Musings on politics

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jun 13 2006, 11:40 AM) [snapback]270562[/snapback]</div>

I think there is common ground, but we live in a much different society today than even 30 years ago. The media sensationalizes everything because it sells newspapers, engages viewers, increase the number of hits. 30 years ago you basically had the evening news and the morning newspaper and was all the ad space being sold to generate revenue. Today how many news channels? internet news sites are there all competing for your viewership and ad dollars. Is a headline about a "nut" on either side of the issue going to get your attention or not. I have a very dark sense of the media and what it is doing to our society, but I see it continuing to rip apart the fabric of society and continually rehashing the divisions which have always been there and will always be there.

As far as fiscal responsibility? To be even reasonably fiscally responsible would you not have to begin by eliminating about every fifth govt employee? Take a look at the smallest unit of government(city, town etc) you live under and the rate of growth relative to the growth in population? Does this make you any better off, or has it just made you work half of every day just to pay your taxes? The founding fathers would never believe what a mess we have today.

 

"I challenge you all to start ending it. Find solutions"

Hello, you are in a chat room for a car. While FHOP goes off topic do not think you are contributing to the future of American politics. And then you think there is an easy solution to abortion. And you are not even specific about what you want to do (sex education of some sort was all I could gather and doctors decide late term abortions). You go run for office or start a political action committee or a non-goverment organization and then you'll be serious.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Jun 13 2006, 12:22 PM) [snapback]270591[/snapback]</div>

In 2010 I am planning a run for Congress, after I am elected I promise I will still participate in PC.

 

Glad to hear it. I suggest Danny gives you your own forum category, "ask a congressman". Why not 2008?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jun 13 2006, 09:40 AM) [snapback]270562[/snapback]</div>

The only thing politicians want to accomplish is increasing their own power and wealth (with some more interested in power, and others more interested in wealth, and maybe one in a thousand actually wanting to accomplish something that would benefit the country and it's people.)

They have us (the citizens) fighting among ourselves because that way we never fight together against them. Divide and conquer. We been divided, and we been conquered. I'd be a lot more upset about it if I was poor.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Jun 13 2006, 12:39 PM) [snapback]270601[/snapback]</div>

Presidential election year and in this district it looks as though that would not play to my potential strengths. There is still a possibility for '08 just not very likely.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(geologyrox @ Jun 13 2006, 10:15 AM) [snapback]270587[/snapback]</div>

When parents learn their child has been very financially irresponsible, should they:

1) Argue back and forth amongst themselves – only to discover they have widely disparate views on what the problem is . . . and end up doing nothing in the long run?
2) Talk to Johnny about his spending problem – only to later realize nothing had changed?
3) Drastically reduce Johnny's allowance so he needs to make tough choices on the best ways to use the limited money he has?

The only way to stop our tax dollars from being wasted is to not give it to them in the first place. Argue all you want about what is fair in how much who should pay, but it still comes down to #3. If politicians have money, they will spend it . . . wisely or not.

And who amongst us doesn't like their tax refunds?
Do you spend it as foolishly as the government?
Do you use it to fund programs and issues you think the government ignores?
Maybe YOU are the best person to spend that “tax†dollar wisely.

 

No line crossed. What bothers me is that people think things are so bad. They are not. A 60% win in an election is a good clear cut win and yet 40% are not happy. Democracy is not about consensus. And when something is dabated forever with no action taken that is a good thing; there is no clear majority so no action should be taken. Also all those statistics about poor voter turnout are not accurate. Unless a person contacts an election office to remove themselves from voter registration thier name stays on the list until 2 or 3 presidential elections pass, basically 10 years. Well very few people remove thier names when they move and ALOT of people move. A person moves 3 times in 10 years, then they may be on 4 voter registration lists. I guess what made me respond was that when you gave your first solution it was long winded, not specific and, most glaringly, on the one topic least likely to be solved.

 

It's a function of our own humanity, and the range of emotions that comes with being human. Trying to "harness" this, focus it, into some sort of a collective beam of mutually agreeable ideals, well, that's the tough part. Not saying it's impossible, I'll never say anything is impossible ( ), but we can sure try!





<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 13 2006, 01:42 PM) [snapback]270604[/snapback]</div>

Of all the people on here (aside from Malorn, who has openly stated he's making a run for office), I think you are the most suited to land an office and enact changes. IMO, from what I've read, from my limited knowledge of you, I would imagine you'd be far more effective in transmitting your ideals from an official office of sorts than sitting on silos... ...to be perfectly, succinctly, blunt...

 

Unfortunately, to have any effect on the political world, you have
to buy into the political game fairly deeply first. Even to just be
able to vote, you submit to having your name and particulars held in
N more leaky databases -- else you are given no credibility at all.
Now you've already knuckled under to the system, and what does it
buy you when you see how your vote affected the process of faulty
Diebold machines and big oil money installing who the corporations
bloody well please in office?
.
As long as the system in general is that broken, it's not worth
trying to work inside of. It's like trying to make microsoft
products secure -- f'geddaboutit.
.
_H*

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 13 2006, 01:35 PM) [snapback]270706[/snapback]</div>

HA!!! :lol: That's a joke. Nobody would listen to me. I'd never get elected. An atheist ex-con with a prison record. I'd get fewer votes than Gus Hall running for president of the American Legion. And if I did somehow get elected, I'd be assassinated within five minutes of the announcement of the election results.

Consider my platform: Outlaw tobacco and alcohol; minimum wage of $25 per hour, and maximum wage of $100,000 per year; shut down all the TV stations and all commercial radio stations; prohibit advertising other than simple announcements of the price of goods; prohibit spending any money on election campaigns but give every qualified candidate equal time to speak on the radio, and equal space in the newspapers; all government contractors required to sell to the government at cost; phase-out of gasoline powered cars in 8 years, and phase-out of all cars within the city limits in 3 years... I could go on, but you get the idea. Even PC's resident liberals would not vote for me. Oh, yes, I would outlaw the commercial selling of all junk foods, defined as any food whose dominant ingredients are salt, fat, or sugar. (It would not be illegal to possess them or to make your own and eat it, but it would be illegal to sell it.) I would nationalize all the energy companies and switch to sustainable energy. I would nationalize the assets of any person whose net worth is over a million dollars (except my immediate family and personal friends)... but, sorry, i got carried away again...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Jun 13 2006, 11:24 AM) [snapback]270634[/snapback]</div>

I've known several different kinds of tax resisters. I am not going to use their real names here, but they are all real people I've known personally and called my friends:

1. Call him Harry. Harry was a CO in WWII. He is an anarchist and a pacifist and a libertarian. He believes government has no place in people's lives. He thinks people should be left alone. And he believes war is governments killing people for crooked political reasons. Harry always files a true and honest tax return, and then refuses to pay. Apparently they can't, or don't jail anyone for refusing to pay, as long as you file a correct tax return. The government attaches his bank account and takes the money, plus fines and fees and interest; but Harry believes that it actually costs them more in legal fees than the amount they fine him, so (he believes) they end up with less than if he had paid, though he also ends up with less. He's okay with that.

2. Call them George and Matilda. George and Matilda are radical environmentalists and peaceniks. They believe in living simply, with the smallest possible "environmental footprint." They also oppose war and government spending on war. They don't want to pay tax because half of government revenues goes to war. They are skilled carpenters, and by working during the summer months they can earn enough to live on, while remaining below the taxable level. I think that's around $5,000 or $6,000 per person. It's perfectly legal to live on less than a taxable amount, so they pay no tax and the IRS has no gripe against them.

I have known other people who don't even file a return. This is illegal and can land them in jail, but they prefer that to giving their money to the government and its war machine.

I respect all these people for their committment to peace. But I pay my taxes. I pay enough to buy a small fleet of Priuses.

 

geologyrox,

I empathize strongly with the emotion that impelled you to post this thread. I could sense some of your frustration a couple of weeks ago.

Let me talk a little about the "atmosphere" in which political discussions/arguments such as you see here in FHOP take place. Maybe worthwhile, maybe not.

First, the majority of voting Americans are "centrist" and accept workable compromises, fairly free of the doctrinaire ideology of the right or left. Roughly stated, they are "independents", "moderate Republicans" and "moderate Democrats"---depending on the issue(s) under discussion. By that caveat I mean that many people, moderate as they may be overall, are passionate---and can be mistaken for highly partisan---about one or a few issues.

Second, the people who take the time to argue/discuss issues most of the time, including between elections, are more likely to represent the idological extremes on many issues; are more likely to be politically active (such as in "party machinery"); are more likely to contribute to political causes/candidates; and are sometimes referred to as each party's "active base". My caveat to this generalization is that some-to-many of these people are either a) interested in "minor party politics", e.g., Libertarian or Green because neither major party is "extreme" enough on their favorite issues (e.g., government-run programs or environmental protection, respectively), or B) so angry and/or cynical about politics as practiced in the U.S. that they've dropped out. They may be lured into voting once in a while, but basically they are content to bad-mouth "politics" and "politicians" and not be active in trying to change things.

I'm mostly "half-angry" and "half cynical". The elections of 2000 and 2004 disgusted me, knocked the wind out of my sails; but I hang in there and keep participating, trying to make the best of a deeply flawed system.

All I've said is: don't be overly-discouraged by the over-the-top quality of many FHOP discussions. The majority are more like YOU. BUT: since "centrists" are, sadly, much less active in political parties and, equally sadly, follow "the issues" far less between elections than the more liberal or conservative among us, their voices are heard less and they're harder to contact (much less mobilize) to "take the pulse" of the country.

In my next post I'm going to post a list of current issues, noting the ones I think are subject to some workable compromise and those that aren't./

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 13 2006, 09:28 PM) [snapback]270846[/snapback]</div>

Dude, you got street 'cred!

Heh, doesn't that make you ever MORE suited? :lol:

I read a stat somewhere once that said something like XX% (percentage in the double digits, not arbitrary representation) of Congress had some sort of felonious conviction at one point or another in their lives...

 

Issues On Which No Obvious Compromise Is Possible

abortion
electronic voting machines with paper verification (critical, and it's "yes or no")
enforcement of rights for all protected groups (goal must always be 100% for established rights, but new rights are subject to political process)

Issues On Which Compromise Is Possible

Iraq: too late except for how fast we get out
immigration
universal health care (phased in by age group and level of subsidy; it's coming)
taxation
minimum wage
gay marriage/civil unions (gays may deny this is negotiable)
environmental protection
energy independence (e.g., Fed subsidy of R&D for alternative sources)
church/state separation (thought of putting with above group, but not practical)
keeping Social Security/Medicare viable
deficit spending
government aid to secondary/college education
"homeland security"
incentives for job creation
stem cell research
influence of money in politics
controlling lobbyists
privacy rights (some may argue these aren't negotiable)
restoring authority to regulatory agencies (EPA, FDA, FCC, etc.)
"war on drugs"
gun control
flag desecration
"free internet"
right-to-die (assisted suicide)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mystery Squid @ Jun 13 2006, 07:12 PM) [snapback]270875[/snapback]</div>

I'm too extreme to get the mainstream vote, and not crazy enough to get the lunatic fringe. Nation-wide, I'd get about five votes.

But there's more: I was on the campaign committee of a friend who ran for state senate back in Fargo. And the shit she had to wade through just to run for a piddling office like that was unbelievable. Raising money, going door-to-door to introduce herself to the constituency (which was virtually a full-time job for several months), and having to make distasteful compromises with her running mates (the other candidates for state legislature from our district, who did not share her views on most issues). Then there were the personal slanders from the opposition. My friend lost, but she is now running for another office. She is committed to trying to influence politics for the good, but even in the unlikely event she wins, she'll be a voice in the wilderness.

I knew a man who went into politics in the city of Grand Forks, ND (the third or 4th largest city in the state) because he wanted to make a difference. By the time he realized he was just one person in a sea of corruption, he was too old and tired and defeated to change careers.

I'm too old to devote my life to hopeless endeavors.

Hey, I probably wouldn't even vote for myself. I believe in my values and my ideas, but I lack the skills to bring any of them to fruition. I may be crazy, but I'm not an idiot. And I suspect that any "street credibility" I may have once had among the tiny group of people who follow civil resistance has greatly diminished in the decade and a half since I moved on to other things.