Who would you vote for?

[Mytical]

Wingates (spelling?) and Vash..you both touched on the heart of the problem.

First I will talk about corruption. Lets talk about earmarks..just for starters. Most bills now passed, can only be done so if they are so pork ridden that they squeal. Can't have a simple, straight forward bill anymore. Which is ok, because yeah it funds projects (for the most part) that need to be done. But then there are projects like "The bridge to nowhere", and the like that are just blatant waste.

Now lets look at the campaigning itself. Both sides lay down millions (or more) on running for office. For jobs that pay a fraction of that. Do you really think ALL of their donors do so for nothing? Or do they expect something in return? If you take money for a campaign, and then repay that by giving contracts or voting certain ways...that is corruption. Taking any lobbyist money, goods, or offers..is corruption. Yet lobbyist are very successful (which is why they remain where they are). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Is every politician corrupt? No. How many do you think have never talked to a lobbyist or not taken campaign money for promises to do certain things? Honestly? Not saying that what they are expected to do is always BAD, mind.

Now the road vs statue. You hit on it right on the head Vash. Never a more perfect shot have I seen.

The politician took the easy way out, because building the road would be HARD. They would have to upset a lot of people to get it done. Raise taxes. GASP! Oh NOES we can't upset people and do that. Easy way out. Lets spend less over here, so that we don't have to make the hard decisions. Like raise taxes or move money from other services.

See I don't have the connections or money to run for government. I wouldn't take the bribes or 'if you do this then you get this' money either. So I would never win. Because money talks and BS walks. Do I actually think I could make a difference? No I am not that naive, because the system is already rigged.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Ah, the juicy stuff appears.

Earmarks: Really, at this stage, a matter of necessity. The process of putting any one bill through the legislature takes a ridiculous amount of time (though, there's a potential upside in that there's plenty of time to give consideration to each as it passes.) If we didn't staple them together so that more than one went through at a time we really wouldn't get anything done. However, like you said, this system often becomes an arena for politics itself to play out, which is a good thing as that's exactly the sort of thing that's supposed to happen. This side puts something on that the other doesn't like, so the other side demands that they remove it or they get to add something. As a form of compromise this isn't that bad in that both sides get something that they wanted.

Waste, in the end is inevitable. All you can really do is run things as efficiently as possible and try not to worry to much about something that's really not within anyone's ability to stamp out. When it comes to politicians wanting silly things it's kind of a mixed bag. I've seen examples where it truly was bizarre, others where it was a favor for some group or other politician as a means of getting something else and still others where it was a group of constituents who wanted it and god alone knows why.

Campaign finance, the subject of much controversy. No, accepting private funds does not equate corruption unless a specific donor solicits a specific action from the candidate in return for the funds. This will inevitably happen, but I see no reason to believe that most contributions are made with the understanding that what they receive in turn is a greater likelihood that their chosen candidate will win, and if they piss that company off whilst in office then they won't get the money next time (I can't count the number of times some company's been all tantrum throwing because a candidate they thought was 'pro business' 'betrayed' them.)

Doing the road and doing the statues are both unsavory choices. In the event that the roads required a tax hike (something the constituents are more or less certain to be 99% against) than a lot of people are going to be pissed because he did something they didn't want by raising the taxes. By doing the statues instead, people are pissed because he didn't do the roads. A 'difficult decision' is not the act of choosing the more distasteful option because it is the distasteful option, it's having to choose between two distasteful options and having the conviction to stick it out. In this case there really isn't a clear-cut 'best' option. There are numerous practical and aesthetic reasons supporting both options especially when considered against the other and the prioritization ultimately comes down to opinion. But let's please not label an option that draws ire from the majority of voters as 'easy'. The very fact that it does this makes it hard.

P.S. Yes, Wingates is the correct spelling.

[Mytical]

Let us look at lobbyist shall we. Now businesses, I admit, sometimes waste money. So it is feasible that they wouldn't mind lobbyist losing them money, and provide no benefit. Feasible, but not realistic. So, why are the lobbyist still there? Think about that for a minute. I'll wait.

Thought about it? Good. They are still there because they WORK, and provide SOME benefit for the people who employ them. Now what do lobbyist do? They offer goods, money, or services to persuade a politician to see things the way their employer wishes. People pay millions and millions on lobbyist.

Now what IS corruption? Taking goods, money, or services in exchange for : Turning a blind eye, changing a vote, or getting those people who employ the lobbyist contracts or jobs they did not earn. Some people call it 'playing the system', but it is corruption..pure and simple. Thus the system becomes about serving the rich, instead of ALL the people.

If I am wrong, explain why people spend so much on lobbyist? If they didn't work, they wouldn't be there. So that means that the politicians take advantage of what they offer. Which means that the ones that do are corrupt. Doesn't matter if they were going to vote or do whatever anyhow, because they took the money/goods/services...it is corruption.

[Sage Blackthorn]

After some serious contemplation, I have to say that yes, I've been convinced that what I said about politicians in general could be interpreted as being based on a biased point of view. I concede the point that not ALL politicians are bad leaders and I retract the statement. I am not thorougly convinced however that the current way in which we choose our leaders is the best way to draw forth from our communities those with the best judgement and civic virtues that I personally look for in a leader and would be inspired to follow and lend my support to. I am not convinced that this way of choosing leaders cannot be improved upon. I am also not convinced that it should not be abandonned for a different system. If one believes that a tool is broken, then one should either fix the tool or find a new one that works as well or better.

At this time I find myself unable, apparently, to write or verbalize what I'm thinking in such a way that it can convey my thoughts adequately due to various frustrations. So for the time being, I'm simply going to refrain from further comment in this thread until such time as I can collect and organize my thoughts in a more coherent manner.

[Mytical]

I have to agree with Sage. What I am wanting to say and what people seem to think I am saying seems to be two different things. Time to regroup and try to figure out how to say what I wish to say in a clearer manner.

[protege]

The city government wants to please the homeowners in the city, who claim that streetlights cause light pollution, don't live in the neighborhoods with the worst roads/sidewalks, and don't want ANY of their money to go to improve the student neighborhoods.

We see some of that in certain Pittsburgh neighborhoods--Oakland, South Oakland, parts of Bloomfield, etc. Mainly because those areas are seen as "student ghettos," in that the apartment buildings and what few homes there are there...usually are in pretty bad condition. Why waste money on something...that's going to get trashed the next time a frat has a party? Why make taxpayers maintain that crap--Pitt and CMU can *easily* afford it.

[AdminAssistant]

Why make taxpayers maintain that crap--Pitt and CMU can *easily* afford it.

1) College students pay lots of taxes - sales taxes especially. And they pay the rent that the landlord uses to pay their property tax. Some college students even own houses.

2) Even the biggest universities are having major financial struggles at the moment. Mine hasn't provided merit raises for anybody in 3 years. Besides, this is city property, not university property.

3) While this isn't the case in Pittsburgh, my town would be a tiny dot in a sunflower field if not for the University. It's the biggest employer, by far, and brings in lots of tourist dollars for the local business. Not to mention a large percentage of 18-22 year olds with spare change in their pocket.

The city can make the property owners/landlords maintain their property to the appropriate conditions. The city SHOULD do things that would increase public safety, like street lights and better sidewalks. Oh, and the frats around here may trash the insides of their houses, but the outside is always immaculate, because if it isn't their chapter can be fined.

If the city would clean up the neighborhood and get rid of the slumlords, the neighborhood would improve and people would probably want to keep it that way.

[smileyeagle1021]

1) College students pay lots of taxes - sales taxes especially. And they pay the rent that the landlord uses to pay their property tax. Some college students even own houses.

Not to mention, proportionately we have the highest income tax.
We are the most likely to be filing as single, most likely to have no dependents, and most likely not to be able to itemize. Yes, we get the lifelong learning credit, but that only covers 20% of education costs (most of which are paid to the state). Most of us are ineligible for the earned income credit (too young and no children), and most of us don't have the money to spare to hire a professional tax person who can minimize our taxes. Many college students don't take the credits available to them simply because they don't know about them.

As far as sales tax, at least in Utah text books aren't taxed, so we do receive some subsidy there, but all other school supplies are taxed. At UVU there are 20,000 students, the going tax rate is 6.8%, if we each spent a dollar a day, just a dollar on school supplies (which is roughly what I do pay for school supplies each year, $365), you are looking at almost half a million dollars in sales tax. Let's say that half of us buy a computer each year (reasonable, most computers have a two year useful life anymore it seems) and we'll assume that we are buying cheap laptops at $500 each, at the same tax rate that is another $340,000 in sales tax. We tend to have to eat out more because of time constraints, lets say a quarter of us each day get a meal at McDonalds for lunch at $5, over the 150 school year, that is another quarter of a million dollars... so looking at just 3 goods I've found over a million dollars in sales tax from UVU students alone (and that may be a low estimate).

So yes, us college students do definitely pay our fair share of taxes and will pay even more taxes when we graduate and get higher paying jobs and will also be less of a drain on the government as we'll be less likely to need to take government assistance. So, I'd say quite reasonable to maintain the areas around universities and collegs.