Why Is the Republican Field So Extreme? (Read 2137 times)

I believe We The People are at fault for being largely short-sighted in selfish as to what we want out of government and reflecting this in the platforms we vote for.  Politicians are at fault for no longer being "civil servants" but serving themselves on what they can get out of their time in Washington and caring more about votes than the voters behind them, making them kow-tow to special interests funneling money into their campaigns.  Corporations and unions are both at fault -- indirectly for being allowed to have the lobbying power they do, and directly for self-centered interests.  I see little to no actions by anybody, at a macro level, that put the collective good above personal interests.

 

The one common ground I see between the Tea Party on one end of the spectrum and OWS on the other, is that they are irate at the status quo...though what exactly they are irate about differs.  I don't think there is much overlap in the solutions (OWS hasn't even proposed any however), but perhaps in their diametrically opposed but similarly motivated efforts they will create so much turmoil with the status quo that something will HAVE to change for the better.

+1

It's good that both ends of this conversation are showing publicly that they are displeased with the current state of affairs. And perhaps this will help to awaken the vast number of people in the center of the discussion (idiologically) to take action to develop a message and to vote accordingly. However the choices of whom to elect is another dicey subject. There still is the whole media issue since the messages being pushed are for their specific reasons. And like, Tater, I am working to educate myself daily via both liberal and conservative sites to see what the actual story is. That takes some effort and I'm not sure the vast center has the time to do this as most of us are trying to get from today to tomorrow with life. To do Democracy correctly takes effort.

I was not long ago reminded that I don't understand what our nat'l gov't role is vis-a-vis Bank of America -- and whichever other banks in which the Fed govt invested.

Our govt invested directly in it, I gather (spaniel's golden, diamond-encrusted bailout). So... was that nationalization? Not exactly, right, because the Fed Govt didn't take over the entire banks.

What is the govt role now in regards to it (BoA.. and the others)? Owner/regulator? Does the gov't now have a fiduciary responsibility to push Bank of America to profit-making directions? Is that interest in diametric opposition to its interest as regulator?

Did all these same issues get resolved way back at the big savings & loan bailout/payout time -- when a collection of different fat cats (I assume?) got lots of gov't money poured into their financial institutions, presumably because they had great lobbyist power too?

ObDisclaimer: I didn't pay hardly any attention to how they set up the bailout, or what conditions they created, or, with more relevance to my questions above, what structural changes were involved.

The one common ground I see between the Tea Party on one end of the spectrum and OWS on the other, is that they are irate at the status quo...though what exactly they are irate about differs.

Throw the bums out.

I think everybody should be able to see some point being made by these protests.  You'd have to be rather detatched to not see something of value being said.  It's not like me saying Jeff is a member of the 1% of the fastest humans and he has therefore robbed me (a member of the slowest 99% on this planet) of my own speed.  There is some actual taking going on.  But capitalism is like that.  It has money as a motivating force for good, and less good, and simply not good.  Unfortunatly humans are not like ants.  We don't work our asses off until death simply to improve the lives for others of our kind. 

Is there anyone in a position to even make a credible platform of improvements, or at least suggestions? 

Who is John Gault?  No... too extreme on the capitalist side.

All for one and one for all?  No... my human nature would resent those more useless than myself sponging off the "system". 

So... back to work.  At least I have that.  And I get to be away from work to see my family on most weekends and from 6:20 to 8:30 every night.  Cheers. 

MTA:  I'd like my own demand.  That we get to a place where we don't have to invest public money to try and get men to be decent.  If you can't support kids don't have them.  If you do have them, support them.  I can't believe people have to be trained in this. 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/county-to-receive-54-million-for-fatherhood-initiative-131333099.html

Still, why is it always the Republicans who adamantly block campaign finance reform?

Last I checked the BCRA was a bi-partisanly passed bill and look how well that turned out. Perhaps the blocking of bills by both sides (see all of the D blocks of R bills in the late 80's and 1990's) is from a direct mistrust of each others sides in that they believe the bills are designed to favor one group over another. Hard to find compromise when you think the other side is stacking the decks and that goes for both D and R and frankly I agree with the concern based on the rules that have been passed.

Money and politics go together like me and a slow race time. Instead of further restrictions why not allow for immediate and full disclosure to the public so some sunlight gets placed on who is funding/pulling the strings and actually punishing politicians/financiers that skirt the rules . Perhaps people will then know better who's voting for what and why and hold them accountable.

 

What can be done?  Well, maybe we can just start by becoming more informed.  And vote.  And understand that any solution will involve compromise, sacrifice, and a bit of hard work.  There was a point in my life that I became fed up and didn't vote.  Now I vote.  If there is one thing that I could do better it is becoming more informed.  I'm working on that.  Believe or not threads like these are helpful in that regard.

 

 

Nice.     I've voted in every local and national election  since I was able to vote minus the first one when I was overseas and didn't get it together to get an absentee ballot or whatever you get in that situation. I'm saddened by the low voter turnout nation wide and also by comments by people (here and other places) who seem to be proud of the fact that they don't vote. You may not agree 100% with your chosen candidate or issue ( I rarely do), but if you don't vote your complaining rings hollow to me. There's lots of folks around the world who would love to have a chance to vote.

I'm saddened by the low voter turnout nation wide and also by comments by people (here and other places) who seem to be proud of the fact that they don't vote. You may not agree 100% with your chosen candidate or issue ( I rarely do), but if you don't vote your complaining rings hollow to me. There's lots of folks around the world who would love to have a chance to vote.

I used to feel this way, too, and do vote in local and state elections, but recent national elections have given me very little to choose from. When it comes to senate, house or presidential candidates, I'm automatically suspicious of anyone that seeks office. I don't feel the need to agree 100% with any candidate, but what do you do if you disagree nearly 100% with all of them?  I really wish there was some box to check on the ballot that says something like "I'm not too lazy to vote, but these candidates all suck".

It would be interesting to see how many non voters have just lost faith in the current system's ability to produce qualified, reasonable candidates. I know I have.