The "Definately Nothing Pertaining To The Buffet Act" Thread... Mostly pointless bickering

I did a quick search of the forum and saw that no one has posted this before. I love this. In an interview with CNBC last year, Warren Buffet said he could fix our national debt in 5 minutes if these following ideas were adopted as an ammendment to the constitution. It's not listed below, but he also stated an additional rule which states that "any time the deficit exceeds 3%, all sitting members of congress will be ineligible for re-election!" I really think this needs to happen for our country to be successful in the long run. Each side of the two party system constantly point at each other calling each other elitists. The fact of the matter is, they're both right! The real "Elite" in this country is Congress. Half our laws don't apply to them. They constantly abuse their powers and insider knowledge to pad their own pockets. They never have to worry about money or healthcare ever again! If this isn't the real definition of "Elite" then I don't know what is!

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

blurr

Its amazing to see such common sense ideas that put congressmen on the same playing field as the people they are supposed to represent. Would love to see this idea implemented but you know the people in power will prevent this from happening. Why would they want to participate in the social security and health care mess the rest of us are obliged to partake in.

JDH

The version of this "proposal" I've seen had significantly different language. Item #7 said; "All contracts, past and present are void. The American people did not make them, Congress did."

Additionally, the last paragraph was also distinctly different. It did not include the first line; "Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. ", and the last line; "The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work." was the first line of the proposal, just before item #1.

That is considerably different language than what you've posted. I am suspect of the actual orgin of this "proposal", and of the motive behind it.

gmill880

Warren Buffet ... Warren if you want to change something , why dont YOU run for office !!!

jlmarta

clearlysuspect:
I did a quick search of the forum and saw that no one has posted this before. I love this. In an interview with CNBC last year, Warren Buffet said he could fix our national debt in 5 minutes if these following ideas were adopted as an ammendment to the constitution. It's not listed below, but he also stated an additional rule which states that "any time the deficit exceeds 3%, all sitting members of congress will be ineligible for re-election!" I really think this needs to happen for our country to be successful in the long run. Each side of the two party system constantly point at each other calling each other elitists. The fact of the matter is, they're both right! The real "Elite" in this country is Congress. Half our laws don't apply to them. They constantly abuse their powers and insider knowledge to pad their own pockets. They never have to worry about money or healthcare ever again! If this isn't the real definition of "Elite" then I don't know what is!

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women.

Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

I really like the idea Mr. Buffett put forth but did you also find this on the net? Click Here

JDH

gmill880:
Warren Buffet ... Warren if you want to change something , why dont YOU run for office !!!

He doesn't have to run for office. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision "Citizens United", wealthy individuals, corporations, or even foreign governments can just buy the candidate of their choice, without having to go through the process of being elected.

xmacro

JDH:
gmill880:
Warren Buffet ... Warren if you want to change something , why dont YOU run for office !!!
He doesn't have to run for office. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision "Citizens United", wealthy individuals, corporations, or even foreign governments can just buy the candidate of their choice, without having to go through the process of being elected.

How's the Kool-aid taste?

The only thing Citizens United did was recognize that corporations and unions were entities with free speech rights, allowing them to donate to elections. Take a look at all the "outrage" from the Left; it's always against corporations being allowed to donate, never against unions. I wonder why that is?

cabinetmaker

My first thought when i saw the title was: "awww crap; they're gonna limit trips through the buffet!!"

JDH

xmacro:
JDH:
gmill880:
Warren Buffet ... Warren if you want to change something , why dont YOU run for office !!!
He doesn't have to run for office. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision "Citizens United", wealthy individuals, corporations, or even foreign governments can just buy the candidate of their choice, without having to go through the process of being elected.
How's the Kool-aid taste?

The only thing Citizens United did was recognize that corporations and unions were entities with free speech rights, allowing them to donate to elections. Take a look at all the "outrage" from the Left; it's always against corporations being allowed to donate, never against unions. I wonder why that is?

No organization or business should ever considered the equal or equivelant of an individual with regard to representative government and the elections of governmental representatives. Corporations are businesses, not People. Money is currency, not speech. If left unchecked, Citizens United will destroy our Democratic form of government, and replace it with an Oligarchy. Teddy Roosevelt warned us of this over 100 years ago.

clearlysuspect

JDH:
The version of this "proposal" I've seen had significantly different language. Item #7 said; "All contracts, past and present are void. The American people did not make them, Congress did."

Additionally, the last paragraph was also distinctly different. It did not include the first line; "Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. ", and the last line; "The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work." was the first line of the proposal, just before item #1.

That is considerably different language than what you've posted. I am suspect of the actual orgin of this "proposal", and of the motive behind it.

The language doesn't seem very suspect to me. If you can find the one you're talking about please post it so we can compare and contrast. I have read that this was originally put together back in 2009 and was named the Buffet Reform Act of 2009, but was brought back up in 2011 as the Buffet Reform Act of 2011. I have also read, and I'm quite certain that it is true, that it has never actually been brought up in Congress.

clearlysuspect

jlmarta:
I really like the idea Mr. Buffett put forth but did you also find this on the net? Click Here

I did find that actually, and I decided that I didn't particularly care if he initiated it or thought it was actually a good idea or comical or anything for that matter. When I read it, it sounded like a D@mn good idea, so I decided to share it with you guys!

So enough bickering among ourselves about left and right. They're all part of the same team in the end! Who thinks this is a good idea? Why? Who thinks this is a bad idea? Why?

xmacro

JDH:
xmacro:
JDH:
gmill880:
Warren Buffet ... Warren if you want to change something , why dont YOU run for office !!!
He doesn't have to run for office. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision "Citizens United", wealthy individuals, corporations, or even foreign governments can just buy the candidate of their choice, without having to go through the process of being elected.
How's the Kool-aid taste?

The only thing Citizens United did was recognize that corporations and unions were entities with free speech rights, allowing them to donate to elections. Take a look at all the "outrage" from the Left; it's always against corporations being allowed to donate, never against unions. I wonder why that is?
No organization or business should ever considered the equal or equivelant of an individual with regard to representative government and the elections of governmental representatives. Corporations are businesses, not People. Money is currency, not speech. If left unchecked, Citizens United will destroy our Democratic form of government, and replace it with an Oligarchy. Teddy Roosevelt warned us of this over 100 years ago.

Seriously, where do you life this stuff from? Your entire paragraph sounds like it was copied from the Daily Kos or MediaMatters.

Corporations and Unions (funny how you never once mentioned unions in your soapbox) aren't people, but they are entities - entities with rights. They aren't the equivalent of a "person" but they do have a similar set of rights, such as the right to sue and be sued, the right to protect their interests, etc. Your interpretation, that corporations aren't anything, would leave them unable to protect their interests.

Secondly, money is speech. If you don't have money, you can't get your message out; you can't buy airtime, you can't schedule lectures, you can't buy radio or tv spots - money enables a person to get their message heard, so it IS speech.

bigfnsteve

I was scared for a second that the government was going to limit the number of plates i could have at a buffet

JDH

xmacro:
JDH:
xmacro:
JDH:
gmill880:
Warren Buffet ... Warren if you want to change something , why dont YOU run for office !!!
He doesn't have to run for office. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision "Citizens United", wealthy individuals, corporations, or even foreign governments can just buy the candidate of their choice, without having to go through the process of being elected.
How's the Kool-aid taste?

The only thing Citizens United did was recognize that corporations and unions were entities with free speech rights, allowing them to donate to elections. Take a look at all the "outrage" from the Left; it's always against corporations being allowed to donate, never against unions. I wonder why that is?
No organization or business should ever considered the equal or equivelant of an individual with regard to representative government and the elections of governmental representatives. Corporations are businesses, not People. Money is currency, not speech. If left unchecked, Citizens United will destroy our Democratic form of government, and replace it with an Oligarchy. Teddy Roosevelt warned us of this over 100 years ago.
Seriously, where do you life this stuff from? Your entire paragraph sounds like it was copied from the Daily Kos or MediaMatters.

Corporations and Unions (funny how you never once mentioned unions in your soapbox) aren't people, but they are entities - entities with rights. They aren't the equivalent of a "person" but they do have a similar set of rights, such as the right to sue and be sued, the right to protect their interests, etc. Your interpretation, that corporations aren't anything, would leave them unable to protect their interests.

Secondly, money is speech. If you don't have money, you can't get your message out; you can't buy airtime, you can't schedule lectures, you can't buy radio or tv spots - money enables a person to get their message heard, so it IS speech.

I will be more than happy to discuss this topic with you. However, I am not going to engage in an exchange of insults. I don't have time for that.

A union is an organization, so they were mentioned. I never said that corporations "aren't anytrhing". I said that they are businesses, not people, which is exactly what they are.

The Supreme Court can declare that money is speech, or that a Black Man is not a human being, or that the sale of Alcohol should be illegal, or that abortion sdhould be legal,but that does not make it so. The Court has made an error.

Money is not speech, it is currency. Speech is the expression of an idea or thought by a human being. Currency is used by human beings to purchase material goods and services.

beatnic

JDH:
xmacro:
JDH:
xmacro:
JDH:
gmill880:
Warren Buffet ... Warren if you want to change something , why dont YOU run for office !!!
He doesn't have to run for office. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision "Citizens United", wealthy individuals, corporations, or even foreign governments can just buy the candidate of their choice, without having to go through the process of being elected.
How's the Kool-aid taste?

The only thing Citizens United did was recognize that corporations and unions were entities with free speech rights, allowing them to donate to elections. Take a look at all the "outrage" from the Left; it's always against corporations being allowed to donate, never against unions. I wonder why that is?
No organization or business should ever considered the equal or equivelant of an individual with regard to representative government and the elections of governmental representatives. Corporations are businesses, not People. Money is currency, not speech. If left unchecked, Citizens United will destroy our Democratic form of government, and replace it with an Oligarchy. Teddy Roosevelt warned us of this over 100 years ago.
Seriously, where do you life this stuff from? Your entire paragraph sounds like it was copied from the Daily Kos or MediaMatters.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Sorry public union guys. Corporations and Unions (funny how you never once mentioned unions in your soapbox) aren't people, but they are entities - entities with rights. They aren't the equivalent of a "person" but they do have a similar set of rights, such as the right to sue and be sued, the right to protect their interests, etc. Your interpretation, that corporations aren't anything, would leave them unable to protect their interests.

Secondly, money is speech. If you don't have money, you can't get your message out; you can't buy airtime, you can't schedule lectures, you can't buy radio or tv spots - money enables a person to get their message heard, so it IS speech.

I will be more than happy to discuss this topic with you. However, I am not going to engage in an exchange of insults. I don't have time for that.

A union is an organization, so they were mentioned. I never said that corporations "aren't anytrhing". I said that they are businesses, not people, which is exactly what they are.

The Supreme Court can declare that money is speech, or that a Black Man is not a human being, or that the sale of Alcohol should be illegal, or that abortion sdhould be legal,but that does not make it so. The Court has made an error.

Money is not speech, it is currency. Speech is the expression of an idea or thought by a human being. Currency is used by human beings to purchase material goods and services.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry public union guys.

JDH

beatnic:
JDH:
xmacro:
JDH:
xmacro:
JDH:
gmill880:
Warren Buffet ... Warren if you want to change something , why dont YOU run for office !!!
He doesn't have to run for office. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision "Citizens United", wealthy individuals, corporations, or even foreign governments can just buy the candidate of their choice, without having to go through the process of being elected.
How's the Kool-aid taste?

The only thing Citizens United did was recognize that corporations and unions were entities with free speech rights, allowing them to donate to elections. Take a look at all the "outrage" from the Left; it's always against corporations being allowed to donate, never against unions. I wonder why that is?
No organization or business should ever considered the equal or equivelant of an individual with regard to representative government and the elections of governmental representatives. Corporations are businesses, not People. Money is currency, not speech. If left unchecked, Citizens United will destroy our Democratic form of government, and replace it with an Oligarchy. Teddy Roosevelt warned us of this over 100 years ago.
Seriously, where do you life this stuff from? Your entire paragraph sounds like it was copied from the Daily Kos or MediaMatters.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Sorry public union guys. Corporations and Unions (funny how you never once mentioned unions in your soapbox) aren't people, but they are entities - entities with rights. They aren't the equivalent of a "person" but they do have a similar set of rights, such as the right to sue and be sued, the right to protect their interests, etc. Your interpretation, that corporations aren't anything, would leave them unable to protect their interests.

Secondly, money is speech. If you don't have money, you can't get your message out; you can't buy airtime, you can't schedule lectures, you can't buy radio or tv spots - money enables a person to get their message heard, so it IS speech.

I will be more than happy to discuss this topic with you. However, I am not going to engage in an exchange of insults. I don't have time for that.

A union is an organization, so they were mentioned. I never said that corporations "aren't anytrhing". I said that they are businesses, not people, which is exactly what they are.

The Supreme Court can declare that money is speech, or that a Black Man is not a human being, or that the sale of Alcohol should be illegal, or that abortion sdhould be legal, but that does not make it so. The Court has made an error.

Money is not speech, it is currency. Speech is the expression of an idea or thought by a human being. Currency is used by human beings to purchase material goods and services.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry public union guys.

As far as I'm concerned, monetary contributions to political campaigns should be limited to individuals (individual human beings) who actually reside in the voting district of the candidate, and those contributions should have limits as to the amounts allowed.

If money is speech, speech cannot be free, because those with more money will always be allowed more speech than those with less money. That does not describe the American Democratic Republic that I have lived in, nor does it describe a country in which I would choose to live in, either.

gmill880

cabinetmaker:
My first thought when i saw the title was: "awww crap; they're gonna limit trips through the buffet!!"

Haha , me too . I thought they were going to make you step on the scales and weigh before you headed down the buffet line . Depending on what you weighed determined how much you were allowed to eat haha .

Direwolf

gmill880:
cabinetmaker:
My first thought when i saw the title was: "awww crap; they're gonna limit trips through the buffet!!"

Haha , me too . I thought they were going to make you step on the scales and weigh before you headed down the buffet line . Depending on what you weighed determined how much you were allowed to eat haha .

There is a Chinese buffet here that will charge kids by how tall they are. They have tape marks on the wall with differing prices.

Vulchor

JDH, +1 to every post you have in this thread----youve actually written so well I have nothing further to give on it----------------------------------------------And btw, I WILL NEVER allow by buffet trips to be limited.

JDH

Vulchor:
JDH, +1 to every post you have in this thread----youve actually written so well I have nothing further to give on it----------------------------------------------And btw, I WILL NEVER allow by buffet trips to be limited.

Thank you. My apologies for the typos and misspellings.

clearlysuspect

Alright! Hopefully everyone has that out of their systems. Now, back to the ORIGINAL topic at hand! Who thinks this is a good idea? Why? Who thinks this is a bad idea? Why?

blurr

Yes thats what I'm curious about. The few people who are getting all worked up and angry I'm curious what you disagree with as far as this reform act. Not back on your spiel about Unions/Corporations/theleftisevil, what do you disagree with as far as congressmen/women participating the same way the rest of the working men/women do in social security/retirement funds/healthcare?

Rail Jockey

blurr:
Yes thats what I'm curious about. The few people who are getting all worked up and angry I'm curious what you disagree with as far as this reform act. Not back on your spiel about Unions/Corporations/theleftisevil, what do you disagree with as far as congressmen/women participating the same way the rest of the working men/women do in social security/retirement funds/healthcare?

Amos Umwhat

JDH:
No organization or business should ever considered the equal or equivelant of an individual with regard to representative government and the elections of governmental representatives. Corporations are businesses, not People. Money is currency, not speech. If left unchecked, Citizens United will destroy our Democratic form of government, and replace it with an Oligarchy. Teddy Roosevelt warned us of this over 100 years ago.

You'd think that this would be the common-sense view of all Americans claiming to believe in the principles of a democratic republic. Sadly, common sense isn't that common anymore!

JDH

Rail Jockey:
blurr:
Yes thats what I'm curious about. The few people who are getting all worked up and angry I'm curious what you disagree with as far as this reform act. Not back on your spiel about Unions/Corporations/theleftisevil, what do you disagree with as far as congressmen/women participating the same way the rest of the working men/women do in social security/retirement funds/healthcare?
+1

To begin with, this isn't a "reform act". It's something floating around on the internet. My skeptism has to do with the fact that I've only seen it on the internet. I think the basic concepts are terrific, but I question where it's coming from, and who is behind it, and why. When I see that Warren Buffett is actually behind this, or a sponsor of this, and when the language of the proposal is made clear, I will probably be in favor of it.

JDH

Amos Umwhat:
JDH:
No organization or business should ever considered the equal or equivelant of an individual with regard to representative government and the elections of governmental representatives. Corporations are businesses, not People. Money is currency, not speech. If left unchecked, Citizens United will destroy our Democratic form of government, and replace it with an Oligarchy. Teddy Roosevelt warned us of this over 100 years ago.

You'd think that this would be the common-sense view of all Americans claiming to believe in the principles of a democratic republic. Sadly, common sense isn't that common anymore!

Yea, you would think that common sense would be a lot more common, but, in this case, it seems that the "liberal/conservative" divide is preventing too many from seeing things clearly.

clearlysuspect

JDH:
Rail Jockey:
blurr:
Yes thats what I'm curious about. The few people who are getting all worked up and angry I'm curious what you disagree with as far as this reform act. Not back on your spiel about Unions/Corporations/theleftisevil, what do you disagree with as far as congressmen/women participating the same way the rest of the working men/women do in social security/retirement funds/healthcare?
+1
To begin with, this isn't a "reform act". It's something floating around on the internet. My skeptism has to do with the fact that I've only seen it on the internet. I think the basic concepts are terrific, but I question where it's coming from, and who is behind it, and why. When I see that Warren Buffett is actually behind this, or a sponsor of this, and when the language of the proposal is made clear, I will probably be in favor of it.

I still don't get it. Why does it matter if Warren Buffet supports it, who is behind it, where it's coming from, etc? You are certainly correct that it is just something floating around on the internet, but the question at hand is, "Does it sound like a good idea?"

Personally, I don't care if Bush, Obama, Hitler, the KKK, or a grand collaboration of them all is behind this. If any or all of them came up with this, then good for them. I approve of this message!

jgibv

cabinetmaker:
My first thought when i saw the title was: "awww crap; they're gonna limit trips through the buffet!!"

lol that's the same thing I thought.

JDH

clearlysuspect:
JDH:
Rail Jockey:
blurr:
Yes thats what I'm curious about. The few people who are getting all worked up and angry I'm curious what you disagree with as far as this reform act. Not back on your spiel about Unions/Corporations/theleftisevil, what do you disagree with as far as congressmen/women participating the same way the rest of the working men/women do in social security/retirement funds/healthcare?
+1
To begin with, this isn't a "reform act". It's something floating around on the internet. My skeptism has to do with the fact that I've only seen it on the internet. I think the basic concepts are terrific, but I question where it's coming from, and who is behind it, and why. When I see that Warren Buffett is actually behind this, or a sponsor of this, and when the language of the proposal is made clear, I will probably be in favor of it.
I still don't get it. Why does it matter if Warren Buffet supports it, who is behind it, where it's coming from, etc? You are certainly correct that it is just something floating around on the internet, but the question at hand is, "Does it sound like a good idea?"

Personally, I don't care if Bush, Obama, Hitler, the KKK, or a grand collaboration of them all is behind this. If any or all of them came up with this, then good for them. I approve of this message!

It matters to me because, like all proposed legislation (and that's what will be required to enact this "proposal") the devil will be in the details. The best of ideas are often destroyed by the agendas of those who write the details. That's why the details will be infinately more important than the concept, and it's important to know who will be writing the details.

xmacro

JDH:
beatnic:
JDH:
xmacro:
JDH:
xmacro:
JDH:
gmill880:
Warren Buffet ... Warren if you want to change something , why dont YOU run for office !!!
He doesn't have to run for office. Thanks to the recent Supreme Court decision "Citizens United", wealthy individuals, corporations, or even foreign governments can just buy the candidate of their choice, without having to go through the process of being elected.
How's the Kool-aid taste?

The only thing Citizens United did was recognize that corporations and unions were entities with free speech rights, allowing them to donate to elections. Take a look at all the "outrage" from the Left; it's always against corporations being allowed to donate, never against unions. I wonder why that is?
No organization or business should ever considered the equal or equivelant of an individual with regard to representative government and the elections of governmental representatives. Corporations are businesses, not People. Money is currency, not speech. If left unchecked, Citizens United will destroy our Democratic form of government, and replace it with an Oligarchy. Teddy Roosevelt warned us of this over 100 years ago.
Seriously, where do you life this stuff from? Your entire paragraph sounds like it was copied from the Daily Kos or MediaMatters.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander! Sorry public union guys. Corporations and Unions (funny how you never once mentioned unions in your soapbox) aren't people, but they are entities - entities with rights. They aren't the equivalent of a "person" but they do have a similar set of rights, such as the right to sue and be sued, the right to protect their interests, etc. Your interpretation, that corporations aren't anything, would leave them unable to protect their interests.

Secondly, money is speech. If you don't have money, you can't get your message out; you can't buy airtime, you can't schedule lectures, you can't buy radio or tv spots - money enables a person to get their message heard, so it IS speech.

I will be more than happy to discuss this topic with you. However, I am not going to engage in an exchange of insults. I don't have time for that.

A union is an organization, so they were mentioned. I never said that corporations "aren't anytrhing". I said that they are businesses, not people, which is exactly what they are.

The Supreme Court can declare that money is speech, or that a Black Man is not a human being, or that the sale of Alcohol should be illegal, or that abortion sdhould be legal, but that does not make it so. The Court has made an error.

Money is not speech, it is currency. Speech is the expression of an idea or thought by a human being. Currency is used by human beings to purchase material goods and services.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Sorry public union guys.
As far as I'm concerned, monetary contributions to political campaigns should be limited to individuals (individual human beings) who actually reside in the voting district of the candidate, and those contributions should have limits as to the amounts allowed.

If money is speech, speech cannot be free, because those with more money will always be allowed more speech than those with less money. That does not describe the American Democratic Republic that I have lived in, nor does it describe a country in which I would choose to live in, either.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this one - this is what what divides liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe they can create a utopia; by banning money, they can make better elections.

The fact is, money is endemic in every election in every country. So when you say, "That does not describe the American Democratic Republic that I have lived in, nor does it describe a country in which I would choose to live in, either.", you really are describing "utopia", a word which translates to "nowhere"

Again, this is the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives - liberals believe they can legislate utopia - "if we can word the laws just right, we can legislate bad things away".

Conservatives realize this is a pipe dream - you can never legislate mans darkside away - there will ALWAYS be people with money and people without money who want to sway elections, and the best way to keep the worst excesses in line is to allow EVERYONE to participate, instead of a select few.

Your idea, that only individuals can participate and only in limited contributions, would result in candidates not being able to get their message out, to reach voters. Ron Paul would NEVER have been as big as he is if not for wealthy donors who believes in his message and gave him the money to get his platform out and make people aware of it; on the liberal side, Barack Obama would NEVER have been able to challenge Hillary Clinton's name brand recognition and warchest if not for wealthy donors who believed in him.

When libs like you whine about campaign finance, you only think of "those evil Republican" - you never think of the money that elects YOUR candidate, or how the guy YOU like would never have been able to tell you about his platform if not for his money

Lastly, keep in mind that just because someone has money, doesn't mean they're going to win - when was the last time a commercial changed your mind about anythign? When was the last time a stump speech make you change your vote? I'm gonna bet never - money is speech, it allows a candidate to tell people across the country what their platform is, so that people like Ron Paul and Barack Obama, newcomers, don't get crowded out by the old timers, by the people who've been around for decades. conservatives accept mans dark side and try to constrain it within reason

Vulchor

First to answer the question-----should such an act be on a ballot I would indeed vote for it as I think Repubs and Dems alike coudl rally behind this. HOWEVER, money and power on both sides would try to kill it and wil be the reason we never see it to begin with

Macro, your view is skewed by your own personal opinions and feelings----which is fine, but I hope you realize that. You are lumping indivduals into groups "libs/consrvs" when it is more basic than that. I think its simply a desire for fairness and equality for all people. Not eqality of wealth or power, but true equality in the pursuit and drive toward obtaining it.