83 replies to this topic

[Stumped]

First off the original design of the government that our forefathers envisioned worked great for the times that it was all created. However they never could have foreseen the issues we face today and how to handle it.

When a president was elected originally he was the epitomy of what the people wanted to run our country. Now it's just a puppet that is controlled by strings unseen and no one knows what the government is doing anymore. People try to say they have an idea of what our government is doing but let me ask this, what are they doing? What's the black budget being used for? Who is actually running the country if there are 13 levels of security classification for intelligence above our president? Who is collecting this data and interpretting it?

Just a few questions to get this started.

[buckwheats]

the people running the country are largely the people with the most influence on our political process (so some wealthy individuals). i don't really think they want a new world order or anything crazy like that. as far as i know they don't even have elaborate visions for a future society (i mean, they don't even appear to be interested in life-extension). that would be worrisome. what seems more likely is they just want more money. or to monopolize their industries and increase their market shares, which requires money.

the government can do some pretty powerful stuff (for one it controls a very large military), so we can see why influence on the government might be highly sought after.

at the same time a lot of people in politics are as intelligent and empathic to the country and it's citizens and making things better as politicians have ever been. there are also people in politics that are as shrewd and uncaring to the people as ever. these politicians will gladly take corporate money to ensure their elections and future success (i.e wealth), even if it means using their new-found power to serve the corporations that get them elected. the noble politicians who detest this end up having to take corporate money as well to compete with the sell-outs. even if they aren't as bad as the corrupt people they replace, taking this money inherently restricts the kinds of things they can do and say as well (lest they lose their funding next election and be replaced by someone more corrupt).

perhaps one of the biggest rules you have to follow is to not talk too much about this influence, since it would undermine the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of people. and to retain it's power the government must be seen as legitimate.

Edited by buckwheats, 11 November 2012 - 08:26 AM.

[Mind]

The government is too big and has too much power. Psychopaths are attracted to this. The problems you speak of are inherent to the system. The government grows like a parasite until it kills the host (this has happened over and over and over and over and over again throughout human history). A more diverse set of smaller political/economic systems would be more robust, but this does not sit well with power mad psycopaths, just look at the U.S...... States used to have more latitude to experiment in democracy but increasingly all power is being transferred to Washington D.C. and increasingly into the office of one person. Everything important in our lives/economy is being taken over by the Federal government. Housing. Retirement. Medical care. Disaster relief. Large industry. Education. Food production. the list goes on. It is inherently dangerous to have so much power concentrated with so few people.

The good news is that instant world-wide communication has set in motion a revolution. However, bureaucrats, presidents, and "elites" that "pull the strings" will not go down without a fight, IMO.

Just as long as we can continue to work beneath the surface (or at the margin of the mainstream) on life extension, I will be satisfied, and we have a good chance of developing a better future.

[niner]

Everything important in our lives/economy is being taken over by the Federal government. Housing. Retirement. Medical care. Disaster relief. Large industry. Education. Food production.

I don't see where this comes from.

Housing? Not my house. Not yours either. You mean housing for the poor?

Retirement? Social security started in our grandparents' era, If this represents being "taken over", then it was a long time ago. Meanwhile, the trend over the past 40 years has been for professionally managed corporate pensions to go away, being replaced by self-directed instruments that most people are not competent to use. This is a trend toward more personal responsibility, not less.

Medical care? Obamacare is hardly a takeover. It's insurance reform, more than anything else. I don't see it changing the way I interact with my doctor. Still, some people want this to seem very very scary, and a lot of people find it to be so.

Disaster relief? Well, who else has the reach and resources to deal with a hurricane Sandy? I passed a military tanker truck convoy on the freeway the other day- they were delivering much-needed gasoline to the region. Was this wrong?

Large Industry? You're making it sound like we're turning into the Soviet Union. With Citizen's United, I think the takeover may be going in the other direction. Most people don't want large industry to be totally unregulated, if that's what you're talking about.

Education? Isn't the largest growing segment in education the for-profit colleges (that are preying on the least sophisticated among us)? There is the whole "No Child Left Behind" nonsense. That needs a re-think.

Food Production? Doesn't most of our food come from corporate giga-farms? Not that I think that's good... I guess you're talking about raw milk producers. We could certainly use some more flexibility here, but again, I think the looming takeover language is kind of hyperbolic.

I think the real problems are more along the lines of Congress having been hijacked by extremists who use the filibuster and other parliamentary tricks to create a non-democratic and dysfunctional institution. We are the only developed nation on Earth that allows elections to be designed and run by partisans. (Well, I guess China, North Korea, and some others do this- nice company, eh?) We could start by taking congressional districting out of the hands of partisans. There is way way too much money in modern politics, and the current Supreme Court ought to be ashamed of themselves. It will take a lot of work to fix this.

[maxwatt]

Who is actually running the country if there are 13 levels of security classification for intelligence above our president?

What evidence is there for this rather interesting statement? I think if it were true there'd be no evidence, or if you have it they'll have to kill you.

Some thoughts:

Of course our government doesn't work; we keep electing politicians who believe it doesn't work, and then set out to prove it.

Those who would destroy their government are easy prey to captivity. (Paraphrasing Aquinas)

Modern western political science starts with Hobbes (Leviathan) and Locke.

Classic Chinese political theory began with Confucious, and together with the Hanzi character script, has held China together as a culture and a political entity for over 2000 years, while Rome is but a memory on whose ghostly throne sits the Catholic Pope.

Current political theory seems to start with Heinlein and Rand. If you've only read them, please see Hobbes and Locke, above. Follow that with a critique of Jeremy Bentham, whose mummified body sits in a glass case in the entrance of University College, London, glumly surveying those who enter.*

* The head is a wax replica; his actual head sits separately preserved at his feet; except periodically when undergraduates steal it. Besides originating many of the ideas of liberalism, Bentham was a mentor to the founders of socialism. Bentham also developed his ideas of "sinister interest" – that is, of the vested interests of the powerful conspiring against a wider public interest, of which Mind's wordly cynicism is reminiscent.

[Mind]

Niner

60% of U.S. home loans are owned or guaranteed by Fannie/Freddie.

The U.S. government provides very close to 100% of student loans.

Obamacare is only a gradual step in the takeover of medical care, of course, but the trend is up up and away for the cost and participation of medicare and other government programs. A rational argument can be made for voluntary socialized medicine, but putting so much control in the hands of so few is bad, IMO.

What I was pointing to are the trends, all going in the direction of more control by one entity. If you are arguing that the trends are opposite, that would be weird.

[Mind]

Thanks for the smack-down character assassination Maxwatt!

[niner]

60% of U.S. home loans are owned or guaranteed by Fannie/Freddie.

The U.S. government provides very close to 100% of student loans.

Obamacare is only a gradual step in the takeover of medical care, of course, but the trend is up up and away for the cost and participation of medicare and other government programs. A rational argument can be made for voluntary socialized medicine, but putting so much control in the hands of so few is bad, IMO.

What I was pointing to are the trends, all going in the direction of more control by one entity. If you are arguing that the trends are opposite, that would be weird.

Well sure, Fannie and Freddie exist, and have for a long time, but is that a bad thing? They're interacting with the mortgage market, not with me. I benefit from that, in the form of lower rates/costs. I don't see how that's a takeover. As far as trends, they've been around a long time, like Social Security, so I don't see much of a trend there. Likewise, the government has guaranteed (I don't think they provide them, though they do provide grants) loans for a long time. Same thing there- doesn't seem like a takeover. It may have its pluses and minuses, but for most of the time it's been happening, I think the pluses outweighed the minuses by a lot.

If you look at the broad sweep of human history, our 'governing units' have gone from family to tribe to larger and larger entities. This is the trend the world over. The Soviet Union may have crumbled, but now look at everyone who wants to join the EU. Although some find it disturbing, I suspect the trend will continue.

You keep using the word "takeover", which has pretty bad connotations, implying authoritarianism and a high level of malign control. A lot of this seems like calling traffic lights a government takeover of the roads.

[sthira]

The government is too big and has too much power. Psychopaths are attracted to this.

I'm curious (since aren't you a meteorologist?) do you oppose the work of the National Weather Service?

NOAA? NASA? Clean air protection? Clean water regulations? Protection for wilderness? National parks? State parks? Protection for sensitive ecological habitats? Endangered species protection? NIH? Do you listen to NPR? Watch Nova or Frontline or Nature on PBS? Do you drive your auto on public roads? Your trash collection service? All of the employees doing these humble jobs are mostly hard working and mostly underpaid public servants that you call psychopaths?

The private sector refuses these areas of public good because these areas won't make much money. We shouldn't be pining for smaller government, rather we need better, more effective government. We need a better deal for our tax dollars, but that doesn't happen by supporting and voting into power people who hate government.

[Mind]

Egads! My point is that the concentration of power into too few hands is dangerous. Did everyone miss that?

I am totally on board with a mass consciousness scenario in the future. Eg, the revolution I referenced above. High bandwidth mind-to-mind communication should allow us to transcend the evolved fear and greed (which are exploited by the powerful among us) inherent in the human condition. We will find that we are so much more similar with the same goals, than what political parties/leaders make us think we are.

My life is a complete open book. I have nothing to hide. Anyone can look at anything I have ever done, seen, read, written, or spoken. I care deeply about the future, about the health of individuals, and human society as a whole. I donate a lot of time, energy, and money to these ends. Just because I point out that the concentration of power is something to be worried about, doesn't mean I want everyone dead, or that I hate everyone, hate the environment, or that I am a deluded cynical bastard. It is a logical non-sequitur.

[Turnbuckle]

Egads! My point is that the concentration of power into too few hands is dangerous.

Power continues to concentrate. In 2005 the Bush administration won a home-grown pot case that allows Congress to regulate almost everything we do. As Justice Thomas said in his vehement opposition, the Feds "may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the 'powers delegated' to the Federal Government are 'few and defined', while those of the States are 'numerous and indefinite.'"

And it all comes from the courts new interpretation of "commerce" in the phrase "To regulate Commerce...among the several States," as the majority contorted the plain meaning to make it fit the federal prohibition laws, and thereby created a monster.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 11 November 2012 - 04:51 PM.

[sthira]

Egads! My point is that the concentration of power into too few hands is dangerous.

Ok, cool. I like your response; but doesn't concentration of power into too few hands occur more often in private sector works than public sector works? Corporate CEOs are amassing gazillions of dollars -- just for themselves and their shareholders -- and often doing so only because of government subsidies enable them are paid for by hard working, mostly middle class taxpayers. I see the point with regard to corrupt, oligarchical politicians. The process is broken. Most of us don't know what the hell is going on down there in DC. But low level government employees, despite the bad press, are mostly hard working people doing loads of work for little money in an increasingly hostile, shrill environment.

Government is mostly good, and government employees are mostly honest and hard working. Government is not bad. We on the left need to make this point over and over and over -- buttressed by facts -- until people get it. Does government need to become more efficient? Of course. We all agree government services need to modernize, improve, get better. Do we need to prevent corruption, of course. But the draconian government cuts proposed by the right will make us all worse off and will not make us better.

[maxwatt]

60% of U.S. home loans are owned or guaranteed by Fannie/Freddie.

The U.S. government provides very close to 100% of student loans.
...

The only student loans the government does not own are grandfathered ones.

Obama's congress two years ago removed private lenders from the student loan program (they'd been put there by Bush) which reduced the cost to students for the loans by about 30%. Yeah, corporations cannot compete with government despite being more efficient

[maxwatt]

Thanks for the smack-down character assassination Maxwatt!

I think 'wordly cynicism' is a complement. Perhaps it was unfair to juxtapose it with some views of Jeremy Bentham, the father of liberalism and grandfather of socialism.

Even paranoids have enemies.

I agree that removing the undue influence of monied vested interests from public discourse and politics would lead to greater sanity in public policy.

Edited by maxwatt, 11 November 2012 - 09:11 PM.

[Lister]

You guys in the States worry too much about “Power”. There always seemed to be a state of extreme paranoia in the US which acts as the driving force behind things like gun control. It appears that you all worry more about whether someone will take away your freedoms than whether you’re eating poison or living in a corrupt society.

You’ll fight against rights being taken away but it takes a Brit like Jamie Oliver to drive your schools to feed your children right. It’s all very sad to watch from the outside.

Our PM has vastly more power than your President in terms of what change he can influence in our country and yet we’re doing just fine. I actually don’t think your political system is broken at all. I think it works great! It was just designed by a bunch of crazy guys who really got it all wrong. Plus they had no idea what was going to happen with Corporate Power and they seemed to severely underestimate the power of Greed.

It’s working great! You’re just all not happy with the results. I’m not saying you should be, but I am saying that you shouldn’t be so paranoid. Fight for things that actually matter.

[Stumped]

Gun control was set in place because the people were able to keep the right to revolt. Yes we do feed ourselves garbage for food, fast food is slowing killing our nation, but there are places trying to fight that, simple fact and point subway.

I think the power needs to be restored to the states and big daddy government should only control foreign policy and at a limited level at that. We have a very strong army and we bully our ways into other countries to much. We need to reel ourselves back in and give more control the people and stop this huge government before it's to late and something happens that we can't take back.

And with the recent election of electoral votes, obama had 26 states to tally 332, and romney had 206 with 24 states, being a 2 state difference the system is broken. The race should not be decided by certain states, which it is at this point, where population is higher, while the smaller states who I believe should have just as much voice if not more, for there are fewer of them, it should carry more weight. That is how our government was built from what I understood from the beginning and that fact has been lost to the ages.

Edited by Stumped, 12 November 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

You guys in the States worry too much about “Power”. There always seemed to be a state of extreme paranoia in the US which acts as the driving force behind things like gun control. It appears that you all worry more about whether someone will take away your freedoms than whether you’re eating poison or living in a corrupt society.

Actually we worry far too little about power, even worse, we do far too little in preventing those with power from abusing it in our country. It is that very power on those who wield it that are responsible for the corruption in our society. The true power in the United States no longer resides with the citizens, it belongs in its entirety to corporate interests. Think about that for a second and how it explains every thing else you observe.

[mikeinnaples]

I actually don’t think your political system is broken at all. I think it works great! It was just designed by a bunch of crazy guys who really got it all wrong. Plus they had no idea what was going to happen with Corporate Power and they seemed to severely underestimate the power of Greed.

Again, you are vastly off base with this. Not surprising though, you aren't an American.

Our political system in its current state is grossly broken and the only way we can hope to fix it is by sweeping campaign and election reform. So you are wrong there

Our political system was absolutely NOT designed by crazy people who got it all wrong. Frankly, I would find that statement profoundly insulting if it wasn't born of ignorance. You can't really expect a system born from the repression of a monarchy over 200 years ago to take in account the globalization and the power corporate interest would ultimately wield. Your statement to such is quite unfair. Even so, the system as designed would work perfectly fine if we adhered to the intent of the system as it was designed. The problem is that we have adjusted, amended, and reinterpreted our system over the decades in such a way that has broken it for the most part. So you are wrong again.

Just some friendly advice if you travel to the US, don't refer to our founding fathers as a bunch of crazy guys who got it all wrong in conversation. Not only would you be incorrect, a comment like that would likely get you hurt if the wrong person hears it coming from an outsider.

[maxwatt]

To understand what is wrong with US government, and why the meme that all government is bad is so widespread, and why global warming receives no consistent media attention it helps to read this timeline

Context of '1979-1980: Billionaire Libertarians Defeated in Presidential Campaign, Decide to Influence Politics through Organizations'


we have all been controlled and manipulated, left and right.

Edited by maxwatt, 14 November 2012 - 08:14 PM.

[Lister]

I actually don’t think your political system is broken at all. I think it works great! It was just designed by a bunch of crazy guys who really got it all wrong. Plus they had no idea what was going to happen with Corporate Power and they seemed to severely underestimate the power of Greed.

Again, you are vastly off base with this. Not surprising though, you aren't an American.

Our political system in its current state is grossly broken and the only way we can hope to fix it is by sweeping campaign and election reform. So you are wrong there

Our political system was absolutely NOT designed by crazy people who got it all wrong. Frankly, I would find that statement profoundly insulting if it wasn't born of ignorance. You can't really expect a system born from the repression of a monarchy over 200 years ago to take in account the globalization and the power corporate interest would ultimately wield. Your statement to such is quite unfair. Even so, the system as designed would work perfectly fine if we adhered to the intent of the system as it was designed. The problem is that we have adjusted, amended, and reinterpreted our system over the decades in such a way that has broken it for the most part. So you are wrong again.

Just some friendly advice if you travel to the US, don't refer to our founding fathers as a bunch of crazy guys who got it all wrong in conversation. Not only would you be incorrect, a comment like that would likely get you hurt if the wrong person hears it coming from an outsider.

THAT is the exact reaction I was trying to provoke.

I didn’t call the founding fathers crazy because I thought they were crazy (although some of them did some pretty wild things) - I called them crazy because I knew someone would pipe up with some overly pride filled comment.

Am I saying that pride in one’s own nation is a bad thing? No, absolutely not. I do though feel that extremism is a bad thing; and I feel that in some cases American Pride is being taken to extremist levels. Do you really want me to compare your reaction of my comment to the British reaction to comments about the royals? You think that it’s reasonable to censor comments made against the founding fathers like they censor for the royals in the UK? And how come it’s ok to call the president Hitler but it’s not ok to call the founding fathers crazy?

All of it is nonsense.

Dispense with all the flag waving and get to the real issues! I agree completely that campaign finance reform is an extremely important subject. It’s an obvious issue that the states only have 2 main parties (holding the majority of the seats), both of which are being unreasonable influenced by corporate power.

You need more main parties and those parties need to be able to fund themselves within a reasonable distance to the Dems and the Republicans. That I think should be the main focus of Liberals, Conservatives and Libertarians in the States. All the other issues; the flag waving, the bigoted religious fueled hate speeches, etc. is an epic, failed, waste of time. All that nonsense is why the system is failing.

Edited by Lister, 14 November 2012 - 10:30 PM.

[niner]

And with the recent election of electoral votes, obama had 26 states to tally 332, and romney had 206 with 24 states, being a 2 state difference the system is broken. The race should not be decided by certain states, which it is at this point, where population is higher, while the smaller states who I believe should have just as much voice if not more, for there are fewer of them, it should carry more weight. That is how our government was built from what I understood from the beginning and that fact has been lost to the ages.

Seriously? Are you freaking kidding!?! You think Rhode Island should have a LARGER voice in electing a president than, say New York? Do you understand the idea of democracy? One person, one vote? It's bad enough that every state gets two senators.

[maxwatt]

Rhode Island, and Wyoming, and Delaware et al. already have a disproportionately large voice in selecting the president in the electoral college.

The founding fathers were more than crazy; they were a bunch of freethinking freemason agnostic theist children of the Enlightenment. Today's conservative right would hate them if they were around today.

Here's to old Ben Franklin, having breakfast nude on his balcony to the consternation of his neighbors on the Champs Elysee in Paris, but there was nothing they could do about it as he had diplomatic immunity.

[Lister]

Rhode Island, and Wyoming, and Delaware et al. already have a disproportionately large voice in selecting the president in the electoral college.

The founding fathers were more than crazy; they were a bunch of freethinking freemason agnostic theist children of the Enlightenment. Today's conservative right would hate them if they were around today.

Here's to old Ben Franklin, having breakfast nude on his balcony to the consternation of his neighbors on the Champs Elysee in Paris, but there was nothing they could do about it as he had diplomatic immunity.

Haha!

Lacking in depth understanding of the Founding Fathers and a US Citizenship I figure I probably shouldn’t push the issue… Though I have heard this a few times in the past.

Still regardless of whether they were Nuts or Super Heroes it doesn’t matter. Flag waving is a waste of time. Focus on Real Issues.

Isn’t campaign finance reform something everyone can agree needs to happen? Why bother with other issues when we have something here, right now that we can all agree upon?

Also niner, Max, Mind; who’s manning the help desk on this site? I sent a ticket last week and an email yesterday and no response…

[rwac]

Isn’t campaign finance reform something everyone can agree needs to happen? Why bother with other issues when we have something here, right now that we can all agree upon?

Campaign finance reform is a big thing on the left. OTOH, it's not even on the radar of the right.

In fact, we're probably better off without it. These laws generally end up being enforced quite selectively against republicans, especially with a trial-by-media.

Edited by rwac, 15 November 2012 - 03:06 AM.

[sthira]

Isn’t campaign finance reform something everyone can agree needs to happen? Why bother with other issues when we have something here, right now that we can all agree upon?

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that independent political expenditures by corporations and unions are protected under the First Amendment and not subject to restriction by the government. The Court therefore struck down a ban on campaign expenditures by corporations and unions that applied to non-profit corporations like Planned Parenthood and the National Rifle Association, as well as for-profit corporations like General Motors and Microsoft.

That decision has sparked a great deal of controversy. Some see corporations as artificial legal constructs that are not entitled to First Amendment rights. Others see corporations and unions as participants in public debate whose views can help educate voters as they form their opinions on candidates and issues.

[Lister]

If you can’t agree then the corruption will continue. I figured removing corporate money from the system would be something easily agreed upon by at least the majority. Perhaps that was naive of me. Regardless of the political view I felt that the majority of the US feels that their party is not fulfilling their role. Your approval of your government is at an all-time low after all. Wouldn't the American ideal of "more choice" then be the solution?

I guess our PM’s move to improve business with China and Indian while pulling farther away from the US is the right move. But then should the rest of the world really give up on the US and recognize China as the new hegemon?

While I view all this as petty I guess it’s extremely important for you all. And the switch isn’t going to happen quickly though it is, and will continue to occur. Your country is becoming more and more politically unstable. That’s not good for business.

If all you can do is blame, can you really say you’re not at fault for the continued slide that’s happening in the US? I don’t think so…

[rwac]

If you can’t agree then the corruption will continue. I figured removing corporate money from the system would be something easily agreed upon by at least the majority. Perhaps that was naive of me. Regardless of the political view I felt that the majority of the US feels that their party is not fulfilling their role. Your approval of your government is at an all-time low after all. Wouldn't the American ideal of "more choice" then be the solution?

Removing corporate money is only one part of it.The other side of the coin is to stop the money coming from Non-profits (think Soros, Koch, etc) and unions. What about contributions in kind? The unions providing manpower, or the tv stations providing coverage to one side?
There's no end to this wild goose chase and very little political freedom will be left at the end of it. It's better not to go there.

I guess our PM’s move to improve business with China and Indian while pulling farther away from the US is the right move. But then should the rest of the world really give up on the US and recognize China as the new hegemon?

While I view all this as petty I guess it’s extremely important for you all. And the switch isn’t going to happen quickly though it is, and will continue to occur. Your country is becoming more and more politically unstable. That’s not good for business.

If all you can do is blame, can you really say you’re not at fault for the continued slide that’s happening in the US? I don’t think so…

In its infinite wisdom, America re-elected Obama, and reelected the GOP to block him in the House. Expect the instability to continue for a while.

[Lister]

For Political Finance in Canada:

"...the current maximum political contribution of $1,100 that can be given to the national organization of each party, the tax credit is $591.67, representing a subsidy of 53.79%"
- http://en.wikipedia....ncing_in_Canada

Everyone is restricted. Even if a company is an individual they cannot give more than the maximum amount to any one party.

• You first have to conquer the idea that Money is Speech
• You then have to institute a Maximum limiting all political contributions.

True this two rules are going to be insanely difficult to enact; but then if it’s something everyone can agree upon and it can be linked to the beginning of a possible long term solution wouldn’t that give it the push it would need (long term) to make it?

The US needs one unifying idea. Perhaps Campaign finance isn’t it but there has to be something. My company does business in the US but we’re losing money there. Why should we stay in the US if the US cannot get its house in order? What does the US have left at this point but useless childish bickering, blame games and a massive social divide?

[niner]

What does the US have left at this point but useless childish bickering, blame games and a massive social divide?

Munitions and delivery systems. Lots of them. When it Absolutely, Positively has to be blown up overnight, we're your go-to guys.

[rwac]

"...the current maximum political contribution of $1,100 that can be given to the national organization of each party, the tax credit is $591.67, representing a subsidy of 53.79%"
- http://en.wikipedia....ncing_in_Canada

Everyone is restricted. Even if a company is an individual they cannot give more than the maximum amount to any one party.

• You first have to conquer the idea that Money is Speech
• You then have to institute a Maximum limiting all political contributions.

Oh, we have that in the US too: http://en.wikipedia....ribution_limits

The question is do we allow say a corporation or a PAC to buy ads independent of the campaign.