Why nothing will improve in the US

FiveB247x

If you want to know why nothing will change for the better in the US it all boils down to these 4 major issues below. Whether it's immigration, foreign policy, economy, environment or similar... in no order:

- Poor government oversight backed by policies which are exclusionary to make necessary changes which are wanted and needed by all.
- No participation by citizens to keep the government and big business in check
- Big business's control over policy, lobbying and government
- Government not giving a crap about the citizens (self-interest)
- Media being owned and run by big business so people are ill-informed and become more polar in beliefs. Less educated, shorter attention spans and the similar.

Time and time again our society has shown to sit on its hands and just become too complacent and comfortable. We live in the height of the technology and information age but it's used for the most destructive things compared to improve the world around us. People have become more polarized and taught to be less accepting of others ideas and beliefs. I certainly always hope things will get better, but to be honest,I have zero faith in my fellow man...and the quicker people wake up to realize these core problems, the sooner they'll get fixed, but no one really wants to bother or be bothered.

markin ball

It is basically one issue for me.

Apathy.

We've had it so good for so long, really, that we as a people really won't get to the bottom of all these issues until it is so bad that we have no other choice. We are just one big "functioning alcoholic" of a nation, living in denial, that hasn't hit rock bottom yet.

Electric_Delta

Contrary to what is presented in the media, free enterprise must be encouraged, rather than stifled, if we want to dig out of this hole. The more restriction and regulation placed on the common man, the less inclined he is to produce and succeed. Everyone is pro-socialism until they are living under it.

How does one define "big business"? Anyhow, it's MORE and BIGGER government which scares me.

Free enterprise is not without it's responsibilites, but when left in the hands of the disciplined, it produces abundance. You want the opposite (Soviet Union)?

blackredyellow

Electric_Delta wrote:

Free enterprise is not without it's responsibilites, but when left in the hands of the disciplined, it produces abundance. You want the opposite (Soviet Union)?

But therein lies the problem... While more government hasn't really been the answer, but we've seen time and again discipline in the business world (especially the bigger it gets) always seems to take a back seat to profit.

Electric_Delta wrote:

Everyone is pro-socialism until they are living under it.

The same can be said for completely free markets... it sounds great, until pollution runs rampant, worker safety/rights are gone, product safety is ignored, etc...

Jeanwah

I think capitalism is the main culprit, next to apathy.

Newch91

The economy is definitely improving since Obama took office.

Electric_Delta

Jeanwah wrote:

I think capitalism is the main culprit, next to apathy.

Remember that capitalism didn't by itself put us in this mess. The government placed on the banks the burden of financing EVERYONE for homes. Most of these people had no business borrowing fortunes they could never pay back. Meanwhile, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae insured the mortgages, and you have the situation we're in.

Every system has flaws, but capitalism is a damn sight better than all of us fighting for the last sausage downtown, which is what we would have under the alternative. It's easy to sit back and criticize our system while we're soaking up the freedom it produces.

FiveB247x

I think the point is either too much hands on or too much hands off is bad. Extremism basically brings the worst out in all forms.

Also, one of the main issues when it comes to free enterprise is the idea that it's free. The common man is f'ed in most areas of society - the cards are stacked against them, it's why we see the shrinking of the middle class for decades and the greatest separation of wealth in our nation since the time of robber barons. We don't live in a free market society, we live in an oligarchy which is incorporated with government...and solely because some do succeed doesn't make our system fair, just, equal or viably successful as a whole. In fact, when it comes to development of 2nd and 3rd world nations, we don't employ all the ways we became powerful and successful, we install methods we have never used in order to make others reliable on our ways, not their own well-being and stability.

Electric_Delta wrote:

Contrary to what is presented in the media, free enterprise must be encouraged, rather than stifled, if we want to dig out of this hole. The more restriction and regulation placed on the common man, the less inclined he is to produce and succeed. Everyone is pro-socialism until they are living under it.

How does one define "big business"? Anyhow, it's MORE and BIGGER government which scares me.

Free enterprise is not without it's responsibilites, but when left in the hands of the disciplined, it produces abundance. You want the opposite (Soviet Union)?

markin ball

Electric_Delta wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I think capitalism is the main culprit, next to apathy.

Remember that capitalism didn't by itself put us in this mess. The government placed on the banks the burden of financing EVERYONE for homes. Most of these people had no business borrowing fortunes they could never pay back. Meanwhile, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae insured the mortgages, and you have the situation we're in.

Every system has flaws, but capitalism is a damn sight better than all of us fighting for the last sausage downtown, which is what we would have under the alternative. It's easy to sit back and criticize our system while we're soaking up the freedom it produces.

Just remember, the goal of pure unadulterated capitalism is to acquire everything and the more you have, the more advantage you have in the system. We need enough capitalism to incentivise but we also need some regulation here and there, too, don't you think?

FiveB247x

Absolutely, there's no such thing as the invisible hand to keep things in check anymore. Adam Smith's model of economy does not exactly correlate to today's world of global economy and trade as it was originally written and meant to be applied. To have either no government or no business oversight on either end of the spectrum leads to bad things for a society.

markin ball wrote:

Just remember, the goal of pure unadulterated capitalism is to acquire everything and the more you have, the more advantage you have in the system. We need enough capitalism to incentivise but we also need some regulation here and there, too, don't you think?

Blockhead

People are becoming lazier and lazier, They let the gov do whatever they want and accept it as them being protected. I actually think the only way for us citizens to gain and improve is with a violent attack on the gov. The gov should fear the people. And right now the what the people care and fear is if their hair isn't the same style to their favorite sex and the city star.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

If you want to know why nothing will change for the better in the US it all boils down to these 4 major issues below. Whether it's immigration, foreign policy, economy, environment or similar... in no order:

- Poor government oversight backed by policies which are exclusionary to make necessary changes which are wanted and needed by all.
- No participation by citizens to keep the government and big business in check
- Big business's control over policy, lobbying and government
- Government not giving a crap about the citizens (self-interest)
- Media being owned and run by big business so people are ill-informed and become more polar in beliefs. Less educated, shorter attention spans and the similar.

Time and time again our society has shown to sit on its hands and just become too complacent and comfortable. We live in the height of the technology and information age but it's used for the most destructive things compared to improve the world around us. People have become more polarized and taught to be less accepting of others ideas and beliefs. I certainly always hope things will get better, but to be honest,I have zero faith in my fellow man...and the quicker people wake up to realize these core problems, the sooner they'll get fixed, but no one really wants to bother or be bothered.

while I don't agree with your pessimistic approach that nothing will ever improve, I do agree that some changes need to be made to the current system in order to further thrive as a country. The most important of which is term limits.

Electric_Delta

markin ball wrote:

Electric_Delta wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I think capitalism is the main culprit, next to apathy.

Remember that capitalism didn't by itself put us in this mess. The government placed on the banks the burden of financing EVERYONE for homes. Most of these people had no business borrowing fortunes they could never pay back. Meanwhile, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae insured the mortgages, and you have the situation we're in.

Every system has flaws, but capitalism is a damn sight better than all of us fighting for the last sausage downtown, which is what we would have under the alternative. It's easy to sit back and criticize our system while we're soaking up the freedom it produces.

Just remember, the goal of pure unadulterated capitalism is to acquire everything and the more you have, the more advantage you have in the system. We need enough capitalism to incentivise but we also need some regulation here and there, too, don't you think?

I'm not opposed to some regulation, it's absolutely needed. However, the line between regulation and communism is at times a bit thin.

Newch91

HeidiJam wrote:

I actually think the only way for us citizens to gain and improve is with a violent attack on the gov. The gov should fear the people. And right now the what the people care and fear is if their hair isn't the same style to their favorite sex and the city star.

:?:

FiveB247x

In my opinion term limits has very little to do with anything. They're not too long or too short... just right. In fact, one of my favorite quotes: "Who wields power is not important, provided that the same hierarchical structure remains always the same." - George Orwell

mikepegg44 wrote:

while I don't agree with your pessimistic approach that nothing will ever improve, I do agree that some changes need to be made to the current system in order to further thrive as a country. The most important of which is term limits.

blackredyellow

Electric_Delta wrote:

I'm not opposed to some regulation, it's absolutely needed. However, the line between regulation and communism is at times a bit thin.

Isn't the problem though is that everyone's thin line is in a different place? One person might think that much more regulation is needed in an industry to keep the public safe, but someone else will say that just about any regulation is too much government intervention.

Jason P

FiveB247x wrote:

In my opinion term limits has very little to do with anything. They're not too long or too short... just right. In fact, one of my favorite quotes: "Who wields power is not important, provided that the same hierarchical structure remains always the same." - George Orwell

mikepegg44 wrote:

while I don't agree with your pessimistic approach that nothing will ever improve, I do agree that some changes need to be made to the current system in order to further thrive as a country. The most important of which is term limits.

But an established hierarchy is what has led to the gridlock we see each day in the news. Power corrupts and I don't see any reason why someone should be in power more then 8-12 years, less yet 50+ years.

I doubt Senator Rangel left the Korean War with his eyes set on taking bribes and bilking the American public. But 40 years later after he first took office, we find a man with tremendous influence and his hand is caught in the cookie jar.

I'll have to do some research to see what the average term served by senate committee chairmen.

FiveB247x

Yeah but the system and procedures is truly what doesn't change, people do. Lobbying, influence, and similar is what keeps the system impenetrable to real change regardless of voting results, campaigns or new representatives.

Jason P wrote:

But an established hierarchy is what has led to the gridlock we see each day in the news. Power corrupts and I don't see any reason why someone should be in power more then 8-12 years, less yet 50+ years.

I doubt Senator Rangel left the Korean War with his eyes set on taking bribes and bilking the American public. But 40 years later after he first took office, we find a man with tremendous influence and his hand is caught in the cookie jar.

I'll have to do some research to see what the average term served by senate committee chairmen.

Jason P

OK, here it is. I’ve listed the 16 standing senate committees with the chairperson, years served, and the year they were elected to office. For reference sake, please keep in mind that Top Gun was released in 1986.

Ag, Nutrition, Forestry - Blanche Lincoln – 12 years (1998)
Appropriations – Dan Inouye – 48 years (1962)
Armed Services – Carl Levin - 32 years (1978)
Banking, Housing, Urban Affairs – Chris Dodd - 30 years (1980)
Budget – Kent Conrad – 24 years (1986)
Commerce, Science, Transportation – Jay Rockefeller – 26 years (1984)
Energy & Natural Resources – Jeff Bingaman – 28 years (1982)
Environment & Public Works – Barb Boxer – 18 years (1992)
Finance – Max Baucus – 32 years (1978)
Foreign Relations – John Kerry – 26 years (1984)
Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions – Tom Harkin – 26 years (1984)
Homeland Security – Joe Lieberman – 22 years (1988)
Judiciary – Patrick Leahy – 36 years (1974)
Rules and Admin – Chuck Schumer – 12 years (1998)
Small Business and Entrepreneurship – Mary Landrieu - 14 years (1996)
Veterans’ Affairs – Daniel Akaka – 20 years (1990)

Average years spent in office by the chairperson of the 16 standing senate committees = 25.375 years.

What is the average age of a college graduate? 22 years?

I think amending the term limits would be a wonderful start to improving our system.

Jason P

FiveB247x wrote:

Yeah but the system and procedures is truly what doesn't change, people do. Lobbying, influence, and similar is what keeps the system impenetrable to real change regardless of voting results, campaigns or new representatives.

Exactly - Lobbying and influence prevent the system from changing. Lobbyist have developed deep ties with those that have served and survived the longest. You can break those ties by eliminating influential people that have served in office longer then I've been alive.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

In my opinion term limits has very little to do with anything. They're not too long or too short... just right. In fact, one of my favorite quotes: "Who wields power is not important, provided that the same hierarchical structure remains always the same." - George Orwell

mikepegg44 wrote:

while I don't agree with your pessimistic approach that nothing will ever improve, I do agree that some changes need to be made to the current system in order to further thrive as a country. The most important of which is term limits.

being in the senate for 60 years is way too long...Once you become a career politician you are more worried about getting re-elected than doing the job you need to do. You lose touch with the reality of what is happening to your constituency. You develop relationships with lobbiests, other politicians, and big business leaders. the higher turn over would ensure that no one particular person becomes entrenched in the system. If you are only able to work for 6 years at the job, you just might be more motivated to get your work done for all six years, rather than only working for 4 years and campaigning for the other two for yourself, and constantly for other people. ** also because you are going to have to go back and live in the world you have helped shape**
It isn't the system of democracy that is the problem, it is the current career politicians that are keeping the outsiders out. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be much better than it is now.
Term limits is an answer, certainly better than letting the same jackasses keep their jobs for far too long

A lot of the lobbying and special interest groups gain their influence because of relationships forged over years, klobuchar probably isn't too influenced at the moment, but 4 more terms would change that for sure.

edit**