3zos

I was raised in a strictly conservative republican household, always pretty much told that republicans were faultless, blameless, were always on the right side of things. democrats were to be regarded as subhuman scum, etc etc. when i was about 16, i started evaluating the state of american politics independantly, and found as have many, that the system is by and large corrupt.

gradually ive come to something of a conclusion: the original iteration of the american government worked because it was in many ways drastically different from other forms of rule, and was therefore not yet exploited or necessarily exploitable by those who were power hungry. gradually, the longer a system of government is in place, the more those who crave power for the soul reason of having power can find ways around any system of checks and balances. sort of like an operating system, theres always the threat of exploits deriding the system and using it for causes other than the user intended.

the way i see it, there could be a long overhaul of the government, if the persons in power ever consented to that, but even then theres no guarantee of a reasonable and effective outcome. the governing body being as bloated as it is now, if one were to try to simplify aspects, spending would probably be cut, jobs would probably be lost. i cant see anyone leeching the system consenting to anything that would effectively cut them off at the knees.

then theres another idea, a take on things, which ive given more and more thought recently, and have actually heard more people talking of (maybe im just hanging around people i hadnt before): a purge of the government as we know it, a revolution as it were.

give any static form of law enough time to stagnate, and it will inevitably become rife with the parasites of society. purge every hundred, maybe couple of hundred years, reorganize the way the infastructure is handled, reorganize the laws to suit the current state of society, and you minimize the amount of fallibility within the protections afforded the citizens of the state. or at least, so i think

anyone have any takes on this? is a revolution even feasible, given the amount of complacency among the american culture? personally im just looking for different takes on how to resolve the muck, the absolute quagmire, that is capitol hill.

__________________
S U C C E S S

some people dream of success, while other people live to crush those dreams

Darkblack

I think one thing that could help is reducing the years of a term from 4 to 2. The president does what he wants for the first 2 years and what we want so he can be re-elected for the last 2 years. Take those first two years away and make it be known that if we don't approve, you are gone soon.

Another way to make things better is to have campaigning be federally funded with a cap. Everyone who runs gets the same cash, same airtime, and an equal chance to run for president. If this would happen money would not buy a presidency and we would have more than 2 parties to choose from.


These are just two ways I have that could fix what I consider a broken system. I would love to see some of your ideas.

smooth

Either that Darkblack, or require low cost airtime be provided to candidates--otherwise we'll just be subsidizing business despite astromonical costs.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Darkblack

I didn't comment on the revolution part. A revolution like the one we had before I do not think is possible or feasible. The only way that could happen is if for example Bush decides to stay in office indefinitely. I think then you would see some people taking up arms. I don't see this happening though. I do predict more protesting like you saw at the beginning of this war. I think a lot more people will be voicing their opinions and trying to force change.


I also wanted to add another thing that would fix this government. Remove the electoral colligate. It is not needed and the people would actually "vote" for a president and the most popular one would win.

3zos

aside from formulating how easiest it would be to "fix" the system, i hadnt put a great deal of thought into what specifically would help. really its a quandry to me; money makes the world go around, generally attracted the more motivated among the society, yet is the most corrupting aspect of being a politician, aside from raw power over the masses. you may want to try taking money out of the system, but i dont see how that could be done in a capitalist society such as this. certainly shorter term limits would aid. the shere behometh that all the various departments of the govt are now, should DEFINATELY be streamlined. the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing, neither do all the fingers and other finer points of the anatomy of the govt. it functions, sure. it gets what needs to be done, yes. but it could be doing it with infinitely more efficiency.

my issues boil down to 1) taking the personal gain out of holding office and keeping it, without necessarily using office to serve the citizens but rather yourself, and 2) streamlining what has become an out of control money hungry inefficient beast of a governing body. the resolution to those chief problems ive not yet worked out.

__________________
S U C C E S S

some people dream of success, while other people live to crush those dreams

3zos

ok, if your going to reduce the term of the president by half your going to have the president constantly focused on running for office, and not on the things that count.

I don't think that tiny changes on the system that we have is going to make any differnce at all.. thats what is happing right now, tiny changes that take place after way too much burocracy.

Our goverment was created for a much smaller country and population in mind. What needs to happen is that a team of experts needs to get together and design a new form of goverment for the way the country is now. This is a huge design problem, and won't be solved in a couple or months.. but if done right, would be a very positive change for this country.

But, this would never happen.. First of all there is no easy way to get the perfect team together, and getting the goverment to accept this new form that will bassicly throw them out on the street isn't going to happen either. So really what we are stuck with is tiny changes that are going to take place well untill we are all dead, leaving us stuck with a broken goverment.

But isn't that just the way everything is in the world?

3zos # 2

__________________
S U C C E S S

some people dream of success, while other people live to crush those dreams

Buk

You make the assumption that the way the system works now is not how it was originally intended.

I politely disagree and point out that anyone who makes enough noise, phone calls, emails etc can easily have their voice heard and any valid cause will be handled eventually.

sportsrule101

We are garenteed certain rights in our constitution and its amendments. One of these is not that all will be as rich as the next guy, just that he will have the chance to be. I believe if we returned to this mentality we will be better off.
As far as actual quick fixes there aren't any that I know of, as far as i can tell everything is on a pendulam that is slowly swing back and forth.
One thing I would like to see is term limits for senators, and congressmen.

__________________
winning isn't everything but
losing isn't anything

lurkette

(Italics mine)

This is crazy and would never actually happen, but what if we split the country into four roughly equally-populated federated republics, each with their own federal government? We could have the northeast (Basically VA on up, westward to Ohio), the Southeast (NC down to Florida, as far west as Mississippi), the Midwest (Indiana over to Wyoming and Montana) and the West (AZ, UT and westward). It's probably still more land/people than the original US government was intended to deal with, but it would be much more manageable.

I don't think this would solve the essential problem, though, which is that the job of "politician" as it now stands attracts a certain type of person. Power corrupts. We also have a system that discourages long-term thinking, or thinking any further than the next election cycle. I don't know if term limits would fix this or exacerbate it.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

bish

The smaller the government, the better!! If we can discourage people from constantly depending on government rather than encouraging it (the Liberal way!!), this country can prosper. We live in a country where way too many people are not responsible for their actions and expect others to "take care" of them.

The only way to change government for the better is to change the mindset of this country. If we can prove that big government is not needed, they will have no other choice than to streamline and let us keep more of our earned income!!

grayman

There is no solution that allows people to solve this problem from within. Any attempt at an armed revolution would be quickly squashed and those responsible would be discredited by the government as quacks. The system itself is so corrupt that it can never be fixed. The best solution I have heard is some guy who is a Liberterian and has a website for people to sign up to agree to move to a state with a small population, where they could sway state elections in their favor. The basic plan is to begin to refuse Federal money for government services and try to become self sufficient. Then petition the Federal government to end its unconstitutional taxation. If the government refuses, then they secede from the Union. In this day and age, if a state tried to secede, then the government would have a hard time mounting another Civil War. While I am still skeptical of this plan, it seems like the most likely chance. If anyone has more info on this project, like the website, I would be very appreciative.

__________________
That's right - I'm a guy in a suit eating a Blizzard. F U.

LDeer

Currently, it would be politically impossible for anyone to attempt a coup against the American Presidency. This is due to overwhelming(and sometimes sickening) patriotism and extreme nationalistic behavior, due to the aftermaths of 9/11. No one would support anyone who attempts to change the government. No one will want to go against Bush either, since right now the general population is believing every word that comes out of his mouth. Us Americans are mostly likely deathly afraid of change, seeing as how nothing really has changed in the government(even though that damned Electoral College allowed someone whom most of the country didn't want to become Pres take office). Us Americans won't ever embrace any sort of change whatsoever, unless unimaginable economic troubles(and I'm not talking about the current stock market, I'm talking 1929) occurs.

That's enough rambling from me.

BlueMan

The system of government we were given at the start was actually a very good concept. The problem is that the government has slowly and inexorably taken upon itself the responsibility of running more and more of our lives, contrary to the founding fathers' intent (They wanted the government to leave them alone), and that's really the current problem. There are a couple of problems with it that have come along to bite us.

One is that this system is doomed to fail once the populace discovers the ability to use their vote to raid the treasury. Those too lazy to provide for themselves and who feel entitled to have things provided them will always use our kind of system to try to take money from those who have worked and achieved. Further, anytime the government sticks it's nose into something, it will mess it up, and it will be rife with waste, fraud, and abuse (ex: the Medicare program) because large federal beauracracies are by their nature inattentive and unable to maintain order in their programs. Because they have a never-ending supply of money (the answer to a shortage is almost always to raise taxes), they have no reason to be efficient and attentive to the bottom line. They are also self-justifying self-perpetuating and will -only- grow, never diminish. Also, I think the authority to levy taxes needs to be severely curtailed on -all- levels of government, and that decision given back to the voters, as well.

The second... and I guess it's really part of the first, is that the Federal Government was meant to be small and relatively weak. States were supposed to make most decisions for themselves. A return to a "defend the shores and deliver the mail" form of central government would return power to state and local governments, and therefore, closer to the people. Unfunded federal mandates are one of the things that have state budgets in such a tizzy right now. Also, any "federal aid" that comes from the government usually also has some kind of strings attached where the fed wants to control some area of the state's decision-making. I believe this to be counter to the intent of the Constitution.

Finally, a system where the politicians that are in charge of the system can vote themselves more wealth and power is inherently going to be corrupt. Government officials' salaries need to be controlled by votes of the people. When a congressman can raise his own salary and can retire a multi-millionaire after only six years in office (and noone should be able to "retire" from being a congressman. Term limits. I personally don't think the founding fathers would be happy with the concept of a "career" politician.), there is an inherent corruption in the system.

I hope that made some kind of sense. Oh well, there it is.

Zeld2.0

Wrong, they created the compromise for a reason because there were those that were very much FOR a strong federal gov't and others were very much FOR a strong state's rights gov't.

The constitution was finally agreed upon when the states all got what they wanted - bigger states wanted population representation, smalelr states wanted equal respresentaion, hence the compromise of the 3/5ths slave one (1 slave = 3/5 of a person) and the House of Rep. and Senate system of legislative.

The Federalists wanted bigger gov't, protective tariffs, and what not. The Democrat-Republicans wanted smalelr gov't, no tarriff, agrarian society based (well lead by Thomas jefferson then).

Ironically a lot of the parties have changed - one can say tarriff and pro-business Federalists are followed by Republicans now but at hte same timem any abhor big gov't.

The argument of states rights vs. federal gov't was fianlly settled by the civil war when it was clear the federals won.

IMO the problems started coming after all of that - the gov't was clearly the superior then and thus many could see Congress as simply being the place where the president gets what he wants or doens't - often by party lines.

The founding fathers were never quite sure what to make the gov't of - again many people (mainly the southerners at the time) favored a very weak Federal gov't - many northern Founding Fathers preferred a strong federal gov't.

This is what a lot of party lines have come from and because they made a great constitution but left it very ambiguous, we have had the Civil War and numerous constitutional arguments which means it can be often interpreted by any part any way.

The federal gov't no matter the party still has the control right now and thats the thing - no matter the intent of the constitution right now, almost everyone acknowledges that federal is more powerful than state.

And yes there is going to be corruption as always - the more money made the more corrupt. They get support (sometimes quite illegally) from business and the rich so they will vote their way - and hence many argue that the senate has become the rich man's club. In a sense its true but its nothing new - its been around for quite some time since the mid-late 1800's and honestly it won't change.

Sure I'd love to see one day one of the "people's presidents" kind of like Andrew Jackson was - poor and one of the common folk - but it ain't gonna happen because as time goes on the president will more and more be from the richer.

A revamp of the U.S. gov't will not be a easy one to say the least - there are many issues that over time relaly do stretch the limits of the consitution. There are thousands of things the founding fathers could never have imagined - and the constitution is still a document written 200 years ago in a very differnt world and land - and so yes, it can be outdated and in need of updating. But it probably won't happen.

Pennington

I would love to try a new system of government where the people themselves never elect anyone. What I would do is have everyone who wanted to be a part of government sign up on some list. Every year, 1000 or so people are selected at random from the list to be part of a 4000 or so House where they will serve 4 year terms and be paid however much they would have made at their normal job. This house of 4000 ( or more if needed to get a full representation of America) would elect a President, who would be recallable at any time by 3/5 or 3/4 or 50+1% or something vote. All decisions would be made at a general consensus(or not, a consensus has alot of drawbacks). It would be near impossible to bribe enough people to effect the vote and there would be no campiange to worry about contributing to.

The above is just a thought and probably has a million issues wrong with it. It just seems like a good idea to me.

Darkblack

A lot of you are talking about how people use the government and are too lazy to support themselves. I don't know how much you make, where you live, and what style of life you live. I do know that some of the jobs in America do not pay enough for a person to survive in this country without government assistance. So unless you plan to close the gap between the wealthy and the poor we are going to need federal assistance programs.

I think its funny that greed has destroyed the belief in helping your fellow man. The fact that you complain about the small amount of your taxed dollars that goes to help people in need disgusts me.

bish

It's that type of thinking that makes our government more powerfull and robs the working people in this country. Nobody is putting a gun to your head and making you work at a job that doesn't pay enough for you to live on. Nobody is making people have more and more children that they can't afford to feed!! People make choices every day that affect the rest of their lives and some cry about it when they don't like the outcome, then want everyone else to take care of them. I am so sick of people whining about things being unfair in this country. You have the right to make your own decisions here and make your life as good as you want it to be!! I wouldn't call people who are successfull and make good money "greedy", we just want to be rewarded for all our hard work and smart decisions!!! What is so terrible about that??

Darkblack

What is terrible is that without the minimum wage people you wouldn't be making the money you are. Without them in your mailroom, in your data entry department, keeping up your lawn and landscaping so your business looks nice and attracts customers, without the cashier ringing people up and selling your goods, you would not be making the money you are. Yet, you will not pay them enough to survive and try to take away their government funding. Who are you to say that someone who does not have the skills to get a high paying job should not be allowed to have kids and be able to support them?

What is so wrong with giving back to the country that made you what you are?

What would you rather do? Fund a project to feed, care for, and shelter our homeless and elderly or let them die in the streets and step over the bodies on your way to work? What will you tell your children when they ask why you have so much and someone else has so little? What is the reason you cannot spare some for the good of someone who has none?

You will never convince me that it is better to let someone who will not or can not help themselves die, rather than provide basic human needs for them.

I urge you to visit your local homeless shelter or soup kitchen and get to know some of the people you think do not deserve your help. Find out what put them where they are and how hard it is to get out of that situation. Go visit some single mothers and tell them that they put themselves in that situation and they should not get help from the government. No one told them to have kids. No one made the father leave and not help out. No one made it so day care cost more than buying a new car.

I am sure you made all the decisions correctly to make your life as well as you want it to be. I am sure you did it all without help from anyone. Some people are not that lucky and for those people there should be social programs designed to help down on their luck people get back on their feet. In order for those programs to work there cannot be such a drastic stretch between the classes.

Did you know that the top 1% in this country make as much as the rest of us combined? That is a lot of money that they could never spend in 100 lifetimes. You don't think some of that could or should go to help people in need?

-edited some gramatic issues-

Zeld2.0

Powerful words too Darkblack - and i'll agree to an extent.

I'll say that the system has its flaws - those who don't work and only wait for the check when they can get work - aka exploiting the system.

But i will also say that many people shouldn't suffer from this. There are many single mothers out there who have maybe one or two kids only, not the stereotyped fat woman with 9 and more coming.

Many may have a job as well that pays only $17,000 a year and thus they need assistance.

IMO its an investment - if you can keep those kids in school then in the end they may be the next generation's middle class.

I'm from a pretty conservative middle class family - and I will tell you that I have seen both sides around here. There are many people who deserve aid - they work hard for very little money.

These people do the jobs none of us want - cooking, cleaning, driving cabs, and so on. And most are honest hard-workers.

What i say is that those who exploit the system shouldn't get aid so they realize they have to put their share in - but those who deserve it shouldn't suffer.

And money has its own problems, while many like to consider the lower class the ones with all the criminals, I'll say that from my own experience the middle class and the upper class kids are not much better - they have the money to do crimes and get away with it - not to mention with money they can go to the best colleges and often through cheating and unfair methods and get away with it. They ride on their parents' succes and/or influence to get to good schools and in the end run companies they probably didn't deserve.

Sure its how America is but you can't say thats how it should stay because thats a pretty fucked system that some people just say "oh well, its been like that forever, live with it" - that kind of apathy is what leads society down.

BlueMan

Re: the minimum wage. It doesn't work. Every time the minimum wage is raised... guess what happens? The price of goods goes up, effectively nullifying the wage increase. It also decreases the buying power of those making more than minimum wage because -they- don't get a raise when the minimum goes up.

It also has a tendency to cause employers to lay off workers or curtail their hiring, because their expenses are increased. The price of labor will be set by supply and demand. If noone will do the work for the offered wage, the wage will go up. All the minimum wage does is set an artificial standard of what a particular job is worth, which some employers then use to keep that wage artificially low.

And it's one thing to want to help the poor. It's a stupid idea to have the federal government do it. You want to -help- the poor, do it locally, and through charities. Government is the -worst- avenue to help people. It's the wonderful Nanny state that will take away the government assistance if you make a little bit too much money (but still not enough to get by on). This same system rewards that stereotypical woman with the 9 children by giving her money to continue making bad decisions. This has the effect of perpetuating those bad decisions, and the societal and economic consequences that come with those bad decisions. The fed is to big, bloated, and -too distant- from the problem to effectively deal with it on the case-by-case basis required to truly help people.

If I could see that government programs actually benefitted those truly in need, I'd probably be all for it. But I see entirely too many cases where it fails to help those in need, and rewards those who are good at gaming the system.

reconmike

Darwinism is the way the world has always work, the system is broken because we allow it to be broken.

The people that truly need help should get it, but the "I am entitled people" should not recieve squat.
Thin the herd, you want me to be compassionate towards my fellow human, have them do it for themselves.

You want to make this country better....drown all the lawyers and rewrite the laws so as the layman can understand and defend himself.
The lack of responsibility for ones own actions is killing this country.
Doctors in NJ are being raped by insurance companies because of the ambulance chasing vultures.
If you stick a fork in your eye, so be it.
I do not need a fork that has "do not stick in eye" engraved on it.
Guess what, government is run by lawyers, they make the laws to keep it the way it is.

You don't like your life....change it.

That is the wonder of this country.

__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?

3zos

ah.. so its not the goverment that bends... but its yourself....


deep......

__________________
S U C C E S S

some people dream of success, while other people live to crush those dreams

3zos

een sovieet russsia, the govorment bends YOU.

ezos1

__________________
S U C C E S S

some people dream of success, while other people live to crush those dreams

Zeld2.0

oh no soviet russia run!!