Originally posted by whodeyUh, they're our elected representatives. Be thankful you live in a representative democracy and not a people's Bolivarian revolution, etc.
"545 people" By Charlie Reese - former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel Newspaper.
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are ...[text shortened]... at they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
3 edits
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThe key to why the original US model of government worked so well was that the wisdom of the Founding Fathers that recognized that checks and balances were the key to having a representative form of government. They created three branches of government to oversee the other for this reason. Although their insight into the corruptibility of human nature and the subsequent need for checks and balances, as a result, was brilliant, the system was and is not perfect. In fact, any laws set in stone can be twisted, added on to, and maneuvered around and that is exactly what we see today. For example, even though there are checks and balances within government, what checks and balances are there on government? You could argue that voting is the one check and balance to keep government in its place because you will vote them out of office due to them not doing their job. Unfortunately, however, partisan politics have contributed significantly to the deterioration of this check and balance system. Specifically, politicians create voting blocks that vote for them just because they belong to a particular party and not based upon their performance. Then you have partisan blame games where the other party is blamed for everything and the other party is holier than thou. In fact, it matters little how much "bad" they cause because they can do NO wrong in this partisan frame work. Mostly this is due to several reasons. The first of which is that someone may have a professional or economic interest in bolstering a certain political party. This includes lobbyists and business owners etc. After that, Mickey Mouse could be the candidate and they would then vote or support that candidate. Another problem is that some people are sold out on particular social ideologies. For example, some will vote for a particular candidate because of the parties position on certain social issues such as the right for gays to marry or prevent people from having abortions. Every other issue pales in comparison even though they may be horrible regarding every other position. Just look at these boards and you can see that. People pick a political party and then defend all the candidates within that party to the death. More than likely it is due to the selling of ones soul to a particular party ideology over another. The kicker then is at the end of the day both parties blame the other so it appears that no one is accountable when in fact both often collude with the other behind the scenes.
Please point one out you think is better.
Now as for what would work better, I say one in which reform is mandatory from time to time instead of passing legislation that is set in stone and then becomes antiquated or was fatally flawed upon its inception. Examples are social security and the welfare system. Once both of these were passed, they became sacred cows even though both are fatally flawed as is. In addition, term limits would help prevent politicians such a Kennedy from solidifying an office for life via his ever increasing political power and patronage. And lastly, I would decentralize power and give more to the states than the federal government. I think since the US was founded, the shift towards an ever increasingly powerful US federal government has taken root. Shifting the power back to a greater number of people is yet another type of check and balance that is much needed.
4 edits
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterYes and no. In all actuality, it is the parties determine who is electable in large measure and this is often determined by the power and influence they already have within that party. It is then a power struggle within that party that determines their electability. And then even at that, the delegates within that party can override the popular vote upon the nomination of the candidate for the party. In fact, I think this actually may have happened with the nomination of Obama over Hililary as Hillary may have had the popular vote over Obama. Then we see McCain rise to power after winning a few states during his run for the Presidency. By the time that his nomination was to be voted upon in the state the I live in, the election was essentially over. This is yet another way of snuffing out the over all popular vote within the country. In addition, after the general election the popular vote of the people can be overridden by the electoral college.
Uh, they're our elected representatives. Be thankful you live in a representative democracy and not a people's Bolivarian revolution, etc.
Originally posted by whodeyHave you actually understood a word I'm saying?
So your saying that the best system of government is the current one in the US?
It's not about better, best, bestest or greatness.
It's about who put the system in place to benefit whom.
The US system benefits a small group of world wide citizens (not Americans per se). It milks the US worker out for all they are worth.
the wisdom of the Founding Fathers that recognized that checks and balances were the key to having a representative form of government. They created three branches of government to oversee the other for this reason.
This is based on the Trias Politica which was first introduced in Ancient Greece.
Unfortunately, however, partisan politics have contributed significantly to the deterioration of this check and balance system.
Oh dear.
Right... a little questionnaire:
1. Why did the ancient Greek democracy eventually give way to Alexander from Macedonia?
2. Why did the Roman Senate give way to a system of emperors?
3. Why did England create a parliament?
4. Why did Russians do away with the Tsar system?
---------------------------
Contemplate the answers and / or look them up before reading on....
---------------------------
There's one answer: Somebody else wanted control.
A single fellow (in some cases) or a group of people wanted to move power from A to B.
Who formed the ruling system in a country or region generally tends to point in the direction of who was to benefit from its origination.
Who profits most from the the ruling system in a country or region generally tends to point in the direction of who's benefiting from the system at that moment.
Who is persecuted* the most from the ruling system in a country or region is generally a reasonable indicator of who's going to end up changing the system in their favour.
All it takes is means. And the more a system opposes the "persecuted" from gaining these means, is the more the system is in its death throes.
Always has been, always will be.
*persecuted can be interpreted in various ways. From actual persecution to sustaining a system without personal gain.
Originally posted by shavixmirI don't think you and I disagree on this topic. What I am saying, however, is that you can frustrate this natural tendency to desire absolute control by putting in place checks and balances and/or a continual effort for reform. In a religious sense, you might even refer to it as a "revival" of sorts. That is what is needed in my opinion.
-
There's one answer: Somebody else wanted control.
A single fellow (in some cases) or a group of people wanted to move power from A to B.
Originally posted by whodeyNo. What you were saying was that 545 "elected" individuals were abusing the system.
I don't think you and I disagree on this topic. What I am saying, however, is that you can frustrate this natural tendency to desire absolute control by putting in place checks and balances and/or a continual effort for reform. In a religious sense, you might even refer to it as a "revival" of sorts. That is what is needed in my opinion.
And I disagree with that analysis. They're doing exactly what the people who control them want them to do.
1 edit
Originally posted by shavixmirActually, the Founding Fathers studied the failure of the Greek and Roman democratic systems quite thoroughly when setting ours up. They sure tried -- and I think succeeded -- in setting up an improved version.
the wisdom of the Founding Fathers that recognized that checks and balances were the key to having a representative form of government. They created three branches of government to oversee the other for this reason.
This is based on the Trias Politica which was first introduced in Ancient Greece.
Unfortunately, however, partisan politics h eted in various ways. From actual persecution to sustaining a system without personal gain.
I think you've watched 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington' once too many times. The arguments made by "the rich and powerful" to legislators are through campaign contributions, which are watched, but more forcefully by arguing that what is good for business is good for American citizens.
They are sometimes right; other times they are talking complete horse turd and are just trying to protect their interests.
BTW, Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life -- for the very reason that it renders them essentially immune to such pressure. If Congress tries to unconstitutionally protect Big Business, the Court will smack them down.
Originally posted by shavixmirSome people say there is a God controlling our destinies.
No. What you were saying was that 545 "elected" individuals were abusing the system.
And I disagree with that analysis. They're doing exactly what the people who control them want them to do.
You say that there are "people" controlling our elected representatives.
Who are these "people"? What are their names? Do they exist, or are you imagining things?
Originally posted by spruce112358Where to start?
Actually, the Founding Fathers studied the failure of the Greek and Roman democratic systems quite thoroughly when setting ours up. They sure tried -- and I think succeeded -- in setting up an improved version.
Did they set up a voting system for all citizens? Slaves and Indians alike?
No... so not so much different that the Greek or Roman systems, when you come to think of it.
I don't know "Mr. Smith goes to Washington", so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Your whole basis of argumentation is wrong.
To take a simple example: United Fruits.
They spend millions of euros a year on funding both the Republican party and the Democratic party.
How does that compare to Joe down at the gas station's yearly contribution, do you reckon?
Who dictates more to both parties what is right and what is wrong: Joe filling gas at the petrol station or United Fruits, their international share holders and the people pulling their strings?
Not to mention oil, weapons, medicine, etc.
See where this is going? Do you feel it yet?
Originally posted by shavixmirYou are overlooking one important fact:
Where to start?
Did they set up a voting system for all citizens? Slaves and Indians alike?
No... so not so much different that the Greek or Roman systems, when you come to think of it.
I don't know "Mr. Smith goes to Washington", so I have no idea what you're talking about.
Your whole basis of argumentation is wrong.
To take a simple example: ...[text shortened]... ot to mention oil, weapons, medicine, etc.
See where this is going? Do you feel it yet?
Senator Smith knows that Joe down at that gas station has one vote that can get him elected.
United Fruits has zero votes.
Joe has a family and friends. Joe talks to other people who have votes. Joe and all his friends hate those bastards over at United Fruits.
Originally posted by spruce112358Rockefeller
Some people say there is a God controlling our destinies.
You say that there are "people" controlling our elected representatives.
Who are these "people"? What are their names? Do they exist, or are you imagining things?
Trump
Lindner
Dole
McMillan
Guggenheim
Etc.
Also, if you're really interested in banging your head against a wall, try finding out who's behind organizations such as:
The Carlyle Group
GlaxoSmithKline
Etc.
Originally posted by spruce112358Sure Joe does.
You are overlooking one important fact:
Senator Smith knows that Joe down at that gas station has one vote that can get him elected.
United Fruits has zero votes.
Joe has a family and friends. Joe talks to other people who have votes. Joe and all his friends hate those bastards over at United Fruits.
Sure he does.
Are you sure Joe isn't driving around waving the Stars and Stripes, talking about freedom fries and eating pineapple chunks without even knowing who owns Del Monte?
Sure he does.
Originally posted by shavixmirEr...I don't really know Joe all that well, you know. I mean, he is fictional.
Sure Joe does.
Sure he does.
Are you sure Joe isn't driving around waving the Stars and Stripes, talking about freedom fries and eating pineapple chunks without even knowing who owns Del Monte?
Sure he does.
Could you rephrase the question?