Is saving the United States futile?

No.

Sometimes I feel that way but I think the wheels turn. Sometimes painfully slow but they turn nonetheless. Rapid change is also rapid upheaval.
P.S.- many attempt to change the status quo. the only problem is that those comfortable in the status quo are not wont to surrender their status very easily.

I take heart in what Winston Churchill said about us during the war years. I’m not sure if I have the exact quote, but I can paraphrase the sense of it:

“You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing… after they have exhausted all of the other choices.”

If you’re coming to Europe for those reasons, don’t bother with the UK…

It is much better than the USA, but somewhere between there and the rest of Europe.

@The_Idler
and of course the food sucks

It may take the whole system beginning to fail around us before the sleeping giant finally wakes up from it’s garbage TV slumber. But when things finally get bad enough, the public invariably wakens. Things can get very ugly, as they did in the French Revolution. Even Robespierre eventually wasn’t radical enough for the rabid crowds. THey beheaded him for being a collaborator. But revolt they did.

No, this grand experiment is worth saving, but I’d far prefer it be saved in a less revolutionary way than the French had to use.

The USA is in a tough time, that’s for sure. We have huge issues with with civil rights, our environment, the economy, and our international standing.

Look on the bright side though- Civil rights have come far enough that we’ve elected a dark skinned president. School children aren’t hiding under their desks to practice bomb drills. Some reports indicate that our economy is growing faster than it has in over half a decade. Human rights are on ballots, and I remain hopeful that soon that marriage will be available to all.

There IS good going on. You just have to look for it.

well at least there’s no political upset anywhere else in the world.~

@The_Idler
We left you once before, why would we go back. In fact we had to kick you out of our backyard you were such a nuisance. .

I hope not I can’t leave it now.

@CyanoticWasp Inspiring words, the question is “When?”
Like @SeventhSense said ”... the only problem is that those comfortable in the status quo are not wont to surrender their status very easily.”

@SeventhSense: Fresh strawberries and clotted cream, rare roast beef with that popover thing spread over it….there must be something else delicious that I am forgetting. (No jokes about Spotted Dick please.)

Depends what you’re saving it from. There are winners and losers amongst the general population with every new administration. No administration, so far, has managed to destroy the country. Under Republicans, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer and white collar thieves entrepreneurs do very well. Under Democrats, the rich get richer, the poor don’t get poorer and white collar thieves entrepreneurs do very well. There are also a few lawsuits that end up throwing one or two white collar thieves into jail.

There’s a reason why both parties are nearly the same. In a two party system, you need only take slightly more than 50% of the vote. To do this, you just need to put yourself as close to the center as possible, keep your loyalists and get just enough of the center to vote for you. The best way to get the center to vote is to be centrist with only a hint of right wing or left wing leanings.

The way things are set up, because the two parties are so similar, they serve as balances against each other. Each tries to obstruct the other, so things move on pretty much as they have and nothing significant is passed.

Within all this, the economy reigns supreme. If the administration enjoys a good economy, they get reelected. Bad, and they lose. Each election is mainly a referendum on the economy with the party in power losing if the economy is bad.

The problem is, I’m not sure how much government can do about the economy. Whether reducing taxes or increasing training programs and giving away free money to companies to encourage them to invest, it seems to me that government can only tinker around the edges. I’m not even sure that monetary policy really makes much difference.

What I think makes a difference is confidence. When Americans feel good about their prospects, we do well. Otherwise, not. The president can rally the American people to some degree, but in the end, the economy goes the way it goes regardless of cheerleading or government policy.

Government can help the poor, I believe. They can extend medical, housing, civil rights, and job training aimed at those at the bottom of the economic ladder. The question, it seems to me, in terms of the party in power, is how much the government will help the poor. This is especially problematic since every time the government wants to help the poor, they also have to help the middle class, or they won’t get votes in the next election.

Aid for the middle class is sort of silly, I think. It’s like taking money in from people and giving it right back out in approximately the same proportional distribution as it came in. You get the feeling that the government is one of those rowboats in a perpetual motion swimming pool. Rowing and rowing just to stay in place.

So, in one sense “saving” the United States is futile. Efforts to save it will have no net effect. Saving the Unites States is futile another way: it doesn’t need saving. It will go rumbling on and on, never really veering off course, because it is too big to change course. There will only be a problem if this giant rolling rock hits another giant rolling rock. Fortunately, most of the giant rolling rocks seem to run on parallel courses, and only occasionally do they get close enough to rub each other.

I went to London last Feb, it was beautiful. I also went to Wiltshire and Bath as well. Overall it was a wonderful experience. I have heard however that the government in the UK is stricter than the United States…

@gailcalled
I just didn’t like his pompous ass response.

I’m pretty pessimistic. After spending my entire adult life in uniform, I consider it a wasted effort. We’re in a death spiral into corporate fascism. I’ve considered emigrating to New Zealand, probably simpler just to blow my brains out.

Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though
We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven; that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

@kidkosmik, I understand where you’re coming from for sure. It helps me to think along the lines of what @Likeradar said… times have definitely been worse and/or more turbulent in the past.

To rob from Steven Covey, might I also suggest that part of your angst stems from the gap between your circle of concerns and your circle of influence. That is, you are worrying about things you can’t control. That’s not unusual, and it’s something I do all the time, but there is something to be said for returning your focus to the things you can control. To use your example, there is a shit ton of influence invested in maintaining a two party system. Knowing that, is it worth your energy to concern yourself? What are you really hoping to accomplish with something so big that is reinforced by the minds the ignorant masses? I’m not trying to discourage you, because if you really feel called to take that on, I’ll be the first to support you, but do you see that part of your distress is being caused by holding on to this illusion of an open playing field? It sounds like you do to an extent. I don’t know, for me it just helps to know what the real deal is.

But getting back to what you can control, a good life only requires so many things (decent food, clothing and shelter, relationships and community) and with a little work, I think it is possible to have those things even with all the stupidity that passes for civic participation. “They” have their game, but their game requires some blind participation on our part to work and without a critical mass of uncompromised grassroots protest “they” always win. With a little work, though, you can have your own game.

Read up on Ghandi and the concept of satyagraha. That might help.

funny how visiting somewhere is not like living there. I lived in sheffield england- blah meh @SeventhSense hear hear

Europe is way worse than the U.S.

@jackm
au contraire, mon cheval

@SeventhSense
I wouldn’t say that calling my own country the worst in the region, with regards to voter apathy and the near-inconsequential bickering known as party-politics, is “pompous ass”.

And I can’t see how it has anything to do with our great food and that time you tried to kick us out of your backyard and we burned down the White House.

Also, you say you left once before. Yeah, in the name of freedom and equality. What a pile of bullshit that turned out to be, we banned slavery, enacted employment laws and policed the world, while you constructed an apartheid society, based on slave labour, and proceeded to continuously attempt to conquer the entire continent, whilst marginalising, demonising and eventually catalysing the destruction of the native societies and their traditions and customs.

Not to mention the war of 1812 (see above), when you declared war on us, at a time we stood alone (defenders of the free world) against a crazed tyrant bent on global domination.
Pretty much equivalent to siding with Hitler, though Napoleon had a little more class.

There are huge differences between parties.

Telling yourself otherwise is just a post-facto justification for your apathy.

@The_Idler You forgot nuclear weapons, global warming, destroying the worlds financial system, corporate fascism, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and George W. Bush. And a few dozen other things.

@kidkosmik, ah, well… there’re a lot of ‘other’ choices to run through first, aren’t there? We seem to be spending our way out of a lot of those options, though, so maybe it won’t be too too much longer.

@trailsillustrated Everyone has their own definition of ideal. While your opinion of Sheffield may have been “blah” someone else may say “ooh!” Example, I moved from San Diego, California to Littleton, Colorado and haven’t looked back or regretted it. I am asked “How could you leave near perfect, year round weather?” Easy, I’ve always loved rain, fog, and gloomy weather in general. Another reason why I loved London in Feb.

@Qingu You mean who’s Pro-Life/Choice or For or against Gay marriage? Not going to go down the list but I am well aware that there are differences. IMO, these are just distractions to cover up the big picture. Distractions to keep us fighting each other while they continue to rob us blind.

@kidkosmik, again, that’s a convenient rationalization to excuse your own laziness. “They’re all the same… so I’m not going bother getting involved in the political process or putting in the effort to learn about the nuances of policy differences, or figuring out which politicians are less corrupt and worth supporting.”

With all due respect, I think people like you are part of the problem. Instead of working to shift the political process in a saner direction, you sit on the sidelines. How are specific politicians supposed to be held accountable for specific actions when people like you dismiss them all with the same broad, cynical stroke?

The US is an amazing country, we should not just give up. Of course nothing is perfect, and it seems our citizens have varying ideas of what they expect our country to be, but if you look back at why we were created and how other countries were run at the time, and maybe even think about the history of how your family came to the US, then you might have a deeper appreciation for it. A country of immigrants (well mostly immigrants) with freedom for all, separation of church and state, was a bold idea in its’ day.

Did you see Oprah yesterday? It was fantastic. The theme was about CEO’s and residents of companies spending time working under cover in the bottom ranks of their companies. Anyway, A Russian man with a college degree who worked in business left to live in the US and have the American Dream. He was working as a night shift delivery man for 7 Eleven to live here. We are still the country people come too. Sure there are other countries that are great, I am not saying we are the only one, but we are still one of the greats in my opinion.

I could say – Saving it isn’t, but the attempt might be.
Or I could say – Saving THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is, but saving America isn’t.

Also, I’m thinking the people who annoy you most in the US are going to get old and die, and there will be an overwhelming majority in the next 10 years of people who are more liberal, and similar to the thinking of Europe. I kind of think Europe in some countries has been naive about immigration, which we have years of experience in, and they are having some troubles in that area, probably going to get a little worse before it gets better in some places.

It’s important to remember that, for all its problems, America used to be a lot worse. 150 years ago, slavery was legal. 100 years ago, women couldn’t vote. 50 years ago, blacks still had no civil rights. Not even a few decades ago, gays were subject to widespread discrimination and harrassment; now we’re about to repeal DADT and they can get married in a few states.

And we have the internet now.

And younger generations overwhelmingly have progressive, secular values. The bigots will die off soon.

Things are getting better.

@Qingu People like me? Yes, please continue to assume that I have done nothing. Also, if you read the OP you may have noticed that “I am sad and scared.” I will admit that I am sitting on the sidelines now with good reason. As I am sure a lot of people are as well. Should I make a stand, I fear that I will lose my employment (I’m in Defense). I should not be afraid, but the fact is I am. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from judging others without knowing all of the facts.

I do acknowledge:

“And we have the internet now.

And younger generations overwhelmingly have progressive, secular values. The bigots will die off soon.

Things are getting better.”

Still the Corporate Oligarchy will continue to reign.

@kidkosmik, I suppose that came off harsher than it should have.

I just don’t like the attitude of “they’re all the same.” Because (1) they’re really not, and (2) treating the entire complex structure of American politics as this monolithic entity is unnuanced and not very helpful.

And there are other facets of life in America, in the world, and in our politics than the existence of a corporate oligarchy. That is not the end-all be-all of our political structure. And corporations—like politicians—are not monolithic.

@Qingu, there may be “huge differences” between the parties, but when you sit on the far left or right or up or down, those differences are immaterial. When a president is elected with one of the largest populist bases in history and when his party controls the senate and house, but he and his party cannot deliver on health care reform promises or even promises to keep the discussion open to the public, then what does that say about the differences between the parties? When despite this majority, Republicans and “blue dog” Democrats are stifling reform, what is the material difference? What is the material difference in foreign and economic policy these days? When both parties indemnify local police departments and use “free speech zones” and terrorist laws to detain demonstrators and journalists in the midst of their respective national conventions, what is the material difference?

@kidkosmik, why in God’s name are you working in defense? Maybe I’m naive, but change doesn’t come from being a cog in the machine. Perhaps your own situation illustrates your point with respect to the McPolitics you see around you.

The inconsequentiality of party politics is not only (or even mostly) due to similarity in the parties’ policies, but far more to the impotence of government, relative to the corporate supremacy.

@kevbo, first of all, while I’m disappointed that the health bill hasn’t passed yet, it’s still probably going to pass. And it would have passed yesterday had Democrats won in Massachusetts.

Secondly, much of the process has been open to the public. What exactly do you need to know that you believe was hidden from you? And how could Obama practically achieved your ideal level of transparency?

Third, you are vastly underestimating the amount of progress this Congress has made, despite their slow pace on health reform.

And there is a material difference between Blue Dog democrats and progressive democrats. Which is my entire point. If you lump them all together as “Democrats” or—even more un-nuanced, “those politicians”—you are ignoring the actual differences between individual congresspeople.

As for “material difference in foreign and economic policy”—are you joking? One party overwhelmingly supports health reform, jobs programs, increased regulation for the financial industry, and the extension of various social safety nets. The other party almost uniformly opposes all of this and many of its members seem to want to go to war with Iran and Yemen and torture terror suspects. If you can’t see a difference you haven’t been paying attention.

And there is hardly a straight arrow from the behavior of police at Democratic conventions to Democratic leadership.

politics have always improved things for people, and continue to do so. because politicians get wiser, more morally upright and more honest as time goes by. i think we can all agree on this.~

@kevbo I suppose I was a bit naive when I started working here. Although I will add that I love what I do day in & day out (IT support). As much as I would like to go elsewhere, now is a terrible time to do so. It’s not easy!

@Qingu, I’m sure you’ll point out the logic flaw in this article, but it will have to do for the time I have to respond. Here’s your straight arrow.

@kidkosmik, no doubt. We are all naive because we get taught something different all our lives, until we figure a couple of things out for ourselves. You obviously create an argument for some compassion in your case. Maybe it’s not such a stretch to extend that same compassion to others who are less enlightened.

@eponymoushipster I’m loving your quips. Not answers, exactly, but enjoyable.

@CyanoticWasp “I’m loving your quips (@eponymoushipster). Not answers, exactly, but enjoyable.”

Agreed!

@kevbo, but your article is about the RNC.

Who I will gladly admit are thugs.

And I’m sure some among the DNC are thugs too, but not as many.

@kidkosmik @CyanoticWasp by indirection find direction out.

No not at all…we are still a strong a quite powerful country in spite of the fact we are broke. It is exactly your kind of messed-up thinking that is mucking things up for this country and the sooner you pack your bags the more room there will be for people who really care about their country!!

@The_Idler
Maybe you need to refresh my memory. I don’t recall any post from you about voter apathy but only the snarky comments about American Cheese.

You are not seriously trying to make an argument about the humanitarian nature of the Union Jack? Seriously? You didn’t have to have slaves domestically because you had them on every nation you occupied! The nation that is responsible for more damaging effects from Global colonialism then any nation on earth? The nation that decided that Africa, Asia, India, and anywhere else it happened to land with an uneducated populace it could exploit as property of the King or Queen? Maybe we’re thinking of another England. Is this the same England that attempted to subjugate its own people who came to the New World because of persecution and extreme taxation and were thrown off as the tyrants that they were by a fledgling nation with courage? Or maybe you’re referring to the same Britain that mercilessly would quell “religious” differences in Northern Ireland? Perhaps you’re thinking of the nation that was rescued from utter devastation at the hands of the Third Reich’s relentless blitzkrieg by US involvement? Yes we must be thinking of a different nation.
Yes there have been many contributions to the world from Britain but think twice before you spout off your biased lilting lambastes.
The United States of America is second to no nation on earth and is the preeminent superpower left standing. And we may have many faults but the balance of power resting in our hands is in no better place.

Canada or Australia would be better places to rest that there balance of power.

The fraction of those country’s populaces who are outright insane and willing to elect people like Bush or Palin is much, much smaller.

@Qingu
Where do you live?

@Cruiser My kind? my bigot sense is tingling. That’s odd because I actually care. It’s the reason I created this thread. I care so much that it makes me sick.

@SeventhSense, I live in ‘Murica.

@Qingu
Move to Canada or Australia. I’ll help you pack.

I’ve tried moving to Canada. Can I have $10,000 and a job offer there?

I’ll give you 10,000 Russian rubles. Their curency is strong no?~

Because Canada, the country that has weathered the recession the most successfully and has a much stronger economy than the U.S. right now, is socialist and so just as bad as them pinko ruskies m i rite

@Qingu
No because to state unequivocally that the balance of power should rest anywhere else is not dissent but treason. Canada is American anyway. And stop your racist slang rants. I’m the Yankee here. NY is the engine of the country.

You have a pretty low threshold for treason. Kind of creepy.

Also, what “racist slang”?

@The_Idler
And talk about revisionist history. The war of 1812 was a result of the British trying to restrict our trade with France because they couldn’t destroy(edit subjugate) our nation in the Revolutionary War. Since when is a nation with an army more half the size of the other one to declare war.
anybody want to step in and stop this propoganda feel free at anytime:(
@Qingu
pinko ruskies m i rite…u know what i’m talking about..

Neither “pinko ruskies” nor “m i rite” has anything to do with racism. What on earth are you taking offense at?

@Qingu
Listen you know damn well your slang is a subtle inflammatory dig to paint a redneck southern, conservative slant on an oppositional argument because you never use that verbiage…and I’m neither redneck nor conservative so don’t be a dick

@SeventhSense
The questioner was referring to problems of public apathy, pointless party-politics and suppression of alternative views in the USA, when they said, “I’m going to Europe!”
I was referring to the questioner’s topics of discussion, in my answer, in the traditional manner of question-answer interactions, when I said the UK is better than the USA, but worse than the rest of Europe.

Hence my saying, “If you’re coming to Europe for those reasons, don’t bother with the UK…”

Out of curiosity, just what reasons did you think I was referring to there?
The simple and unglamorous food, which nobody mentioned until you?
The jolly and absent-minded manner, in which we took over the world, which nobody mentioned until you?

Because whatever ‘reasons’ you thought I was referring to, you imagined them.

@The_Idler in the States, we just say “slavery”.

@SeventhSense… yes, I was mocking conservatives. No, I was not mocking southerners or “rednecks.” No, none of that has anything to do with racism.

And let me just remind everyone about what the alternatives to British supremacy were:
– The Spanish, with their gold-lust and fire & steel approach to propagating Catholicism.
– The Germans, with their gas chambers and totalitarianism.
– The Italians, as fascists.
– The Austrians, with the “Hapsburgische” dominance nepotism.
– The Americans, with their apartheid, relentless expansionism and money-worshipping.
– The Russians, with their serfdom and Church.
– The Belgians, with their entire Congo turned into a forced-labour camp for the benefit of the King.
– The Imperial Japanese, with their numerous crimes against humanity and general insanity.
– The French.

If it hadn’t been for the British Empire’s continuous intervention, I can 100% guarantee that North America would’ve been subjugated by one of these powers.

For the same reasons that you shouldn’t criticise British supremacy, I will not criticise American supremacy. The alternatives were, and are, a lot worse.

@The_Idler
This is what makes people conservative and drives American towards neo nationalism. You actually imagine that you saved us from any of those nations. The United States was THE PRIMARY REASON THAT THE WORLD WAS SAVED FROM THE RAVAGES OF GERMAN FASCISM AND THE TOTALITARIAN REGIME OF JAPAN. And to boot we rebuilt everyone of our aggressor’s economies to unprecedented pre war levels. Don’t make me sick. Americans apartheid? Fucking creep. Go choke on a fucking scone.

“The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission.”

John Fitzgerald Kennedy

I think both countries have committed atrocities in their respective roles as world hegemon but I agree that they’ve both been better overall than other historical or potential hegemons.

so, wait…. i think the consensus is that all the political powers are full of shit? kudos, gents.

@SeventhSense
– Are you a troll?
– Do you know any history, besides US military victories?
– Do you think that what you did in WW2 wasn’t exactly what the British had been doing, repeatedly, for 200 years previously?
– Do you think the treatment of blacks as second-class citizens, backed up by legislation until the 60s, was not apartheid?

I don’t see how you can say the British WEREN’T the primary reason the world was saved from France, Russia, Spain, Imperial Germany, etc. when we were the ones who intervened in their rampages, beat them, and guaranteed the independence of those they would have subjugated.
Unless, of course, you don’t know any history, in which case your writings are worthless.

Also, you turned this discussion from the original topic of politics and government to slating the British… about their food. õ.O
So I think you must be a troll.

Or maye you just really fuckin love American cheese, and got honestly offended, and attempted to return the favour in the only way you knew how:
saying “British ______ sucks!” and “We beat you in a war and saved the world once!”

Oh, how predictable.

Okay my tone is getting too harsh but I wouldn’t think to come on a British forum and start to say that the UK was a distant second to the US and quite honestly I take issue with the lack of support for the obvious revisionist histories and those who are quite aware of the role the US plays and continues to play in the world’s arena. Their previous intervention in the North American continent was because Britain did not care to lose an ally with a nation that had bested them and wanted to continue to profit from. And yes Britain certainly played a role in the aggression on the continent of Europe but on the North American continent their fear was taking a back seat to France in commercial acquisition. Yes we have both had our abuses but we are still allies. I apologize for my insults.

@kidkosmik [quote] “I have turned apathetic. I’m going to Europe!”

Your words not mine. It is apathy and attitudes like yours that gets idiots elected to office who help screw this country into the ground. Nothing bigoted in my comments to you. If you don’t like it here…leave…pretty simple.

@SeventhSense
Thank you. I didn’t really see what your point was (beyond the cheese).

In the end, no-one ends up being top dog by playing Mr Nice Guy.

I only have a problem with people, who insist their nation is hegemon, because they’re on a humanitarian mission of peace.

In reality, it only ever happens that a nation becomes hegemon, and then subsequently acquires a social conscience. Nobody ever took over the world for the benefit of others, but some benefit was consequential.
Two great examples are the UK and USA.

Long live! but don’t fear change.

btw, I didn’t realise this was an ‘American’ forum…

And you gave us the Clash and Monty Python. Can’t be that bad.

@Cruiser It’s bigots/ignorant people that are running this country into the ground. I have played my part in voting for whom I thought was the best candiate or were the best propositions. I don’t think you can blame me for becoming jaded. I intend on leaving, when I am able to, pretty simple…

A man asked another man about what life was like in his country. He replied, “How do you find life in your country?” The man replied, “Well I generally find that people are decent and the climate has its moments but overall it’s a nice place to live”. The first man said, “I think you’ll pretty much find the same thing here.”

A second man asked the man about what life was like in his country. He replied, “How do you find life in your country?” The man replied, “Well I generally find that the people are rude and the climate is intolerable”. To this the man remarked, “I think you’ll pretty much find the same thing here.”

@The_Idler hehe, regarding..

“I only have a problem with people, who insist their nation is hegemon, because they’re on a humanitarian mission of peace.”

Actually we are trying to spread the democrats your way, we want to clean out California, and New yawk to make room for the Texans.

And now I declare unto thee – make way for the flames <ducking>

@kidkosmik I am not blaming you for anything other than holding you accountable for your self proclaimed apathy amidst a grandiose question that you posted here. How convenient to blame bigots and ignorants for this countries problems when all you want to do is pack your bags and leave.

@DrMC
Oh the English love Texans. They find them interesting anecdotes with funny hats.
Besides Texas is another country. Haven’t you heard from President Chuck Norris?

@Cruiser I will not justify my reasoning because I already did. There comes a point when enough is enough and you throw in the towel. I’m happy that I can see the big picture now. I made an effort, futile or not, I did. Blaming ignorant/bigoted people wasn’t only convenient, it’s the truth! They are the masses! As I type this the masses are being bombarded by propaganda (positive or negative) from the television, radio, newspaper, and even the internet. I’ll leave you to deal with the pitchforks. :-)

I found this very interesting:

545 vs 300,000,000
EVERY CITIZEN NEEDS TO READ THIS AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS JOURNALIST HAS SCRIPTED IN THIS MESSAGE. READ IT AND THEN REALLY THINK ABOUT OUR CURRENT POLITICAL DEBACLE.

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

45 PEOPLE
By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don’t write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don’t set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don’t control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 apparently inept selfish human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don’t care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator’s responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted—by present facts—of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can’t think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it’s because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it’s because they want it in the red ..

If the Army &Marines are in IRAQ , it’s because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it’s because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems..

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like “the economy,” “inflation,” or “politics” that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

@CaptainHarley I’m not ready to aquit the other 300,000,000 who keep voting for more spending, more backon brought home and lower taxes. We have the politics we have because that’s what we keep voting for. If someone ran intending to do with taxes and spending what it would take to eliminate the debt, they would be darned lucky to get a vote from their won mother.

Then I can only pray for our grandchildren.

I don’t know which is more of a ridiculous suggestion, that the American public should wake up and elect responsible politicians, or that they should get up, get out and shoot them.

It might well be too late to flush the parasites out, by any other way then killing the host.

The Federal Government, its associated organisations, the corporate elite and the financial system.
Can you really vote them out and clean up their mess?

@The_Idler Huh? Are you suggesting anarchy?

No, I just don’t know what seems more futile, trying to convince the American public to vote for “good politicians(?)” and expecting them to restructure the establishment, from the inside, into a sustainable and non-exploitative system, or trying to overthrow them by force.

@The_Idler I like Obama’s idea to start putting all meetings between lobbyists and congressman online.

@The_Idler
It might well be too late to flush the parasites out, by any other way then killing the host.

This suggests anarchy. That host is the US Government. It was established with a range of checks and balances in order to avoid any one interest from gaining an advantage. This was the antithesis of the monarchy. The three branches work brilliantly. It’s not supposed to be easy to pass legislation.
edit:and talk about issues..how bout those funny guys with wigs in the UK Parliament :P

@SeventhSense copy cat :)

There are three basic differences between optimists and pessimists. Optimists have a strength that allows them to interpret setbacks as surmountable, particular to a specific problem and resulting from temporary circumstances. The pessimist, on the other hand, sees negative events as permanent, as part of life and destiny.

The second difference between the optimist and the pessimist is that the optimist sees difficulties as specific, while the pessimist sees them as pervasive. This means that when things go wrong for the optimist, he looks at the event as an isolated incident largely disconnected from other things that are going on in his life.

The third difference between optimists and pessimists is that optimists see events as external, while pessimists interpret events as personal. When things go wrong, the optimist will tend to see the setback as resulting from external factors over which one has little control.

Is saving the United States futile?

Not at all. On the contrary. The great recession is temporary. Political problems are temporary. America and Europe are learning from each other all the time. America will be back soon. Still a good idea to live in another country for a while. Europeans will welcome you. And turn you into an optimist again.

Here’s an interesting link:

http://www.successinspired.com/personal_development/positive-thinking/optimist-vs-pessimist/

@JLeslie
I am a proud American and that may seem hokey to some. And as a fairly conservative Democrat, I also don’t think that the Republican party has a corner on patriotism. We all complain and I’m one of them but it’s still the best system in the world because we can and do change. We’re unique among all nations of the earth. There’s a reason they keep coming every day.

For a pessimist, i’m pretty optimistic.

@mattbrowne

Thank you, Mattbrowne! Americans are by nature, optimists. Pessimists could never have built this Nation.

@SeventhSense Me too.

@CaptainHarley
If one could judge you by the teaparties, one would conclude the opposite, with all the doomsayers claiming that obama will turn the country into a communist nation/destroy america.

@ragingloli

There will always be doomsayers, and the press will always play them up… it just makes for good copy. The average American just wants to make ends meet, raise his children in a place where opportunity still exists, and to largely be left alone to live his life as he chooses. The bigger government gets, the less likely this is to happen. That’s why the tea parties and protests. People don’t really trust EITHER party; Obama just happens to be President right now and is thus on the recieving end.

@SeventhSense The host is the US Government. Yeah.
So did you reject the British Government, in favour of anarchy? No, you rejected it in favour of a government, which more accurately represents the interests of the American people.

Anarchy is not the sole alternative the the present establishment. I’m not saying revolution is the only way, I’m just saying that nowadays it seems change from within is just as difficult as change from without.

@The_Idler Hmmm. But we, I use the royal we, are not saying we don’t like the original set up of the American goverment, at least I don’t think you are saying that, I think you just hate how money has manipulated and corrupted the system. Right? Would you change much about the original plan, maybe we just need to get back to basics somehow.

All of my children live here, as do all ten of my granchildren. Perhaps some people feel as though we should just give up. I don’t see that an an option.

@JLeslie Yes, exactly. The United States was one of the greatest ideas in history.
I mean, England had the Magna Carta and other guarantees of rights and limitations on the power of the Crown, but the USA was founded on those principles.

It was considered legal in China for the public to remove from power [kill] a “bad” Emporer. The USA went one step further and allowed the same thing, without need for fighting etc.
The problem is, you can’t really erode the power of killing a tyrant over time, but you can erode the power of democracy, and that is exactly what has happened in the USA.

With absolute monarchies, killing the bad King equates to killing the bad government. That is supposed to be the point of democracy, but without the need for any killing.

Over time, though, the Government has reduced the level to which voting out the bad Party equates to killing the bad government, so that even if you do vote them out, the systems of exploitation remain.

This is the goal of every government: Further the interests of the establishment, whilst giving the impression of progress for the people.
Occasionally there is overlap, but unfortunately the primary interest of the establishment is exploiting the labours of the people to the greatest degree possible, so any improvement in the fare of the people is not due to the benevolence of the establishment, but due to an incidental association with something that allows yet more efficient exploitation.
Medicine, infrastructure, transportation, consumer goods, energy, communications, etc. are ultimately not here for our benefit, but for theirs; they make it easier for them to benefit from our life’s work.

@The_Idler
There’s a reason an ocean liner takes a mile to change course as well. There are countless banana republics that can attest to the futility of too rapid change.

edit: also the US has never been a direct democracy but a representational one. It’s unique in that the variety here is as much as within many countries. It’s only right that a state like California should have more weight than South Dakota.

@SeventhSense Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying revolt is a good idea, far from it.
But I really think that the growing sense of futility within the USA, with regards to voting, is going to radicalise portions of the population and cause internal strife.

Just like happened in every other Empire in history. American Exceptionism is a lie.
Just because the circumstances of the USA’s creation were remarkable, doesn’t mean the Government hasn’t succeeded in converting it over 200 years into a (though novel, the ends are identical to every other in history) system of public exploitation and grudging appeasement.

What the Church did for Old Europe, consumerism does for the USA:
It gives an artificial purpose to people’s lives, and equates that to something, which benefits the establishment.

It’s not forced labour, but it’s still a load of bullshit.

I still say many of the intolerant, want to rewrite American history people, are going to die off in the next ten years and things will get better by attrition. Or, we could offer the south the option to secede as they wanted to so many years ago, and in one fell swoop tons would change. I agree with @SeventhSense that we don’t want change to be too fast, little steps is better, take a step, evaluate, readjust, and take the next step, but what I am talking about is to be going in the right direction at least. Point A to point B is never a straight line, and definitely not a game of leap frog, but going backwards or into a ditch really slows you down.

@SeventhSense and your comment on California and South Dakota, I am very in favor of getting rid of the electoral college, if that is what ou are alluding to. Or, do you just mean the House of Representatives, or what? I might have missed something in your posts.

@The_Idler
I don’t think voting as much as a lack of basic needs. There may come a tipping point but I don’t think it’s in the interest of the free world if America becomes too unstable. It could be very dangerous across the globe. Our country has come through the incredible upheavals of the 1930’s, WW2, 1960’s with riots in all major cities but still comes through always.
@JLeslie
Both but I can see how with an increasingly mobile populace one would take issue with that but still the immense contributions to GDP and the needs of the population point towards a greater need of government attention to some areas. For example should federal funding the Navy fleet at Norfolk be the same as a National Guard troop in Oklahoma? Should the states that pump billions into the economy with huge populations not have a greater share of the attention? It just makes sense.

@SeventhSense Wait, you are in favor of the electoral college?

Yes only because a mobile populace is not necessarily representational of a states needs. I would ideally want 50 separate state elections and then the winner of 50 states- 39–11, 23–27 etc

You might enjoy the movie Collapse.

@JLeslie

“Let the South secede?” Would that be better for the South or for the North?

To all. I know it sounds politically correct to be cynical and basically degrade everything that the US is doing everywhere but that’s not the whole picture and the rest of the free world is not so innocent either. Most of it none of us are privy to but we like to imagine we can create a conclusion based on limited information.

@SeventhSense But, the thing I hate about the electoral college is that when I live in TN my vote does not count. And, I can say the same thing in NY. It is only when I am in a swing state like Florida that it even matters. I hate that. And, I agree, even though I might criticize the US I am a patriot through and through. I love my country, and its’ ideals, and I believe it is totally worth the struggle to be the best we can as a country. The founders were inspired, and I am inspired by them and the foundation they set forth for our citizens.

@CaptainHarley The North. I am about to make a lot of generalizations, which of course are not true for all southerners, but I think it describes many of them. The south is too full of religious right wingers. If they were were not part of the republican party, a bunch more people in the north would go back to the Republican party and there would be balance I believe; the liberals would not just take over the US. The Republican party would be a little more progressive on social issues, and probably still conservative on fiscal issues, and I would probably vote Republican at times, even though I lean left. This is why Republicans can get elected in “liberal” northern states, they are likely to be for gay rights, would never think of putting prayer in school, I could go on. A northern conservative is different than a southern one on various issues. This is true of the Democrats also. Many Dems I know in the south are against abortion and gay rights, but are for social systems. So, for me, the majority of southerners, no matter what party, I disagree with. I understand the fights over how the country spends it’s money, I welcome those fights, but the social issue fights I have little tolerance for. Like I said, a lot of generalizations going on, but that has been my experience. But, hey that is only my opinion. Others would see it just the oposite, so maybe both the south and the north would be happier. My only problem is I would have to get out of dodge fast if it actually happened, because I am in the midsouth.

@JLeslie

Being against abortion and gay rights is not a “Southern thing,” nor is it so much a political thing, it’s more of a “religious thing.” Many Northern states have great numbers of Catholics, the preponderance of whom are against both.

The differences between North and South in America may indeed still be a problem, but I place it very, very far down on the list of things that are causing us our current difficulties.

@JLeslie
That’s true. NY, a strong Democratic town has had a Republican, (now Independent) mayor for the last four terms and they are almost always quite liberal on social causes. Bloomberg is pro-choice(as was Guilliani), he’s implementing vast initiatives to green NY and he even opposes the death penalty. People love him. He’s on the job and he gets it done. I think for a city like NY it makes sense to have a proven businessman. He’s been very good for the city.

@CaptainHarley
That’s true it’s not necessarily a Southern Thing but in politics there does seem to be a distinct shift. Rudy Gulliani as mentioned has taken a lot of flack for his pro-choice stance and his Catholic Faith and that is probably the chief reason he was not considered to be a contender in the party.

“I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights,” Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. “No, I have not supported that, and I don’t see my position on that changing,” he responded.

@CaptainHarley Abortion is a sticky one, I agree, I did not mention that issue. My very Catholic friends, who are pro-life, are pro gay marriage, do not want prayer in school, are ok with evolution being taught, and firmly believe in the separation of church and state. I don’t know many southerners who are ok with those Dems or Republicans. And, you are right it is not really a southern thing, it is more of a bible belt thing, so a small portion of the midwest would be included, but practically the whole south is included except for souther Florida and maybe a major city like Atlanta, but I am not really familiar with the politics there, it is just an assumption.

@SeventhSense NY just backs up what @CaptainHarley indirectly pointed out, the Catholics and Jews, even if fairly “conservative,” tend to be liberal on the social issues. I think there is more of an understanding that America is a melting pot, and the idea of individual rights has a different meaning north vs. south. In many places in the south you can still pretend that we have a vastly white country with people who have been here for at least 4 generations. But, what we know in other parts of our country is America is now about 40% minorities, and in major Northern cities like NY, DC, Chicago, Boston, even the suburbs of Detroit, we find a mix of people from everywhere in the world, who are immigrants themselves, or remember stories about their grandparents coming to America, and have a very different perspective on things in my opinion, just from their exposure to different cultures and ideas.

Also, when I say North and South I generally mean Northeast, I know to a southerner it is everything north, but I think of the midwest, as just that, the midwest. I’ll try to be clear what part of the country I am actually talking about. And, for the record, the Catholic friends I spoke of are from MI, but I do have many Catholic friends (including my husbands family) in FL and NY, and they all are pro-gay marriage, and about half want socialized medicine.

I think as this digresses into who are red states and who are blue states, it’s worth pointing out that large municipal areas tend to be dominated by progressive liberals, while the non-coastal areas, exemplified by rural farm country tend to lean towards the gun toting (rifle), bible bearing “wing-nuts” as I have hear often called.

The south has blue regions, such as Miami, and nearly the entire state of California, that if needed to be included in the southern red domain, may cause a rash. Surgical excision would be needed.

And what of the millions of square miles between New York and Seattle where liberals dare tread.

Nope I don’t think a single line would solve the problems.

If you envisioned a solution like that you would need to shut down the interstates, and put a chain link around the polluted cites.

It’s kind of funny, the people making the most noise about “green” don’t live in very green areas.

As I look upon others walking in a mega city, I see gray. Eye contact is avoided.

Take a walk on the wild side. Go somewhere with trees. Breathe deep. Make eye contact (unless you are in the southern red – then I’d say you’d be spotted for what you are and deported back to the blue).

Northern red – different world. Such silly irony this divisive polarization. When will the war start? Have we really progressed anywhere the depths and depravity of world war two, or did we import it?

@DrMC
Green is not only about trees but what we do with the byproducts we create as well and green cities can have the most impact because of the sheer volume of individuals involved. Also suburban sprawl (and I live in a suburb) is supposedly the most damaging thing to the environment. Cities can be vastly efficient uses of space and have less impact on the environment in the long run. Suburban communities are a rather new creation in the last 50–60 years. It makes perfect sense to have a concentration of persons, their livelihoods, resources and education centralized and the means of production all coming to them or within their boundaries.
Here’s a fascinating vision of a carbon neutral city from Dubai which can incorporate
1 million people in an area with a footprint of 2.3 sq. miles in the shape of a pyramid
Very Cool

@JLeslie

Thank you. : )

@SeventhSense i’m a dispensationalist. The cities will be dispensed with. The world will become green again.

@DrMC

I would love to see that happen, but sadly, it will be after my time.

@DrMC
People will float away and that will solve the problem of humanity?

@SeventhSense

I don’t think that’s what he meant.

@DrMC
So where are the people supposed to go? Magic green land? There has to be some alternative if you dispense with cities. It is not sensible anyway. Suburban sprawl is damaging the earth. It’s not a solution to think one can get rid of cities without an alternative. What do you propose?

@SeventhSense dispensationalism refers to the fate of Jerusalem in the apocalypse. For the prophecies of the final book to be fulfilled, then…

Regardless of popular meme, this is simply prophecy. Eternal human life on earth will end, the species will yield to the awesome power of nature and time. Cities are non-sustainable life units, and nature patiently waits to dig in its roots in and prowl the streets.

I think humans in some futuristic feral form may persist, or succeed in traveling to the stars. The present ecosphere is too vulnerable to the whims of the spheres, and this Eden will not last.

That’s what I thought you meant rapture and what not. And what if you are asked to be part of the solution as a co creator?

That is not my purpose in this world. I believe my purpose has already been spent, and I’m idling while awaiting my own dispensation..

Any sort of apocalyptic creation, following strict prophetic notion – would involve a charismatic leader, with characteristic traits.

While I do on occasion like to go muahahaha – I am quite certain I am not that leader.

Muahahaahahaha

@DrMC
How easy it must be to dispense with your senses and adapt a fatalistic pre ordained view. It makes life so simple.
~_~

@SeventhSense yes it’s very comforting, it is not the dispensation of senses however, it’s the observation of phenomenon instead.

I am at peace.

Be very careful what you let other people pray for. You will be terrified.

@DrMC
What are you talking about? You’re at peace but you feel the need to threaten people with fear from your prayers? There can be no comfort within if there is no comfort without.
There is only one love.

If you have stopped living waiting for an appointed time you are most to be pitied. There is no excuse for this except a lethargy and apathy of your mind and body. Religious people have done this for millennium and it is a waste of time and mind. Wait for an anticipated day but be involved in living. If one is not busy living and contributing one may as well be dead.

@DrMC I agree that part of it has to do with large cities vs more rural areas, that is one of the reasons I questioned lumping in Atlanta with the rest of the south. Certainly you can find far right red people in every state, and the electoral college colors our map in a deceiving all red all blue fashion that makes stereotyping and generalizing that much easier when it is not completely accurate. Political views tend to me more a function of local communities, and depending on how many of those particular communities happen to be within your state’s boundaries leads to what color paint is on the brush in people’s minds, and the assumptions that go along with it. Take my county, it is actually blue typically, but I am in one of the more right wing states in the nation, Tennessee.

Back to the large cities. I think living in tight quarters with many different people and getting along, makes you more tolerant and more knowing of the world around us. Don’t get me wrong I know people who grew up on farms, who have barely travelled, who are some of the most knowledgable, open, understanding people I have ever met, but I still think the generalization holds true for the most part.

As for being green, I think both points are true, living in the country gives you a bond with nature that is different than if you have cement around you all of the time, and it is also about recycling, not polluting the earth, etc. A person who lives in the city understands how not taking care of our environment adds up, maybe they understand this better than the person in the country, because if everyone litters, if car emissions are high, and so on, they see the impact fast. Even if we spread out our population accross the land, we still have the same amount of people, so the same amount of trash, energy use (people in the citied typically live in smaller spaces and commute less, or use public transportation) is being generated no matter what. Maybe the trees and space can correct air pollution? I don’t know that science. I know trees convert our carbon dioxide, but I don;t know about carbon minoxide and otehr pollutants. Not to mention I have neighbors who have actually said to me, “the government is not going to tell me where to set my thermostat, I am going to use as much energy as I want, they should go drill.” It’s like everything is a power struggle. Ugh. No one is telling this guy to be uncomfortable in his home, but you can turn it down when you aren’t there.

I actually think the solution may lie in mega mixed use building complexes so we can maintain our greens spaces, agriculture, and wildlife. Urban, or rather suburban, sprawl I think is most likely the most damaging to our environment. I haven’t done much research on the actual impact, but it just appears that way to me.

By the way I live in the woods on almost 3 acres outside of Memphis, but grew up in suburbs close to NY and DC, went to school in MI, and lived in SE FL most of my adult life.

@JLeslie
“the government is not going to tell me where to set my thermostat, I am going to use as much energy as I want, they should go drill.”
And this is how politics plays such a key role. If a party line becomes a policy such as voices that deny global warming then the ignorance can be staggering. The cumulative effects of Middle America are great.

Governments try to cope with the limitations the political systems/constitution impose on them.

In a democracy, this means trying to create a society, which encourages people to be as ignorant and apathetic as possible. (wrt the issues concerning the welfare of powers-that-be)

So that is one terrible consequence of democracy, and a primary reason there is so much international contempt for the USA.

Other plebs in the world have far less opportunity to influence their governments’ policies, but those governments may not be so interested in stupefying their own populations, simply because the public consciousness is of far less direct consequence to them. So the people in these countries have a higher consciousness, and feel disgusted that the Americans do not, despite the fact that they could use it so much more effectively.

In reality, though, the American plebs have lower consciousness because they could do so much more with it, so the US establishment has a great deal more interest in keeping public consciousness low.

@CaptainHarley – Yes, they are, except right now. But as I said in the other thread optimism in America will return. The problems are temporary.

@The_Idler
if you’re going to use the word at least spell it right. It’s plebe and it’s of French origin.
No doubt coined while glancing across the English Channel.

@SeventhSense Can you believe it?! They have associated being a good American with being wastefull. Good God.

@SeventhSense
If you’re going to correct me, at least make sure you know what the fuck you’re talking about.

The word is plebs and it is of Latin origin. It is an abbreviation of plebeians (the public).

Singular is a plebe (though ‘pleb’ is an acceptable Americanism), plural is the plebs

Plural of the plebs (the public) is the plebes, (the publics)

A plebe is one of the plebs, the the plebs of USA and the plebs of the UK are two plebes.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plebs

@The_Idler
You spell color wrong too.

@mattbrowne

And I pray you are correct!

@SeventhSense terror comes when you realize that there is a supernatural. There are several interpretations, the christian one is the most adaptive IMHO, although I am quite fond of the Wiccan. Long ago a missionary prayed with me that god would make himself known to me and prove his existence. She was special. Very very powerful in the “legion” sense.

I will never pray that for anyone. I was referring to my own terror.

I didn’t mean to terrify you. That’s silly. Besides, you are rocky soil. Such ideas won’t take root.

being liberal means a certain degree of open mindedness that allows for supernatural explanations of the natural.

there is a conservative joke that goes “as long as there are exams, there will be prayers in school”

@JLeslie you just gave me insight. Cities are actually very green, and urban sprawl is not. I guess that says it all. I am totally in favor of optimizing (as are you). We occupy a spaceship with a limited set of resources.

@DrMC
I have no fear of the supernatural. I’ve been to hell.

@SeventhSense as I am gathering. Hell does not frighten me either. I find this life a lot more attention getting.

Living is my conundrum.

@SeventhSense the truth will find you gently I hope

Awareness is often a bitter pill and sometimes knowledge goes down easy but the application is the rub. In my case there are particular mental processes which are a mobius

@SeventhSense NoOooOoo not the ants!

Maybe the ants will save USA?

Trying to save The US is like speeding on a mobius highway.

Well you can find it comical. For me it’s torment. It’s like looking for a door in a glass sphere.

I was just at the web site you showed, http://psychcentral.com/quizzes/

Just finished this one for depresssion

Is that you?
I’m not depressed just confounded. I have intense vitality but it’s just futile because the nature of my condition. It’s like when I discovered I was an addict/alcoholic only deeper. I even question that now but I’m not about to drink. I’m actually afraid to. I see things more clearly but it doesn’t change it. Like the fact that aggression overrides libido. Control is preferable even when the outcome is detrimental to me. I have gone through so many manifestations. So many shape shifts. So many hurt people in my path. Such fractured experiences. You just get numb after a while and then the tension breaks finally. Only to wind again like a spring. It’s best just to ignore it. But like Prometheus it’s inevitable but allows a daily reprieve. I finally realize why I did a painting of him years ago. People think one is self absorbed and hateful. On the surface yes, but it does not compare to the all pervasive quality of it. You can get away from me. I can’t.
sleep..Peace

@JLeslie – “Huh? Are you suggesting anarchy?”

Haha, hey, if the people want anarchy, then there should be anarchy!......

@SeventhSense – “edit:and talk about issues..how bout those funny guys with wigs in the UK Parliament :P”

LOL, Where’s Guy Fawkes when you need him, I hate those bloody wigs!......

@Pazza I used to say, “go to Haiti and then tell me about anarchy.” But now with the earthquake the line does not work as well.

@JLeslie
I was thinking more along the lines of ‘self inflicted sack the government an army’ kind of anarchy, as opposed to ‘rath of GOD type anarchy’ ;-)

@Pazza That is why the line doesn’t work anymore, because people are unaware that Haiti basically did not have a functioning government for years, and like you might assume I mean the earthquake, but it has nothing to do with the point. They lived basically in a state of anarchy, and it was just about the poorest country in the world.

@JLeslie Haiti wouldn certainly have been an example of what anarchy brings back before the earthquake. But the people there didn’t sack the government and bring it down upon themselves. It was a combination of some very wealthy people there setting up a dictatorship to protect their dynastic wealth, and the US CIA helping support and prop up dictators who would do our bidding in the region.

Somalia is a country that has somewhat selected anarchy, and it hasn’t exactly made that a Garden of Eden any more than enforced anarchy did wonders for Haiti.

@ETpro Maybe I wil use Somalia. I agree about Haiti. My only point is anarchy tends to not work, so you can’t just want to get rid of the government it has to be replaced with something stable. People cannot just rule themselves, it seems not to work.

@JLeslie
“People cannot just rule themselves, it seems not to work.”

Isnt that democracy?

@JLeslie Agreed. We in the US have a persistent meme afoot suggesting that if we simply dismantled all the functions of government, everything would govern itself like colckwork. That’s about as logical as expecting an ordinary automobile to drive itself all over New York City in rush hour traffic without a single mishap.

@jackm We aren;t a democracy of that sort. The USA is a democratic republic. That’s a VERY long way from anarchy. Look them up if need be.

@ETpro Seriously, there are persistent anarchistic tendencies within the US population?
I’d never have thought…

LOL @The_Idler… love it. No, I think what he’s reacting to is my permanent and loud complaint that the government of the United States is too fucking big, too intrusive, too expensive and far too all-encompassing and his hearing that as ‘we should not have any government and be like Haiti or Somalia’.

I don’t always agree with everything that you say, but one thing that you said about the government’s deliberate intent to keep us apathetic, powerless and ignorant (I may be paraphrasing there) rings all too true. The most cogent explanation I’ve heard yet for why “public education” will never improve.

There is a persistent message that government is too big, less government, less government. I too like a smaller government. Funny how many of these small government types want more and more laws to mess with an individuals private life, but I digress. I have around me people who think public school is unnecessary (did I mention this already on this thread? When they come up with an example of a successful prosperous nation that did it without public education I might start to listen, to me this is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard by the right wing) and honestly these less gov’t people should be fine with what happened in the mortgage crisis, because mostly that was big business making money more than anything, no matter how much they want to blame the government for pushing to lend, people took mortgages they could not afford (the individual was not responsible for themselves and their own finances). And, these limit gov’t people seem to be leaning towards if people don’t save well throughout their lives, then let them be on the street poor with no medical care and die there, they really want to get down to a fend for yourself type of nation, they want to believe that people will responsibly take care of themselves if they have to. We have seen this simply isn’t true, a lot of people suck at making rational decisions. Look at how many middle class educated families, who had plenty of of money bought mortgages they could not afford, and lived well beyond their means and didn’t think once about saving for a rainy day. Those people were working, not freeloading off of the system, just made very very poor decisions.

It is not so black and white as that.

The government is still bloated and inefficient; Reagan-era deregulation didn’t make government any smaller, it just made them less powerful in the face of corporate pressure.

Most support for smaller government isn’t in the interests of the general population, as it is portrayed to be.

Corporate interests say, “We want less government!” and the public agrees, but they don’t realise that all that actually means is, “We want fewer laws restricting corporate exploitation of the public!” That’s what economic conservatism really is; giving big-business a free reign to rip off as many people as possible. Great for GDP, but shit for the general population.

The corporate interests couldn’t care less about government restrictions on the behaviour of people. UNLESS, of course, it meant less consumer spending. This is why there was huge backing for the whole, “give people the freedom to easily borrow money for and against anything!” movement. That really didnt result in more individual freedoms, but more corporate freedoms. But that is the only reason the USA is the Land of the Free™ anyway. It’s the Land of the Free Reign for Exploitative Corporations.

What we actually want is more responsible government and civil service; less motivated by corporate backing and financial incentives, and more motivated by a sense of public duty.
I doubt this will ever happen in the USA. The big-business will keep up their exploitative unsustainable business practice until the nation falls apart and then they’ll move on to somewhere else.

@The_Idler I agree it is not black and white, I myself, as I stated, am for a smallish government. A common line by the Republicans is, “let the states handle it individually, and that is all bullshit, because that IS more government, even if they want to try to hide behind it. They focus on smaller federal government, but are fine with all sorts of horrible laws locally. Our states go off and make up laws that go against our constitution all of the time. I am all for trying ideas out in states. Like if Massachesetts decides to give health coverage to all of its’ residents, then as a country we get to see how that works, and if it works well, we can adopt the policy federally. Or if a county in Georgia decided to separate the sexes in public schools in lower income neighborhoods, and it reduced dropout rates and teenage pregnancy, we can learn from that as a country. But, making law locally that goes against a current law or a supreme court decision bothers me.

Anyway, I am talking about extreme people who want to dump things like public education and want no government services available, no government “interference” in business, this idea is rampant across our southern states, and generally among the Christian right. There should be a balance, a grey area, to follow your analogy. The US has always been a hybrid of social systems, government oversight, and capitalism, but these nut jobs are all or none. None is bascially anarchy, but they are willing to let the government keep us safe and polic, which I would argue also seems to, somehow, think it is also ok to legistate morality.

The only reason these ideas are supported by the “Christian Right” is the fact that the people that vote for them are generally too stupid to imagine the actual implications of deregulation and increased corporate freedoms.

(See Why do Republicans lie so much?)

@The_Idler there are definitely some stupid people out there, both Dems and Rpublicans, but there are some very smart eduated people that are saying the same thing, their Christianity has convinced them that it is Christian to make as much money as you can, greed is good, no matter how extreme. They seem to isolate themselves, us and them, and fail to see social consequences of not concerning ourselves with all citizens. I actually prefer a more conservative view of the economy, but these people, again, are very black and white, not aware of the consequences. I sat next to an American on a flight several months ago who had been working in mostly Germany and some other European countries over the last 20 years. Two years ago he returned to America with his job, to Memphis, and he said he was shocked that CXO level executives could be so religious and irrational in their personal lives. It is a phenonemon that I don’t think you find much in western Europe.

The business is bad and the civil service is always best for society argument is a little too simplistic. Government is excellent for providing service for society in the form of health care, safe communities and as a buffer from uncertainty but it’s a poor driver of innovation. Business is drive, innovation and value. Business supplies incomes to the population and allows freedom of lateral and more importantly vertical movement. It encourages creativity and gives people opportunities in the United States nowhere near as possible anywhere else. Try to start up a business in almost any other country and try to break the ceiling of 60–75% tax burdens and government regulations.

Apple, Microsoft, Google, Oracle (Sun, Java), Cisco , IBM, Hewlett Packard, Pixar, eBay, Amazon and countless others with the various branches that emanate from them employ millions. The idea of a corporation as an individual on a pile of gold who adds nothing to society is completely imbalanced. Corporations pump billions into other people’s wallets all the way down to you and me. And corporations create value and that is why they are successful. If I need a Q-tip is there an alternative swab that’s better? Or a bandage that is better than Band-Aid? We have to be fair. There is no evil corporation that really has to force anyone to buy anything. We buy things because they make our live’s easier and better. I’m sure the former Soviet Union can attest to the nature of life when the government is the source of ALL goods and services. Personally I like Cottonelle, Charmin and the choice that goes along with them.

Actually, @SeventhSense, I wouldn’t even agree with your assertion that government is any good at providing service for health care or safe communities, and many of its practices add to uncertainty. But I agree completely that it’s not only an innovation driver, but it is assuredly anti-innovation. (Not to say that all innovation is good; but when business tries something new that doesn’t work, it either gets fixed so it does, or it gets junked. Perhaps someone can tell me about the accomplishments of the Department of Energy or the Department of Education, for example… and explain how those innovations in government haven’t either been junked or overhauled. Business doesn’t need “sunset laws” to review whether things work or not; and doesn’t generally build up constituencies that lobby for the continuation of failed practices.)

And as for finance, if any private company had ever tried to do what Social Security has done (in terms of a Ponzi scheme), then it would have been stopped cold decades ago. I expect the revolution in this country to occur over the failure of that program when it finally does fail. Because its eventual failure is a mathematical certainty; we just keep putting it off with accounting games… just like Bernie Madoff, only with government sanction.

That’s not to say that business is blameless, either. Big business often gets into bed with big government to lobby for more regulation… to hold off their competitors. But that kind of nuance is lost on the “business is bad” crowd.

@CyanoticWasp You have to ignore facts in favor or ideological beliefs to claim that. Medicare, despite its many failings, delivers good health care at a very low cost to its base of subscribers. Most of us over 65 would not even be able to buy insurance at ANY price from private, for-profit insurers. The average insurance company’s overhead is 30%. Only 70% of their income gets spent on patient care. Medicare, Medicaid and the VA all run well over 90% spent on care.

If you expand the view beyond our borders, the news is even more disturbing. The US is number one in the world in spending per capita on healthcare. We sepnd 17% of our GDP on healthcare today and will sooon hit 20%. But we are the only developed nation on earth that fails to ensure that all its citizens are covered. The rest all do more while spending something around half as much of their GDP.

To quote Wikipedia, “The USA’s life expectancy lags 42nd in the world, after most rich nations, lagging last of the G5 (Japan, France, Germany, UK, USA) and just after Chile (35th) and Cuba (37th). The USA’s life expectancy is ranked 50th in the world after the European Union (40th). The World Health Organization (WHO), in 2000, ranked the U.S. health care system as the highest in cost, first in responsiveness, 37th in overall performance, and 72nd by overall level of health (among 191 member nations included in the study). A 2008 report by the Commonwealth Fund ranked the United States last in the quality of health care among the 19 compared countries.”

See the article for footnotes on the above.

@ETpro and you ignore that government does not generally “provide” health care. The places where it does “provide” health care, such as VA hospitals, some Indian reservations and similar places, are usually the worst-managed health care facilities in the country.

And government doesn’t “pay for” health care, either. It taxes me and others like me to pay for it for you and others like you.

When the government does get into the business of “providing” health care (which will probably happen one of these days, as more and more doctors get fed up with working for Medicare and quit the practice, until doctors end up as civil servants), then we’ll probably have hospitals run as efficiently as the US Postal Service and public schools. One can only be glad—or hope—that he won’t live that long.

@CyanoticWasp
The US Postal Service isn’t efficient? I send out packages every week to the four corners of the globe efficiently printing barcoded labels from my printer, most often cheaper than the competition and 99.9% arrive safely. UPS and Fedex are often tedious and more expensive. And from what I understand the US Post Office is completely self supporting through the money they take in. They seem pretty efficient to me.

@CyanoticWasp No, I do not imply that the government provides all its health care. I compared the cost of single-payer plans like Medicare and Medicaid to private insurers. The government plans pass through a far greater percentage of every dollar collected on actual patient care than do the less efficient private insurers. The VA is really the only fully government system we have in the USA. It provides excellent care for its costs as well. However, with all our investment in a private hospital and doctor system, I would be completely opposed to instituting it on a national level.

I certainly realize that government health care isn’t free any more than private insurers offer free care. Employers don’t “give” you healthcare either. You pay for it in many ways. You get lower wages, you pay more for what you buy that is made in the USA, and more of our jobs get shipped off shore every day because healthcare costs keep rising for our businesses where most other nations don’t put that burden on companies operating there.

We have borrowed from Medicare for decades by pushing down reimbursements in order to “give” voters this and that to win votes. So yes, it’s underfunded today. The fault is not something inherent in government, but something inherent in democracy. Greedy, ill-informed voters constantly voting to get free stuff or another tax cut “paid for by cutting waste.”

BTW, the US Postal Service is far more efficient at delivering both letters and packages than any private system. I can prove it if you would like.