Interesting Bill Moyers segment on Washington corruption/lobbying

[Craig234]

While I get tired of the broad brush attacks out of ignroance and the excessive cycnism, there are real and serious problems with corruption in our systme.

Here is a link to a Bill Moyers segment I found unusually refreshing and helpful on the topic.

One note - it mentions how the current heat Murtha is deservedly taking for his many earmarks is a direct result of the Democrats' 2007 reforms exposing them.

Libertarians and righties, while the Moyers' show would not exist if you had your way, you paid for it, so you may as well get the benefit of it.

And after all, this is a topic you can agree with his show on.

On a solution: I think it's going to be harder than people realize - the system doesn't accept reform without a big fight, and they have the big guns.

But it's doable - it just needs a critical mass of organization and funding.

We just need to make sure that an even worse group doesn't ride the reigns of reform into power, which is the most likely scenario to have that organization.

 

[kylebisme]

Now the question isl how do we get enough people to pull their heads out of their asses far enough to keep the power mongers in line?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Libertarians and righties, while the Moyers' show would not exist if you had your way

Government has been corrupt since it came into existence. Thinking you can change that is foolish. Give them less power, and limit their ability to influence our lives.

 

[kylebisme]

I agree with you Bamacre, but I also understand that Craig's point was that there are a lot of partisan hacks who won't pay attention to anything from Moyers simply out of some misguided sense of principle but who could learn many notable facts from watching that discussion, regardless of how much one might disagree with the opinions of the partisipents.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
Libertarians and righties, while the Moyers' show would not exist if you had your way

Government has been corrupt since it came into existence. Thinking you can change that is foolish. Give them less power, and limit their ability to influence our lives.

1. This is not a thread to debate the broad issues of big or small L libertarianism, but the whole 'give them less power' is nonsense.

The issue with power is now how big it is, but who it serves -if it serves a few you have problems, if it serves the many, and individual rights, it's doing well.

The question that begs is how you get it serving the right things; democracy is part of but not the whole answer.

You can have 'small government' - and a huge lack of freedom, tyranny, as 'private power' runs amok and dominates whatever pathetic 'public government' there is to 'back off'.

How do you like being a 'little guy' who faces terrible abuse by big private power, and you want to turn to the government for protection, and they say 'sorry, we're on their side'.

Weak government is bad for individuals because it doesn't repreprent the people. Overly powerful government is bad for individuals because of the same reason.

If you want to return to the days where the average salary was $10K a year, the elderly had almost universal poverty, people paid rent to their employer for shanty housing...

Hey, you can have it, just get 'small government' that won't get in the way of employers slashing the workers' pay down to the bare sustinence level, as they did for centuries.

2. Your 'government is always corrupt' is nonsense. It's not a boolean. Government can be *far* more or less corrupt.

Tammany Hall was a lot more corrupt at its worst than at its best. The administrations of FDR and JFK had a lot less corruption than those of more corrupt administrations.

Don't try to stop the discussion of reducing corruption by making the issue some 'total absence of any corruption' as if the degree is not the issue.

I think it's foolish and downright unamerican to fail to recognize the importance of a democratic government having the power to represent the public against private power, and to call for handing over power from the elected to the unelected - like the benevolent and wise leaders of Wall Street, or the robber barons of the past.

You claim you can't do anything about corruption. I disagree. The fact that it's so hard to get people - including you - to see the right approach may mean we're unable to do it.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
Libertarians and righties, while the Moyers' show would not exist if you had your way

Government has been corrupt since it came into existence. Thinking you can change that is foolish. Give them less power, and limit their ability to influence our lives.

1. This is not a thread to debate the broad issues of big or small L libertarianism, but the whole 'give them less power' is nonsense.

The issue with power is now how big it is, but who it serves -if it serves a few you have problems, if it serves the many, and individual rights, it's doing well.

The question that begs is how you get it serving the right things; democracy is part of but not the whole answer.

You can have 'small government' - and a huge lack of freedom, tyranny, as 'private power' runs amok and dominates whatever pathetic 'public government' there is to 'back off'.

How do you like being a 'little guy' who faces terrible abuse by big private power, and you want to turn to the government for protection, and they say 'sorry, we're on their side'.

Weak government is bad for individuals because it doesn't repreprent the people. Overly powerful government is bad for individuals because of the same reason.

If you want to return to the days where the average salary was $10K a year, the elderly had almost universal poverty, people paid rent to their employer for shanty housing...

Hey, you can have it, just get 'small government' that won't get in the way of employers slashing the workers' pay down to the bare sustinence level, as they did for centuries.

2. Your 'government is always corrupt' is nonsense. It's not a boolean. Government can be *far* more or less corrupt.

Tammany Hall was a lot more corrupt at its worst than at its best. The administrations of FDR and JFK had a lot less corruption than those of more corrupt administrations.

Don't try to stop the discussion of reducing corruption by making the issue some 'total absence of any corruption' as if the degree is not the issue.

I think it's foolish and downright unamerican to fail to recognize the importance of a democratic government having the power to represent the public against private power, and to call for handing over power from the elected to the unelected - like the benevolent and wise leaders of Wall Street, or the robber barons of the past.

You claim you can't do anything about corruption. I disagree. The fact that it's so hard to get people - including you - to see the right approach may mean we're unable to do it.

Also, with a smaller, weaker government, you will get large corporations that can abuse power if the the government doesn't regulate them. Why do you think we are in the current financial situation?

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
Libertarians and righties, while the Moyers' show would not exist if you had your way

Government has been corrupt since it came into existence. Thinking you can change that is foolish. Give them less power, and limit their ability to influence our lives.

1. This is not a thread to debate the broad issues of big or small L libertarianism, but the whole 'give them less power' is nonsense.

The issue with power is now how big it is, but who it serves -if it serves a few you have problems, if it serves the many, and individual rights, it's doing well.

The question that begs is how you get it serving the right things; democracy is part of but not the whole answer.

You can have 'small government' - and a huge lack of freedom, tyranny, as 'private power' runs amok and dominates whatever pathetic 'public government' there is to 'back off'.

How do you like being a 'little guy' who faces terrible abuse by big private power, and you want to turn to the government for protection, and they say 'sorry, we're on their side'.

Weak government is bad for individuals because it doesn't repreprent the people. Overly powerful government is bad for individuals because of the same reason.

If you want to return to the days where the average salary was $10K a year, the elderly had almost universal poverty, people paid rent to their employer for shanty housing...

Hey, you can have it, just get 'small government' that won't get in the way of employers slashing the workers' pay down to the bare sustinence level, as they did for centuries.

2. Your 'government is always corrupt' is nonsense. It's not a boolean. Government can be *far* more or less corrupt.

Tammany Hall was a lot more corrupt at its worst than at its best. The administrations of FDR and JFK had a lot less corruption than those of more corrupt administrations.

Don't try to stop the discussion of reducing corruption by making the issue some 'total absence of any corruption' as if the degree is not the issue.

I think it's foolish and downright unamerican to fail to recognize the importance of a democratic government having the power to represent the public against private power, and to call for handing over power from the elected to the unelected - like the benevolent and wise leaders of Wall Street, or the robber barons of the past.

You claim you can't do anything about corruption. I disagree. The fact that it's so hard to get people - including you - to see the right approach may mean we're unable to do it.

Poor Craig, he cannot see that what he is complaining about, is already happening, and has been happening for a long, long time.

 

[ccbadd]

I believe that the only way to deal with corruption is by voting. I truly feel that if most, I wish all, Americans payed attention to the people that represent them and truly held them accountable with there voting, most of this would be minimized. What I mean is I didn't vote for Nancy Pelosi as I don't live in California, I am from Texas. I and my fellow citizens need to focus on who we actually can affect and hold them accountable for every vote they make and every piece of legislation they sign, in it's entirety. I have heard that the Tarp bill had members of Congress being called and emailed demanding not to support it is in the 60-90% range but Congress ignored there constituents. But when it was time to vote, many re-elected those who dismissed them. If we can't control our own representative, we will never gain control of our country again. The same is true at the local and state levels as this is where the replacements come from typically. Train them early and remind them often!

 

[Zebo]

Nice. Read this and will change your outlook forever:
link
I've known both parties are anti-American people, money-hungry, status quo protectors ever since Clinton but could never put my finger as to why and the mechanizations: this book (and to a less extent, due to time constraints, Moyers piece) spells it out.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: dawp
Also, with a smaller, weaker government, you will get large corporations that can abuse power if the the government doesn't regulate them. Why do you think we are in the current financial situation?

There are many other ways our government could be reduced to produce the opposite effect.

Originally posted by: bamacre
Poor Craig, he cannot see that what he is complaining about, is already happening, and has been happening for a long, long time.

Rather, you can't see he does.

 

[Hacp]

Bill Moyers lol. Isn't he as discredited as Ralf Nader?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Bill Moyers lol. Isn't he as discredited as Ralf Nader?

As discredited as the law of gravity. You might also want to spell the names of those you call discredited correctly, especially with a name as simple as Ralph.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Bill Moyers lol. Isn't he as discredited as Ralf Nader?

Have you actually listened to any of his podcasts or read his articles? How was he discredited? I know he is left-leaning at times, but he is a journalist above all else.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman

Originally posted by: dawp
Also, with a smaller, weaker government, you will get large corporations that can abuse power if the the government doesn't regulate them. Why do you think we are in the current financial situation?

There are many other ways our government could be reduced to produce the opposite effect.

Originally posted by: bamacre
Poor Craig, he cannot see that what he is complaining about, is already happening, and has been happening for a long, long time.

Rather, you can't see he does.

Thank you for two good points.

Bamacre's confusion in part is that when the problem is a corrupt hospital that increaes profits by buying expired medicines, my solution is for them to have systemic changes about how they're incented to get them to spend more for the current medicines, while his is to 'take the power out of the hands of the corrupt hospital', which I say, but he disagrees, will end up in a disastrous medical situation for the public.

He thinks my support for the hospital to get good medicine somehow denies the problem of corruption existing.

A la, 'the hospital is killing its patients and you want to REWARD them with MORE MONEY!?'

We have a different view of how to make things work. Mine includes the history for millenia of the majority of people living with abject poverty and little political power.

It's not an easy sell - the right says any reform is based on 'jealousy', and the left demands the right policy now, without any patience for fixing the root cause (a la, we the people should break into the hospital and take the good medicine there is from the canbinets and distribute it the people, but leaving ilttle in place for delivering care). Add to it the profits of the corrupt hospital paying for propaganda while the reform is poorly organized and funded, and you have a challenge.

Unfortunately, while Bamacre might agree on the problem, his efforts are counter-productive enough IMO to need to be opposed as much as the problem as 'wrong reform'.

It's as if the concpents of democracy in this country have not been learned by many - they see the problems happening in democracy and reject democracy, not the problems.

They might not want to get rid of the vote, but they want to gut the power of the system they elect, unwittingly.

This is the hitory of mob pychology - the same sort that has driven 'democracies' into the arms of tyrants willingly from Rome to Germany, to react to some lacking of democracy.

And then wanting back out from the tyrant to something else.

I think people need to learn when things are 'as good as they should be', and not want to get more the wrong way, by colonizing or exploiting others, or to use the example of Wall Street to go from making a 'fair profit' to creating dangerous products that ultimately are costly indeed to others while profiting those who make them. But that's not how people usually behave.

Even today, for example, while the idea of 'partnering with Africa' exists on some idealists' white boards, the real policies are about exploitation, whether by the west or now China.

Our inability to get our own government freer of corruption as shown in this documentary suggests how little we're going to do well on broader policies.

Need we look forther than the lack of one single righty that I can recall in this forum fully condeming the Medicare Drug Bill's corruption, even if some were slightly critical, mostly for the idea of spending large sums to held the needy more than for the actual corruption in the bill? And the same people will quickly condemn 'all government' for some broad corruption and by slashing government, want to give the keys to people like the Wall Street CEO's.

This is why I often say that the 'natural order' for a society is tyranny, the few dominating the many, and we need to learn to appreciate the idea of democracy - we keep trying to return to tyranny, however unwittingly, whether by first allowing democracy to be corrupted, or later by then wanting to gut democracy because of the corruption.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ccbadd
I believe that the only way to deal with corruption is by voting. I truly feel that if most, I wish all, Americans payed attention to the people that represent them and truly held them accountable with there voting, most of this would be minimized. What I mean is I didn't vote for Nancy Pelosi as I don't live in California, I am from Texas. I and my fellow citizens need to focus on who we actually can affect and hold them accountable for every vote they make and every piece of legislation they sign, in it's entirety. I have heard that the Tarp bill had members of Congress being called and emailed demanding not to support it is in the 60-90% range but Congress ignored there constituents. But when it was time to vote, many re-elected those who dismissed them. If we can't control our own representative, we will never gain control of our country again. The same is true at the local and state levels as this is where the replacements come from typically. Train them early and remind them often!

Good points, and the main cuation I will add is that we beware the 'new army of democracy' being organized by the interests who are not friends of the public.

I will say that I expand your verb "voting" to include not only voting in the ballot booth, but voting with your dollars.

You get to vote once every 2 years, but you get to vote with dollars every day. If you want working class prosperity from unions, pass Wal-Mart and by from a union business. If you want our media freed of corporatist propaganda and to serve the public interest, turn off Fox and write a check to PBS. If you want to see the organic food market prosper, buy organic food, and so on.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is why I often say that the 'natural order' for a society is tyranny, the few dominating the many, and we need to learn to appreciate the idea of democracy - we keep trying to return to tyranny, however unwittingly, whether by first allowing democracy to be corrupted, or later by then wanting to gut democracy because of the corruption.

You mean people wanted limited government because of an abusive powerful government? You know, like the people who formed our government and wrote the DoI and the US Constitution? And how the wrote specifically to keep the government out of the market? That only gold and silver could be used for money? And yet we have tossed those ideas out the window, and you wonder why the "natural order" for society is tyranny? Gee you think we have given up our economic freedom for economic security, and yet we are shocked when we now have neither.

 

[Thump553]

Originally posted by: Craig234
***
Here is a link to a Bill Moyers segment I found unusually refreshing and helpful on the topic.
***

I saw the same Bill Moyers episode but I can't apply the term "refreshing" to it. Insightful, yes-but depressing as h*ll.

Transparency, abolish seniority rules in the House and Senate (so as not to overly reward hacks who manage to hang on) and more active voters (especially voters who don't base their vote on one hot button topic, like abortion, flag burning, gun rights, etc.) are the best steps towards a solution.

However, I don't view earmarks as an evil, per se. In certain circumstances Congress can and should direct with specificity where and how they want money spent. But make the proponent of the earmark clear, an adequate time for the media and public to review them before voting and (ideally) if the President could be given a line item veto on earmarks only, those would be giant steps forward.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is why I often say that the 'natural order' for a society is tyranny, the few dominating the many, and we need to learn to appreciate the idea of democracy - we keep trying to return to tyranny, however unwittingly, whether by first allowing democracy to be corrupted, or later by then wanting to gut democracy because of the corruption.

You mean people wanted limited government because of an abusive powerful government? You know, like the people who formed our government and wrote the DoI and the US Constitution? And how the wrote specifically to keep the government out of the market? That only gold and silver could be used for money? And yet we have tossed those ideas out the window, and you wonder why the "natural order" for society is tyranny? Gee you think we have given up our economic freedom for economic security, and yet we are shocked when we now have neither.

It's simple fix to get them representing the people again don't try and make things complicated and 1808 again.

1. Ban all lobbyests
2. Ban all corporate financing of campaigns make a $100 individual limit.
3. Public financing of campaigns.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Thump553

I saw the same Bill Moyers episode but I can't apply the term "refreshing" to it. Insightful, yes-but depressing as h*ll.

You have a good point that the word refreshing can be seen as not too good a fit, too. I meant refreshing in the sense of how well it made the issue clear.

Transparency, abolish seniority rules in the House and Senate (so as not to overly reward hacks who manage to hang on)

One way to look at seniority rules, though, is in preventing even worse systems for choosing things where some are more equal than others.

The idea there is that however much the system has been corrupted to try to reward the corrupt, time in office is a way to force some people to have access to leadership that the 'powers be' can't deny. If you take for example issues like the Medicare Drug Bill or questionable sureveillance practices, where the leadership wants 'friendly' people to have the leadership positions to push them through, time in office is one way to thwart their ability to get that.

I don't think time in office is all that high a correlation to the corruption; it may even be a negative correlation.

I'm more worried about the guy no one has heard of who was put in charge of the Drug bill passage, who immediately after resigned and took a position in the drug industry.

He's the guy the leadership is likely to put in place, rather than the 25-year congressman.

and more active voters (especially voters who don't base their vote on one hot button topic, like abortion, flag burning, gun rights, etc.) are the best steps towards a solution.

One important question here is the 'how' question. But it's why I have posted pushing people to support things that increase the public invovlement, especially the excellent books, magazines, and shows (like The Atlantic, salon.com, Bill Moyers), to help them reach more people.

I recall when a somewhat 'healthier democracy', under the leadership of an FDR or a JFK, had a lot more done to treat citizens as citizens and to increase their involvement.

Remember when schools had 'civics class', as basic as it was, as a central course? That's pretty inconvenient when the powers that be want the public NOT involved.

However, I don't view earmarks as an evil, per se. In certain circumstances Congress can and should direct with specificity where and how they want money spent. But make the proponent of the earmark clear, an adequate time for the media and public to review them before voting and (ideally) if the President could be given a line item veto on earmarks only, those would be giant steps forward.

I'm all for the transparency, and that's what the democrats gave us a lot more of now.

However, I'm against the line item veto, because it's so abusable for the balanced plans Congress creates to have the president of one party throw out the other party's things.

I don't want Bush throwing out all the blue state items, pressuring those states to elect Republicans if they want the money back, and it's not fair the other way for Obama.

I think the line item veto is a big mistake, where people romantically fantasize wrongly that the president will act as a 'neutral representative of the common good'.

The president will be happy to tell you that's right.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Craig234
This is why I often say that the 'natural order' for a society is tyranny, the few dominating the many, and we need to learn to appreciate the idea of democracy - we keep trying to return to tyranny, however unwittingly, whether by first allowing democracy to be corrupted, or later by then wanting to gut democracy because of the corruption.

You mean people wanted limited government because of an abusive powerful government? You know, like the people who formed our government and wrote the DoI and the US Constitution? And how the wrote specifically to keep the government out of the market? That only gold and silver could be used for money? And yet we have tossed those ideas out the window, and you wonder why the "natural order" for society is tyranny? Gee you think we have given up our economic freedom for economic security, and yet we are shocked when we now have neither.

Bamacre, I think the discussion has begun to get confused my using the same words to mean different things - for example, the phrase 'limited government' mean very different things as used by the right wing and/or Libertarians, or to describe the Founding Father's views relative to Englans, or even the liberals' views of the many ways they want government limited in size and power.

To then use the phrase to equate those different things, is a misleading argument, long the lines of implying that the founding fathers and the libertarians are the same.

I don't agree with your characterization of the founding fathers setting the system up to 'keep the government out of the market'; and of course the market has changed radically. The SEC was not part of the original government, but I think it's very consistent with their view of government. Especially the finer points of things like our modern economic crisis - the regulation of credit default swaps, for example, so key to the problem but not inexistence in the 18th century - cannot be directly extrapolated.

So, it seems to me that you are sort of trying to ride on the argument that the founding fathers somehow endorsed a specific set of economic methods more than they did.

I think the issue needs to be discussed in another way than that to be useful - just discuss the pros and cons of your concerns like the gold standard themself.

 

[ccbadd]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ccbadd
I believe that the only way to deal with corruption is by voting. I truly feel that if most, I wish all, Americans payed attention to the people that represent them and truly held them accountable with there voting, most of this would be minimized. What I mean is I didn't vote for Nancy Pelosi as I don't live in California, I am from Texas. I and my fellow citizens need to focus on who we actually can affect and hold them accountable for every vote they make and every piece of legislation they sign, in it's entirety. I have heard that the Tarp bill had members of Congress being called and emailed demanding not to support it is in the 60-90% range but Congress ignored there constituents. But when it was time to vote, many re-elected those who dismissed them. If we can't control our own representative, we will never gain control of our country again. The same is true at the local and state levels as this is where the replacements come from typically. Train them early and remind them often!

Good points, and the main cuation I will add is that we beware the 'new army of democracy' being organized by the interests who are not friends of the public.

I will say that I expand your verb "voting" to include not only voting in the ballot booth, but voting with your dollars.

You get to vote once every 2 years, but you get to vote with dollars every day. If you want working class prosperity from unions, pass Wal-Mart and by from a union business. If you want our media freed of corporatist propaganda and to serve the public interest, turn off Fox and write a check to PBS. If you want to see the organic food market prosper, buy organic food, and so on.

I was with you until the union BS, they have become exactly what the unions from the first halve of this century fought against. The big union bosses have made them there bitches and will KILL labor in this country. People need to think for themselves and kill the unions and special action committees. The east coast will live in poverty if they don't get this.

 

[kylebisme]

Many unions are run by thugs, but abolishing hem just gives control to the thugs who run the corporations. Again, the issue is the need for reform, which requires people pulling the heads out of their asses to do so.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ccbadd
I was with you until the union BS, they have become exactly what the unions from the first halve of this century fought against. The big union bosses have made them there bitches and will KILL labor in this country. People need to think for themselves and kill the unions and special action committees. The east coast will live in poverty if they done get this.

Well, I'm glad you were with me that far; my point was about the concept of voting with how you spend money, not unions in particular.

I said if you want to support unions, you buy union; in your case, if you want to oppose unions, you would buy from non-union sources.

I think my point stands up, that your response didn't challenge it; the merits of unions is another topic I wasn't discussing.

For what it's worth, though, we disagree on unions - the same way I say democracy is important for people to have power despite hwo it gets corrupted, unions are iportant for the majority of people who are workers to have power, in spite of how the unions get corrupted.

You know who didn't have any corrupt unions? The slaves. You know who didn't have any corrupt democracy? The people under Stalin.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Libertarians and righties, while the Moyers' show would not exist if you had your way, you paid for it, so you may as well get the benefit of it.

If libertarians had their way, there'd be need to weed out corruption. Who wants to corrupt a government that doesn't does have a multi-trillion dollar budget to try to get a big slice of? Big government, hell big organizations of any type with a lot of money, attracts corruption and you can't change that. When you lefty loonies figure that out let us know. Until then we'll laugh at you as you cause your own misery.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Poor Craig, he cannot see that what he is complaining about, is already happening, and has been happening for a long, long time.

It seems that the fundamental problem with modern "liberals" is that they believe government can be controlled. It's a sad delusion.