Signatures 756 total
Page: « ‹ 1, ... 13, 14, 15, 16
-
751
Name: Burhanuddin on Feb 24, 2012Comments: Sorry Stephen but you have osbiouvly misunderstood. First, this would be a simple adjustment to the tax code for all graduates so everyone who is working who ever graduated would make a small contribution, spreading the burden considerably. There is no need for means testing.If you are arguing that everyone who pays taxes now is already paying for higher education then you are of course right but some of those people do not benefit personally from it and are therefore paying for something they don't get. I believe a balance therefore needs to be struck between societal gain (paid for through general taxes) and personal gain (paid for through a small additional payment through the tax system).Flag
-
752
Name: Yudi on Feb 24, 2012Comments: Ich muss zgbeuen, dass ich (technische Umsetzung hin oder her, inhaltliche Schwachen hin oder her) beeindruckt bin, dass die Petition schon bei deutlich uber 20.000 MitzeichnerInnen ist. 0 likesFlag
-
753
Name: Samlin on Jun 4, 2012Comments: Thanks Dylan, I can see what you're saying, it's best to focus on the root proelbm and leave secondary items (such as the particular new system for campaign finance) for later. I am wondering if perhaps this movement would be more effective if it focused on the scope of the federal government. In other words, it seems to me that an amendment banning political contributions will actually miss the root proelbm. As long as the federal government is involved in regulating or legislating a given industry or process, won't it continue to be the target of regulatory capture? If we get rid of contributions, that is one thing, but it seems like whatever malevolent agent was trying to ruin the system with campaign money will now just find a new way to lure legislators into their grasp. (For example, giving lucrative jobs to politicians upon retirement or getting their executives into leadership roles at the regulatory agencies). On the other hand, if the federal govt was not in the business of legislating whatever issue is being considered, there would be no incentive for the malevolent agent to attempt to buy the government. Presumably the regulation of whatever issue would be relegated to the states, where of course the agent could attempt to buy regulators out, but such corruption would be much more easily monitored since we have more control over our state legislatures than the distant congress in D.C. Maybe I am missing something, but basically it seems like regulatory capture will always be a proelbm when the federal govt has the authority to regulate a given issue.Flag
-
754
Name: Koichi on Jun 6, 2012Comments: This amendment is great, and I hope it coinenuts to accumulate more signatures . I think even more people would sign if Dylan was a little more up front on the show about the fact that after this amendment will necessarily come some sort of public financing. Of course, that public financing solution will be hashed out in detail by congress much later, after we pass the amendment, but some people I know are dissuaded from signing this amendment because they think that it means that only rich individuals would be able to campaign for high office (which would admittedly be better than individuals bought out by big money, but still not very democratic). Public financing may prompt some anti-government rhetoric, but on base it has worked magnificently in much of Europe and could mean cheaper elections generally.Flag
-
755
Name: Anonymous on Nov 6, 2012Comments: Hi there, You've done a great job. I will definitely digg it and personally recommend to my friends. I am confident they will be benefited from this web site.Flag
-
756
Name: Anonymous on Nov 6, 2012Comments: Nice read, I just passed this onto a friend who was doing some research on that. And he actually bought me lunch as I found it for him smile Thus let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!Flag