are our politicians acting/doing things as if there is a future

I am talking about all our politicians, in particular in the west...

Do they appear to be taking actions that will benefit us in the long term, or even take any actions as if there will be a functioning society beyond the next 5-10 years? or do they seem more to avoid imminent collapse now while saving some functions from our society?

looking at tthe actions that politicians are taking, you should have some impression if they are building/bracing for the future or just preparing for collapse?

Maximus Zeebra said:

I am talking about all our politicians, in particular in the west...

Do they appear to be taking actions that will benefit us in the long term, or even take any actions as if there will be a functioning society beyond the next 5-10 years? or do they seem more to avoid imminent collapse now while saving some functions from our society?

looking at tthe actions that politicians are taking, you should have some impression if they are building/bracing for the future or just preparing for collapse?

Click to expand...

Right now, every person in this country, from rich to poor, is going "me! me! me! me!" and is less inclined to be willing to take actions that are for the greater good. Politicians, even if they wanted to, are unable to fight against this general attitude. Looking historically, such as in the fall of rome, it was this sort of attitude which began the decline as different factions in our society will not stand together and internal strife will make things worse.

megaprogman said:

Right now, every person in this country, from rich to poor, is going "me! me! me! me!" and is less inclined to be willing to take actions that are for the greater good. Politicians, even if they wanted to, are unable to fight against this general attitude. Looking historically, such as in the fall of rome, it was this sort of attitude which began the decline as different factions in our society will not stand together and internal strife will make things worse.

Click to expand...

This is very true, selfishness is now a dominant theme in our society. I personally stopped believing in the society for the individual a long time ago, I remember when I believed in that, I was young and selfish. I only acted in my own best interest.
Whenever someone act only in their own best interest they are doomed to hurt others in the process, and this is for me what it boils down to, the unawareness of what consequences your actions has on others and even the lack of caring about the consequences if you happen to understand them.

Be it the guy who don't stop his car for the woman with a child crossing the road, or be it the banker who makes his money by taking money from hundreds of middle class or poor individuals, then you are right indeed, we do live in a society of utter selfishness,

I hate to say it again and again, but Europe is just the same, but not as much as the US. Perphaps there is some hope here? We are supposedly trying to look more at the interests of others in general as a society. This however is not reflected in daily life where people are completely unaware and selfish.

Maximus Zeebra said:

This is very true, selfishness is now a dominant theme in our society. I personally stopped believing in the society for the individual a long time ago, I remember when I believed in that, I was young and selfish. I only acted in my own best interest.
Whenever someone act only in their own best interest they are doomed to hurt others in the process, and this is for me what it boils down to, the unawareness of what consequences your actions has on others and even the lack of caring about the consequences if you happen to understand them.

Click to expand...

It has gotten to the point where people argue that selfishness is a virtue and inescapable. Some people have an interesting belief system!

However, in reality up is not down and war is not peace.

Maximus Zeebra said:

Be it the guy who don't stop his car for the woman with a child crossing the road, or be it the banker who makes his money by taking money from hundreds of middle class or poor individuals, then you are right indeed, we do live in a society of utter selfishness,

I hate to say it again and again, but Europe is just the same, but not as much as the US. Perphaps there is some hope here? We are supposedly trying to look more at the interests of others in general as a society. This however is not reflected in daily life where people are completely unaware and selfish.

Click to expand...

I don't know what the cure is. Even those who want to get back to the great olden days only have a distorted view of the past and ignore the prevalent belief in virtue that permeated the early American experience, only to focus on the parts they like.

However, ultimately, we are stuck arguing over small things like budgets while ignoring this larger picture.

Ahhr, the big picture....

the detail focus, the arguing..

the lack of perspective...

Maximus Zeebra said:

I am talking about all our politicians, in particular in the west...

Do they appear to be taking actions that will benefit us in the long term, or even take any actions as if there will be a functioning society beyond the next 5-10 years? or do they seem more to avoid imminent collapse now while saving some functions from our society?

looking at tthe actions that politicians are taking, you should have some impression if they are building/bracing for the future or just preparing for collapse?

Click to expand...

I'm as cynical as they come. Preparing/building/bracing for the future of our country? No. The only thing our politicians are doing is preparing/building/bracing for their next election. Unfortunately, "Those who take from Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul's support."

Both sides of the aisle are pushing whats best for their base FOR VOTES and neither one will win. You cant have the far left and their agenda and you cant have the far right and their agenda, neither will win.
What needs to happen here for us to be successful, is there has to be sacrifice across the board, with a light at the end of the tunnel when we are back on our feet, thats the only thiing that will be accepted by the mass's.
The teaparty theme WE WONT COMPROMISE is not going to help them get whatever it is they want and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reids gloating faces isnt going to get the left what it wants...

First, cut all the fat, foriegn aid, bring home troops from unnecessary places, Germany etc, cut dept and programs that are overlapping and unnecessary. Cut programs and entitlements in a reasonable manner across the board....END corporate subsidies stop them all and re institute the bush tax cuts and no more talk of tax cuts till were out of the woods.
That will float across the board pain and sacrifice...not ryans far right plan and not a far left plan either

MaggieD said:

The only thing our politicians are doing is preparing/building/bracing for their next election.

Click to expand...

this is ofcourse true as well, it mainly state that they work for themself and their career. In the end their career will not matter depending on what direction our society takes or not take at all, so for their own selfish sake they still have to take into consideration the future of society.

MaggieD said:

I'm as cynical as they come. Preparing/building/bracing for the future of our country? No. The only thing our politicians are doing is preparing/building/bracing for their next election. Unfortunately, "Those who take from Peter to pay Paul will always have Paul's support."

Click to expand...

Limit every position to one term. Force people to do something with their time in office, instead of focusing on keeping their position.

Your Star said:

Limit every position to one term. Force people to do something with their time in office, instead of focusing on keeping their position.

Click to expand...

why does there need to be a president or any parties at all? a system with no parties and no single leader is what I personally see as ideal. everyone represent themself and vote case to case.

this would make politics simple, every proposal would have to be understandable and easily readable by any single person. Not books like now just for a set of policies. Party politics has ruined politics.

Maximus Zeebra said:

why does there need to be a president or any parties at all? a system with no parties and no single leader is what I personally see as ideal. everyone represent themself and vote case to case.

this would make politics simple, every proposal would have to be understandable and easily readable by any single person. Not books like now just for a set of policies. Party politics has ruined politics.

Click to expand...

I'm assuming your talking about a direct democracy? And I think that would just be a terrible system. It would be like asking what the two wolves, and a sheep what to have for dinner. Not conducive for minority rights, or checks and balances on government. I agree with party system is ****ed up, but a representative democracy is ideal.

Your Star said:

I'm assuming your talking about a direct democracy? And I think that would just be a terrible system. It would be like asking what the two wolves, and a sheep what to have for dinner. Not conducive for minority rights, or checks and balances on government. I agree with party system is ****ed up, but a representative democracy is ideal.

Click to expand...

No, not talking about a direct democracy. Rather talking about a party free system where laws and policies have to be read in full by everyone who votes on them, where everyone votes based on their on belief rather than a party line.
Representative democracy as some ironically calls it doesn't represent anything but our own failures and extremism, it takes us nowhere and has lead us into a system that only cares about becoming a representative, rather than about what you represent.
The current party political system is a bipolar extremist system that in no way represents the opinions of the people they are suppose to represent. in addition it takes away a wide range of opinions by making it impossible to represent anything in a small party or as an independent. The party system in Europe and the US is turning into a two sided dogfight that doesn't benefit anyone and is all about the fight and winning the fight, instead of being about the ideologies and what one is fighting for. It no longer matters what you are fighting for, the only thing that matters is winning the fight, and this is the reason our societies are becoming so ideologically poor and so extremely hostile.

In a party free system one can align oneself with a set of ideologies instead, completely independent of a party and fight for those, raise those cases to attention, every opinion is heard because small parties and independents are not excluded. Then everyone votes on the issue independently after fully understanding it.

Direct democracy should not be forgotten. A set of laws demanding referendums instead of government approval should be written up. This could be things like taking on debt in this years budget, or spending money on wars, participating in wara, public healthcare etc etc.

Things that affect everyone strongly or things that a set of politicians should not be allowed to decide, should be decided in direct democracy, with todays technology it is possible.

Maximus Zeebra said:

why does there need to be a president or any parties at all? a system with no parties and no single leader is what I personally see as ideal. everyone represent themself and vote case to case.

this would make politics simple, every proposal would have to be understandable and easily readable by any single person. Not books like now just for a set of policies. Party politics has ruined politics.

Click to expand...

What has hurt politics is the quality of people involved, IMO.
We need many more to participate, particularly the knowledgeable and educated.
Our President must be our leader, and he must talk to the people about selfishness....the people will probably ignore him...hope I am wrong...we may need a better President, but who is there ?
I doubt if any President can effectively convince the people to be less selfish..
We need a Ghandi......
Surely none of the conservatives, they will make matters worse.

megaprogman said:

Right now, every person in this country, from rich to poor, is going "me! me! me! me!" and is less inclined to be willing to take actions that are for the greater good. Politicians, even if they wanted to, are unable to fight against this general attitude. Looking historically, such as in the fall of rome, it was this sort of attitude which began the decline as different factions in our society will not stand together and internal strife will make things worse.

Click to expand...

that does appear to be much of the way of it

Alexis deToqueville said:

"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

Click to expand...

Benjamin Franklin said:

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

Click to expand...

Thomas Jefferson said:

"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Click to expand...

and, of course, lastly:

James Madison said:

...[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

Click to expand...

to an extent, we were doomed when we decided that we all deserved charity, and we could impose it by fiat.

none of the above

They're sacrificing the future for the present. The voters care about the future, but they care about the present even more. Politicians are just pandering to the voters.

Maximus Zeebra said:

I am talking about all our politicians, in particular in the west...

Do they appear to be taking actions that will benefit us in the long term, or even take any actions as if there will be a functioning society beyond the next 5-10 years? or do they seem more to avoid imminent collapse now while saving some functions from our society?

looking at tthe actions that politicians are taking, you should have some impression if they are building/bracing for the future or just preparing for collapse?

Click to expand...

I think many politicians are more concerned with staying in power than about the future of the US. They let our country get into debt, let companies outsource jobs, give away our money to other countries, give away our money to useless studies and so on.

If I am to be brutally honest... if I let what I have seen, read, and experienced culminate in my mind and then in my heart... I truthfully do not feel like our country has a bright future anymore. Things are rapidly slipping into damage control mode only - our government is so busy tackling all of the branches of the disease that they are either not willing or not able to cure the real problems.

The only comfort I have about my country is that history is cyclical and sometimes merciful. Countries that fall from greatness or go through intense struggle often reconfigure in new and profound ways that help them to come back wiser the next time. Our history is relatively short and tumultuous, but also filled with creativity and invention.

I agree with the observations of others regarding our culture of selfishness. It has infected every level of society. I am no socialist - I think people need to work to earn their keep - but what we are seeing is going beyond that. It is a culture of entitlement: to have whatever we want regardless if it is feasible, and to manipulate the economy or the social fabric in order to get it now. Both the GOP and the Dems are behaving this way to sickening levels.

What we need now, as a nation, is to be humbled - especially our sanctimonious politicians. It's only through humbling that people start to feel gratitude for what they already do have, and it's through gratitude that earnest, honest work that addresses real needs gets done. Despite the hardship it would cause, I am beginning to feel more and more that our nation's values and moral fabric could really benefit from a financial catastrophe. Maybe then people would wake up from their persistent daydreams and delusions, and start reconnecting with the reality of what the entire human race has to do on a daily basis to survive.

No more hand outs. No more social manipulations. No more tit for tat politics where useless laws get created to control the masses by right or left wing ideologues. Instead of fixing it, we should just break it.

Your Star said:

Limit every position to one term. Force people to do something with their time in office, instead of focusing on keeping their position.

Click to expand...

I don't think this will work.

I'm against term limits because I think it takes people time to gain experience in politics before they're able to do understand the intracies.

For example, all the Tea Party Republicans that were voted into office last midterms did so on the promise of cutting government spending, cutting the deficit, and cutting taxes. But now they're in the hot seat because if they do all those things (instead of just one) it forces us to raise the debt ceiling.

We can cut government spending and keep taxes as they are and use the saved money to pay off our debt. We can keep government spending and raise taxes and use the extra revenue to pay off our debt. But we can't both cut government spending and cut taxes and pay off the government debt.

That's what the young Tea Party Republicans in the House are learning right now, and it's one reason why Congress is in a gridlock, especially when it's divided with the GOP in control of the House and the Democrats in control of the Senate.

So I think we shouldn't have term limits because it allows those politicians to learn the nuances of how government authority interacts with private society and business. So those Congressmen that sit on a certain congressional committees (such as House Armed Services Committee) also become good candidates to work in the executive departments and agencies (moves to the Department of Defense) because they've gain good experience from legislating things to executing things.

I will agree, however, that rather than term limits we should have age limits. That will prevent people from becoming too entrenched in office and will also help stave off generational conflicts with regards to lawmaking.

cpwill said:

that does appear to be much of the way of it







and, of course, lastly:



to an extent, we were doomed when we decided that we all deserved charity, and we could impose it by fiat.

Click to expand...

But conservatives tend to point those quotes out only when it comes to individual welfare and tend to ignore those quotes when it comes to corporate welfare.

Many but not even most start out with the idea they are going to make a difference and they actually set out to be a great legislator, but sadly more often than not the power goes to their head in a very short time and having the job becomes more important than doing the job they set out to do.

I have seen this happen too many times, and it's not just politics. I have seen the same thing happen when some people gain a position of authority and goes to their head. It is not good for them and it's not good for their subordinates. In politics "We the People." are the subordinates.

Politicians have to have money to stay in power and it's hard to say no to someone who helps you keep your job and people who have money and want something think nothing of handing out cash and expecting something in return, and it happens every day I have seen it, and there are few people in politics that are above it, put the people before the power of the job and the money it takes to keep it.

It's all about short term profit, especially in America. It's all about the bottom line for next quarter or winning the next election. No one gives a **** about 10 years from now, let alone 50.

Maximus Zeebra said:

No, not talking about a direct democracy. Rather talking about a party free system where laws and policies have to be read in full by everyone who votes on them, where everyone votes based on their on belief rather than a party line.
Representative democracy as some ironically calls it doesn't represent anything but our own failures and extremism, it takes us nowhere and has lead us into a system that only cares about becoming a representative, rather than about what you represent.
The current party political system is a bipolar extremist system that in no way represents the opinions of the people they are suppose to represent. in addition it takes away a wide range of opinions by making it impossible to represent anything in a small party or as an independent. The party system in Europe and the US is turning into a two sided dogfight that doesn't benefit anyone and is all about the fight and winning the fight, instead of being about the ideologies and what one is fighting for. It no longer matters what you are fighting for, the only thing that matters is winning the fight, and this is the reason our societies are becoming so ideologically poor and so extremely hostile.

In a party free system one can align oneself with a set of ideologies instead, completely independent of a party and fight for those, raise those cases to attention, every opinion is heard because small parties and independents are not excluded. Then everyone votes on the issue independently after fully understanding it.

Direct democracy should not be forgotten. A set of laws demanding referendums instead of government approval should be written up. This could be things like taking on debt in this years budget, or spending money on wars, participating in wara, public healthcare etc etc.

Things that affect everyone strongly or things that a set of politicians should not be allowed to decide, should be decided in direct democracy, with todays technology it is possible.

Click to expand...

Personally I think a representative system that takes advantage of technology and either eliminates the two party system or expands it into a 3-4 minimum party system would be ideal.

Imagine a Rep who goes to DC, utilizes his resources to learn the pros and cons of each issue, conveys his understanding and advice, then opens up lines to his constituency as to how he should vote.

This could be done unilaterally, by any Rep who chose to do so. No changes to existing structures necessary.

What if...? said:

Personally I think a representative system that takes advantage of technology and either eliminates the two party system or expands it into a 3-4 minimum party system would be ideal.

Imagine a Rep who goes to DC, utilizes his resources to learn the pros and cons of each issue, conveys his understanding and advice, then opens up lines to his constituency as to how he should vote.

This could be done unilaterally, by any Rep who chose to do so. No changes to existing structures necessary.

Click to expand...

The two-party system isn't entrenched in the Constitution. Rather, the two-party system comes about as a result of our electoral system.

If you want to get rid of our two-party system you must change our electoral system to allow more third-party candidates to get elected.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

samsmart said:

The two-party system isn't entrenched in the Constitution. Rather, the two-party system comes about as a result of our electoral system.

If you want to get rid of our two-party system you must change our electoral system to allow more third-party candidates to get elected.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Click to expand...

Interesting link.

I actually really like the multiple choice ballot idea as well.

What if...? said:

Interesting link.

I actually really like the multiple choice ballot idea as well.

Click to expand...

I prefer the Instant Run-off Voting method. Or at least having a run-off election and then an election between the two top contestants.