Well, 'tis the season to play politics, so it will be on the mind for many. I thought I would start a politics/election thread for those who wish to rant/discuss.

One of my biggest gripes about politics of late, and this goes back over the last few election cycles for me, maybe longer for others, is that I have begun to get the feeling that it is about maintaining the status quo, rather than elevating our democracy to newer and better heights. Let's face it, we ain't perfect, and there are numerous issues to tackle today that need serious people with serious ideas, with the balls to implement them. But all I keep hearing is the same old rhetoric, vagaries and promises that never become fulfilled, but are deemed essential to plant the seeds in the electorate's mind that the candidate will actually do something if elected, or re-elected.

Part of it is that I don't really see real people from everyday life engaging politics. Is it a pursuit of the elite solely? Is there a particular mealy mouthed type that finds themselves cautiously toeing the political lexicon to avoid damning a particular voting block, and so they make vague statements that are never meant to be fulfilled? Why does it have to take so much money to run for office? Are those who align themselves with one of the two main parties the only ones that will have the financial backing to win an election? Does that mean you become the property of special interests that funded you? Do the political alignments now make it such that when you are elected outside a party, you are quickly rendered ineffective by stonewalling from the parties in power?

I would like to see a number of things realized in the future. Here are a few to get started.

First, why can't the government be smaller? In the age of high technology, why is there so much red tape? Simplify the tax code - flat tax, sales tax, whatever - and get rid of all loopholes and deductions, for individual taxes. You pay what you pay. Corporation taxes can still be structured differently. Making the tax code simpler would certainly reduce the cost of maintaining a large IRS. Combine departments that basically function the same. I know there is much territorialism in the non-elected government, but just say "tough shit" and cut. Keep services, but make them more efficient. I know there are tons of savings alone by revamping our government structure. Why do we have to have deficits? Why can't we spend what we make in taxes. Oh, the occassionally overspending is okay, but, like my holiday bills, they would have to be paid sooner or later.

Move the retirement age back to 75 or greater. Shoot, with today's modern health practices and medicine, older people can still work and be productive. The system wasn't designed to provide elderly welfare for over 20 years. This is a country that built itself on work. If you want to stop working, make enough money to retire yourself. I shouldn't have to collectively support other people with the payoff being that it will someday happen for me. I plan on working until I drop dead or make enough money to support myself. In fact, I think the social security system should end as we know it.

Reform the Justice system. If you ever serve on jury duty, you get a first hand glimpse of how inefficient the whole process is. On one hand, it is good because it takes due process to bring about justice. But it stretches the taxpayers' dollar and patience. Especially unnecessary litigation. There needs to be a way to streamline the system. And how much money is it costing to incarcerate drug addicts, rather than get them treatment? Would legalizing drugs make a difference? I would like to know what the breakdown is for crimes committed by people in prison. Is there one area that could be better served by not making prison the sentence?

And there are many, many more that I have on the top of my head. Most of all, I think we need an independent audit of the entire government. One that will give the public an honest answer, and one that will force legislatures to act on the recommendations. I'd like to see real change in how our country operates, not the same old song and dance every election season.

I have begun to get the feeling that it is about maintaining the status quo, rather than elevating our democracy to newer and better heights.

Thus the popularity of Ross Perot. He was saying a lot of things that others were thinking. That he turned out to be sort of a loony is another subject.

If you look at a lot of the so-called campaign finance reform laws (also knows as incumbent preservations bills) you'll find they do just that. Sorry that I don't remember if it was a State or Federal bill, but recently someone passed a law that said you can't air commercials within 30 days of an election. All these types of prohibitions stack up to making it easier for incumbents to remain in office despite whatever evils they are purported to solve.

Status quo is a very good thing for those in power. I don't know that that's ever changed. But I'm not so cynical yet that I don't believe in the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" ideal. I'm sure there's a healthy dose of that in a lot more politicians than we know. But I think that the thirst for power, and power alone, is the #1 reason people enter politics.

Although the status quo is good for those in power, having a status quo isn't necessarily a bad thing. It provides inertia. Drag. I agree with George Will when he says that gridlock isn't a bad thing. It's a tremendously good and useful thing in a democracy. Just read the newspaper headlines and editorials. Listen to what every activist group has to say. Heck, listen to what the real live politicians have to say. Listen to their words, listen to all these peoples' words, and interpret them literally, as if they were as sure to be enacted as if coming from the mouth of Caesar.

Status quo and gridlock can be good things. They are signs of the checks and balances actually working. Status quo and gridock are also, of course, signs of entrenched interests. But before we loosen the ropes we should make sure we're setting free the maiden on the railroad tracks and not the dastardly villain.

But all I keep hearing is the same old rhetoric, vagaries and promises that never become fulfilled, but are deemed essential to plant the seeds in the electorate's mind that the candidate will actually do something if elected, or re-elected.

Some of them (but not all) are glorified snake oil salesmen. The salesman's desire is to get your money. The politician's desire is to get your vote. Because we are often neither in the position to ascertain the medicinal benefits of the liquid in the jar, nor the benefits of some complex government program or bill, we are heavily influenced by our own hopes and dreams. We're heavily influenced by what we think will be the result of drinking that potion or voting for that politician.

Once the money exchanges hands or the vote is cast, your relationship with the salesman or politicians changes. They no longer need you like he did. They got what they wanted. If the snake oil doesn't work he might just tell you it's because you didn't take enough of it. Politicians are absolutely famous for doing the same thing. The only reason this or that program wasn't effective was because it needed more money. Vote for me again next time and I'll fix that too.

If you've already glimpsed the solution to this problem then give yourself a gold star. The solution, of course, is an informed, involved electorate. It's harder to get away with stuff if the people have a long memory. It's harder to get away with stuff if the people take the time to really understand the issues. It's not easy. You might be shocked to learn that many politicians (if not most on certain bills) do not understand the issues any better than you or I.

Part of it is that I don't really see real people from everyday life engaging politics. Is it a pursuit of the elite solely? Is there a particular mealy mouthed type that finds themselves cautiously toeing the political lexicon to avoid damning a particular voting block, and so they make vague statements that are never meant to be fulfilled?

Our republican form of government is (and in fact does) help to solve this problem. We hire people (the politicians) to become specialists and ask them to keep their eye on things. You and I don't really have the time.

Why does it have to take so much money to run for office?

Because people are heavily swayed by political advertising. Sometimes that advertising produces nothing but name recognition which is vitally important. Sometimes that advertising is issue based (usually in the form of a so-called attack ad or negative advertising). Because this all this stuff works, and works extraordinarily well, you will be absolutely swamped into submission if you don't spend a similar amount of money that your opponent does. But if people were swayed by intellectual issues alone, then quite naturally you wouldn't see so much spending. Each side would need to do little more than offer position papers, do stump speeches and have a few debates.

Are those who align themselves with one of the two main parties the only ones that will have the financial backing to win an election?

Usually, but there are exceptions such as Jesse Ventura. There are also a few independents in Congress. Many local races are non-partisan.

Does that mean you become the property of special interests that funded you?

See this rant.

First, why can't the government be smaller?

Ahh, a blossoming conservative. I agree completely with the idea of simplifying the tax code and getting rid of the IRS.

Keep services, but make them more efficient.

Usually the way to do this is to contract these services out to the private sector.

Why do we have to have deficits? Why can't we spend what we make in taxes. Oh, the occassionally overspending is okay, but, like my holiday bills, they would have to be paid sooner or later.

Economists a hell of a lot more knowledgeable than me say that it's more than okay to run a deficit of a certain size. Many if not most states have constitutions that require balanced budgets. I'd be all for that federally.

In fact, I think the social security system should end as we know it.

This isn't some time of damn April Fools joke, is it? I do think SS should change. I like the idea of turning it from a slush fund to an investment system.

And how much money is it costing to incarcerate drug addicts, rather than get them treatment?

Limbaugh agrees with you – now. To be fair, maybe that was always his opinion.

Most of all, I think we need an independent audit of the entire government.

I think that's what the GAO does.

The GAO has no teeth, all it does is report. We need something with more bite. I understand that, in some cases, running a deficit is okay. Hey, I have a personal budget to run all the time. If something is needed, I'll borrow the money if I don't have it. But it has to be paid back at some point. I can't use the excuse on my credit report that running a personal deficit is good, so why should the government? The government is like one of those people that are out of control with spending on their credit cards. They accumulate so much debt that the interest payments alone kill them, and soon they have to file for bankruptcy. Now, I am no Nobel Prize-winning economist, though I do play one at thalo.net, but I'll guarantee you that if we didn't have a deficit, not one of them would be clamoring for us to develop one. What they sell now are excuses. Why not a little belt tightening. Instead of $50 billion for obvious pork, why not allocate that for debt reduction? Or some similar small percentage amount of the budget that will have a noticeable effect on the debt in the long term, but cause little harm in the short term. And it would only work if they enforced a budget limit tied to the amount of tax revenues for any given year. Within a few decades, debt would be gone in a relatively painless way, like my student loans.

I also agree that gridlock can be a good thing, especially when one politial group is trying to railroad legislation down the throats of another. But gridlock, as it is almost entirely used in Washington, is more about politics than honest disagreements. It is about forwarding an agenda, by blocking someone else's. Really, what is there in front of any legislature that is so intractable that solutions cannot be found after a reasonable amount of discussion? Some of the more divisive issues, like abortion, I can see being deadlocked. But health care? Education? Social Security? Infrastructure? Everybody says they WANT to get something done, but no one has the cajones or political will to GET something done (it is one thing I do give Bush credit for, putting less than perfect forth to get something done). I'm okay if the solutions aren't perfect. They never will be. But that is the purpose of continuing government, to try out possible solutions and rework them as the societal conditions warrant. In the end, most of this boils down to capital -- money and votes. But, you know what? We have plenty of money. It is just poorly spent in a conversion for votes. Here is a thalo seque. I just don't see our government elevating the people. It has a great legacy founded on solid principles, but the new system does little to advance our potential as a society. It is more comfortable with keeping things the way they are, which are mostly good, but could be far better.

Here is one other thing that kills me from watching Alan Keyes last night discuss gay marriage. To me, marriage was primarily developed as an "institution" for the exchange of goods and the acquisition of power. At first, marriage was pretty much a bartering tool between early human tribes for genetic and material exchange. It then became a tool in society for the wealthy elite to solidify power through political alliances. Of course, money eventually replaced the birthright in terms of power acquisition, so marriage soon found itself a new meaning. Some marriages in older times were for "love", but generally that was the love of the man, with the woman's feelings immaterial. Which brings up the point that woman were also typical considered goods. Marriage was a way to ensure that the woman was solely the property of a single man, so that all children beget from that union were genetically related to the male. Woman had little say in the choice of marriage, or in the actual decisions within the marriage. It started, and continued, as a property arrangement. Only at some point later in civilization did sentimentality and "love" prevail, but up until more recent times it was still only that of the man that was important. That is why thirteen year old girls were shuffled off to marry old geezers. I defy anyone to find my a historical reference where marriage was all about providing a core foundation for the moral values of raising children, which is what Keyes advanced.

Of course, marriage in our society today confers all sorts of meaning, including the hope that it DOES provide a solid foundation for the moral upbringing of children. And yet, so many marriages fail, so many children are left in single parent households, or even in two parent households, with little direction. But the spouse enjoys a number of rights outside of child-rearing. They can make decisions for the other spouse should they fall ill. They have claims on the shared assets. Numerous legal procedures recognize the spouse for any number of important actions. So, if two obviously consenting adults care to engage in a union such as marriage, why should we care. Keyes stated that the government isn't in the business of legislating friendships. That callously brushes off the relationship between two gay people who wish to marry. It is like saying you and your wife are simply friends. On one level that is true, but on another level it is a wholly inadequate description. Even if marriage is to be an institution that will provide a framework for the rearing of a child, I know a few gay couples who are doing amazing jobs at raising their children, either adopted or their own, equal to, and in some cases, better than heterosexual couples. For me, there is no convincing reason that gay couples shouldn't be granted the equal right to marriage in the State's eyes. It probably won't be a huge issue in the campaign for President this year, but it is one worthy of serious discussion and action.

We need something with more bite.

I think what we're asking for (and I include myself in your desire) is a wisdom greater than that of the politicians and the electorate. Without electing a dictator for short periods of time (a notion I've toyed with myself), I'm not sure what we can do (We could pray to God for guidance as our Founding Fathers did). I imagine, for example, a modification of our system of government. Following every third presidential term (that is, every 12 years), we elect a super-chief-executive who has powers of veto of existing laws. He can erase them or modify them. He serves for one year. Clears out the bloat. But he does not have the power to change the Constitution nor to enact new laws.

I wish I could dig up an old article that I once read, but the opinion was that democracy may be destined to sort of eat itself alive. I really don't remember the exact principle or idea that grounded this notion, but it may have been similar to the idea of simply dying or morphing into something unrecognizable due to nothing more than ever-increasing bloat.

The government is like one of those people that are out of control with spending on their credit cards. They accumulate so much debt that the interest payments alone kill them, and soon they have to file for bankruptcy.

In my opinion, a government deficit is the paper trail that leads, not to votes that were bought and paid for, but to the votes that were bought and charged for (excluding times of war).

But gridlock, as it is almost entirely used in Washington, is more about politics than honest disagreements. It is about forwarding an agenda, by blocking someone else's.

What else is there to do but to allow these competing agendas to just compete? Of course, the reality is (as I think you're alluding to) that a lot of time and political energy goes into the pursuit of baser instincts. A "pure" agenda might be one concerned with cleaning the air. A baser one might simply be to promote more dam building (or other alternative energy schemes) in one's district. Of course, to do anything worthwhile is going to involve both entities (great ideas and concrete results). Because the results of a baser instinct are going to look so much like a pure one (a dam here or a dam there) it's often difficult to say which motivation is a pure one to begin we (any thus you find charges flying back and forth either way). So to make politics work, we kind of smudge all this together. We then get a lot of self-serving bullshit behind the grander ideas, but this seems to accommodate nicely the fact that all men are not angels.

Really, what is there in front of any legislature that is so intractable that solutions cannot be found after a reasonable amount of discussion? Some of the more divisive issues, like abortion, I can see being deadlocked. But health care? Education? Social Security? Infrastructure? Everybody says they WANT to get something done, but no one has the cajones or political will to GET something done

I suppose democracies aren't well suited to finding and implementing the perfect solutions. But they do help protect us from somebody else's perfect solution. Lots of lots of people (such as Hillary and health care) think they know best. Some do. Some don't. The end result of democracy is that we rarely get the perfect solutions…but we also aren't usually saddled with disastrous solutions that somebody else railroaded through. How are we to judge which solutions are the best? Who are we to trust and why? Who are we to make the supreme arbiter of such things? Without electing a dictator, the best thing we can do is send it to a committee (and if an idea is truly great it ought to be able to convince a majority of the committee). A desire for perfection is noble but this is exactly what can lead to disastrous ideas and oppressive forms of government. Sure, all the little self-interest motivations (not an inherently bad things at all) will tend to slow down and dilute good ideas. But self-interest (pork barreling, if you will) is also the way that anything gets done in the first place.

There might be more systemic changes that can be introduced if we truly find our system of government not up to the burden of governing. That would make for a quite interesting discussion, I think.

But, you know what? We have plenty of money. It is just poorly spent in a conversion for votes.

I agree. As intentionally inefficient as our government may be, I think there's plenty of room for greasing the wheels without ushering in tyranny. Any ideas?

I defy anyone to find my a historical reference where marriage was all about providing a core foundation for the moral values of raising children, which is what Keyes advanced.

Humans are one of the species were the children have a prolonged infancy (we're not like giraffes and come out of the womb able to run about within hours). We're also a species that is particularly brain-centered. We are less instinct-based and more learned-behavior based. We are also a very social create that needs a lot of moral training in the art of living with other people. Thus, by definition, children need someone, for prolonged periods of time, to care for them and teach them. Who better than parents, who obviously have the most at stake (genetically and joyfully), in seeing that their children succeed? How does this not translate to Keyes' idea of marriage (parents) being key (heh heh) to the moral development of children? I guess we could leave such things primarily to the state (where they are subject to the normal vagaries of politics – and we all know how damn good politicians are at getting stuff done efficiently and correctly).

quote:

---

I think what we're asking for (and I include myself in your desire) is a wisdom greater than that of the politicians and the electorate.

---

I guess that is true. But if the wisdom exists by virtue of some people asking for the right thing to be done, then it must not be beyond the grasp of politicians and/or electorate to grasp it themselves. What may be beyond their grasp is the ability to convert wisdom to action.

quote:

---

I suppose democracies aren't well suited to finding and implementing the perfect solutions. But they do help protect us from somebody else's perfect solution.

---

Yes, and I am not asking for a perfect solution. I am asking for a start. Just start with a reasonable solution. It can be modified as the need exists. If we waited for perfection, nothing would ever get done.

quote:

---

Humans are one of the species were the children have a prolonged infancy (we're not like giraffes and come out of the womb able to run about within hours). We're also a species that is particularly brain-centered. We are less instinct-based and more learned-behavior based. We are also a very social create that needs a lot of moral training in the art of living with other people. Thus, by definition, children need someone, for prolonged periods of time, to care for them and teach them. Who better than parents, who obviously have the most at stake (genetically and joyfully), in seeing that their children succeed? How does this not translate to Keyes' idea of marriage (parents) being key (heh heh) to the moral development of children? I guess we could leave such things primarily to the state (where they are subject to the normal vagaries of politics – and we all know how damn good politicians are at getting stuff done efficiently and correctly).

---

Yes, but parents were taking care of their children long before "marriage" ever existed. Marriage didn't begin as a means to foster the care of children. Its roots were in property exchange and insuring monogamy, of the woman that is. When money became the defacto currency, power was easier to buy rather than obtain through marriage. So, marriage evolved into something else, sentiment and love, of the man that is, dominated the reasons for marriage, probably as a result of the Romance period.

Now, marriage, in terms of the State, only provides a particular legal structure to protect the two individuals involved and provide some benefits to offspring conceived from such a union. Parents do take care of their children now after a marriage has been ended, the end doesn't stop a parent from parenting. Children can be, and have been, raised with marriage or without. Marriage doesn't determine whether one can have, and raise, children. And many people marry, but choose not to have children. Should heterosexual people be allowed to marry if they knowingly don't want to procreate? I don't want the State entering into child-rearing anymore than you, but that isn't what this is about. If two people want to unite their lives in something more than "friendship", where they assume the legal burden for one another, I believe the State should recognize and allow that commitment. Heck, I might even be for polygamy as long as ALL people involved know of the others and mutually agree, which is rare in polygamy cases.

I guess that is true. But if the wisdom exists by virtue of some people asking for the right thing to be done, then it must not be beyond the grasp of politicians and/or electorate to grasp it themselves. What may be beyond their grasp is the ability to convert wisdom to action.

I agree that a lot of wisdom exists out there and that it doesn’t sometimes get channeled into the political process (or it gets weeded out). I think we could all play a part in improving this by not acting like Pavlov’s dog when the disingenuous political-attack dinner bell is rung. We could learn a thing or two from science. Don’t you guys perform experiments and then judge the results? Well, it’s quite easy for politicians to say one thing or another, but do we also judge them by their results? Better yet, when a politician says this or that, might we better predict future behavior by examining past behavior? I have no problem with someone changing their mind on an issue, but when you see people out there (Al Gore comes to mind) constantly changing their politically-expedient minds on important fundamental issues then you know their core beliefs are faulty or non-existent. And while it might be popular in some quarters to view core beliefs as intolerant weapons of the oppressors, and the lack of them to be somehow representative of virtue and open-mindedness, I just don’t know how you could do any type of science, of judging, if your instruments were not calibrated and grounded in some way. Only through conflict with what we believe (and believing it strongly) do we weed out the crap. Of course, the important thing is to maintain the environment where people can disagree strongly.

Yes, but parents were taking care of their children long before "marriage" ever existed. Marriage didn't begin as a means to foster the care of children. Its roots were in property exchange and insuring monogamy, of the woman that is.

I smell a heavy dose of postmodernism. You seem to want to discredit, redefine or devalue marriage now because of supposed past sins. While I might concede that a gay couple or single parent might raise a child quite well, on the whole our own data is showing us that two-parent families greatly increase the prospects for a child. Because the male/female unit is matter of biological fact, and not a mere product of the vagaries of political correctness, the burden of proof is on other non-standard arrangements. Marriage between a male and female in pursuit of family and children is the standard and if other arrangements wish to justify themselves they can do so only by showing that they are just as good (or at least adequate) at providing the same core attributes that derive from this basic relationship and biological fact.

Additional:

But I think the interesting point you make is that the raising of children (yesterday and today) has taken a lot of novel approaches. Sometimes, for whatever reason (death or dissolution), children get shipped off to be raised by aunts and uncles or grandparents. The upper crust in days of old would often have a nanny raise the children (and, I’m sure, with spotty results – just as I think we’ll find problems letting daycare centers raise our children today)

Maybe 40% of the time the raising of children is non-standard or less than ideal, but I can’t help but see the merit in their being an ideal. There’s no reason to poo-poo it in order to bring in and support other arrangements. That’s what I’m saying.

Well, I do agree with that. There is an ideal. In fact, I hate the idea of day care. I wouldn't want someone else to raise my children when I starting raising some in a few years. I want to be the main particpiant in their lives. I always thought others would feel similarly, but my very own sister is one who basically neglects her children to an extreme. That is where I lament the loss of the extended family, where everyone can chip in and look after the kids. And it hurts to see families where both parents have to work, thus necessitating handing their children off to someone else. Ideally, every mom and pop would love to be with their kids, with grandma and grandpa takin' up the slack when the parents need to be somewhere. Ideally.

Now where is my apple pie and vanilla ice cream? God Bless America, land that I love...

The thing I find pathetic about politics is that it has much more to do with maintaining the politicians way of life than it does with their service to the people. The scariest thing during Clintons impeachment proceedings was the stream of House members that stood up to speak for or against. How obviously unqualified many of them clearly were to be in such a high place in government.

I could hear them after they got elected talking to their friends. "Gladis you have got to run for office. It is like hitting the lottery."

When Gingrich was censured by congress and fined Bob Dole stepped forward and paid the fine for him. It was like $850,000. I never realized the Senate paid so well.

Due to my job I meet many politicians at the local and state levels. The first round of elections after 9/11 there were major budget shortfalls. Nearly every politician was not concerned how these budget shortfalls were going to effect the people but how it was going to impact their re election.

Government Budget's are all just projections of the future. Clinton's budget surpluses were only projections of the future if the economy continued at the same rate as what it had done in 1998-1999. In reality Clintons economy tanked before he even left office.

Recently I had a Professor say to me whoa what has our Democracy come to with these tax cuts to the rich. He had never seen democracy in such poor shape as it is now. I didn't have the time but I wanted to ask him what exactly do you think the slogan "Tax cuts for the Rich" actually means? Please explain to me how this notion which you believe is such a grave danger to democracy has an ounce of truth to it at all. It is pure ideology. It lacks fundamental reality.

The thing I find pathetic about politics is that it has much more to do with maintaining the politicians way of life than it does with their service to the people.

Well, I think that's what Darr was getting at too, Rico. I don’t disagree. I think most politicians' number one priority is getting re-elected. Terms limits (which I don't agree with for various reasons), were enacted, or were attempted to be enacted, in several states as an attempt to untrench the entrenched (among other possible hidden motives). I think some campaign finance reform ideas also have this as a goal, as well as to, of course, "clean up politics" (and I think "dirty" is highly subjective, but neither am I blind to the realities of money and influence).

First off, let me just say that I think politicians get WAY too many perks. It's just not healthy for democracy to create what is, in effect, a royalty class. And pay should be just enough to attract good people, but not so much that anyone would think of staying in office for the pay. I think in many cases (particularly with the House and Senate) the pay is too high and the benefits, such as pensions, are way too generous. We should remove, if possible, any incentives for people to be in politics just for the money or privileges.

But the "service to the people" idea is a bit tougher to nail down. Like it or not, when Senators Jackson and Magnuson from Washington State brought so much military spending to our area they were doing a service to their people. Hey, all these naval ships and supporting infrastructure was going to be built anyway so, unless Puget Sound was a strategically bad idea, then they were just doing their jobs. There are 435 members in the House of Representatives and 100 Senators all, more or less, doing the same thing. Call it chaos theory in action. With all these separate interests competing it tends to even things out. But, like you, I don't like how easy it is for them to spend money to buy votes without having to come up with ways to pay for it. I talked earlier about what kinds of systemic changes could be made to address this. I think a balanced budget amendment would be one way to do this. Giving the President the line item veto would be another (or has that changed already?) Another concept – a radical one – would be to simply limit the budget to a certain percentage of the gross national product.

Recently I had a Professor say to me whoa what has our Democracy come to with these tax cuts to the rich.

Wow, that's a huge topic right there. But it's one of the clearest points of ideological difference between conservatives and liberals. Liberals believe we should soak it to the rich because they've made their ill-gotten gains off the backs of the poor. Conservatives believe that to punish those who are successful is a terrible thing to do in a capitalistic democracy - and that a rising tide lifts all ships.

Yes I see what Mith's was saying now. I was reading a little to much into whose status quo he was talking about. I have felt this way for a long time as well.

Just look at the candidates running for President.

Howard Dean. This guy has said just about anything to any body. Whatever is your cause is his cause. I think just about every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie. He is against the war and "preemptive" attacks but went to Clinton and demanded we bomb the hell out of Yugoslavia no matter who was against it. He is not for the special interests i.e. corparate america but as Gov. of Vermont allowed corporations to set up tax shelters within his state to the tune of why set up your tax shelters offshore when you can come to Vermont and due it here. In a nut shell what he allowed was companies such as Enron to set up Insurance Companies in Vermont to insure against the possiblity of net losses in the future. This allowed companies to divert profits to Vermont and place them into these holding companies. This allowed the companies to not have to pay tax on the profit in the state of origin. These holding companies paid a rate to Vermont that was much less than what they should have had to pay. In short Dean is a nutcase.

John Kerry voted to go to war but declares that it was not done right. Only he can do it right. Wasn't this guy in VietNam? The war was not done properly? What the fuck is he talking about. How can you know how to do war properly. What does he have a crystal ball. He must have smoked to much Tai stick when he served in Nam.

After the state of the union address the rebutal came from the top dogs for the democratic party. Are these two people really holding the reins of the leadership of the democratic party? Daschle actually said we must keep jobs here in the United States but wants people to drive to Canada to buy prescription drugs. Well what the hell is it Tom do we keep the jobs here or take our commerce across the borders. You can not have it both ways. How has Al Sharpton even been able to participate in this whole process. Al Sharpton is a bigot and racist but the Democratic party has allowed him a national platform.

Your buying votes comment brought back some memories when I was a business major at college. Diligently reading my Macro Economics book came across a short passage about this idea of the Political cycle. In economics there is the business cycle well this book suggested but firmly stated that it was not proved that there possibly could be a Political Cycle to the economy. The politicians in power create economic conditions to get themselves re elected prior to election year. Holy shit lets by that Einstien a beer that came up with that idea.

"Tax cuts for the Rich" is the crying call. It is a slogan that has no meaning. There is no truth behind what it is intended to represent. But say it enough times and it does not matter whether it has any validity or not. There is an inverse relationship between the classes and the amount of taxes paid by each group. The top 1% the elite group of individuals and corporate america pay roughly 90% of all taxes. The upper middle to middle class which is about 9% of the population pay roughly what is left over. The remaining 90% of the population the working class and the poor essentially pay no taxes at all. That is what they pay into the system is given back. If you are below the poverty line which is around an income of 12 to 13 thousand dollars a year receive additional money back on top of what they have already paid in which amounts to like an extra $300 that was never their money to start.

What all this means is if tax cuts are passed the majority of those tax cuts go to the top 1% because they are the ones paying the majority of all the taxes in the first place. What a tax cut does is put money back into the hands corporations because they are paying by far the most amount of the taxes. What does that mean for people without a job is that corporations now have capitol for reinvestment which stimulates growth which creates jobs.

FDR is a fine example of how Government spending does not work to create jobs and turn around the economy. FDR used John Maynard Keynes economic ideas to try to turn the nation around during the depression. Keynsian Economics was a radical new idea at the time. The idea was that only government thru spending can stimultate and regulate growth. The only problem is that it did not work. In 1939 prior to World War II unemployment was higher than when FDR had taken office in 1933. The only thing that brought the US out of the depression was the war itself. In a hundred years time when they rate Presidents FDR will be rated the worst president this country ever had. For two simple reasons. His economic plan did not work and he lead the world into the worst time of it's history with the whole sale slaughter of at least 30 million people.

This link is an interesting sidenote to history. When the depression occured one of the problems exacarbating the situation was comsumer confidence particularly with the banking industry. When confidence fell people would run on the banks causing the banks to fail. In the election of 32' the democratic leaders made statements to create consumer fears which lead to more bank failures even though there had been growth to the economy. This was done to create an atmosphere to get FDR elected. President Hoover wrote these letters to the minority whip. Hoover turned into one of the greatest humanitarians this conutry ever produced. He did not die until like 1968. Jimmy Carter is not even worthy enough to have wiped Hoovers ass.

I am adding this link about the direct election of US Senators as an after thought. It was not until 1914 that US Senators were elected by popular vote.

Howard Dean. This guy has said just about anything to any body. Whatever is your cause is his cause.

It appears that the Dean bandwagon has hit a severe bump in the road. One shouldn't get too excited over any isolated event (although his "energized" manner of speaking, to put it politely, might make him a perfect fit for thalo.net). But the real kiss of death may be that the press, for which he was a darling, seems to be turning on him.

Even without my conservative leanings, I'd be hard-pressed to choose one of the Democrats over Bush. Probably the most qualified is Lieberman if only because I believe that he's no rube when it comes to national defense. Bush's habit of social spending hardly makes him a model conservative. But I figure the choice we have is between rationally protecting this country (which means forthrightly identifying the threats) or turning a blind eye and pretending that bad people simply don't like us because we must be doing something wrong - and then to be snapped out of this again in a few years when we wake up and learn that, say, Los Angeles is no more.

He is not for the special interests i.e. corparate America

I've always wondered why anyone (talking about the general public perception, not your detailed view) would consider it a sin for government to be supportive of business. Few of us survive and prosper because fairies leave money under our pillows every night. The entire government itself, and all the social programs it funds, are funded by taxes paid by economic activity. The term "Corporate America" is meant to elicit a stereotypical image of a bunch of old farts smoking their stogies in the board room while the working stiffs scatter about their heals looking for scraps of food. The fact is that most businesses in America are small businesses (such as mine – but probably not that small). Surely there are abuses of an improper quid pro quo nature, but if you listen to the Democrats it seems that ANY gesture towards business is some type of atrocity. If government did NOTHING MORE than defend this country and aid commerce you could say that they were fulfilling the minimum role of government.

…but as Gov. of Vermont allowed corporations to set up tax shelters within his state to the tune of why set up your tax shelters offshore when you can come to Vermont and due it here. In a nut shell what he allowed was companies such as Enron to set up Insurance Companies in Vermont to insure against the possiblity of net losses in the future. This allowed companies to divert profits to Vermont and place them into these holding companies. This allowed the companies to not have to pay tax on the profit in the state of origin.

I'm actually very sympathetic to the notion of a republican form of government. That means that each state has great freedom to set their own rules as long as they don't conflict with the Constitution or (I guess) Federal laws. This provides a form of competition between the states. It allows people not only to have government that is more representative of their unique localities and customs, but it allows for many more experiments of government to take place. Successful experiments can then be copied by other states (which is done all the time). I'm certainly not up to speed on Vermont's tax laws or the propriety of setting up tax shelters in the way you describe. But if we didn't allow the movement of businesses and their capital easily between states then there would be no way to cure California. California has to face its problems (which are mainly problems of ideology) because people and businesses are abandoning the state where they can set up shop elsewhere at great savings.

John Kerry voted to go to war but declares that it was not done right. Only he can do it right. Wasn't this guy in VietNam? The war was not done properly? What the fuck is he talking about. How can you know how to do war properly. What does he have a crystal ball. He must have smoked to much Tai stick when he served in Nam.

I think that's a very good point.

Daschle actually said we must keep jobs here in the United States but wants people to drive to Canada to buy prescription drugs.

Another stinging point as well.

Al Sharpton is a bigot and racist but the Democratic party has allowed him a national platform.

Imagine if David Duke were a cherished and welcome member of the Republican Party. Ya think the newspapers and networks would have a thing or two to say about this? When I speak of a liberally-biased press I think nothing shows it better than instances such as this. Say what you will about Republicans, but they are more than willing to cast out their own based on nothing more than principle. Clearly being a racist (real or imagined) can be enough to be ousted or demoted in the Republican Party. Yes, you can certainly say it's all a matter of self-preservation. But then I wonder why racists are welcome openly in the Democratic Party (including former Klansman Robert Byrd)? Clearly the principle is that, at least in the case of Sharpton, it is more important not to ruffle the feathers of their black constituents (who vote 90% Democratic).

The politicians in power create economic conditions to get themselves re elected prior to election year. Holy shit lets by that Einstien a beer that came up with that idea.

I haven't heard that one. As far as I understand things, politicians say (and often really believe) that they have far more power over the economy than they really do. Oh, surely they can screw it up. They definitely have that power. But by doing nothing more than staying out of the way they are at their most helpful.

"Tax cuts for the Rich" is the crying call. It is a slogan that has no meaning. There is no truth behind what it is intended to represent. But say it enough times and it does not matter whether it has any validity or not.

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it," -- Joseph Goebbels

There is an inverse relationship between the classes and the amount of taxes paid by each group. The top 1% the elite group of individuals and corporate america pay roughly 90% of all taxes. The upper middle to middle class which is about 9% of the population pay roughly what is left over. The remaining 90% of the population the working class and the poor essentially pay no taxes at all. That is what they pay into the system is given back. If you are below the poverty line which is around an income of 12 to 13 thousand dollars a year receive additional money back on top of what they have already paid in which amounts to like an extra $300 that was never their money to start.

I'd say the liberal agenda has been implemented rather well. What fucking MORE do they want? [I thought that was a very good explanation of tax cuts, by the way.]

In a hundred years time when they rate Presidents FDR will be rated the worst president this country ever had.

Maybe, but I think he'll always be remembered and respected for leading the victory over Nazi Germany and Japan.

FDR used John Maynard Keynes

There was a great (Nova?) program on several months ago that discussed him and the man (forget the name) whose economic policies were later adopted and lead to the discrediting of Keynes' ideas. My knowledge of economics is not very deep so it's nice to have someone around who is comparatively an expert. I'll follow those other links when I get the time.

Additional:

In my experience, politics seems to attract a certain type of individual. They're not necessarily the do-gooders, but they are the type of people who like to get involved in public things. They also tend to be those looking for power, prestige, fame, and just downright control. There are many, of course, looking to do good (as they see it), but I'm guessing that this motivation is mixed in with a lot of that other stuff. And, really, I'm not complaining too much about this. Believe me, put two ego-trippers or control freaks together in the same room and I'll guarantee you that there'll be some inherent checks and balances.

We might bemoan the fact that our republic isn't necessarily geared toward bringing us the best solutions in a timely and efficient manner and for the "right" reasons. What it is geared for though – and specifically for (that is, it wasn't an accident) – is to work with people as they are and not how we might wish them to be. It is a system of government that functions despite the fact that all men are not angels. A fatal flaw of Marxism or communism is that it depends on people acting as angels. And although dictatorship may be the most efficient form of government, there is no assurance of always getting benevolent and wise dictators.

I think the core principle involved in all this is how ideals are institutionalized. Marxism and communism have some wonderful ideals but their ideals are at odds with human nature. Their ideals are reinforced only by idealic behavior and thus real world behavior becomes an enemy of the state. In a capitalistic democracy this is not inherently so. In the words of Gordon Gecko "greed is good."

quote:

---

We might bemoan the fact that our republic isn't necessarily geared toward bringing us the best solutions in a timely and efficient manner and for the "right" reasons. What it is geared for though – and specifically for (that is, it wasn't an accident) – is to work with people as they are and not how we might wish them to be.

---

I think that has the air of crap-settling, government-style. You can defend the lack of efficiency and speed in government as a reflection of human nature, yet we know our government can make decisions relatively rapidly and mobilize resources quickly when it wants to do so. The Iraq War is a perfect example. The resolve of the government and the finances of the people were put to very quick use. Are the problems at home less pressing or not as important? Why not get a move on revamping the education system, is it a lower priority? If so, why? Is not the education of our children THE most important aspect of our society? What about health care? Is not the health and well-being of society's members also important? Social Security? Infrastructure? Immigration? Etc...

Why cut the government any slack? To paraphrase, "Well, they work slowly, but that is the speed that I like working. Who needs anything faster?" Hmmm, where HAVE I heard THAT before. Seems to me like the government has become very user unfriendly, just look at the tax code. An interface so bloated with gibberish you have to HIRE someone to understand it for you. Geek aristocracy anyone? Same with the enormous bills passed by Congress. You need man pages just to figure out half of the crap that is placed in those bills. Ever wait in line at the DMV? Ever serve jury duty? Ever try to get some service from the government? The pace is glacial. Yet come tax time, John Q Taxpayer (mighty's relative I might add), has to pony up as fast as possible. C'mon, I stand in line at the grocery store and if they don't get to me fast enough, I take my business elsewhere. The only reason politicians know we will tolerate this junk is that the government runs a monopoly, and the people are too invested in the product. I wonder what this could be compared to?

The government CAN become more efficient and speedy, without losing the grip of a true democracy. It just takes the public to demand more. A governmental craplash is needed (man, who the heck have I become?). I'll tell you the reason none of our problems actually get resolved; they make great campaign rhetoric. Fear. This is bad, that is bad. They are trying to take this from you, or that from you. Elect me and I will make it better. Year after year, cycle after cycle. They have been talking about the above problems for as long as I can remember. What's been done? Squat. And we keep enabling politicians to maintain this behavior. An intervention is necessary. Except people are afraid to do so, the rhetoric has been that good, and it is messing with the only government we know. Thus status quo. But it is only maintained because of a general fear. I say, let's elevate the whole process. It can be done within the realm of human nature without posing the dilemma of idealism. And we need to begin differentiating the snake oil salesmen from the honest get-something-done candidates. We may need to encourage the honest get-something-done candidates by changing how campaigns are waged. Those people are generally not attracted to power and fame. In fact, Rico points out that our democracy does change tacks when it comes to campaigns, so perhaps this is the time to initiate a new course.

Here's one example, using education. I am an educator, I can see the problem very easily. Educator salaries are woefully uncompetitive, some don't even provide a living wage. They do not attract top talent. So we get mediocre teachers in most of our schools. On the other side, teachers are not held accountable. And tenure only builds a false entrenchment. I say, pay teachers more, competitively with other occupations that require similar training and education. But hold the teachers and the school board accountable - generalized test scores, evaluations, whatever. Probably a multiplicity of ways to make sure that teachers are not simply biasing their methods towards only passing a test. If we pay more, we must then remove tenure. If you are good at what you do, you never need that debilitating security blanket. Believe me, I understand the notion of tenure in education. It was designed to protect a teacher who puts forth contrary views from being removed for such views. But the system has become abused, with an entrenchment of mediocrity or subpar performance. Other checks and balances can be put into place to ensure that someone is not unfairly terminated for disagreeing with the school board or advancing an unpopular view. The problem IS easy to solve. More money, no tenure, performance indicators. Trust me, if the teacher's unions call for a strike, and the wages are now sufficiently high, other people will cross that picket line. I would. All we need is the political will to stand against the special interests of the NEA.

I'll tackle Social Security next.

Darr said: I think that has the air of crap-settling, government-style.

I just have to ask then, what kind of fundamental changes could be made that wouldn’t put our freedom at risk?

You can defend the lack of efficiency and speed in government as a reflection of human nature, yet we know our government can make decisions relatively rapidly and mobilize resources quickly when it wants to do so. The Iraq War is a perfect example. The resolve of the government and the finances of the people were put to very quick use. Are the problems at home less pressing or not as important? Why not get a move on revamping the education system, is it a lower priority? If so, why? Is not the education of our children THE most important aspect of our society? What about health care? Is not the health and well-being of society's members also important? Social Security? Infrastructure? Immigration? Etc...

Good point. I wonder if we don’t easily mobilize around certain things because they are more fundamentally vital to the survival of our very system of government itself? We can endure without socialized medicine (or even high-cost private sector medicine). We can survive without Social Security (and did for over a century). I doubt we could survive as a democracy without a passable education system, but there you run into an entire subject worthy of consideration on its own. Surely the fault of our education system isn’t a matter of lack of money (if one considers per-student spending in other countries, states or counties that produce better results with less money).

Why cut the government any slack? To paraphrase, "Well, they work slowly, but that is the speed that I like working. Who needs anything faster?" Hmmm, where HAVE I heard THAT before.

Actually, if you look around (and just listen to yourself and brother Rico) I don’t hear many people cutting the government much slack these days. People either want government to do more and more or people (like me) insist that it do less (or do what it does do, and should do, better). I’m still open to ideas in how to make government better. Should we less-is-more the whole system and just have one house (as opposed to a Senate and a House)? Should we have term limits? Should we radically change the way money and influence enter politics? Should we enact new constitutional restrictions on who can and can’t hold public office? Maybe an I.Q. test is in order. Maybe a friggin’ blood test is in order in some cases.

Seems to me like the government has become very user unfriendly, just look at the tax code.

We’re talking about breaking the back of entrenchment. For every government law or program there are people who are affected positively or negatively by it. Thus when the time comes to change something (particularly something as huge and important as taxation), you’re going to run into inertia the likes of which you’ll rarely see. The same goes for education (where teachers’ unions hold the interests of our kids hostage). How do we break through this powerful opposition for positive and needed (I will admit) change and do it in such a way that we neither function is such as way as to be dictatorial, nor become overly dependent on a core group of elite specialists who might just as well make things worse?

In my mind, the only answer is to be doing exactly what you’re doing: demand change. We need to have more of these types of discussions and we need more people to be having them so that pressure comes to bare upon the politicians. We need them to see that the only way they have a chance in hell of being voted back into office is to do their frikkin’ jobs the way *we* want them to be done. And the only way you’ll ever find a harmonious chorus of “we’s” is if we, as an electorate, because we have thought about and understood the issues, come to useful and logical conclusions.

The government CAN become more efficient and speedy, without losing the grip of a true democracy. It just takes the public to demand more. A governmental craplash is needed (man, who the heck have I become?).

Exactly, oh master of the segue set-up.

I'll tell you the reason none of our problems actually get resolved; they make great campaign rhetoric. Fear. This is bad, that is bad. They are trying to take this from you, or that from you.

Bingo. There is far too much fear-based irrationalism being bandied about. It pollutes The Body Politic as surely as Aqua pollutes The Body Mac. People need to start thinking instead of just reacting.

And we keep enabling politicians to maintain this behavior. An intervention is necessary.

Yes we do. And yes it is. Of course, if you look out there you’ll see people comparing Bush to Hitler. You have politicians like Kerry saying that we need our own “regime change.” Clever rhetoric, but it just shows that not everyone’s idea of an intervention, of what is of need of change, is the same – or even remotely rational.

We may need to encourage the honest get-something-done candidates by changing how campaigns are waged. Those people are generally not attracted to power and fame.

I agree. In this regard the press deserves an enormous amount of blame. Face it, people get most of their political information from newspapers and TV. It’s now a medium that has completely transitioned to the British tabloid style of sensationalism. It’s no longer (if indeed it ever was) a serious instrument for contemplation. Again, this problem is now being improved by the introduction of competition. Cable and internet news sources are trumping the traditional three networks. One would hope that people simply tire of all the garbage and will begin to vote better politicians into office. Conversely, it’s probably more important that the good ones aren’t hounded out of office by a press that has its own agenda.

But the system has become abused, with an entrenchment of mediocrity or subpar performance.

And a great solution to our problems in regards to education is competition. I’m a big fan of school vouchers. It’s probably the only way to remove the entrenchment. At the college level, I’m just not sure if higher salaries are the way to go. That still doesn’t solve the problem of entrenched ideas. It only gives those who have entrenched these non-competitive ideas more power – unless, as you say, you remove tenure and I’d be glad to high-five you from across Puget Sound for that notion.

I believe 19th century German Socioligist thought that bureaucracy was a healthy and natural part of society. That it was a must for large institutions such as governments to function properly. Red tape and paper trails are a necessity to the framework and machinery of the inner workings to society as a whole.

How amazing that in the 21st century bureaucracy still is thriving.

Darr's notions on fear and the part it plays in politics is right on. Look at FDR. I think it was his first address to the nation were he says we have nothing to fear but fear itself or something to that affect. It was that notion of fear that got him elected 4 times. The lack of consumer confidence I spoke of above which created the depression was based on fear. The link I provided above that has the letter Hoover wrote as he left office is worth the read. You have to click on each page of the letter to get a larger image.

Brad the economist name from the PBS show was Freidrich von Hayek. The two books they mention that framed his thinking were "The Road to Serfdom" and "Constitution of Liberty". That was a really great program that lasted for several episodes. I could not remember his name either. I had to look it up as well. The program was called Commanding Heights. I think PBS has some video streams of it.

[This message was edited by RicoX on Fri January 23 2004 at 03:12 PM.]

I believe 19th century German Socioligist thought that bureaucracy was a healthy and natural part of society. That it was a must for large institutions such as governments to function properly. Red tape and paper trails are a necessity to the framework and machinery of the inner workings to society as a whole.

Unfortunately, I think there's a lot of truth to that, Rico. But I think bureaucracy and red tape have grown to outlandish proportions - beyond what is inherent in normal government. I think as we try to avert any type of risk (due to concerns of lawsuits and/or compassion by way of using someone else's money) we explode the amount of rules and regulations. Is it worth it? It seems we can't have one without the other. We can have a more individual-responsibility republic with limited government and fewer guarantees - or we can have more and more democracy in our pursuit (to borrow the ideas expressed below) of equality rather than freedom. I've bolded a few lines specifically for brother thalo's benefit.

Excerpts (damn near the whole thing, really) from: It's NOT a Democracy

quote:

---

As early as the 1830’s, Alexis de Tocqueville noted how little Americans valued freedom as opposed to equality. He wrote, "Democratic institutions awaken and foster a passion for equality which they can never entirely satisfy." Equality of condition, of position, of peace and comfort became more important than freedom for people to achieve what they could. The weeds of democracy had started springing up in the fields of freedom.

Democracy gained more in 1913 when the balance of legislative power was changed by the Seventeenth Amendment, which provided for direct election of senators by the people. The Senate then represented the same constituencies as the House. Each presidential election now resounds with calls for the abandonment of the electoral system in favor of a popularly elected chief executive.

Democracy advanced further in 1913 (it was a very bad year) when the income tax amendment gave Congress the power to tax one class of citizen in order to enrich others. This also gave Congress the excuse to snoop into our personal business, the revenue to create new and ever-larger welfare-state programs, and the ability to become power-brokers and the chief grantors of favors.

The 1930’s saw President Franklin D. Roosevelt redefine freedom with his “Four Freedoms” speech. Since then, people expect to have not only freedom of speech and religion, but also freedom from fear and from want, all provided by the government, of course, and paid for with other peoples’ money.

Roosevelt threatened to “pack” the Supreme Court, which then quickly approved programs previously considered unconstitutional. The Court now routinely finds hidden meaning within the plain language of the Constitution, often in the welfare clause. Constitutional architect James Madison had written, “With respect to the words general welfare… To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” But the Court routinely uses the welfare clause without regard to original intent.

Power-lusting politicians prostitute themselves by offering taxpayer-provided goodies to any group that delivers votes. The largest special interest group has become the fifty percent of income earners who pay virtually no tax but receive benefits paid for by the other fifty percent. As H. L. Mencken once observed, “. . . government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.”

The limited government envisioned by the founders guaranteed a maximum of individual freedom. But freedom can be messy, a little chaotic. The benefits of freedom often go to dissidents whose speech and acts may disrupt the tranquility of daily life. Consequently, people have lost the realization that freedom helps everyone in the long run, not to achieve some artificial level of equality, but to improve their conditions.

Democracy promises equality at the cost of freedom and everyone quickly reaps the benefits of equality. A law is passed and benefits flow as from a mountain spring. But the long-term cost will be loss of self-reliance and an increasing dependence on government.

The inherent vice of freedom is the unequal sharing of the blessings; the inherent blessing of equality will be the equal sharing of misery.

As long as people value equality over freedom and enrichment over enterprise, the shackles of dependence will grow ever tighter and we will return to a type of medieval serfdom with bureaucrats and politicians in place of nobles and kings.

---

Jimmy Carter is not even worthy enough to have wiped Hoovers ass.

But if he did he'd no doubt get a Nobel Peace Prize.

Darr's notions on fear and the part it plays in politics is right on. Look at FDR. I think it was his first address to the nation were he says we have nothing to fear but fear itself or something to that affect. It was that notion of fear that got him elected 4 times. The lack of consumer confidence I spoke of above which created the depression was based on fear.

I'm starting to get a grasp on that now. Thus, I suppose, the enormity of all the FDIC regulations and such. A banking client of mine (CFO) recently showed me five shelves full of Federal banking regulations. A few years earlier it would have taken about 3/4 of just one shelf. I'm guessing, but surely this stuff's purpose is not only to provide safeguards and ensure sound business practices in order to avert any reason for fear in the first place, but to sort of have their mere existence act as a pacifier.

Given that fear is such an influential emotion in terms of causing action, I'm not surprised to see its use in politics. Forgot who recently pointed this out (Medved?), but the observation was that if you look at the last several presidential elections you'll find that it is those who present a positive, optimistic view of America who get elected. Those who offer little more than shrill warnings of doom and gloom (Tom Daschle in a nutshell) aren't as successful. So maybe there's hope.

I haven't read all of Hoover's letter yet, but it sure seems like the Great Depression was avoidable – or at least the worst that might have happened was a severe recession. But what is more ominous, at least to me, is that it seemed that a few key people in government had the power to tip things one way or the other. It sort of jibes with my notion that government shouldn't overreach. There are better ways for politicians to feed their ego, to feel powerful and important, than to pretend they are Lords of the Economy. Hoover is disappointed that some of his tariffs weren't enacted into law, but I wonder really how much this kind of tinkering could have cushioned the effects of what was happening elsewhere in the world.

Brad

Reading essay's like that gives the country hope. People still do care. I wonder how Ben Franklin would react if he found out we have been able to hold on to this Republic for 228 years now.

I don't know what made me link that Senate history page but it segued nicely into your link. How little people Know about the history and actual way our government functions is mind boggling. I have always been a believer in States Rights and that is one of things the Constitution is designed to protect. The last Presidential Election only reaffirmed how brilliant the founding fathers really had been. If Gore had won Florida he would have been elected President by winning only 20 or 21 states. A minority of states almost pushed it's will onto the majority. The first public statement Hillary Clinton made was that it is about time we abolish the electoral college. If she had here way in my opinion this would be the beginning to the end of this nation as we know it.

Some of my numbers above may be off but not that far off. I think typically the inverse relationship is that the top 1% control about 90% of the wealth while the 90% at the bottom control only give or take 1%. The rest is in the hands of the middle class. The middle class are the ones that get squeezed the hardest. PBS several years ago had a show on a Nebraska farming family. The husband was holding a full time job outside the farm to make ends meet as well as running the farm. This guy was working like a dog and could barely get any government support while others sit around the house waiting for the government check to arrive. 20/20 had a fact or fiction segment the other night. One of the questions was how much do the top 1% pay in taxes. The only "politician" that would give there thoughts on it was Al Sharpton. He went on about how they pay less than 5% of the taxes and how they should pay at least 15%. I think I have heard him say this stuff before. He was shocked when the interviewer told him that the top 1% of wage earners pay roughly 34% of all taxes. Double what Sharpton thought they ought to pay. They also said that the top 5% pay around 55% of all taxes. So I am not sure how far off my numbers were earlier.

One thing I thought of during the last Presidential election when Gore was holding up the process is that our government is at it's most vulnerable when one Presidnet is leaving and a new one is taking over. In 93 the first bombing of the WTC Clinton was in office for only about one month. I do not think this was a coincidence. It was a calculated action. Bush was a new Presidnet in office for less than 9 months. I have wondered if Gore had not held up the transition teams for about six weeks if that could have been enough time for the feds to have connected the dots before 9/11. Mousouii had been taken into custody only a month before the attacks. PBS's Frontline had an excellent episode entitled the "The Man who Knew". It gives a good idea off how the FBI was operating in the 90's in relation to Bin Laden. I think you can stream the whole show online free of charge. John O'Neill a silent American Hero.

Reading essay's like that gives the country hope. People still do care.

Yeah, Rico, people still do care. I never really questioned that. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions. It's also something that jibes with what I learned from Buddhism. It's not enough to just care. In fact, it might not really be compassion and caring at all if it isn't combined with a good dose of knowledge and wisdom. Take the example of seeing some laying on the side of the road who was obviously just in a motorcycle accident. We all know what an uncaring person would do. They'd just keep on driving. A "caring" person might stop and drag them into their car in order to take them to a hospital. In the meantime, they've just royally aggravated a spinal injury that now leaves the victim paralyzed for life when the worst he might have faced is a couple weeks in traction. A compassionate person would immediately call 911 (if possible) and then see that the victim stayed warm until help arrived.

Knowledge and information is incredibly important for people to have if they are going to be a part of running a successful constitutional republic. We might blindly care about the poor and then end up actually making their lives worse because we did nothing but throw money indiscriminately at the problem. But as long as spending and taxing are equated with "caring", we're going to keep doing the same thing.

I wonder how Ben Franklin would react if he found out we have been able to hold on to this Republic for 228 years now.

I think most of the founding fathers, after ample time for contemplation, would be quite satisfied. I think people like Patrick Henry, who opposed the Constitution because he saw that it would eventual grow into something as onerous as King George, would think his concerns validated.

I don't know what made me link that Senate history page but it segued nicely into your link.

I was glad to have that link and I read it all. I wasn't aware that the driving force behind the popular election of Senators was that there were so many vacancies due to problems in the State legislatures. I actually don't have a problem with the popular election of Senators. Their six year term still gives them the kind of insulated distance that they need. A bunch of dumb ass state legislators is hardly an assembly of Platos and Socrateses anyway.

I have always been a believer in States Rights and that is one of things the Constitution is designed to protect.

We had a good discussion over at Shalom Place about that once. I think Philsie (or someone) made some great points about the other side of this argument. But when in doubt, the tie should always go to the state. Government should always handle things at the lowest level possible. That also means that George Bush can shove his "no child left behind" idea. Responsibility for education should go no higher than the governors of the various states. The inherent problem is that the higher up the responsibility goes, the harder it is for parents (the people who really count) to have a direct say – and the harder it is to assign anyone responsibility for failure.

The last Presidential Election only reaffirmed how brilliant the founding fathers really had been. If Gore had won Florida he would have been elected President by winning only 20 or 21 states. A minority of states almost pushed it's will onto the majority.

I can't say I'm familiar with all or even most of the reasoning that went into our form of government. But clearly the idea of an electoral college means (at least in this day and age) that we are not all slaves to the major population centers in this country. I live in a state where, if it was a pure democracy, the eastern half (which makes up at least half of the geographic area) would have almost no say in things. They (and I) would be slaves to King County. And to be polite, some of these people are among the most liberal loonies you can find.

The first public statement Hillary Clinton made was that it is about time we abolish the electoral college. If she had here way in my opinion this would be the beginning to the end of this nation as we know it.

Power is more important than the health of our system to some people. That's why we should keep a very skeptical, even cynical, eye on those who wish to change it.

He was shocked when the interviewer told him that the top 1% of wage earners pay roughly 34% of all taxes.

Assuming he wasn't being disingenuous, I think this shows that a lot of people – particularly on the fringes – are getting their information from propaganda masters. But really, it also shows that if you want to believe a certain thing then you're not as likely to seek out or believe conflicting information.

I have wondered if Gore had not held up the transition teams for about six weeks if that could have been enough time for the feds to have connected the dots before 9/11.

No doubt the contentious court battles sucked some time and energy out of Bush's transition team, but it's my understanding that they were going full speed ahead from the get-go.