OT: A problem with America

[18IsTheMan]

Yeah, this is a post related to politics, but it's not political and is completely non-partisan in nature. This forum is the extent of my online presence, so I have no other place to vent about things to total strangers who don't care what I think.

I was reading about the recent elections and the money spent. In the heated PA senate race, a combined $373 million was spent. The top 5 races combined cost over $1 billion. Both parties are to blame, of course, so this is a non-partisan gripe.

I'm not an expert on American history, but I'm fairly certain our founding fathers never envisioned that a single senate seat would generate $373 million in spending. It's just staggering money.

A staggering amount of money has been spent on top Senate races in 2022 | CNN Politics

The five most expensive Senate races of 2022 have seen nearly $1.3 billion in spending across the primary and general elections, according to OpenSecrets, a staggering sum that speaks to the massive amounts of money flooding the political system.

www.cnn.com

 

[TeeCock]

Yeah, this is a post related to politics, but it's not political and is completely non-partisan in nature. This forum is the extent of my online presence, so I have no other place to vent about things to total strangers who don't care what I think.

I was reading about the recent elections and the money spent. In the heated PA senate race, a combined $373 million was spent. The top 5 races combined cost over $1 billion. Both parties are to blame, of course, so this is a non-partisan gripe.

I'm not an expert on American history, but I'm fairly certain our founding fathers never envisioned that a single senate seat would generate $373 million in spending. It's just staggering money.

A staggering amount of money has been spent on top Senate races in 2022 | CNN Politics

The five most expensive Senate races of 2022 have seen nearly $1.3 billion in spending across the primary and general elections, according to OpenSecrets, a staggering sum that speaks to the massive amounts of money flooding the political system.

www.cnn.com

You are right about that! It is insane. a lot of seats are "bought" with ad $a now.

 

[athenscock3]

Ordinarily I'd take issue with you for putting this up on a sports board but it touched a nerve. The amount of money spent on the Senate seat in Georgia is obscene. The last figure I saw about three weeks ago was 369m. and a ton has been spent since that date. And now the spigot is open again since the race is on til the run off datwe of Dec. 6 Didn't a Supreme Court ruling start the $$$ flying? Anyway it is painful to think about the better uses for all that money.

 

[will110]

Yeah, this is a post related to politics, but it's not political and is completely non-partisan in nature. This forum is the extent of my online presence, so I have no other place to vent about things to total strangers who don't care what I think.

I was reading about the recent elections and the money spent. In the heated PA senate race, a combined $373 million was spent. The top 5 races combined cost over $1 billion. Both parties are to blame, of course, so this is a non-partisan gripe.

I'm not an expert on American history, but I'm fairly certain our founding fathers never envisioned that a single senate seat would generate $373 million in spending. It's just staggering money.

A staggering amount of money has been spent on top Senate races in 2022 | CNN Politics

The five most expensive Senate races of 2022 have seen nearly $1.3 billion in spending across the primary and general elections, according to OpenSecrets, a staggering sum that speaks to the massive amounts of money flooding the political system.

www.cnn.com

You aren't kidding it's insane.

One problem, in my opinion, is the polarization of the parties. Generally speaking, a Senator from Pennsylvania is going to vote with the party he belongs to rather than for what's best for his constituents in Pennsylvania. The same is true for a Representative from California or any other state.

There's very little independent thought from one politician to another; it's all based on party politics. So you have local or statewide races turn into nationally funded races, which is not a good thing.

 

[18IsTheMan]

Ordinarily I'd take issue with you for putting this up on a sports board but it touched a nerve. The amount of money spent on the Senate seat in Georgia is obscene. The last figure I saw about three weeks ago was 369m. and a ton has been spent since that date. And now the spigot is open again since the race is on til the run off datwe of Dec. 6 Didn't a Supreme Court ruling start the $$$ flying? Anyway it is painful to think about the better uses for all that money.

I can't even imagine how much money is going to be spent on that runoff between now and 12/6. How many homes for the poor could be built with that money?

 

[HillsToSea]

Ordinarily I'd take issue with you for putting this up on a sports board but it touched a nerve. The amount of money spent on the Senate seat in Georgia is obscene. The last figure I saw about three weeks ago was 369m. and a ton has been spent since that date. And now the spigot is open again since the race is on til the run off datwe of Dec. 6 Didn't a Supreme Court ruling start the $$$ flying? Anyway it is painful to think about the better uses for all that money.

It’s not about a Supreme Court ruling. All about dems trying to keep control of congress and repubs trying to get control , for a variety of reasons

 

[will110]

It’s not about a Supreme Court ruling. All about dems trying to keep control of congress and repubs trying to get control , for a variety of reasons

You nailed it - it's about control.

 

[Rogue Cock]

Ordinarily I'd take issue with you for putting this up on a sports board but it touched a nerve. The amount of money spent on the Senate seat in Georgia is obscene. The last figure I saw about three weeks ago was 369m. and a ton has been spent since that date. And now the spigot is open again since the race is on til the run off datwe of Dec. 6 Didn't a Supreme Court ruling start the $$$ flying? Anyway it is painful to think about the better uses for all that money.

Citizen's United v. FEC. Dumb decision.

 

[Rogue Cock]

It’s not about a Supreme Court ruling. All about dems trying to keep control of congress and repubs trying to get control , for a variety of reasons

The amount of money that is now legally being raised and spent is ALL about the Supreme Court decision, Citizen's United v. FEC.

 

[Yemacock]

Count your blessings if you don't have to deal with hearing constant negative commercials for Georgia elections like some of us in the Lowcountry who live in the Savannah viewing area. I dread having to hear a ramp-up on the run-off commercials.

 

[Prestonyte]

There is big money spent because there is a big money payout when you get in and become a paid influence peddler. And then when you get out there is big money as a consultant, news commentator or broadcaster. A great gig, but not what our founders had in mind when this great country was founded and farmers, store owners and blacksmiths went and served a term and returned home to their jobs and another group then served and so on. It is no longer political representation - its political prostitution.

 

[Rogue Cock]

There is big money spent because there is a big money payout when you get in and become a paid influence peddler. And then when you get out there is big money as a consultant, news commentator or broadcaster. A great gig, but not what our founders had in mind when this great country was founded and farmers, store owners and blacksmiths went and served a term and returned home to their jobs and another group then served and so on. It is no longer political representation - its political prostitution.

And the ironic thing is there were originally 12 proposed amendments to the Constitution. One of which dealt with term limits for senators and representatives. The founders felt that would not be necessary because no one would want to serve that long and spend that much time away from their businesses and farms and family. Who knew?

 

[18IsTheMan]

There is big money spent because there is a big money payout when you get in and become a paid influence peddler. And then when you get out there is big money as a consultant, news commentator or broadcaster. A great gig, but not what our founders had in mind when this great country was founded and farmers, store owners and blacksmiths went and served a term and returned home to their jobs and another group then served and so on. It is no longer political representation - its political prostitution.

And the ironic thing is there were originally 12 proposed amendments to the Constitution. One of which dealt with term limits for senators and representatives. The founders felt that would not be necessary because no one would want to serve that long and spend that much time away from their businesses and farms and family. Who knew?

Yep, our founding fathers never conceived of folks who would serve in Congress for decade upon decade. As you both say, it was supposed to be a short-term side-gig. I guess you could say that was a flaw in their thinking not to put that protection in, but it was just an inconceivable notion to them.

 

[jsusc]

Voters love to yap about term limits for Congress, then whine about not having term limits for Congress. Well, the voters can term limit candidates with their votes. Or they can simply vote for candidates that support term limits, and if enough are elected, can get an amendment passed. All of this is the fault of voters.

 

[Yemacock]

Voters love to yap about term limits for Congress, then whine about not having term limits for Congress. Well, the voters can term limit candidates with their votes. Or they can simply vote for candidates that support term limits, and if enough are elected, can get an amendment passed. All of this is the fault of voters.

What's a voter supposed to do when they're voting for the best of two evils?

 

[frank.bank]

Let people spend their money how they want. If GOP voters weren't such cheap asses they might have seen better results.

 

[Prestonyte]

Let people spend their money how they want. If GOP voters weren't such cheap asses they might have seen better results.

The problem is McConnell and McCarthy are the pimps of the political prostitution ring.

 

[HillsToSea]

The amount of money that is now legally being raised and spent is ALL about the Supreme Court decision, Citizen's United v. FEC.

The money was being thrown at candidates before the Supreme Court decision. Accelerated toward the finish line, as is always the case

 

[Uscg1984]

I can't even imagine how much money is going to be spent on that runoff between now and 12/6. How many homes for the poor could be built with that money?

Forget homes for the poor! Do you realize how many more sports we could suck at if Ray Tanner had control of all that money?

 

[Tngamecock]

Yeah, this is a post related to politics, but it's not political and is completely non-partisan in nature. This forum is the extent of my online presence, so I have no other place to vent about things to total strangers who don't care what I think.

I was reading about the recent elections and the money spent. In the heated PA senate race, a combined $373 million was spent. The top 5 races combined cost over $1 billion. Both parties are to blame, of course, so this is a non-partisan gripe.

I'm not an expert on American history, but I'm fairly certain our founding fathers never envisioned that a single senate seat would generate $373 million in spending. It's just staggering money.

A staggering amount of money has been spent on top Senate races in 2022 | CNN Politics

The five most expensive Senate races of 2022 have seen nearly $1.3 billion in spending across the primary and general elections, according to OpenSecrets, a staggering sum that speaks to the massive amounts of money flooding the political system.

www.cnn.com

Your first paragraph described me…..you sure we’re not related

 

[ToddFlanders]

Voters love to yap about term limits for Congress, then whine about not having term limits for Congress. Well, the voters can term limit candidates with their votes. Or they can simply vote for candidates that support term limits, and if enough are elected, can get an amendment passed. All of this is the fault of voters.

I agree in theory, but not in practice. The problem is that incumbents will be propped up within their parties so they stay in control of that seat (it’s much easier to stay in control of an elected seat, than to take control).

So if I don’t think someone in Congress should have more than two terms (which is my personal stance), but the incumbent is from the party I support, the only other option is to vote for the other party. And that’s just not an option for most Americans as the party lines for both sides have moved further right and left.

 

[Lurker123]

I agree in theory, but not in practice. The problem is that incumbents will be propped up within their parties so they stay in control of that seat (it’s much easier to stay in control of an elected seat, than to take control).

So if I don’t think someone in Congress should have more than two terms (which is my personal stance), but the incumbent is from the party I support, the only other option is to vote for the other party. And that’s just not an option for most Americans as the party lines for both sides have moved further right and left.

Agreed. The only time for a satisfactory hand off is during primaries, and then you're stuck with the national party supporting the incumbent.

 

[NY Gamecock]

Agreed. The only time for a satisfactory hand off is during primaries, and then you're stuck with the national party supporting the incumben

Yeah, this is a post related to politics, but it's not political and is completely non-partisan in nature. This forum is the extent of my online presence, so I have no other place to vent about things to total strangers who don't care what I think.

I was reading about the recent elections and the money spent. In the heated PA senate race, a combined $373 million was spent. The top 5 races combined cost over $1 billion. Both parties are to blame, of course, so this is a non-partisan gripe.

I'm not an expert on American history, but I'm fairly certain our founding fathers never envisioned that a single senate seat would generate $373 million in spending. It's just staggering money.

A staggering amount of money has been spent on top Senate races in 2022 | CNN Politics

The five most expensive Senate races of 2022 have seen nearly $1.3 billion in spending across the primary and general elections, according to OpenSecrets, a staggering sum that speaks to the massive amounts of money flooding the political system.

www.cnn.com

The "Soros Effect"

 

[Thunderstick]

...Anyway it is painful to think about the better uses for all that money.

Like adding a 3rd lane to I-95 in SC.

 

[Prestonyte]

Like adding a 3rd lane to I-95 in SC.

Or even repaving! Night and Day difference on I-95 when you hit the GA line.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

Didn't a Supreme Court ruling start the $$$ flying? Anyway it is painful to think abo

If I remember correctly they ruled that political donations were a form of speech that was protected by the constitution.

 

[will110]

Yep, our founding fathers never conceived of folks who would serve in Congress for decade upon decade. As you both say, it was supposed to be a short-term side-gig. I guess you could say that was a flaw in their thinking not to put that protection in, but it was just an inconceivable notion to them.

It didn't take long for that to go off the rails. Go back and look at the founding fathers and those early politicians. They made it their career then - there are just very few people who voluntarily give up power.

Quick examples:

Thomas Jefferson
Virginia House of Burgesses 1769-1775
Continental Congress 1775-1776
Governor of VA 1779-1781
Confederation Congress 1783-1784
Minister appointed by Confederation Congress 1785-1789
Secretary of State 1790-1793
Vice President 1797-1801
President 1801-1809

He was just as much a career politician as the ones we have today, holding some office or another for basically four decades straight.

Another, more local, example:
John C. Calhoun was elected to the House of Representatives in 1811 and he held public office from that date until he died as a Senator in 1850. Another four decade career politician when the country was barely 20 years old.

 

[KingWard]

Yeah, this is a post related to politics, but it's not political and is completely non-partisan in nature. This forum is the extent of my online presence, so I have no other place to vent about things to total strangers who don't care what I think.

I was reading about the recent elections and the money spent. In the heated PA senate race, a combined $373 million was spent. The top 5 races combined cost over $1 billion. Both parties are to blame, of course, so this is a non-partisan gripe.

I'm not an expert on American history, but I'm fairly certain our founding fathers never envisioned that a single senate seat would generate $373 million in spending. It's just staggering money.

A staggering amount of money has been spent on top Senate races in 2022 | CNN Politics

The five most expensive Senate races of 2022 have seen nearly $1.3 billion in spending across the primary and general elections, according to OpenSecrets, a staggering sum that speaks to the massive amounts of money flooding the political system.

www.cnn.com

They did not foresee a political class or profession at all. There was no reason for them to. They were the politicians and they knew THEY weren't like that. Consequently, they overlooked then the thing we need the most now.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

It didn't take long for that to go off the rails. Go back and look at the founding fathers and those early politicians. They made it their career then - there are just very few people who voluntarily give up power.

Quick examples:

Thomas Jefferson
Virginia House of Burgesses 1769-1775
Continental Congress 1775-1776
Governor of VA 1779-1781
Confederation Congress 1783-1784
Minister appointed by Confederation Congress 1785-1789
Secretary of State 1790-1793
Vice President 1797-1801
President 1801-1809

He was just as much a career politician as the ones we have today, holding some office or another for basically four decades straight.

Another, more local, example:
John C. Calhoun was elected to the House of Representatives in 1811 and he held public office from that date until he died as a Senator in 1850. Another four decade career politician when the country was barely 20 years old.

Good information

 

[Prestonyte]

It didn't take long for that to go off the rails. Go back and look at the founding fathers and those early politicians. They made it their career then - there are just very few people who voluntarily give up power.

Quick examples:

Thomas Jefferson
Virginia House of Burgesses 1769-1775
Continental Congress 1775-1776
Governor of VA 1779-1781
Confederation Congress 1783-1784
Minister appointed by Confederation Congress 1785-1789
Secretary of State 1790-1793
Vice President 1797-1801
President 1801-1809

He was just as much a career politician as the ones we have today, holding some office or another for basically four decades straight.

Another, more local, example:
John C. Calhoun was elected to the House of Representatives in 1811 and he held public office from that date until he died as a Senator in 1850. Another four decade career politician when the country was barely 20 years old.

I would say Jefferson made a career out of serving the people and the country only serving short terms in positions of need until he made it to the ultimate leader of the country. Unlike a McConnell or Pelosi who camp out in power broker positions and use those positions for personal gain and serving only themselves.

 

[HillsToSea]

I agree in theory, but not in practice. The problem is that incumbents will be propped up within their parties so they stay in control of that seat (it’s much easier to stay in control of an elected seat, than to take control).

So if I don’t think someone in Congress should have more than two terms (which is my personal stance), but the incumbent is from the party I support, the only other option is to vote for the other party. And that’s just not an option for most Americans as the party lines for both sides have moved further right and left.

How have conservatives moved further right? Have always supported police. Have always been for secure borders. Have always been for more limited fed government. Have always been for limits on abortion.

 

[athenscock3]

The money was being thrown at candidates before the Supreme Court decision. Accelerated toward the finish line, as is always the case

I don't think so. There's never been money spent like this year and years since that ruling.

 

[athenscock3]

If I remember correctly they ruled that political donations were a form of speech that was protected by the constitution.

Corporations were people I think. Anyway terrible ruling, imo.

 

[KingWard]

It didn't take long for that to go off the rails. Go back and look at the founding fathers and those early politicians. They made it their career then - there are just very few people who voluntarily give up power.

Quick examples:

Thomas Jefferson
Virginia House of Burgesses 1769-1775
Continental Congress 1775-1776
Governor of VA 1779-1781
Confederation Congress 1783-1784
Minister appointed by Confederation Congress 1785-1789
Secretary of State 1790-1793
Vice President 1797-1801
President 1801-1809

He was just as much a career politician as the ones we have today, holding some office or another for basically four decades straight.

Another, more local, example:
John C. Calhoun was elected to the House of Representatives in 1811 and he held public office from that date until he died as a Senator in 1850. Another four decade career politician when the country was barely 20 years old.

As for Jefferson, the longest he ever held any of those jobs, the last one, was eight years, and what he did, he did out a sense of duty to a nascent nation, not in pursuit of self-aggrandizement.

As for Calhoun, he was not one of the Founding fathers. He was just an early example of what the Founding Fathers needed to have obviated.

 

[will110]

I would say Jefferson made a career out of serving the people and the country only serving short terms in positions of need until he made it to the ultimate leader of the country. Unlike a McConnell or Pelosi who camp out in power broker positions and use those positions for personal gain and serving only themselves.

As for Jefferson, the longest he ever held any of those jobs, the last one, was eight years, and what he did, he did out a sense of duty to a nascent nation, not in pursuit of self-aggrandizement.

I don't disagree, just pointing out that there have always been lifelong politicians, no matter the reasoning behind that service.

 

[KingWard]

I don't disagree, just pointing out that there have always been lifelong politicians, no matter the reasoning behind that service.

And I don't disagree with that, either. What a person seeks to derive from holding office matters. There's a distinction to be drawn between a person following a calling and one seeking a secure and lucrative career on the public till. But inasmuch as they are in it for different reasons, it's best that term limits are applied to them all. That they have not been has proven to be historically tragic.

 

[Rogue Cock]

How have conservatives moved further right? Have always supported police. Have always been for secure borders. Have always been for more limited fed government. Have always been for limits on abortion.

Not entirely true. Police and borders are new issues. Immigration has been a political football for 30-40 years now.....they don't want to solve it....they want to use it as a campaign issue. As far as limited federal government that has changed over time. Lincoln wasn't in favor of a more limited federal government (neither were many Republicans of that era). Same is true under Teddy Roosevelt who was probably our most progressive President.

The narrative of both parties is now controlled by less than 10% of either party IMO. They are the stringent believers and have taken the discussion away from the more moderate majority of both parties.

 

[Gamecock Jacque]

Teddy Roosevelt who was probably our most progressive President

Wilson imo.

 

[will110]

Not entirely true. Police and borders are new issues. Immigration has been a political football for 30-40 years now.....they don't want to solve it....they want to use it as a campaign issue. As far as limited federal government that has changed over time. Lincoln wasn't in favor of a more limited federal government (neither were many Republicans of that era). Same is true under Teddy Roosevelt who was probably our most progressive President.

The narrative of both parties is now controlled by less than 10% of either party IMO. They are the stringent believers and have taken the discussion away from the more moderate majority of both parties.

Moderates really don't exist anymore, at least not in national politics. It's all about soundbites and echo chambers. Compromise is impossible.

 

[Rogue Cock]

Wilson imo.

I can see where an argument can be made for Wilson, but TR whole career was a progressive agenda. Fromreforming the NYC police department while serving as commisioner, to reform legislation while Governor of NY, and while President....creating the national parks, support of unions and worker's rights, antitrust legislation, getting the US more involved in international affairs, etc...