It all starts at the grassroots

[Nanuq]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/emergency-team-of-8thgrade-civics-teachers-dispatc%2C21023/

[redwatch]

That was a good read! It's sad to think that these people are actually voted into their positions.

[Nanuq]

That was a good read! It's sad to think that these people are actually voted into their positions.

What's really sad is that they put reelection before the good of the country.

[hiker01]

We're phuck up! These 4hitheads are ruining America! Just unbelievable!

[Watchmeister]

I think we need a "Do Over" clause added to our laws. Wouldn't you love some form of special election where if a certain percentage of the population checked a box all parties would have to stand up for re-election. I picture something like a no-confidence vote, Because I have no confidence in those pricks - all of them.

[gran]

What's really sad is that they put reelection before the good of the country.

Mmmmmmm...democracy has its faults and individulas will do what will benefit themselves. Its true for most of the Democrats and even more so for the right wing Republicans.

http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/faux_news.jpg

[Nanuq]

Ah, Gran ... that's a common myth. Check this out:

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=725

[HauteHippie]

Mmmmmmm...democracy has its faults and individulas will do what will benefit themselves. Its true for most of the Democrats and even more so for the right wing Republicans.

http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/faux_news.jpg

Silly.

[dluddy]

Simple solution

Congress and Senate limit to 2 terms

President one 6 year term and out

No career politicians

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[KB]

No career politicians

An excellent point that, however surly the coin flips both ways...experience is still an essential commodity?

Ken

[Nanuq]

True, Ken. And yet we elected a President to the world's most powerful economy with zero business experience.

In my humble opinion, we could open a phone book in any medium sized city, pick 100 names at random, and have a better Senate.

Reading the Constitution, that's largely how the Framers envisioned it too.

[subbiesrock]

True, Ken. And yet we elected a President to the world's most powerful economy with zero business experience.

Are you suggesting your former president's business acumen was better?

Just watched Oliver Stone's 'W' yesterday evening. Clearly liberally biased, but interesting viewing nevertheless. I'm not sure if business acumen is a quality one should want in a President. Bush/Cheney certainly had enough foresight to seize the business opportunity that presented itself in the Middle East.

[HauteHippie]

Well I think term limits are part of the problem. For example, the unfortunate solution to our monetary and fiscal woes right now is in fact a prolonged and unhindered depression. That's just the fact of the matter. We need a legitimate period of retrenching: liquidation of malinvestments, redeployment of resources, and rebuilding of savings. AKA, a depression. Now let's say, by some miracle (or perhaps by fiat), a flotilla of politicians arrived on the scene ready, willing, and able to do just that: abolish the federal reserve, allow interest rates to float, etc, etc. Really tighten down the screws. This would all set us in the right direction, but it wouldn't cure our situation over night. It'd take time. Probably much longer time than any term limits. See, the problem is that it won't be easy. In fact, it'd be painful. Very painful. So when the new brand of politicians showed up in the next election cycle promising artificially low interest rates, easy credit, public funding of entitlements and large scale make-work projects, and lots of inflation (AKA all the things that caused our problem), they'd be voted into power in a heartbeat. It's a vicious cycle. Austerity and responsibility will always be trumped by promises of freebies made to the masses by the politicians. And short term limits really just mean that no meaningful course of action will really ever be allowed to take full effect. The people will always just look to the politicians who promise the most for the least.

[HauteHippie]

Are you suggesting your former president's business acumen was better?

Well, sure. He ran successful large scale businesses in the private sector prior to becoming president. He also ran unsuccessful businesses. He had a wide breadth of experience, and saw first hand how business practices can succeed and fail.

Just watched Oliver Stone's 'W' yesterday evening. Clearly liberally biased, but interesting viewing nevertheless. I'm not sure if business acumen is a quality one should want in a President. Bush/Cheney certainly had enough foresight to seize the business opportunity that presented itself in the Middle East.

I suppose all the liberals on the Senate Intelligence Committee who deemed the intelligence credible in 2001 that identified Saddam an imminent threat were in on the Bush/Cheney business opportunity as well?

[subbiesrock]

Well, sure. He ran successful large scale businesses in the private sector prior to becoming president. He also ran unsuccessful businesses. He had a wide breadth of experience, and saw first hand how business practices can succeed and fail.

I suppose all the liberals (Diane Frankenfeinstein, John Edwards, Upchuck Schumer (if I'm not mistaken), et. al.) on the Senate Intelligence Committee who deemed the intelligence credible in 2001 that identified Saddam an imminent threat were in on the Bush/Cheney business opportunity as well?

I couldn't agree more. The issue is that the war serves the longer-term bipartisan interests of the US and the West in general. By creating a further presence in the Middle East and securing the flow of a significant percentage of the World's oil reserves, it allows energy to be sold in a free-market economy. Establishing a democratically-elected government and ousting a dictator would be much more conducive to this outcome. I would not e surprised if the Liberals on the commitee agreed on WMDs, nor was I surprised when they blamed their intel analysts on bad information. WMDs never mattered.

As far as the short terms of politicians and its broader implications, I couldn't have said it better. The US is in a difficult financial position and nothing but a long, protracted depression and a serious tightening of the purse will see her through. Dismantling the Fed would be a start in the right direction.

[HauteHippie]

I couldn't agree more. The issue is that the war serves the longer-term bipartisan interests of the US and the West in general. By creating a further presence in the Middle East and securing the flow of a significant percentage of the World's oil reserves, it allows energy to be sold in a free-market economy. Establishing a democratically-elected government and ousting a dictator would be much more conducive to this outcome. I would not e surprised if the Liberals on the commitee agreed on WMDs, nor was I surprised when they blamed their intel analysts on bad information. WMDs never mattered.

OK, so we've moved from a Bush/Cheney scandal, to a coordinated bipartisan US government scandal at large. As someone who lives here, though, I wouldn't give them so much credit. And, intellectually, I don't think there's a simple single explanation (read: conspiracy theory) that covers all cases. Some liberals and some conservatives, on both sides of the aisle, were set up to profit from it. Some liberals knew they had to go along with the war effort because their constituents would throw them out if they didn't stand up for our country, while other liberals knew they could get away with opposing the war. And I wonder how many of our reps really believed in the "democracy" line of reasoning.