quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: About which part? The harm caused by lack of government involvement? Or the possible exception of the last 20 years?
I'd love to see your opinion of the last twenty years, personally. The problem looks to me like really uneven regulation that led to piling the risk up in a few small areas. Which we still haven't fixed.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure it does. I am well aware you don't actually understand why your appraisal is wrong, yet.
The fact remains that what Lyrhawn is stating is very different from what you are claiming, and they're not just for reasons like how your entire construction of the liberal/conservative power balance doesn't take into account the fact that they only had supermajority through common caucus, not supermajority within the party.
That is the point I was trying to make. Neither party would be willing to say "We could have got this done, if only our own party would not have stopped us." It is more politically convenient to blame the other party. I'm sure the Republicans did same thing during the Clinton administration, when the they controlled Congress.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: About which part? The harm caused by lack of government involvement? Or the possible exception of the last 20 years?
The last 20 years part.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess I would have to break the last twenty years into two halves, by subject, not by chronology. When I look at American history from say, 1865 to the 1980s, I see a huge array of problems that nobody but the government could have realistically fixed. With a few notable exceptions (such as social issues like race relations, civil rights, gender equality etc), I tend to view most American history through the lens of a struggle between the average citizen and corporate America (let's say, from the Gilded Age, when corporations actually arose, onward). There are a lot of exceptions to this lens, which is why I never limit myself to it, but it has reared its ugly head pretty rudely in recent history.
If you go back to the 1865 era, you find that government intervention in the south is massive. The north ran the south under federally dominated military dictatorships for years. Now the south still uses this as an example of federal overreaching and government intrusion, but really, which southerners? Certainly not black southerners, who saw their rights ebb and flow in perfect correlation with the level of federal involvement. When Redeemer Governments took over, black voting rates, which had been impressively high during Reconstruction, vanished entirely. Mississippi and I want to say South Carolina, actually sent black Senators to Congress in the post-war Reconstruction period. But after the Hayes-Tilden fiasco in 1877, Federal troops were removed, and it was almost a century until black southerners had those rights again. I would also argue that blacks today don't have the Congressional representation and governmental clout that they had during Reconstruction. Part of that is due to black migratory diffusion of power in the 20s, 30s and 40s, and a lot of other reasons, but had they kept that power, things would be considerably different. I'd also throw out that the south became educationally and economically the most backward region of the country for a century after the federal government pulled out.
American labor history, which is my specific field of interest, is a story purely of the struggles between workers and management. For anyone who says that people should be allowed to work problems out themselves without government getting in the way, here's your best example of how that doesn't work. Workers, even when united, have historically never had the power necessary to break corporations. This has changed somewhat as finding replacement workers for skilled labor isn't as easy as it used to be, but for more than a hundred years, the only redress these people had was a government that stepped in to help.
I'd also throw out worker safety laws, minimum wage laws, environmental protection laws like the clean air and clean water act, etc, all as acts that ONLY the government could realistically achieve in order to protect the people against corporate apathy and avarice.
I'm a little hesitant to put pronouncements on an era that is the least studied in American history (the last 20 years), so I'll put forth the qualifier that this opinion is without having done in depth research on the subject, it's just observations based on what I have seen in comparison with material I actually have done a lot of research on.
It seems to me that, as it relates to corporations and the relaxing of regulations, the last 20 years is identical to the previous 150. With regulations relaxed, corporations immediately regressed to a time of acting less responsibly, which suggests to me an inherent greed and lack of care for the nation as a whole in corporations that is kept in check purely through regulation, and when that vigilance is lowered, the greed pours forth.
I think the difference between now and past generations though is personal responsibility. The argument always used to be in the Gilded Age and the early 20th century, a call to the Horatio Alger self-made man mantra as one of America's great themes. But the irony has generally been that up until the 40s, this theme was largely hollow, and that the average man could never be that successful, it was the few, not the many, and it was due to situation, not potential. I don't think this has radically changed. Read Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed." It's not a scientific study, but it's a good example of how impossible it is to live off the minimum wage (of course, it was written in the 90s before recent changes in the minimum wage, but then, the jobless rate is much higher today, so maybe there's an overlap). And her study wasn't even in the inner city, where living is considerably more difficult.
Many of the problems of the inner city were caused by regular people, and many of them were also caused by the government, and a lack of government involvement at precisely the times when a minimum of effort would have solved a lot of problems which have now become massive and systemic.
I think the difference I see though, in the last 20 years over all of American history, is a breakdown in basic personal responsibility. The problem used to be that people struggled against titanic forces that they could never hope to defeat without the government stepping in to help, and now it seems a great portion of the population simply expects the government to fix all their problems for them. Sometimes they're right, it should be the government, but the broad brush painted by some without thinking about what they can do for themselves, is change from the past. I think this, combined with a demand for lower taxes is where America gets most of its disconnect, and ALL of its budget problems.
This doesn't apply quite as much to the poor, but people spend too much. People eat too much fast food. People do irresponsible things without taking personal responsibility for their actions. Ironically, people are acting a lot more like corporations. They're making big messes, and then expecting the government to bail them out, but also like corporations, they demand help but decry any intrusions other than ones specifically asked for, even when they are for the good of the nation as a whole.
I know that last sentence will get some people hot and bothered. After all, shouldn't government back off when we tell them to, and help when we ask? Shouldn't we be leery of phrases like "for the good of the nation as a whole"? I think those are valuable things to be wary of, and it goes to the question of vigilance that I brought up earlier. But again, there's this mountain of history of things we've done wrong that government has fixed through massive intrusions into our lives and into the workings of business, and we're all better off for it. It's the problem with the individualistic nature of Americans. It might not be so much that we're selfish, for Americans can be very generous, but we often fail to see the forest for the trees, and fail to realize that what's good for the nation as a whole, and maybe even for me individually in the long run, might mean some short-term personal sacrifices I wouldn't have chosen otherwise.
This is kind of a meandering post, and I apologize for that. I'm trying to type as fast as I can because I have to get back to reading for a mid-term essay that's due in 48 hours. But I'll close by saying I'm invoking the "possible exception" part of what I claimed before. In a lot of ways, the last 20 years are more like the Gilded Age than anything was during the 20th century. But that's at the highest level. At the personal level, I think we've departed from a mantra of personal responsibility that used to be connected with our mantra of individualism.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you that people have gotten more of a "it's not my fault" philosophy in recent years. It frustrates me to no end, because I personally have made mistakes in my life, but never have I blamed anyone else for them. I also tend not to ask others to solve my problems or fix my mistakes for me. that is just my way of thinking.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think it's absolutely excellent that Stephen Colbert used this in reference to this very issue on his show tonight.
That guy really has his finger on the pulse of the geek community.
That's because he's a super geek himself. He can recite passages from Lord of the Rings from memory, for goodness sake.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Congress has 16 doctors, 6 accountants and over 200 lawyers. We wonder why there is no discussion of tort reform, the budget isn't balanced and the healthcare debate is so messed up.
We need to go back to electing proven leaders instead of lawyers and community organizers. Generals and CEO's are better than ambulance chasing lawyers and community organizers.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
CEO's would much prefer making money to actual politics (and in fact much prefer controlling politics from behind the scenes) and Generals usually know better then to enter politics as the blackhole that won't let them leave.
Although I did voice vocal support for Romney as a possible Repubican candidate due to his successful business credentials.
However to say that lawyers are somehow inherently worse then Generals or CEOs to be is just plain retarded of you, and thats ignoring your obvious and not to subtle barb at Obama, community organizers if anything are suporior credential to lead while the purpose of CEOs and Generals is to advise.
IP: Logged |
quote:We need to go back to electing proven leaders instead of lawyers and community organizers. Generals and CEO's are better than ambulance chasing lawyers and community organizers.
While I'm amused by your attempt to turn "community organizer" into a slur on par with "ambulance-chasing" lawyers, and while I actually agree that we have too many lawyers in Congress (although, to be honest, I think it's worth noting that this isn't a recent trend, and perhaps it's fairly natural that people interested in law tend to also be people interested in legislation), I hesitate to agree with the assertion that CEOs and generals are "better" -- by any objective standard -- than lawmakers and activists.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like lawyers might write tight, well-written laws with narrow bias, while non-lawyers might write crappy, hole-ridden, ill-written laws with a wider range of biases.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems like a non-lawyer congressman might have one or more lawyers on staff for that purpose.
Posts: 431 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, given how many laws created in Congress are crappy laws, and how many Congresspeople are lawyers, I'm not sure we have much evidence for that even if it seems logical on its face. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every congressman and every senator has a staff that includes legal professionals even if they aren't lawyers themselves. Every bill at both national and state levels is sent to legal council for review. There is no reason that a politician needs legal training any more than other forms of expertise, as long as they appoint competent people to their staff and respect the opinions of genuine experts.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:All I can say is that from what I have seen, nothing that the White House, Pelosi, or Reed have done seems to lead me to believe that they care at all about being bipartason.
In all seriousness, what could the White House do that would lead you to believe that they care about being bipartison that they haven't done?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's wrong, Rabbit. They could be spending all their time and energy on stupid ideas that no matter how you craft the language, are inherently unenforcable and unconstitutional. No matter how smart the staff, the legislator is still in charge. Staff can't and shouldn't dictate the legislator's agenda.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's wrong, Rabbit. They could be spending all their time and energy on stupid ideas that no matter how you craft the language, are inherently unenforcable and unconstitutional. No matter how smart the staff, the legislator is still in charge. Staff can't and shouldn't dictate the legislator's agenda.
No kat, you are the one who is mistaken. The role of legal council isn't to craft the language, it is to offer expert opinion on what is unconstitutional, unenforcable, or in direct conflict with existing law.
For example, in the Utah state legislature, all bills are reviewed by the legislature's General Counsel whose job it is to provide legal advice on the issues you mention. The Legislators are free to heed or ignore such advice as they please.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a non-partisan Office of Legislative Counsel attached to Congress itself.
Here's a list of their duties (edit: this is actually for the Senate office):
quote:Drafting bills and resolutions for introduction, and drafting of amendments for use by Senators during subcommittee, committee, and floor consideration of bills and resolutions.
Drafting bills reported by Senate committees and conference reports for House and Senate conference committees.
Providing advice (including advice on form and procedure) on drafts of bills, resolutions, and amendments.
Providing advice on constitutional, legal, and technical problems in statutes, proposed legislation, and reports and explanatory statements accompanying proposed legislation.
posted
I don't trust politicians that have never been anything other than a politician. The people should be lead by the best of the people, with all backgrounds. Obama and his ilk, went to college, studied, interned and worked all towards a lifelong political power goal. What is a "community organizer", if not the consumate politician. His credentials....a political leader of class warfare. Then you have the royals...Kennedy, Bush, Clinton, Pelosi, etc, etc. A family heritage of political power. They were raised in power and trained to be in power. Stupid voters fall in line for their name.
Do you really think these people represent "the people"? They know how to win elections but they are not "Of the people". Congress was never intended to be a full time job. Texas has the right idea. Their legislature is called every two years. We don't need full-time lawmakers...unless you think we can never have enough laws.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
