What it all boils down to
- Thread starter volente_00
- Start date
If the majority of people weren't uninformed sheep lacking critical thinking we might be better off than we are right now.
The decision-making process is broken. The people don't elect officials on the basis of credentials and work history. They elect them based on their stance toward the nuisance issues of abortion, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana and visual attractiveness. Let's face it, when campaigning for election, candidates don't really say much of substance. They also lie. It surprises me how many people actually believe in voting.
The decision-making process is broken. The people don't elect officials on the basis of credentials and work history. They elect them based on their stance toward the nuisance issues of abortion, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana and visual attractiveness. Let's face it, when campaigning for election, candidates don't really say much of substance. They also lie. It surprises me how many people actually believe in voting.
Thank you, but I wouldn't know where to begin, let alone the proper conclusion as to why our government has become so dysfunctional, but Geostrathmore's post below may be touching on a root cause:
"If the majority of people weren't uninformed sheep lacking critical thinking we might be better off than we are right now.
The decision-making process is broken. The people don't elect officials on the basis of credentials and work history. They elect them based on their stance toward the nuisance issues of abortion, gay marriage, legalization of marijuana and visual attractiveness. Let's face it, when campaigning for election, candidates don't really say much of substance. They also lie. It surprises me how many people actually believe in voting."
This is real food for thought. Perhaps the intellectual quality among our legislators and Presidents has deteriorated because of changes in voter intellect and demographics. It seems to me that that is what Geostrathmore is hinting at here. If there was a way of comparing government effectiveness among democracies as a function of education or intellectual achievement among the voting populace that might provide a clue and point us in the right direction as far as correcting things. But that is the bailiwick of academics.
This startling comment by David Stockman:
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...on-flimflam-swindle-taxes-must-134716994.html
has led me to believe. I may have been a little naive and too generous in suggesting that most of our elected representative in Washington have good intentions. Perhaps thre are a few too many that are unable to resist putting their desire for reelection and power above the national interest.
Note that at the end of Stockman's statement he brings up Social Security and Medicare, two huge items of public expenditure, suggesting that they are logical places to look for savings. I want to say, however, that I have been absolutely convinced for quite some time that Social Security is one of the few really effective government programs that is very easily made sound and ought not to be touched except to strengthen it, and based on recent posts by other ET folks, I am now becoming convinced that medicare can be rescued as well if we put medicare funds off budget and invest them the same way we do the Social Security funds. (Social Security funds should be moved back off budget, as well, as they were, I believe, prior to the Nixon administration. By off budget I mean not shown as general revenue, thus giving a more realistic picture.)
So, what does that leave? Obviously it is deep cuts in military expenditures, and lesser cuts and efficiencies in other programs, particularly homeland security and CIA. And this, I am equally convinced, would do the most good, and the least harm. Many don't know that we spend ~4K$ per person each year on military and associated costs, and Germany spends ~ 300$! And why isn't the CIA budget public? (Not the fine detail of course.)
I am also a firm believer that an equally important thrust has to be breaking the Medical Cartel if we are to contain costs going forward. And that I think can be done by some deregulation and allowing more competition.
See Hello's post here:
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=3160914#post3160914
for just one of many possibilities that could be considered along those lines.
There are many bright folks posting on ET, and some not so of course, and I often learn much from their posts.
None of the cost cutting measures I mention above can be done precipitously. That would throw the economy into a tailspin. They must be phased in over a period of ten to twenty years. And individual tax cuts for high income individuals introduced during the Bush years must, regrettably, be rescinded, as that would do very little damage and the revenue is sorely needed. (That these individuals create all the jobs is an incorrect and a somewhat self-serving, not to mention insane, argument. They'll continue to create jobs, to the extent they do, regardless, because that's where their wealth comes from.)
The defense industry must gradually be converted to making useful products for civilian use. Mass transit and robotics are obvious areas. You can't just shut this industry down and throw thousands more out of work.
The manufacturing base in the U.S. must be rescued, not with tariffs but by improving product quality. We have to make products even better than the Germans. And we can do that. We can compete nicely at the high end. And through robotics and total automation we can even compete at the low end. There is going to be a rapidly growing market in the developing countries for high end products, and those markets will grow much faster than the ability of those same countries to produce high end products internally. This is a ground floor opportunity for U.S. manufacturing. U.S. companies must have incentives to manufacture in the U.S. The Germans are in the cat bird seat, but we can give them a run for their money if we put our minds to it.
We must get even stronger in our strongest areas: advanced education, research, innovation and development of new products, IT, electronics, advanced polymers, biotechnology, and drugs.
I have radical, politically incorrect, ideas on education and i'm not going into details, because I'll just get flamed endlessly. But essentially they are to go back to what worked well. (i.e., undo some of the changes brought by the "Great Society", not all though.)
The defense industry must gradually be converted to making useful products for civilian use. Mass transit and robotics are obvious areas. You can't just shut this industry down and throw thousands more out of work.
The manufacturing base in the U.S. must be rescued, not with tariffs but by improving product quality. We have to make products even better than the Germans. And we can do that. We can compete nicely at the high end. And through robotics and total automation we can even compete at the low end. There is going to be a rapidly growing market in the developing countries for high end products, and those markets will grow much faster than the ability of those same countries to produce high end products internally. This is a ground floor opportunity for U.S. manufacturing. U.S. companies must have incentives to manufacture in the U.S. The Germans are in the cat bird seat, but we can give them a run for their money if we put our minds to it.
We must get even stronger in our strongest areas: advanced education, research, innovation and development of new products, IT, electronics, advanced polymers, biotechnology, and drugs.
I have radical, politically incorrect, ideas on education and i'm not going into details, because I'll just get flamed endlessly. But essentially they are to go back to what worked well. (i.e., undo some of the changes brought by the "Great Society", not all though.)
âOur Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.â
John Adams.
In Adams' day, "religion" also meant literacy, since thats how a lot of the middle class learned to read.
So I would substitute religious with literate.
The old boy had a point.
When asked what type of government the American people were going to participate in, by a well-meaning woman, a stern Benjamin Franklin warned that our new government was going to be
"A republic, madam, if you can keep it."
And one of the best, and truest quotes ever...
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic."
Ben Franklin
John Adams.
In Adams' day, "religion" also meant literacy, since thats how a lot of the middle class learned to read.
So I would substitute religious with literate.
The old boy had a point.
When asked what type of government the American people were going to participate in, by a well-meaning woman, a stern Benjamin Franklin warned that our new government was going to be
"A republic, madam, if you can keep it."
And one of the best, and truest quotes ever...
"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the Republic."
Ben Franklin
I just realized that in my post a few above this one, where I mention in parentheses that the US spends about 4K$ per person on military and Germany only about $300, i'm going to be subject to giant flame throwers. (And also I apologize for using, ala' CNN or USA Today, gee whiz reporting.) So before the flame throwers ignite their torches, I want to make a preemptive strike (ala' the "W"). That figure of 4K$ includes interest ,present and future, on the money borrowed, veteran's benefits, etc. The immediate cost per person is about 2K$ per person, still about 6 times greater than Germany spends. We simply can't afford this folks!
The military budget allows the US to have incredible influence in the world, doesnt that influence help the US to make money? why should this be given up?
and yet you found it desirable to shine your brilliance upon this thread to enlighten us in how wrong it is.
it is not hard to conceive that the number of people who brought us to this situation is that small. there are undoubtedly millions who contributed to it, but the largest of blunders are made by those who have the power to make them. for instance, i would be willing to wager that all of the members of any given suburb in florida, or vegas or some other hotspot of housing speculation, combined did not cause as much damage to the country and economy as your best friend ben bernanke.
but i'm not surprised (and i doubt many here are) that the one person to show up here and discount this theory is the one who most hardily defends the fed on this forum.