Random Politics & Religion #00

Fewer women and brown people who want to help the poor, obviously.
Because moderate views around here basically can't exist. Everyone's either a racist woman-hating corporate swine or a society-leeching communist who wants it all without contributing anything. You haven't ever called me any of those things directly, though it's certainly implied in generalities at times.

My degree of reason varies by topic and who is reading my post.

There are a few topics I get pretty dug in on which some would say I'm unreasonable about, but eh. So goes life.

I just generally distrust all politicians, even the ones who say things I believe in, because in practice they seem remarkably unable to get anything done and it makes me think they're just blowing slightly more preferable smoke up my ***.

The constant partisan bickering and divisiveness causing absolutely nothing worthwhile to get done. Dems have certainly done it in the past, but the Republicans have really escalated the arms race, so to speak, this current executive term. It's nauseating.

And again, I refuse to believe that more money talking is the answer to fixing government. Then it just becomes a bidding war for power, which it essentially already is anyhow.

I'm personally of the opinion you should be allowed to have no additional income while you're representative at any level, and any clear circumvention of this (simply putting all of your business holdings/investments in a spouse's or child's name, etc.) would result in removal from office. Ditto for appointed positions like judges and the like.

Also, term limits for all positions, elected or appointed. Appointed positions could be, for instance, the duration of the term for whoever appointed you plus 25-50% over again to avoid party-line takeover every election cycle.

Though again, not a single lick of this would ever *** happen, because it's all about money and power, and the amount of people in Washington actually looking out for the best interests of the country and its citizens is miniscule and dwindling to nothing at an alarmingly rapid rate.

Let's be careful walking that line, because the SCOTUS is bought and paid for too and also ruled that more money = more political power.

I'm in agreement with you up til the part where politicians shouldn't have business. I would go along with unable to sell or expand. People work hard for their business's to have to sell them when elected would take away good people from the pool.

The Tea party is all about instating term limits to everything. That's the number one reason I like them. Everyone needs to hold them to it and get behind them. Democrats don't like them and every Republican I do not agree with hates them. So I'm inclined to think they are doing at least different things, hopefully better.

I'd love to be a moderate but democrats take way to much advantage to give any lean way anymore.

Yeah, but I'm not a fan of those things. As posted in the tax thread, they're Koch brothers-funded, which basically means they're all about money being the means of power, political or otherwise. That's already the way of things.



I understand where you're coming from, but I just see no other way to keep them looking out for the country's interests rather than their own. Being able to decide financial and legal policy when you've got a horse in the race is a conflict of interest.

Then again, as I've said, these are broad ideas I've thought of, not something I've meticulously researched or looked into. I'm sure there's a middle ground to be had.

While I agree with some of the Tea Party's stated goals 1) too socially backward for me and 2) the laissez faire attitude toward the economy sounds disastrous to me. We're already too close to that, and that's with all the restrictions already in place. The FTC, FCC, the Federal Reserve, and FDA are jokes who are cowed by lobbies and special interests.

How is the SCotUS bought and paid for?

When the SCotUS doesn't rule in favor of your viewpoint in every aspect, it is obvious that they were bought and paid for.

Like how all Republicans are bought and paid for by that same reasoning.

It's the majority of both sides of this two-party ***.

As for the SCOTUS, you don't get appointed to the Supreme Court without a lot of friends, and friends in Washington are made with money and favors.

It's awfully naive to think otherwise.

Yeah, when it is so obvious to prove it, why bother when you can just accuse away.

Here's a hint: you can easily prove if there is any backroom dealings with money with judges, politicians, and pretty much any businessperson.

Lobbying gift rules require full disclosure.

I won't argue that the ones put into office aren't of the same type of politics of the current administration whenever a seat opens but there are no elections and no money being exchanged or spent on campaigns and once they're in the seat there's very little you can do to dethrone them. I mean unless someone has some serious blackmail on them they aren't beholden to anyone.

They're always going to lean towards their own type of politics within the confines of the law but yeah the office is set up so that they aren't beholden to anyone like congressmen or senators are.

I will concede that it is to a lesser degree than other offices.

Really interested to know what socially backwards positions you think you don't share with the tea party.

Secondly, how do you acknowledge "all the restrictions already in place" and their effect on our proximity to a "disastrous economy", yet still fear less regulation or "laissez faire" as you put it?

Did it ever cross your mind at all that the reason the economy sucks so much is BECAUSE of all the regulations?

Or the "take advantage of people to get ahead"/"win at all costs" culture.

Um....that's humanity there bub.

If you think that's only a Corporate trait, I'm afraid I got some bad news for you.

i don't even know what that means or how it applies to the conversation Milamber.

That's how liberals view corporations.

It's a trait that is enhanced by the corporate model. Corporations follow the dollar, wherever that may lead. This can lead to some very poor situations without precise regulation.

EDIT: He's calling into question your logical jump Nausi. You go from: these regulations are poor to all regulations are poor.

Because the restrictions are ineffectively overseen by people with an interest in the businesses and industries they regulate.

Look how many officials in these regulatory comissions either come from their industries' big businesses or, as soon as they resign from their federal position, go to work for these private agencies? Or both?


Poorly-made, poorly-executed regulations.

But an unergulated economy would be even worse.

Rewrite the regulations. Reorder the government in such a way that oversight is done consistently and without favor to anyone, but rather in the name of equality to everyone.

Basically, why are regulations necessary? If your answer is that they aren't, you have a surprisingly optimistic view of humanity.

Precisely. And piss poor regulation, helped by involvement of those who are supposed to be the ones being regulated, makes the situation we're in now.

So is it a lament about competition in corporate culture, as in it's good when corporations compete but not when they compete very hard?

Businesses AND corporations don't get ahead unless they provide a better value to their customers. 9 times out of 10 the only time that is possible is when there ISN'T competition, like a heavily regulated market where the cost to even play is so large (due to regulations) that only a few entities can participate.

With very few exceptions, all politicians are bought and paid for. That's the root issue with no term limits, pac's, lobbyists, and campaign rules. SCotUS's big problem is they've overstepped their bounds and continually take on cases they shouldn't be.

To begin with, you're correct. However, humans have this nifty talent for learning how a system works, using it to their advantage, and then taking full control of the environment. Our government is bought, we agree on that, yes? New technology is developed and corporations have been caught withholding those advancements in order to milk it (See: Flash-drive sizes), creating technology that is designed to fail (See: Planned obsoletion), and with the mentality of competition, only things that can turn a profit are funded. Granted, I don't have a qualm with that last caveat, you can't expect a business to inflict self-harm - in my eyes that is where government comes in (researching things that don't turn a profit), but corporations will impede government progress if it's in their best interest.

I can get behind your fiscal criticisms of regulations. If that certainly is the case, it is ill-managed. However that does not necessitate that regulation is bad. Regulation is what keeps a monopoly from occuring. Regulation is what keeps working conditions livable. Regulation is what keeps businesses in check because we've seen time and time again that they won't check themselves. Businesses operate under the motto of "It's only wrong if you get caught."

Did it ever cross your mind that there are things you don't understand?

My biggest beef with the TP is their ability to justify doing none of the things they actually stand for and spend all their time pushing 18th century social policy and continually pander to the religious extreme right. You want to cut the fat? Start going after the military industrial complex, end the drug war, enforce penalties on companies that depatriate, end subsidies for companies that continually violate OSHA/RCRA, break up the energy and media giants, change appropriation, etc. We could cut our annual budget by at least 20% easily while lowering taxes if we'd stop babying giant corporations and start supporting workers.

Yes, and no. Some kinds of competition are healthy. Others, not so much.
But it isn't necessarily corporate culture alone. It is just as much a problem with individuals, abeit smaller in scale.
You are saying that 90% of the time, customers get better value when there is no competition?

No, he's saying many of the ills that happen, happen when there is no competition. He then cites regulations as making certain business climates unmanageable unless you are already making exuberant profits, which leads to monopolies.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Nausi.

Ok, I get it, you think that government sucks at it's job, and is as awful as I do, but if it wasn't there, your life would be far worse, cause something akin to "free markets are scary".

I don't know why you think so. Free-ing up markets ALWAYS increases competition, increasing competition ALWAYS leads to better value. Seriously, the evidence and arguments are ENDLESS, I don't know why its so hard for some people to accept.

Because we don't trust our government, but we don't trust business even more.

Regulation stiffens the market, increases the cost to play, and therefore makes it harder for someone to create an alternative that forces existing entities to compete.

An over-regulated economy is just as bad as an under/unregulated economy.

We have hit our happy medium a long time ago, we just keep piling on more and more regulations for the sake of regulations.

Take, for instance, Section 1502 of the US Code


You know what that states? IRS has the ability to create regulations on consolidated returns for income tax purposes. That means that if IRS doesn't like how a return is prepared in a consolidated return, they can issue a regulation to change how it is presented, and Congress has allowed them to do that.

Think that this Code hasn't been abused to hell and back already? Thank you IRS for adding $20k in preparation fees to my clients for me to file a consolidated business return for you! I'm sure that $20k would have been more helpful for buying that machine that increases production by 4%.

Why don't you trust businesses? You have complete control over how much of your money they get.