The USA Government: What does it mean to you?

[jass]

I've been wondering to myself lately, what if people had to be qualified to vote? Not an I.Q. test, but maybe a basic spelling test, at the very least? I'm tired of reading arguments that are just trash all over the page, and thinking to myself, "that's an American voter. No wonder our country is f*cked up."

Voters should be able to answer the following questions:

What is a representative democracy?
What is fascism?
What is communism?

That should clear up some of the "the fascist communists in the government keep passing laws nobody voted for!"

And people running for office should be forced to pass a much longer and detailed political test.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: Filene's

Voters should be able to answer the following questions:

What is a representative democracy?
What is fascism?
What is communism?

That should clear up some of the "the fascist communists in the government keep passing laws nobody voted for!"

And people running for office should be forced to pass a much longer and detailed political test.

What I don't understand is why do all these government representives, for examples, Mayors, senators, congressman, governors ect. Can actually hold office for as long as they want? Doesn't that set the tone for fascism?

Our Mayor is working on a 20 year-term and even if he was doing a good job. Having a regime in for that long does not balance our society. It only creates a view of one person that has not changed in 20 years.

Boston can't even balance it's budget. I personally believe that any Govt. or state rep should have a maximum term of 8 years. Then we gets some fresh ideas on the table. This will create some balance in America.

Their is a senator in office right now who is over 90 years old. Are you telling me he actually reads those bills going across his desk? He probably can't even piss without a staff member holding his little pipe towards the toilet.

 

[Lurker]

Re: Filene's

The founding fathers never expected people to be life long politicians. If they knew that people were going to establish personal fiefdoms and work full bore to establish an aristocracy in a few generations, you damn well bet the framers of the constitution would have included term limits. The whole 'ballot box as term limits' and 'freedom to chose someone to hold office for life' is a load of bullshit by people who know damn well gerrymandering favors their chosen incumbent 90% of the time. This was a big part of Washington's reason to only serve two terms.

 

[GW2500]

Re: Filene's

I think differently, especially for presidents. I think 4 year terms are too short. You're basically a president for 2 years and then for the next two you are back on the campain trail. Even if terms were just uped to 5 years. It would allow the president to be a leader for longer than a canidate trying to get his job back. And why a great leader has to leave their office after a certain amount of terms dosn't make sense to me. If you're bad you will get voted out, or if truely horrible impeached. Seems like we have the ability (in theory) to get rid of bad politicians if need be, but we don't want great ones to stay for too long. I mean how much change can you really do in 4 years. Especially when many things take a long time to realize the benefits of in our complex society.

And another dynamic of these short terms is that the super rich oligarchy that secretly pulls a lot of strings (and has way more power than our forfathers would like) can wait out any president. It's like presidents get to briefly do business w/ old money, if president's play by their rules.

So while us common folk kick, scream, and fight about all the issues of the day and work our asses off to live decently, old money sits back and collects billions upon billions. Often they get the govt to decide things in favor b/c they can buy politicians (lobbyists) and can wait out the ones that don't play by their rules. B/c at the end of the day all the running around we all do and the money asscotiated with it, eventually gets kicked up to old moneys' bank accounts. They have a choke hold on wealth, and only leaders of powerful countries can make things more fair (a billion people live in extreme poverty for a macro reason). These imbalances can often cause violence, whether inner city poor killing each other for scraps, or entire counties basically doing the same thing. It takes a govt of the people for the people to take on this power structure that quitely runs a lot of this world ( and this world is fucked up). But if you're only in office for a tops of 8 years you stand no chance of winning this very old battle. Especially when a canidate needs a lot of money to fund a legit campain, but talking about that would make an even longer rant.

 

[Lurker]

Re: Filene's

This whole discussion should be split into the general forum:

We've never had presidents which haven't accomplished much in four or eight years? I beg to differ.

Term limits are very important for presidencies. Take a look at South America and Africa if you don't understand why.

Term limits in general would do a lot curtail patronage systems. No matter how honest a politician is, they make deals and owe favors over time, after a long time it's impossible for them to truly represent the majority of their constituents.

The complaining about lobbyists is a bit overblown. Average citizens give to larger organizations which in turn hire lobbyists on their behalf. Same thing with corporations. What are corporations? They are large entities made up of people whom they employ and whose shareholders and customers have a vested interest in certain things, which the corporation then lobbies for on their behalf.

 

[TheRifleman]

Re: Filene's

Term limits in general would do a lot curtail patronage systems. No matter how honest a politician is, they make deals and owe favors over time, after a long time it's impossible for them to truly represent the majority of their constituents.

Lurker,

Your quote should be printed on every front page of every major newspaper.
This would be real change if congress and the president ever offered this situation.

I mean you notice nobody in the media ever makes these types of claims.

 

[GW2500]

Comparing African countries to America is apples to oranges. But I suppose you are right corruption can definitely creep into lifelong terms. But while short terms can help presidents stay more honest, the presidency can still be corrupted. Because of frequent turnover, the extremely wealthy can get their grips around the president's chair. B/c presidents come and go, these people (old money) stay at the same place, right next the president's ear sitting on their billions. It?s this dynamic that causes the real issues and inequalities of the world to go unchanged. We bicker over gay marriage meanwhile the underlying reasons why this world can be so fucked up go unaddressed. And they go unaddressed b/c to fix them would mean that some billionaires would loose some of their choke hold on wealth. And we can't let the astronomically well off to go down to just extremely well off even if it would lift hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty. And even if a president came along and tried to realign things for a more fair economy, these people would view the president as a dying king, just wait him/her out and corrupt the next one. Longer terms would give a president more leverage in taking on the 1% that own 90% of the wealth. And if you ask me it?s that simple stat that explains why so much violence and poverty occurs in this world. In a nut shell the rest of us fight for scraps and there ain?t enough to go around. And the person who is supposed to represent us common folk, has to do way too much personal business w/ them. They paid off enough people to become permanent advisors to the presidency. And quite frankly it feels like to be a legitimate presidential candidate one has to apply for the job w/ these puppet masters. I?ll admit I love a good conspiracy theory, but I fell like this is the subtle reality of the world.


As far as lobbyists go. I view it like this, humans are prone to sin (for lack of a better word). And w/ lobbyists we are putting way too many of the ingredients for corruption in the same room.

 

[Lurker]

Alexander Tytler, The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.
It can only exist until voters discover they can vote themselves generous benefits from the public treasury. From that moment, the majority always votes for candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

The US Constitution was written to limit the power and reach of government, protect the rights of the individual, and very importantly protect private property for that reason. It's also why it's been all downhill since the constitution was amended to allow income taxation.
​

 

[statler]

So you feel we should go back to a pre-1913 standard of living?

 

[Lurker]

No, the government should go back to 1913 levels of taxation and spending as percentage of GDP.

-or more realistically-

Given that the government prior to 1913 used to collect most of its revenue from tariffs (which themselves are bad idea compared to free trade), change the income tax to a constitutionally fixed (very important that it is fixed to limit government growth and shrinkage to the size of the GDP) national sales tax. (NOT A VAT, because that's probably the least transparent, regressive, and most insidious tax even devised by man.)

I'd also get rid of all corporate and industrial profits taxes and watch as all the industrial production and outsourcing returns mighty quickly to our shores.

The standard f living has never been influenced more by government spending than it has by private enterprise.

 

[Beton Brut]

I'd also get rid of all corporate and industrial profits taxes and watch as all the industrial production and outsourcing returns mighty quickly to our shores.

Not to poke holes in your balloon, but do our schools properly prepare students to work in a manufacturing setting? Do they have the skills?

 

[GW2500]

Private enterprise ain't all that. How many Enrons, BPs, AIG, Country Wides do you need before you have to realize they are just greedy bastards. You give these companies tax breaks and do you know where the extra money ends up. In the owners pockets. Which brings me back to that every one kicks up to Old money.

 

[Lurker]

Not to poke holes in your balloon, but do our schools properly prepare students to work in a manufacturing setting? Do they have the skills?

People will learn anything, resorting to teaching themselves when schools fail, when the pay is good. How many people knew anything about computers two decades ago? Did we need a massive nationally subsidized training effort by the government to teach everyone the internet? No!

Private enterprise ain't all that.

Yes they are, look at the economies of every heavily socialized or communist country (you have no clue how much it sucked to live in the Soviet Union) in the world in comparison. How many state run industries are actually run very well? British Petroleum? The US Postal Service? FannieMae? FreddyMac? The MBTA?

How many Enrons, BPs, AIG, Country Wides do you need before you have to realize they are just greedy bastards.

Those are a few out of how many businesses in the US? Drop in the bucket. It is also worth noting the business you've selected WERE HEAVILY SUPPORTED AND ENABLED BY THE GOVERNMENT COMPARED TO THEIR COMPETITION.

You give these companies tax breaks and do you know where the extra money ends up. In the owners pockets.

In the owners pockets who invest it in other ventures and buy things which they pay taxes on. That 'extra' money goes to pay dividend to investors, peoples' retirement funds, lots of other things which generate economic activity.

Which brings me back to that every one kicks up to Old money.

So I guess no one can have private property and absolutely no money can be transferred within families when people die. I hate to break it to you but in every language, the first word after "Mama!" that every kid learns to say is "Mine!" A system that doesn't allow ownership, that doesn't allow you to say "Mine!" when you grow up has, to put it mildly a fatal design flaw. From the time Mr. Developing Nation was forced to read "The Little Red Book" in exchange for a blob of rice, till the time he figured out that waiting in line for a loaf of pumpernickel was boring as fuck, took about three generations. Decades of indoctrination, manipulation, censorship and KGB/GRU excursions (I'm sorry for Angola and Somalia, my bad) haven't altered this fact: People want a piece of their own little Something-or-Other, and, if they don't get it, have a tendency to initiate counterrevolution.