Biden's presidency

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, Tiger337 said:

Nothing needs to be torn down.  Better people need to run and people need to vote for them.  Easier said than done with all the money involved.  

Also easier said than done given how much people's identities are set these days. 

Trump's impeachments are a great example: the facts and the case never would have mattered. With a few exceptions, the only thing that mattered was tribal identities. That's it.

[1984Echoes]

4 hours ago, John_Brian_K said:

... I like democracy, but I think the whole thing needs to be tore down and rebuilt.  

So you're a fascist?

[mtutiger]

What exactly does a "tear down" entail?

Our system isn't perfect, but it's preferable to one where we, as citizens, have no say in who our leaders are. And when other countries "tear down" or "enter into emergencies", their citizens tend to lose that right. Portugal, Spain, Paraguay, Chile... history is littered with examples.

And January 6th, for it's part, was proof that there are at least some in society who would trade that all in if they could get the leader they wanted. Concerning to say the least.

Edited January 5, 2022 by mtutiger

[chasfh]

On 12/29/2021 at 4:54 PM, Tiger337 said:

I made more money in the market this year than any other year with my usual mostly passive investing.   The problem is it's mostly retirement money which I can't spend yet so it doesn't feel real.  I'm expecting a big crash right as I retire!

As you get closer to retirement, you'll want to move an increasing amount of your retirement funds from equities to money markets.

Heck, given how old I know you are, you should probably start doing that today! 😃

[chasfh]

19 hours ago, John_Brian_K said:

I like democracy, but I think the whole thing needs to be tore down and rebuilt.  

I think a lot of us would like to hear exactly what you mean by this.

I can think of a few things about the American political system that I would to tear down and rebuild. The way we vote for president, for one thing: in my opinion, the electoral college is an anti-democracy institution that was devised as a bald compromise to ensure that southern states would stay in the union. I would advocate totally eliminating the EC and going to direct popular vote to choose our president.

But I would't blow up the idea of democracy altogether, because I believe that "democracy" and "American political system" are not interchangeable. They are totally different concepts.

So please, JBK, can you clarify what you mean?

[John_Brian_K]

18 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

Nothing needs to be torn down.  Better people need to run and people need to vote for them.  Easier said than done with all the money involved.  

So you like the idea of big corporations running the country?  Because with "campaigning" that is what you get.  With pork in bills, this is what you get.

[John_Brian_K]

36 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think a lot of us would like to hear exactly what you mean by this.

I can think of a few things about the American political system that I would to tear down and rebuild. The way we vote for president, for one thing: in my opinion, the electoral college is an anti-democracy institution that was devised as a bald compromise to ensure that southern states would stay in the union. I would advocate totally eliminating the EC and going to direct popular vote to choose our president.

But I would't blow up the idea of democracy altogether, because I believe that "democracy" and "American political system" are not interchangeable. They are totally different concepts.

So please, JBK, can you clarify what you mean?

Yes as I said....I like democracy, but the way democracy is handled in the current political system is a joke.  And because the comment was too ridiculous to even respond to I will leave it here..."appalled"?  

I really cannot laugh enough at that comment.

[pfife]

jbk, may I offer that perhaps you may mean more of a "clean house" than "tear down"?  I think "tear down" has some "overthrow the government" kinda vibes to it you may not be tryna send

[Motown Bombers]

One of the biggest things I would change is the senate. No way Wyoming, which has 575,000 people, should have the same number of senators as California which has 39 million people. California has multiple cities larges than Wyoming. 

[Tiger337]

54 minutes ago, chasfh said:

As you get closer to retirement, you'll want to move an increasing amount of your retirement funds from equities to money markets.

Heck, given how old I know you are, you should probably start doing that today! 😃

I am actually pretty cautious and have already started to do that.  I also have an annuity which will give me lifetime income.  With inflation and low interest rates, there is no good way to earn money outside of stocks, so the battle will be deciding how much to keep in stocks.  Maybe in a few years, the interest rates will be higher.    

[gehringer_2]

6 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

So you like the idea of big corporations running the country?  Because with "campaigning" that is what you get.  With pork in bills, this is what you get.

As I have watched politics over a few decades, the money in elections bothers me more day by day, but legislative horse trading, which can be labeled 'pork', is actually not so bad a thing to me - it's how get things done - somebody in my district needs this, someone in your district wants that. I think it's something that sounds worse in rhetoric than it really is in operation. I really have no problem with 'earmarking' for example and I think the Congressional leadership made a mistake eliminating the process. The question is not so much whether something got into a bill by individual earmark or for what might be a narrow constituency - as long as it is a public one.  It don't mind if an interest is narrow as long as it's public. A post office for Podunk or a road that may be little used but still connects some real people I can live with as the cost of getting enough legislators on board for more important stuff even if some would call that pork. Even a useless weapons system isn't the worst thing since most of that money goes to salaries in the end. It's the tax and regulatory giveaways to the donor class, both private and corporate, that bother me most anymore.

[oblong]

13 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

One of the biggest things I would change is the senate. No way Wyoming, which has 575,000 people, should have the same number of senators as California which has 39 million people. California has multiple cities larges than Wyoming. 

The issue is we are a nation of states.  The House represents the people and they have certain roles.  The Senate represents the states and they have cerrtain roles.   If we make congress strictly democratic representation then there's no need to have two houses in our legislature.... and at that point why we even have states?  The idea is that states are more than geographical boundaries.  Why do we have one Montana or Wyoming or Idaho but two Dakotas?  I'm sure there were political reasons behind that, allowing the overall region of Dakota to have 4 senators instead of 2, maybe having to do with slavery?  I don't know the history but it wouldn't shock me.

This would require changing the constitution which requires the states to agree to it.... won't happen.  They're not going to give up power.  IT's also why the only real way to change the electoral college is through the popular vote pact that states are individually signing on to, which will also be challenged in court as soon as it's implemented, if it ever reaches that point.

[Tiger337]

24 minutes ago, John_Brian_K said:

So you like the idea of big corporations running the country?  Because with "campaigning" that is what you get.  With pork in bills, this is what you get.

Big corporations already do run the country to a large extent, both parties.  There are supposedly contribution limits, but there are obviously ways to get around that.  We probably don't disagree on the money problem.  I just wasn't sure what you meant by "tear it all down"  It sounded like you wanted to tear down democracy and try something else.  I want us to work towards democracy instead of moving away from it like we seem to be doing.  

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, oblong said:

The issue is we are a nation of states

Except that was put to death in practice pretty firmly in by 1863. The Civil War established once and for all on the ground that the US is a single unitary state and no longer a confederation. We may have a tiered federal government, but we are no longer a confederation. The people in every state need their votes to count equally if we are to continue to call ourselves a democracy.

Edited January 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[ewsieg]

42 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

One of the biggest things I would change is the senate. No way Wyoming, which has 575,000 people, should have the same number of senators as California which has 39 million people. California has multiple cities larges than Wyoming. 

I feel like this is the Dem's version of 'build the wall'.  Would there be some benefit from this, probably greater than null, but the return on investment would be atrocious. 

I have a one step process to fix government.  On paper, it's simple, in theory though....

- Find a revenue producing investigative journalism business model at local, state, and countrywide levels.

Edited January 5, 2022 by ewsieg

[oblong]

14 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Except that was put to death in practice pretty firmly in by 1863. The Civil War established once and for all on the ground that the US is a single unitary state and no longer a confederation. We may have a tiered federal government, but we are no longer a confederation. The people in every state need their votes to count equally if we are to continue to call ourselves a democracy.

but how do you change that without the states that would cede power cooperating and why would they?

I'm not saying it's the right way... but it's the way it is and its not going to change.  You cant change the senate without an amendment.  We will never pass another constitutional amendment.

[buddha]

or we could just combine a bunch of tiny northeastern states like vermont, delaware, rhode island, maine.  why do those tiny states get 2 senators where their population is so low?

[pfife]

I think one of the things that has made gridlock in congress way worse was the banning of earmarks.   You basically removed the one thing they actually all agreed on.   

[Motown Bombers]

1 minute ago, buddha said:

or we could just combine a bunch of tiny northeastern states like vermont, delaware, rhode island, maine.  why do those tiny states get 2 senators where their population is so low?

Excellent. We can then break up California and combine the Dakotas and other mountain states. The fact is, Democrats represent over 40 million more people in the senate but do not have a majority. This is minority rule government. 

[microline133]

4 minutes ago, pfife said:

I think one of the things that has made gridlock in congress way worse was the banning of earmarks.   You basically removed the one thing they actually all agreed on.   

John Boehner said exactly this years ago. Once these were eliminated, he lost negotiating leverage with his members. It was one of the reasons he had such difficulty controlling the rise and disruption of the Tea Party....he couldn't offer earmarks that could entice them to come around on bigger issues of the day.

With the introduction of "Community Project Funding", which is essentially a new name for earmarks, I'll be curious to see if we can get some momentum back in that regard.

[Edman85]

38 minutes ago, oblong said:

The issue is we are a nation of states.  The House represents the people and they have certain roles.  The Senate represents the states and they have cerrtain roles.   If we make congress strictly democratic representation then there's no need to have two houses in our legislature.... and at that point why we even have states?  The idea is that states are more than geographical boundaries.  Why do we have one Montana or Wyoming or Idaho but two Dakotas?  I'm sure there were political reasons behind that, allowing the overall region of Dakota to have 4 senators instead of 2, maybe having to do with slavery?  I don't know the history but it wouldn't shock me.

This would require changing the constitution which requires the states to agree to it.... won't happen.  They're not going to give up power.  IT's also why the only real way to change the electoral college is through the popular vote pact that states are individually signing on to, which will also be challenged in court as soon as it's implemented, if it ever reaches that point.

 

I found the history on Wikipedia. It was political horse trading in the 1880's. The Dakotas got split up after Republicans won an election and were able to get extra states.

[buddha]

3 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Excellent. We can then break up California and combine the Dakotas and other mountain states. The fact is, Democrats represent over 40 million more people in the senate but do not have a majority. This is minority rule government. 

that's great!  texas can be three states and florida two.  we can make cali three states too since the valley js so different from the coasts.

or better yet, combine the dakotas, montana, nebraska, idaho and western oregon/washington into one big state with only two senators!  

even better, let's keep dividing up territory until we get a temporary democrat super majority in the senate.  and then when the population migration and party policies and demographics change again in 15 years we can split up the map again to make sure democrats have another majority.

as much as i dont like the senate, i think getting rid of it and leaving things only to the house would be very scary.  house members are nuts!

[Motown Bombers]

Just now, buddha said:

that's great!  texas can be three states and florida two.  we can make cali three states too since the valley js so different from the coasts.

or better yet, combine the dakotas, montana, nebraska, idaho and western oregon/washington into one big state with only two senators!  

even better, let's keep dividing up territory until we get a temporary democrat super majority in the senate.  and then when the population migration and party policies and demographics change again in 15 years we can split up the map again to make sure democrats have another majority.

as much as i dont like the senate, i think getting rid of it and leaving things only to the house would be very scary.  house members are nuts!

I would be all for breaking up Texas and Florida as well. Texas and Florida aren't as partisan as California so I think it would be harder to get multiple red states out of those two as it would be getting multiple blue states out of California. 

The fact is, I don't think the founding fathers envisioned the largest state in the country being 67 times larger than the smallest state. This isn't about gerrymandering the senate. A Republican president has only won the popular vote once in the past 32 years. Democrats represent over 40 million more people than Republicans and yet don't have that type of majority. I never suggested getting rid of the senate and this was hatched out of the idea of making drastic changes, but states like California and Texas should have more representation in the senate than Wyoming. The concept of the senate is antiquated. 

[RatkoVarda]

Dems in disarray as unemployment reaches record low levels.

 

[smr-nj]

1 hour ago, John_Brian_K said:

Yes as I said....I like democracy, but the way democracy is handled in the current political system is a joke.  And because the comment was too ridiculous to even respond to I will leave it here..."appalled"?  

I really cannot laugh enough at that comment.

Proposing “tear it down” is pathetic.  Very.