Is the System Broken or are People at Fault or Both?

samsmart said:

Oh, I agree that there's no solid third party alternatives.

But what I'm saying is that that's because of our first-past-the-post voting system. The only way to allow solid third party alternatives is to change the voting system. Science says so.

Duverger's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where I disagree with you concerns how the rest of Congress would treat such alternative Congressmen. I don't think they would be quite as conspiratorial as you make it seem. After all, Ron Paul is barely a Republican and had left the GOP to run for President on the Libertarian ticket in '88.

Despite that, Paul's committee assignments are as follows:

* Committee on Financial Services
** Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology (Chairman)
** Subcommittee on International Monetary Policy and Trade

* Committee on Foreign Affairs
** Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

So Ron Paul, despite being an avowed libertarian, is actually a chairman on one subcommittee and is on the Committee on Foreign Affairs despite being a critic of the U.S.' interventionism on the world stage.

So I'm not disagreeing with you on the lack of 3rd party alternatives - rather, I'm disagreeing with you on how such 3rd party alternatives would be treated by Congress.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of Duverger's law, which is only a hypothesis. And I agree there are some advantages to a two Party system but they begin to fade as the members become complacent and unchallenged to change from ineffective stances. Ron Paul has been in Congress off and on since the mid 70's is outspoken making him a peoples favorite and someone the Republicans want on their side. So he's politically active and has seniority, which is the biggest prerequisite for Committee positions. And even though he espouses Libertarian views he's still a Republican. He also made a lot of political friends when he joined a 17 member coalition to sue Bill Clinton over the Kosovo War.

I'll agree the two Parties aren't completely out of their minds corrupt, only fostering to their own ilk but there is definitely a culture of Party Line voting, which is evident on big bills. And it is usually to protect each sides vested interests, which is not usually in the best interests of their constituents. Both Party's essentially try to say Politically Correct statements for public consumption, then grab all the funding and resources they can for their positions. It's a reward system to the big campaign contributors, lobbyists and inside players. And I've heard several Congressmen in TV interviews say in so many words "you either vote for what the Party heads want or you're not in their good graces." Trust me they defend their Party and reward their supporters more than we see, especially from outsiders.

samsmart said:

It's not just mobs who demand candidates who give them free candy. Economic elites use their influence to get candidates who give them free candy too. And that has happened just as much throughout history.

Click to expand...

This is happening on an unprecedented scale politically and economically and damaging the middle class. I think many unbiased observers would agree that the Republicans buy votes from the big to near big money earners and the Democrats buy them from the low to no money earners.

cpwill said:

throughout history, representative governments' detractors have argued that democracy would end when mobs elected demagogues to give them 'free' goodies until the treasury collapsed. the people, they argued, were too shortsighted, and would be unable to give up on free candy now for long term stability.


within a decade or two, we will find out if they were right.

Click to expand...

It wasn't just those people, but our Founders themselves, that predicted it.

Considering the US government is funded by the people, I'd say there aren't many people getting "free goodies". SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are not "free goodies". And before you complain about WIC or Welfare, I suggest you try living on it for a month, as I doubt you'll call it a "goody" ever again.

whysoserious said:

Considering the US government is funded by the people, I'd say there aren't many people getting "free goodies". SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are not "free goodies". And before you complain about WIC or Welfare, I suggest you try living on it for a month, as I doubt you'll call it a "goody" ever again.

Click to expand...

I agree that Welfare even if you're getting money for children with no father, caring for a sick relative, food stamps, section 8 housing, medicaid, SSI, unemployment benefits, disability, tax credits etc it's still not living high on the hog but it pays almost as well than working a full time, low wage job. By time you buy the clothing, lunches, health insurance, transportation costs and other assorted job related expenses you've eaten into an already small salary and that's not including living expenses. And there's the rub.

grip said:

I agree that Welfare even if you're getting money for children with no father, caring for a sick relative, food stamps, section 8 housing, medicaid, SSI, unemployment benefits, disability, tax credits etc it's still not living high on the hog but it pays almost as well than working a full time, low wage job. By time you buy the clothing, lunches, health insurance, transportation costs and other assorted job related expenses you've eaten into an already small salary and that's not including living expenses. And there's the rub.

Click to expand...

The funny thing is that there are those that are making minimum wage (or even up to $3 higher than minimum wage) and on welfare. What does that say about wages? Oh I know the mantra...employers are not required nor should they have to pay a living wage. And yet it is often those same employers that complain about welfare systems. Never thinking that maybe if they did pay a living wage then not near as many people would be on welfare. But nope, its the poors fault that they don't get out and try and "better" themselves.

K street needs to be shut down.

If they want to influence a vote, write a thoughtful letter like the rest of us.

An entirely new lobby industry has sprung up in recent years -- not influencing policy but lobbyists who just collect information about how a committee is going to vote, are other policy-legislative decisions. The information is collected and SOLD to hedge funds, days before the information is made public so that private funds can act on the information before the rest of the market. It's not insider trading because congress is immune from those laws.

That needs to change.

samsmart said:

It's not just mobs who demand candidates who give them free candy. Economic elites use their influence to get candidates who give them free candy too. And that has happened just as much throughout history.

Click to expand...

true, but it is rare for elites to be able to shunt off enough free stuff to threaten the nations' fisc. you need mass for that.

grip said:

There is obviously a growing problem in today's politics. Whether it's a disconnect with candidates and elected officials or disenfranchised voters. The US government is IMO one of the most fair systems of governing ever devised in human history. Yet somehow we're seeing a growing corruption within. Is it from indefinite term limits, creating cronyism and career politicians? Is it from virtually unlimited candidate funding, allowing groups of concentrated wealth influence peddling? Is it the lobby's who through unimpeded access gain inside favoritism and no-bid contracts? Is it Party or Partisan Politics unable to compromise relying on ideology more than practical reasoning? I'm curious is it our system of governing that's flawed or are our people too self interested or a little of both? Let the debate begin.

Click to expand...

Why is this such a big freakin' mystery?

The brilliance of our founders and those involved in the freedom movement is that they knew of and understand the history of man, of civilization, it's governments, wars and failings.

Nothing has changed. The human condition is the same now as it was 8,000 years ago.

Not all people are good
Not all people are bad
But we are all weak in some way
We always trade freedom for security
Tyranny always seeks power
In good times, people will become complacent about their gov't, and their vigilance of it
In bad times the opportunity of vigilance has passed.

The wisdom of the founders wasn't just the founding of a new country, nor was it the establishment of freedom for as much of the populace as was possible at the time and still form a unified gov't...

... It was the construct of that gov't in a way that ceded political power to the people and local gov'ts, that allowed for grievances to be heard, allowed political dissent and freedom of the press, and most of all, to change the gov't or constitution when needed to advance freedom and protect our rights.

The reason this is happening... is because it's what has always happened. We were given the warnings, wisdom, spirit, tools and power to keep the gov't and moneyed interests subordinate to the people and the common good. Through apathy, we have abdicated that power, surrendered out patriotic duty of vigilance of our gov't to partisan cheer leading and blind acceptance, finally to be set against one another through ideological divides.

The rise and fall of most civs/gov'ts through history follow pretty familiar paths... there's no mystery here. And at the heart of it,,, is the nature of man, both as the wolf, and the sheep.

whysoserious said:

Considering the US government is funded by the people, I'd say there aren't many people getting "free goodies". SS, Medicare, and Medicaid are not "free goodies".

Click to expand...

apparently you missed the part where we were borrowing 40 cents on the dollar? and that the entitlements are scheduled to begin collapsing the rest of the government?

And before you complain about WIC or Welfare, I suggest you try living on it for a month

Click to expand...

actually in my life I have qualified for both those programs, and refused to take either.

Kal'Stang said:

The funny thing is that there are those that are making minimum wage (or even up to $3 higher than minimum wage) and on welfare. What does that say about wages?

Click to expand...

:shrug: that they are low. gotta start somewhere.

Oh I know the mantra...employers are not required nor should they have to pay a living wage. And yet it is often those same employers that complain about welfare systems. Never thinking that maybe if they did pay a living wage then not near as many people would be on welfare.

Click to expand...

that is true. the number would be far larger.

But nope, its the poors fault that they don't get out and try and "better" themselves.

Click to expand...

that is true. ultimately, it comes down to decisions you make. mind you, the rest of society can make it more or less difficult for you; and "living wage" restrictions would of course make it much more difficult (as minimum wage laws make it somewhat more difficult now).

We live in a technically sophisticated society. Potentially the greatest information age in history. Instant communication worldwide. The potential to share wisdom, knowledge, truth, and use these virtues to end starvation, war, deprivation, and disease. Not the way it has worked. We sell cures for diseasse. We generate wars as economy builders. We monopolize food. We take advantage of starvation and disease to control resources. A person has to be nearly a genius to figure out what is the truth in our Media. Our money is an outright fraud. Our world is a step away from global disaster caused by Global Warming and we are twiddling our thumbs and eating our Christmas pie. Does this all sound like collective intelligence or insanity? The system can only work if we are men of good will and it ain't gonna' happen. Internationally, banking has gained control of politics and and the voters can be go to hell. Money runs the planet and it's a damn poor money at that. I don't think one person in one thousand really knows what's going on in our gov't and they don't care as long as they got their TV, Computer, car, and some valium. We need more than a third political party. Hell, I'm a Green, have been for years. Powerless, underfunded, ridiculed, but with a shared paradigm as regards our gov't. It is absolutely corrupt. Wars for profit. Wars for building and maintaining our economy. Wars to keep us from thinking about real problems. Demonizing enemies to get people's focus away from serious problems like dysfunctional gov't. Put real names on the people whose money runs our gov't. Big money, not the Koch brothers. Sounds like a rant. Think about it.+

The system is broken. Corruption is rampant in politics, because it's allowed to be. Money is the root of it all. Our government is being bought and paid for by special interests that literally bribe our congress to introduce and pass legislation favorable to them. Congress says, "thank you very much" and pockets the money. Even politicians who want to be "clean" soon find they cannot be. They need that bribe money... commonly called campaign contributions... in order to keep their seats and get re-elected. So they take the money, introduce the legislation that will make some corporation, union, or other special interest group fat, happy and rich, and ignore the needs of the citizenry... because they've already been bought by folks who have purchased bills to basically screw the citizenry to make themselves rich.

And it's the People's fault. People who are so consumed by their own problems that they can't see the government is the cause of those problems. People who feel powerless and turn their back on their duty to choose qualified, honest representatives. People too apathetic to care as long as they have what they personally need and want.

Until we see meaningful campaign finance reform, so that every candidate is on a level financial field and lobbyists are prevented from purchasing legislation for their own self-interest, nothing will change.

Gridlock is a common thing in the United States. These ideas come up all the time when we have divided government. "Oh the system is broken man" etc. It's simply untrue. The only possible thing I can see is that we really have a lot less professional politicians on the hill who are able to compromise and bust out deals like the ones of the mid 20th century until after Newt's time.

I'm pretty sure its a provable fact, America is getting dumber as time goes on. Doesn't that just answer everything right there? I mean, I did vote for the "Both" one but the System is broken mostly because OF the citizens not giving a ****. Then again what are you going to do? You just get the choice of Politician A who is evil or Politician B who is just a little less evil. There are people in the government who are trying to do the right stuff, either way you look at it left or right, but its just not enough.

I'd rather hear rants than defeatism. The United States is still evolving and maturing, not in spite of peoples weaknesses but because of them.

With Congress at 91% disapproval rating something is off? I often hear "vote all the bums out" and yet we get the same old same.

The only constant in this world is change. So change is coming in one form or another. Maybe we can decide which? Is it equity we seek or equality and what's the difference?

The 17th amendment truly screwed up the system. The states lost their voice in Washington and the federal government has been grabbing more and more power ever since. The government we have today is a far cry from what the founders intended.

No matter how you slice it, it still comes back to the voters/people.

Hugh_Akston said:

The 17th amendment truly screwed up the system. The states lost their voice in Washington and the federal government has been grabbing more and more power ever since. The government we have today is a far cry from what the founders intended.

Click to expand...

I'll agree there wasn't enough good reason at the time to enact the 17th amendment and it watered down the states legislative representation in Congress. But it was believed at the time that electing senators would tone down the bureaucracy in DC and prevent corruption.

The proponents argued "Awaken, in the senators...a more acute sense of responsibility to the people," which it was felt they lacked; election through state legislatures was seen as an anachronism that was out of step with the wishes of the American people, and one that had led to the Senate becoming "a sort of aristocratic body - too far removed from the people, beyond their reach, and with no special interest in their welfare". And the opponents response was "that the people were both a less permanent and a less trusted body than state legislatures, and that moving the responsibility for the election of senators to them would see it passing into the hands of a body that "[lasted] but a day" before changing." I assume meaning that populist voting is of little depth, fleeting and less substantial in change or effect. It was also seen as a threat to the rights and independence of the states, who were "sovereign, entitled...to have a separate branch of Congress...to which they could send their ambassadors". This was countered by the argument that a change in the mode in which senators were elected would not change their responsibilities. It was through populist appeal that the 17th amendment was ultimately passed.

It seems there should be a way for the states to have more direct input in Washington because with the lack of check on Congress it allows the Federal government too much centralized power. Not only are senators now free to ignore the needs of their state, "they have incentive to use their advice-and-consent powers to install Supreme Court justices who are inclined to increase federal power at the expense of state sovereignty." Though we need state impact in DC without suffering an elitist body that feels no responsibility to the people they represent. And I could definitely see corruption being a bigger problem in today's world than back in 1913, especially through the influence of corporate lobbying. Though it's argued the other way around as far as lobbyists for interest groups I don't agree because of the financial power of the national based market could focus their efforts on the Federal government and the many state legislatures. I feel the only way to tell would be to reform or repeal the 17th and see what happens.

This is a good example of where the people may have screwed up the system or actually improved it?

There's obviously a discord in the US, especially about our system of governing and politcal party choices. A Presidential Election is coming up and it looks like our choices for chief leader will be Obama and either Gingrich or Romney. Is anyone really happy with those choices? And if not why don't we have better ones? Does the system not provide them or do we not recognize them? I say possibly both in that the career campaigners, rally big money contributors and inside party allies and that people want to hear pretty lies rather than the truth. Harry Truman once had a reporter exclaim "Give 'em Hell Harry"! He whipped around and replied "I'm not going to give 'em Hell I'm going to tell them the truth and they're going to think it's Hell".

grip said:

The US government is IMO one of the most fair systems of governing ever devised in human history. Yet somehow we're seeing a growing corruption within.

Click to expand...

I think we need to look at how technology changes society. The technology changes and people do not and then there are unpredicted side effects.

Consider a slightly silly thought experiment. What would the replicator technology from Star Trek do to society and the economy. But didn't Henry Ford give us replicatior technology with the moving assembly line and the Model-T? In 1900 there were 8000 cars in the United States. In 1995 there were 200,000,000.

But when was the last time you heard economists say how much we lose on the depreciation of automobiles every year? Henry Ford did not start planned obsolescence though. The unpredicted side effect of replicator technology.

Then after World War II we got television. What did TV do to baby boomers? LBJ began complaining about what TV was doing to politics in the late 60s. So the media gave the money people a handle on politicians that was not so big before.

Of course we cannot forget to give Keynes credit for the new ideas he gave to economists. But economists talk about GDP and never mention NDP. This century has given consumers technology that never existed before but economists treat $30,000 automobiles just like $3 hamburgers.

So how many politicians know when economists are talking complete BS?

Now we can give grade school kids computers more powerful than 1980s mainframes. Will they have more effect than automobiles?

The Screwing of the Average Man (1974) by David Hapgood

So maybe we now have the Perfect Storm with so many simultaneous things happening that no one knows what is going on.

psik

The people for thinking their world is somehow especially screwed up in comparison with the past. It's not. So yes, the people are at fault. Damned fools.

Edit: oh look. It's a two year old thread. My answer stays the same apparently. But I bet 10 years from now every other poster in this thread will still be under the impression that their age is so damned awful, unlike anything else.

psikeyhackr said:

I think we need to look at how technology changes society. The technology changes and people do not and then there are unpredicted side effects.

Consider a slightly silly thought experiment. What would the replicator technology from Star Trek do to society and the economy. But didn't Henry Ford give us replicatior technology with the moving assembly line and the Model-T? In 1900 there were 8000 cars in the United States. In 1995 there were 200,000,000.

But when was the last time you heard economists say how much we lose on the depreciation of automobiles every year? Henry Ford did not start planned obsolescence though. The unpredicted side effect of replicator technology.

Then after World War II we got television. What did TV do to baby boomers? LBJ began complaining about what TV was doing to politics in the late 60s. So the media gave the money people a handle on politicians that was not so big before.

Of course we cannot forget to give Keynes credit for the new ideas he gave to economists. But economists talk about GDP and never mention NDP. This century has given consumers technology that never existed before but economists treat $30,000 automobiles just like $3 hamburgers.

So how many politicians know when economists are talking complete BS?

Now we can give grade school kids computers more powerful than 1980s mainframes. Will they have more effect than automobiles?

The Screwing of the Average Man (1974) by David Hapgood

So maybe we now have the Perfect Storm with so many simultaneous things happening that no one knows what is going on.

psik

Click to expand...

Technology is a part of evolution and change. It's coming whether the elder generation likes it or not. How much we try to insert into every aspect of our existence will be the coming test. I'm a big proponent of advancement but not necessarily of replacing computer and machine technology for human interaction.

Hopefully coming generations will see the problem and adapt by using technology more efficiently and in sync with nature.

grip said:

Technology is a part of evolution and change. It's coming whether the elder generation likes it or not. How much we try to insert into every aspect of our existence will be the coming test. I'm a big proponent of advancement but not necessarily of replacing computer and machine technology for human interaction.

Hopefully coming generations will see the problem and adapt by using technology more efficiently and in sync with nature.

Click to expand...

I'm fine with change, I just wish it didn't have to happen so fast. I feel no need to constantly update everything every nine months.

grip said:

There is obviously a growing problem in today's politics. Whether it's a disconnect with candidates and elected officials or disenfranchised voters. The US government is IMO one of the most fair systems of governing ever devised in human history. Yet somehow we're seeing a growing corruption within. Is it from indefinite term limits, creating cronyism and career politicians? Is it from virtually unlimited candidate funding, allowing groups of concentrated wealth influence peddling? Is it the lobby's who through unimpeded access gain inside favoritism and no-bid contracts? Is it Party or Partisan Politics unable to compromise relying on ideology more than practical reasoning? I'm curious is it our system of governing that's flawed or are our people too self interested or a little of both? Let the debate begin.

Click to expand...

This isn't the first time that this has happened and probably won't be the last. I think it's more a human nature issue of repeating past mistakes.

Guidelines are created and checks on corporate influence and people after decades of having those protections begin to forget why they were put there in the first place and self interested groups start making the argument to rip away those protections...and then everybody is back to a corrupt government ran on money....then eventually they get fed up and do something....and put in new guidelines and checks and repeater.