A Democracy too far?

[JohnRoberts]

Wouldn't the "democratic" way to repeal the ACA be to win a majority and the presidency, thus removing the possibility of a veto?

Sounds like a good plan.

I doubt the founders would endorse the tactics used today of grinding the government to a halt over something that was indeed passed into law.

I am not so sure. they were not fans of big government, while the debt ceiling is a different matter, that no one seriously expects it to be messed with, while we do have some infantile behavior going on (kids playing with explosives).

Don't like it? Use it as part of your campaign, get elected and change it.

That's pretty much what the conservative faction did in 2010,, now they are trying to deliver on the promises they were elected under, but like you I do not agree with their strategy.

[joke]This reminds me of a joke when the different body parts were arguing about who was most important.
The brain said i was most important without me your couldn't think.
The mouth said no I'm more important without me your couldn't talk.
and so on until they came to the asshole.. who said I'll just slam shut and we can see who is most important.
After on a few days they all agreed the asshole was most important.  [/joke]

Voice your opinion in the government (like the House voting 40 times for repeal of the ACA, kudos to them), then use that to change the law by getting a majority elected and the presidency. It worked for prohibition, civil right, womens rights, etc. IMO, the Republicans have one chance to change it and it's by winning in 2016, not by collapsing the government today.

While we have until the end of time to repeal it, history suggests that entitlements rarely get repealed, so our best hope from here is to reduce the bleeding from this poorly engineered attempt, by making changes to almost everything about it.

Obama would never repeal the law, and they know that, so why are they playing chicken? To get re-elected by their base?

pretty much

And by that process they're weakening the whole Republican party and driving voters to Democrats since the Tea Party and Republicans have split into two factions, thus reducing their influence from voters. Plus the Republicans are now associated with the "wacko" Tea Party (and yes, TP'ers actually endorse this term) who most Americans see as the biggest reason for congress getting nothing accomplished. They're shooting themselves and their closest, sort-of ally in both of their feet.

This perception of who is actually responsible for the impasse is the game at play and Republicans have the deck stacked against them by an administration friendly media. This is not the speaker of the house doing what "he" thinks is best, but trying to deal with some 80 odd intransigent representatives in his group he needs for the majority.

I do not find name calling very constructive.. See if you can work that into a joke.   

I'm sorry but our government isn't suppose to work this way. Obstructing a bill before it becomes law is one thing, obstructing a law and closing the government because of that law is another. That's not how you repeal a law.

Government isn't supposed to work at all. They have already co-opted the major banks with the Tarp and subsequent regulation, now they are sinking their hooks into healthcare which is another 17% of our GDP. this will not end well.  The more influence they gain over the private economy the more attractive gaining political office becomes to wealthy interest groups.

JR

PS: It is kind of bizarre to watch the regulators go after the major banks that they encouraged to buy and merge with the troubled institutions during the crisis (2007/2008). Now years later they are suing the parents that bought these troubled companies as a favor to the treasury dept. Of course they have the money to pay astronomical fines because the crazy low inter bank rate for several years in a row has been a license for the banks to print money (not literally) but make fat profits off the interest rate spread. It's like the government puts money in the pocket with one hand, then takes it out with the other hand. The executives that they are supposedly punishing got scraped off in 2007/8 when their companies changed hands.  And the beat goes on.

PPS: Stock market is predicting a deal before debt ceiling bumps. While market is not 100% accurate, it is better at predicting the future than listening to pukes on the WWW (like me) pontificate about what will happen.    8)

 

[JohnRoberts]

There are more than ten fallacious arguments...

How about ad hominum thinly veiled as a joke... ? 8)

I would add that civility and mutual respect are useful. Actually try to listen to and understand opposing arguments when they offer something new and different. Often there are a short list of repeated talking points that barely deserve response, while that is all relative too. A variant on the "bandwagon" fallavy is what I call the group-think distortion. When people surround themselves and only communicate with people who think exactly like they do, they do not test many of their basic premises, just accept them as true. Another distortion caused by group think is that an anti-democrat, or anti-republican joke that seems funny in a cohesive group is not funny in mixed company, etc.

I am impressed with how well behaved forum members are now compared to several years ago when there was more heat than light surrounding such inflammatory topics. please keep up the good behavior.  8)

JR. 

 

[mattamatta]

I am impressed with how well behaved forum members are now compared to several years ago when there was more heat than light surrounding such inflammatory topics. please keep up the good behavior.  8)

+1

I've been skimming over this thread, and I'm quite impressed that all of you have been able to discuss politics with so much civility, and actually are having valid and interesting discourse on the subject.

I don't know if I've ever seen that in an internet forum before.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I have a theory about that too... The partisan spinners do not want civil discourse about political topics because then actual ideas would be open for inspection. If they can keep everybody hopped up with name calling and imaginary evil motives, they are easier to keep in their respective corners.

There are even books about some of these strategies, kind of like seeing the man behind the curtain in the wizard of Oz.

JR

 

[sodderboy]

Everyone forgot that it is actually the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act".

I would be interested to see that medical expenditures chart zeroed at 1950 rather than 1980 when the concept of HMO was already taking hold.  It would be a much different chart, and three groups would derive different charts from the same data.

The big problem with the cost of medical care is that the progressives have owned the vocabulary for decades.  What the heck is "health insurance" anyway?  It is staying away from burritos and going to the gym for me.  Medical insurance is actually quite inexpensive for the majority of the population the same way term life insurance is.  The actuarial math for each is quite similar.  Progressives also own the concept that one should only pay 10 beans to see a doctor.  Where does that come from?  Oh yes, medical care is a human right.

Medical insurance, for me as a self-employed person in NYS has been screwed since 1990 thanks to Big Health and Big Government.  The NYS Insurance Board did the actual regulating at the bidding of the corps and pols.  I cannot get major medical to cover hospital only.  I would have to work for a large corporation in order to get a range of medical plans.  So I only have choices of "health insurance", my choice of which costs 12 large per year up 30% in the past years since PPACA was passed.  I am thankfully healthy, but I use that insurance every chance I get because I am already paying for it.  That is a business model for increasing costs.  Built right in by design.

I am glad that one branch of US government is currently procedural quicksand.  I don't think they are going far enough.  I as an individual want the same "exemptions by presidential fiat" that are given to union, government, and corporate workers.  Why not?  And just like the "sequester", the administration is making it as painful as possible for the public.  For instance instead of scooping out some mid-level mush in the Pentagon they grounded the Blue Angels and summer air shows all across the country saw poor attendance.  This week National Parks is on double overtime barb-wiring open air monuments and barricading parking lots.  Pure theater.

DaveP I appreciate you and your occasional sanctimony.  It is always a reaffirmation of my own beliefs.  I am not sure what you could do in Parliament if you were unfairly targeted by a law from which more than half of your population was not.

Mike

 

[DaveP]

Mike,

Hmm, "Sanctimony", interesting, how you've interpreted my comments:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched". — Thomas Jefferson, (1743-1826), 3rd U.S. president, author of the Declaration of Independence.

From what I've been saying, I would have thought the opposite was true, as I'm with Thomas Jefferson on that.

I can appreciate that you are probably typical of the American spirit of self- reliance and there's nothing wrong in that.  In the UK we have a different history and we chose to make healthcare a civil right and that's our choice.  It's not perfect but it does give the population one less thing to worry about and a point to rally around.

But this thread was never about the subject of your present troubles (although some have made it so) it was about how such a great nation as the USA can be brought to a standstill by its own system.  To the outside world it looks like your system has been hijacked by a minority interest group, they may have your support, that's your right too.  We on the outside have a right to comment, cos when you sneeze, the rest of us catch a cold too.
best
DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

Mike,

Hmm, "Sanctimony", interesting, how you've interpreted my comments:

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched". — Thomas Jefferson, (1743-1826), 3rd U.S. president, author of the Declaration of Independence.

Just words on a piece of paper, and designed to be changed by amendment.

From what I've been saying, I would have thought the opposite was true, as I'm with Thomas Jefferson on that.

There were disagreements and public arguments between the founders during the crafting of this. This was not the product of some single minded group hug, but forged on the anvil of fiery debate.

I can appreciate that you are probably typical of the American spirit of self- reliance and there's nothing wrong in that.  In the UK we have a different history and we chose to make healthcare a civil right and that's our choice.  It's not perfect but it does give the population one less thing to worry about and a point to rally around.

I don't think the majority of Americans are opposed to healthcare reform that makes healthcare accessible to all, we differ in believing that the government is the most effective and efficient way to deliver that. Instead of providing a safety net for just the poorest among us, and let the free market compete for those new dollars, we instead are forcing healthy young people to pay, in effect subsidize the older sicker consumers of expensive healthcare. If I was a young adult I'd be more than a little angry, but most young people haven't figured out what is going on yet. As an older sicker (not really sicker but older) American I should embrace the wealth transfer from young to old, but I oppose any forced wealth transfer by government as damaging to our republic.

But this thread was never about the subject of your present troubles (although some have made it so) it was about how such a great nation as the USA can be brought to a standstill by its own system.  To the outside world it looks like your system has been hijacked by a minority interest group, they may have your support, that's your right too.  We on the outside have a right to comment, cos when you sneeze, the rest of us catch a cold too.
best
DaveP

I am surely repeating myself by now. The house has the legal right to write budget legislation and to defund certain areas that they are displeased with. This is one of the fundamental checks and balances between our 3 branch system to deny too much power to any one branch. As I have also said before they (the 80 very conservative republicans in the House) will not win this one in the court of public opinion since reportage is biased (IMO).  Both sides have drawn lines in the sand and I don't expect Putin to bail anybody out this time.  ;D  They need to stop messing around with dynamite and one side better blink before Oct 17th when some real damage could be done.

JR

PS: How this budget scrum looks to the rest of the world is not important (IMO), I am far more concerned by how our actions (not words) are perceived by the rest of the world. Obama just cancelled his participation in a series of Asia and Pacific summits. The US and China have competing visions for the region and we just gave China a free pass to promote theirs alone without a thoughtful alternative, so Obama can stay home and slam the republicans in press conferences. I expect this budget impasse to be resolved but we do not get a do-over on losing international credibility by staying away from high profile meetings. Face time is very important in that part of the world. I suspect Obama is more concerned about the visuals here of his leaving the US right now and how that could be spun by his opposition. Again a focus on small ball politics rather than big picture leadership.

Of course as usual opinions will vary.   

 

[Pip]

I myself have no problem with a single payer system regulated by a government branch. I think that is the divide in my country and that most Americans don't really understand what that means. It is often called socialist but it is not.

I am not now nor have I ever been afraid of any government regulatory group. I have been annoyed, I have had to take time to deal with them, I have seen them as formidable and to be respected but afraid no.

I used to work for an odd branch of the US government one often not thought about, The National Park Service a very interesting job it was too. I learned, among other things, that what it means to work for the people of your country is not just an honor and a privilege but also a calling, as most private sector workers make in some cases twice as much money for the same job. But the benefits were great and administered by the government matter of fact all things were handled very well and quickly. 

I do not think mandatory conscription is right but I do think all Americans should perform some service as part of there educational experience. It would give them a true understanding of what government is and that it is not always a bad thing.

I don't think that a freemarket economy works sadly I think the world is to Machiavellian for that. Besides if we turn it all over to the corporations what do I need elected officials for.

I am not a rah-rah flag waiver either I know that things are not perfect and I am not always proud to be an American but I am always willing to roll my sleeves up and get back there!

Right now one of the branches of government has brought the whole thing to a screaching halt and in many ways that is only going to hurt the ones who are most reliant ongovernment services for daily living needs. But it also means that the age old adage "action breeds reaction" is now in full swing lets see what We The People do in the coming months. This democracy gone too far still isn't a vacuum, the air has been pushed!

 

[JohnRoberts]

I myself have no problem with a single payer system regulated by a government branch. I think that is the divide in my country and that most Americans don't really understand what that means. It is often called socialist but it is not.

My opposition to socialism is not because of what it's called but because it doesn't work. Central planners are incapable of making decisions as effectively as billions of individuals acting in their self interest.

I am not now nor have I ever been afraid of any government regulatory group. I have been annoyed, I have had to take time to deal with them, I have seen them as formidable and to be respected but afraid no.

There are a few trends I find disturbing. First there are so many federal laws (and regulations) that it is too easy to inadvertently be breaking laws and get caught up in selective prosecution. (note the Lacey amendment that was used against Gibson, was recently dusted of to raid Lumber Liquidators. Apparently wood from a region with endangered tigers). Secondly I perceive a more activist progressive approach to all aspects of regulation to promote a partisan agenda through selective enforcement. The IRS brouhaha is just the tip of the iceberg. President Obama promised to change this country if elected and he is well on his way. 

I used to work for an odd branch of the US government one often not thought about, The National Park Service a very interesting job it was too. I learned, among other things, that what it means to work for the people of your country is not just an honor and a privilege but also a calling, as most private sector workers make in some cases twice as much money for the same job. But the benefits were great and administered by the government matter of fact all things were handled very well and quickly. 

There are also numerous examples of government workers getting paid more than similar private sector jobs. I recall decades ago where government work was generally low pay, for low effort work. I don't know that government work has gotten any harder but the pay seems to have improved.
-----
The park service has been in the news recently for their attempt to prevent aging WWII veterans from visiting open space sites in DC. If they were truly on furlough they wouldn't be around to interfere with the private citizens visiting their monuments. The government works for all the people not just friends of the administration.

I do not think mandatory conscription is right but I do think all Americans should perform some service as part of there educational experience. It would give them a true understanding of what government is and that it is not always a bad thing.

Being one of the few posters here who has actually been drafted (1970) I have an opinion about that.  US draftees (during Viet Nam) were an offsetting balance to the career soldiers. We were short timers with a civilian mentality and tended to keep the military honest from the inside.

I have nothing but respect for the modern soldiers who serve but another benefit of the draft is that the true cost of military service was spread more evenly across the entire population and not just born by people who did it as a job, or a calling.

I have no problem with some form of universal service while I do not trust the current administration to not co-opt that too for promoting their partisan agendas. 

I don't think that a freemarket economy works sadly I think the world is to Machiavellian for that. Besides if we turn it all over to the corporations what do I need elected officials for.

This is an old topic and well vetted here. Un-fettered free market capitalism often leads to excess so there is a valid need for regulation to prevent so much consolidation of economic power that it distorts competition. The too big to fail banks and flawed remedy for that, encouraging even more consolidation leading to even more concentration of economic power, with a permanent installation of government regulators with life time employment is trading one flawed situation for another.

I am not a rah-rah flag waiver either I know that things are not perfect and I am not always proud to be an American but I am always willing to roll my sleeves up and get back there!

amen.. while there are some strong disagreements about the best direction.

Right now one of the branches of government has brought the whole thing to a screaching halt and in many ways that is only going to hurt the ones who are most reliant ongovernment services for daily living needs. But it also means that the age old adage "action breeds reaction" is now in full swing lets see what We The People do in the coming months. This democracy gone too far still isn't a vacuum, the air has been pushed!

Not exactly the whole thing is halted. Becoming even more reliant on government services does not make us a stronger nation. Increasing the fraction of the private economy that the government is controlling just makes political campaigns more attractive for big money to pervert (Healthcare is 17% of GDP). just like increased regulation will not make too big to fail institution failure proof, legislation can not keep money out of politics, any more than they could legislate that gravity won't cause things to fall. It is the nature of money and power that they gravitate to each other, and the only way to keep big money from corrupting government is to keep government small and lean.  We are moving strongly in the wrong direction so I expect more not less big money influence in government with this path.

As usual I hope I am wrong.

JR

 

[bigugly]

I guess your founders did not anticipate that 230 odd years down the line, the very people who would hold them in such esteem (Tea Party) would subvert their carefully contrived system of government, but then the morals and standards of behaviour are probably not in the same class as back then.
best
DaveP

The Tea Party are not trying to "subvert" the workings of the government. Their whole raison d'être is to restore the original principles of our federal government after a century of manipulation and abuse by the progressive left. The tactics being currently employed may be unfruitful but their intention is to make our government return to its constitutional foundations.

 

[sodderboy]

Luckily our system CAN be put on pause by a "minority interest group"!

I am continuously sickened by the fact that less than 50% of the electorate goes to vote, so I plan on things to get severely totally suckier in the US before we get the vote count above 60%.  So many people admit that they were "too busy to go and vote" while others go and do it multiple times in some states.  OK, I forgot to go to the fire station last year and vote for the frigging chief, but I do vote the library budget and anything larger.

I believe that a government that legislates too many "civil rights" makes waaaaay too many civil wrongs in the process.  I guess it is a civil right to have a place to live in the UK, no matter how piss-ridden it is, so go with it.

I have been thinking all day, given my circumstances, WWDavePD?  "Lay down, sing a soft song, and take it" was never a contender.
With respect,
Mike

 

[DaveP]

Mike,
Don't forget I'm just curious here, the topic has a question mark.

Sorry if I came over as passing judgement, that was never my intention.

In many ways the UK is just like one of your states, so its hard for us to get our head around the federation deal.

Its even harder to understand the way probably half of the population is anti federal government, no matter which party is in power.

I can appreciate what you are saying about minorities being over-ruled by a majority, that's the downside of Democracy I guess.

There are no civil rights to have a place to live in the UK, I would not hold it up as a paragon of virtue in many respects.

There are a few things to be proud of but not enough to feel superior.  We tend to "grin and bear it" until the next election then we punish the offending party, sometimes for several elections in a row.

with respect
DaveP

 

[DaveP]

There are many similarities between American and UK politics, our Conservative party is like the Republican party, pro personal freedom and small government.  The Labour party is socialist but not really equivalent to the Democrats.  In very rough terms, the conservatives represent people with money who want to keep it and Labour represent those who don't have money.

I personally don't like either choice, the Labour party bangs on about poverty but never talks about the lifestyle choices of the poor.
It cost about $60/week to maintain a smoking habit in the UK, money which would have been better spent elswhere, gym membership and heathy food for example.  There are way too many young girls getting pregnant and supported by the state, there is no excuse for that choice.

The Conservatives advocate a capitalist system where by design, workers are a commodity to be switched on and off like a power supply, regardless of their personal consequences.  The amount of money some people get can seem like an obcenity to lower paid hard working people, even more so when they contrive to pay less tax than the rest of us.

I am coming up to retirement myself, and because of my age, I have seen a great many changes in my lifetime, most of which I don't like; over here we call it "Grumpy old man syndrome".   My politics are non-aligned, I am a practical pragmatist who believes in doing what needs to be done regardless of party or doctrine.

Immigration has been handled very badly over here, "Multiculturalism" has resulted in self-imposed apartheid with very little effort at integration, so that my country has become almost unrecognisable to that of my youth.  Don't get me wrong, I am not racist (I spent 2 years doing voluntary service in the Congo in my 20's) but I do believe that if you move to another country, you should actually like it so much that you want to integrate completely.  In this respect I believe that the USA has done a much better job than the UK, I get the impression that most of your citizens are proud of being American, no matter where they come from.

Anyway, I am not trying to change topic, I'm just trying to explain where I'm coming from.
best
DaveP

 

[hodad]

and the only way to keep big money from corrupting government is to keep government small and lean. 
JR

This is an article of faith on the right, & it's just not so.  If we have a small and lean govt., it will be a) less powerful than the mega-corporations it's supposed to be governing, and b) will be more (or perhaps more fully) corruptible due to its small size.  While it may not be ideal to have a big central govt., the alternative is much uglier.  And the "little guy" will be abused even more than he already is. 

Of course, the sad part is that the "drown govt in the bathtub" crowd actually don't do anything to shrink govt. spending--they spend even more while outsourcing to cronies/contributors who tend to do no better a job than the govt. (often worse) at a much higher cost. 

 

[sodderboy]

No hodad it IS the opposite.  Just look at all the government hacks that were a part of writing PPACA (trying to stay kinda on topic) who are now in the private sector making millions in consultation fees.

Same with the revolving door between US administrations, read plural please, and wall street. 

The bloated size and complicated legislation/regulation of the government agencies enables apparatchiks of all stripes to rotate between private and public sectors making millions.

"Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges" Tacitus, Annals  What modern progressive brilliance can refute this?

Mike

 

[hodad]

You can point up flaws in the current system and I won't disagree.  However, the "big govt. is the problem"  meme is, I reiterate, an article of faith. 

If you look at the period in US history when capitalism was burgeoning and govt. was small, you find some hardcore ugliness.  And you don't find govt. sticking up for the wronged party, be he rich or poor.  The system was perverted then as well, and the little guy got seriously shafted as a general rule. 



 

 

[JohnRoberts]

and the only way to keep big money from corrupting government is to keep government small and lean. 
JR

This is an article of faith on the right, & it's just not so.  If we have a small and lean govt., it will be a) less powerful than the mega-corporations it's supposed to be governing,

And who is advocating mega corporations? not me. This corruption of government due to crony capitalism was one of the things that the occupy crowd got right even thought they were hopeless at communicating their own ideas effectively.  I have consistently been in favor of anti-trust regulation to prevent the consolidation of too much business power. Big business is the enemy of small business, and small business is the real driving force for economic growth.

I think the recent relaxation of anti-trust concerns in the airline industry will lead to huge cost increases. The shot-gun wedding consolidation in the banking industry back a few years ago made the too-big to fail situation there worse not better.

Government does not need scale to regulate private industry they have the force of law and public support as long as they do not abuse that force of law (like the IRS).

and b) will be more (or perhaps more fully) corruptible due to its small size.

?? Small government is more corruptible than big government... That is a truly scary thought. It is hard to imagine them any more wasteful and self-corrupting. Keeping them fat and lazy is not how to prevent bribes.  The lack of even rudimentary checks on government spending is obscene. Large government programs cultivate widespread fraud. We could just about use a dart board to predict where the next fraud embarrassment will break out (disability claims, free phones, food stamps, now health insurance support is warming up in the wings as the next scam du jour).

While it may not be ideal to have a big central govt., the alternative is much uglier.  And the "little guy" will be abused even more than he already is. 

Opinions vary... There is not some everyman "little guy" that big government protects from big business... It's almost like big government needs a big business bogeyman to justify it's own existence (or scale as you argue), a symbiotic relationship for that argument. Big business is only less bad by degrees than big government.  This comes back to who is best at making decisions for an individuals self interest. I choose not to have big government or big business make all my future life decisions for me.

Every single dollar that government siphons out of the private economy, makes the pie smaller for all of us. The government literally destroys wealth the private sector creates wealth. More wealth is good. Less wealth is bad.. 

Of course, the sad part is that the "drown govt in the bathtub" crowd actually don't do anything to shrink govt. spending--they spend even more while outsourcing to cronies/contributors who tend to do no better a job than the govt. (often worse) at a much higher cost.

I said starve not drown... skinny is healthy. Maybe you are thinking about water boarding? Could we water board that IRS lady who pleaded the 5th amendment instead of incriminating herself by answering questions about how she performed her government job? I'm kidding about water boarding, but she joins a significant list of government workers who have not been made available to answer the people's questions. It is part of the natural ebb and flow of government for the opposition to want to investigate the party in power, but there seems to be more than one smoking gun laying around, being ignored for now. 

I cant accept a "two wrongs make it OK", or "since the Republicans expanded social programs it's OK for the Democrats to take it up a notch or two".. I have been critical of the republicans in the past, but now by comparison they seem like the sober adults in the room. While that is not the media message we get. The name calling is too pedestrian to repeat, and not constructive for negotiation or a meeting in the middle.

JR

PS: Faith? I concede that I am offering my personal  opinions but they seem logical to me and consistent with my understanding of economics and history. I am not parroting anybody's talking points, but I will even repeat the occupy movement's only one good idea if it makes sense in the context of the discussion.  8)

 

[hodad]

1.  A govt. small enough to drown in a bathtub is a Grover Norquist thing.  Perhaps you've heard of him?

2.  You apparently reading about a different history than I am.  Go back and review US labor history from the 1850s through the 1920s & maybe you'll see things in a different light. 

3.  If you believe yourself to be uninfluenced by propaganda, you're not paying attention.  We all are, and thinking you're not won't make it so. 

4. You should be  a Dem, John.  If any party is going to fight megacorps and monopolies and the big banks anytime soon, it'll be the Dems.  Check out that evil liberal Elizabeth Warren and her new Glass-Steagall.  Also, look at track records:  over the past 30+ years, who's cut deficits (and done a better job, arguably, of running the govt. at the same time)?  The Dems of course--the party of slightly more fiscal responsibility. 

 

[sodderboy]

Our representatives are voting on legislation that they do not read.  That is the only faith I see going on here.

To see the problems with big government does not require faith, a belief in the un-proven or unknown, because the negative effects are all around you.  What more proof do you need about the revolving doors in DC than this piece from Slate?  You are being shafted and you ignore it under the knowledge that someone richer or somehow "perverted" is being controlled by your government.  That is not "life in the pursuit of happiness". 

Your trusted government is minting 85,000,000,000 dollars every month in order to create the illusion of commerce and it is the "perverts" who are smiling all the way to their banks.  Where is your protection?  How are YOU being protected by government as this continues?  Do you agree with all this?  Show me a meme, cause' I want to buh-leeeve!

Stimuluses, pick your president, went to hacks preferred by the man in charge and you hold the debt.

Dodd-Frank was written by bankers in and out of the administration, and your banking expenses went up as a result, and you hold the paper.

PPACA was written by Big Health insurers, in and out of the administration, and your medical expenses are going up further as a result.  If you trust medical legislation administered by the IRS then you deserve what you get.

And now we will be saved by Heap-bigum Senator Warren's version of Glass-Steagall.  Another piece of garbage legislation in the thousands of pages that gets marketed on freevee, feevee, and wiivee as the tough law to really get banking under control (collective memory lapse re Dudd-Skank), but no legislator reads it and it gets slamped through with pay-offs and procedural gimmickry a la PPACA.  Who really believes this? 

It's insanity not faith. 
Mike

 

[JohnRoberts]

1.  A govt. small enough to drown in a bathtub is a Grover Norquist thing.  Perhaps you've heard of him?

I have heard of him but do not listen to him. IIRC he is big on fighting against tax increases, not very effectively apparently. I am not hungry to hear TV talking head's opinions. I can't understand why people are so interested in being told what to think. Why do they assemble a team of talking heads to tell you what to think after you hear an important speech. I heard the words, I understand english, I don't need a friggin translation.

2.  You apparently reading about a different history than I am.  Go back and review US labor history from the 1850s through the 1920s & maybe you'll see things in a different light. 

I am following the more recent labor history. I see no good coming from government employees being unionized. I don't see teachers unions doing anything good for the country. They're in a twit right now because studies are questioning the common practice of giving teachers raises linked to masters degrees. The study said only teachers with masters in math or science performed better. I have a concept give them the raises and let the masters degree in basket weaving go unrewarded. I applauded when Reagan fired the striking air traffic controllers, and think the teachers union in Mexico are thugs. That said I am all in favor of collective bargaining for the factory workers in Bangladesh where there is actual abuse by factory operators.

3.  If you believe yourself to be uninfluenced by propaganda, you're not paying attention.  We all are, and thinking you're not won't make it so. 

I am well aware of the human condition. Back in the 70's I read three daily newspapers for an entire year to understand their individual bias, so I could apply windage, to the one I still read today. As a kid I listened to short wave radio, so I heard actual propaganda from Radio Moscow or Radio Havana. Now we can watch Al Jazera on TV, to get the middle east's spin on things (Thank's Al). 

4. You should be  a Dem, John.  If any party is going to fight megacorps and monopolies and the big banks anytime soon, it'll be the Dems.  Check out that evil liberal Elizabeth Warren and her new Glass-Steagall.  Also, look at track records:  over the past 30+ years, who's cut deficits (and done a better job, arguably, of running the govt. at the same time)?  The Dems of course--the party of slightly more fiscal responsibility.

I have been watching closely and I am appreciative of the increasing enforcement against insider trading, while i still see more than a little crony capitalism going on. Still no remedy for the high speed trading and dark pools that are a wealth transfer from normal investors. The regulatory attacks against Jamie Diamond because he had the cohones to criticize his regulators is embarrassing. The shift in regulatory enforcement where they insist that companies plead guilty in addition to paying fines is just a gift to the tort industry who can then file private lawsuits against them based on that admission of guilt.  All business is not evil. Put the actual criminals in jail but stop the very public pounding of JP Morgan for political purposes. For comparison, while I can't know the details, why hasn't Jon Corzine done a perp walk? Between him and Jaimie Diamond, I don't consider Jamie the bad guy. 

Glas-Stegal should have never been repealed. I have no love for Elizabeth Warren with her consumer protection agency being engineered to live outside congressional budgetary oversight. I have heard a few things from her since being in office that I actually agree with but looking at what she has done in the past, not what she says now does not cast her in a good light. If Dodd-Frank serves as an example, it is still a drag on the banking industry (and larger economy) as the regulations still aren't fully written. Talk about passing a law without reading it, they pass laws without writing them.  :-X

I am not at all sympathetic to the democratic agenda. I only consider the republicans a lesser evil. I lean more libertarian but even they are not perfect, and surely are not electable in large numbers. If anything the tea party seems more consistent with our roots, while they are about as popular as a heart attack in the media these days. I am not a joiner anyhow, but I do vote and I remain ever optimistic that we will survive this too.

JR