The problem with democracy is that the politicians have to be elected by a popular vote.

This is terrible because:
1. it is a lot easier to win by saying things that are fun, easy & emotionally satisfying versus saying what needs to happen
2. it requires money to run the campaign to win the popular vote

...naturally, then, politicians mostly say quick and easy things AND pander to whomever is willing to donate money

I sometimes think it would be better to just select a random group of citizens meeting minimum qualifications, kind of like for jury duty, and let them run things for 2 years at a time with no possibiity to keep the office afterwards.

Pu

Interesting video, thanks for sharing.

I like his idea of an Infrastructure bank, but here's the problem the way I see it. If the government summarily "repatriates" all the money sitting in off shore accounts, and I'm all for the idea, every fourth amendment lawyer in America is going to descend on the Supreme Court screaming unlawful seizure. Those lawyers and their wealthy clients will demand to know what crime these otherwise law abiding americans have committed to deserve having their money confiscated and deposited against their will into a bank where they won't see any real return on their investment. The supreme court will block the idea before the ink is dry on the paper creating it.

I can also guarantee that if such a bank were to be created the banking lobby will be screaming bloody murder about the notion of the government creating a bank they have to compete against offering a guaranteed two percent interest rate to borrowers, which the other banks will have to match to stay competitive, which will cause the investors who want a lot more than just 2 percent on their money to scream bloody murder.

I have no doubt that congress, the president, and even the supreme court are bought and paid for by the top one percent. I also have no doubt that it's a big problem but here is the elephant no one wants to admit is in the room: We are in a world where thanks to technology, wealth is more mobile than it's ever been before. Short of outright blocking the internet, we have no way of preventing that wealth from leaving the country. All it takes if a few keystrokes by the right person and trillions of dollars is sucked from the economy and deposited into some anonymous account outside the country. The government then, is in the position where they have to try and appease a small minority of people, call them the financial elite, who control a huge majority of national wealth and who can easily move that wealth to Cayman, Bahrain, Switzerland, Abu Dhabi or who knows where else, to keep the government from getting their hands on it.

At the same time, we have a large, mostly poverty stricken majority that the government is obligated to take care of. So, the government, which is constrained from making arbitrary asset grabs by the Fourth Amendment, has to create a balance between the financial elite and their threat to move their assets off shore at the imposition of even one cent more in taxes, and need of that large, poverty stricken majority which demands more and more services from the government that by and large they don't pay for.

Once we figure out how to get past that elephant in the room, we can begin to discuss meaningful reforms to the way our government does business. So far, however, no one has figured out how to get past that elephant without running afoul or or outright sacrificing the fourth amendment. I've come to believe, that the fourth amendment was written in contemplation of situations like the one we're in today. the founding fathers wanted to protect the haves from the overwhelming financial demands of the have nots.

Just my (rambling) 2 cents.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2): I can also guarantee that if such a bank were to be created the banking lobby will be screaming bloody murder about the notion of the government creating a bank they have to compete against offering a guaranteed two percent interest rate to borrowers

Not if it's limited in what sort of projects it can fund. There will still be a market for the banks. The banking lobby will still scream bloody murder, probably, but Congress will just have to tell them where to stick it. The whole premise of this is that Congress is bought - if we can't get past that, then no other parts of the solution will be able to work.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2): So far, however, no one has figured out how to get past that elephant without running afoul or or outright sacrificing the fourth amendment.

Throwing this out there as a basic, in-need-of-refinement idea: require financial institutions to report any money being electronically transferred out of the country. And then make sure it's taxed, on a very progressive scale (so that if you're just investing a little bit in a foreign bank or something, it's no big deal, but if you move massive amounts then you get a big hit). You'll never be able to get back the money that's already out on 4th Amendment grounds (assuming it's not an anonymous account - otherwise it could be taxed). US citizens actually living outside the country would be exempt, of course.

That way, if you live in the country, you're incentivized to keep your money in the country.

-Mir

Quoting Pu (Reply 1): The problem with democracy is that the politicians have to be elected by a popular vote.

Except, of course, for the President and Vice-President. As shown in 2000 someone can actually win the popular vote and still now be elected President.

Maybe step one in political reform is to eliminate the Electoral College. Let every vote be equal, no matter what state you live in. Might also improve how politicians include all states when campaigning.

When it comes to an Infrastructure Bank, my preference is to use tax dollars to fund projects completed by private companies. Roads, bridges, etc. And I believe we need to increase the focus of motivating companies to use US products. Saw the other day that the Chinese are providing the steel sections for the new Oakland Bridge. WTF?

Maybe we need to change costings to include all taxes to be paid, including FICA, in determining the lowest bidder. And include all unemployment benefits for US workers when costing overseas bids. Those two factors are actually in the taxpayers' costs of a project so we might as well include them.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4): Maybe step one in political reform is to eliminate the Electoral College. Let every vote be equal, no matter what state you live in.

No it won't. It means that the president will only have to pay attention to New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and maybe Virginia. Once you have those states locked up, you can tell the rest to piss off, because there is no way to outvote them.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2): every fourth amendment lawyer in America is going to descend on the Supreme Court screaming unlawful seizure.

They will, and they'll be right.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2): I can also guarantee that if such a bank were to be created the banking lobby will be screaming bloody murder about the notion of the government creating a bank they have to compete against offering a guaranteed two percent interest rate to borrowers,

They will, and they'll be right.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2): Once we figure out how to get past that elephant in the room, we can begin to discuss meaningful reforms to the way our government does business.

You don't get that elephant out of the room. You force the government to get its spending under control and survive without jacking taxes sky high.

Quoting Mir (Reply 3): And then make sure it's taxed, on a very progressive scale (so that if you're just investing a little bit in a foreign bank or something, it's no big deal, but if you move massive amounts then you get a big hit).

That's a serious breach of personal freedom to punish investment in other nations. I want no part of a government telling me where I can and cannot take my money.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 4): Saw the other day that the Chinese are providing the steel sections for the new Oakland Bridge. WTF?

We have a term for when the government pays more for the same product that could be had cheaper: government waste. If the Chinese can provide parts cheaper, good for them, and good for the managers who astutely sourced parts more efficiently.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 5): It means that the president will only have to pay attention to New York, New Jersey, Florida, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and maybe Virginia. Once you have those states locked up, you can tell the rest to piss off, because there is no way to outvote them

That is very definitely NOT correct.

You are not understanding what KEN777 said. If you eliminate the electoral college and the bad way even a .001% winner takes the entire electoral vote of the state (like it is now), then every vote in every state is entirely equal. There is no benefit to just winning a big state (like there is now with the electoral college) because even if you win, say, California by one vote the many millions of voters you didn't win still get added to your opponent's cumulative total, unlike today where those who vote in the minority of each state don't get their vote counted at all. Under the current system if you win California by one vote you get its ENTIRE huge block of electoral votes and the votes are wasted for the other 49.999% of people who voted against you in that they don't count.

...so, to continue the example, even if I win California by 51%, the 49% I lost in California can be added to the voters from other small states that I may lose and actually decide the election in my opponent's favor.

...thus eliminating the electoral college system makes every vote in every state precisely equal because the state lines aren't relevant at all, its purely popular vote...whatever individual states I win matters not.

What you should be complaining about is how under the current system only swing states matter.

Texas: doesn't matter, its never going to vote anything but Republican for president so no one campaigns there.
New York: doesn't matter, its never going to vote anything but Democrat so no one campaigns there.
Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and a few others are the ONLY STATES IN PLAY and thus decide the entire election for president for all of America, under the US system where individual votes don't matter and state electoral college system by state is winner-take-all.

Pu

[Edited 2011-12-12 18:33:48]

Extracted? Another cable analyst telling us what we already know and not offering any solution. He's been yelling on cable for awhile and often it goes viral. For no particular reason he states the obvious about the system being broken? He just wants to sell books - "Greedy Bastards" releases in January.

Quoting Pu (Reply 7): That is very definitely NOT correct.

Sure it is. You only have to campaign in enough places to win 50.1% of the likely voters in the country. The majority of those people live in only a few places. So if you go to a strictly popular vote, you campaign in those few centers and don't waste your resources elsewhere. I used states in my example because they are an easy way to group populations, but in reality, campaigns would probably only occur in the top ten to twelve urban population centers and everyone else could go pound sand. What other reason would a career politician have for caring how Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, or Idaho vote? 1 borough of New York City could offset any vote from one of those states.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6): That's a serious breach of personal freedom to punish investment in other nations. I want no part of a government telling me where I can and cannot take my money.

The government has the responsibility to discourage activities that cause significant harm to the country. And the offshoring of money definitely falls into that category.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 9): So if you go to a strictly popular vote, you campaign in those few centers and don't waste your resources elsewhere.

And with the electoral college, you campaign in a few states and don't waste your resources elsewhere.

I'd keep the electoral college, but get rid of the winner-take-all system. If you win 60% of a state's popular vote, you get 60% of that state's electoral votes (or whatever percentage is closest, depending on how many votes they have).

-Mir

Quoting lowrider (Reply 9): Sure it is. You only have to campaign in enough places to win 50.1% of the likely voters in the country.

Uhmmm, thats called Democracy. What you want is a system whereby voters in rural areas get something like twice the voting power per person compared to people in urban areas. Why is that?

Besides, most electioneering is done on TV and the internet. Everyone gets the same dose of campaigning whether they live in the city or country these days.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 9): you campaign in those few centers and don't waste your resources elsewhere

No, not quite right.

Virtually all the urban centers in the USA vote Democrat. Even in Texas and other hardcore red states. In fact, the population centers will likely for a long time only vote Democrat.

Republicans only win in the rural areas. Or the largest cities the likes of Knoxville, TN. So rural areas very definitely matter.
Zoom in on this map and see how when Republicans win, they win in the rural areas, and the map is much the same going back several election cycles.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html

Quoting lowrider (Reply 9): I used states in my example because they are an easy way to group populations,

Ahhh, but that is critical because states are how the electoral college system is decided. Lose the state divisions and lose the electoral college and every vote is exactly equal.

Your main complaint is that more people live in some places versus others, sorry, such is the nature of democracy that a person's vote should be equal, regardless of where they live...and no provision should be made to compensate the poor wrectched souls who live in the countryside simply because there aren't very many of them compared to people in the city!

Pu

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): I'd keep the electoral college, but get rid of the winner-take-all system. If you win 60% of a state's popular vote, you get 60% of that state's electoral votes (or whatever percentage is closest, depending on how many votes they have).

That would be an improvement but one wonders why you would keep the cumbersome electoral college in place? Under your proposal there is still the possibility that the winner of the popular vote could lose the overall election, albeit less of a chance than now. Why not just go to straight overall vote totals for the whole country?

Pu

Quoting lowrider (Reply 5): No it won't.

Hard to say that after the 2000 Election. A pretty tough lesson on the Electoral College.

Quoting lowrider (Reply 5): Once you have those states locked up, you can tell the rest to piss off, because there is no way to outvote them.

As soon as a politician believes that he (or she) has the election wrapped up with a handful of states they are at the highest risk of loosing the election.

Look at how politicians get into contortionist's maneuvers when it comes to redistricting their state. There is simply no desire to depend on the voter's adherence to a particular political direction.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6): government waste.

So let's add to the waste. Food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment benefits for US workers not working on the production of the steel sections. And let's also add the lost business profits that generate taxes.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 6): If the Chinese can provide parts cheaper, good for them, and good for the managers who astutely sourced parts more efficiently.

Was it really cheaper in the long run?

We have this mental block in this country about the total costs (and benefits) of US production -v- outsourced production for taxpayer funded projects. As someone said, "there is a sucker born every minute" and we need to learn how to effectively cost out government funded projects.

Quoting fxramper (Reply 8): He just wants to sell books - "Greedy Bastards" releases in January.

Quoting Mir (Reply 10): The government has the responsibility to discourage activities that cause significant harm to the country. And the offshoring of money definitely falls into that category.

The fact that anyone could seriously contemplate such legislation is unbelievable. It crosses so many lines it isn't even funny. The government does not get a say where I invest money. They can collect income taxes, and they can collect capital gains but the government has absolutely no place being anyone's investment advisor. It's bad enough they already believe I'm too stupid to save my own money.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13): Food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment benefits for US workers not working on the production of the steel sections.

Cut that. No reason to subsidize mediocrity. Don't give crack to the junkies.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 13): Was it really cheaper in the long run?

You don't build bridges to give people jobs. And you don't build bridges as charity projects for companies. You build bridges because you need bridges.

Did not bother reading his rant, but by the quotes in here (which some people seem to actually support) it is already easy enough to see it is probably one of the most inane pieces of garbage in an already garbage TV station.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2): I like his idea of an Infrastructure bank

So, the government wants to borrow cheaply to build infrastructure? It is called "government bonds", look it up. Even in crooked government accounting any debts issued by that bank would count towards the consolidated debt, so what's the point?

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2): If the government summarily "repatriates" all the money sitting in off shore accounts, and I'm all for the idea

Once again proving why people put money in Swiss bank accounts in the first place. Hint - it is not to evade taxes (there are easier ways to do that), or because of the oh so special investment performance. People from all over the world open bank accounts in Switzerland for the same reason rich Latin Americans buy apartments in Miami in droves - insurance policies. Preservation of principal. They want to know that when it comes time for the government to go around banging on people's doors to confiscate their wealth (and that time will come - throughout history there has only been one government that has been able to get their greedy paws away from their citizen's money, the Swiss one), if they make it out of the country alive they will have a shot at starting things over.

Investment advisers say the number one thing someone should do is to diversify their asset holdings. That is especially true about where (in what country) to keep your money.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2): creating a bank they have to compete against offering a guaranteed two percent interest rate to borrowers

How can the government "guarantee" a 2 percent interest rate when even with the Fed printing trillions of dollars the 10-year rate is still at that amount?

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2): who can easily move that wealth to Cayman, Bahrain, Switzerland, Abu Dhabi or who knows where else, to keep the government from getting their hands on it.

Ah, how ironic, your use of words. "To get the government from getting their hands on it". Precisely.

Quoting NorthstarBoy (Reply 2): need of that large, poverty stricken majority

Hyperbole much?

Quoting Mir (Reply 3): require financial institutions to report any money being electronically transferred out of the country. And then make sure it's taxed

Yes, by all means, let's cause major gridlocks in global commerce and violate countless WTO rules just so some petty isolationists can feel good about themselves.

Quoting Mir (Reply 3): US citizens actually living outside the country would be exempt, of course.

Why of course? Right now they are not - U.S. citizens need to pay taxes on their worldwide income, no matter how long you have lived outside the U.S.. Even if you have never set foot in the U.S. your entire life, if the IRS deems you to be a U.S. citizen (even if you cannot qualify for a U.S. passport) they will hound you and make your life miserable. And that is today.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14): The government does not get a say where I invest money.

Let's say I want to invest my money in the Mexican drug business (which I hear makes some people pretty damn rich). You think the government should have no say in that?

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 15): Why of course? Right now they are not - U.S. citizens need to pay taxes on their worldwide income, no matter how long you have lived outside the U.S.. Even if you have never set foot in the U.S. your entire life, if the IRS deems you to be a U.S. citizen (even if you cannot qualify for a U.S. passport) they will hound you and make your life miserable. And that is today.

And it should be changed. Expatriate taxation is ridiculous. If you're living full-time outside the US (and thus not taking advantage of US public services), you shouldn't be paying US taxes. That's just common sense. The problem is with people who do live in the US and do take advantage of US public services, yet keep most of their money overseas - that needs to be addressed.

-Mir

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14): It crosses so many lines it isn't even funny. The government does not get a say where I invest money.

No, but the government has every right to monitor funds flowing into and out of the country. And governments have even tight to tax funds that will be heading out of the country if they feel it appropriate.

One good example are countries that collect taxes on income paid to visiting performers from another country. So a French band goes to, say, Australia for some concerts. The promoter is responsible for collecting the taxes before the money heads out of the country.

I don't see a problem with that.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14): Cut that. No reason to subsidize mediocrity. Don't give crack to the junkies.

Sure. That would mean the end of corporate welfare in the area of minimum wages that are supported by all of that "liberal stuff".

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 14): You don't build bridges to give people jobs. And you don't build bridges as charity projects for companies. You build bridges because you need bridges.

I'll agree with that. But when you do build or repair bridges then lets look that the COMBINED direct and indirect costs

Quoting Mir (Reply 16): Let's say I want to invest my money in the Mexican drug business (which I hear makes some people pretty damn rich). You think the government should have no say in that?

There is a difference between criminal enterprise and legitimate investments. But, if say there were a place where crack cocaine were legal and I wanted to invest in a company that makes and sells it, I should be able to.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17): No, but the government has every right to monitor funds flowing into and out of the country.

They have no business monitoring where my money is. Unless it's part of a criminal investigation with appropriate warrants, such a system is a clear violation of Fourth Amendment rights. Monitoring my financial transactions is not different than monitoring phone calls or using a GPS to track my movements.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 17): One good example are countries that collect taxes on income paid to visiting performers from another country. So a French band goes to, say, Australia for some concerts. The promoter is responsible for collecting the taxes before the money heads out of the country.

That is different, but not really better. I hate the idea of the jock tax, but whatever.

Mir's incredibly awful idea is taxing money because it is heading offshore, which crosses plenty a line that should not be crossed.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18): They have no business monitoring where my money is.

If you have money in a FDIC (or similar) insured financial institution then they have access.

If you have money in a legal financial institution (including brokers) then they have a right to know your interest or other incomes from those deposits.

And it is the pleasure of the government in establishing the amount of money "moved" before legal reporting requirements are met and the institution moving that money has to be reported.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18): I hate the idea of the jock tax, but whatever.

I have no problem with jock taxes, or rock band taxes or whatever. You go to a location with taxes to perform and make some nice money then you better be ready to pay taxes.

Performers get to pay the local taxes when they perform - music, sports or what ever.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 18): There is a difference between criminal enterprise and legitimate investments.

Naturally, but then the question has to be asked: why is something criminal?

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 20): why is something criminal?

Might let some Penn State folks talk to you about that.  

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19): If you have money in a FDIC (or similar) insured financial institution then they have access. If you have money in a legal financial institution (including brokers) then they have a right to know your interest or other incomes from those deposits.

I don't care much for that, but even then it is different than tracking, nearly in real time, where the money comes from and where it goes.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19): And it is the pleasure of the government in establishing the amount of money "moved" before legal reporting requirements are met and the institution moving that money has to be reported.

It is ridiculous that the government will force banks to restrict my access to my money because I move more than $10,000.

Quoting Mir (Reply 20): Naturally, but then the question has to be asked: why is something criminal?

Because some government says it is.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 19): I have no problem with jock taxes, or rock band taxes or whatever. You go to a location with taxes to perform and make some nice money then you better be ready to pay taxes.

Athletes are getting paid by the out of state entity. They should pay taxes in the place where they reside and the people paying them reside. The state is more than welcome to take income tax from the host team.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 22): Because some government says it is.

But there's usually some rationale for them saying so. In the case of the drug trade, it's because the drug trade does damage to the country, mostly through crime. So if the government can make investing in the drug trade illegal on account of the fact that the drug trade does damage to the country (or, alternatively, can ban people from exporting certain technologies because they could be used to damage the country), why can't they take the lesser step of implementing disincentives for people to do things that are damaging to the country to a lesser extent? And no, I don't think that the drug trade and the offshoring of money are equivalently bad.

-Mir

Quoting Mir (Reply 23): In the case of the drug trade, it's because the drug trade does damage to the country, mostly through crime.

But if another government sees no problem with it and does not outlaw it, the American government should not be telling its citizens that they cannot make an investment overseas that is legal there but illegal in America.

The simple matter is that taxing money being invested overseas is a huge violation of personal freedom and should not be considered, even for a moment. If the government is so concerned about money flowing overseas, they should take steps to make the US a more attractive investment environment.

Just to weight in my opinion is that the federal government should do what they are suppose to do and protect us, let the states govern us, not the federal government.