We The People...

[Yelram]

Ok, so with all this partisan bickering, I thought I would inject a thread full of fresh air. We'll call this "We the people...What we want, and how to get it". This is more about finding compromises that help all Americans without radically altering the status quo. A few issues are obviously going to be black and white, and have very little middle ground, but for the majority of political issues, the grey area is where we need to focus attention.

I'd like to start this thread with suggestions from everyone, so that I am not the one pointing which direction to start. How about everyone lists problems that they have, or problems with the government, and representatives, and we'll all come up with common sense solutions. What you do to make a living, and your perspective are actually MORE important than the position itself, in regards to this thread, so the more direct experience you can include in your input the better.

[Yelram]

I submit we lock Mr. Crash and Summer in a 10 x 10 room with a giant bed until all the details are hammered out.

Hey fuckers, take your OT talk to one of the millions of shitty OT threads.

How about I'll go first here.

The problem with the government, in my opinion, is three fold.

I want to warn you first, my views can be misconstrued as socialism, I tend to call it "free market socialism". Based upon the belief that a socialist system can only succeed within a capitalist construct.

Business, government, and media, are the holy triumvirate of power, therefore these three things need to be regulated BY THE PEOPLE. How the people regulate them is the important part. Right now we use the vehicle of government to control the businesses and the media, why is this ineffective? The Businesses and the Media are controlled by the same entity, that is far more efficient than our government. Why is government regulation of business a failure? Lobbyists represent the business to the government, and the government represents the people. There are middle men who can be cut out. Why cant our tax dollars be the vehicle for individual choice. Why do we pay into an income tax system that pays out money to hundreds of different systems, which we have no oversight of. Why cant we expect from our government systems, the same thing we expect from business? Why cant incentive be properly placed?

Notice this post is riddled with questions. Those questions are the focus of this thread, and should be the focus of the people. What we've done is allow ALL THREE of these entities to manipulate us by oldschool divide and conquer.

[redsox39]

Hey fuckers, take your OT talk to one of the millions of shitty OT threads.

How about I'll go first here.

The problem with the government, in my opinion, is three fold.

I want to warn you first, my views can be misconstrued as socialism, I tend to call it "free market socialism". Based upon the belief that a socialist system can only succeed within a capitalist construct.

Business, government, and media, are the holy triumvirate of power, therefore these three things need to be regulated BY THE PEOPLE. How the people regulate them is the important part. Right now we use the vehicle of government to control the businesses and the media, why is this ineffective? The Businesses and the Media are controlled by the same entity, that is far more efficient than our government. Why is government regulation of business a failure? Lobbyists represent the business to the government, and the government represents the people. There are middle men who can be cut out. Why cant our tax dollars be the vehicle for individual choice. Why do we pay into an income tax system that pays out money to hundreds of different systems, which we have no oversight of. Why cant we expect from our government systems, the same thing we expect from business? Why cant incentive be properly placed?

Notice this post is riddled with questions. Those questions are the focus of this thread, and should be the focus of the people. What we've done is allow ALL THREE of these entities to manipulate us by oldschool divide and conquer.

So...the terrorist's won BEFORE 9/11? shit...

In all seriousness, the divide and conquer was so complete and so perfect, I am not sure what it will take to right this train. Either the greatest leader in the history of the world...or the greatest disaster the world has ever seen. Either way, it is coming up very soon.

[kid_vidrio]

I've got issues with how bad our State department is. They haven't gotten anything right in about 200 years and the result has been such wonderful forays as Vietnam and Iraq, with scores of other mishaps sprinkled around.
The money would have been better spend on maintaining our educational superiority, or at least a hint of it.

[Stax]

I've got issues with how bad our State department is. They haven't gotten anything right in about 200 years and the result has been such wonderful forays as Vietnam and Iraq, with scores of other mishaps sprinkled around.
The money would have been better spend on maintaining our educational superiority, or at least a hint of it.

That was one of the greatest things Eisenhower did, a nice heavy bloc of spending on education coupled with a cheaper strategy of containment against the USSR. Now admittedly that strategy was based on nuclear deterrence, not the greatest of ideas, but the theory was good. If Nixon hadn't been an ass, his use of detente towards similar ends (cheap national defense) would provide perhaps the best method for US foreign policy. Talk with enemies, pair down tensions where possible, etc so you are only spending money on security you need.

[Willam]

I have a problem with the idea behind "school vouchers." If I understand the concept correctly, it's basically saying that the government has done a shitty job on public schools so they will give you some of your tax dollars back to spend on private education. My problem is this, my wife and I have chosen not to have children, therefore, shouldn't I get money back to spend somewhere else also?

[Yelram]

Wow, I didnt see how this thread had progressed since I left it. Awesome, we have some issues to work with here.

State department:

Right now we are obviously between a rock and a hard place. We want to support allies, but we also dont want to make enemies. (ie, Georgia). The top military power is always the one confronted with the complicated decisions. A delay of a war thats already waged can oftentimes embolden the enemy, but oftentimes preventative strikes, and pre-planned troop stationing (as in Iraq) although sometimes the most effective in the long term, can make us seem imperialist, and unsympathetic to both the side we are protecting, and the side we are fighting. Do you have some people you'd like to see appointed to national security advisor? Or secretary of state? I can think of a few I wouldnt want in there,one is Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor for Jimmy Carter, and a main force behind Obama.

Investment in Education is Great, as long as it can be effective. That it is directed to places where it can be used, and not places that are going to keep sucking up funds, and not have any better educated individuals to show for it.

Vouchers are great, because they force accountability. If someone can do it cheaper, and better than the public system, they should be allowed to compete directly with it, to force higher standards within the current system. I call this concept "freemarket socialism", whether that is the best term to describe it or not, I dont know, but it seems to fit.

And the last thing, Brought up by Stax in another thread is the amount of representatives in the house. The original intent of the founders should be implemented, and the number of representatives should be directly proportional to the population in a reasonable ratio.

[Stax]

Just to bring in what Yelram mentioned I posted:

Yep. This is a combination of the inherant problems with the electoral college (every state gets at least 1 rep and 2 Senators, and districts cannot cross state lines so there will never be PERFECT balance of every district with the same # of people) and the stupider more fixable problem of interstate malapportionment from the dumbass Public Law 62-5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Law_62-5). One of my current professors, Jeffrey Ladewig, actually wrote a nice paper (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=1741464&jid=&volumeId=&issueId=&aid=1741456) on this.

He shows that the United States is the only democratic nation with a lower House that so severely underrepresents the people. According to the Cube Root model they put out that pretty nicely models all other nations (they all fall either near the curve or above it) we would have had roughly 655 Congressmen in 2000 (and with a better representative House the EC would come closer to reflecting the popular vote. Under this model Gore would've won 368-364).

I think it makes sense, but is probably even less likely to get passed than a simple repeal of the electoral college. This would instantly create 200+ Congressional seats and massively redraw basically every incumbant's district, something that would be difficult to convince people is righteous. The only ways I see this happening are:


-Someone take's the path of the 27th amendment and gets the OTHER un-passed original amendment to the Constitution (which had no sunset clause, like the one that became the 27th amendment) which dealt with appropriating Congresspeople. However, it would create an insane number of reps. Called Article the First (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment) it reads:
After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. (emphasis added)

So, given our 300 million population, we would fall under the "no more than 50k per rep" which would make an insanely huge House. Seems like a bad path

- The only other path I see plausible, which Professor Ladewig suggested, was that a state sue. Montana sued in US Commerce v. Montana over an argument about which METHOD of apportionment (within the 435 member count rule) should be used, that would've only changed their rep count by 1. Surely if the court found standing for that there is standing to sue over a law denying 200+ Congressional seats.

[taters]

What WE want is very similar in fashion. It comes down to EQUAL representation and treatment.

I know, the first think that comes to mnd when you hear ME say this is race, but I dont mean race, I mean legislation, lifestyle and livability.

Everyone has been told that states should be allowed to legislate their own beliefs. That was being horded during the clinton admin. However, during the reagan and bush admin's, the rules and wants of red states are pushed (unsuccessfully, but still pushed) on everyone.

That being said, the same thing happens when Progressives are in charge. Its a tug of war. Red state religious people want red state religious lifestyles and legislation. Red state fiscalist want small government (not actually true, what they really want is CHEAP government, not small government) and want to fiscal lifestyles and legislation. Blue staters want secular social lifestyles, and whatever freedoms each individual group they are to be enjoyed.

The deal is, everyone wants the same thing, but has a different idea of what it is, therefore when their group is in charge, they try to stuff their beliefs on EVERYONE, regardless of whether they want it or not.

Before you say I am arguing for states rights, there is a problem that cannot be avoided which is the reason things work like so. Each side is convinced that its beliefs are 'fundamental' and should be guarenteed to everyone, regardless of whether they want or need it. Therein lies the fatal flaw of 'We the People'. 'We the people' are actually 'we the feuding masses'.

All that being said, I would be vehemently denying all of this if it were ever tracked down to me at some point in the future if I were pursuing a political career.

[Yelram]

What WE want is very similar in fashion. It comes down to EQUAL representation and treatment.

I know, the first think that comes to mnd when you hear ME say this is race, but I dont mean race, I mean legislation, lifestyle and livability.

Everyone has been told that states should be allowed to legislate their own beliefs. That was being horded during the clinton admin. However, during the reagan and bush admin's, the rules and wants of red states are pushed (unsuccessfully, but still pushed) on everyone.

That being said, the same thing happens when Progressives are in charge. Its a tug of war. Red state religious people want red state religious lifestyles and legislation. Red state fiscalist want small government (not actually true, what they really want is CHEAP government, not small government) and want to fiscal lifestyles and legislation. Blue staters want secular social lifestyles, and whatever freedoms each individual group they are to be enjoyed.

The deal is, everyone wants the same thing, but has a different idea of what it is, therefore when their group is in charge, they try to stuff their beliefs on EVERYONE, regardless of whether they want it or not.

Before you say I am arguing for states rights, there is a problem that cannot be avoided which is the reason things work like so. Each side is convinced that its beliefs are 'fundamental' and should be guarenteed to everyone, regardless of whether they want or need it. Therein lies the fatal flaw of 'We the People'. 'We the people' are actually 'we the feuding masses'.

All that being said, I would be vehemently denying all of this if it were ever tracked down to me at some point in the future if I were pursuing a political career.

I have a problem with government legislating social lifestyle to begin with. I'd like for you to show me an example of the government doing such a thing. Other than gay marriage. Which is not a red or blue issue, according to Obama. Since he is against it. See, you have this belief, that the world is against you because you're black. Thats your excuse. And yet you are in law school. I know plenty of dumb white people that are losers, and dont have money because they spend it on stupid shit. I can admit those white people exist. You dont seem to be able to admit that about black people. Every black person to you has been "restricted" from some higher level they could have achieved. Its a different view of the world.

The issues based around lifestyle, and life choices, are divisive issues. They arent ment to actually achieve anything in government. They are there to get your votes. Poverty is like this too. If you think the government can make a poor man rich, in any other way than to give him money all the time for doing nothing, you've got another thing coming.

I believe that wealth is something to be created. That there isnt some X amount of wealth, and if you dont have it, you're supposed to whine and cry, and beg for it from the person who does. And use government to restrict their ability to create wealth. I do it myself every day. I produce a living wage by SAVING people money, and making them more comfortable.

If Obama wins, you officially cant complain about the US being racist EVER again. You can point out specific pockets, because obviously there are places like that, but you cannot refer to the country as racist ANYMORE.

Oh, and please show me, how the government treats you different because you are black.

[Stax]

A. How did my comment turn into tatershit about race?
B. Yes you can still say the US is racist, Yelram, because I guarantee you there will be plenty of postgame shit going to the blackest of the black neighborhoods, getting one of those folks Chris Rock does jokes about, interviewing them and then saying "Well, there's the African American perspective" or whatever. Already saw something nearly like that in about 30 seconds of flipping through the news (though the guy they talked too was more eloquent). We just aren't David Duke or Wallace racist anymore.

[redsox39]

So? If they go to the blackest of neighborhoods...those people don't have a perspective? what about the Suburban black families? do they represent the African American voter?

It is all stupid, but I don't think it is racist. If they want to hear a African American perspective on it, who SHOULD they go to?

[Yelram]

A. How did my comment turn into tatershit about race?
B. Yes you can still say the US is racist, Yelram, because I guarantee you there will be plenty of postgame shit going to the blackest of the black neighborhoods, getting one of those folks Chris Rock does jokes about, interviewing them and then saying "Well, there's the African American perspective" or whatever. Already saw something nearly like that in about 30 seconds of flipping through the news (though the guy they talked too was more eloquent). We just aren't David Duke or Wallace racist anymore.

This election is dangerous, because it brought out alot of STUPID PEOPLE, on both sides. White racists, and Black racists.

[Stax]

This election is dangerous, because it brought out alot of STUPID PEOPLE, on both sides. White racists, and Black racists.

True
So? If they go to the blackest of neighborhoods...those people don't have a perspective? what about the Suburban black families? do they represent the African American voter?

It is all stupid, but I don't think it is racist. If they want to hear a African American perspective on it, who SHOULD they go to?

They should realize that the phrase "African American perspective" is a foolish term because no such thing exists. Saying that all black people think one way is incredibly racist. Obviously it's a demographic that cuts pretty clearly along party lines, but the idea that talking to a couple black voters gets you the "black" perspective is silly and racist.

[taters]

I have a problem with government legislating social lifestyle to begin with. I'd like for you to show me an example of the government doing such a thing. Other than gay marriage. Which is not a red or blue issue, according to Obama. Since he is against it. See, you have this belief, that the world is against you because you're black. Thats your excuse. And yet you are in law school. I know plenty of dumb white people that are losers, and dont have money because they spend it on stupid shit. I can admit those white people exist. You dont seem to be able to admit that about black people. Every black person to you has been "restricted" from some higher level they could have achieved. Its a different view of the world.

The issues based around lifestyle, and life choices, are divisive issues. They arent ment to actually achieve anything in government. They are there to get your votes. Poverty is like this too. If you think the government can make a poor man rich, in any other way than to give him money all the time for doing nothing, you've got another thing coming.

I believe that wealth is something to be created. That there isnt some X amount of wealth, and if you dont have it, you're supposed to whine and cry, and beg for it from the person who does. And use government to restrict their ability to create wealth. I do it myself every day. I produce a living wage by SAVING people money, and making them more comfortable.

If Obama wins, you officially cant complain about the US being racist EVER again. You can point out specific pockets, because obviously there are places like that, but you cannot refer to the country as racist ANYMORE.

Oh, and please show me, how the government treats you different because you are black.


1- YOu just essentially verified my post with our first 4 paragraphs.

2- Just because a black man can win the presidency does not mean there are no longer racists in america, nor are there not any lacking in power.

Just to note again, I didnt mention race in my post