jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (136 posts)

Everyone knows that our biggest political problem is money/corruption.

  1. Justin Earick profile image81
    Justin Earickposted 2 years ago

    While a 28th Amendment stating that corporations are not people and money is not speech would be ideal - how about compulsory voting? 
    What if we used the carrot approach - say increasing tax-credits for voting in primary, mid-term/off-year, and local elections?  The more active the electorate, the less politicians are beholden to the donor class.
    Is compulsory voting a valid short-term workaround?

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      No. More government control over our lives is not a solution to anything.

    2. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I have a right to vote

      I also have a right not to vote

      You seem to want to give my right not to vote to a politician who needs votes.

      Here in the UK I may consider that there is no party or individual worth voting for, the non of the above option would just enforce the fact that I don't have a right not to vote.

      Attack politicians for their policies and the obvious fact that they collude with non elected power grabbers rather than attack the electorate.

      The biggest con any politician or political party have ever pulled off is the one that makes you believe you have the power to change anything by your vote.

      1. Justin Earick profile image81
        Justin Earickposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, I was very clear.  Carrot approach, not stick.  How is this so complicated for some folks? 
        If you think that "none of the above" is tyranny, you are not worth my time. 
        The biggest con anyone ever pulled off is convincing the people that they have no say - so let's just acquiesce all of our rights to big corporations! Fascism!  Woo-hoo! 
        Some of y'all are nuts.

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Please explain what the carrot would be.
          To make it compulsory is not dangling the carrot its forcing someone to eat it.

          The biggest con is the idea that your vote counts.

    3. PrettyPanther profile image87
      PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I'd like to see children brought up with the notion that voting is a civic duty.  I know we are told that in school (at least I was), but it isn't emphasized as much as it should be.  I'd like to see it become a "given" that voting is something people automatically do for the greater good, like not littering, or recycling.  Maybe this could be accomplished with a government-funded promotional campaign that includes compulsory (that word again) and extensive civics education throughout all school levels.

      By the way, I understand Justin's reaction to Janesix because it seems that some people (I'm not saying you are one of them, Jane) have a knee-jerk reaction against any new government initiative without even considering its merits.  Also, I can understand Janesix's reaction because Justin did use the word "compulsory" even though his suggestions were incentives rather than requirements.

      As for Kathryn, please get off your high horse.  Sometimes people are too worried about surviving to pay attention to the details of politics and don't vote because getting to a polling place is the least of their worries when they don't have enough money to pay the rent or buy their kids new shoes.  One could argue that people who spend their time debating on an internet forum are "worthless slugs" but then that would be arrogant and judgmental, wouldn't it?

      1. 60
        retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Isn't that the time when people pay the most attention to those who promise a hand out? Poverty in America is much more complex than the picture of privation often painted by those who continually vote for politicians who swell the ranks of the poor with crashing economies and an ever broader, inefficient, corrupt welfare state.

        Most of those unconcerned with being educated on how Economics works and the need to keep government in check are usually worried about who to call-in vote for on American Idol or watching the NBA All-Star Game. 

        Better said over four hundred years ago - (listen to the liberal noses turn up at the notion that any idea before now is worthy of consideration)

        "Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yoke, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books. Roman tyrants invented a further refinement. They often provided the city wards with feasts to cajole the rabble, always more readily tempted by the pleasure of eating than by anything else. The most intelligent and understanding amongst them would not have quit his soup bowl to recover the liberty of the Republic of Plato. Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, 'Long live the King!' The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them."

        Etienne de La Boétie
        Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
        1548

        It is contempt for the past and the creation of fantasy that nurtures the liberal, that is why CIVICS is dead.  The woeful condition of education is a direct consequence of liberal's influence and involvement in education.  What CIVICS will we teach our children, perhaps the Cuban government can ship its left over propaganda text books to the US

        1. 60
          retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          For those who missed it.  Government has nothing that it doesn't first take from the people.  At first we gave a tiny portion of our personal, natural, inalienable authority to government to secure the very large remainder.  Now we beg the beast we created to let us eat its table scraps.

          1. John Holden profile image61
            John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            For those who missed it.  Capitalism has nothing that it doesn't first take from the people.  At first we gave a tiny portion of our personal, natural, inalienable authority to Capitalism to secure the very large remainder.  Now we beg the beast we created to let us eat its table scraps

          2. Justin Earick profile image81
            Justin Earickposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            The people have nothing if not for gov't.  Without gov't oversight our corporate overlords and those born into money rule the world.  Gov't is the *only* means with which the people have an equal say.
            One person, one vote - not one dollar, one vote.

        2. John Holden profile image61
          John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          And yet when I say the same thing I'm howled down and roundly insulted by the capitalist lackeys.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            It is the "ruler" thing that lefties miss when attacking private property rights.

            1. John Holden profile image61
              John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Monsanto (for example) take my private property and my health without any agreement from me.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Really?  How is that done? 

                By gun point, in the dead of night, what?  How do they do it without your agreement?  (bear in mind that voluntarily buying their product constitutes agreement)

                1. Justin Earick profile image81
                  Justin Earickposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  By withholding pertinent information that consumers should have a right to know.  By lobbying for tax subsidies to produce foods that kill us.

                2. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  The key word there is "voluntarily" . How do you voluntarily buy Monsanto GM foods when there is no obligation to label such foods as being GM but there is legislation preventing food manufacturers from labelling food none GM?

                  Or if you are a farmer (none GM) and your crops are fertilised by your neighbours GM crop, you become liable to Monsanto for the GM seed your crops then produce-and all without your permission?

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Would you provide citations for some of what you have written here. I would like to know more.  I find it specifically troubling that a farmer might be held liable for an "act of God" - pollen from a GMO fertilizing his crops because the wind carried the pollen.

                    Many of the worries I have read about GMOs sound like that, worries.  "It is an act against God and Nature," kind of thing.  Not the basis for a sound argument.

              2. 60
                retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Yet do so with permission from?  Anyone?  Any guess  Any clue? 

                The Rulers - ding, ding, ding!

                So your big prize is this quote from "Caddy Shack"

                "The Dalai Lama, himself. Twelfth son of the Lama. The flowing robes, the grace, bald... striking. So, I'm on the first tee with him. I give him the driver. He hauls off and whacks one - big hitter, the Lama - long, into a ten-thousand foot crevasse, right at the base of this glacier. Do you know what the Lama says? Gunga galunga... gunga, gunga-lagunga. So we finish the eighteenth and he's gonna stiff me. And I say, "Hey, Lama, hey, how about a little something, you know, for the effort, you know." And he says, "Oh, uh, there won't be any money, but when you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness." So I got that goin' for me, which is nice."

                1. John Holden profile image61
                  John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  And who has bought the permission of the rulers---with your money?

                  1. 60
                    retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    It saddens me that British politicians and policy makers are so easily purchased, I am so sorry John.

        3. PrettyPanther profile image87
          PrettyPantherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "Isn't that the time when people pay the most attention to those who promise a hand out?"  Doubtful. Voter turnout is consistently low among the impoverished and consistently higher for those at a higher socioeconomic level.

          You're right.  Poverty in America is a complex problem and cannot be solved by stereotyping and labeling.

        4. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thank You, relief2000!

        5. Quilligrapher profile image90
          Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Good evening, Retief. It is good to see you again. Many thanks for sharing your views.

          If I may submit, a substantial amount of data exist that seriously disagree with your perception of poverty in America. The idea that politicians are “crashing economies” to “swell the ranks of the poor” is more creative than it is accurate.

          Professor G. William Domhoff points out that the wealth of the nation held by the top 1% of Americans has grown from 20% in 1976 to over 35% today. The next most fortunate 19% of Americans hold 54% of the wealth leaving only 11% of the nation’s wealth spread over the remaining 80% of the population.{1} A full 1/3 of all the wealth in the country is held by only 1% of the people! Furthermore, between 1971 and 2008, the average annual income in this country grew by $12,026 and all of this new wealth went into the pockets of the richest 10% of Americans while incomes for the bottom 90% declined!{2}

          David Autor, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says the growing income inequality has increased the gap between income levels more than in the past. Someone born at the bottom and stays there is worse off then ever before. "The costs of immobility have risen, because the lifetime difference in earnings now between someone born at the bottom quartile versus top quartile is much, much greater than it used to be," Professor Autor says. {3}

          Wealth in the US is so skewed, Retief, if the poorest Americans living among us could increase their financial wealth 100 times, they would still be among the lowest 20% of the population.{4} This is the negative incentive that is built into our economic system.

          The Wall Street Journal thinks the “Gulf Between Haves and Have-Nots May Hurt [the] Economy.”{5} While this reality is making the U.S. less productive, there is growing concern Americans will have less incentive to participate in the economy if they should decide that the game is rigged against them.{6}

          The current US economic model has been designed by the wealthy to benefit the wealthy. It forces all wealth to gravitate from the lowest levels of society upward into the pockets of those at the top. Therefore, the wealthiest Americans do not remain wealthy because they are positively motivated, work harder, or are better educated. They become wealthier merely because of their position on the economic ladder. Society will always have its poor but there would be less need for welfare if our economy circulated wealth in the form of adequate wages to the lowest levels of our society thus providing economic opportunities for the most highly motivated Americans trapped in poverty.

          Again, Retief, it is nice to read your views.
          http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
          {1}  http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-o … 13-11?op=1
          {2} http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc … rs/262221/
          {3} http://www.npr.org/2014/01/23/265356290 … ecades-ago
          {4} Wolff, E. N. (2012). The Asset Price Meltdown and the Wealth of the Middle Class. New York: New York University.
          {5} http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 … 3105265440
          {6}  http://www.businessinsider.com/charts-o … 13-11?op=1

          1. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Thanks, Quill, I would tend to think that it is not so much that the 'right' does not see the basic truths that your provided here but is in denial as admission of this would undermine their dogged beliefs and capitalism as it is practiced here, itself. Your informative comments are always most appreciated.

            1. GA Anderson profile image86
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Hmmm.. couldn't it just be a difference in perspective, instead of denial?  My response to Quill contains much of what I would restate here, but in a nutshell - and setting aside a discussion of the obvious crooks that deserve government regulation or prosecution - isn't yours just another "life isn't fair" protest? Another "why you and not me" lament?

              If I had a bigger paper route because my daddy was friends with the circulation guy - that wouldn't be fair. But what if I had a bigger paper route because I got up earlier and pedaled faster? Is that not fair too?

              Is it the construct of publisher to consumer via delivery boy, (capitalism), that is wrong, or is it the influential daddy, (life isn't fair), that is wrong? Is the daddy's friendship with the circulation guy an illegal influence?

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                GA, there of plenty of information to support the trend that Quill is speaking about, doesn't it give you reason to pause? If 99 percent of the wealth was held by 1 percent of the people would you not be concerned? We just as well be living in a feudalistic society with figures like this.

                I am not bashing capitalism, but I am saying that the trends over recent years have been disturbing. This is America, the idea that anybody with the combination of talent and hard work can achieve great things is becoming a thing of the past. That idea is the foundation of the American economic system allowing the have nots to accept the haves, when they always knew that they to could aspire to that. This is why social classes have been living in harmony when even the poorest knew that they had a stake in the current  economic order.  But with the increasing stagnation of social mobility that is as obvious to most of us as global warming and supported by the preponderance of evidence, who is to say how that class of 'restless rabble' will react in the future to the new reality.  Am I being over dramatic when I think of Danton and Robespierre?

                Does being 'purple' mean that you are oblivious to the trends and what they portend for the future of our economic system and American society in general? So, I would not so much say it is envy, but rather a concern that an accelerating trend of this nature does not bode well for most of us. We all know that a certain amount of inequality is incidental in a Capitalist system, which you seem to imply in your comment, and for which I agree. What is happening now and how it is  accelerating is my problem. The solution as you say is ferreting out crooks and reducing their influence from illegally or unethically siphoning wealth from lower economic classes. Did you ever see the 60 minutes piece on the arrogance of managers of 401k funds and how they fought hard while in Washington to not allow the typical consumer to have full disclosure to the fees they charge in managing the funds. By simply using basic arithmetic, they steal millions. Check it out sometime, just one example of many.

                1. GA Anderson profile image86
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Perhaps the perception problem is more mine than yours. I generally identify myself more with the Right than the Left, so my antenna automatically quivers when I see statements describing the "Right" that I feel are in error.

                  I think that the majority of folks on the Right would agree completely with your response - regarding the troubling picture painted by the disparity of income growth, as I do. I think it is the Extreme Far Right that would better fit your description. I do not at all think it is a fallacy of Capitalism. I think the problem is the scoundrels involved. And they are not unique to just the opportunities provided by Capitalism - there are scoundrels in every human group and endeavor.

                  To lay the blame on Capitalism is just taking the easy way out. And yes, (to forestall the "Lefties" waiting to pounce), I do believe government has a role, and a responsibility in business regulation.

                  ps. It sure sounded like you were bashing Capitalism...
                  "... as admission of this would undermine their dogged beliefs and capitalism as it is practiced here ..." - Unless of course I attributed the wrong "dogged beliefs" to your statement.

                  pss. It was Dicken's "A Tale of Two Cities,"  that caused me to first delve into the French Revolution, which further cemented many of my political views. So your Robespierre reference immediately brings the "Jacques" and their arbitrary brutality to mind.

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    GA, it seems mainstream  GOP the idea that there is too much government regulation. I think that we both agree that government regulation is necessary providing some sort of referee against the excesses. You admitted that much of the disparity of wealth is a product of those that would take advantage. Why is the GOP assuming a posture that the solution is just the opposite that you and I agree upon as middle of the road? The last thing we need is less regulation in these areas of American life.

                  2. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    So, GA,  where are the 'moderate conservatives', I hope that you are not the only one? I confess to lean more left than right, but it seems that  I have a better chance of  finding a passenger pigeon than finding a moderate conservative. If those that carry the conservative banner in politics take an attitude of contempt concerning the things we talk about, how is that going to play with the electorate when the true nature of this 'far right' ideology and its objectives are more widely understood?

          2. GA Anderson profile image86
            GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            I made it, (in agreement), all the way to your last few sentences before I stumbled to a stop.

            It seemed you were validating the truism that life isn't fair. It is easier for rich people to make more money because they already have money. And conversely it is harder for poor people to make more money because they don't already have money. I don't think many folks would dispute that. Money equates to access. I can surely go along with that.

            But the "forces wealth to gravitate..." caused a pause. It sounds like a negative thing. Trying to ascertain what this force is, I can only come up with the thought that it is consumerism. The poor are forced to be consumers to exist, (as we all are), ie. rent, food, utilities, etc.

            Since it is wealthier people that are usually the for-profit vendors of these consumables, I am wondering if this is the force you allude to?

            Then I hit the obvious stumbling block of "adequate" wages... and you made it even harder for me when you qualified that with, "... for the most highly motivated Americans..."

            What are "adequate" wages? What is the bar that establishes "highly motivated?" When those two thoughts are combined, it sounds suspiciously like advocacy for a merit pay system - which I think is already in place in the majority of capitalistic businesses.

            You won't need to quote sources for this one Quill, just a little expansion of your concluding statements would be most helpful.

            GA

            1. Quilligrapher profile image90
              Quilligrapherposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Hello, Gus. I thank you for your comment.   

              I gather you would like me to explain my use of the phrases “forces wealth to gravitate” and also “adequate wages.”

              Now you have confused me. My final paragraph was not a thesis in economics. It was merely an observation (not meant to be charged as positive or negative) of how the system works and my opinion as to how it could change to better help the needy trapped in poverty. I did not say there was “a force,” you did when you said you were “trying to ascertain what this force is.”

              I said, “It [the current US economic model] forces all wealth to gravitate from the lowest levels of society upward into the pockets of those at the top.” Perhaps you would have had less reason to pause if I had used the word ‘causes” rather than “forces.” However, I see nothing in our economic model, other than our labor markets, that makes wealth gravitate into the hands of the poor. You seem to agree with this reality but stumble with semantics. If there is a “force,” it may be each economic transaction that results in wealth changing owners. The greater the number, the larger the exchanges, and the faster the wealth passes from hand to hand, the more robust and energized the economy.

              However, I see an economy that is always much less intense at the lower extremes. The numbers of exchanges of wealth are not as great, nor as large, or as rapid as they are at the higher end. The lower 40% of the population rely on selling their labor for wages. Therefore, if more of the economic exchanges generated by the economy were redirected to include members of the working class, the advantages for the entire society would be many.

              Increase the wealth in the hands of the poor and they will put more of what the have directly back into the economy. In contrast, increase the wealth in the hands of those already well off and they will put more of what they have directly into their 401K.

              Finally, “adequate wage” and “highly motivated” should not need to be qualified in the context of my statements. Again, you seem to be focusing on semantics. Replace the word “adequate” with “enough” and you will capture the gist of my meaning. Wages at the lowest levels of our society should be “enough” to provide opportunities and hope to those Americans who are now trapped in poverty, particularly, those with the desire and motivation to overcome the socioeconomic obstacles to upward mobility. 

              You wrote, “Then I hit the obvious stumbling block of 'adequate' wages... and you made it even harder for me when you qualified that with, '... for the most highly motivated Americans...'”

              As a reaction to this statement that I wrote:
              “ Society will always have its poor but there would be less need for welfare if our economy circulated wealth in the form of adequate wages to the lowest levels of our society thus providing economic opportunities for the most highly motivated Americans trapped in poverty.”

              All I can say, Gus, is “opportunities for the most highly motivated Americans” follows “providing economic” and NOT “adequate wages.” Since I said nothing about “advocacy for a merit pay system,” I wonder why you even bring it up.

              I hope that I addressed all of your concerns. I appreciate your comments about what I wrote. I have enough trouble determining what I want to say, so please do not fault me for things I did not say. lol

              Be well, Gus, and be cool. cool
              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                If I may interject with a bit of philosophy rather than hard facts.  I have a real problem anytime anyone says jobs should offer that mythical "adequate" pay.

                Because there is no "adequate".  Do you refer to the needs of the couch potato on minimum wage with 5 kids?  Or the college student that prefers to play rather than work his way through school? 

                We all have hope for a better future, but only if we are willing to do something about it.  When the hope is dependent on someone else providing FOR us, we've failed ourselves. 

                Because at the bottom, there are indeed Americans trapped in poverty, but they are trapped there as a result of 1) their own actions (or inactions) and/or 2) because they have been taught that someone else will provide FOR them - there is no need to do it themselves.  Very, very few are caught forever in poverty as a result of chance of circumstance.  The handicapped, for instance, but even there most can make a life for themselves if they choose to.

              2. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Perhaps it is just semantics. Perhaps I misread the intent of your phrase “...upward into the pockets of those at the top.”  as a negative implication when it was not intended that way. The same as the negative connotation I inferred from the use of "...forces...". You might be right, "Causes" may have been a more neutral sounding choice.

                In context, those were my take-aways. But I guess it could be just semantics. But if something is forced, (forces), doesn't the act of being forced imply a force of some kind doing the forcing?

                "All I can say, Gus, is “opportunities for the most highly motivated Americans” follows “providing economic” and NOT “adequate wages.” Since I said nothing about “advocacy for a merit pay system,” I wonder why you even bring it up."

                Now it feels like you are juggling the semantics. If the assumption that, generally speaking, wages are tied to production could be accepted - then the assumption that highly motivated Americans will probably have higher/better levels of production is probably also safe.

                Is it too much of a stretch to consider an employer will pay a more productive/valuable employee higher wages? Isn't this the direction to adequate wages? You work better you get paid better - a merit pay system.

                Your source references did illustrate a widening gap in income disparity, and they did point out a problematic trend, but your concluding comment seemed more than a summary of the sources. You say it was not intended as a critique or affirmation, so obviously my impression it was a condemnation of the system was in error. I suppose it could be that I overreacted to "...circulated wealth in the form of adequate wages..." as politi-speak for "minimum wage, living wage", or whatever semantic term fits.

                Sometimes the depth of neutrality is hard to fathom, (and sometimes not), but I think in this case yours was a bit of a veneer that I tripped on as I apparently leaped to the wrong conclusions - maybe.

                GA

      2. 83
        Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Now days, teachers are told what to teach, when to teach it, and how to teach it.  I'm not opposed to standardized teaching, but we're quite literally told that the only important subjects are the ones that are on that yearly test.  We have less and less time to do anything but teach math and reading.

        You would be appalled if you interviewed students about basic civics and history knowledge.  Teachers are being forced to spend less and less time teaching history, civics, science, and arts.  It's all about that test, reading and math.

        Many of our children are graduating with less than a rudimentary understanding of how our government functions.  These same graduates are woefully prepared to vote.  It's a sad reality.

        1. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          But what's the answer?  I had apprentice electricians coming to me, just out of high school, that could not read a ruler or tape measure.  That didn't know how to add 1/4 and 1/2.  Whose reading comprehension was so low they would never be able to pass the apprentice exams.  A seven year veteran told me yesterday that he was trained to read a tape as "24 and a big and a little mark".

          At the bottom then, which is more important - math and reading or civics and art?  Do you want a pretty picture and a politician or a home to live in and a car to drive?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            We want a pretty picture, a politician, a home, and a car.
            - but not in that order.
            (for me, a pretty picture, a car, then a home, then a politician.
            ridiculous, but true.)

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              As rain and snow will destroy the pretty picture, and I can't go get it without a car, I would prioritize a little differently.  And the politician - the politician comes after the Komodo in the living room.

              http://s2.hubimg.com/u/8761151_f248.jpg

    4. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this


      Well if you vote for Cyrus Claghorn for Senate he will increase your voting credit 100% - no room for corruption or abuse there.  We already have a system that rewards voters by permitting government officials to take the property of the man who earned it and award it to another who the politician favors and who owns a vote or can delivery many votes. 

      Corruption doesn't occur in a vacuum, there is the corruptible and the corrupting, they rotate roles,  it is a pas de duex.

    5. 60
      retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      How are corporations not people? 
      Can there be a corporation without people?
      Have you ever worked for a corporation where there were no people?
      Who are the officers, employees and investors in a corporation, except people?

      A lack of flexible thinking on your part hardly justifies outlawing a figure of speech that corporations are people.  A legal entity is not the same thing as a person.  Lefties get all knotted and twisted over anyone they hate, like Mitt Romney, using the phrase, "corporations are people." 

      Money is speech, it is action.  It is volunteering time to gather signatures or get out the vote.  The objection by lefties is again based in hate.  Lefties hate the businesses and individuals who have been successful can give their property to whom ever they choose.  Lefties hate it when business does this but has no objection when labor unions strong arm their members into contributing to a lefty candidate.  Obama raised a billion dollars from multiple sources, individuals, PACs, corporations, associations, etc..., the sole objection to Romney doing the same is one was a lefty, the other not.

      So, let's see, you would contract liberty because you object to language and the use of private property when they favor those you oppose, certainly the basis for a better society.

      1. John Holden profile image61
        John Holdenposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You're falling into the same trap as others here.
        Not everything you dislike or disapprove of is the fault of lefties and neither is anybody you dislike or disapprove of necessarily a leftie.

        http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

    6. FitnezzJim profile image86
      FitnezzJimposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Good discussions here, although sometimes the trail of logic was difficult to follow with respect to how some of the discussion related to the original question.  But then this is English - the language of ambiguity most appropriately fitting for politicians.

      I had to run to the dictionary when you used the word compulsory, then described a carrot approach.   I’d equate carrot approaches with the word ‘incentives’.  Compulsory means obligatory or required by law or rule.  The elaboration that followed in the discussion made it clear that was not what you meant, so … I’m going to choose to respond the question I think you tried to ask.  But even then, it was confusing.

      After going through all the discussion, I came back and read the question again.  It begins ‘While a 28th Amendment stating that corporations are not people and money is not speech would be ideal - how about compulsory voting?’
      There are a couple of premises here.  One is ‘corporations are not people’.  The other is ‘money is not speech’.  My immediate reaction is ‘true’.  Is someone somewhere teaching that ‘corporations are people’ or that ‘money can converse’?  Oh wait, wait, I get it … its that old adage ‘money talks, bovine smoothie walks’, or something like that. While I agree with the literal statement that corporations are not people and money is not speech, it is unclear what would be gained by going through the effort of turning it into a Constitutional Amendment.  So I disagree with the offered premise that this would be an ideal suitable for being expressed in our Constitution.  Perhaps a utopian ideal offered by saints or charlatans would be more fitting.

      So … What about compulsory voting?  Simple answer is … concur with those who have implied more arbitrary regulation is the problem, not the solution. No amendment is required.
      What about incentivized voting?  I think we have that now.  We’re living in the times of a paper standard based economy.  The supply of money DOES grow as the trees grow.   In economies past we were a gold standard.  In economies future, it seems even paper will be old fashioned, and our standard will be purely ethereal and maintained in electronic form (I call it the dream standard).  Our voting patterns already follow those who offer us the best dreams.  We’d be moving backwards from the future if we tried to offer money or tax credits as incentives. So again, no amendment is required.

      By the way, you should consider going into politics.

  2. Justin Earick profile image81
    Justin Earickposted 2 years ago

    I suppose I could have added that we should have a "none of the above" option on the ballot.
    That being said, how does voting count as "gov't control"?  How do tax-credits qualify as "gov't control"?  You might have some issues to work out if you see gov't control in everything the gov't does, btw...
    Are fire departments, 9-1-1, public parks, and paved roads gov't control?

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      "compulsory"

      Do I need to explain myself further?

    2. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      That's an incredible degree of assumption about me, based on two sentences.

      1. Justin Earick profile image81
        Justin Earickposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Not at all.  If you see a tax-credit as "control" over you, then you have serious issues
        .

  3. Justin Earick profile image81
    Justin Earickposted 2 years ago

    Carrot approach, not stick - is there something you do not understand about this?

  4. Justin Earick profile image81
    Justin Earickposted 2 years ago

    BTW, the drinking age is compulsory, seat belts are compulsory, insurance is compulsory, taxes are compulsory. Law-abiding behavior is compulsory, lest you be jailed.
    Yes, you very much need to explain yourself further...

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      How large is that list already?

      How much larger would you like to make it?


      I personally can get along fine without an outside agency controlling every tiny detail of my life. How about you?

  5. Justin Earick profile image81
    Justin Earickposted 2 years ago

    List, what list? You mean the list of gov't things that benefit your unappreciative self?
    Are saying that you didn't need schooling?  Didn't need roads and public transportation?  Didn't need gov't insured banking, gov't student loans, gov't backed business loans?  You don't like public parks?  Don't like patent protection.  Don't like basically any right that the gov't gives you.
    Let me guess, you want to drink polluted tap water, breathe polluted air, eat contaminated beef.  You want marauders free to rob you and your business.  You don't want 9-1-1 or the fire department, you don't want emergency rooms or ambulances.
    You don't want medicare, medicaid, social security. You don't need a border, a military, a justice system. 
    You must be the only person in the entire country who "can get along" without ever taking advantage of any gov't program.

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Wow. That's amazing how you can read me like a book, based on the fact that I don't think I should be forced to vote.

      Thank you, now I see the error of my ways.

      1. Justin Earick profile image81
        Justin Earickposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        You seem to have comprehension issues.  I was very clear from the very beginning.  Carrot, not stick.  Tax-credit, not punishment.
        By your logic, we are all forced to be married and have kids since we get tax credits/incentives.  Are we all forced to invest in the stock market or buy a house because our tax code incentivises us to do so?  Are we all forced to own a jet plane or an oil company because our tax code incentivises us?
        Are we all forced to take our wages in the form of stock options since our tax code incentivises us?
        Again, your comprehension levels are severely lacking.  Try again.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You are freaking out over something that is practically a non issue.

          I suggest a brisk walk or a few minutes of quiet meditation.

          1. Justin Earick profile image81
            Justin Earickposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Freaking out?  I'm responding your... concerns.  Btw, I didn't request that you keep claiming that voting and tax-credits are akin to tyranny.

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Unfortunately, the only carrot government can offer is to use less stick.  NOT to lock you up, NOT to take as much in taxes.  That and, of course, NOT to give you possessions taken from someone else to garner your favor.

          And when govt. has decided that too many people have "earned" the right to have fewer taxes taken, it finds it has no money.  Whereupon the base tax rate is raised, with the net effect that is TAKING now instead of NOT taking, while still giving the "credit" and claiming it is not taking.

          It's a shame that so many people do not realize that government has nothing to give - it it all belonged to someone else until forcibly taken away, and that it will take from you, too, every chance it gets.

          1. 60
            retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            AMEN!

          2. Justin Earick profile image81
            Justin Earickposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You are one confused individual.  Let me get this straight - public schooling and public roads are a stick?  9-1-1, ambulances and the fire dept are sticks?  The earned income credit is a stick?  The mortgage interest credit is a stick? 
            I could go on, but you are obviously not worth any more of my time.

            1. 60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Education is compulsory, for those who are able to choose an alternate to public education have their property i taken to fund a system in which they do not participate.

              Roads are financed through taxes - stick.
              as are all government functions - stick

              It is not a fee for service arrangement, as in a market place.

              Earned income credit is a reward for lack of ambition. 
              The mortgage credit is social engineering.

              There is nothing that a lefty government does that isn't about the SHEEPLE.

  6. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Why encourage uninterested, uninformed, worthless slugs to vote? They might not vote wisely! We need an informed electorate: those who study, care and vote wisely. Not the ones who will vote just to get a carrot!

    1. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      You seem to have a heart. Your response surprises me. Worthless slug? Does someone have to vote, of all things, to have value as a human being? What if the neurosurgeon who was about to operate on you wasn't interested in politics or voting? Is he a worthless slug? Or the woman who spends every Wednesday volunteering at the local food bank, is she one too?

    2. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Is that so, Kathryn, sounds like the rightwing mantra, who are you to say who should not have the right to vote? Your slip is showing as your arrogance is being revealed. Most every citizen over 18 has the right to vote and we should be encouraging more democracy, not less. But the rightwinger clings to elitism.

      Are you for real here, or is this just sarcasm?

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
        Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        I just like saying "worthless slugs" and have been doing so ever since Beth posted her post about people feeling like worthless slugs when comparing themselves to the olympians. What I mean to say is: if someone is not informed or inspired to vote they really should not.  You and Janesix are right: they are not worthless slugs just because they choose not to vote. But when comparing them to those who do…
        kinda like comparing yourself to an olympian.
        JUST KIDDING.
        Its just that those who vote go the extra mile to educate themselves… take relief2000 and wilderness, for example.

        1. janesix profile image60
          janesixposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          My bad:)

          I thought it had to be something like that, coming from you. I shouldn't have questioned it,and just gone with my gut instinct. I sometimes take people too literally. I apologize:)

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            (No, you were right to call me out.  No need to apologize.
            But thanks for the consideration. Others would have me banned for it! LOL)

        2. Justin Earick profile image81
          Justin Earickposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Kathryn, you miss the entire point of compulsory voting.  Political science shows that if people are pressured to put their name down, they *will* put in the research effort.  How much research is variable, but very few want to go on record as voting for a louse they know nothing about.
          To satisfy constitutional concerns, I would have a "none of the above" option, and would not punish non-voters, but would incentivise folks to vote. 
          Political science shows that people will vote if their neighbors can tell whether or not they voted...

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            "Political science shows that people will vote if their neighbors can tell whether or not they voted…" I choose to believe this statement.
            Perhaps that 's why polling places give out stickers which help us proclaim proudly: "I voted."
            So, you want more than stickers? Stickers are not enough, you're saying?

            Perhaps term limits for senators and congress members would help to loosen their connections to the donor class.
            Yes?No?

            "Congress just approved itself an increase of nearly $250 million from the US Treasury that members will spend to promote themselves. Finally with redistricting, incumbents can choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives. Term limits is the best way to break this cycle."

            At present, the incumbents, (career politicians,) have no limits and some, (the current Vice President, for instance,) have been there forever. A constitutional amendment has been introduced by Jim De Mint to limit senators to no more than two six year terms in office, and representatives no more than three two year terms.

          2. rhamson profile image76
            rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Justin: Many people who don't vote either don't understand the issues or are fed up with the choices presented them. This last Presidential election boiled down to a vote for the people or a vote for the corporations. Obama was able to get the people energized and motivated to vote against rather than for something. His prior four years yielded little but a broken healthcare debacle and a gay initiative for equal rights. Is this what everyone wanted? I think jobs and the economy was more on Americans minds. So based on the candidate and not the vote one can assume that the vote brought about little. We need to get the money out of the decision for the leadership of this country because that is what the focus is above all else! Making people vote for bad choices is a futile attempt at changing anything.

            Publicly financed campaigns, lobby reform and term limits are the only way to effect real change.

            1. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, the last election boiled down to a vote for the politicians or for the politicians.

              The only "people" in the equation were a handful owning businesses and another handful wanting free handouts.  The handout group won this time, meaning that the politicians feeding them gained in power and strength; this is apparent as the biggest handout in the history of the country has now begun.

              Remember the woman declaring that Obama was going to give her a car?  That's the "people" that carried that election.

              1. rhamson profile image76
                rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Reread your reply and you will see that we stated the same thing. Unfortunately you just dislike to agree with me.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  I did not take your comment to mean a vote for the detestable uber rich capitalists  but for the common man in the street.  Nor did I think you intended it to mean for those unwilling to support themselves, and wishing the government to do it FOR them.

              2. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Most biased, so everybody that voted for Obama were seeking handouts? That attitude is preeminent among too many conservatives and certainly contributed to Romney's defeat. So according the wise sage of the right, the majority of the electorate voted for Obama  because of handouts. Thats ridiculous!  Doesn't sound much like a middle of the road position, but as hard right as anything that I have heard coming from their mouths.

                1. wilderness profile image96
                  wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  And yet...Obama's greatest claim to fame is the biggest handout in the history of the world.  But people didn't want that from him?

                  I think you put far too much faith in people wanting to support themselves.

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    Well, Wilderness, you want to support yourself, don't you?  I want to support myself. What makes you believe that the majority of people  who voted for Obama, prominent over many demographic groups are any different? Where do you get this stuff from, yes there are moochers but to imply that half of American society is is a stretch?  I was thinking that we could move beyond the Glenn Becks and Rush Limbaughs.  If what you say is true of Obama then it is true for every Democratic president since FDR and the New Deal.

        3. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Thanks for clearing that up, Kathryn....

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Dear Credence 2,
                ( I cannot tell if you were being sarcastic or not. If so, why?)

                 You said," If those that carry the conservative banner in politics take an attitude of contempt concerning the things we talk about, how is that going to play with the electorate when the true nature of this 'far right' ideology and its objectives are more widely understood?"

            Can you elucidate?

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Surely, in the conversation with GA, we both came to an conclusion that a major reason for the increasing inequity of wealth in our society are abuses built into the 'system' that needs to be corrected an example or two given in one of my comments. That would mean a greater role for government regulators and the fact that they have a place in leveling the playing field which in my opinion is essential. The GOP has this smoke and mirror approach of saying that the free market left unfettered would benefit more people. I have yet to see that play out. The GOP and the right are against the concept of government regulation in all of its  ideological dogma. So, with that attitude how do we ever get to a major root of the problem highlighted above? When more people realize that the GOP philosophy will intrinsically gut the middle class and all its aspirations by allowing the fat cats a free hand without any restraint, perhaps the GOP will lose more votes and support from the vast middle.

              No sarcasm intended, this is quite real!!

              1. GA Anderson profile image86
                GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Whoa Nellie... I don't recall agreeing that abuses are "built-in." I did concede that the system is being abused. That is a distinction to me. And I also do not agree government needs a "greater" role in business regulation - it does have a role, but I think it is a better role, not a greater one.

                It does appear that we agree government regulation should be directed at the "level playing field" concept.

                As for the rest of your comment - I hope I don't appear picky, or jousting with semantics, but our opinions are very different. I feel like my perspective reflects that of a mainstream conservative - not a self-proclaimed Mainstream conservative politician. (is my disdain showing?)

                Gutting the middle class? Don't you think excessive taxation, (it is the middle class that is most hard hit by this), and government largess, (it does not generally go to the middle class), have something to do with that too?

                ps. I hope I have been obvious in my discussions that I am speaking of Mainstream conservatives - not the vaunted GOP - I have long since decided the GOP no longer truly reflects Mainstream conservative values. I am hopeful that the downhill slide of the party's political fortunes will soon drive that point home.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  'but I think it is a better role, not a greater one'.
                  A 'better role' means more rather than less, how is anything else possible?
                  Is it quality rather than quantity that you allude to? In the 60 minutes piece, the financial industries lobbied Congress for the right to continue to operate in the shadows regarding its customers. Which of the ideological poles took the side of these poor financial managers who said that they were being strangled by unnecessary government regulation. Yes, high taxes reflect much waste in Government and how resources are used, no one denies this. I guess the question remains, 'whose ox are we going to gore'? The solution is compromise with each interest group taking a hit and making some  gains. You have to stand idly by while conservative principles get a black eye because of radical fanatics. Because the party is not a reflection of mainstream conservative values but has mutated into something else, you predict more trouble for it down the road, interesting...'

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    How can greed be checked?
                    How about by suing? Who is actually accountable? Who could sue? State government?  Why not state/states government/s?

                    Control/power/decision-making by the states has been usurped by the Fed. 
                    This is how it USED to be: "The State governments, by their original constitutions, are invested with complete sovereignty." Federalist Papers. Paper 31.
                    (Obviously, we have a history of voting for the wrong people. Our representatives in the House have not been fighting for their rights or their power. For instance, which of them has a history of fighting for its rightful state authority? The ones who demanded a choice regarding government health care? who were they? Would an informed voter need to know all this info? Yes. Could a voter who is "getting paid" (through increased tax-credits) to vote, accidentally misspend his vote? Yes.)

                  2. GA Anderson profile image86
                    GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    "....A 'better role' means more rather than less, how is anything else possible?"

                    I bet you would like that one back. Of course better does not have to mean more. Too often more is just more. - not better. Yes, it is quality vs. quantity I want.

                    GA

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    BTW
    Buying votes is illegal on any level:
    In one word:

    Unconstitutional.

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    PS
    The safeguards are already in place and are set forth in the Constitution. Federal regulations of business and people are not allowed. The Federal Government has jurisdiction over taxation on imports, national defense and money. States are supposed to regulate their own affairs.

    We must vote out the corrupt ones representing us. Know who they are. That should be motivating enough to vote. Thats where the hope and change are… in knowing who/what to vote for who/what not to vote for
    and WHY.

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    Why is inequity of wealth a problem all of the sudden? Hasn't there always been inequity of wealth since the beginning of capitalism? Why does the general government need to get involved? If freedom fosters capitalism and capitalism fosters inequity shall we get rid of the thing which fosters capitalism? Really? Whats wrong with capitalism again?

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Watch the movie "Inequality for All" to answer this.

  10. ahorseback profile image46
    ahorsebackposted 2 years ago

    I disagree with this  OP, the single greatest problem with our political reality in America -- is voter Apathy , which probably began or  was created ironically  by economic prosperity to start with !  The seventies , eighties and early nineties . The economic "poverty" of today is a result of that only  , not caring enough to not only vote , but to learn enough about it to hold those responsible and accountable  for our decline !

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There is no single thing in this problem and the culprits hide behind all the others.

    2. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      There you go again, actually daring to address the thread's original topic - and making sense to boot!

      I think you are right - a well-informed voting public would quickly correct a lot of the political problems we are screaming about. Starting with term limits that so many think we need - because an informed and involved voting public will quickly vote the worst of the lot out on their butts! That is the real term limit we need.

      GA

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Sadly, I have to disagree.  An informed and involved voting public is likely to simply vote more scoundrels in, as long as they bring home the bacon.  So few people today will look beyond their own backyard to what is good for the country instead of good for them personally.  It's why congressional pork is so successful.

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

          So, Wilderness, if an informed and involved voting public will not see the problems, will an ignorant and disengaged public do better? What is your solution, that all the informed and involved voters that vote left be eliminated from franchise? What you think is good for the country as to opposed to what I think are two different things but to imply that those not on your side of the ideological ledger are selfish is unsubstantiated.
          Who does not look out for their own interests? We all know that this is not just a tack taken by the left. The trends that you have been talking about have been a long time coming and did not start with Obama. Clinton was working on Universal Health care back in the nineties and Romney advocated a similar program in Mass. So none of us should feign shock or surprise at this obvious reality.

          You spoke about social security a while back, I believe that there is no reason why it would not have been successful if the politicians had not used it as a slush fund. The crime of raiding this is borne by both parties in Washington.  Congressional pork predates Obama or even FDR, so what else is new? The solution is term limits to take some of the wind from the sails of these guys and remind them who they are working for. Get the big money and lobbying out of politics. And as Bufford Pusser once said, "any one caught taking a bribe gets his or her head knocked off"

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Credence, if you've followed my posts at all, you will find that nearly all right/left recognition is in response to someone with a post nearly rabid with one-sided rhetoric.  I don't like either side!

            Tell me - we have a massive problem with congressional pork - is any of it good for the county?  I submit the answer is a resounding "NO!", but people keep voting for the scoundrels that are spending other peoples money to buy those votes.  They (neither congressman nor voter) are not concerned with the country, just their own backyard. 

            And that is rampant.  It's not just money, it's all the laws the control freaks put up to "manage" what others do and how they live.  Gay marriage.  Marijuana usage.  "Victimless" crimes.  And it is most definitely NOT one sided; it comes from both sides in nearly equal amounts, just with a different thrust.  The right concentrates on their religious moral structure, the left on their liberal "share the wealth" moral structure.  Neither recognize that people have either responsibility nor duty to themselves or others, and both set aside the concept that if they don't want others to do it to them they shouldn't be doing it themselves.

            SS - absolutely both sides have ripped off the program.  Just like the social end, the financial end is NOT limited to one party.  In very general terms, the right spends for the country, the left for the individual and both say it is for the country but both are lying through their teeth.  The right, for instance, wants a huge military to enforce their morality throughout the world; the left wants everyone to depend on the party for their support and maintenance.  Both claim  it is good for the US, both are flat out wrong in that assertion.  And, IMHO, those at the top KNOW it is wrong, but it buys the votes to maintain their power base.  The result is that the SS is broke, but Kansas City has a new museum and Podunk has a new sewer treatment plant paid for by the rest of the country instead of the people that will use and benefit from it.

            Term limits - yes.  Idaho voted them in for state legislature - the first thing the state congress did upon coming back from Xmas vacation was to cancel the vote of the people.  To go back to indefinite terms, to maintain their job.  The people, unfortunately, did not make a constitutional change, just a simple law about term limits; a law the congress could nullify at will.  And they promptly did.

            1. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Wilderness, sorry, if you have problems with both ends of the ideological pole, from an objective standpoint your attacks on the left  and your advocacy of the conservative position are far more frequent than otherwise and I  have been looking over your shoulder to see what it  is you're posting and the topic. In general I would say that the right are interested in moneyed  Special Interests and the left,  the individual. What can be more ridiculous, spending money on military hardware to impose your point of view on the planet, instead of  attending to the needs  of  citizens that live here and pay taxes.

              So, an uneducated electorate is just less likely to far under the spell of slick, self interested politicians. What do we do as Americans to solve this problem? I can't change the way people vote, but we can legislate making influence peddling much more difficult that it is now.  I surely know that the Koch brothers and their ilk are also in the business of buying votes  and weilding unwarrented influence in the corridors of power.  It is just coming from a different direction and source from the socialist trend that you warn us about. These legislators seem to be a power unto themselves, much like your Idaho example, beside the electorate (not so true anymore), who and what do they fear?

        2. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          Hmmm... even being the cynical curmudgeon that I am, I still believe an informed voting populace.will do more good than harm, ie. kick out more scoundrels than they keep.

          GA

 
working