My Rant about the quality of life going down in America?

[Collegeboy]

We could always adopt Russia's way of dealing with this matter. You can make the President on coming to office officially and truly dissolve his affiliation with the party he ran under. This works sometimes, sometimes it doesn't, but when it doesn't, it is just what we have today. When it works, it is better IMO.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
We could always adopt Russia's way of dealing with this matter. You can make the President on coming to office officially and truly dissolve his affiliation with the party he ran under. This works sometimes, sometimes it doesn't, but when it doesn't, it is just what we have today. When it works, it is better IMO.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley

I could take your post and turn this into another discussion but I will resist questioning many of the topics you said, but will stick to the main one.

What does it matter where it comes from? This idea has nothing to do with the cold war, has nothing to do with a countries economic of other problems, it is a good idea.

A president should be more then just another member of the party, he is supposed to represent the people instead of just his party. That is where this system comes in. It is a good system and it works.
(I saw the smiles but I still have to question)

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I could take your post and turn this into another discussion but I will resist questioning many of the topics you said, but will stick to the main one.

What does it matter where it comes from? This idea has nothing to do with the cold war, has nothing to do with a countries economic of other problems, it is a good idea.

A president should be more then just another member of the party, he is supposed to represent the people instead of just his party. That is where this system comes in. It is a good system and it works.
(I saw the smiles but I still have to question)

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Star_Base_CGI
All the Banks I applied for dont have any white people working for them except for one manager... I hate Banks anyway.http://MSNBC.com

Okay well you know what CGI:



and so do some of your remarks! Think before you post!

There is an old expression that it is better to be considered a fool then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Maybe you should close your's now!


*edit to clarify point*

[aaron_mag]

Oh yeah follow Russia's example.....

Ninja CPA-
First off you are totally wrong about nothing getting accomplished with a 50/50 split. It is just that ONLY the most common sense stuff that no one dares vote against is allowed to pass. Come on! I thought you wanted smaller government. Having one party actually wielding authority is not the path to smaller government!!!

[Star_Base_CGI]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


Okay well you know what CGI:



and so do some of your remarks! Think before you post!

There is an old expression that it is better to be considered a fool then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt. Maybe you should close your's now!


*edit to clarify point*

Im very proud of My Brain farts.

I am very proud of the fact and of the 5 pages of posts on the forum. SOme people acknowledge the fact we have some small problems and theres alot we could do to improve America.

I remember teachers telling us in school about the two party system and how you can only vote one way or the other. Seemed ridiculous at Age 10 you only have two choices to run the greatest country in the world. Seems pretty indicitive to what happens when someone has $80 million to run for offive.

I want to thank the moderators for letting us discuss this somewhat intelligently and rationally. I want to thank everyone here for their opinions. MOst of all I want to thank the feds that took my $2000 in property taxs and built a tran station and a State Office of Homeland Defense Command center for Millions of dollars. While houses and parks sat Vacant in the city.

I wish someone asked me what they could spend the taxs on. Id Say Drug Treatment, Parks or jobs. Not rebates for the wealthy. Wealthy people dont need money. They already own everything. Even Bill Gates Senior said Microsoft does not need rebates.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Oh yeah follow Russia's example.....

Ninja CPA-
First off you are totally wrong about nothing getting accomplished with a 50/50 split. It is just that ONLY the most common sense stuff that no one dares vote against is allowed to pass. Come on! I thought you wanted smaller government. Having one party actually wielding authority is not the path to smaller government!!!

False.

Even agreeing on what's common sense isn't as easy as it sounds. For instance, with a sub-par job market and the threat of terrorism I think that its blatantly obvious that the borders need to be tightened and illegals removed from the country. I would think that all rational people would think that and that the only debate would be about the implementation of that and to what scale (ie do we kick out everyone, 50%, just people that have been here more then 5 years, less then 5 years, etc.)

Look at the way the Bush judicial nominations are going. For the most part his nominess have nothing really wrong with them. They fit the requirements for being a judge to the courts they were appointed. It is impossible to say otherwise at this point without being a liar. Nearly every judicial advocacy group has said so, and yet the Democrats are filibustering the judges because they don't want people that disagree with them. Even though they are specifically abusing their power of congressional oversight they still do it because they exist to oppose the other party, not to work together, but to fight.

And just so people don't think I only pick on one side. Remember when the Republicans shut down the government just because they hated Clinton? Well, I didn't like him either, but to shut down the government just to prove to everyone you don't like the President? C'mon, it's insane.

The problem isn't the makeup of the congress. Having a majority for either party or no majority at all isn't what makes the system work or not work. The problem for our system is the role that money plays in politics and the power that it wields. The Democrats in my opinion are the most "bought" of the two parties merely because they recieve money from more different kinds of special interest groups. The teachers, union workers, envirnmentalists, civil rights organizations, all have their own competeing agenda and pay their politicians to push it. For the Republicans they receive money primary from smaller donors and from corporations of varying sizes. Being pro business and growth is a fundamental aspect of a supply side economist in the first place, so I don't think business is really buying the Republican as much as they're just paying to get someone they know thinks the same way as them into office.

Anyways, that was long winded, a little confusing, and not really on topic. The point of my little tiraid is that the answer is term limits. Once you take the ability to remain in power for 30 years out of the picture all of a sudden things will start getting done. Politicians won't need to listen to pollsters anymore or worry about re-election campaigns or funding. They'll just be able to work for a few years, and then retire and write a book. And that's what we want. The makeup isn't important, it's the length of time that somoene serves that matters.

The reason government is huge and getting bigger isn't because of the makeup of the congress. It's because everyone agrees that they have to spend money to buy votes. The difference is an incumbant spends our money, and his opponent spends the money of donors.

I wrote an article about this on my website, called "Kick them all out of office, even the ones not named Clinton."

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Star_Base_CGI
I want to thank the moderators for letting us discuss this somewhat intelligently and rationally. I want to thank everyone here for their opinions. MOst of all I want to thank the feds that took my $2000 in property taxs and built a tran station and a State Office of Homeland Defense Command center for Millions of dollars. While houses and parks sat Vacant in the city.

I wish someone asked me what they could spend the taxs on. Id Say Drug Treatment, Parks or jobs. Not rebates for the wealthy. Wealthy people dont need money. They already own everything. Even Bill Gates Senior said Microsoft does not need rebates.

You are aware that the department of Homeland security is staffed by people, right? I mean, there are jobs in that department, lots of them. And train stations employ people too!

And the federal government probably has nothing to do with the parks and houses in your city. They are most likely municipal property and the responsibility of the municipality.

And yeah, parks are supremely important. I wish we could just spend more money on parks and jobs, instead of growing the economy and creating, um, jobs.

And I love it when people that complain about not working tell people that work for a living what they are allowed to spend their money on. That's super!

[Collegeboy]

There is nothing wrong with following the example of Russia and having your president dissolve his political party membership for the time he is a president. The political parties will still push their candidate for they will be of sort of the same ideas. That way you will be electing a person for their ideas not their party. Russia has gone a long way since the Harvard economist messed their country up.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
There is nothing wrong with following the example of Russia and having your president dissolve his political party membership for the time he is a president. The political parties will still push their candidate for they will be of sort of the same ideas. That way you will be electing a person for their ideas not their party. Russia has gone a long way since the Harvard economist messed their country up.

It sounds like it it's a good idea, but it frankly wouldn't change anything. In this case Bush would still BE a Republican, even though he pretended he wasn't, and the opposition would still HATE him more then anything on earth and he would still have to raise funds to run again, which once again is where the real corruption comes in.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


It sounds like it it's a ood idea, but it frankly wouldn't change anything. In this case Bush would still BE a Republican, even though he pretended he wasn't, and the opposition would still HATE him more then anything on earth and he would still have to raise funds to run again, which once again is where the real corruption comes in.

Bingo..

[Restola]

Yeah Russia was full of great ideas.

[Collegeboy]

No see you do not understand what I am saying. A republican is not a set of ideas anymore, everyone in the party does not have the same ideas (Same as any party), so instead of voting for people's ideas many voters vote for their party. This system lessens then impact of the parties in the presidential elections for instead of getting a republican or democrat you are getting a man and his views. It has worked so far in Russia, no reason it shouldn't work here. (Notice I said in my opening remark that it works sometimes and other times it doesn't, but it is those sometimes that make it worth while)

And Russia has come up with a lot of great ideas.

[Albinonewt]

And where does an individual person get the money to run without a party?

And without a party's (loose) set of values what keeps candidates to bounce back and forth between large donors?

It's a terrible idea and wouldn't work here, period.