- Eric Preissler
- Lincoln, NE
- United States
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is the gridlock problem in government a problem with the system or greed and flawed human behavior? Is there an answer?
Nobody can agree on anything in Congress and the divide between the Right and Left is only growing larger. Everyone always preaches bipartisan ideas, but no one ever follows through. Fill-a-busters are a huge problem and if someone has a good idea it can take years to implement. There has to be a solution to these problems, but is it in selecting the right people for the job or changing the system. I heard a comment on the radio the other day about making government positions part-time jobs, so it went back to being a public service like it was intended. This means it would filter out the people who became politicians just to get rich. Maybe it is time for a change.
Topics:
American government american politics
Grace Greene 10+
Jefferson said that whenever a democracy is in danger, the answer is always to add more democracy. Right now, the two major parties are fighting over what WE will be required to do to assist THEM in helping those who help them stay in power and become more wealthy.
I haven't been able to think through a solution that doesn't require government to restore assumed powers to the people to whom they rightfully belong. Then the arguing can stop.
Robert Winner 50+
Greed. Wow this can go on for hours. The latest is Nancy Polsi who used her information during hearing to heavely invest in VISA knowing the outcome of the legislation would benefit VISA ... she made a bundle. Kinda makes you say HUH!! when inside traders (not in Congress) make the news and go to jail. Bernnie should have ran for office first.
Flawed human Behavior: Next to this in the dictionary is a photo of Bill Clinton. Sex scandles, lying under oath, impeachment, loss of law license ... and oh yeah ... last month nominated for father of the year.
So after a short deep breath (more like a pant) I think the problem is "we the people". We have allowed these scumbags to govern themselves, set their own saleries, and make the decision of what is ethical for their own behavior. Example: After passing Obamacare they immediately exempted themselves from the law. So ... it good enough for the peons but not good enough for the elite governing class. Do I see a 27th ammendment in the making.
Immigration reform has nothing to do with helping people .... latinos are the largest growing block of voters in the country. It is all political. The very voice of the movement, Obama, has a aunt and a uncle on welfare and in the country illegally living within a hundred miles of the White House. He is a multi-millionaire and doesn't even care for his aunt and uncle .... lets guess how much he cares about non-relative citizens. Nada. But he wants the votes.
The system was set up very well ... "we the people" have lost control and now the fox guards the hen house.
I wish you well .... go big red. Bob.
Ken brown 30+
I don't get it Rob? The whole government? The two houses, everyone, even when they become private citizens? I don't know anything about the Obamacare other than it's a public medical heath insurance? I'm going to look it up.
Barry Palmer 50+
I do not know of an answer. Abolishing gerrymandering might be a good start.
Caren Gibson
I honestly do not believe there is anyway to fix this system. For the main reason that it never worked in the first place. My favorite quote is "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." ~ Albert Einstein. And I honestly think this is the best advice for us, I'm not just referring to the US. We as humans, globally, need to start thinking on different lines because these gridlocks and political dead-ends will never sort themselves out. And now, unlike 20 years ago, we actually can interact and communicate globally thanks to the technologies of today. Us as individuals putting our minds together, spreading ideas and acting I think will have the most impact.
For insistence, right now the most exciting and feasible idea I've come across is that of a Resource Based Economy. Based on the ideas and project of Jacque Fresco as a starting point at least. I'll try to post a link to his TED talk. Here we go, copy and paste if you must: http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/TEDxOjai-Jacque-Fresco-Resource
Eric Preissler
Caren Gibson
Because we don't really have a comparison yet I think all answers are speculative at this point. But as I listen to the people around me, more and more I'm hearing a growing outrage at all the wrongness that these systems are generating, and I'm inclined to believe that we are enraged because we don't want to be this way.
Like any theory I think we need to find a way to test it, to see if this could work. But it all starts with the spreading of ideas right?
Caren Gibson
Eric Preissler
Eric Preissler
Caren Gibson
"Under the capitalist mode of production, this struggle materializes between the minority (the bourgeoisie) who own the means of production, and the vast majority of the population (the proletariat) who produce goods and services. Taking the idea that social change occurs because of the struggle between different classes within society who are under contradiction against each other, the Marxist analysis leads to the conclusion that capitalism oppresses the proletariat, which leads to a proletarian revolution. Capitalism (according to Marxist theory) can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression."
Still just about as accurate today as when this analysis was formed in the 1850's I think.
I don't think a swift change into a Resource Based Economy would be possible, or a good idea. Despite my own impatience. I think we would have to take a very scientific approach to testing something like this. Gathering data and facts that are more than just opinions and theories is still the best way to design something that functions the way it's supposed too.
I just finished reading a short eBook that laid out a really inspiring theoretical idea of what a Resource Based Economy could look like. I can't say I agree with all the ideas, but it's all theories. I do really like his ideas of how to
maybe going about testing/transition. I'll try and post a link to it if your interested in giving it a read: http://www.mediafire.com/view/?6tmc6ld43lxc1gv
If that doesn't connect, doing a Google search for "The First Civilization" should bring it up as first in line.
Caren Gibson
Eric Preissler
Caren Gibson
Well, personally I would be perusing my interests, which actually cost me money and are very time consuming. I would also be satisfying my curiosities, I've always wanted to go to college but never had the resources to go and did not want to go into tens of thousands of dollars or more worth of debt in order to get a degree in something I may or may not make a good living at. I've seen one of my family go through 7 years of schooling, $80,000+ in student loans, now unable to find a job in her field and working at a department store with barely enough to live on let alone start to pay on her debt. Nor did I want to choose a field only for the sake of money but that did not hold my interest.
The more I look at this question the more obvious to me it is that money actually inhibits innovation and progress instead of progressing it. One good example that I see a lot in my line of work has to do with hunting for grants and funding for scientific research. Researchers have to spend a large amount of time trying to secure funding which, unless comes from a non profit organization, the Investors expects to see a return with interest for their funding, or rights to profit or patent new innovations. This is especially stunting in the area of microbiology and disease research where areas of interest fall into categories where low or no cost solutions are needed for developing countries.
Another interesting example is after WW2 around 1954/1955 I think. There was a main stream implementation of planned obsolescence where goods were engineered to break down quickly or at least, go out of style quickly in order to boost the number of sales and increase profits.
Caren Gibson
As far as testing, I think we'd have to find experts in fields like computer sciences, education, agriculture, psychology, biology, engineering and chemistry who could figure out what would be needed and designed to put together a model. And then a small test group, maybe 50 people to start. And slowly adding variables such as families with children or people with violent histories. This would mostly likely take decades and there would mostly likely need to be many in all different climates globally.
I found one group, Open Source Ecology, that is doing some design work on what they call the Global Village Construction Set. These are basic plans to building and fabricating 50 different Industrial Machines that they have isolated as be needed to build a small, sustainable civilization with modern comforts. There's the link, http://opensourceecology.org/
I think designs like this will help a lot when trying to put together a working model.
Eric Preissler
It is the widely accepted (by physicists) way civilizations advance. I see the problem that if we keep the resource plan in place there is no reason for us to push the advancement to type 1 or type 2 civilizations.
Caren Gibson
Eric Preissler
In the world of physics there are no things that are considered as fact because nothing can be proven to be 100 percent true 100 percent of the time. Even the laws of physics, we are learning, break down at certain points i.e. the discovery that subatomic particles may be able to break the speed of light. So this is just a mathematical based theory and there is really no way to test the findings besides just living out our existence.
So for the last question that is a common misconception I think. The basic idea is that no matter what we do, the pure fact of us living on this planet converts our resources to an unusable state. Entrophic means cannot be stopped and this means that no matter how well we allocate our resources eventually we will run out of natural energy, land and materials. This is just a fact of life that being alive uses resources. Eventually, no matter how long we can hold it off, we will have to expand to using star power and galactic power because these are the most robust sources of power in the universe. As much as we look fondly on our planet, the power and resources available here are basically nothing and extremely finite when looking at the solar system, not to mention a galaxy as a whole. So instead of allocating our resources and prolonging the inevitable we should be looking for the innovations that can push ouur societs to this next level.
Caren Gibson
Maybe, if in theory we say a transition to a Resource Based Economy marks the transition to a type 1 civilization. And we enter this transition with the intention and goal to be sustainable, which leads to constant improvements and innovations to how we manage our resources, then eventual it becomes widely apparent that no matter what, our planetary resources will run out, wouldn't that then mark the transition to type 2? So I guess my thoughts are that if we enter into a type 1 with the intentions of constantly making the system more efficient than that would ensure a natural state of constant progression and discourage complacence.
greg dahlen 30+
Gail . 50+
To fix Washington, you really have to go back to the original intended treaty organization that is what our government WAS. The power that Congress was supposed to have was limited. It could:
Build roads, if the purpose of them was to deliver the mail. It could establish post offices
Create a system of patents
Declare war
Make laws about the navy as well as an army that could not be a standing army because it could not be funded for more than two years.
It could make rules regarding INTERSTATE commerce and trade with other nations.
Now look at what government is doing today. It has unlimited power. How did it get that way?
First of all, Americans have been told PROVABLE lies about their own history. The written constitution was not originally ratified, and only achieved ratification with the promise of a Bill of Rights that guaranteed that federal power would never exceed stated limits. The "Federalist Papers" that you hear so much about are a FAILED argument. The Anti-Federalists won the day. (Have you even heard about the Anti-Federalist Papers?)
Look at 10th amendment. It says government can't have any power unless granted it by the constitution. But in a masterful coup d'etat, SOTUS along with Federalists overthrew the constitution and replaced it with British Common Law. It said that the 10th Amendment means that government can have EVERY power unless specifically denied it by the Constitution, and even then it can assume unconstitutional power using "implied power" (unconstitutional) + the necessary powers clause - but even then, power doesn't need to be necessary. To bypass the restriction, congress need only declare something that is unnecessary as necessary.
Ken brown 30+
Gail . 50+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Ken brown 30+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Eric Preissler
Ken brown 30+
Fritzie, would you look at my countries (New Zealands) current government and Parliament system and just from a surface look tell me what do you see? What's it look like from an external view? What's it look like from outside the bubble? If you get a spare moment.
Eric Preissler
Ken brown 30+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Eric Preissler
Ken brown 30+
Eric Preissler
george lockwood 30+
Robert Haacke
Gridlock is also a sign that we are a diverse people. What would you have them do if they did break the gridlock? What you want and what the other 300 million people in the country want are likely to be different in 300 million ways when you look at the thousands of issues that are out there. When the government makes a choice for us we are all stuck with that choice even if it goes against everything some of us believe in. Far better that all 300 million of us be free to make our own choices subject only to the restriction that we not interfere with the right of others to do the same.
Gail . 50+
When SOTUS threw out the written Constitution as the law of the land, and replaced it with an unwritten constitution (British Common Law) and overthrew the LIMITED power of government and made it UNLIMITED, the die was cast.
Now we have career politicians who use embezzlement (earmarks intended to benefit their own financial interests), insider trading (making investments based on secret decisions about what laws will come to the floor and pass), extortion (making it clear that a business' success is dependent upon campaign donations - Just ask Bill Gates), and bribery (giving campaign donors the right to write laws that benefit themselves and their businesses as well as being given biggies like IPO invitations - where stock value doubles, triples,or more upon going public - in exchange for laws helping it go public)
Now that government has unlimited power (thanks to SCOTUS) and now that politicians are in it for themselves, they merely argue about things that their donors want - the donors who essentially own the government that no longer represents people.
All the controversy is a diversion. When a politician talks about the unwritten constitution, (Brit. Common Law), s/he refers to it as "The Constitution", but s/he knows that they are lying and they know that most people THINK that they mean the WRITTEN Constitution.
As most people don't even know what the constitution says, let alone its history, this is an easy ruse, and gridlock is GOOD for politicians. It gets people worked up enough to vote