Why nothing will improve in the US

FiveB247x

I do understand your point, but I think it's naive to think solely by changing the leaders, we'd get different results. In fact, the reason we see no change isn't because of term limits, but lack of citizens pressure and participation to the legislatures and government in general. So we can change the leaders of the committees and similar, but without the other more important facet of this equation, the result won't really vary.

And lobbying doesn't rely solely on a specific person or party, but more importantly the long term continued relationship between private business interests and policy - and no matter who the party or the leader, 99.9% of our leaders have shown to be willing to participate to play in these games which keep them in office and the money machine running. Our system is corrupted from the inside out and outside in... garbage in and garbage out.. not solely outside forces pulling strings like lobbying. It takes all of their combined efforts to keep it flowing and changing just one doesn't work.. the only one thing that could or would change this system is the people's voice and constant participation.. which is also what the government and private interests count on.. our lack of effort which we continually reinforce.

Jason P wrote:

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:

I do understand your point, but I think it's naive to think solely by changing the leaders, we'd get different results. In fact, the reason we see no change isn't because of term limits, but lack of citizens pressure and participation to the legislatures and government in general. So we can change the leaders of the committees and similar, but without the other more important facet of this equation, the result won't really vary.

And lobbying doesn't rely solely on a specific person or party, but more importantly the long term continued relationship between private business interests and policy - and no matter who the party or the leader, 99.9% of our leaders have shown to be willing to participate to play in these games which keep them in office and the money machine running. Our system is corrupted from the inside out and outside in... garbage in and garbage out.. not solely outside forces pulling strings like lobbying. It takes all of their combined efforts to keep it flowing and changing just one doesn't work.. the only one thing that could or would change this system is the people's voice and constant participation.. which is also what the government and private interests count on.. our lack of effort which we continually reinforce.

I think we agree in our assessment of some major issues (Lobbyist; Corrupt Politicians) but I'm not sure why you would be opposed to term limits. What are your thoughts on limiting lobbyists?

As for the lack of interest by citizens, it's tough to think that your vote counts when you witness the games that are played in Washington by these career politicians. It makes me sick each year when I watch the State of the Union and see our elected officials acting like a bunch of school children at a popularity contest.

Some Americans have given up on their vote counting for anything. Why vote when your Representative doesn't actually represent you. I still vote, but I only really think my local and state choices are making a difference at this point.

Wouldn't it be nice to have fresh candidates to choose from?

Jason P

mikepegg44 wrote:

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**

That is the thought process I was trying to extract from my brain. Well said.

FiveB247x

It's not necessarily that I oppose term limits, I simply feel it is a back-burner issue compared to the crust of the problem. If we change term limits, it doesn't mean we will see any different results. In terms of lobbying, I feel all of it should be outlawed. In sum, lobbying is an unnecessary middle man which removes the connection between the people and the politicians. It puts the focus on outside groups and interests when it should solely be on the issues which are best for the citizens. And when it's back by private money, it completely removes the citizens from the equation. In my opinion, lobbying is unconstitutional and should be outlawed, but that will never happen. As for voting, I do vote, but do so more as I feel it is my civic duty to do so and don't actually believe or delude myself into thinking it matters. Lastly, as for "fresh candidates", there is no such thing.. there's no savior on the way folks.. this is the best we can do, care to enable and push forth. The results shouldn't be surprising to anyone.

Jason P wrote:

I think we agree in our assessment of some major issues (Lobbyist; Corrupt Politicians) but I'm not sure why you would be opposed to term limits. What are your thoughts on limiting lobbyists?

As for the lack of interest by citizens, it's tough to think that your vote counts when you witness the games that are played in Washington by these career politicians. It makes me sick each year when I watch the State of the Union and see our elected officials acting like a bunch of school children at a popularity contest.

Some Americans have given up on their vote counting for anything. Why vote when your Representative doesn't actually represent you. I still vote, but I only really think my local and state choices are making a difference at this point.

Wouldn't it be nice to have fresh candidates to choose from?

Cosmo

Jason P wrote:

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.

...
BUT... Lobbyists become the only continuity in the legislative process as Senators and Representatives come and go... the same old veteran lobbyists remain. So, what you get are Representatives and Senators with less experience making the same political deals with seasoned lobbyists. And it is not personal connections... it is money.
Ask California how great Term Limits are. We have a Merry-Go-Round of the same people jumping from Lt. Govenor to Treausuer to Insurance Secretary to State Controller... Assemblymen and State Senators who don't know the correct processes and procedures required by law in order to pass legislation and the same lobbyists that have been there for decades are the offereing the same deals.
Make no mistake... politicians are rich people. And rich people like money.
Be careful what you wish for.

Cosmo

mikepegg44 wrote:

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**

...
Why does this apply to politicians... and not other public offices. What about District Attorneys?
And what if the person is really good for his constituents... looks after their needs.
The American Political sytem already HAS Term Limits... it's called THE BALLOT BOX. Maybe, if we weren't so damn apathetic... we wouldn't get the governement someone else voted in. Maybe, if we understood that the (R) or the (D) next to the name was no guarantee that this person is the best qualified.
We are stupid people and we get the governemt we deserve. We allow radio and television to decide which team we should be on and condemn the other side as 'The Enemy'.
Term Limits is what the lobbyists want. That makes their job easiser and their clients won't have to spend as much. If we were truely an informed electorate... instead of a partisan one... we wouldn't need to be limited on who we can vote for... we would decide... not the Republican or Democratic Parties.
Nothing will improve until WE improve.

know1

The biggest issue is the government is too powerful and seems only concerned with getting itself re-elected. And it would take a monumental effort by citizens too pre-occupied with their own lives (myself included) to put forth such effort to affect meaningful change.

I don't really call that second part apathy. I think it would take too much work and coordination over a long time period to see anything significant happen.

TravisTheSky

Jeanwah wrote:

I think capitalism is the main culprit

I think that corporatism is the evil form of capitalism- Huge companies with so much power that they dictate government policies, etc.

Capitalism itself is very healthy: Small businesses, family farms, local mom 'n pop shops are all capitalistic. These empower people and strengthen local economies.

I wonder how we would live day-to-day without capitalism? Just barter of one item for another? A government dole giving us rations? Perhaps I have a very small imagination, but I'm not seeing a utopia without selling things for profit.

FiveB247x

This all goes hand in hand though. Government sets policies for business practices, and if there's no checks and balances, the results are obvious to foresee. Also, capitalism over time merely becomes into monopolies and in system where privatization and corporatism is introduced on a larger scale, it's set in stone, which is what we see now. The basic premise of capitalism is that people and the market can freely be altered to offset inequalities, but we don't nor have ever had that. Also, in practice, capitalism over time sets up a society based on hierarchy... ie separation of wealth, greed, classes, etc. The idea/your definition of capitalism is naive as the opposite which says communism is the answer.

TravisTheSky wrote:

I think that corporatism is the evil form of capitalism- Huge companies with so much power that they dictate government policies, etc.

Capitalism itself is very healthy: Small businesses, family farms, local mom 'n pop shops are all capitalistic. These empower people and strengthen local economies.

I wonder how we would live day-to-day without capitalism? Just barter of one item for another? A government dole giving us rations? Perhaps I have a very small imagination, but I'm not seeing a utopia without selling things for profit.

Eliot Rosewater

markin ball wrote:

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.

I agree. I believe apathy from the masses is why this country is on a bullet train to shit. And from a personal standpoint, it's just overwhelming sometimes to even think about it much less lead or take part in what's more and more seeming to look like a necessary revolution. I'm tired and lazy and I still think I give a fuck way more than the average american idiot.

Electric_Delta

TravisTheSky wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

I think capitalism is the main culprit

I think that corporatism is the evil form of capitalism- Huge companies with so much power that they dictate government policies, etc.

Capitalism itself is very healthy: Small businesses, family farms, local mom 'n pop shops are all capitalistic. These empower people and strengthen local economies.

I wonder how we would live day-to-day without capitalism? Just barter of one item for another? A government dole giving us rations? Perhaps I have a very small imagination, but I'm not seeing a utopia without selling things for profit.

Very well said.

blackredyellow

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

markin ball wrote:

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.

I agree. I believe apathy from the masses is why this country is on a bullet train to shit. And from a personal standpoint, it's just overwhelming sometimes to even think about it much less lead or take part in what's more and more seeming to look like a necessary revolution. I'm tired and lazy and I still think I give a fuck way more than the average american idiot.

Some apathy is out of laziness (that we all have), but a lot of it too is just how we prioritize our lives and how busy we are.

Speaking for myself, I work 40+ hours a week, come home every night to have dinner with my family, spend evenings playing with my son, walking my dogs, doing stuff around the house etc... weekends are spent doing some home projects, shopping for food/stuff, traveling, family fun activities, etc...

To me, while I do see many problems with our government and will write my representatives once in a while, doing those things above are much more rewarding to me than taking up this massive "fight" against our government, or spending the day at some sort of rally or whatever.

It might make me self-centered, or just apathetic (because there are some people who balance all of these things), but to me, my priorities are at home.

Commy

FiveB247x wrote:

Time and time again our society has shown to sit on its hands and just become too complacent and comfortable.

i think history has shown this to be false.,


people only put up with injustice for so long.

catefrances

Commy wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Time and time again our society has shown to sit on its hands and just become too complacent and comfortable.

i think history has shown this to be false.,


people only put up with injustice for so long.

and if the majority are blind to it cause theyre living it?


personally i think the herd mentality takes over. people are looking for someone to show them the way and when someone does the masses follow. because they know no other way. theyre told and shown the 'acceptable' way and any deviation from that is frowned upon and made out to be a threat to society and the finely built house of cards. the loudest most indignant voice wins.

FiveB247x

I disagree... in fact I believe that government and the powers that be have merely have catered the public demand when in absolute necessity (when it had it), not merely a result of public forcing everything in order for change. Whether it was anti-war protests, slavery, right to vote or discrimination... it was all accepted injustice til it became too big and then the government made adjustments... not solely the public forcing the situation. We didn't leave Vietnam til after years there and thousands of dead soldiers, not solely because of public outrage. The only way people change things is for the long term, and we've yet to really put this into practice.

Commy wrote:

i think history has shown this to be false.,


people only put up with injustice for so long.

Commy

FiveB247x wrote:

I disagree... in fact I believe that government and the powers that be have merely have catered the public demand when in absolute necessity (when it had it), not merely a result of public forcing everything in order for change. Whether it was anti-war protests, slavery, right to vote or discrimination... it was all accepted injustice til it became too big and then the government made adjustments... not solely the public forcing the situation. We didn't leave Vietnam til after years there and thousands of dead soldiers, not solely because of public outrage. The only way people change things is for the long term, and we've yet to really put this into practice.

Commy wrote:

i think history has shown this to be false.,


people only put up with injustice for so long.

When gov't caters to public will that is, in effect, people shaping public policy. Which is what you seem to be suggesting, yet at the same time attributing that change to government, which is false.


We can end gov't at any time, we can shut down this state, or any state. WE are their biggest enemy. The people.


And the authorities know this. The people are their biggest enemy, not China or Russia or nukes or any of that, we can end them tonight, if we were organized enough.


That's the goal of rising up, to force gov't to cater to public will, because ultimately WE have the power. It takes general strikes, protests in the streets, people standing up to authority, speaking out, but government has to listen. Or it will cease to be. And authority's primary motivator is self preservation, the idea behind the idea that power corrupts. And history has shown this to be true. They will listen, they have no choice.

The people gave us womens' rights, workers right and minority rights. Not the government.


Its also why things WILL change in the US. look at our history, they had it so much worse in the past. They died for minimum wage for fucks sake, we can carry that on. They gave us so much, and i don't see it about to pissed away. Human history is full of examples of people standing up to authority for ideas that benefit the majority, in the face of violence, propaganda and doubt.

We will progress, as a people. That is our history.

FiveB247x

Not true Commy... the reality is there's tons of issues and public outcry of many issues and they are ignored and the government does as it pleases. It's more of an example that government knows the breaking point to which it must show reaction for it's own well being before it would get to the level you're referring too. And to be clear, they know and operate under this mantra 100%. People will never, ever get to the point you mention and we've shown that over our history, except now, we basically indoctrinated people to become working stiffs for less and tolerate it all. Dumb enough to stay uniformed, tolerant workers, but smart enough to keep the money machine rolling. Oh and who can forget our short attention spans. We see no real sign of change other than rhetoric but not backed up by anything. And as a society and world, we are not progressing, we are regressing. Our technology and access to information has grown, but our minds and knowledge have shrunk..and it will/has only gotten worse over time.

Commy wrote:

When gov't caters to public will that is, in effect, people shaping public policy. Which is what you seem to be suggesting, yet at the same time attributing that change to government, which is false.


We can end gov't at any time, we can shut down this state, or any state. WE are their biggest enemy. The people.


And the authorities know this. The people are their biggest enemy, not China or Russia or nukes or any of that, we can end them tonight, if we were organized enough.


That's the goal of rising up, to force gov't to cater to public will, because ultimately WE have the power. It takes general strikes, protests in the streets, people standing up to authority, speaking out, but government has to listen. Or it will cease to be. And authority's primary motivator is self preservation, the idea behind the idea that power corrupts. And history has shown this to be true. They will listen, they have no choice.

The people gave us womens' rights, workers right and minority rights. Not the government.


Its also why things WILL change in the US. look at our history, they had it so much worse in the past. They died for minimum wage for fucks sake, we can carry that on. They gave us so much, and i don't see it about to pissed away. Human history is full of examples of people standing up to authority for ideas that benefit the majority, in the face of violence, propaganda and doubt.

We will progress, as a people. That is our history.

Electric_Delta

Commy wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

I disagree... in fact I believe that government and the powers that be have merely have catered the public demand when in absolute necessity (when it had it), not merely a result of public forcing everything in order for change. Whether it was anti-war protests, slavery, right to vote or discrimination... it was all accepted injustice til it became too big and then the government made adjustments... not solely the public forcing the situation. We didn't leave Vietnam til after years there and thousands of dead soldiers, not solely because of public outrage. The only way people change things is for the long term, and we've yet to really put this into practice.

Commy wrote:

i think history has shown this to be false.,


people only put up with injustice for so long.

When gov't caters to public will that is, in effect, people shaping public policy. Which is what you seem to be suggesting, yet at the same time attributing that change to government, which is false.


We can end gov't at any time, we can shut down this state, or any state. WE are their biggest enemy. The people.


And the authorities know this. The people are their biggest enemy, not China or Russia or nukes or any of that, we can end them tonight, if we were organized enough.


That's the goal of rising up, to force gov't to cater to public will, because ultimately WE have the power. It takes general strikes, protests in the streets, people standing up to authority, speaking out, but government has to listen. Or it will cease to be. And authority's primary motivator is self preservation, the idea behind the idea that power corrupts. And history has shown this to be true. They will listen, they have no choice.

The people gave us womens' rights, workers right and minority rights. Not the government.


Its also why things WILL change in the US. look at our history, they had it so much worse in the past. They died for minimum wage for fucks sake, we can carry that on. They gave us so much, and i don't see it about to pissed away. Human history is full of examples of people standing up to authority for ideas that benefit the majority, in the face of violence, propaganda and doubt.

We will progress, as a people. That is our history.

Commy, I'm going to have to agree with you this time. Very well put.

mikepegg44

FiveB247x wrote:

Not true Commy... the reality is there's tons of issues and public outcry of many issues and they are ignored and the government does as it pleases. It's more of an example that government knows the breaking point to which it must show reaction for it's own well being before it would get to the level you're referring too. And to be clear, they know and operate under this mantra 100%. People will never, ever get to the point you mention and we've shown that over our history, except now, we basically indoctrinated people to become working stiffs for less and tolerate it all. Dumb enough to stay uniformed, tolerant workers, but smart enough to keep the money machine rolling. Oh and who can forget our short attention spans. We see no real sign of change other than rhetoric but not backed up by anything. And as a society and world, we are not progressing, we are regressing. Our technology and access to information has grown, but our minds and knowledge have shrunk..and it will/has only gotten worse over time.

another sky is falling post, serioulsy, what color is the sky in your post apocolyptic world? :P

in all seriousness Five,
If you really want the country governed based on public opinion I have news for you, you won't like it.

FiveB247x

Mike, you may not want to discuss some of these things, but where exactly do you see society progressing currently? Other than technology we are not.. we are regressing. As George Carlin put it, we're circling the drain...becoming more and more morally and socially bankrupt to the point it effects society in every way. Whether it's decision making, intelligence, or similar, it's basically like the movie "Idiocracy" but in practice.

And when did I say public opinion should govern? I merely stated that there's plenty of areas which people feel strongly about, yet do nothing, and government changes nothing as a result. If the people could so easily change things as Commy states, public opinion which in some cases is overwhelming, it would alter policy... but it doesn't.

mikepegg44 wrote:

another sky is falling post, serioulsy, what color is the sky in your post apocolyptic world? :P

in all seriousness Five,
If you really want the country governed based on public opinion I have news for you, you won't like it.