[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Daradon

(What I would ask for)

I can't disagree with a lot of what you've said Cowperson. But I do think without change it will get much worse.

.

I believe I said change is necessary. In fact, its always necessary. Things evolve and the rules of yesterday do not necessarily apply today.

First, change how money works in the electoral system. Change the PAC's and the SUPERPAC's and the corporations used to hide the SUPERPAC donation lists. Make rules on how much can be donated and get rid of all the loopholes all these PAC's represent.

I agree.

Frankly, I'd love to see campaigns extremely limited in their funding but an overabundance of televised (and on radio), moderated debates so the public could hear all of the candidates at once, on the same focussed questions.

It would, in fact, work much like equity markets are supposed to work, everyone fairly learning the same information at the same time in a supervised manner.

It is a free country, however, and candidates should be able to show up anywhere in their districts, put up a pulpit and start preaching.

But how much should that preaching cost? Its an industry unto itself right now and probably not a very healthy one in terms of giving the common man the right to step forward and be a candidate.

Second, tighten up the lobbies. I know, not too much to ask right? I can't really tell you how, but I think most people agree the corporations and special interest groups have far too much say in governance, and more importantly, prevent the representative from acting in the best interests of their constituants(sp). Put regulations again on donations, gifts, etc. and tighten up those loopholes.

I think lobbies require heavy oversight for ethics . . . . . but, corporations really are people too and should have the right to speak their piece.

The answer, if you think your guy or gal is overly influenced by lobbies, is to vote them out of office. The logical counterargument to that is the two-party system in the USA makes that difficult to get done but, again, that's the unhealthy voter loyalty to a two-party system. Lobby for an independent.

I'm less in agreement with you on your second point. I am simply saying corporations have the right to speak.

The owner of Starbucks, however, is calling on all of Corporate America to suspend all funding for political candidates and organizations, essentially a lobby in itself.

As I said, corporate America is pretty frustrated with the political landscape as well, hence them sitting on $2 trillion in cash right now because of uncertainty. Its a prudent business decision.

Third, now to business, as you yourself Cowperson have suggested, bring in reforms for the banking system. Again, I'm no expert, but I would think the US could probably get closer to mirroring our system as a start.

Ironically, they're arguing for downsizing "too big to fail" banks while we've been propping up ours.

Do not confuse the banking system with enhanced oversight of derivatives, separating investment banking from true banking, etc, etc.

Banking itself is a pretty steady business. As with insurance companies in the 90's, its predictable. Both get in trouble when they're allowed to add entities that seem like natural synergies in good times but can bring the whole group down in bad times through excessive, unregulated leverage.

Fourth, back to the corporations, close those tax loopholes. You don't even need to tax them more, just make sure they (and their boards and shareholders) are paying their share.

The entire tax system needs a massive overhaul, including extremely costly entitlements to individuals.

To reach agreement, you'd need give and take on both sides and can't forcus on the corporate side.

They need to be done in that order though, because if you don't clean up capital hill, they won't have the ability or will to clean up the economic sectors as they will still be in their pockets.

And I would point out again, you have many Titans Of Industry, corporate CEO's out there and good Americans, arguing for comprehensive tax reform.

In the 2008 recession, overall Federal tax revenues fell by one-thid. Corporations are writing off the losses allowed them from the brutal business environment of the time, flattening out their tax bills in the short term, so its not a surprise if you see a bunch of them zeroing out right now. That doesn't necessarily mean they won't be paying taxes in future years under the current tax system. The widely-held observation within the Occupy Wall St. movement that corporations pay zero taxes forever doesn't necessarily speak highly of the group.

But multi-nationals expose a certain lack of competitiveness in the American tax code . . . . . these corporations can shift income where the tax burden is friendliest. That's not treasonous. That's just good business. America has to compete for dollars and jobs on the global stage. That's also part of tax code reform.

And that is the catch 22, the politicians aren't going to give up what they have right now. No way, no how. I mean look what the Repubs were prepared to do just to try and get back into power 1.5 years from now. And based on how Obama has behaved so far, the Dems aren't going to give up their perks either.

You're overrating them. If enough people are frustrated, these people can be voted out in the blink of an eye. They pay attention to polls so, in a way, you're controlling them, moreso than you think.

Similarly, voters are responsible for the people who are elected. Its one of the reasons I cheered Hamas being elected to power in Palestine in 2006 . . . . they couldn't hide behind the skirts of the population anymore and, secondly, citizens were responsible for their terrorism. A very healthy relationship. So I was a little bummed when Western powers reacted fairly violently to this development . . . . . shortsightedness I think.

The USA is pretty rife for a third or fourth political party. Its probably a very credible solution right now. And healthy for democracy.

But old habits die hard. They're are still people in Canada who vote Liberal out of habit. There are still women in Canada who vote for the political party their husband decides on.

And lastly, I will again observe that independent candidates, calls for a third party and voter frustration typically appear in times of economic turmoil . . . . and not when times are good.

It speaks to a certain "what's in it for me" kind of attitude among those doing the complaining, instead of firm principles.

Lastly, for Canada, I just think it's important to highlight the voices of those who feel outside the system and bring attention to the fact that even though we are weathering the economic storm pretty well here in Canada, there are many people who need help. I also think it's important to show we are active in democracy, lest some of the policies that have cause so many problems down south start to creep up here. I know this may sound abstract to a lot of people but it's really not. A vigilant populous keeps the politicians honest (or at least more honest).

Blah. Dogma.

Thanks for listing the points. Its the start of debate and therefore the start of solutions. The Occupy Wall St. movement needs more of it.

Cowperson