This may come across as succinct & simplistic,but, then again, those adjectives appy
quite nicely to our 2 political parties ; The Democrats come across as the "PC wussy" party, to whom the words "personal responsibility" are an alien term; The GOP is the "fascist" party, in the hip pocket of big business/fundamentalist Christian interests. Of course, being located in the morass known as Washington, both parties have been corrupted & rendered impotent & hackneyed by special interest $.
Thank God I'm an independent----I want no part of these 2 "dying dinosaurs". A viable 3rd party
is DESPERATELY needed.
Thoughts ?
-- Modified on 11/2/2010 4:15:29 AM
In a winner-takes-all election system, you naturally end up with 2 dominant parties and not much else. The only way to get a new one is if an existing one dies off and goes away like the Whigs.
This is why we need a direct democracy, dead horse and all.
Theoretically there is only one party. The lackeys of the running dogs of capitalism Party! There are 2 factions of it that vie for the coveted "POTUS" position. They do this by coming up with new and innovative ways to exploit the middle and working classes. Whichever faction convinces the voters to ignore reality wins. LOL
All of congress are the lackeys of the running dogs of capitalism. In US politics there are no real choices.
All US politicians pursue the agendas of their capitalist masters. Most US citizens dont even know who or what the capitalist class is. Many think that they are members or can be members of the capitalist class.
Most Americans are both politically and economically stupid.
Most people don't have a F%$%ing clue!! What the hell the difference between the party's even are!! You mean there's a difference!! It's all turned into to much bull shit to even want to step in!! It's just scarey to me that's all!! I think we should all be afraid of our new blood sucking president!! He has spent more than the last 20 have spent!! And now he claim's most american's are muzlem I hope I spelled that right!! But what the f$%k!!! Is he thinking???? If he does not get out of office soon none of us will be able to pay the bill's and feed our family's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!So what the hell do we do??? Sit back and take it I would guess!
we've had a lousy run of Presidents for over 45 years. But, regardless, when did Obama say "most
americans are "muzlems" ?! [ sic ]
Southern Jezebel & TJ also come from Atlanta-----------what IS it about providers that come from that city ?!-----------------
-- Modified on 11/2/2010 5:15:54 AM
This morning I was up at 5 am and saw a t v show called Breaking Point it has been on the last 3 morning!! It's about him spending our money like a idoit and HE SAID THAT!!! I could not believe that came out of his mouth but it did!!!!!!!!!!
"I think we should all be afraid of our new blood sucking president!! He has spent more than the last 20 have spent!!"
He really hasn't Elise. Let's put it this way: The previous administration took us from a projected surplus to doubling the national debt by some 6 trillion dollars. Obama has added 1 trillion to the debt, 33% of which were tax cuts.
"If he does not get out of office soon none of us will be able to pay the bill's and feed our family's"
Actually, we had federal budget deficits twice as high as they are right now back in the late 40's. And that was the dawning of the US as a world superpower. The reality is that the vast majority of our debt has come from Republican administrations. This was done intensionally in order to bankrupt programs like Social Security, and has been going on since the 80's.
All this spending will likely result in higher inflation in the years to come. If you have any loans (a mortgage, school loans, car bills, etc) then this is very good news for you, as it will make paying back those loans cheaper.
"So what the hell do we do??? Sit back and take it I would guess!"
Don't worry, I'm sure the GOP will figure out some way to impeach Obama. And you never have to sit back and take it. The people always have the power, whether they realize it or not.
Wow someone that know's what is going on!! Thank you for your input!! I hope someone does do something! 2 year's ago I could feed my family no trouble but now??? The industry I was in no longer exist!! So do you like our president we have now??
-- Modified on 11/2/2010 7:49:56 AM
...but the market has a natural recovery process. The previous administration left office as an economic bubble in housing was collapsing. That bubble is nearly deflated by now. The economy is likely going to pick up in the next two years regardless of the outcome tonight.
The worse part of a recovery is right before things pick up again. People have already suffered through a recession, and it's drained their resources.
No, I'm not a fan of Obama. He's the best we've had in a while, but that's not saying very much.
-- Modified on 11/2/2010 1:18:51 PM
There is an optimal size for units of self-government.
Once it gets beyond a certain ratio, the voice of a voter gets diluted to the point of impotence such that only sheer mass can be viable; and sheer mass becomes manipulable through division into special interests.
It is my contention that on a scale the size of the United States ... Senators who in some cases have millions of constituents and Representatives who have nearly a million ... and are never known personally or even met by those who elect them ... are automatically corruptible and unaccountable due to distance.
In the early days of America, our Representative system allowed practically everyone to meet and know his/her Representative. He had a house next door, and he had no choice but to be part and parcel of the results of his decisions.
But now he is someone of whom we have never heard. He certainly doesn't live next door. And he lives above and beyond -- and so is immune to the consequences of his decisions.
In such a circumstance, corruption is easy because there is nobody to notice and the numbers are so vast.
In 1790, there were only 3,929,214 Americans according to the census; and in 2000, there were 291,421,906. You don't have to be a genius to see that the average American is therefore much further away from his representatives and proportionaly less represented. And with the Representatives further away, they are less accountable.
Today, many states individually have populations that are larger than the entire population of the U.S. at the first census. (3.929,214).
The only way to make government less corrupt, and Representatives more responsive to the people, is to decrease the scale.
And the only effective way to decrease the scale is to finally bring the Federal Union to a close.
It is time to dissolve the U.S. Constitution and the government that exists pursuant to that document; and allow the original articles of Confederation to be re-asserted. That government was never shut down, and is still legitimate.
A government existing under the Articles of Confederation would be far less corrupt as the majority of government would exist at those levels closest to the people; and thus be more easily monitored by the people.
Look's like I came to the right place for info! It is so much to learn when dealing with the goverment! I just want thing's to be better! So I can go on and support my family! Like I alway's have! I have never ask the county for any help! And I wont start now! I will figure it all out thank you for your help! It's alot to understand! But I will try I know most are not honest! That is just the way thing's are! Sad but very true!
I agree that we have far too many constituents per representative. We have 435 House members who represent 291 million people. If that's broken down equally (which it isn't of course) then we'd have each house member representing about 669,000 people. The higher that number goes, the more each individual's voice is drowned out. On the Senate side, things get worse.
The two most viable options as I see it is to dramatically increase the number of representatives. However, that would make things rather problematic, and would make legislation that much more inefficient.
The other option is to forget hoping that representatives actually respond to the people, and instead just move to a direct democracy to keep a check on our representatives.
For one thing, it assumes the majority opinion will make the best decision.
Given that our government regulates everything from the amount of water that a toilet can use to flush to the "safe" level of artificial nicotine insecticides in cucumbers ... I'm not really confident that a majority opinion is the best way to make a lot of decisions.
Second, for a direct democracy to form a "check" on government, it must ipso facto be more powerful. Therefore, there would no longer be a principle in place of "majority rule, minority rights." We have already seen points in the past where the majority favored slavery, creationism, etc. The fact a majority might support certain favorable things at the moment doesn't mean that 50.1% won't vote for gas chambers for illegal aliens ten years from now.
Finally, 50% of all people in this country have an IQ under 100. Only 2% of all people in this country have IQs over 140.
I did an experiment once with a class from an idea I had seen elsewhere so I couldn't take credit. This was a college class with an average IQ over 115. I replaced the word "water" with the phrase "dihydrogen monoxide" and abbreviated it as "DHM."
I listed a bunch of facts about DHM, and then had the class vote on whether regulations should be passed prohibiting its use.
These were truthful, but not wholly so -- just like political information is typically presented.
"Dihydrogen monoxide has been found in all cancer cells."
"DHM has been strongly implicated in the deaths of thousands of Americans annually." (drowning, accidents in the snow, etc -- though I didn't mention the methods.)
"DHM is a carrier substance that can dissolve and carry numerous toxins into the body."
That kind of crap. By the time everyone voted, something over 70% of the class voted to prohibit its use.
If a bunch of brighter-than-average 18+ folks can be so easily fooled on an issue that anyone with a single year of high school chemistry could have seen through ... just IMAGINE what those folks with IQs under 100 are like.
I think either secession or reversion to the Article of Confederation would be more likely to protect us from the craziness of the majority.