Occupy movement - I'm in the 100%

[flyingtnh]

Quote:
On the contrary, based upon the records of their discussions I think they completely envisioned this happening, but hoped extraordinary people of character would prevent those nightmares from coming true.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
Exactly. Get rid of lobbyists but giving them no one to lobby to. With todays tech the need for reps is no longer there anyway.

 

[Royd]

I have WHAT in my yard? :

Just for laughs:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/ Watch the Judge Napolitano interview.

That's me and Royd arguing!! LOL!!!

Thanks. That was fun. Which one am I?

 

[chickened]

If you all want the country ran like a business then vote in business men (Herman Cain) if you want a social leaning mamby pamby softie feel good society where nobody gets thier feelings hurt and everyone is equal socially and economically then vote in a community organizer... oh wait we did that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quote:
I have a bit of a different spin on it. Originally, the house was to be elected every two years, in mass, to keep them close to the electorate. They were to be balanced by the Senate where 1/3 gained their office every two years but each served a six year sentence. I'm not sure of the exact details, but I believe it was initially set up where the individual States could decide how the Senators got their job. I'm sure many were initially appointed by the State government, not popularly elected.

I believe the intent of this was to insulate the Senators from the tyranny of the electorate. The Representatives had to be constantly running for reelection so had to pay real close attention to whatever fads and trends were currently being stirred up by the demagogues, but it kept them in touch with the people. I believe that is why all money issues are supposed to be initiated by the House, which are more directly and regularly answerable to the people.

The Senate, on the other hand, had some protection from mob rule and held office long enough to be more deliberative and statesmanlike. They were the ones tasked with ratifying treaties, which requires a different expertise. Sometimes it takes some time to understand the complexities and ramifications of those treaties. It may not always be popular. You want cool heads in charge, not a hothead that might start a war.

That kind of explains the Senate filibuster rule. It takes 60 Senators to agree to take up a bill, to further insulate them from the tyranny of the electorate. It takes a real majority of Senators instead of a group that got swept into office in one election taking over everything.

Also, the original intent was that the electorate be made up of responsible people, at the time envisioned to be male property holders. The idea that the unwashed masses might control who went into office horrified some of the founding fathers. We really did not gain that control until Andrew Jackson.

Just my spin on it.

 

[Capvin]

Given that choice I will vote for mamby pamby, softie feel good and just continue to order my pizza to be delivered.

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
I have a bit of a different spin on it. Originally, the house was to be elected every two years, in mass, to keep them close to the electorate. They were to be balanced by the Senate where 1/3 gained their office every two years but each served a six year sentence. I'm not sure of the exact details, but I believe it was initially set up where the individual States could decide how the Senators got their job. I'm sure many were initially appointed by the State government, not popularly elected.

I believe the intent of this was to insulate the Senators from the tyranny of the electorate. The Representatives had to be constantly running for reelection so had to pay real close attention to whatever fads and trends were currently being stirred up by the demagogues, but it kept them in touch with the people. I believe that is why all money issues are supposed to be initiated by the House, which are more directly and regularly answerable to the people.

The Senate, on the other hand, had some protection from mob rule and held office long enough to be more deliberative and statesmanlike. They were the ones tasked with ratifying treaties, which requires a different expertise. Sometimes it takes some time to understand the complexities and ramifications of those treaties. It may not always be popular. You want cool heads in charge, not a hothead that might start a war.

That kind of explains the Senate filibuster rule. It takes 60 Senators to agree to take up a bill, to further insulate them from the tyranny of the electorate. It takes a real majority of Senators instead of a group that got swept into office in one election taking over everything.

Also, the original intent was that the electorate be made up of responsible people, at the time envisioned to be male property holders. The idea that the unwashed masses might control who went into office horrified some of the founding fathers. We really did not gain that control until Andrew Jackson.

Just my spin on it.

That all may be true. I would be happy to see the house replaced with a national vote even if the senate was kept intact.

I do think to make a law, it should take 75% vote at both places + the presidential seal. An only require a 50% vote at ether place to repeal a law.

If you cant get 75% its a bad law. An if 50% thinks an old law is bad then it is.

 

[Capvin]

Royd....I think that I understand most of your viewpoints except for the statement you made about community organizers getting the largest piece of the pie. Would like to know what context you meant that and what view you were trying to get across. The most famouns of the community organizers were and are:

Cesar Chavez..........farmers and labor; Lois Gibbs...........Health and environment; Huey Newton............Black Panthers; Mother Jones.............Irish Labor; Martin Luther King; Ralph Nader; Barak Obama;

Paul Wellstone..........Farmers and US Senate. Did these people get "a large piece of the pie"???

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

I also dont think diplomats should be able to make law by signing agreements with other nations. Those laws should have to be passed like the others before the diplomat can sign.

 

[I have WHAT in my yard?]

FourPawz let me address the housing bubble specifically,

I agree with many of your suggestions with this caveat. For years, the federal reserve, beginning with Alan Greenspan, has artificially kept interest rates low to prop up the economy. In the case of the banking crisis, had government not insisted banks scrap the rule of only lending to those with the ability to put 20% down on the purchase of a home, with a high credit rating, your suggestion that government has been "used by business" might be plausible. However, do we not all agree that, beginning with the Bush administration, there has been a radical change in how real estate has been approached? I have vivid memories of George W Bush telling the country that "everyone deserves to own their own home". No, Mr Bush, they do not. Recent events have proven how wrong you were.

Congress passed bills that forced financial institutions to make "no money down" loans to people who could not pay them back, specifically a bill brought to congress by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. The first government bailout forced Bank of America to take over Countrywide and its worthless mortgages. No bank would have touched Countrywide on its own. Our government insisted the banks take actions that no business person in his right mind would make.

Reality has shown that selling homes to unqualified buyers has brought our economy nothing but catastrophe.

To say that these bills and mortgages caused the financial melt down is to have missed most of the point. Mortgages (any sort) were like the tires on this so called economic engine. They were neither the engine nor the gasoline that made the engine go. They were merely the thing that let it keep rolling. It was clear from the beginning that most of these would go flat, but it was not the government that got the banks making these bad mortgages. The govt said make a small percentages of high risk mortgages in your neighborhoods. The percentage was based on an expectation of total loss. Ie your bank can make these mortgages as practically a donation. But banks found out the mortgages lbeled sub prime were actully good business. Initially most were paid.

It did start when the government said you need to make mortgages to low income people, and Fannie and Freddie were originally government entities, non profits with a goal. But somewhere along the line we got the great idea that we could privatize these entities and they would make money. Now you're talking! Private gain but the government guarantees the debts. So no reason to not gamble.

But it didn't get really rolling until they were allowed to crete creative financial instruments known as things like Collateralized Debt Obligations and credit default swaps that we got in trouble. Then the "instrument" was so far removed from the original "debt" that there was no reason whatsoever to care. If I can write a bad mortgage and then sell it fifteen times I don't care if the original mortgage goes bad. If I simply have to pay the raters to rate this lousy debt as AAA then sell it to pension funds I don't care what is fermenting at the bottom. There was massive fraud which the FBI warned of in 2007 and said this will cause a crash. There were lots of people who called the alarm especially in 2007. Look up Brooksley Born. They were all shut up by free market acolytes who kept insisting that the free market would correct itself. They refued tor ecognize that the market was not free if the law was not being obeyed.​