Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

I'm highly concerned that well-meaning, would-be reformers like Lagslayer will end up paralyzing the government permanently. Banning Earmarks, that widely reviled practice, has already done more than almost any piece of legislation in recent history to force the government into a perpetual standstill.The fact of the matter is that Congress hates each others guts, and in an absence of reasons to stop doing so, they will never work together, period. That's all well and good if you live in a world where everything is all fine and dandy and the government is unnecessary, but anyone who thinks the government needs to do things is screwed.

Someone give me a reform that will actually make the government work. All I've heard are reforms that will make it stop working.

They're trying to bring back earmarks, aka porkbarrel spending, Reid has said that he regretted doing that, or rather he misses them.

As for reforms that will make the government work, maybe limits on how money is used for lobbying? Which brings the problem of enforcement, laws only work when they are enforced.

I don't really have any ideas, which is why I was wondering how other countries do it, basically "what works elsewhere?".

[Lagslayer]

I'm highly concerned that well-meaning, would-be reformers like Lagslayer will end up paralyzing the government permanently. Banning Earmarks, that widely reviled practice, has already done more than almost any piece of legislation in recent history to force the government into a perpetual standstill.The fact of the matter is that Congress hates each others guts, and in an absence of reasons to stop doing so, they will never work together, period. That's all well and good if you live in a world where everything is all fine and dandy and the government is unnecessary, but anyone who thinks the government needs to do things is screwed.

Someone give me a reform that will actually make the government work. All I've heard are reforms that will make it stop working.

Also, don't know if it was millennia that banking has 'corrupted' society, but I would say that getting money out of politics would make things much easier. The hard part is that the money doesn't want to go. :/

Goes back to at least the time of Christ, because the bible rails against it. That's where "sending money lenders from the temple" comes from.

Not that I necessarily believe in everything the bible says, but it does show that this has been a problem for a very long time.

Oh please. Bankers didn't exist as a group with serious power until the rise of capitalism, none of this "millennia of cultural indoctrination" nonsense. I mean Jesus Christ, the Bible is an example of cultural influence in the other direction, telling us of the sin of Usury.

The reform in question must come from the people. If they become apathetic, lazy, or self-centered, they are much more willing to allow their government to keep sliding into corruption. They have been divided, largely intentionally, to keep any of them from seeing the big picture. You can't regulate the lawmakers by passing more laws; only the people, through violent force, if necessary, can keep them in line.

As far as the "ancient bankers" thing goes, it's true that they didn't really own everything directly until a few hundred years ago, but they've always had the ears of the greedier politicians. Often times, they have to con these politicians into screwing their own people and legalizing usury in the first place, as most religions explicitly outlaw it, with increasingly apparent reasoning.

edit: kept trying to cut down the quote pyramid, but it kept deleting it entirely.

[smjjames]

The reform in question must come from the people. If they become apathetic, lazy, or self-centered, they are much more willing to allow their government to keep sliding into corruption. They have been divided, largely intentionally, to keep any of them from seeing the big picture. You can't regulate the lawmakers by passing more laws; only the people, through violent force, if necessary, can keep them in line.

Do you have another solution besides a revolt? Revolts seem like the answer to too many things these days, and revolutions (of the violent kind at least) don't tend to turn out well. The US got lucky with ours, while France convulsed for a while.

[Lord Shonus]

Also, don't know if it was millennia that banking has 'corrupted' society, but I would say that getting money out of politics would make things much easier. The hard part is that the money doesn't want to go. :/

Goes back to at least the time of Christ, because the bible rails against it. That's where "sending money lenders from the temple" comes from.

There were no moneylenders in the Temple. Jesus drove out merchants and moneychangers from the Temple. The latter were there to convert the Roman coins (graven with the images of the Roman gods) used everwhere else for the Jewish ones used in the Temple itself, and their great crime seems to be that of price-gouging and cheating the poor that had come to worship.

[Lagslayer]

The reform in question must come from the people. If they become apathetic, lazy, or self-centered, they are much more willing to allow their government to keep sliding into corruption. They have been divided, largely intentionally, to keep any of them from seeing the big picture. You can't regulate the lawmakers by passing more laws; only the people, through violent force, if necessary, can keep them in line.

As far as the "ancient bankers" thing goes, it's true that they didn't really own everything directly until a few hundred years ago, but they've always had the ears of the greedier politicians. Often times, they have to con these politicians into screwing their own people and legalizing usury in the first place, as most religions explicitly outlaw it, with increasingly apparent reasoning.

Do you have another solution besides a revolt?

I don't see any other way. These people will not go quietly. They will start the violence themselves, if we simply choose to collectively vote "no confidence" and ignore their rulings.

Also, don't know if it was millennia that banking has 'corrupted' society, but I would say that getting money out of politics would make things much easier. The hard part is that the money doesn't want to go. :/

Goes back to at least the time of Christ, because the bible rails against it. That's where "sending money lenders from the temple" comes from.

There were no moneylenders in the Temple. Jesus drove out merchants and moneychangers from the Temple. The latter were there to convert the Roman coins (graven with the images of the Roman gods) used everwhere else for the Jewish ones used in the Temple itself, and their great crime seems to be that of price-gouging and cheating the poor that had come to worship.

tomato/tomato

Usury is predatory at it's core. You don't take out debt unless you are, or feel forced to.

edit: also, the bible does specifically mention usury, as well.

[Wolfhunter107]

Lagslayerror, you're starting to become hard to understand. How are the bankers staring the violence if you're the one leading the "revolution" against them?

[smjjames]

The reform in question must come from the people. If they become apathetic, lazy, or self-centered, they are much more willing to allow their government to keep sliding into corruption. They have been divided, largely intentionally, to keep any of them from seeing the big picture. You can't regulate the lawmakers by passing more laws; only the people, through violent force, if necessary, can keep them in line.

As far as the "ancient bankers" thing goes, it's true that they didn't really own everything directly until a few hundred years ago, but they've always had the ears of the greedier politicians. Often times, they have to con these politicians into screwing their own people and legalizing usury in the first place, as most religions explicitly outlaw it, with increasingly apparent reasoning.

Do you have another solution besides a revolt?

I don't see any other way. These people will not go quietly. They will start the violence themselves, if we simply choose to collectively vote "no confidence" and ignore their rulings.

Lets say that the revolt was completely bloodless, went 100% fine with no problems at all, what would you do then. You have to have a plan for after the revolution.

Going RARG! and overthrowing the capitol and booting the lawmakers isn't a plan, the revolution itself isn't the end of the problem, because the exact same laws and stuff still exist, so, how would you fix things after the revolt?

Lagslayerror, you're starting to become hard to understand. How are the bankers staring the violence if you're the one leading the "revolution" against them?

He's somehow trying to use the Jesus and the moneylenders as a metaphor.

Also, don't know if it was millennia that banking has 'corrupted' society, but I would say that getting money out of politics would make things much easier. The hard part is that the money doesn't want to go. :/

Goes back to at least the time of Christ, because the bible rails against it. That's where "sending money lenders from the temple" comes from.

There were no moneylenders in the Temple. Jesus drove out merchants and moneychangers from the Temple. The latter were there to convert the Roman coins (graven with the images of the Roman gods) used everwhere else for the Jewish ones used in the Temple itself, and their great crime seems to be that of price-gouging and cheating the poor that had come to worship.

tomato/tomato

Usury is predatory at it's core. You don't take out debt unless you are, or feel forced to.

edit: also, the bible does specifically mention usury, as well.

Answer this, does the bible dictate how you do economics? Does anybody use the bible to dictate economics? I know it dictates a lot of things, but I don't recall it stating anything economic related, at least anything that could be used now. I do recall a few things, but they were in the context of the time period or some specific commodity like dates.

[Lagslayer]

Lagslayerror, you're starting to become hard to understand. How are the bankers staring the violence if you're the one leading the "revolution" against them?

Because the banks have basically infinite money, they control almost everything, especially the law. They own the government, because it runs on federal reserve notes. So they use the law, and influence pretty much everywhere else, to prey on peoples' empathy and general lawfulness. At the same time, they make it illegal, or otherwise nigh impossible to prosecute themselves. The result is a large portion of the population that is either completely brainwashed into following, or will reluctantly follow, an obviously corrupt, but not legally touchable, system.

They prey on lawfulness and empathy for your fellow man, through lies upon lies upon lies. Everything they say is a lie, misdirection, or a half-truth.

Answer this, does the bible dictate how you do economics? Does anybody use the bible to dictate economics? I know it dictates a lot of things, but I don't recall it stating anything economic related, at least anything that could be used now. I do recall a few things, but they were in the context of the time period.

It forbids certain things, usury and scamming in general among them. The economy can function without them.

I should also note that I'm not an expert on the subject.

Lets say that the revolt was completely bloodless, went 100% fine with no problems at all, what would you do then. You have to have a plan for after the revolution.

Going RARG! and overthrowing the capitol and booting the lawmakers isn't a plan, the revolution itself isn't the end of the problem, because the exact same laws and stuff still exist, so, how would you fix things after the revolt?

I have a few ideas. They start with the banks, because that's where most of the corruption is flowing from.

1. Outlaw fractal lending. This is defacto printing of money by a private entity, which is explicitly illegal. Banks must carry, on hand, hard currency for every dollar they lend out.
2. Outlaw the federal reserve. It's a private bank that owns the entire country's wealth. What's more, the Rothschild family, which ownd the fed, also owns every other central bank in the world, with the exception of Iran, North Korea, and Cuba. This alone proves they are guilty of countless of conflicts of interest, as well as treason against basically everybody, because they fund everyone's enemies.
3. Outlaw publicly traded stock. The stock market was nothing but a ponzi scheme run by the banks, ever since it's inception. It's only function is to create market bubbles which burst, then the banks pick up the shattered pieces when everyone goes bankrupt.

There's more, but I gotta do something. Back in a few hours.

[smjjames]

"Burn it all with cleansing fire!" is not good policy.

Exactly. This is probably partially why the French Revolution went through so many convulsions vs the comparatively smooth (we weren't without some growing pains afterwards) American Revolution. The American Colonies were actually already pretty independent politically (though FAR from being on equal terms with Britian) and all we wanted was for the king to bleep off and let us go our own way. France meanwhile, wanted to ditch the Monarchy AND the whole feudal system, which is an even more massive change than the US had to endure.

Lagslayerror, you're starting to become hard to understand. How are the bankers staring the violence if you're the one leading the "revolution" against them?

Because the banks have basically infinite money, they control almost everything, especially the law. They own the government, because it runs on federal reserve notes. So they use the law, and influence pretty much everywhere else, to prey on peoples' empathy and general lawfulness. At the same time, they make it illegal, or otherwise nigh impossible to prosecute themselves. The result is a large portion of the population that is either completely brainwashed into following, or will reluctantly follow, an obviously corrupt, but not legally touchable, system.

They prey on lawfulness and empathy for your fellow man, through lies upon lies upon lies. Everything they say is a lie, misdirection, or a half-truth.

* smjjames attempts to pull lagslayer down from head-in-the-clouds-fanaticism

I think the target you're really looking for are corporate interests and CEOs, THOSE are the ones who have bought out influence. Also, where is the government going to store it's money without the federal reserve? Fort Knox?

Lets say that the revolt was completely bloodless, went 100% fine with no problems at all, what would you do then. You have to have a plan for after the revolution.

Going RARG! and overthrowing the capitol and booting the lawmakers isn't a plan, the revolution itself isn't the end of the problem, because the exact same laws and stuff still exist, so, how would you fix things after the revolt?

I have a few ideas. They start with the banks, because that's where most of the corruption is flowing from.

1. Outlaw fractal lending. This is defacto printing of money by a private entity, which is explicitly illegal. Banks must carry, on hand, hard currency for every dollar they lend out.
2. Outlaw the federal reserve. It's a private bank that owns the entire country's wealth. What's more, the Rothschild family, which ownd the fed, also owns every other central bank in the world, with the exception of Iran, North Korea, and Cuba. This alone proves they are guilty of countless of conflicts of interest, as well as treason against basically everybody, because they fund everyone's enemies.
3. Outlaw publicly traded stock. The stock market was nothing but a ponzi scheme run by the banks, ever since it's inception. It's only function is to create market bubbles which burst, then the banks pick up the shattered pieces when everyone goes bankrupt.

There's more, but I gotta do something. Back in a few hours.

The heck is fractal lending? You mean fractional maybe?

As for the rest, you're really becoming a babbling fanatic now. I'm not an expert here either, but you're starting to come off like frothing at the mouth almost, I'm pretty sure that assessment of the stock market and market bubbles is incorrect.

Make no mistake here, I do agree with you that the way banks did things that led to the 2008 crisis was shitty and the government should have let natural selection divide the winners from the losers. That and split up the banks.

[Wolfhunter107]

"Burn it all with cleansing fire!" is not good policy.

Especially when it's made based on wild conspiracy theories.

[Loud Whispers]

"Burn it all with cleansing fire!" is not good policy.

It's great policy

[Loud Whispers]

Only if you're so self-deluded that you think that you have the solution to all of the country's problems.

Alcohol is a solution, said the chemist

[smjjames]

LW, you witty Brit.... lol

Anyway, while we're still on economics, Trump has put Peter Navarro to lead the trade council in the WH. Sounds like Trump really does want to start a trade war, though I'm not sure how much power the President actually has in levying tariffs.

Vox piece on how the Navarro-Ross trade idea is bad (and is because of a silly mistake. Also, common sense would suffice.)

He's also picked Carl Icahn (I see so many jokes and memes made over his last name) for WH special advisor on regulation, which Vox says would be a sheer conflict of interest disaster.

[Neonivek]

PFT! Trump LOVES conflict of interest.

[smjjames]

Someone give me a reform that will actually make the government work. All I've heard are reforms that will make it stop working.

One thing that would probably work, or at least move it away from rich people, is campaign finance reform and make it easier for the average person to run for a higher office if they really wanted to, and also make it so that it's not dominated by funding from the top 1%, or rather, the top 0.1%. I'm not saying ban them from funding, they can give cash if they wanted to, just not make up 99% of the entire funding.

Though this past election season has wounded that system where firehosing cash into campaigns didn't even help. The whole campaign donations is often where the loudest complaints of 'being beholden to donors' comes from, so, it'd be a start.