180 from Jackson.

Post #31,553 by mmoffitt 3/10/02 7:18:25 PM Reply	180 from Jackson. Isn't it interesting that we now discuss "elimination of powerful political parties" in order to achieve the goal of a democratically elected president when in 1838 (or thereabouts), Jackson and others pushed forward powerful political parties in order to make it possible for a democratically elected president to take office? What can be said about this experiment with political parties in a capitalist state? For a time, they are useful in ensuring a democratic process but ultimately fail? Should we have political parties at all? For me, I think far less of the world is ruled by politicks than is ruled by board members of multi-national corporations. And if one accepts that, does it truly matter who "represents us" in government? Imo, governments the world over are becoming more and more like our own: incapable of governing in a manner inconsistent with multi-national corporate interests. The saddest thing for me is that most of my fellow Muricans don't seem to care.
Post #31,556 by JayMehaffey 3/10/02 7:45:26 PM Reply	May have been the right solution for the time One of the fundamental problems with the two party system we have today is that the two parties have become vested interests themselves. This is a result of them existing as groups for so long. And like any system for allocating power that has existed for any length of time, there are those that have figured out how to exploit the system. As more and more people learn to exploit the system it becomes less responsive to real problems and more stagnate. In the end it becomes necissary to change the system every so often. Not because the new system is inherently better or the old system is bad, but simply to remove all the leeches that have attached themselves to the old system. Jay
Post #31,590 by Brandioch 3/11/02 9:00:34 AM Reply	Money == Power And corporations have the money. Which isn't to say that a political system couldn't be set up that limited the influence of money. Just that we haven't constructed one yet. Something about the people who are governed by those rules also write those rules.
Post #31,597 by mmoffitt 3/11/02 9:41:14 AM Reply	Why no such system will ever be devised here. >> Which isn't to say that a political system couldn't be set up that limited >> the influence of money. Because Money == Power, the only way to set up such a political system that I am familiar with is through violent revolution. But, getting people to support a violent overthrow of their government requires at least one thing: hunger. As the world's breadbasket, the US will never have enough of its people truly hungry enough to support a violent overthrow. Hence, those that possess the money/power will forever remain those who possess the money/power. Consequently, who they select to represent us is really of no serious consequence whatsoever.
Post #31,619 by Brandioch 3/11/02 11:23:01 AM Reply	Cynical you are, Grasshopper. Consequently, who they select to represent us is really of no serious consequence whatsoever. Since the government seems to be little more than a means to redistribute wealth now, all that changes from administration to administration is hwo is robbed and who is gifted. I recall something someone said about the discovery that you can vote yourself funds from the public coffer and how this will doom any democracy (I think that was the phrasing). All that remains is to determine what form our government will take while still claiming to be a "democratic republic".
Post #31,634 by mmoffitt 3/11/02 12:14:21 PM Reply	Even less than that. >> ... all that changes from administration to administration is hwo is robbed and who >> is gifted. I'll grant that so-called "progressives" (aka Democrats) are slightly less forthright about funneling money up the food chain. However, to say that any of the recent crop is actually interested in forcing a more fair distribution of wealth than the capitalist economy accomplishes is reaching very far indeed. The most recent "progressive" (Clinton) only stopped the bleeding of the bottom 80%. In real terms, their wealth just stopped diminishing. For instance, during the Reagan-Bush "greed is not enough" period, the top 1% went from holding roughly 7% of all private wealth to holding more than 12%. The "progressive" President Clinton didn't do anything about that massive shift upwards, but he did manage to stop the bleeding. The distribution of private wealth remained almost constant under his direction. Does that mean he "redistributed" wealth? I think not. Interesting and very simple to see why the economy boomed during this period. It was aided significantly by the fact that, at least for 8 years, Joe and Molly sixpack saw that they weren't losing ground. This was enough to boost their confidence (which is a necessary feature for our economy to thrive) and they went shopping, fueling demand, etc., etc. It amazes me that "supply-siders" still don't get it. You used to have to give Joe and Molly some money to spend (i.e. redistribute wealth); now it appears that all you have to do is stop stealing from them (supply-side economics) and they'll respond. My point is that the choices for Joe and Molly don't matter much: either status quo or lose ground. Although, I'll concede that insofar as status quo is better than losing ground, it may make a difference yet who is in charge.
Post #31,644 by Brandioch 3/11/02 12:56:13 PM Reply	In a static system, I'd agree with you. My point is that the choices for Joe and Molly don't matter much: either status quo or lose ground. Although, I'll concede that insofar as status quo is better than losing ground, it may make a difference yet who is in charge. If the system were static, then maintaining the staus quo would be adequate (far better than dropping behind). But we go through cycles of different administrations. Maintaining for 8 years and then losing for 8 years still results in a net lose. Not to mention that this pattern doesn't have much flexibility to handle unexpected emergencies. Such as our current recession (on a national scale) or extended unemployment (on a personal scale). To really maintain the status quo, Joe and Molly would have to go through periods of real gain to counter the periods of real loss. This would, hopefully, level out some of the more drastic economic swings (savings to fall back on in this recession).
Post #31,647 by mmoffitt 3/11/02 1:07:54 PM Reply	Yes. Everything you said in your last post is why I stated initially that "it doesn't make much difference". ;-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!