Democrats happily voted for Mac Mathias, who was an independently minded Republican. But those days seem to be long gone, and that kind of Republican a sad memory.
The name says it all.
I registered as an independent on my 18th birthday. I LOATHE the so called “party system” that exists, because I feel that it keeps worthy, non-affiliated candidates from even having a chance at getting elected. Candidates that have good ideas and backbone but don’t have the years of supporting ‘The Party’ so they can’t be “our” candidate.
The real scary thing is that, thanks to the Supreme Court, corporations (even government owned ones from Russia, China, Iran or Syria) can now spend infinite amounts of money on American campaigns. China can now spend, say, a billion dollars per race, to get rid of candidates they don’t like. Look for a lot of campaign commercials this fall…..
If we consolidated the centrists/moderates in both parties into a third party, which would not be allowed to call themselves either Democrats or Republicans, we might get somewhere. They wouldn’t need to be a majority, but any two parties could form a majority on an issue in coalition. The center could align themselves with either the right or the left on an issue-by-issue basis.
freeholder, sounds like you’re from Kazoo. (That’s Kalamazoo for the rest of you.) Lived there for years. What a great little town! It’s beautiful. I’m in Paw Paw now. Another nifty little place to be!
Of course, a successful Democrat in a Republican-trending district is still likely to be more conservative than a successful Republican in a Democrat-trending district.
I’m in San Francisco, and both California senators are from the Bay Area, and both Democrats. On the national scale, Dianne Feinstein is seen as Liberal, but by S.F. standards she’s pretty far Right of the (local) center. Republicans in S.F. (yes, there is such a thing) have to consider themselves satisfied if they can keep the Dem who’s farthest Left out of office…
(Pelosi is also ours, but since she only has to get S.F. voters on her side that’s ONE seat that’s safe. Anybody who could viably challenge her would have to be MORE Liberal…)
Sorry Fritzoid, been tried here in Canada and the majority party has turned our democracy into a fiefdom. The first thing the Dictator did was stifle reporters by excluding them from Cabinet sessions and never, ever making a statement until after all deceisions are made. Cabinet is huge and not allowed to speak in public unless at the Dictators’ whim. Just look how he bullied the other G20 nations to turn down the bank tax/fine that was to be implemented.to pay for some of the damage done by this recession.
Sorry folks, sorry Wiley, didn’t mean to go political, but this one runs a little close to home.
Great art, great tragi-comedy, love it Wiley, thanks.
Hey, Submachine, I agree, and while you’re at it, vote out all the Republicans too. Heck, the FIRST qualification for office ought to be ‘the person doesn’t want the job’ but that will never happen – as Plato (or was it Socrates?) said, (I’m paraphrasing) the curse of people too smart to participate in politics is that they are governed by people stupider than them!
the only way to fix it? New requirement for entering politics…
to be eligible for ANY public office, from school board up to president, you may never have made more than $100,000 in one year of your life to be eligible to run for office.
This would ensure that most corruption would be weeded out. Who makes less than that, that has ties to corporations or special interest groups? No one.
We’re almost where we could do a Draft Lottery for all legislative, judiciary, and executive offices; anybody who wanted the job would not be qualified (and I like the <$100k requirement - adjusted for inflation), but a random (truly random, not like the early Vietnam-era) lottery would pick the candidates, who would post a resume. Period. NO campaigns. NO campaign money.
While we’re at it, use ‘instant-runoff’ voting; rank your top, say, three choices of the draftee candidates, and there’ll be no need for a wasteful runoff election.
Lobbying would be done only on an open blog-style board, and “crazy” ideas that start making sense would bubble to the top.
The last thing is to have humans, IN PUBLIC, count the votes. A corporate computer, in secret, doing the job - that’s right out of Uncle Joe Stalin’s book; “It doesn’t matter who votes, what matters is who Counts the votes!” [rant off]
Avolunteer;You should probably look up your history. Not all the founders were wealthy or slave owners in fact the majority of them were abolishionists.
The propaganda you have been fed is an outrite lie and it needs to be corrected if this country has any chance of surviving.
If we do not learn from the past we are doomed to repete it.
If politicians were only after money, they could be satisfied at some point. But when the money chase is joined to a lust for power (as I suspect it always is with politicians), then there is no satisfying the greed because there is never enough power, always more belonging to someone else.
While always a problem, the reign of the “Acting President” really brought in the narcissists to politics, because the “media” also took over at that time, information became nil, propaganda rampant. Both sides are more worried about presenting their “best side” to the cameras, and very little time worrying about how much time with their backsides at work. Campaigning and fund raising have almost totally replaced time spent on legislation.
Let me see, vote out the dem heads of committees that get stuff for my state so we can have a couple minority guys who won’t have any pull at all. Great idea! Next I;ll see if we can hand even more revenue sharing over to states that need it less than we do!
Brother graduated from Western, Varnes. I get Broncoed out every football season. K-wings Tees for Christmas.
In the PAST, everyone was required to participate in assigned social groups.These social groups were a manditory part of your culture (you had NO choice as to who, why, what, when, where or how you socialized). Hence, it was not an enjoyable activity for many!
On Earth these same humans have been given CHOICES..
hence, “Let your friends be the friends of your deliberate choice” and “It’s choice - not chance - that determines your destiny. ”
The early church may have had the idea (regardless of whether you believe in God - it’s the organizational principle I’m interested in).
All who wanted to be baptized had to study hard for 3 years and be examined before they got the go-ahead.
However, once they were baptized, they were all equally eligible for ordination IF selected. The selection process was such that, if they needed a presbyter, they put the names of all eligible candidates in a hat and drew one out. That was the next priest. They figured it was the will of God.
PS: These days, we baptize at the drop of a hat (regardless of age) and send people to school for three years only if they want to be ordained.
Rather than looking at the top end of the problem and working out convoluted ways of restricting and controlling who can and can’t get into politics, why doesn’t the U.S. make voting compulsory and get the entire nation involved in the process instead of the (on average) 54% who bother to turn up? At least that’d shut up the guy next to you at the bar saying “I hate the S.O.B. but don’t blame me - heck, I didn’t vote!”
When the Supreme Court decided Corporations have feelings too. And the Supreme Court gets to appoint a pointy-headed draft dodger when a corporation fails to buy it.
wndrwrthg almost 14 years ago
“Money changes everything Money changes everything We think we know what we’re doin’ We don’t pull the strings It’s all in the past now Money changes everything”. Tom Gray
Coyoty Premium Member almost 14 years ago
I think we can still give them the boot.
harrietbe almost 14 years ago
Yes, and I’ve been around long enough to remember when the elected worked to represent the people, not the rich and influential.
Downundergirl almost 14 years ago
Heck Harrietbe, I don’t ANYONE has been around that long!
pbarnrob almost 14 years ago
It certainly used to look like it, but if you look up Marine Gen. Smedley Butler, it’s been the same game for a loooong time.
Allison Nunn Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Right back to the “Founding Fathers” who were all very wealthy landowners (several with slaves!) and or wealthy craftsmen. They may have cared about getting away from British rule, but I doubt they cared all that much for the servants & slaves (other than that they got hard work out of them)
vexatron1984 almost 14 years ago
There are days when I could use that sign at work…
ImaginaryFriend almost 14 years ago
For the spammer - yea - whatever
DolphinGirl78 almost 14 years ago
I wonder when the turning point was…
Plods with ...™ almost 14 years ago
heh….he said pattootie!
Lyons Group, Inc. almost 14 years ago
Now these unholy spammers are getting doubly annoying!
grim509 almost 14 years ago
It’s funny, many on the left complain about how much the right can now spend on election campaigns, seemingly forgetting, the left spends just as much (many times more (welfare is buying votes in my opinion))
The problem isn’t campaign spending. The problems don’t even lay within the politicians themselves as no amount of spending can force me to vote either way. The problem lays within those of you who would rather practice partisan politics instead of looking at individual candidates.
leipsicbob almost 14 years ago
grim509, I agree with you.
TexTech almost 14 years ago
I would say you are partially correct, grim509. But the problem lies with the voters. Another comment mentioned that the Founding Fathers were rich and they were but they still retained that old sense of noblesse oblige, the requirement to help the less fortunate.
Today, most voters will only vote for the candidate who promises them the best deal. Any candidate who speaks the real truth and I mean the real truth, will never get elected.
You can look at all the individual candidates you want but sadly they do all start to look pretty much alike. They are telling people what they want to hear and not what they need to hear. It is sort of like the pastor who goes from preaching and gets into meddling in stuff his members don’t like. Policiticians stick to the “preaching” and stay well away from the “meddling” lest they lose an election.
grim509 almost 14 years ago
leipsicbob, you’re not from Leipsic, Ohio by chance, are you?
fritzoid Premium Member almost 14 years ago
As a registered Democrat, I can’t help a Republican I could conceivably vote for get nominated. And an individual who could win the Republican nomination isn’t going to be anyone I could conceivably vote for. If I could conceivably vote for that person, they wouldn’t be running as a Republican in the first place. I’m sure the sentiment is the same on the other side of the aisle.
I’ve got nothing against fiscal conservatism, but until they disassociate themselves from the social conservatives I can’t see myself ever voting for a GOP candidate.
freeholder1 almost 14 years ago
Nice call, Tex. One guy I met at the Goodwill was crabbing that O had wasted money coming to Kazoo because they had to bring his helicopter even as he rode in on his jet. Big waste.
Since I knew he was a retired army guy from our early conversation, I said I agreed we needed to cut waste.
“let’s get rid of the VA. I meant, you go guys served, what, 2 years and they get benefits and guys went 20, but, heck, they don’t do anything any more and we still pay them. Cut out that wasteful system and we’d save a ton of money.”
He nearly choked and went into a rave about how Normandy anniversary had just passed and…Ranted for quite a while.
Not that I didn’t agree O was wasting tax money on it, LIKE EVERY PRESIDENT HAS OVER THE YEARS, but I then asked him to define waste and he walked off.
Yes, we want to get rid of the fat that WE define as fat.
Throw in cutting free medical and retirement for our reps and Sens and Prez, throw in getting rid of the oil depletion allowance and pro-rated taxes on native land oil profits, add special taxes on money sent out of the country for private accounts and a pay back plan to those who have paid into the SS system all their lives and now face a severe cut because it was used as a Congressional and Presidential “discretionary fund” over the decades and eliminate the special status of exemption from the anti-trust law for insurance companies, breaking their financial stranglehold on the economy and then we can really talk about some legit cuts in the social programs and stricter standards for entry and quicker exit into the job market.
grim509 almost 14 years ago
not really fritzoid. I consider myself an independant conservative, but am adimittedly basically a republican when it comes to my voting trends. However, I do plan on voting to re-elect my democrat congressman because he votes the way I feel he should on most issues. There are conservative dems, and liberal republicans out there. I honestly feel my congressman should be a republican and not a democrat because of his stance on most issues are in line more with the republican base.
Nelly55 almost 14 years ago
@fritzoid, I agree with you
lonecat almost 14 years ago
fritz – there used to be interesting, intelligent, principled Republicans. In my district a lot of Democrats happily voted for Mac Mathias, who was an independently minded Republican. But those days seem to be long gone, and that kind of Republican a sad memory.
N.D.Pendent almost 14 years ago
The name says it all. I registered as an independent on my 18th birthday. I LOATHE the so called “party system” that exists, because I feel that it keeps worthy, non-affiliated candidates from even having a chance at getting elected. Candidates that have good ideas and backbone but don’t have the years of supporting ‘The Party’ so they can’t be “our” candidate.
Varnes almost 14 years ago
The real scary thing is that, thanks to the Supreme Court, corporations (even government owned ones from Russia, China, Iran or Syria) can now spend infinite amounts of money on American campaigns. China can now spend, say, a billion dollars per race, to get rid of candidates they don’t like. Look for a lot of campaign commercials this fall…..
fritzoid Premium Member almost 14 years ago
If we consolidated the centrists/moderates in both parties into a third party, which would not be allowed to call themselves either Democrats or Republicans, we might get somewhere. They wouldn’t need to be a majority, but any two parties could form a majority on an issue in coalition. The center could align themselves with either the right or the left on an issue-by-issue basis.
Varnes almost 14 years ago
freeholder, sounds like you’re from Kazoo. (That’s Kalamazoo for the rest of you.) Lived there for years. What a great little town! It’s beautiful. I’m in Paw Paw now. Another nifty little place to be!
fritzoid Premium Member almost 14 years ago
Of course, a successful Democrat in a Republican-trending district is still likely to be more conservative than a successful Republican in a Democrat-trending district.
I’m in San Francisco, and both California senators are from the Bay Area, and both Democrats. On the national scale, Dianne Feinstein is seen as Liberal, but by S.F. standards she’s pretty far Right of the (local) center. Republicans in S.F. (yes, there is such a thing) have to consider themselves satisfied if they can keep the Dem who’s farthest Left out of office…
(Pelosi is also ours, but since she only has to get S.F. voters on her side that’s ONE seat that’s safe. Anybody who could viably challenge her would have to be MORE Liberal…)
MatureCanadian almost 14 years ago
Sorry Fritzoid, been tried here in Canada and the majority party has turned our democracy into a fiefdom. The first thing the Dictator did was stifle reporters by excluding them from Cabinet sessions and never, ever making a statement until after all deceisions are made. Cabinet is huge and not allowed to speak in public unless at the Dictators’ whim. Just look how he bullied the other G20 nations to turn down the bank tax/fine that was to be implemented.to pay for some of the damage done by this recession.
Sorry folks, sorry Wiley, didn’t mean to go political, but this one runs a little close to home.
Great art, great tragi-comedy, love it Wiley, thanks.
wicky almost 14 years ago
Vote out all democrats!!!
Trebor39 almost 14 years ago
Vote in all democrats!!!
Logicman almost 14 years ago
Hey, Submachine, I agree, and while you’re at it, vote out all the Republicans too. Heck, the FIRST qualification for office ought to be ‘the person doesn’t want the job’ but that will never happen – as Plato (or was it Socrates?) said, (I’m paraphrasing) the curse of people too smart to participate in politics is that they are governed by people stupider than them!
grim509 almost 14 years ago
the only way to fix it? New requirement for entering politics…
to be eligible for ANY public office, from school board up to president, you may never have made more than $100,000 in one year of your life to be eligible to run for office.
This would ensure that most corruption would be weeded out. Who makes less than that, that has ties to corporations or special interest groups? No one.
MatureCanadian almost 14 years ago
grim509 - also NO LOBBYING
RadioTom almost 14 years ago
Time for the era of Third Alternatives - Vote Libertarian!
pbarnrob almost 14 years ago
We’re almost where we could do a Draft Lottery for all legislative, judiciary, and executive offices; anybody who wanted the job would not be qualified (and I like the <$100k requirement - adjusted for inflation), but a random (truly random, not like the early Vietnam-era) lottery would pick the candidates, who would post a resume. Period. NO campaigns. NO campaign money.
While we’re at it, use ‘instant-runoff’ voting; rank your top, say, three choices of the draftee candidates, and there’ll be no need for a wasteful runoff election.
Lobbying would be done only on an open blog-style board, and “crazy” ideas that start making sense would bubble to the top.
The last thing is to have humans, IN PUBLIC, count the votes. A corporate computer, in secret, doing the job - that’s right out of Uncle Joe Stalin’s book; “It doesn’t matter who votes, what matters is who Counts the votes!” [rant off]
davesmithsit almost 14 years ago
Avolunteer;You should probably look up your history. Not all the founders were wealthy or slave owners in fact the majority of them were abolishionists. The propaganda you have been fed is an outrite lie and it needs to be corrected if this country has any chance of surviving. If we do not learn from the past we are doomed to repete it.
Spyderred almost 14 years ago
If politicians were only after money, they could be satisfied at some point. But when the money chase is joined to a lust for power (as I suspect it always is with politicians), then there is no satisfying the greed because there is never enough power, always more belonging to someone else.
Dtroutma almost 14 years ago
While always a problem, the reign of the “Acting President” really brought in the narcissists to politics, because the “media” also took over at that time, information became nil, propaganda rampant. Both sides are more worried about presenting their “best side” to the cameras, and very little time worrying about how much time with their backsides at work. Campaigning and fund raising have almost totally replaced time spent on legislation.
freeholder1 almost 14 years ago
Let me see, vote out the dem heads of committees that get stuff for my state so we can have a couple minority guys who won’t have any pull at all. Great idea! Next I;ll see if we can hand even more revenue sharing over to states that need it less than we do!
Brother graduated from Western, Varnes. I get Broncoed out every football season. K-wings Tees for Christmas.
SherriannPederson almost 14 years ago
In the PAST, everyone was required to participate in assigned social groups.These social groups were a manditory part of your culture (you had NO choice as to who, why, what, when, where or how you socialized). Hence, it was not an enjoyable activity for many!
On Earth these same humans have been given CHOICES.. hence, “Let your friends be the friends of your deliberate choice” and “It’s choice - not chance - that determines your destiny. ”
reynard61 almost 14 years ago
Coyoty said: “I think we can still give them the boot.”
Considering what they get already, I guess I’ll just have to get used to going barefoot for the rest of my life…
grim509 said: “There are (…) liberal republicans out there.
Really?! Name one.
cdward almost 14 years ago
The early church may have had the idea (regardless of whether you believe in God - it’s the organizational principle I’m interested in). All who wanted to be baptized had to study hard for 3 years and be examined before they got the go-ahead. However, once they were baptized, they were all equally eligible for ordination IF selected. The selection process was such that, if they needed a presbyter, they put the names of all eligible candidates in a hat and drew one out. That was the next priest. They figured it was the will of God.
PS: These days, we baptize at the drop of a hat (regardless of age) and send people to school for three years only if they want to be ordained.
Siberman almost 14 years ago
@ Freeholder : Please run for President. No, wait, don’t. They’d probably kill you the first year.
@ cdward: What kind of church do you go to ?
weasel_monkey almost 14 years ago
Rather than looking at the top end of the problem and working out convoluted ways of restricting and controlling who can and can’t get into politics, why doesn’t the U.S. make voting compulsory and get the entire nation involved in the process instead of the (on average) 54% who bother to turn up? At least that’d shut up the guy next to you at the bar saying “I hate the S.O.B. but don’t blame me - heck, I didn’t vote!”
peachyanddanny almost 14 years ago
When the Supreme Court decided Corporations have feelings too. And the Supreme Court gets to appoint a pointy-headed draft dodger when a corporation fails to buy it.