Why congress sucks (an interesting read)

[Zebo]

Are you saying that society has not been striving for an "effective" government. What has the collective voters been doing, if not trying to make the government more effective?

The reason I say small, is that it limits the power of corporations to effect government. When you centralize power, you centralize corruption, and it becomes far less expensive to corrupt. The reason there are so many lobbyist, is because its the most effective use of corporations time and money. There are very important roles for a central government, and that central government needs to have authority. With out that, you get free loaders and it all breaks down. But, at some point, the incentives for government are to benefit the corporations and organized wealthy, and not the voting populous.

So while you may be sick of hearing people wanting smaller government, know that advocating an effective government has not been working so far.

All true. But beyond revolutions I've never, I mean never, seen a govt in history of man shrink. So really all you got to work towards is effectiveness. A good start is public financing of campaigns which of course the power that be will fight tooth and nail against.

 

[crashtech]

If the move toward collectivism and authoritarianism is inexorable, then it is indeed foolish to deny Congress the resources by which they can rule our lives that much more effectively. From what I gather, Republicans did not want to admit that the gathering of centralized power and the unchecked expansion of government size and power was inevitable, therefore they tried to fight it. Now that the battle is lost, perhaps we ought to devote generous funding to the machinery that helps Congress do what it wants to do, which is to write more laws that will influence the lives of more people. The only question people should be asking is where to send their checks.

 

[fskimospy]

If the move toward collectivism and authoritarianism is inexorable, then it is indeed foolish to deny Congress the resources by which they can rule our lives that much more effectively. From what I gather, Republicans did not want to admit that the gathering of centralized power and the unchecked expansion of government size and power was inevitable, therefore they tried to fight it. Now that the battle is lost, perhaps we ought to devote generous funding to the machinery that helps Congress do what it wants to do, which is to write more laws that will influence the lives of more people. The only question people should be asking is where to send their checks.

My thought would be that you cut the support staff necessary for a larger government AFTER you make that government smaller, not before.

Then again, congressional Republicans weren't actually interested in what the smart thing to do was, they were interested in making a political statement. Too bad they were not only shooting themselves in the foot but the rest of us as well.

 

[realibrad]

All true. But beyond revolutions I've never, I mean never, seen a govt in history of man shrink. So really all you got to work towards is effectiveness. A good start is public financing of campaigns which of course the power that be will fight tooth and nail against.

You will never, and I do mean never, get money out of modern politics. As long as you can make huge profits through a large central government, you will have money/resources going to influence it.

Until such a time exists that people do things out of goodness, you will see corruption. The reason I advocate for a smaller government is because it limits the amount of corruption, by making it more expensive.

 

[crashtech]

My thought would be that you cut the support staff necessary for a larger government AFTER you make that government smaller, not before.

Then again, congressional Republicans weren't actually interested in what the smart thing to do was, they were interested in making a political statement. Too bad they were not only shooting themselves in the foot but the rest of us as well.

From what I've seen over the years, making the government smaller is just not possible, especially when at least 40% of voters have no problem with it getting bigger. Attempts to do so before the 90's largely failed, the attempt written about in the article failed, and since then I think only lip service has been given to checking the growth of the federal bureaucracy. Too many people owe their livelihood to programs or employment provided by the government to shrink it now.

As a side note, I find it curious that most of the people I interact with who have no problem with large government also seem to be very wary and even hateful of large corporations. I perceive cognitive dissonance in this, since both are large powerful groups of people trying to influence our lives. One tries to make you to buy their stuff, and the other tries to make you obey them via the threat of fines, violence, or incarceration. I suppose the professed good intentions of politicians must seem more believable than those of CEOs. Again odd, since I don't hear a lot of talk about the purity of politician's motives.

 

[Zebo]

You will never, and I do mean never, get money out of modern politics. As long as you can make huge profits through a large central government, you will have money/resources going to influence it.

Until such a time exists that people do things out of goodness, you will see corruption. The reason I advocate for a smaller government is because it limits the amount of corruption, by making it more expensive.

But what you're advocating is fairy dust like world peace since govts never shrink w/o revolutions. At least democrats advocate measures to reduce corporate top .0001% influence. i.e. live in reality. Sure there are some tea party who are ready to take up arms in revolution but it's not realistic and they would be stomped out quickly.

 

[fskimospy]

From what I've seen over the years, making the government smaller is just not possible, especially when at least 40% of voters have no problem with it getting bigger. Attempts to do so before the 90's largely failed, the attempt written about in the article failed, and since then I think only lip service has been given to checking the growth of the federal bureaucracy. Too many people owe their livelihood to programs or employment provided by the government to shrink it now.

As a side note, I find it curious that most of the people I interact with who have no problem with large government also seem to be very wary and even hateful of large corporations. I perceive cognitive dissonance in this, since both are large powerful groups of people trying to influence our lives. One tries to make you to buy their stuff, and the other tries to make you obey them via the threat of fines, violence, or incarceration. I suppose the professed good intentions of politicians must seem more believable than those of CEOs. Again odd, since I don't hear a lot of talk about the purity of politician's motives.

My guess is that those individuals perceive their ability to affect the behavior of government to be greater.

 

[SlowSpyder]

US real GDP in 1995 was a bit over $10 trillion.

Today it is a bit over $15 trillion.

That's 50%

Unfortunately, a dollar in 1995 was worth ~56% more than it is today.

 

[FerrelGeek]

I agree with this. I think most people who want 'small government' probably are thinking along these lines. But I also think many are thinking along the lines of regulations. I totally understand that certain regulations need to be there - and for very good reasons. For example, people want safe food, but don't want the government edicting what they can eat or drink, ala NYC's big soda ban.

I also think that some lump government working for the people and not for and the self-serving interests of said government under the 'small government' umbrella.

You captured a good part of the essence of what I wanted to say in my response to Ivv, but it's been a crazy week and I needed to get stuff done at work. I'd write more, but now I need to get outa here.

I swear, everytime I hear the stupid phrase "small government", I want to whack my head into my desk. It's such a meaningless and bullshit phrase.

We should be striving for an effective government. The limits of its operating parameters are debatable. But "small" does not automatically mean better and simultaneously, "large" does not mean worse. We should want to elect people who are knowledgeable, have knowledgeable staff, and can do their jobs effectively. The idea that Congress is effectively abdicating its roles of oversight and writing legislation is appalling.

 

[fskimospy]

Unfortunately, a dollar in 1995 was worth ~56% more than it is today.

That doesn't matter; this is real GDP which accounts for inflation.

http://www.multpl.com/us-gdp-inflation-adjusted/table

 

[realibrad]

But what you're advocating is fairy dust like world peace since govts never shrink w/o revolutions. At least democrats advocate measures to reduce corporate top .0001% influence. i.e. live in reality. Sure there are some tea party who are ready to take up arms in revolution but it's not realistic and they would be stomped out quickly.

The democrats help the rich just as much as the republicans. As a libertarian, someone help us all if the tea party starts a revolution, because those people are bat shit crazy right now.

You are likely right about revolutions, I just hope that our society has gotten to the point where it does not require a bunch of death to do it. Because electing the "right" people to do the "right" things does not seem to work. I dont think the liberal view is any more likely than the conservative view to make anything better.

But to bash the idea (not you) that "small" is stupid and wrong, is to say there is a better way, and I dont see it. If either party had a solution, I would be more than glad to follow it.

 

[crashtech]

My guess is that those individuals perceive their ability to affect the behavior of government to be greater.

I believe that perception to be in error. Neither corporations nor governments are easily influenced; both have developed effective bureaucratic mechanisms to avoid accountability. Neither my federal government nor most of the corporations I am obliged to do business with have earned my loyalty. All they get is varying degrees of contempt.

 

[werepossum]

Yep. That article isn't biased at all.

Looks at the writer.

Paul Glastris

From September 1998 to January, 2001, he was special assistant and senior speechwriter to President Bill Clinton. He wrote over 200 speeches for the president, on subjects ranging from education to health care to the budget. He co-wrote the president's address to the Democratic convention in Los Angeles in August 2000, and contributed to his 1999 and 2000 State of the Union addresses. In November 1999, Glastris traveled with Clinton to Turkey and Greece and wrote the president's landmark address to the Greek people. Glastris was co-creator of the president's "DC Reads this Summer" program,

lol Hey, if you can't trust a Democrat speechwriter for unbiased intellectual analysis, who can you trust?

Yep. Congress ran like a Rolex until ol' Newt came along. Nothing but bluebirds and bi-partisan bliss, I tell ya.

As to Ivv's summary of the article, why do you think there are so many right now that are crying for a smaller government? Government has taken on more that it can effectively manage and mo' money isn't the simple cure-all that some claim it to be.

Ivw has his own plan for a smaller government - eliminate the Republicans. Then we too can enjoy the marvelous efficiency of Cuba and Venezuela.

 

[ivwshane]

lol Hey, if you can't trust a Democrat speechwriter for unbiased intellectual analysis, who can you trust?


Ivw has his own plan for a smaller government - eliminate the Republicans. Then we too can enjoy the marvelous efficiency of Cuba and Venezuela.

Hey look! Another idiot who didn't read the article and is incapable of not only forming his own opinion but articulating it!

Look out possum!! The evil progressives are coming!!


And just a side note you little twat, I have never called for or wished for there to be no Republican Party, ever!

Had you read the article you would realize that it wasn't about republican bashing but walking us through the history of how our politics got to where we are today. Had you bothered to read my other post you would understand my point for posting this article.

Now move along and go play Russian roulette with yourself

 

[Zebo]

The democrats help the rich just as much as the republicans. As a libertarian, someone help us all if the tea party starts a revolution, because those people are bat shit crazy right now.

You are likely right about revolutions, I just hope that our society has gotten to the point where it does not require a bunch of death to do it. Because electing the "right" people to do the "right" things does not seem to work. I dont think the liberal view is any more likely than the conservative view to make anything better.

But to bash the idea (not you) that "small" is stupid and wrong, is to say there is a better way, and I dont see it. If either party had a solution, I would be more than glad to follow it.

No doubt about it. The Democrat ACA profits the entrenched medical, pharma and insurance industry greatly. Dodd and other NE democrats keep the 15% hedgefund income tax loophole going on some of richest ppl in America. I could go on and on but both parties are bought and sold that's a fact established in Princeton Study I linked earlier. Big government makes this possible but not inevitable if we had legislation to mollify the influence.. Things like public financing - Can't lobby - Can't take these CEO of Halliburton jobs day you're uneleceted - would certainly help.

Look at a country like canada or france. They are able to keep reigns on big pharma or banks from totally corrupting the system despite extensive social welfare (big govt).

 

[Zebo]

lol Hey, if you can't trust a Democrat speechwriter for unbiased intellectual analysis, who can you trust?


Ivw has his own plan for a smaller government - eliminate the Republicans. Then we too can enjoy the marvelous efficiency of Cuba and Venezuela.

This is what they want. Shut off brain don't even consider other viewpoints. Both sides are doing it in Modern America meanwhile rich get richer, middle class erodes etc. Hope I'm dead after they've fomented enough animosity shooting starts. I'm getting too old for it.

 

[Jhhnn]

From what I've seen over the years, making the government smaller is just not possible, especially when at least 40% of voters have no problem with it getting bigger. Attempts to do so before the 90's largely failed, the attempt written about in the article failed, and since then I think only lip service has been given to checking the growth of the federal bureaucracy. Too many people owe their livelihood to programs or employment provided by the government to shrink it now.

As a side note, I find it curious that most of the people I interact with who have no problem with large government also seem to be very wary and even hateful of large corporations. I perceive cognitive dissonance in this, since both are large powerful groups of people trying to influence our lives. One tries to make you to buy their stuff, and the other tries to make you obey them via the threat of fines, violence, or incarceration. I suppose the professed good intentions of politicians must seem more believable than those of CEOs. Again odd, since I don't hear a lot of talk about the purity of politician's motives.

With government, we have a voice, even when we discount that. With multinational corporations under the control of the uber wealthy, we don't even have a prayer, other than through govt. If we're not willing or unable to prevent the concentration of corporate power into fewer & fewer hands, then we need something strong enough to counter it. Those are the historical lessons of the Progressives of 100 years ago and of the New Deal.

Which is why right wing propaganda is geared towards tearing down the Govt of the People. It's the only counter to their power over our lives, and they'll get us to destroy it for them if they can. It's the underlying purpose of every billionaire financed right wing think tank & institute in existence. Freedom for the financial elite means boom/bust economies of speculation & looting. Within that system, freedom for the average citizen is an illusion imposed upon our collective consciousness. Yeh, you're free, free to be victim to economic forces beyond your control.

 

[Jhhnn]

lol Hey, if you can't trust a Democrat speechwriter for unbiased intellectual analysis, who can you trust?


Ivw has his own plan for a smaller government - eliminate the Republicans. Then we too can enjoy the marvelous efficiency of Cuba and Venezuela.

You never tire of false attribution & strawman arguments, do you?

You resort to them when the underlying premises & assumptions you offer are shown to be insupportable. Republicans weren't always shills for the Rich- you obviously are, however.

 

[crashtech]

With government, we have a voice, even when we discount that. With multinational corporations under the control of the uber wealthy, we don't even have a prayer, other than through govt. If we're not willing or unable to prevent the concentration of corporate power into fewer & fewer hands, then we need something strong enough to counter it. Those are the historical lessons of the Progressives of 100 years ago and of the New Deal.

Which is why right wing propaganda is geared towards tearing down the Govt of the People. It's the only counter to their power over our lives, and they'll get us to destroy it for them if they can. It's the underlying purpose of every billionaire financed right wing think tank & institute in existence. Freedom for the financial elite means boom/bust economies of speculation & looting. Within that system, freedom for the average citizen is an illusion imposed upon our collective consciousness. Yeh, you're free, free to be victim to economic forces beyond your control.

There are so many assertions you accept as self-evident in your post I don't even think I could respond without trying to deconstruct them, and that would probably not be fruitful. I don't want more enemies. But we don't speak the same language. You have your narrative, and your villains and heroes, and I have mine, which is that none of the powerful are to be trusted, especially the one with the guns and the prisons. I wish I had your certainty, in a way it reminds me of the religious. Government shall smite thy enemies, and all of that. Has a nice ring to it.

 

[Jhhnn]

There are so many assertions you accept as self-evident in your post I don't even think I could respond without trying to deconstruct them, and that would probably not be fruitful. I don't want more enemies. But we don't speak the same language. You have your narrative, and your villains and heroes, and I have mine, which is that none of the powerful are to be trusted, especially the one with the guns and the prisons. I wish I had your certainty, in a way it reminds me of the religious. Government shall smite thy enemies, and all of that. Has a nice ring to it.

And you deny reality, the economic reality of enormous power differentials between the super rich & the average man. What do you offer to counter that? How can ordinary people balance power against those interests w/o a govt of the people?

It's not like we've fared well when we believed their narrative, followed their leadership- not historically, and certainly not in recent decades, either. Whose fortunes have soared, and whose have soured during this decades old propaganda induced attack on that govt?

 

[crashtech]

And you deny reality, the economic reality of enormous power differentials between the super rich & the average man. What do you offer to counter that? How can ordinary people balance power against those interests w/o a govt of the people?

It's not like we've fared well when we believed their narrative, followed their leadership- not historically, and certainly not in recent decades, either. Whose fortunes have soared, and whose have soured during this decades old propaganda induced attack on that govt?

I certainly don't offer more of the status quo. Politicians are bought and paid for, and government is the tool by which the rich and powerful pay to legitimize their desires. The very notion of a corporation is a legal construct supported by the government you wish to be our saviour. I don't have the answers, but that fact that you think you do disturbs me greatly. Why don't we talk about asset forfeiture laws, for instance, where cops act as highway robbers under color of law, and where the government can actually use a loophole to sue your property to evade the presumption of innocence. Or Kelo, which codified the abuse of eminent domain, making greed the sole justification for confiscation of private property. That's just the tip of the iceberg. For every abuse perpetrated by a corporation, there is an equally chilling one committed by a government and an ever more militarized police that is ever less accountable for its actions. I'll not be a willing accomplice to that.

 

[Zorkorist]

For every abuse perpetrated by a corporation, there is an equally chilling one committed by a government and an ever more militarized police that is ever less accountable for its actions. I'll not be a willing accomplice to that.

Well (and chillingly,) said.

-John

 

[werepossum]

I certainly don't offer more of the status quo. Politicians are bought and paid for, and government is the tool by which the rich and powerful pay to legitimize their desires. The very notion of a corporation is a legal construct supported by the government you wish to be our saviour. I don't have the answers, but that fact that you think you do disturbs me greatly. Why don't we talk about asset forfeiture laws, for instance, where cops act as highway robbers under color of law, and where the government can actually use a loophole to sue your property to evade the presumption of innocence. Or Kelo, which codified the abuse of eminent domain, making greed the sole justification for confiscation of private property. That's just the tip of the iceberg. For every abuse perpetrated by a corporation, there is an equally chilling one committed by a government and an ever more militarized police that is ever less accountable for its actions. I'll not be a willing accomplice to that.

Well said.

 

[crashtech]

Hmm... thanks for the kudos. I actually don't mean to garner support from rightists, nor alienate leftists. I am old enough to remember the ideals of the 60's counterculture as passed on by adults and culture, and how we children of the 70's had to integrate that with the horrendous treatment of returning Vietnam vets. The experience, along with still living under the nuclear threat, jaded us early. But clearly I remember the leftists of that time had little affinity for big government, as opposed to the authoritarian strain of left ideology that seems to rule the dominant school of thought today. I'd much rather hang out with a stoned, unwashed hippy than consider the path down which today's new brand of authoritarians are leading us. At least the hippies loved freedom.

 

[Zorkorist]

Yeah, freedom is dead.

-John