PDA

View Full Version : General Politics I think I am done with politics....mostly


petegz28
01-25-2012, 06:46 AM
Of course I will keep on top of the current developments and what not but I think I have come to a point in life that the entire R vs. D thing has run it's course. It's stupid, it's childish and it will do nothing but put someone into an early grave. What's going to happen is going to happen and I think it better to focus energy on adapting to what happens instead of bitching about (pointlessly) what should happen, etc.

After last night's SOTU speech I just threw my hands in the air and gave up. Our politicians are for the most part the biggest bunch of jackoffs one could ever meet. That includes the Annointed One and his "I'm above everyone else" Wife. Last night was just the same old tired story. A laundry list of utopian visions that both parties, for whatever reason, will find a way to **** up.

While Obama preached about his acomplishments he left out how gas and food are higher since he took office. He left out that although jobs are growing slowly, even more people are just falling out of the worker pool. Now beit Obama or anyone else I have just come to the point that I call that chicken shit. Don't stand there an give me a candy-coated version of the last 3 years. It says you're either stupid or you think the People are stupid.

Bottom line is the rage over politics is pointless anymore. There is too much to be gained by politicians by continuing the arguments and not getting much done while blaming the other side. And yes, Dems do it just as much as Repubs. There is no "one side does it more than the other". Both are severely ****ed in different ways.

The Dems need to quit playing the "Nanny" role for everyone, respect the God damn Constitution and quit spending money on any and every ****ing thing known to man, quit babying the Unions, understand that rich people create jobs for the most part, not poor people, recognize we aren't going to get off oil tomorrow, we do need things like coal and we don't need a regulation for every damn thing under the sun because on of your constituants is pissed about something, actually PASS A GOD DAMN BUDGET for once and realize there needs to be some serious tax reform that not only removes some tax deductions for truly rich people but also has EVERYONE paying something into the system. No more of this bullshit where some people actually get back more in a refund than what was ever taken out of their check. You want "shared responsibility" and as Obama said last night "everyone plays under the same rules" well, sorry everyone means just that...EVERYONE!

The Repubs on the other hand need to practice more of what they preach. Quit trying to play "World Police", recognize they have a spending habit as well, get off the whole Gay Marriage tirade, understand we DO need to get off oil eventually and quit supporting offshoring of jobs and the favorable treatment of foreign labor, or as I like to call it "slave labor" and yes there needs to be some serious tax reform that removes some tax deductions from truly rich people.

BOTH parties need to come to grips with the realities of illegal immigration, the pompus treatment of Congress and put themselves under the same laws as everyone else, i.e. insider trading. Quit worrying about who is taking steroids in baseball or how the BCS is put together and fix the ****ing country.


See..all pointless. So why waste time arguing over who is right and who is wrong? It's what a lot of people want because it's a money maker both in cash money and political capital.

orange
01-25-2012, 06:56 AM
SPIN TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION

petegz28 is right and everyone else - and their uppity wife - should sit-the-fuck-down and shut-the-fuck-up.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 06:58 AM
SPIN TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION

petegz28 is right and everyone else - and their uppity wife - should sit-the-****-down and shut-the-****-up.

Whatever you say, douche. There is nothing to be right or wrong about. You can ratchet yourself up over this shit if you want, and you do, often. To me it seems healthier to not play the game anymore.

orange
01-25-2012, 06:59 AM
Bu-bye!

blaise
01-25-2012, 07:05 AM
SPIN TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION

petegz28 is right and everyone else - and their uppity wife - should sit-the-****-down and shut-the-****-up.

SPIN TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION

If you don't like Obama you must think he and Michelle are "uppity", which is code for "you're racist".

KILLER_CLOWN
01-25-2012, 07:06 AM
Any chance you could use your shofixti glory device and take Orange with you?

Deberg_1990
01-25-2012, 07:07 AM
Does this mean your not voting Pete? Im considering it....

KILLER_CLOWN
01-25-2012, 07:08 AM
Does this mean your not voting Pete? Im considering it....

It really doesn't matter if you vote, you end up with the same crap no matter who is in office.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:11 AM
Does this mean your not voting Pete? Im considering it....

I'm not sure. I believe it's an obligation to vote out of respect for those who fought and died so I have that Right. Doesn't mean I won't vote a blank ticket though. I feel it is my obligation to get off my ass and go stand in line and cast a ballot but nothing says anything need be on that ballot. Plus there are always local issues to vote on and such.

Last election I took the approach that gridlock is best. I still think that is true to a point. But right now our Congress and White House are so far gone I just have given up any kind of hope for a meaningful change.

dirk digler
01-25-2012, 07:12 AM
All SOTU speeches are utopian visions that are never fulfilled.

If you find R v D childish what is KU vs MU and talking smack about attendance?

blaise
01-25-2012, 07:13 AM
All SOTU speeches are utopian visions that are never fulfilled.

If you find R v D childish what is KU vs MU and talking smack about attendance?

That's what the two party bickering has basically become. Like two groups of sports fans just yelling garbage at one another.

Deberg_1990
01-25-2012, 07:16 AM
It really doesn't matter if you vote, you end up with the same crap no matter who is in office.

Exactly...and since i dont like any of the candidates, i refuse to vote for any of them and give them my support.


Nothings going to change in this county unless theres a revolution.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:16 AM
It really doesn't matter if you vote, you end up with the same crap no matter who is in office.

That's exactly right. As Obama stood there last night saying we would never bailout banks again we currently have the Fed doing pretty much that. It's all smoke and fucking mirrors. I thought to myself we may not be bailing out banks now but we will be bailing out our own Fed Gov because of the increased spending, borrowing and printing of money. He talked tough about China last night, which I liked hearing but behind closed doors he is begging them to buy our debt. He said he wants to be like Lincoln where a government should do only what people can't do better by themsleves and no more but yet we see a little of the opposite. I am not blaming just him or just the Dems...it's the entire system. It's fucked. There is no recourse short of a revolution. These people are inside traders, tax evaders and law breakers and yet they sit atop the mountain making laws for everyone else then pretend to actually give a fuck and understand the middle and lower classes????

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:18 AM
All SOTU speeches are utopian visions that are never fulfilled.

If you find R v D childish what is KU vs MU and talking smack about attendance?

Sports is entertainment which should always been done out of a spirit of fun though I understand it can be very competitive. But nonetheless sports is where you are supposed to be fun and childish...to a point.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-25-2012, 07:22 AM
That's exactly right. As Obama stood there last night saying we would never bailout banks again we currently have the Fed doing pretty much that. It's all smoke and ****ing mirrors. I thought to myself we may not be bailing out banks now but we will be bailing out our own Fed Gov because of the increased spending, borrowing and printing of money. He talked tough about China last night, which I liked hearing but behind closed doors he is begging them to buy our debt. He said he wants to be like Lincoln where a government should do only what people can't do better by themsleves and no more but yet we see a little of the opposite. I am not blaming just him or just the Dems...it's the entire system. It's ****ed. There is no recourse short of a revolution. These people are inside traders, tax evaders and law breakers and yet they sit atop the mountain making laws for everyone else then pretend to actually give a **** and understand the middle and lower classes????

They understand the middle and lower classes, they promise the moon, deliver nothing and then give ya the pillow talk knowing damn well they are using and abusing you. Then some people continue to lead the cheers for them while wondering while their backsides hurt every morning due to the raping. They don't even need ether anymore as all they have to do is tell you it's good and you should believe them.

patteeu
01-25-2012, 07:24 AM
... his "I'm above everyone else" Wife....

Isn't it simpler to just use the word "uppity"?

La literatura
01-25-2012, 07:24 AM
You never really provided any insightful information anyway, pete, so . . . so long, farewell. Tocqueville had a passage in his Democracy in America where he talked about Americans sitting around yelling out their political opinions, rather than sitting quietly and thinking and writing about it. Safe to say, that's a normal phenomenon in a wide open democracy (even if wide open in the 19th century meant white males). You can't really expect everyone to patiently sit down and carefully think through everything in a fair manner. There are always people who just scream out at the world, "Everything is wrong, and I can't quite articulate why, but I know I am right!" I think you played that role very well, pete.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:26 AM
Isn't it simpler to just use the word "uppity"?

Less dramatic though, isn't it??? :p

KILLER_CLOWN
01-25-2012, 07:27 AM
You never really provided any insightful information anyway, pete, so . . . so long, farewell. Tocqueville had a passage in his Democracy in America where he talked about Americans sitting around yelling out their political opinions, rather than sitting quietly and thinking and writing about it. Safe to say, that's a normal phenomenon in a wide open democracy (even if wide open in the 19th century meant white males). You can't really expect everyone to patiently sit down and carefully think through everything in a fair manner. There are always people who just scream out at the world, "Everything is wrong, and I can't quite articulate why, but I know I am right!" I think you played that role very well, pete.

If we sit around and write about it, all of the sudden it gets so much better? You can affect change by supporting those that give you none? It's a zero sum game.

orange
01-25-2012, 07:27 AM
You still here? I thought you were leaving ... or are you just a drama queen?

http://www.rookiemoms.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/running-away-from-k.jpg

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:28 AM
You never really provided any insightful information anyway, pete, so . . . so long, farewell. Tocqueville had a passage in his Democracy in America where he talked about Americans sitting around yelling out their political opinions, rather than sitting quietly and thinking and writing about it. Safe to say, that's a normal phenomenon in a wide open democracy (even if wide open in the 19th century meant white males). You can't really expect everyone to patiently sit down and carefully think through everything in a fair manner. There are always people who just scream out at the world, "Everything is wrong, and I can't quite articulate why, but I know I am right!" I think you played that role very well, pete.

And all you have ever provided is the insulting of others in order to elevate your own status inside your own little mind. I expect people to do whatever they feel they need to do and what they think is best for them and nothing less.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:29 AM
You still here? I thought you were leaving ... or are you just a drama queen?

I don't think I ever said I was leaving, did I? In fact I think the very first sentence of the OP said I would stay on top of things but I am bailing out of the whole R vs. D argument.

Are you incapable of following politics without arguing one side vs. the other?

La literatura
01-25-2012, 07:34 AM
If we sit around and write about it, all of the sudden it gets so much better? You can affect change by supporting those that give you none? It's a zero sum game.

You're beginning with the premise, "Everything is screwed up, and we need a revolution."

No, we don't need a revolution. Not everything is screwed up. You just need to have the patience and wide-angled understanding required to see that. So what, managing the most powerful country in the world is messy, it's hard work? Governing 300 million Americans sometimes requires compromises and bargains and the second best? That should be obvious. It's a wonder that this whole system stays ahead, but it does.

orange
01-25-2012, 07:34 AM
Are you incapable of following politics without arguing one side vs. the other?

Oh, I see. It's the return of "non-partisan-petegz28"

The Dems need to quit...

The Repubs on the other hand need to practice more of what they preach.

ROFLLMAOROFL

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4IqAMwAGn1w/TEal_BANENI/AAAAAAAAXhM/Lj-MRavDlwk/s400/nothing_to_see_here.jpg

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:36 AM
They understand the middle and lower classes, they promise the moon, deliver nothing and then give ya the pillow talk knowing damn well they are using and abusing you. Then some people continue to lead the cheers for them while wondering while their backsides hurt every morning due to the raping. They don't even need ether anymore as all they have to do is tell you it's good and you should believe them.

Agreed. We are the Nobles, you are the Fiefs...what's good for you is not what's good for us but we know what's good for you better than you do so you will listen to us...

Rich people telling poor people how other rich people don't give a damn about poor people except for the rich people telling you they do give a damn....

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:37 AM
You're beginning with the premise, "Everything is screwed up, and we need a revolution."

No, we don't need a revolution. Not everything is screwed up. You just need to have the patience and wide-angled understanding required to see that. So what, managing the most powerful country in the world is messy, it's hard work? Governing 300 million Americans sometimes requires compromises and bargains and the second best? That should be obvious. It's a wonder that this whole system stays ahead, but it does.

LMAO...

oh wait, you're serious

La literatura
01-25-2012, 07:39 AM
Rich people telling poor people how other rich people don't give a damn about poor people except for the rich people telling you they do give a damn....

This is why you don't provide anything substantive around here. Your explanations are cartoonish characterizations. There are several important issue at the heart of the debate about tax policy and tax rates, but you don't want to address it. You want to write things like that.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:39 AM
Oh, I see. It's the return of "non-partisan-petegz28"



ROFLLMAOROFL

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4IqAMwAGn1w/TEal_BANENI/AAAAAAAAXhM/Lj-MRavDlwk/s400/nothing_to_see_here.jpg

Orange, your are a pathetic person. Anyone who reads the OP can clearly see I find fault in both parties.

Methinks you are just pissed off because I didn't jump ship from Repub to Dem but rather I just jumped ship and flipped the bird to both parties..including YOURS.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 07:40 AM
LMAO...

oh wait, you're serious

Go ahead and dispute what I have to say. I'm willing to have a serious conversation. I thought you were, too.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:41 AM
This is why you don't provide anything substantive around here. Your explanations are cartoonish characterizations. There are several important issue at the heart of the debate about tax policy and tax rates, but you don't want to address it. You want to write things like that.

I address it every year when I write a check to Uncle Sam for taxes, thank you very much.

I write things like that because things like that are true. It's complicated for a reason...we intentionally made it that way....DUH!

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:42 AM
Go ahead and dispute what I have to say. I'm willing to have a serious conversation. I thought you were, too.

What's to dispute? You have your opinion, I have mine. I see what I see, you see what you see.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 07:44 AM
I address it every year when I write a check to Uncle Sam for taxes, thank you very much.

I write things like that because things like that are true. It's complicated for a reason...we intentionally made it that way....DUH!

No, the act of paying your taxes is not a valid argument either for or against a certain tax rate for certain brackets.

It's complicated because America is a huge country with varying interests and opinions and values. 300 million Americans, and yet the finality of the tax rates is channeled into a group of less than 600 people who ultimately decide. This is enormous, and there are reasonable reasons for going one way or the other on it. It requires time-consuming and serious consideration to decide.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 07:45 AM
What's to dispute? You have your opinion, I have mine. I see what I see, you see what you see.

Is it your opinion that we need a revolution? If so, what would that revolution look like? Why would I trust that the outcome would be better than the present?

Amnorix
01-25-2012, 07:45 AM
That's what the two party bickering has basically become. Like two groups of sports fans just yelling garbage at one another.


Because Adams v. Jefferson was so genteel and sophisticated? This shit is as old as the two party system, which is as old as the Republic. Hell, Jefferson, then Secretary of State, was feeding inside information to the papers to undermine George f'n Washington, whose policies he did not like much (mostly because he leaned in favor of Hamilton's thoughts on how the federal government should operate, rather than Jefferson's).

This is no new development...

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:48 AM
No, the act of paying your taxes is not a valid argument either for or against a certain tax rate for certain brackets.

It's complicated because America is a huge country with varying interests and opinions and values. 300 million Americans, and yet the finality of the tax rates is channeled into a group of less than 600 people who ultimately decide. This is enormous, and there are reasonable reasons for going one way or the other on it.

In my opinon it doesn't matter what the tax rates or the entire tax code is or isn't if the morons collecting said taxes are going to mismanage it and fuck it off anyway. The entire argument over our debt right now in realation to taxes is because our elected officials mismanaged their finances. So you can make this change here to this rate or make that change there to that deduction and in the end it will still get mismanaged so it doesn't really matter. Until they can show they can actually understand the basic concept of a checkbook I am less than keen on hearing their grand solution of how the debt is solved by manipulating parts of the tax code.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 07:51 AM
Because Adams v. Jefferson was so genteel and sophisticated? This shit is as old as the two party system, which is as old as the Republic. Hell, Jefferson, then Secretary of State, was feeding inside information to the papers to undermine George f'n Washington, whose policies he did not like much (mostly because he leaned in favor of Hamilton's thoughts on how the federal government should operate, rather than Jefferson's).

This is no new development...

I agree with you in one sense, but in another sense, I think there are important distinctions to make about then and now.

Off the top of my head, I can think of three important things:
- One, mass media and its portrayal of politics and current events reaches millions of ordinary citizens, who have the ability to vote.
- Two, the federal government is much more involved in the lives of ordinary citizens than it was in the late 18th cent.
- Three, compared to recent American history -- postwar, which featured an American consensus and a relative equalization of ideology in the major parties -- there is much more divergence in ideology between the Republicans and Democrats today.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 07:52 AM
Is it your opinion that we need a revolution? If so, what would that revolution look like? Why would I trust that the outcome would be better than the present?

Do we "need" a revolution? Most certainly. What kind of a revolution? That's a tougher question to answer. Trusting the outcome I guess would be based on your opinion and side you took on said revolution. I think we need a revolt on our Congress in general to knock them down a peg or two. Bring them back to the fact they are there to serve and not play dictator. If for anything I think they are due for a reminder that they work for us, we don't work for them. Sounds easier than it is, I agree but it doesn't change the fact that it needs to happen.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 07:55 AM
In my opinon it doesn't matter what the tax rates or the entire tax code is or isn't if the morons collecting said taxes are going to mismanage it and **** it off anyway. The entire argument over our debt right now in realation to taxes is because our elected officials mismanaged their finances. So you can make this change here to this rate or make that change there to that deduction and in the end it will still get mismanaged so it doesn't really matter. Until they can show they can actually understand the basic concept of a checkbook I am less than keen on hearing their grand solution of how the debt is solved by manipulating parts of the tax code.

Do you view macroeconomics nearly, if not totally, symmetrical to microeconomics?

La literatura
01-25-2012, 07:56 AM
Do we "need" a revolution? Most certainly. What kind of a revolution? That's a tougher question to answer. Trusting the outcome I guess would be based on your opinion and side you took on said revolution. I think we need a revolt on our Congress in general to knock them down a peg or two. Bring them back to the fact they are there to serve and not play dictator. If for anything I think they are due for a reminder that they work for us, we don't work for them. Sounds easier than it is, I agree but it doesn't change the fact that it needs to happen.

Could you be specific? What would a revolt on Congress look like? What does it mean to "knock them down a peg or two?" I don't think any Congressman thinks they are dictators, and that they do realize they serve the country.

blaise
01-25-2012, 07:57 AM
Because Adams v. Jefferson was so genteel and sophisticated? This shit is as old as the two party system, which is as old as the Republic. Hell, Jefferson, then Secretary of State, was feeding inside information to the papers to undermine George f'n Washington, whose policies he did not like much (mostly because he leaned in favor of Hamilton's thoughts on how the federal government should operate, rather than Jefferson's).

This is no new development...

No, I don't think it was genteel and sophisticated. I think now with message boards and twitter people barely even care what the policies are. I think they just choose D or R and cheer for that side, mostly by finding any embarrassing story involving the other side.
I don't think things are less civil, I just think political discussion is very similar to a discussion taking place between fans of two sports teams.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-25-2012, 07:58 AM
You're beginning with the premise, "Everything is screwed up, and we need a revolution."

No, we don't need a revolution. Not everything is screwed up. You just need to have the patience and wide-angled understanding required to see that. So what, managing the most powerful country in the world is messy, it's hard work? Governing 300 million Americans sometimes requires compromises and bargains and the second best? That should be obvious. It's a wonder that this whole system stays ahead, but it does.

Jesus sure compromised a lot, oh wait that didn't happen.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 07:58 AM
No, I don't think it was genteel and sophisticated. I think now with message boards and twitter people barely even care what the policies are. I think they just choose D or R and cheer for that side, mostly by finding any embarrassing story involving the other side.
I don't think things are less civil, I just think political discussion is very similar to a discussion taking place between fans of two sports teams.

And you are okay with this.

blaise
01-25-2012, 08:00 AM
And you are okay with this.

Yep.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 08:00 AM
Jesus sure compromised a lot, oh wait that didn't happen.

Recognize the complete absurdity of this idea. Our democratically elected government is not, nor ever could be, like Jesus. If you are looking for a government anywhere in the history of humanity run by a Jesus-like figure or entity, you will be looking until the day you die.

orange
01-25-2012, 08:01 AM
We need a return to the less divisive politics of the past.

http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/strike-7.jpg

petegz28
01-25-2012, 08:01 AM
Could you be specific? What would a revolt on Congress look like? What does it mean to "knock them down a peg or two?" I don't think any Congressman thinks they are dictators, and that they do realize they serve the country.

See, that in my opinion is naive. They serve those who put $'s in their election campaigns. So see, we already have a fundamental disagreement.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 08:02 AM
Yep.

You are okay with basing your arguments on the least common denominator.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-25-2012, 08:02 AM
Recognize the complete absurdity of this idea. Our democratically elected government is not, nor ever could be, like Jesus. If you are looking for a government anywhere in the history of humanity run by a Jesus-like figure or entity, you will be looking until the day you die.

I think that's why he said you must Strive to enter into heaven, Strife isn't exactly a fun thing now is it?

blaise
01-25-2012, 08:02 AM
You are okay with basing your arguments on the least common denominator.

Are you asking me questions or stating your opinions?

dirk digler
01-25-2012, 08:11 AM
That's what the two party bickering has basically become. Like two groups of sports fans just yelling garbage at one another.

yep pretty much. I would say though that this side for the most part discusses things more maturely than what is discussed in the Lounge. I wouldn't have said that a couple of years ago...

mlyonsd
01-25-2012, 08:13 AM
yep pretty much. I would say though that this side for the most part discusses things more maturely than what is discussed in the Lounge. I wouldn't have said that a couple of years ago...Ok that's enough. I'm going to report you and get you banned.

dirk digler
01-25-2012, 08:23 AM
Ok that's enough. I'm going to report you and get you banned.

LMAO

I will just come back :D

petegz28
01-25-2012, 09:14 AM
Do you view macroeconomics nearly, if not totally, symmetrical to microeconomics?

Macro, Micro, bla, bla, bla. I think few in our Congress have a basic understanding of economics in general. There's what the books say, there's what sounds good, there's what we want and then there's what works. I think the focus the last several years has been put put more on the "what sounds good\what we want" parts as opposed to the "what works" part.

Economics get ignored when people are trying to buy votes via entitlements and otherwise costly legilsation because the one's making the decisions are focused more on the voting booth results rather than the economic results.

phisherman
01-25-2012, 09:17 AM
You never really provided any insightful information anyway, pete, so . . . so long, farewell. Tocqueville had a passage in his Democracy in America where he talked about Americans sitting around yelling out their political opinions, rather than sitting quietly and thinking and writing about it. Safe to say, that's a normal phenomenon in a wide open democracy (even if wide open in the 19th century meant white males). You can't really expect everyone to patiently sit down and carefully think through everything in a fair manner. There are always people who just scream out at the world, "Everything is wrong, and I can't quite articulate why, but I know I am right!" I think you played that role very well, pete.

I think, no, I know that this is wrong. I worked with pete and have had many discussions of this sort over the years with him. If you assume that he hasn't truly though about it, you're crazy. I'll just leave it at that.

He may rub people the wrong way with his argumentative style, but he's no dummy.

vailpass
01-25-2012, 09:22 AM
You never really provided any insightful information anyway, pete, so . . . so long, farewell. Tocqueville had a passage in his Democracy in America where he talked about Americans sitting around yelling out their political opinions, rather than sitting quietly and thinking and writing about it. Safe to say, that's a normal phenomenon in a wide open democracy (even if wide open in the 19th century meant white males). You can't really expect everyone to patiently sit down and carefully think through everything in a fair manner. There are always people who just scream out at the world, "Everything is wrong, and I can't quite articulate why, but I know I am right!" I think you played that role very well, pete.

Gypsum you are a parody of yourself.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 09:23 AM
Could you be specific? What would a revolt on Congress look like? What does it mean to "knock them down a peg or two?" I don't think any Congressman thinks they are dictators, and that they do realize they serve the country.

That's a tough question and I haven't put a great deal of thought into the specifics of it. Lack of recourse is one of the biggest problems we face. Sure, you can vote the next guy in but does that really work?

Knocking them down a peg or two would ideally mean bringing Congress more in line with Main St. when it comes to salaries, benfits, perks, etc. One thing that just eats away at me is how Congress feels they can travel all over the world on our dime, throw expensive meetings, etc., etc. They spend money on themselves like it is nothing and surely without any regard to the tax payer. It may be miniscule in the overall costs of things but it is the principle of tha matter, save the benefits which I think they are much better off than most people and wrongfully so.

It's not an easy answer and how one would go about doing it is another discussion. That doesn't change the fact it needs to be done.

SNR
01-25-2012, 09:32 AM
Apathy is a perfectly legitimate take on politics as a whole. I have a feeling orange and Jensen are only arguing against it just because it's pete.

HonestChieffan
01-25-2012, 09:43 AM
All SOTU speeches are utopian visions that are never fulfilled.

If you find R v D childish what is KU vs MU and talking smack about attendance?


Its MU's only real time to brag, they have not played KU yet so they feel uppity, and the future as a football program vs the SEC is not what one would call bright. Gotta let em have their time in the sun plus they are a very good team....now.

Dayze
01-25-2012, 09:45 AM
I've never voted .

Pointless.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 09:48 AM
I've never voted .

Pointless.

Not even on local issues? I do feel the voter still has an impact at the local and state levels.

alanm
01-25-2012, 09:59 AM
That's a tough question and I haven't put a great deal of thought into the specifics of it. Lack of recourse is one of the biggest problems we face. Sure, you can vote the next guy in but does that really work?

Knocking them down a peg or two would ideally mean bringing Congress more in line with Main St. when it comes to salaries, benfits, perks, etc. One thing that just eats away at me is how Congress feels they can travel all over the world on our dime, throw expensive meetings, etc., etc. They spend money on themselves like it is nothing and surely without any regard to the tax payer. It may be miniscule in the overall costs of things but it is the principle of tha matter, save the benefits which I think they are much better off than most people and wrongfully so.

It's not an easy answer and how one would go about doing it is another discussion. That doesn't change the fact it needs to be done.The first thing citizens should demand and scream from the roof tops is term limits. That would put a end to the career politician. Make it 8 yrs, same as the President.

memyselfI
01-25-2012, 10:15 AM
Join the club! Yes, I'm quite aware that my/your disenfranchisement is EXACTLY what the establishment wants. They want followers, sheep, robots. When you stray off this path they have no need for you any longer. Save your sanity. Keep an eye on what you can change and not what you can't. This former political junkie spent a fabulous evening with her husband and son laughing to a Big Bang Theory marathon vs. being frustrated by a phony peddling lies, fraud, and crap.

I'll vote but not for the two parties.

DJ's left nut
01-25-2012, 10:21 AM
The first thing citizens should demand and scream from the roof tops is term limits. That would put a end to the career politician. Make it 8 yrs, same as the President.

It would greatly increase the influence of unelected bureaucrats and institutional department heads. Folks that have been in the legislative departments for 10-20 years will have their own pet projects and they'll have knowledge on how to maneuver things through the process that the legislators don't. Legislators will then start to defer more and more to the 'experienced' bureaucrats that where already on hand and up to speed when the noob legislator arrived.

Lobbyists would become even more instrumental than they already are as they would be a constant presence.

I was in Jefferson City for the first session of freshman legislators after term limits when into full effect; my recollection is that better than 1/3 of the House was brand new. As a consequence, they spent the session just listening to lobbyists and being following the experienced Jeff-City lifers around like lost puppies.

I think it will only get worse when you start introducing the massive financial commitment backers will make on the federal level.

I agree that term limits should be enacted simply as an experiment to see if what they create is better than what we have now. That said, it's not a panacea - they represent clear drawbacks.

durtyrute
01-25-2012, 11:24 AM
It really doesn't matter if you vote, you end up with the same crap no matter who is in office.

THIS, for the past how many ever years and how many ever to come

Dayze
01-25-2012, 11:34 AM
Not even on local issues? I do feel the voter still has an impact at the local and state levels.

No, not even on local issues. Though, I tend to agree that a voter could still have an impact at those levels. I've just been very apathetic about the whole thing.

Deberg_1990
01-25-2012, 11:44 AM
I've never voted .

Pointless.

I can see how you might feel that way on a national level, but on local issues and politicians, you shouldnt feel this way.

heck, ive long thought they should dump the electoral college for the presidential elections. Every vote does not count and thats crap. The candidates dont even campaign in every state. Only the "swing" states.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 11:50 AM
No, not even on local issues. Though, I tend to agree that a voter could still have an impact at those levels. I've just been very apathetic about the whole thing.

I don't understand this. Well, I can understand "I have better things to do with my spare time, and I trust that this system will roughly work out, so I will go on with my other interests." But I do not understand, "I am mad, everything is screwed up, and I don't care anymore."

We live in a nation where you can start any interest group, talk to your representatives, vote in your representatives, protest without fear -- good lord, this was "the year of the protester" -- start a business, get involved, run for office.

What a country we live in. Don't take it for granted. A lot of people sacrificed their time, energy, even lives, to give it to the future -- us -- and we're going to sit around talking about how pointless it all is? When in reality, it's so unbelievably important and relevant still?

La literatura
01-25-2012, 11:54 AM
See, that in my opinion is naive. They serve those who put $'s in their election campaigns. So see, we already have a fundamental disagreement.

Yes, we do have a fundamental disagreement. You rely on vague, knee-jerk characterizations, and I rely on reality, which tells me that there can be and quite often are a lot of different motivations for why a congressman votes the way he votes, money possibly being one important motivation in some instances.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 11:57 AM
Are you asking me questions or stating your opinions?

I am stating a perceptive factual-based opinion, which you are free to dispute.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 11:58 AM
I think that's why he said you must Strive to enter into heaven, Strife isn't exactly a fun thing now is it?

Individuals and churches can strive for heaven. Legitimate governments must necessarily focus on more temporal matters.

LOCOChief
01-25-2012, 12:01 PM
SPIN TO ENGLISH TRANSLATION

petegz28 is right and everyone else - and their uppity wife - should sit-the-****-down and shut-the-****-up.

You're a dick! And you should sit the fuck down and shut the fuck up.

People like you are the problem.

Good take Pete.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:04 PM
Macro, Micro, bla, bla, bla. I think few in our Congress have a basic understanding of economics in general. There's what the books say, there's what sounds good, there's what we want and then there's what works. I think the focus the last several years has been put put more on the "what sounds good\what we want" parts as opposed to the "what works" part.

Economics get ignored when people are trying to buy votes via entitlements and otherwise costly legilsation because the one's making the decisions are focused more on the voting booth results rather than the economic results.

I think Congress is genuinely looking for what works, and also considers how it will sound, and how it will generally be what most want. It's not like Congress sits around and debates, "People like candy. People want candy. Candy sounds good. How can we give candy!?!" No, they are focused on creating jobs, tax rates, special interests, the effects on their constituents, foreign policy, keeping America safe, energy, education.

You have this ridiculous 'bad faith/incompetence' belief that is so utterly populist that it completely colors, no -- blacks out -- your perspective on reality.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:04 PM
I think, no, I know that this is wrong. I worked with pete and have had many discussions of this sort over the years with him. If you assume that he hasn't truly though about it, you're crazy. I'll just leave it at that.

He may rub people the wrong way with his argumentative style, but he's no dummy.

I only know of him through my discussions here, and I stand by my comments.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:16 PM
That's a tough question and I haven't put a great deal of thought into the specifics of it. Lack of recourse is one of the biggest problems we face. Sure, you can vote the next guy in but does that really work?

Knocking them down a peg or two would ideally mean bringing Congress more in line with Main St. when it comes to salaries, benfits, perks, etc. One thing that just eats away at me is how Congress feels they can travel all over the world on our dime, throw expensive meetings, etc., etc. They spend money on themselves like it is nothing and surely without any regard to the tax payer. It may be miniscule in the overall costs of things but it is the principle of tha matter, save the benefits which I think they are much better off than most people and wrongfully so.

It's not an easy answer and how one would go about doing it is another discussion. That doesn't change the fact it needs to be done.

Presumably, we want smart people to go to congress. We don't want dumb people. Now, you may think that we already have dumb people in Congress, but still, let's just be in the abstract and say that we just want smart people in Congress.

Now lets say that if you go to Congress, you get a very small staff (say an old lady for your secretary and a couple of college interns), you get a small salary, say $45K, and some average benefits like health and dental insurance. You also get a staff budget of just a minor amount. You have to share an office with 3 other congressmen and their staff, so it's a cramped room. And there's no air conditioning, just fans. You have to pay for all your travel expenses, which means you can't really go back to your constituents often, nor can you do things like actually visit a foreign country we do business with or are trying to help develop. You work really hard though, you go to all these staff meetings and party meetings, you talk to everyone, you vote, you debate, you talk to the media. And everyone hates you by the way, because everyone hates congress people -- thieves, I tell ya.

Now smart person comes out of college, and he says, Hey, I could hate my life in Washington, serving this country, or I could go work in the private sector.

Find the smart person who won't say, "You know, this 'public service' thing is pretty stupid. It's not worth it."

You find them. They're in the private sector, and they will always be in the private sector.

The point is pretty simple, of course. We need good benefits to incentivize private people who are smart to help manage to run the federal government. Because if we don't, we have stupid people who run the government. And if you think congress is bad now, you should see it when stupid people run the government, when there is an absolute dry well of brains in Washington.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 12:16 PM
Yes, we do have a fundamental disagreement. You rely on vague, knee-jerk characterizations, and I rely on reality, which tells me that there can be and quite often are a lot of different motivations for why a congressman votes the way he votes, money possibly being one important motivation in some instances.

Knee-jerk reactions? You're fucking kidding, right? Congressmen vote the way that leads to re-election. Elections cost $. Therefore they are going to appease the people who give them the $'s first and foremost. Don't kid yourself to think otherwise. Sure there are probably a small handfull of officials who do not operate that way but there is a reason lobbyists spend tons of $'s in D.C. and there is a reason that lobbyists are one of the current problems with D.C.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 12:18 PM
I think Congress is genuinely looking for what works, and also considers how it will sound, and how it will generally be what most want. It's not like Congress sits around and debates, "People like candy. People want candy. Candy sounds good. How can we give candy!?!" No, they are focused on creating jobs, tax rates, special interests, the effects on their constituents, foreign policy, keeping America safe, energy, education.

You have this ridiculous 'bad faith/incompetence' belief that is so utterly populist that it completely colors, no -- blacks out -- your perspective on reality.

What reality am I blacking out? I am curious.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:18 PM
Join the club! Yes, I'm quite aware that my/your disenfranchisement is EXACTLY what the establishment wants. They want followers, sheep, robots. When you stray off this path they have no need for you any longer. Save your sanity. Keep an eye on what you can change and not what you can't. This former political junkie spent a fabulous evening with her husband and son laughing to a Big Bang Theory marathon vs. being frustrated by a phony peddling lies, fraud, and crap.

I'll vote but not for the two parties.

99.99% of successful people who want reform, do so by working within institutions, not outside of them. That's not my saying. That's the basic consensus from many successful people.

KC Dan
01-25-2012, 12:19 PM
Knee-jerk reactions? You're ****ing kidding, right? Congressmen vote the way that leads to re-election. Elections cost $. Therefore they are going to appease the people who give them the $'s first and foremost. Don't kid yourself to think otherwise. Anyone that thinks otherwise is in college, high school or on meth

petegz28
01-25-2012, 12:24 PM
Presumably, we want smart people to go to congress. We don't want dumb people. Now, you may think that we already have dumb people in Congress, but still, let's just be in the abstract and say that we just want smart people in Congress.

Now lets say that if you go to Congress, you get a very small staff (say an old lady for your secretary and a couple of college interns), you get a small salary, say $45K, and some average benefits like health and dental insurance. You also get a staff budget of just a minor amount. You have to share an office with 3 other congressmen and their staff, so it's a cramped room. And there's no air conditioning, just fans. You have to pay for all your travel expenses, which means you can't really go back to your constituents often, nor can you do things like actually visit a foreign country we do business with or are trying to help develop. You work really hard though, you go to all these staff meetings and party meetings, you talk to everyone, you vote, you debate, you talk to the media. And everyone hates you by the way, because everyone hates congress people -- thieves, I tell ya.

Now smart person comes out of college, and he says, Hey, I could hate my life in Washington, serving this country, or I could go work in the private sector.

Find the smart person who won't say, "You know, this 'public service' thing is pretty stupid. It's not worth it."

You find them. They're in the private sector, and they will always be in the private sector.

The point is pretty simple, of course. We need good benefits to incentivize private people who are smart to help manage to run the federal government. Because if we don't, we have stupid people who run the government. And if you think congress is bad now, you should see it when stupid people run the government, when there is an absolute dry well of brains in Washington.

Hmm, seems like the very argument we hear that justifies paying failed executives high 6 and 7 figure salaries.

It IS a civil service job. It is NOT a membership to a country club though some seem to think otherwise. Besides the fact you completely oversimplified the issue and ran to an extreme to try and make a terrible point. Sometimes people who you might claim to be stupid, in your case that would be everyone but you, also has the most practical take on a situation.

dirk digler
01-25-2012, 12:24 PM
Knee-jerk reactions? You're fucking kidding, right? Congressmen vote the way that leads to re-election. Elections cost $. Therefore they are going to appease the people who give them the $'s first and foremost. Don't kid yourself to think otherwise. Sure there are probably a small handfull of officials who do not operate that way but there is a reason lobbyists spend tons of $'s in D.C. and there is a reason that lobbyists are one of the current problems with D.C.

Pretty much spot on.

I don't have a solution but some how we need to take the money out of politics.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:28 PM
Knee-jerk reactions? You're ****ing kidding, right? Congressmen vote the way that leads to re-election. Elections cost $. Therefore they are going to appease the people who give them the $'s first and foremost. Don't kid yourself to think otherwise. Sure there are probably a small handfull of officials who do not operate that way but there is a reason lobbyists spend tons of $'s in D.C. and there is a reason that lobbyists are one of the current problems with D.C.

I get that you don't like parties. But they are a reality, a necessary reality, of both ancient and modern government. They will always exist, and they do a lot of good.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 12:28 PM
Pretty much spot on.

I don't have a solution but some how we need to take the money out of politics.

I agree. I personally think that part of the problem could be easily fixed by setting equal and fair amounts of money to be spent by the candidates. Kinda like a salary cap. You only get X $'s to spend. I think that would also rid us of a lot of this premature campaigning we have been seeing for quite some time now.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 12:32 PM
I get that you don't like parties. But they are a reality, a necessary reality, of both ancient and modern government. They will always exist, and they do a lot of good.

They are not neceseary and in fact lead to a great deal of our current woes. People who should never be elected are elected because "the party" funded them to the point that they won by outspending their opponent and not necesseraily beating them. This just adds a bunch of people who will toe the party line in return and essentially become "yes men" to the higher ups and more powerful within the party.

Social Security is a good example of how bad parties are. Clinton wanted to reform it and the Repubs said no. Bush wanted to reform it and the Dems said no. Parties generate nothing but an "Us vs. Them" scenario that in the last decade or two have really done more damage to the country than anything.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:34 PM
What reality am I blacking out? I am curious.

The reality you are blacking out is a realistic perspective on American politics. You are idealistic and naive. "Everything is broken! They are all idiots, and I'm done with it!" might sound like a great argument to you, but to me, it sounds like someone who simply cannot articulate a meaningful perspective on the reality of America's government.

You deal with idealistic and grand principles, but I'm asking for details. It's like talking with a Marxist. Yes, I know the system needs to wash away in a gradual tide of capitalist-socialist-communist evolution that leads to world peace and paradise. In theory. Let's deal with what we have in front of us, what we have now, and what we can do now.

Revolution is not the answer.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:35 PM
Anyone that thinks otherwise is in college, high school or on meth

Red, white, and blue for the U.S.!

BucEyedPea
01-25-2012, 12:36 PM
Pretty much spot on.

I don't have a solution but some how we need to take the money out of politics.

You can't get rid of all of it. Candidates need some money just to run and file.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 12:37 PM
The reality you are blacking out is a realistic perspective on American politics. You are idealistic and naive. "Everything is broken! They are all idiots, and I'm done with it!" might sound like a great argument to you, but to me, it sounds like someone who simply cannot articulate a meaningful perspective on the reality of America's government.

You deal with idealistic and grand principles, but I'm asking for details. It's like talking with a Marxist. Yes, I know the system needs to wash away in a gradual tide of capitalist-socialist-communist evolution that leads to world peace and paradise. In theory. Let's deal with what we have in front of us, what we have now, and what we can do now.

Revolution is not the answer.

Seems to me others are agreeing with me while at the same time you are telling me I am naive and full of rage and idealistic principles. Everytime you get details all you do is say how wrong I am about politics and bla bla bla. Why don't you just tell us all how it really is and how what we have seen with our own eyes for decades isn't really what is happening?

mlyonsd
01-25-2012, 12:39 PM
The reality you are blacking out is a realistic perspective on American politics. You are idealistic and naive. "Everything is broken! They are all idiots, and I'm done with it!" might sound like a great argument to you, but to me, it sounds like someone who simply cannot articulate a meaningful perspective on the reality of America's government.

You deal with idealistic and grand principles, but I'm asking for details. It's like talking with a Marxist. Yes, I know the system needs to wash away in a gradual tide of capitalist-socialist-communist evolution that leads to world peace and paradise. In theory. Let's deal with what we have in front of us, what we have now, and what we can do now.

Revolution is not the answer.ROFL I think you're the one that's sounding idealistic and naive.

Deal with what we have in front of us? Like passing budgets? Like tackle our deficit spending? Like bring SS and Medicare back into the black?

Neither side wants to touch those problems because they know it will mean they'll be done eating at the trough.

Of course if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and keeping pete here never mind.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:41 PM
Hmm, seems like the very argument we hear that justifies paying failed executives high 6 and 7 figure salaries.

I don't disagree at all. That's exactly right. The reason board of directors offer so much money to officers is not really because they are mostly paid by other shareholders, but because you want the best officer to run your company! Disney offered Eisner a huge salary because Eisner was the best (they thought). And initially, it was a great decision.

It IS a civil service job. It is NOT a membership to a country club though some seem to think otherwise. Besides the fact you completely oversimplified the issue and ran to an extreme to try and make a terrible point. Sometimes people who you might claim to be stupid, in your case that would be everyone but you, also has the most practical take on a situation.

It's mildly simplified, because some people do care a lot about the principle, and not at all about the money. But you recognize it yourself that money is a big issue to people. Smart people generally will do a job only if they are getting paid what they are worth.

If someone has a great, practical take on a situation, then great! Run for congress, if you want. Nothing bars you from doing so, for the most part. If a majority of people think your take is good, then hey, you win!

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:43 PM
Pretty much spot on.

I don't have a solution but some how we need to take the money out of politics.

I'm not opposed to publicly-funded elections. And I think corporations and other entities can have their speech restricted in some cases.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:47 PM
They are not neceseary and in fact lead to a great deal of our current woes. People who should never be elected are elected because "the party" funded them to the point that they won by outspending their opponent and not necesseraily beating them. This just adds a bunch of people who will toe the party line in return and essentially become "yes men" to the higher ups and more powerful within the party.

Social Security is a good example of how bad parties are. Clinton wanted to reform it and the Repubs said no. Bush wanted to reform it and the Dems said no. Parties generate nothing but an "Us vs. Them" scenario that in the last decade or two have really done more damage to the country than anything.

From The New Yorker last week:

In 1959, Vice-President Nixon, speaking to members of California’s Commonwealth Club, was asked if he’d like to see the parties undergo an ideological realignment—the sort that has since taken place—and he replied, “I think it would be a great tragedy . . . if we had our two major political parties divide on what we would call a conservative-liberal line.” He continued, “I think one of the attributes of our political system has been that we have avoided generally violent swings in Administrations from one extreme to the other. And the reason we have avoided that is that in both parties there has been room for a broad spectrum of opinion.” Therefore, “when your Administrations come to power, they will represent the whole people rather than just one segment of the people.”

Why is that, and what can be done about it?

petegz28
01-25-2012, 12:51 PM
From The New Yorker last week:



Why is that, and what can be done about it?

You answered your own question...

I think it would be a great tragedy . . . if we had our two major political parties divide on what we would call a conservative-liberal line

That's pretty much where we are now and the party system is the primary reason.

What can be done? Eliminate the parties. People will then find themselves working and agreeing with people they otherwise would not because of "the party line".

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:51 PM
Seems to me others are agreeing with me while at the same time you are telling me I am naive and full of rage and idealistic principles. Everytime you get details all you do is say how wrong I am about politics and bla bla bla. Why don't you just tell us all how it really is and how what we have seen with our own eyes for decades isn't really what is happening?

Here's how it really is: America is a great country. We have a good system of governance. It's not the best, but it is very good. Why is it not the best? Because it can't be the best. We live in a democracy, the people who elect representatives have different interests, and yet, we still get along very well. Incredibly well. In fact, we are the most powerful country in the world. Actually, we're the most powerful country that has ever existed as far as we know.

And that's why I think all of this stuff about how broken America is, and how nothing works, and we should all just be apathetic and not vote, and not listen to political speeches, and bitch and moan about our representatives (the ones we elect), is not just stupid, but completely unrealistic.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:55 PM
ROFL I think you're the one that's sounding idealistic and naive.

Deal with what we have in front of us? Like passing budgets? Like tackle our deficit spending? Like bring SS and Medicare back into the black?

Neither side wants to touch those problems because they know it will mean they'll be done eating at the trough.

Of course if you're just arguing for the sake of arguing and keeping pete here never mind.

Oh my, there are hard issues to be dealt with? Welcome to the reality of a 300 million person country, where issues aren't dealt with by a hammer, but by intricate (for lack of a better word) tools.

In Europe in the 1920s, people just loved having someone who made sure the trains ran on time. That's not our system, and thank God for it.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 12:57 PM
What can be done? Eliminate the parties. People will then find themselves working and agreeing with people they otherwise would not because of "the party line".

Pete,

No. We've just gone over this: parties are necessary and we will always have them. Your proposal is naive and idealistic.

Work inside the institution, pete.

chasedude
01-25-2012, 12:57 PM
They are not neceseary and in fact lead to a great deal of our current woes. People who should never be elected are elected because "the party" funded them to the point that they won by outspending their opponent and not necesseraily beating them. This just adds a bunch of people who will toe the party line in return and essentially become "yes men" to the higher ups and more powerful within the party.

Social Security is a good example of how bad parties are. Clinton wanted to reform it and the Repubs said no. Bush wanted to reform it and the Dems said no. Parties generate nothing but an "Us vs. Them" scenario that in the last decade or two have really done more damage to the country than anything.

This has been my impression of how politics have become too.

whoman69
01-25-2012, 01:00 PM
I'll repeat something I've said here many times, the only way to get money out of politics is publically funded elections. Money is not free speech. Its bribery.

Additionally I would get rid of the senate filibuster which over the last 30 years has become an increasingly easy way to block anything from being done or to add language to projects that make them unworkable in the end.

Congress also needs to rescind their pension and go on social security. Most of them have little need of it. When Joe Biden became VP he was the second least wealthy member of the senate and was still a millionaire able to afford a train trip into work every day from Delaware.

BucEyedPea
01-25-2012, 01:05 PM
I'll repeat something I've said here many times, the only way to get money out of politics is publically funded elections. Money is not free speech. Its bribery.


Which is worse because then the govt/politicians aka state gets to decide who runs.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 01:05 PM
Here's how it really is: America is a great country. We have a good system of governance. It's not the best, but it is very good. Why is it not the best? Because it can't be the best. We live in a democracy, the people who elect representatives have different interests, and yet, we still get along very well. Incredibly well. In fact, we are the most powerful country in the world. Actually, we're the most powerful country that has ever existed as far as we know.

And that's why I think all of this stuff about how broken America is, and how nothing works, and we should all just be apathetic and not vote, and not listen to political speeches, and bitch and moan about our representatives (the ones we elect), is not just stupid, but completely unrealistic.

First off, we do not live in a "democracy". That's a myth.

Secondly people say it's broken because it is. We are in huge amounts of debt, we have sold out to the Chinese and every other country who offers labor and slave wages and we have a Congress who won't do shit for fear the other guy might get some credit. I never said don't vote. Not once. I said I personally have had it with the R vs. D argument they everything is and has been about for a long time.

Thirdly, speeches are words. Nothing more. There is what people say and there is what people do. A recent example is how you have an Administration calling for a particular group of people to pay more in taxes while at the same time the Cabinet of said Administration is full of tax evaders.

To go back a little further you had a Secretary of Treasury begging Congress for billions of $'s to bail out his former company as well as other comapanies who were over-leveraged when it was he himself who institued the entire over-leveraging in the first place.

Then you had the entire Auto bailout where if you listened to Obama last night "saved GM". Nevermind what GM did would have happened without government intervention, the bond holders who were legally entitled to monies would not have been screwed and the Union who was not deserving nor entitled to any ownership would not have been more or less handed the company. GM still went through bankruptcy.

The list goes on, not just for this Administration but for all at varying degrees.


Point being I don't give a rotten, rat's ass about what someone "says" regardless of how articulate or intelligently they say it.

blaise
01-25-2012, 01:05 PM
I am stating a perceptive factual-based opinion, which you are free to dispute.

You're not above sinking to the lowest common denominator with some of your posts, so you must also be ok with it.

BucEyedPea
01-25-2012, 01:06 PM
You're not above sinking to the lowest common denominator with some of your posts, so you must also be ok with it.

I noticed.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 01:06 PM
Oh my, there are hard issues to be dealt with? Welcome to the reality of a 300 million person country, where issues aren't dealt with by a hammer, but by intricate (for lack of a better word) tools.

In Europe in the 1920s, people just loved having someone who made sure the trains ran on time. That's not our system, and thank God for it.

Hold on a second..we hammered out an entirely new health care system that effects 1/6 of our economy in just over a year and suddenly dealing with programs that have been around for decades is hard to do???

mlyonsd
01-25-2012, 01:08 PM
Oh my, there are hard issues to be dealt with? Welcome to the reality of a 300 million person country, where issues aren't dealt with by a hammer, but by intricate (for lack of a better word) tools.

In Europe in the 1920s, people just loved having someone who made sure the trains ran on time. That's not our system, and thank God for it.Yeah now you're just being obtuse so I'm out. Have fun.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 01:12 PM
Pete,

No. We've just gone over this: parties are necessary and we will always have them. Your proposal is naive and idealistic.

Work inside the institution, pete.

No, the "institution" IS the problem. That's the point.

patteeu
01-25-2012, 01:21 PM
Presumably, we want smart people to go to congress. We don't want dumb people. Now, you may think that we already have dumb people in Congress, but still, let's just be in the abstract and say that we just want smart people in Congress.

Now lets say that if you go to Congress, you get a very small staff (say an old lady for your secretary and a couple of college interns), you get a small salary, say $45K, and some average benefits like health and dental insurance. You also get a staff budget of just a minor amount. You have to share an office with 3 other congressmen and their staff, so it's a cramped room. And there's no air conditioning, just fans. You have to pay for all your travel expenses, which means you can't really go back to your constituents often, nor can you do things like actually visit a foreign country we do business with or are trying to help develop. You work really hard though, you go to all these staff meetings and party meetings, you talk to everyone, you vote, you debate, you talk to the media. And everyone hates you by the way, because everyone hates congress people -- thieves, I tell ya.

Now smart person comes out of college, and he says, Hey, I could hate my life in Washington, serving this country, or I could go work in the private sector.

Find the smart person who won't say, "You know, this 'public service' thing is pretty stupid. It's not worth it."

You find them. They're in the private sector, and they will always be in the private sector.

The point is pretty simple, of course. We need good benefits to incentivize private people who are smart to help manage to run the federal government. Because if we don't, we have stupid people who run the government. And if you think congress is bad now, you should see it when stupid people run the government, when there is an absolute dry well of brains in Washington.

I don't think money is the only motivator possible here. I think power alone would attract many of the same people who already run for office because most of them could make more money in the private sector already.

We do want smart people in Congress, but we also want dedicated people. We don't necessarily want people who are just in it for the money/benefits.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 01:22 PM
First off, we do not live in a "democracy". That's a myth.

Secondly people say it's broken because it is. We are in huge amounts of debt, we have sold out to the Chinese and every other country who offers labor and slave wages and we have a Congress who won't do shit for fear the other guy might get some credit. I never said don't vote. Not once. I said I personally have had it with the R vs. D argument they everything is and has been about for a long time.

Thirdly, speeches are words. Nothing more. There is what people say and there is what people do. A recent example is how you have an Administration calling for a particular group of people to pay more in taxes while at the same time the Cabinet of said Administration is full of tax evaders.

To go back a little further you had a Secretary of Treasury begging Congress for billions of $'s to bail out his former company as well as other comapanies who were over-leveraged when it was he himself who institued the entire over-leveraging in the first place.

Then you had the entire Auto bailout where if you listened to Obama last night "saved GM". Nevermind what GM did would have happened without government intervention, the bond holders who were legally entitled to monies would not have been screwed and the Union who was not deserving nor entitled to any ownership would not have been more or less handed the company. GM still went through bankruptcy.

The list goes on, not just for this Administration but for all at varying degrees.


Point being I don't give a rotten, rat's ass about what someone "says" regardless of how articulate or intelligently they say it.

You have some problems with the Bush and Obama administration and a couple of Obama's policies, which reasonable people can differ on. We haven't sold out to the Chinese, unless you have some really abnormal idea of what 'selling out' is. You've identified the fact that a Cabinet position had a tax problem of his own, which he had to and did correct.

If this is your idea of broken and in need of revolution, then you have no sense of a perspective.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 01:23 PM
Hold on a second..we hammered out an entirely new health care system that effects 1/6 of our economy in just over a year and suddenly dealing with programs that have been around for decades is hard to do???

Oh God, no. We didn't hammer out a health care system that effects 1/6th of our economy in just over a year. That debate started years ago. And it's constitutionality hasn't even been dealt with by the Supreme Court of the United States yet.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 01:26 PM
Yeah now you're just being obtuse so I'm out. Have fun.

See ya later. If you think I'm being idealistic and naive because I'm arguing against the proposal of a revolution in America, then you're quite confused about what idealistic means.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 01:29 PM
You have some problems with the Bush and Obama administration and a couple of Obama's policies, which reasonable people can differ on. We haven't sold out to the Chinese, unless you have some really abnormal idea of what 'selling out' is. You've identified the fact that a Cabinet position had a tax problem of his own, which he had to and did correct.

If this is your idea of broken and in need of revolution, then you have no sense of a perspective.

We haven't sold out to the Chinese? Go to any store that sells something other than food and let me know how many things you DON'T find that have "Made in China" on it? We were ready to have China make the berets they wear in the Army FFS. The Chinese hold a buttload of our debt.

And a respectable President never would have nominated or withdew the nomination of any person who had not paid their taxes.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 01:29 PM
Oh God, no. We didn't hammer out a health care system that effects 1/6th of our economy in just over a year. That debate started years ago. And it's constitutionality hasn't even been dealt with by the Supreme Court of the United States yet.

The system the Obama Admin hammered out was done in roughly a year.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 01:31 PM
No, the "institution" IS the problem. That's the point.

The institution is the American system of governance (parties, democracy, checks and balances, separation of powers). That institution is not going away, nor should it. It's the best we've got. It's the best there has ever been.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 01:34 PM
The institution is the American system of governance (parties, democracy, checks and balances, separation of powers). That institution is not going away, nor should it. It's the best we've got. It's the best there has ever been.

parties and democracy are not part of our insitution. Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers are. No where in the Constitution does it dicate that there must be political parties, that I am aware of anyway. Nor anywhere does it stat that we are in a democracy. No matter how many times you repeat you are still wrong. We are not a democracy. We are technically a Democratic-Republic and practically an Oligarchy.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 01:37 PM
We haven't sold out to the Chinese? Go to any store that sells something other than food and let me know how many things you DON'T find that have "Made in China" on it? We were ready to have China make the berets they wear in the Army FFS. The Chinese hold a buttload of our debt.

And a respectable President never would have nominated or withdew the nomination of any person who had not paid their taxes.

China doesn't even own a majority, not even a third of our debt, no, not even 1/10 of our debt. And good for them. And fine for us.

I understand things are made in China, a lot of things. That's globalization. It's reality. It's not going to end. But as China modernizes, and goes through more of a development process, it is likely to equal out.

Geitner did not pay all of his taxes for several years, which he blames on TurboTax and his accountant. If that's a huge issue to you, then fine. But it really has no bearing on whether America is broken.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 01:39 PM
China doesn't even own a majority, not even a third of our debt, no, not even 1/10 of our debt. And good for them. And fine for us.

I understand things are made in China, a lot of things. That's globalization. It's reality. It's not going to end. But as China modernizes, and goes through more of a development process, it is likely to equal out.

Geitner did not pay all of his taxes for several years, which he blames on TurboTax and his accountant. If that's a huge issue to you, then fine. But it really has no bearing on whether America is broken.

The Secretary of the Treasury blamed a $39 software program? And you believe that? And you call me naive?

Oh, and China is the single largest foreign debt holder of U.S. debt.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 01:42 PM
The system the Obama Admin hammered out was done in roughly a year.

Pete, the actual bill was introduced and passed in seven months. It started years ago. It's still been implemented. Our third branch of government has still not declared it's essential's constitutionality. It's a long process. Things take time in a democracy, er, sorry, in our government.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 01:45 PM
Pete, the actual bill was introduced and passed in seven months. It started years ago. It's still been implemented. Our third branch of government has still not declared it's essential's constitutionality. It's a long process. Things take time in a democracy, er, sorry, in our government.

Constitutional or not parts of it have already gone into effect. And for the last time the plan being implemented was done in roughly a year. Finally you sound like a complete and total fucking idiot they way you keep saying we are in a democracy. I know you are doing it to try and draw some ire but the fact remains you look like an uninformed, uneducated person when you keep saying that.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 01:45 PM
parties and democracy are not part of our insitution. Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers are. No where in the Constitution does it dicate that there must be political parties, that I am aware of anyway. Nor anywhere does it stat that we are in a democracy. No matter how many times you repeat you are still wrong. We are not a democracy. We are technically a Democratic-Republic and practically an Oligarchy.

Parties and democracy are part of the American political system (aka, the institution). I love the democracy/not a democracy debate as much as anyone else, but I'm not interested in it right now. I think we can agree that we hold popular elections from time to time to select representatives and other officials.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 01:48 PM
The Secretary of the Treasury blamed a $39 software program? And you believe that? And you call me naive?

Oh, and China is the single largest foreign debt holder of U.S. debt.

Would you prefer it be France? I'm not saying Geitner did right. I'm saying his excuse and how I think it's a small issue. Actually, a non-issue. Whether he knew or not is none of my concern. My concern is his actions regarding the Treasury.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 01:52 PM
Constitutional or not parts of it have already gone into effect. And for the last time the plan being implemented was done in roughly a year. Finally you sound like a complete and total ****ing idiot they way you keep saying we are in a democracy. I know you are doing it to try and draw some ire but the fact remains you look like an uninformed, uneducated person when you keep saying that.

I'm using 'democracy' in a broad, but correct, way, thank you.

The act has a long history, one that obviously precedes it's introduction into Congress. But I don't think that really matters much.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 01:59 PM
Parties and democracy are part of the American political system (aka, the institution). I love the democracy/not a democracy debate as much as anyone else, but I'm not interested in it right now. I think we can agree that we hold popular elections from time to time to select representatives and other officials.

We are still a representative republic. And parties are not part of the institution, we made them, 5-10 years or so after our country was formed roughly 6 -10 years AFTER the Constitution was formed. In other words they are not part of our insitution but rather a creation post facto. No where in any law is a political party stated to be a requirement. It's nothing more than "tradition" at this point for lack of a better word. Our legal and political system would work just fine without political parties if not better.

patteeu
01-25-2012, 02:10 PM
parties and democracy are not part of our insitution. Checks and Balances and Separation of Powers are. No where in the Constitution does it dicate that there must be political parties, that I am aware of anyway. Nor anywhere does it stat that we are in a democracy. No matter how many times you repeat you are still wrong. We are not a democracy. We are technically a Democratic-Republic and practically an Oligarchy.

Parties are a natural outgrowth of our system. They're not mandated, but they can't be avoided either.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 02:12 PM
We are still a representative republic. And parties are not part of the institution, we made them, 5-10 years or so after our country was formed roughly 6 -10 years AFTER the Constitution was formed. In other words they are not part of our insitution but rather a creation post facto. No where in any law is a political party stated to be a requirement. It's nothing more than "tradition" at this point for lack of a better word. Our legal and political system would work just fine without political parties if not better.

I can't let this entire argument hinge on semantics. I'm using both 'democracy' and 'institution' in obviously broad ways, while you choose to narrow them (ex; as if the term institution can only mean something that is written down).

Parties are necessary because of the administrative convenience, the channeling of interests, and accountability factor. Among other things. Are they great? Eh, I don't need to go that far. Are they good? Yeah. Would we be better off without them? Sci-fi novel time.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 02:21 PM
Parties are a natural outgrowth of our system. They're not mandated, but they can't be avoided either.

I think they could be avoided rather easily. We can put a man on the moon but we can't operate without political parties? What a crock. Without political parties and their "machines" you would find people working together that otherwise never would because their vested interest would be in places other than their party and the support they depend on from such.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 02:23 PM
Would you prefer it be France? I'm not saying Geitner did right. I'm saying his excuse and how I think it's a small issue. Actually, a non-issue. Whether he knew or not is none of my concern. My concern is his actions regarding the Treasury.

And I am saying don't stand on a pedestal telling others how they need to pay X in taxes when you are hiring a bunch of people who evaded their taxes. I don't go for the whole "Do as I say, not as I do" philosophy.

patteeu
01-25-2012, 02:28 PM
I think they could be avoided rather easily. We can put a man on the moon but we can't operate without political parties? What a crock. Without political parties and their "machines" you would find people working together that otherwise never would because their vested interest would be in places other than their party and the support they depend on from such.

OK, if it's so easy, how are you going to do it?

orange
01-25-2012, 02:32 PM
Parties are a natural outgrowth of our system. They're not mandated, but they can't be avoided either.

Of course they can. In the exact same manner that freeing up the markets will eliminate Chinese imports.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 02:36 PM
OK, if it's so easy, how are you going to do it?

Simple, parties are not allowed. There. Done. Over. Everyone is an "Independent" per sey. Granted you will have to make some other changes regarding money, etc., etc. But in and of itself I don't see how not being a member of a party is going to be that detrimental to anything? It's not so much you have to take away parties but "the machine" behind the parties. We don't need them and we don't have to have them.

orange
01-25-2012, 02:38 PM
Simple, parties are not allowed.

Freedom!!!

petegz28
01-25-2012, 02:39 PM
Freedom!!!

More or less. I'm just sick of this shit where ideas are opposed because another party wants it. It's stupid and does no one any good. It can be the same idea one party had years prior and suddenly said party will change their tune when the other party wants it.

La literatura
01-25-2012, 02:40 PM
Simple, parties are not allowed. There. Done. Over. Everyone is an "Independent" per sey.

Just curious, but what would a law like that look like, in its language?

FAX
01-25-2012, 02:40 PM
Political parties should, in my mind, be organic.

Our current main parties are not. They are products. Contrived products that are packaged in an effort to appeal to particular target markets and designed to foster distrust and deceit.

The idea of a political party isn't necessarily bad ... not until they begin to be used as an institutional tool to promote division and distrust, at least. Like-minded people pooling resources for a common goal is a positive, natural outgrowth of human group behavior. Manipulation and brain-washing of the many by an elite few through the use of sham dissent and disagreement is not.

George Washington called the prospect of alternating power between and among a two party system a frightful despotism. Interestingly, that's exactly what we have.

FAX

patteeu
01-25-2012, 02:40 PM
Simple, parties are not allowed. There. Done. Over. Everyone is an "Independent" per sey. Granted you will have to make some other changes regarding money, etc., etc. But in and of itself I don't see how not being a member of a party is going to be that detrimental to anything? It's not so much you have to take away parties but "the machine" behind the parties. We don't need them and we don't have to have them.

:facepalm: If you don't prevent groups of legislators from trading votes and working together (which you can't), you haven't eliminated parties.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 02:42 PM
:facepalm: If you don't prevent groups of legislators from trading votes and working together (which you can't), you haven't eliminated parties.

Horseshit. In fact I would argue that two people who would not work with each other because of party affiliation would suddenly see a new opportunity without fear of party backlash.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 02:42 PM
Political parties should, in my mind, be organic.

Our current main parties are not. They are products. Contrived products that are packaged in an effort to appeal to particular target markets and designed to foster distrust and deceit.

The idea of a political party isn't necessarily bad ... not until they begin to be used as an institutional tool to promote division and distrust, at least. Like-minded people pooling resources for a common goal is a positive, natural outgrowth of human group behavior. Manipulation and brain-washing of the many by an elite few through the use of sham dissent and disagreement is not.

George Washington called the prospect of alternating power between and among a two party system a frightful despotism. Interestingly, that's exactly what we have.

FAX

Spot on as usual, Fax

patteeu
01-25-2012, 03:11 PM
Horseshit. In fact I would argue that two people who would not work with each other because of party affiliation would suddenly see a new opportunity without fear of party backlash.

Good luck with that. It's not going to happen in a free country with the type of electoral system we have though.

Calcountry
01-25-2012, 03:28 PM
All SOTU speeches are utopian visions that are never fulfilled.

If you accept the statist premise, that the government should be actively participating in essential parts of our lives, rather than solely fulfilling it's constitutional role of preserving, protecting, and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

petegz28
01-25-2012, 03:44 PM
Good luck with that. It's not going to happen in a free country with the type of electoral system we have though.

I never said it wasn't a pipedream