Welcome to PatsFans.com

The Biggest Problems with American Government

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by maverick4, Feb 13, 2007.

  1. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    Before we start bombing the entire world to submit to a form of government we think is obviously the best, why don't we fix our own problems first? The three biggest problems with our government:

    1. Media propaganda. The media is completely skewed and is basically a propaganda tool to convince the masses what to think or what action to take. Besides being a propaganda tool, the media pushes for ratings instead of content. This is how Anna Nicole Smith becomes front page news, while the Scooter Libby disaster gets pushed back and un-noticed.

    2. Machiavellian politics. Machiavelli's most unique contribution was the idea of separating politics from ethics. In my opinion, this has corrupted democracy. Politicians say whatever they want to get elected, it has nothing to do with what they may end up doing in office, and our leaders today are guided more by political donors, power, and politics, than by doing what is right or for the people.

    3. Lobbying groups. It is a complete joke that special interest groups get to influence members of Congress, and now recently members of the Executive Branch. Get them out of there. This ties in with campaign funding as well - do not allow politicians to be indirectly bribed.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2007
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,871
    Likes Received:
    277
    Ratings:
    +733 / 17 / -19

    #24 Jersey

    'Ain't that the truth about Smith. I guess people watch but I don't give a crap about here one way or another.

    We have too many politicians, there's not enough real stuff to do so they overeach on crap. We should have no professional politicians. Running for office should be a one time thing that you do to serve your country, not an occupation. If politicians weren't concerned about being re-elected they wouldn't be concerned about "bringing home the bacon".
     
  3. Fixit

    Fixit In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +263 / 3 / -3

    "Here's what I want you to do: think about your job. Chances are good that you're working right now; nice one on you. Now, think about what you had to do to get that job. If nepotism comes to mind, I'm not talking to you. Otherwise, chances are that you had to meet several requirements to even be considered for your job. Education, experience, test scores, certifications, whatever. Personally, I had to have at least a Bachelor's and several years of relevant work experience before I could get an interview.

    Now, take a gander at these qualifications:
    --->be a natural born citizen of the united States
    --->be at least 35 years old
    --->have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years


    Pretty stringent, huh? Those are the minimum qualifications to be President of the United States. Read that last sentence again. And while we're at it:

    House:

    --->Must be 25 years of age (when seated, not when elected).
    --->Must have been a citizen of the United States for 7 years.
    --->Must be an inhabitant of the state from which elected.


    Senate:

    --->Must be 30 years of age (when seated, not when elected).
    --->Must have been a citizen of the United States for 9 years.
    --->Must be an inhabitant of the state from which elected.


    Let's put it this way: I'm not qualified to teach pre-school or drive a limo, but I'm over-qualified to serve in the House of Representatives and have a direct say in which direction the country is run. No knowledge of civics or history, no leadership training, no military experience required, no conflict resolution training...nothing. The only real world pre-requisites:

    --->Money, and lots of it
    --->Enough charisma/influence to make people think you actually give a **** about them and their problems

    Which brings us to why our political system is broken, possibly beyond repair. I could, and have, gone on and on about the evils of the two-party system, but that's not the real problem. The real problem is this: our decision-makers, with few exceptions, are dangerously unqualified to make nation-changing decisions, or to respond in a timely manner to a real catastrophe.

    So, we have a building full of people whose sole qualification to lead us, as well as make decisions that affect us and every generation hereafter, is where and when their parents got it on."
     
  4. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    I agree. There should be term limits for members of Congress under the current system. Or, eliminate all the dirty money that corrupts people from doing their job.
     
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,370
    Likes Received:
    307
    Ratings:
    +838 / 7 / -3

    The problem with American government, is that it's filled with Americans. :D
     
  6. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I don't think there's any government solution to the media problem. The media is independent, that means they're free to report on whatever they want, and that's fine by me. If they report on Anna Nicole Smith, it's because people want to see it.
     
  7. scout

    scout Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,722
    Likes Received:
    30
    Ratings:
    +50 / 0 / -2

    #15 Jersey

    Those requirements work fine. We don't need to add anything to that, it more likely would become a disaster if our congress even tried. Additionally, some requirements to jobs are restrictive and the company ends up not getting the best candidate. I have a bachelors and my friend does not. I would hire my friend over litterly thousands of applicants who have bachelors, masters or doctorates.

    I think the worst part of our system is the lobbyists. In how many cases are their intentions in the best interest of the general public?
     
  8. Fixit

    Fixit In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +263 / 3 / -3

    Let's just agree to strongly disagree on this. I'm willing to bet that what your friend lacks in education he makes up for in experience.

    There's no internship program, no entry level, in Congress or the White House. You convince enough people to vote for you and you have the power from day one.
     
  9. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    What's your solution, to reduce the pool of candidates by have someone pass a test before they're eligible to run for congress?
     
  10. mr3putt

    mr3putt 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,524
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Like the Pro Bowl? ;)
     
  11. Fixit

    Fixit In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +263 / 3 / -3

    Nothing as simple as a test. Rather, a political certification course, just like law school or med school. Foreign relations, leadership, military history...you know, the knowledge a country's leaders should possess.

    And a mandatory 2-year enlistment in the military branch of your choice, for perspective.
     
  12. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    That's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. What if I want my elected representitive to be a teacher for a few years, just to gain perspective? Or a firefighter? Maybe they should all go to law school first? No, let each voter decide what's important to them. Your idea sounds a lot like Iran, where candidates are vetted by a commitee before being allowed to run for office. Maybe a voluntary certification could be nice (candidates that don't do it would have a diadvantage with voters who care about such things), but it's the right of the electorate to be ruled by people who represent them, and the electorate would be rightly pissed if someone they supported weren't allowed to run because they failed someone else's test.

    Qualifications aren't the issue, a "certified" representitive can still make bad decisions.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2007
  13. Fixit

    Fixit In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +263 / 3 / -3

    Non-qualified personnel ain't exactly setting the political world on fire. Hey, certified lawyers can still make bad decisions, so let's make law degrees voluntary.

    My other idea is no private campaign funding, but I bet you'll hate that one, too.

    Edited to add that a lot of people are rightly pissed that people they support can't run because they aren't millionaires.
     
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2007
  14. gomezcat

    gomezcat It's SIR Moderator to you Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    3,546
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    What can I say? You have truly seen the light! :D
     
  15. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    So you're talking about replacing democracy with a system of arbitrary qualifications. Gotcha.
     
  16. Fixit

    Fixit In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +263 / 3 / -3

    So what is it now? The only qualification is money, and it doesn't get more arbitrary than that. And it shows no actual commitment to office, either.

    Having to go to school for it might separate the wheat from the chaff.
     
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Now we have a system called a Republic, where we have representitives elected by the people. Their qualifications don't matter, if the people want to elect a moron because he best represents him, than that might be in their interest and they should be allowed to do it.

    Personally, if I could vote for someone who was honest but didn't know jack about governmetn, I would. They'd learn about government soon enough, but there's no test for honesty.
     
  18. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,662
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    It's almost impossible for an honest man to win nowadays. Today's politicians lie and say whatever they can and smear as much as they can to get elected. There is a separation of politics and ethics in our leaders.
     
  19. Fixit

    Fixit In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2006
    Messages:
    4,831
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +263 / 3 / -3

    True.

    I suppose the root problem is the idiocy of the average American voter.
     
  20. Pujo

    Pujo Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    No doubt about it, I just don't want any solutions that are worse than the problem. Like Churchill said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>