NationStates Jolt Archive

Oh noose, some presidential candidates have to fly on commercial flights rather than on private aircraft. Do we really feel sorry for them? I don't. Some of them have to experience what you and I have to go through every time we fly...well maybe, because I bet they don't fly coach. :mad:

Link to story http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=3a485de5-452f-4bf1-af90-687081809937

Seems to me the ones who are complaining aren't the big-shot candidates. In essence, the people who are being held back are the little guys rather than the big name bastards. I'd rather see the top tier candidates suffer this.

Let me pull out my violin for them. At least one thing, the ones flying commerical can be considering "green" as opposed to the others taking private jets for them and fifteen others for their entourage.

Most of these guys pocket a heap of cash anyway - I don't mind the flying coach. :p

Four words: public financing of elections.

Airline food is a penance no-one deserves to have inflicted upon them… fortunately, many airlines have solved this problem by not serving food at all! :p

boy are those guys... stupid.

complaining about the lack of private Jets?

man, if any of those top tier guys read this... Heck, If I was a candidate and I had a private jet and I read this. I'd give one of them my jet and I'll fly coach.

Think of it. In the old days, candidates did their speeches on the backs of trains. from buses... now they can do it from airports!

They have the opportunity to talk with the common person on their level. if the flight is delayed, the candidate can hold question and answer periods with the passengers, get to know them as well as letting the passengers get to know him.

you can hold improptu conferences in the waiting terminal and really show the people you care! and if you get the support of the airline... can you imagine special treats for the other passengers on that flight. and imagine showing support to all those airline workers!

man, these people who are complaining really lack imagination. they are given an opportunity to actually talk to these people Eye to Eye!

Four words: public financing of elections.

From your keyboard to God's ears. 'Cause it'll take a bloc of significant size to pass that, and that effort would have to take anyone they could get, even the evangelicals.

T.S. Eliot...Evangelical Cats. That would have made a dull musical.

Let me pull out my violin for them. At least one thing, the ones flying commerical can be considering "green" as opposed to the others taking private jets for them and fifteen others for their entourage.

If you think the likes of Obama and Clinton and Guliani etc only have that few people on their jets then your kidding yourself. I know for a fact Obama's jet is filled to capacity with managers and aides etc, as i'm sure the other are in the same position. If their jets are being used and filled to capacity then they really aren't polluting unnecesarily.

Obama for President!

boy are those guys... stupid.

complaining about the lack of private Jets?

man, if any of those top tier guys read this... Heck, If I was a candidate and I had a private jet and I read this. I'd give one of them my jet and I'll fly coach.

Think of it. In the old days, candidates did their speeches on the backs of trains. from buses... now they can do it from airports!

They have the opportunity to talk with the common person on their level. if the flight is delayed, the candidate can hold question and answer periods with the passengers, get to know them as well as letting the passengers get to know him.

you can hold improptu conferences in the waiting terminal and really show the people you care! and if you get the support of the airline... can you imagine special treats for the other passengers on that flight. and imagine showing support to all those airline workers!

man, these people who are complaining really lack imagination. they are given an opportunity to actually talk to these people Eye to Eye!

Obama is talking to the people. He is doing as many low cost functions as he is doign expensive functions for rich people. He had dinner the other day with four people that donated $5 each, while Clinton was in the same city dining with executives from Insurance companies.

And even when he has dinner with rich people who pay in the thousands he still finds time for the little guys. A few days ago he spent 45 minutes talking to a crowd who paid $7 dollars to be there, right after having dinner for 30 minutes with people that paid $2300, so infact, the $7 people got more for their money.

What the hell? Our members of parliament and sometimes the Prime Minister fly on commercial flights all the time, usually in economy class. Air NZ domestic flights are actually a pretty good way to run into local 'celebrities'.

What the hell? Our members of parliament and sometimes the Prime Minister fly on commercial flights all the time, usually in economy class. Air NZ domestic flights are actually a pretty good way to run into local 'celebrities'.

In fairness, I believe that most DC politicians fly commercial in the course of their regular business. It's the presidential campaigning that takes requires extra travel and more time. That's why some times people will resign their offices in order to campaign full-time--the extra travel is too onerous.

Four words: public financing of elections.

Three more: Unfavorable case history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo)

Private financing ("independent expenditures by individuals and groups and...expenditures by a candidate from his personal funds") is First Amendment-protected and guaranteed free speech.

And since the politicians and bureaucrats who will presumably administer a public scheme are exactly the same people currently taking advantage of private financing...how is anything different with a public scheme? Create a public financing system, and immediately observe limits skyrocket and subsidies (and thus public revenues/taxes...) increase in the name of "responsible government taking a proactive approach to better informing the American people" or some such...

What the hell? Our members of parliament and sometimes the Prime Minister fly on commercial flights all the time, usually in economy class. Air NZ domestic flights are actually a pretty good way to run into local 'celebrities'.

I saw Marcus Lush last time I flew home from Auckland.

Three more: Unfavorable case history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo)

Private financing ("independent expenditures by individuals and groups and...expenditures by a candidate from his personal funds") is First Amendment-protected and guaranteed free speech.

And since the politicians and bureaucrats who will presumably administer a public scheme are exactly the same people currently taking advantage of private financing...how is anything different with a public scheme? Create a public financing system, and immediately observe limits skyrocket and subsidies (and thus public revenues/taxes...) increase in the name of "responsible government taking a proactive approach to better informing the American people" or some such...
Oh, I know the case history is against public financing of elections, though if we've seen anything in the last year, it's that stare decisis ain't what it used to be.

That said, the money that would come out of the taxpayers' pockets to finance elections would be a pittance compared to what we currently lose due to undue influence on elections by special interests. Think of all the money we'd recoup in cancelled subsidies and corporate welfare. We could spend $10 billion financing an election cycle and we'd come out a hundred times ahead.

That said, the money that would come out of the taxpayers' pockets to finance elections would be a pittance compared to what we currently lose due to undue influence on elections by special interests. Think of all the money we'd recoup in cancelled subsidies and corporate welfare. We could spend $10 billion financing an election cycle and we'd come out a hundred times ahead.


The problem is it's simply not enough to limit the amount of money in the system; this is a band-aid at best, and a completely ineffective one at that. Real change will require changing the system itself.

It's sort of like the "is the glass half empty or half full?" metaphor. The rich elites says "too empty, needs more money!" and the advocates of public finance/reform say "too full, needs less money!" But the real issue is that the glass itself is simply too damn big.

In a country the physical size of the United States, with over 300 million people to reach, it simply costs boat loads of money to reach voters. No, this will not change with public financing; right now at this very moment the amount of money the govt can spend is very small, yes, but like I said, this will change very rapidly when the politicians decide the budget for public financing and "involving the American people in the civic process" isn't high enough. Shoot, think health care and public/social services are bad now? Wait till their funding gets rerouted to public campaigns in 4 year cycles (this might help reduce the insane levels of military spending, however....)

The glass is also too damn big in terms of our economic system which hyper-centralizes wealth into the hands of an elite few, who then have huge coffers from which to buy elections. Since the hyper-wealthy elite few also happen to be the political elite, neither is this going to change under a public financing system. Ending corporate welfare and subsidies is all fine and good; that money will simply be rerouted by the ruling upper class into increased and more frequently collected corporate income taxes in order to increase the available funds to public financing. Seriously, watch how quickly the upper ruling class will tolerate or even even explicitly trot out the rhetoric of ending tax havens and increasing corporate taxes in the event a public financing system is ever instituted, all in the name of having seen the light of "social responsibility," something of a fad even now. It'll all be in the "marketing/advertising" budget somewhere.

Sure, campaigners might get equal access to equal amounts of money (like how third parties currently have equal access to ballots or Commission on Presidential Debates events, or how everyone is supposedly equally subject to the rule of law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_%22Scooter%22_Libby)...), but the private economy still remains hyper-centralized and still serves the interests of the elite. The upper ruling class still owns and controls access to employment, it still owns and controls access to land, it still owns and controls access to economic goods, it still owns and controls the media, it still owns and controls formal and informal social networks, so on and so forth. It will still, I predict, own and control the government because it will still own and control every other aspect of society.

Real change requires a smaller glass. It requires:


Radical decentralization, up to and including the breaking up of the state into subsequent independent states. Smaller effective populations require less resources to reach.
De- and Reconstruction of the economic system in order to prevent extreme centralization of wealth. Ownership and control of society by the people who constitute it results in ownership and control of government by the people as well.
Both of the above making possible a genuine grassroots political process


Once the glass is small enough, it is simply impossible to put too much money in it. As things are presently, with a glass that's too damn big, it is always possible to add more and more and more.

Of course, the odds of the necessary solution actually occurring are essentially zero as the present ruling upper class will never allow it voluntarily. The population at large is also perfectly happy mindlessly consuming the "New and Improved!" products of hyper-centralized oligopoly as it is.