83 replies to this topic

[sthira]

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

You recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns makes it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money plays a role in determining who runs for office and who is elected?

So one answer to that $$$ problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. So support a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. Carefully draw disclosure rules and enforce them. Support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

[Lister]

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.

Ok thar Tony Stark. You have a point though. Perhaps we other countries should just hire the states to go raid other countries for us. Could make billions doing that! Someone should get on it.

We have kind of hired you guys to protect the North from the invading Russians after our Oil up there. If the ice keeps melting I’m thinking about buying some nice beach front property up there. You in?

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.

I guess at this point you could say “You don’t know the power of the dark side of the... [US Politics]”

I’m not going to say that the current political system in the US isn’t at least entertaining. While Real Time with Bill Maher is a bit much I do enjoy The Daily Show and Penn & Tellers BS for the conservative side. But really I’m an extremely driven business guy and I would love to see the US Rocking its previous success.

We have a lot of Wood to sell you up here (and Water, Oil, Diamonds, Coal, Natural Gas, Lithium...) after all and the shipping costs are cheaper than they are to China. Plus we can actually refine it here and charge you for the work as your labour costs are the same as ours... this keeps jobs in Canada.

Fix it! The Libertarian party seems to be ready to step up within the next 10 to 20 years... Find a Liberal Party (The Dems aren’t Liberal) and you’re good to go! Do it for my Kids!

[Logic]

"I am Stumped....Does the U.S. Government work?"
Depends. Who are you?

Edited by Logic, 16 November 2012 - 02:02 AM.

[Lister]

You recognize that the escalating cost of political campaigns makes it more difficult for some views to be heard, and that access to money plays a role in determining who runs for office and who is elected?

So one answer to that $$$ problem is to expand, not limit, the resources available for political advocacy. So support a comprehensive and meaningful system of public financing that would help create a level playing field for every qualified candidate. Carefully draw disclosure rules and enforce them. Support reasonable limits on campaign contributions and support stricter enforcement of existing bans on coordination between candidates and super PACs.

I agree with that except for the Super PACs. The PAC’s tip the scales too much. In this last election facts were so totally skewed they might as well have just given up on them all together.

Mudslinging is by no means a new idea but when you put a Billion dollars behind it you tend to screw the whole thing up. Think of what it must have been like to live in Ohio... You really don’t know what to believe.

First you had Newt Gingrich’s Super PAC completely wiping the floor with Romney and then Sheldon Adelson switched over to Romney and was forced to undo all that harm with even more ads.

I get the sense that to a certain extent political finance is useful but beyond that it just starts to dilute the political process down; which gets worse the more money you add. In the end you just find yourself with a washed out political process making little to no sense and getting little to nothing done.

Do you really think that another couple billion added to both parties would have changed the results dramatically? At some point people will just get fed up with the whole thing entirely... Hmm if they did that maybe they’d get out on the streets and take a stand... Hmmm...

[mikeinnaples]

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.

Did you completely disregard everything else I had to say in my response to you or are you just being a dick?

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.

How about dispense with the trolling and actually pay attention to everything I wrote in my response to you?

Maybe I should just quote the part you missed and you can apologize. Lets try that.

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.

Yeah, sounds like I am overly prideful and that pride is blinding me to the reality that my country is screwed up. You do realize that your second comment that I quoted and this comment that I made is essentially along the same lines?

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.

Since you missed this as well, let me explain it to you. I was basically saying that the system as designed and intended to work was fine and the problem is with what the American people have allowed it to become over time.

Seriously man, did you just like read the first and last sentence of my post and spout off a bunch of garbage? I am the last person in the world that is blind to the problems in my country by pride. I am also the last person in the world you need to be soapboxing campaign reform to.

Maybe your comment was directed at the warning I gave you? I was being nice to you because there ARE people out there blinded by pride and it will get you into trouble in the wrong place here in the states.

Edit: Forgot to quote this response to you earlier as well

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.

I must be blinded by pride. /sarcasm

Edited by mikeinnaples, 16 November 2012 - 03:07 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

Mudslinging is by no means a new idea but when you put a Billion dollars behind it you tend to screw the whole thing up. Think of what it must have been like to live in Ohio... You really don’t know what to believe.

Or Florida.... 4 out of 5 commercials on some stations were attacks ads in the weeks leading up to the election. Phone calls, sometimes multiple times in an evening. Not to mention all the other media sources the rest of the country was dealing with on top of it. Both sides reinventing history and playing on the ignorance of people the skew 'facts'. A total mess.

Do you really think that another couple billion added to both parties would have changed the results dramatically? At some point people will just get fed up with the whole thing entirely... Hmm if they did that maybe they’d get out on the streets and take a stand... Hmmm...

You would think so, but no. The American people have forgotten our roots and where we came from. We have grown fat, lazy, and complacent as a whole. We are a divided nation of people that would rather pay attention the biased media than expend the energy to think for ourselves. Hell, most people find it much easier to fight with people on the internet that to actually fight for the things that need to change.

[mikeinnaples]

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.

Money is radio advertisement. Money is TV commercials. Money is phone calls and spam emails. Money is the ability to influence the media.

Money is speech in the United States. Apparently it is a constitutional violation of the freedom of speech to tell people and corporations that they cannot use millions of dollars to create attack ads against one candidate or another. This means that the concept of money = speech is protected by our constitution via ruling.

We are more than screwed up.

[sthira]

We are more than screwed up.

Despite the hand wringing and anxiety, this country is in far, far better condition for the majority of its people than at any other time. Recheck your History books. With obvious exceptions, most Americans are better-informed, smarter, happier, more comfortable, better fed and housed, longer lived, safer, living in less violent times than in any other period. It's so out of fashion to make such comments. Much of the hip cynicism I see appears to be fashion, eg, with embarrassing oh-cool, many appear to be saying "...see how smart and sophisticated I appear -- everyone else is fat n stupid and and and ...America sucks!"

Embrace the fact that we are living in great times. Our problems are huge -- especially ecosystem degradation -- but the hallmark of what makes this country fine are our individual and collective abilities to step up and face them. The government is our ally, not our enemy. Does it have massive problems? Of course.

Were any of you part of last year's Occupy movement? I was, and it all gave me great hope: there are many, many, so many wonderful, strong, good people out here willing to sacrifice so much to make things better.

[mikeinnaples]

We are more than screwed up.

Despite the hand wringing and anxiety, this country is in far, far better condition for the majority of its people than at any other time. Recheck your History books. With obvious exceptions, most Americans are better-informed, smarter, happier, more comfortable, better fed and housed, longer lived, safer, living in less violent times than in any other period. It's so out of fashion to make such comments. Much of the hip cynicism I see appears to be fashion, eg, with embarrassing oh-cool, many appear to be saying "...see how smart and sophisticated I appear -- everyone else is fat n stupid and and and ...America sucks!"

Embrace the fact that we are living in great times. Our problems are huge -- especially ecosystem degradation -- but the hallmark of what makes this country fine are our individual and collective abilities to step up and face them. The government is our ally, not our enemy. Does it have massive problems? Of course.

Were any of you part of last year's Occupy movement? I was, and it all gave me great hope: there are many, many, so many wonderful, strong, good people out here willing to sacrifice so much to make things better.

Questions:

Do you really believe that is because the US Government is in a good place not instead a product of the modern world we live in?

It might be out of fashion to make the comments I made, but who cares what is in fashion. I am curious at to why it is fine to make a general comment that 'we have our problems' such as you did but it is 'out of fashion' to be specific about them as I did?

I also find it kind of funny that I have you telling me I think my country sucks, while Lister is telling my I am blinded by my pride in my country. Why is that? They are mutually exclusive.

I am curious though about how do reconcile your comment about the government being an ally with your admiration of the Occupy movement? They are at odds with one another for fairly obvious reasons.

Look forward to your reply.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 16 November 2012 - 07:19 PM.

[mikeinnaples]

everyone else is fat n stupid and and and ...

What I said specifically is this:

We have grown fat, lazy, and complacent as a whole.

I have rising obesity rates, rising childhood diabetes rates, and the entire entitlement generation to back up my comment. I stand by it.

Edited by mikeinnaples, 16 November 2012 - 07:43 PM.

[niner]

the entire entitlement generation

I'm curious as to what age range this covers. Would this be people born between 1970 and 1980, for example? People who are in early adulthood today don't seem to be too entitled- maybe I'm missing it, but a lot of them really seem to give a damn and are trying to help, not looking for a handout. Likewise, younger people in the 1960's and 70's seemed that way too. Who is this entitlement generation, anyway?

[sthira]

Look forward to your reply.

Thank you, and I'm sorry, Mike, I wasn't addressing you personally or your comments personally, and I agree with much of what you say above. Peace.

Do you really believe that is because the US Government is in a good place not instead a product of the modern world we live in?

I think I understand, but maybe not. In some areas the US government is doing a very fine job indeed. In other areas, no, it needs vast improvements. Nuance. I don't know how much living or traveling you've done in developing areas of the world. But if you've ever been to countries where the government truly is corrupt, is horrible, and truly does oppress, enslave, beat down its own people, you (not personal you here) might have a different, brighter, more open view of how effective and well our government is doing -- given the givens. Go someplace sketchy and horrible, then come back to the a developed country like US or Canada, Japan or much if Europe. We take soooooo much for granted. I aint advocating blind patriotic, boosterism right wing America-love-it-or-leave-itisms. But perspective.... Again, the US government has massive problems. But you are mostly safe, you are mostly free to do and say as you please, you are mostly at peace, happy, well adjusted, well educated, heated, cooled, sheltered, fed, employed, you are mostly free of the violent lives faced by our ancestors and people living now in awful places -- you are not fucked up and left dying on the streets.

It might be out of fashion to make the comments I made, but who cares what is in fashion. I am curious at to why it is fine to make a general comment that 'we have our problems' such as you did but it is 'out of fashion' to be specific about them as I did?

It's in fashion -- not out of fashion -- to repeat ad nauseum how horrid everything about the US government has become. I argue that chant lacks perspective -- both historical perspective and modern perspective. With regard to conditions faced daily by many other citizens who live under very awful governments, we are here in the US live under a fine government. But many areas of that government need improvements.

I am curious though about how do reconcile your comment about the government being an ally with your admiration of the Occupy movement? They are at odds with one another for fairly obvious reasons.

As with nearly everything complicated, views are nuanced. Some areas of US government are working well. We take those for granted, then ridicule in comfort and peace. Fatly. And when the shit smacks down -- big storm, eg --and suddenly we lose or experience firsthand those invisible government benefits, then we see. Other areas of US government need improvements. The Occupy movement spent more time railing against corporate overreach than government problems. That's my opinion -- anyone have different views? Those who protested, were beaten, jailed, they may have entirely different views of government overreach.

[maxwatt]

Citizens United was decided on the basis of freedom of speech, but oddly not on the freedom of money to shout on every street corner, but on the right of individuals to hear what said money wanted to say. So why not a general fund to subsidize a public soapbox? Give to that fund to air your opinion piece, and anyone who wants can air a contrary message.

If it is truly freedom of speech, then ads will have no imagery, no emotional appeals, just a presentation of facts without emotional baggage. Pictures are no more speech than are pornographic movies. Really. Fat chance.

One dollar, one vote. Future elections can be decided by whoever raises the most money. A million 10 dollar contributions can match 10 billionaires giving a million each,

[mikeinnaples]

The Occupy movement spent more time railing against corporate overreach than government problems. That's my opinion -- anyone have different views? Those who protested, were beaten, jailed, they may have entirely different views of government overreach.

See my entire problem is that much of the problem with corporate overreach involves influence in government. That is what is creating much of the mess.

[mikeinnaples]

I'm curious as to what age range this covers. Would this be people born between 1970 and 1980, for example? People who are in early adulthood today don't seem to be too entitled- maybe I'm missing it, but a lot of them really seem to give a damn and are trying to help, not looking for a handout. Likewise, younger people in the 1960's and 70's seemed that way too. Who is this entitlement generation, anyway?

I believe the official definition is between 1979 and 1994. I am not sure I agree with that in entirety though.

I do agree that there are plenty of younger people that do not have that sense of entitlement, but on the flip side, I have most definitely seen plenty that do. It is what it is I guess, even the 'Greatest Generation' had its share of shit bags.

[Lister]

Mike your response (specifically the founding fathers comment) is more or less what I was targeting. I was targeting those “advocating blind patriotic, boosterism right wing America-love-it-or-leave-itisms” (in the words of sthira). If that’s not you mike then I apologize. (the same thing happens on the left by the way with racism and bigotry being used as a weapon)

I agree with a lot of what sthira has to say. It is presented in a bit too floaty-cloud optimistic to appeal to those who see themselves as Realists but I feel it’s more or less bang on.

I still maintain though that you need more parties in the US. You cannot get corporate money out of politics or even cut down on big government when the whole operation is being run by interested parties rather than the people. More parties’ means power is more evenly spread allowing for more pressure to make the right decisions.

I say that you in the states care too much about your freedoms and too much about power because it’s the wrong thing to focus on. You should be focusing on what you do best – Promoting Choice! You’re getting side tracked by all these other issues which is driving you away from a solution to any of those issues.

It’s bang on right to say that other parties can’t compete with the Republican and Democratic parties due to their finances. Therefore you must first resolve that issue first. If you ignore all the other petty stuff and focus exclusively on resolving campaign finance everything else will follow.

Does that make sense?

[rwac]

Citizens United was decided on the basis of freedom of speech, but oddly not on the freedom of money to shout on every street corner, but on the right of individuals to hear what said money wanted to say. So why not a general fund to subsidize a public soapbox? Give to that fund to air your opinion piece, and anyone who wants can air a contrary message.

If it is truly freedom of speech, then ads will have no imagery, no emotional appeals, just a presentation of facts without emotional baggage. Pictures are no more speech than are pornographic movies. Really. Fat chance.

Public-access TV does exist right?

I would argue that there's no such thing as "just the facts", and if there were, it would be impossible to define in any case. And everyone has emotional baggage, pretty much.

They didn't actually arrest the mohammed film maker guy on charges related to the movie, but instead convicted him of parole violation. Even pornography, It's become defacto accepted as free speech.

[maxwatt]

It is immutable that pi cannot exactly equal 3.14, despite the attempt of Indiana legislators to so regulate.
But if the facts are inconvenient you can forbid scientists to measure and report them, as was done in South Carolina when Univerity Scientists reported on projected sea level rise.

There is such a thing as objective reality, not just a matter of opinion.

[sthira]

I say that you in the states care too much about your freedoms and too much about power because it’s the wrong thing to focus on. You should be focusing on what you do best – Promoting Choice!

Flesh that out. What are you saying? What do you mean?

[sthira]

The American people have forgotten our roots and where we came from.

Here is another comment I would like explained. Tell me, asketh I politely, about "our roots and where we came from"?

[sthira]

People try to say they have an idea of what our government is doing but let me ask this, what are they doing?

Cheer up, teacup, here are some things:

The FAA: plane crashes are rare here, thanks to equipment safety tests and massively successful air flight controlling.

Medicaid: private sector insurance companies make money by ditching their customers when they get very sick. Medicaid picks up the castoffs.

Social Security: What if Mr. Bush had succeeded in privatizing SS before the markets crashed? Can you imagine how many old people would be working at WalMart, since their SS would have been cut in half? And did you know that before SS, thousands of older Americans simply starved to death?

SCHIP: Healthcare insurance for children who would not otherwise have it; enormously preventive of school absence, long-term illness, loss of physical and mental development.

The CDC: How do we know that the virulence of H1N1 is less than expected? Who is telling the world that US spinach is safe to eat? How do we know whether an illness is H1N1 or not? It's all the CDC.

School hot lunch programs: For many children, these meals may be their only serious nutrition all day every day. What industry would do it?

The Soil Conservation Service: though bureaucratic, there is no private industry comparable. How vastly different would America be without the wetlands your dad and a thousand like him have created?

Head Start: kids from homes that have seriously dysfunctional emotional and learning environments have benefited enormously

The Department of Motor Vehicles: how many mistakes have you had on your car registrations or titles?

E911 commissions: how long does it take an ambulance or fire truck to reach you if a child who can call 911 can't tell the operator an address? Before this, people just died.

Open meetings laws for city, county, and state government office; there is nothing like it at all in the private sector. But if public officials make decisions without notifying us, they get in big trouble.

Free public libraries: most nations simply don't have them.

Public health services: how many lives have been saved by free or low-cost immunizations? Show me something analogous in the private sector.

The Interstate Highways Commission: we enjoy the best auto and truck transportation system in the world.

The FDIC: how safe is your bank account? Prior to the FDIC, if your bank got greedy and lent more than it could support, you lost your life savings.

The FDA: how do I know that the Adderall is really Adderall, and really the dosage I'm told? Much of the world does not. The FDA constantly catches businesses attempting to cheat.

The Federal Elections Commission: the speed and accuracy with which US elections take place, and the efficiency and safety with which the US changes its administrations is astonishing.

Uniform Building Codes: there are pre-code homes in your town (and probably in every town) that have sewer lines that run under some public park and dump raw sewage into some creek that flows into some trailer court.

NASA: what business has landed on the moon?

PBS, NPR, the National Weather Service, NOAA, the National Park Service... On and on, great services we forget, we take for granted, we'd be very unhappy and less civilized without.

Government is our ally, not our enemy. We need to improve it, not shrivel it into nothingness.

Edited by sthira, 17 November 2012 - 04:14 AM.

[Lister]

I say that you in the states care too much about your freedoms and too much about power because it’s the wrong thing to focus on. You should be focusing on what you do best – Promoting Choice!

Flesh that out. What are you saying? What do you mean?

What I mean is choice in terms of Political Parties. If you only have to pick between two kinds of shoes do the shoe companies really have to do all that much work to win your purchase? No. They only have to 1 up their only competitor.

Right now you have only 2 main political parties and every other party can’t even walk into the building let alone sit in front of the stage let alone stand upon it. The US has always been a big supporter of Choice visa vie the free market. Why is it that the country that prides itself so much on choice in its market has almost no choice in its political system? Because no political party can compete due to campaign finance.

[rwac]

Right now you have only 2 main political parties and every other party can’t even walk into the building let alone sit in front of the stage let alone stand upon it. The US has always been a big supporter of Choice visa vie the free market. Why is it that the country that prides itself so much on choice in its market has almost no choice in its political system? Because no political party can compete due to campaign finance.

So... what positions do you personally like that are not covered by the big two?

It's not even just the money though. The entire national system seems to favor 2 parties. That's why several "libertarians" have been in office as republicans (think Ron Paul, ran for pres a couple times on the Libertarian Party ticket).

However, you would think that third party candidates would be more successful in say mayoral and state elections, where the money involved is much much less, you definitely don't see super-PACs in local elections. The fact that you don't see many libertarian or green members of state legislatures indicates that there's not much room for third parties. Especially since people can go against the "party line" at almost any level of government.

[sthira]

I say that you in the states care too much about your freedoms and too much about power because it’s the wrong thing to focus on. You should be focusing on what you do best – Promoting Choice!

Flesh that out. What are you saying? What do you mean?

Right now you have only 2 main political parties and every other party can’t even walk...

Yes yes, and in what country do you currently live? Here in the US I think you'll find nearly every conscious person feels the same. Anyone feel here feel like the two party shizz is a-ok? I really don't think I've met anyone who thinks we're not unnaturally restricted by the narrowing process. Also the entire system has radio-personality-screamed us all so far to the right (eg, kill all government everywhere except that ferocious world military we must keep buying) that liberals really have no federal representation. Obama, in terms of policy, is kinda like Reagan. Disagree? In fact, anyone breathing liberal ideas into the frigid righty winds here is immediately shouted down: Socialist! Marxist! Communist! BedWetting Libbie! It's funny, really, but people really do take this crappy ridicule seriously.

I've voted for alternative candidates in prior elections: green party, progressive party, candidates who say theyre socialist... But when I voted for Nader in that Bush- Gore mess my vote just went to Bush and so the adult candidate, Gore, lost, and we elected a little child as president.

[Lister]

I wonder rwac if you feel that, other than Reagan, the Republicans have always served you right (assuming you’re a conservative)?

Did you feel that the Bush administration did the right thing when it bailed out the banks without asking for any sort of guaranteed return? If you didn’t support Bush do you feel that his administration was a one off? The way the Republican Party presents itself it seems that Reagan was the one off; “We’ll get it right one day!”

I know that many Democrats feel their party isn’t really doing the job they want it to. Obama keeping the Bush policies on Terrorists is an example of something currently driving that party bonkers.

Even if you do feel that your party is fulfilling its role do you still feel that having only two parties is the right idea? Do you agree that less choice is better? That is essentially 1 step away from a single party communist state, am I wrong about that?

I agree with the right in the US that the Government is too big. Each time I’ve visited the states in WA, Oregon, CA, Nevada, AZ, Florida, etc. I’ve found many more government facilities, and vehicles than we have here in Canada – Yet we’re the more socialized country. How does that work?

Yet each time you elect a new President, each time you elect or re-elected House and Senate Representatives the Government seems to get bigger; regulation gets worse and the whole thing becomes more dysfunctional. It doesn’t seem to matter which person you vote for.

[niner]

I agree with the right in the US that the Government is too big. Each time I’ve visited the states in WA, Oregon, CA, Nevada, AZ, Florida, etc. I’ve found many more government facilities, and vehicles than we have here in Canada – Yet we’re the more socialized country. How does that work?

When the Right says the government is too "big", they really mean that it spends too much. If you look at where the money goes, it's mostly health care and the military. The Right will always consider the government too "big" as long as it's spending money on lower income people. The military can apparently never be too "big", because even though we spend more on our military than the next 17 nations combined, Mitt wanted to spend more on it.

Yet each time you elect a new President, each time you elect or re-elected House and Senate Representatives the Government seems to get bigger; regulation gets worse and the whole thing becomes more dysfunctional. It doesn’t seem to matter which person you vote for.

Congressional races are rigged by gerrymandering to hugely favor the incumbent, so you can't really go by that. If the economy and the population grow, then the government will probably grow along with it. Is regulation really getting "worse"? Regulations protect our freedom. Our freedom not to be harmed, that is. Not to be harmed by toxic crap being spewed into our air and water, or not to have our wealth vaporized by megabanks playing roulette with our economy. Regulations are not inherently bad, though they can be done badly. Do some regulations cause more harm than good? Undoubtedly. Would we be better off with no regulation? No way. We need to concentrate on fixing the bad ones, not getting rid of regulation in general. I think the dysfunction that you see is Congress. Congress is dysfunctional, and is badly in need of an overhaul. We need to make it harder for the minority to bring the function of our government to a standstill.

[rwac]

I wonder rwac if you feel that, other than Reagan, the Republicans have always served you right (assuming you’re a conservative)?

Did you feel that the Bush administration did the right thing when it bailed out the banks without asking for any sort of guaranteed return? If you didn’t support Bush do you feel that his administration was a one off? The way the Republican Party presents itself it seems that Reagan was the one off; “We’ll get it right one day!”

I know that many Democrats feel their party isn’t really doing the job they want it to. Obama keeping the Bush policies on Terrorists is an example of something currently driving that party bonkers.

Even if you do feel that your party is fulfilling its role do you still feel that having only two parties is the right idea? Do you agree that less choice is better? That is essentially 1 step away from a single party communist state, am I wrong about that?

I agree with the right in the US that the Government is too big. Each time I’ve visited the states in WA, Oregon, CA, Nevada, AZ, Florida, etc. I’ve found many more government facilities, and vehicles than we have here in Canada – Yet we’re the more socialized country. How does that work?

Yet each time you elect a new President, each time you elect or re-elected House and Senate Representatives the Government seems to get bigger; regulation gets worse and the whole thing becomes more dysfunctional. It doesn’t seem to matter which person you vote for.

Oh, Reagan sucked on certain issues too, notably the drug war.

Take the UK, 56% of people want out of the EU, yet the UKIP is only growing slowly. Referendums on joining the EU usually fail, so they stopped having referendums on the subject. The existence of a multi party system does nothing.

If you convince enough people in the US, change will happen. Certain bills have been stopped by a barrage of calls to congressmen and senators.

The US gov has a unique position in the world. It can defy economics far longer than any other because the dollar is the reserve currency, the US is a very large market, and the US is militarily powerful.

Edited by rwac, 18 November 2012 - 07:47 AM.

[maxwatt]

I wonder rwac if you feel that, other than Reagan, the Republicans have always served you right (assuming you’re a conservative)?

Did you feel that the Bush administration did the right thing when it bailed out the banks without asking for any sort of guaranteed return? If you didn’t support Bush do you feel that his administration was a one off? The way the Republican Party presents itself it seems that Reagan was the one off; “We’ll get it right one day!”

I know that many Democrats feel their party isn’t really doing the job they want it to. Obama keeping the Bush policies on Terrorists is an example of something currently driving that party bonkers.

Even if you do feel that your party is fulfilling its role do you still feel that having only two parties is the right idea? Do you agree that less choice is better? That is essentially 1 step away from a single party communist state, am I wrong about that?

I agree with the right in the US that the Government is too big. Each time I’ve visited the states in WA, Oregon, CA, Nevada, AZ, Florida, etc. I’ve found many more government facilities, and vehicles than we have here in Canada – Yet we’re the more socialized country. How does that work?

Yet each time you elect a new President, each time you elect or re-elected House and Senate Representatives the Government seems to get bigger; regulation gets worse and the whole thing becomes more dysfunctional. It doesn’t seem to matter which person you vote for.

Oh, Reagan sucked on certain issues too, notably the drug war.

Take the UK, 56% of people want out of the EU, yet the UKIP is only growing slowly. Referendums on joining the EU usually fail, so they stopped having referendums on the subject. The existence of a multi party system does nothing.

If you convince enough people in the US, change will happen. Certain bills have been stopped by a barrage of calls to congressmen and senators.

The US gov has a unique position in the world. It can defy economics far longer than any other because the dollar is the reserve currency, the US is a very large market, and the US is militarily powerful.

I agree with everything you said in this post.

[mikeinnaples]

I agree with the right in the US that the Government is too big. Each time I’ve visited the states in WA, Oregon, CA, Nevada, AZ, Florida, etc. I’ve found many more government facilities, and vehicles than we have here in Canada – Yet we’re the more socialized country. How does that work?

When the Right says the government is too "big", they really mean that it spends too much. If you look at where the money goes, it's mostly health care and the military. The Right will always consider the government too "big" as long as it's spending money on lower income people. The military can apparently never be too "big", because even though we spend more on our military than the next 17 nations combined, Mitt wanted to spend more on it.

I have to agree with niner here. We can't reduce spending as long as we continue to spend so much on defense. Though calling it defense in light of how we use it is kind of laughable. The republican party refuses to budge on it despite it being roughly 25% of our budget.

Lister, I agree that the US Government is far too large and needs to be drastically reduced in size. Not only that, it needs to be drastically reduced in the power it has used to invade and regulate the 'freedoms' of its citizens. This is more libertarian than republican by far. The republicans wont give up defense (offense?) spending and refuses to keep its nose out of people's every day lives. Too much religious influence in the party.

[mikeinnaples]

Right now you have only 2 main political parties and every other party can’t even walk into the building let alone sit in front of the stage let alone stand upon it. The US has always been a big supporter of Choice visa vie the free market. Why is it that the country that prides itself so much on choice in its market has almost no choice in its political system? Because no political party can compete due to campaign finance.

So... what positions do you personally like that are not covered by the big two?

It's not even just the money though. The entire national system seems to favor 2 parties. That's why several "libertarians" have been in office as republicans (think Ron Paul, ran for pres a couple times on the Libertarian Party ticket).

However, you would think that third party candidates would be more successful in say mayoral and state elections, where the money involved is much much less, you definitely don't see super-PACs in local elections. The fact that you don't see many libertarian or green members of state legislatures indicates that there's not much room for third parties. Especially since people can go against the "party line" at almost any level of government.

At this point in the United States, the 'two' party system is pretty much part of our cultural foundation. People are taught that you vote either republican or democratic and that anything else is a wasted vote.

Hell, to make it worse, we have people that are born, raised, and die 'republican' without ever even bothering to think for themselves. ( I am using republican, but you can just as easily insert democratic in its place. )