Why democracy is failing America

[Gillipig]

The flip side of low salaries for politicians is that it arguably turns politics into a career path that is only open to those who have the means to live without receiving much/any of a salary in return for their work, thus excluding all but the wealthy (e.g. Ye Oldde Englande), or it increases the desirability of rent-seeking (e.g. present day China).

Right, and the same holds for bureaucrats. Singapore is a great counter-example to Gillipig's concerns about politicians voting on paying themselves (all politicians have this power anyway). In Singapore, they offer six-digit salaries to CEOs and what not to head a government bureaucracy, and Singapore ranks #3 in per-capita GDP (they rich yo) and it's in the top 5 for economic freedom.

Sweden ranks high in those categories as well, you overread the importance of economic freedom and GDP per capita, the US has amazing GDP per capita for example yet it would be hard to argue it has a well functioning democratic system. If you've got a shitty system, eventually that will catch up to you. It will catch up to Sweden, it will catch up to USA (already has to a certain degree in both countries) and if Singapore has a shitty system it most likely will come back to bite them in the rear as well.

[Phatscotty]

Term limits!

TEA PARTY EXECUTIVE ORDER!

BOOM!

50% fixed

[mrswdk]

Most people work at jobs that has little to do with their intelligence and more to do with the fact that they just plain have to make a living to survive.

If they were that intelligent then they'd be able to find a way of doing something they actually want to do with their lives.

How? How when there is no money for education, when you don't have connections.

The REAL "intelligence" is the ability to "smooze". That is what really matters for 90% of jobs, not your technical ability! And if you are a women, TRIPLE that! (If you are over 40... double it.)

Well, being personable is important, but so is the ability to do your job well. If you think people get appointed as CEO of a company just by having a father who plays golf with the chairman then you're buying into the propaganda a little too much.

Anyway, I think you're taking my list a little too seriously.

Maybe because its my life, not some esoteric discussion of no import. My life and that of millions of others.

lol. What does my list have to do with your life or the lives of millions of others?

[Gillipig]

Term limits!

TEA PARTY EXECUTIVE ORDER!

BOOM!

50% fixed

This is the key, this is what will fix everything. If unsure what to do always implement a BOOM!

[Ray Rider]

Anyway, I think you're taking my list a little too seriously.

Maybe because its my life, not some esoteric discussion of no import. My life and that of millions of others.

lol. What does my list have to do with your life or the lives of millions of others?

rofl you didn't realize how important your list was, did you?

[kuthoer]

Term limits!

TEA PARTY EXECUTIVE ORDER!

BOOM!

50% fixed

This is the key, this is what will fix everything. If unsure what to do always implement a BOOM!

Term limits? Funny, every once a decade politicians spout this phrase, that's only when they run for office against an incumbent. Once they win, they become silent on the subject.

[tzor]

Term limits? Funny, every once a decade politicians spout this phrase, that's only when they run for office against an incumbent. Once they win, they become silent on the subject.

It is why term limits cannot be "voluntary," must be "constitutional" and must be imposed by an outside source (in the case of the Federal Government, the only way term limits would ever be imposed would be though an Article 5 Convention of the States).

[Jmac1026]

Term limits!

TEA PARTY EXECUTIVE ORDER!

BOOM!

50% fixed

This is the key, this is what will fix everything. If unsure what to do always implement a BOOM!

Term limits? Funny, every once a decade politicians spout this phrase, that's only when they run for office against an incumbent. Once they win, they become silent on the subject.

I always thought it was interesting how Congress imposed a term limit on the presidency as soon as FDR was out of the way, but have been in no large rush to do that same thing to themselves.

[PLAYER57832]

If the complaint is "we have a choice between A and A2," I put the blame somewhat on voters and mostly on the political parties. This division stems from rent-seeking and the "problems" associated with it. The best we (and by "we" I mean basically voters, although that is stretching it) could do is the Occupy movement. Which is gone now and was vastly hypocritical to begin with. Again, that goes to the "not in enough pain to care" theory that I have. Those kids with their iphones and Steve Madden shoes don't have enough pain to do anything about rent seeking (I'm also convinced they don't know what rent seeking is or else just associate rent seeking with one political party and not the other).

I am tempted to start with an "LOL", but that is not good debating.

"Rent seeking" as you use it is nothing more than a rhetorical way to utterly dismiss anyone else's needs and wants as ignorable, even negative desires.

The truth is that there ARE real needs that people have. Putting your desire for a building to sell tourist goods or food is, in no shape or form, "equal" to the need of society to have functioning dunes, coastal marshes and estuaries. Unless you are willing to START with that premise, that there are things about this world that truly are important, set and not things we can simply change because we wish it to be, then all these desires are for naught. Pretend that the "nice beach" or whatever doesn't really matter, that it is simply "equal" to a temporary desire for some income and just yet another phase of "rent seeking" is why we are in the trouble we are in today.

All desires and needs are not equal. First comes taking care of the world around, the world in which we live. EVERYTHING we do, EVERY desire, EVERY need depends upon those basic world systems working well. Second comes farming and forestry. They produce the ultimate raw products. Minderal aquisition has, historically been up there. However, I say that is a fundamental mistake. Its not that minerals are less needed today, but its that mineral aquisition has to be taken as secondary to those other systems, not put in front. Too many life systems, people's societies have been destroyed because the "need" for someone else to have the minerals was somehow "more important" -- important enough that whole peoples could be simply ignored. We see that most vicerally in the Native American lands and treatment here in the US, but it also happened down in Latin America and is currently happening overseas in much of the developing world.

We do NOT, never will have the technology to just replace a natural system. We are barely beginning to understand these systems well enough to even just identify them, to identify and quantify their "purposes" in concrete, readily understandable terms (dunes protect coastlines, preserve property for miles up and down the coast, rather than just some esoteric "let's save this unique set of creatures). Minerals, have uses that are entirely and fully understood. The uses are created by humans. The same technological pushes that created the desires can and should be turned toward better and safer uses.

Claiming that this is simply a matter of competing "rent seekers" is the kind of utter ignorance that will result in the destruction of our economy. Economics is simply an analysis of people's responses. It is not, itself some fundamental truth. Politics, too are just a set of human responses. The fundamental truth is science, the reality and basis of every system on earth, not temporary human responses and perceptions.

[PLAYER57832]

Term limits!

TEA PARTY EXECUTIVE ORDER!

BOOM!

50% fixed

This is the key, this is what will fix everything. If unsure what to do always implement a BOOM!

Term limits? Funny, every once a decade politicians spout this phrase, that's only when they run for office against an incumbent. Once they win, they become silent on the subject.

Term limits make the assumption that change is always good. The real trouble is that it isn't. There is a reason we have 4 year, alternating Representative terms and 6 year Senatorial terms. It is to provide stability along with some change.

We need balance. Term limits will just mean floating with every wind.

Fixing our system requires reducing the power of special interest high money lobby groups, groups that pay little attention to anything other than their very specific desire. When you allow people to have the sole job of convincing politicians that "their" position is "correct", REGARDLESS of ultimate consequences, when you allow politicians to be influenced by temporary desires so quickly that they barely have time to fully understand issues before voting, then you create a system of whims and desires, not function.

Whims are fine when the ultimate result doesn't really and truly "matter". In the past, people took as "given" many things that today many see as fully changeable or simply ignorable. The old saying "nothing is set but death and taxes" has changed to "nothign is set... at ALL".

Except.. we still do not have the knowledge needed to really recreate an ecosystem. (we can create imitations, but not really recreate what God designed) We can prolong death, relieve some suffering, but are unwilling to accept that death is sometimes a blessing as well as a curse. We build and destroy, but don't have the full knowledge to understand the consequences and, unless we happen to study that particular facet, are taught basically that these things can be ignored or just pushed aside for someone else to deal with.

The answer is not some esoteric or short sighted "term limit" or even necessarily campaign finance limits. Instead, we need full reform. Along with that, we need to regain respect for real knowledge and proof. That you can find someone to agree with you on the internet does not magically turn your opinion into fact or truth. PROOF and EVIDENCE, tracked and verified,are what create truth, not public opinion or polls.

Understanding that requires education. Education requires money and time. Few today want to truly give much of either for any generic cause. For unique special interests, sure, but not as a basis for our country.

What made our country great was access to resources, absolutely, but it was ALSO education. Without education there is no democracy, just different forms of manipulation. That is never more clear than in the "Tea Party" type speeches, in calls for supposed panaceas of term limits and other artificial, meaningless limits.

Actually scratch that "meaningless" bit. By giving longer terms to Senators, we ensure that we have some people who have a vested interest in actually understanding issues, in longer term projections. If anything, I would say we need longer terms. Granted, that would mean some people I would abhore, but also some I respect. They key is that longer terms would tend to force them to learn to work together instead of just always in opposition. Working together, on compromise, listening to each other.. THAT is what is really missing today, not the fact that current politicians are "failing to respond" to the temporary desires of a bumnch of loudmouths with opinions.

[tzor]

I always thought it was interesting how Congress imposed a term limit on the presidency as soon as FDR was out of the way, but have been in no large rush to do that same thing to themselves.

The limit was based on the "tradition" of Washington not to seek a third term. Third terms were attempted before but never achieved. FDR achieved a third and fourth term.

Since the "tradition" applied to presidents only, that was the only thing considered for the amendment.

[tzor]

Term limits make the assumption that change is always good. The real trouble is that it isn't. There is a reason we have 4 year, alternating Representative terms and 6 year Senatorial terms. It is to provide stability along with some change.

I mostly disagree. First of all, while the tradition of two terms was set by Washington, limited terms was common in the Federal Government for a very long time. Why? Because no one really wanted to stay long in the festering swamp of DC. All the real political power was in the states.

As Petracca explains, "throughout most of the nineteenth century, not very many members of Congress sought reelection. Not until 1901 ... did the average number of terms served by House members prior to the present session rise above two terms. There were a few occasions in which the average length of service approached two terms, but no more than a handful out of some 56 sessions ... During the 25 sessions between 1850 and 1898 turnover averaged 50.2 percent. On average, more than half the House during any given session in the second half of the nineteenth century was made up of first term members."

Mark Levin in the Liberty Amendments (p27) quoting Petracca, "Restoring, 'The University in Rotation'" pp 69-70.

Given that, the 6 year term in the Senate allowed at least 2/3 of the senate to remain every two years. The House generally had massive change every two years.

[Jmac1026]

I always thought it was interesting how Congress imposed a term limit on the presidency as soon as FDR was out of the way, but have been in no large rush to do that same thing to themselves.

The limit was based on the "tradition" of Washington not to seek a third term. Third terms were attempted before but never achieved. FDR achieved a third and fourth term.

Since the "tradition" applied to presidents only, that was the only thing considered for the amendment.

Bullshit. I mean, sure that was the reasoning given to the public. The actual reason was that Congress was absolutely terrified that another populous president wouldn't conveniently die like FDR did, and go on to be president for life. Could you imagine the kind of power someone like that would accumulate over time? It would be almost like what Putin has done in Russia.

Or, you know, like some members of Congress have done now.

[Phatscotty]

Term limits!

TEA PARTY EXECUTIVE ORDER!

BOOM!

50% fixed

This is the key, this is what will fix everything. If unsure what to do always implement a BOOM!

Term limits? Funny, every once a decade politicians spout this phrase, that's only when they run for office against an incumbent. Once they win, they become silent on the subject.

sure they have in the past. I don't get 'so never try again/speak against term limits' out of that though

Ron Paul and Rand Paul are not those typical politicians

[Phatscotty]

Term limits!

TEA PARTY EXECUTIVE ORDER!

BOOM!

50% fixed

This is the key, this is what will fix everything. If unsure what to do always implement a BOOM!

Term limits? Funny, every once a decade politicians spout this phrase, that's only when they run for office against an incumbent. Once they win, they become silent on the subject.

I always thought it was interesting how Congress imposed a term limit on the presidency as soon as FDR was out of the way, but have been in no large rush to do that same thing to themselves.

America has a long history of dominant power switching back n forth over time between the executive and the legislative branch. And don't forget in the time of FDR, war or no war, American's were extremely worried their country was turning into a dictatorship. We had term limits ready to go for the executive before FDR was even buried in the ground.

[Metsfanmax]

America has a long history of dominant power switching back n forth over time between the executive and the legislative branch. And don't forget in the time of FDR, war or no war, American's were extremely worried their country was turning into a dictatorship.

It was reasonable to be scared of the Nazis taking over, sure.

[Phatscotty]

If the complaint is "we have a choice between A and A2," I put the blame somewhat on voters and mostly on the political parties. This division stems from rent-seeking and the "problems" associated with it. The best we (and by "we" I mean basically voters, although that is stretching it) could do is the Occupy movement. Which is gone now and was vastly hypocritical to begin with. Again, that goes to the "not in enough pain to care" theory that I have. Those kids with their iphones and Steve Madden shoes don't have enough pain to do anything about rent seeking (I'm also convinced they don't know what rent seeking is or else just associate rent seeking with one political party and not the other).

I am tempted to start with an "LOL", but that is not good debating.

"Rent seeking" as you use it is nothing more than a rhetorical way to utterly dismiss anyone else's needs and wants ...(at other's expense and by force of law)... as ignorable, even negative desires.

ftfy

[Phatscotty]

America has a long history of dominant power switching back n forth over time between the executive and the legislative branch. And don't forget in the time of FDR, war or no war, American's were extremely worried their country was turning into a dictatorship.

It was reasonable to be scared of the Nazis Progressives taking over, sure.

ftfy

[Phatscotty]

Term limits? Funny, every once a decade politicians spout this phrase, that's only when they run for office against an incumbent. Once they win, they become silent on the subject.

It is why term limits cannot be "voluntary," must be "constitutional" and must be imposed by an outside source (in the case of the Federal Government, the only way term limits would ever be imposed would be though an Article 5 Convention of the States).

I summon Old Hickory!

[Phatscotty]

Term limits? Funny, every once a decade politicians spout this phrase, that's only when they run for office against an incumbent. Once they win, they become silent on the subject.

It is why term limits cannot be "voluntary," must be "constitutional" and must be imposed by an outside source (in the case of the Federal Government, the only way term limits would ever be imposed would be though an Article 5 Convention of the States).

enter button got stuck

[thegreekdog]

See below.

[thegreekdog]

If the complaint is "we have a choice between A and A2," I put the blame somewhat on voters and mostly on the political parties. This division stems from rent-seeking and the "problems" associated with it. The best we (and by "we" I mean basically voters, although that is stretching it) could do is the Occupy movement. Which is gone now and was vastly hypocritical to begin with. Again, that goes to the "not in enough pain to care" theory that I have. Those kids with their iphones and Steve Madden shoes don't have enough pain to do anything about rent seeking (I'm also convinced they don't know what rent seeking is or else just associate rent seeking with one political party and not the other).

I am tempted to start with an "LOL", but that is not good debating.

"Rent seeking" as you use it is nothing more than a rhetorical way to utterly dismiss anyone else's needs and wants as ignorable, even negative desires.

The truth is that there ARE real needs that people have. Putting your desire for a building to sell tourist goods or food is, in no shape or form, "equal" to the need of society to have functioning dunes, coastal marshes and estuaries. Unless you are willing to START with that premise, that there are things about this world that truly are important, set and not things we can simply change because we wish it to be, then all these desires are for naught. Pretend that the "nice beach" or whatever doesn't really matter, that it is simply "equal" to a temporary desire for some income and just yet another phase of "rent seeking" is why we are in the trouble we are in today.

All desires and needs are not equal. First comes taking care of the world around, the world in which we live. EVERYTHING we do, EVERY desire, EVERY need depends upon those basic world systems working well. Second comes farming and forestry. They produce the ultimate raw products. Minderal aquisition has, historically been up there. However, I say that is a fundamental mistake. Its not that minerals are less needed today, but its that mineral aquisition has to be taken as secondary to those other systems, not put in front. Too many life systems, people's societies have been destroyed because the "need" for someone else to have the minerals was somehow "more important" -- important enough that whole peoples could be simply ignored. We see that most vicerally in the Native American lands and treatment here in the US, but it also happened down in Latin America and is currently happening overseas in much of the developing world.

We do NOT, never will have the technology to just replace a natural system. We are barely beginning to understand these systems well enough to even just identify them, to identify and quantify their "purposes" in concrete, readily understandable terms (dunes protect coastlines, preserve property for miles up and down the coast, rather than just some esoteric "let's save this unique set of creatures). Minerals, have uses that are entirely and fully understood. The uses are created by humans. The same technological pushes that created the desires can and should be turned toward better and safer uses.

Claiming that this is simply a matter of competing "rent seekers" is the kind of utter ignorance that will result in the destruction of our economy. Economics is simply an analysis of people's responses. It is not, itself some fundamental truth. Politics, too are just a set of human responses. The fundamental truth is science, the reality and basis of every system on earth, not temporary human responses and perceptions.

There will be some day in the future where I will stop responding to the posts you type where you don't address anything I type, but instead go on a random rant. This is, unfortunately for me, not one of those times.

Look... I know you have it ingrained in you to automatically rail against anything I post that has anything remotely to do with politics. But think about what rent-seeking is and think about what you've chosen to care about in your post above - protecting functioning dunes, estuaries, etc. Do you think we don't protect those things because we're ignoring rent seekers or because we're listening to rent seekers? Your post is even more of a brain fart because you neglected to point out the most basic rent seeking extravaganza we have in Pennsylvania right now - the Marcellus Shale.

In any event, rent seeking happens and it happens in places you care about and there is little you are willing to do about it.

[thegreekdog]

Term limits? Funny, every once a decade politicians spout this phrase, that's only when they run for office against an incumbent. Once they win, they become silent on the subject.

It is why term limits cannot be "voluntary," must be "constitutional" and must be imposed by an outside source (in the case of the Federal Government, the only way term limits would ever be imposed would be though an Article 5 Convention of the States).

I summon Old Hickory!

America has a long history of dominant power switching back n forth over time between the executive and the legislative branch. And don't forget in the time of FDR, war or no war, American's were extremely worried their country was turning into a dictatorship.

It was reasonable to be scared of the Nazis Progressives taking over, sure.

ftfy

If the complaint is "we have a choice between A and A2," I put the blame somewhat on voters and mostly on the political parties. This division stems from rent-seeking and the "problems" associated with it. The best we (and by "we" I mean basically voters, although that is stretching it) could do is the Occupy movement. Which is gone now and was vastly hypocritical to begin with. Again, that goes to the "not in enough pain to care" theory that I have. Those kids with their iphones and Steve Madden shoes don't have enough pain to do anything about rent seeking (I'm also convinced they don't know what rent seeking is or else just associate rent seeking with one political party and not the other).

I am tempted to start with an "LOL", but that is not good debating.

"Rent seeking" as you use it is nothing more than a rhetorical way to utterly dismiss anyone else's needs and wants ...(at other's expense and by force of law)... as ignorable, even negative desires.

ftfy

Glad you're still adamantly in favor of serious threads only.

[thegreekdog]

Term limits? Funny, every once a decade politicians spout this phrase, that's only when they run for office against an incumbent. Once they win, they become silent on the subject.

It is why term limits cannot be "voluntary," must be "constitutional" and must be imposed by an outside source (in the case of the Federal Government, the only way term limits would ever be imposed would be though an Article 5 Convention of the States).

I summon Old Hickory!

America has a long history of dominant power switching back n forth over time between the executive and the legislative branch. And don't forget in the time of FDR, war or no war, American's were extremely worried their country was turning into a dictatorship.

It was reasonable to be scared of the Nazis Progressives taking over, sure.

ftfy

If the complaint is "we have a choice between A and A2," I put the blame somewhat on voters and mostly on the political parties. This division stems from rent-seeking and the "problems" associated with it. The best we (and by "we" I mean basically voters, although that is stretching it) could do is the Occupy movement. Which is gone now and was vastly hypocritical to begin with. Again, that goes to the "not in enough pain to care" theory that I have. Those kids with their iphones and Steve Madden shoes don't have enough pain to do anything about rent seeking (I'm also convinced they don't know what rent seeking is or else just associate rent seeking with one political party and not the other).

I am tempted to start with an "LOL", but that is not good debating.

"Rent seeking" as you use it is nothing more than a rhetorical way to utterly dismiss anyone else's needs and wants ...(at other's expense and by force of law)... as ignorable, even negative desires.

ftfy

Glad you're still adamantly in favor of serious threads only.

[thegreekdog]

Term limits? Funny, every once a decade politicians spout this phrase, that's only when they run for office against an incumbent. Once they win, they become silent on the subject.

It is why term limits cannot be "voluntary," must be "constitutional" and must be imposed by an outside source (in the case of the Federal Government, the only way term limits would ever be imposed would be though an Article 5 Convention of the States).

I summon Old Hickory!

America has a long history of dominant power switching back n forth over time between the executive and the legislative branch. And don't forget in the time of FDR, war or no war, American's were extremely worried their country was turning into a dictatorship.

It was reasonable to be scared of the Nazis Progressives taking over, sure.

ftfy

If the complaint is "we have a choice between A and A2," I put the blame somewhat on voters and mostly on the political parties. This division stems from rent-seeking and the "problems" associated with it. The best we (and by "we" I mean basically voters, although that is stretching it) could do is the Occupy movement. Which is gone now and was vastly hypocritical to begin with. Again, that goes to the "not in enough pain to care" theory that I have. Those kids with their iphones and Steve Madden shoes don't have enough pain to do anything about rent seeking (I'm also convinced they don't know what rent seeking is or else just associate rent seeking with one political party and not the other).

I am tempted to start with an "LOL", but that is not good debating.

"Rent seeking" as you use it is nothing more than a rhetorical way to utterly dismiss anyone else's needs and wants ...(at other's expense and by force of law)... as ignorable, even negative desires.

ftfy

Glad you're still adamantly in favor of serious threads only.