Are we ready to change the system?

[jtabeb]

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot...ge-system.html


30 January 2009

Are We Ready to Change the System?


It is time to begin serious, and significant, systemic reforms in the banking system.

Maintaining the status quo will be fruitless because the system is broken. Trying to keep it from becoming 'more broken' is a nice short term fix, but we are beyond that now.
...
Stop selling this country short for the sake of 'competitiveness' and a perverted image of the "American Dream." If the Founding Fathers came back they would not be able to stop throwing up at what we now call 'freedom' and what we have done with their legacy for which they pledged their lives and sacred honor.

Too radical? Then you're not ready yet for the changes that are required to end this cycle of boom, loot and bust.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I say amen brother! Let's get to work!

[we_are_toast]

Re: Are we ready to change the system?

Very nice.

But Jesse isn't at the root yet. Until the politicians are beholding to the voters, and the voters only, it doesn't matter how good your ideas are.

Have to start at money and politics, then the battle of ideas can begin.

[Starving Steve]

Re: Are we ready to change the system?

Twice in my lifetime, during LBJ in the mid-'60s and during Bush in recent years, I have witnessed the American government reach an impass over issues of the day.

First in my lifetime, I witnessed the American government deadlock over Vietnam. And second in my lifetime, I witnessed the American government deadlock over the conduct of the War on Terror.

The suggestion that I have to make is that when the government of the day is unpopular, the Congress should take a no-confidence vote in the government and re-select the President and V.P. until an election can be held nationwide.

The nation seems to drift for up to four years in deadlock. And the Congress needs to be able to govern, regardless. This means that the Constitution now requires amendments.

And so my question: Why for the sake of stability, do the Americans keep unpopular governments of the day in power? Would Americans amend their Constitution and change their arachic system to make their government much more democratic and like the rest of the industrial democracies?

Would the Americans introduce a vote of no-confidence vote amendment to their constitution; such a provision would allow the voters to go to the polls and re-vote candidates back to office on the issues of the day?

[labasta]

Re: Are we ready to change the system?

Would it be practical or realistic to ban lobbying?

[tsetsefly]

Re: Are we ready to change the system?

Oh no, we cannot let honest people be limited in acquiring enormous wealth. Well, there probably aren't many completely honest people pulling down over 30 million per year in income. The criminal prosecution system is also horribly compromised, and we can fix it AFTER we stop the looting, and then the rules can be relaxed.

:rolleyes: , not many completely honest people pulling down over 30 million a year???:rolleyes:

This seems more like a rant againt wealthy people.

THe real reform we need is to strip government of its power to decide who will be winners and losers...

[jtabeb]

Re: Are we ready to change the system?

:rolleyes: , not many completely honest people pulling down over 30 million a year???:rolleyes:

This seems more like a rant againt wealthy people.

THe real reform we need is to strip government of its power to decide who will be winners and losers...

Reform or it all crashes (ashes, ashes, we all fall down!) Choice is simple, but people in power don't seem to be willing to make the choice.

[Ghent12]

Re: Are we ready to change the system?

Would it be practical or realistic to ban lobbying?

I don't know enough about finances, but I like to think I know a bit about politics.

The answer is no, it would be both impractical and unrealistic to ban lobbying. The ultimate lobbyist is a Congressman's constituent calling or writing, but where can one effectively draw the line between "special interests" and citizens? Besides, if professional lobbying becomes illegal, the lobbyists will resort to shepherding the sheeple--er, voters that elect the legislator they want influenced.

The only true solution would be to elect men and women with integrity.

[Rajiv]

Re: Are we ready to change the system?

The 1950s and the 1960s are considered the most prosperous era in US history.

The World was on the Bretton Woods gold standard, and internally the US was on a silver standard (coinage was silver.)

In 1964, Johnson took the US off the silver standard (to pay for the Vietnam War) and it snowballed from there -- It turned into an avalanche in 1972 when Nixon defaulted on the Bretton Woods agreement (though the avalanche was still at the top of the mountain) Today it has reached the base of the mountain, and the town is threatened with oblivion.

That said, in the 1950's, and till 1963, the toptax baracket was 91%

In 1963, the 91% level kicked in at an income of $400,000, and the 35% bracket started at$20,000 and the minimum tax rate was 20%

If we assume Shadowstats CPI figures, that corresponds to $10,000,000 and $500,000 respectively

Social Security Contributions increased from 3% to 7% during this time -- being charged on the lowest $3000 (went upto $4,800 by 1963)

It should also be noted that during this period, and till the 1970s, the ratio of the average CEO to the average worker in the same industry was roughly 25:1 By 1990 it had gone upto 100:1

Today, I believe the figure is close to 500:1

[vinoveri]

Re: Are we ready to change the system?

Reform or it all crashes (ashes, ashes, we all fall down!) Choice is simple, but people in power don't seem to be willing to make the choice.

jtabeb, the marx to morpheus metamorphosis is much for my meandering myopic and midget mentality to mull. (what up, Cool?)

[johnw106]

Re: Are we ready to change the system?

I have seen it mentioned several times that the last people you want in charge of a capitalist system are capitalists. Unfettered greed seems to be the issue.
The Reagan trickle down economic theory is a good example. It would work except for one glaring flaw. The people at the top are unwilling to let go of the trickle. Much the same can be said for supply side economics.
When the CEO's and CFO's of a company are making 50 to 100 times the earnings of the poor smuck pushing the broom on the factory floor sooner or later the system collapses.

Henry Ford knew this very well. He understood that his workers needed to make good wages so that the the workers could afford to buy the product he wanted to sell. On the flip side of this we have the out of control unions. What were once champions of the working class lobbying for safe factorys to work in and shorter hours at better wages have morphed into political machines that have only their own power and position in mind, often at the expense of the very workers they are supposed to represent.

So we are left with the question. Who or what has the power to keep the capitalists in check without snuffing the flame of risk taking and investment for a profit? Who or what can control the unions so that they do not destroy the very industrys that employ the workers who pay the dues?

Many people are against socialist policys. But there are just as many against capitalism. It would seem to me that a way could be found to take the best ideas from both worlds and combine them for the good of the people and the nation.
One thing is for certain. If we do not change our banking system and encourage people to save our economy is doomed to failure. Only a strong savings base can sustain capital with wich to invest in production of goods. Once we move back to a model of producing more than we consume we may once again begin to live the American dream instead of the nightmare of perpetual debt induced by the easy credit mentality propogated by the feds and mainstream media.

[politicalfootballfan]

Re: Are we ready to change the system?

----nm----

[jtabeb]

Re: Are we ready to change the system?

It would seem to me that a way could be found to take the best ideas from both worlds and combine them for the good of the people and the nation.

That is heresy in our dogma driven world, unfortunately you are 100% correct that SYNERGY is the only solution that will work.

The best of EVERYTHING, not merely the best and the worst of ONE thing.

We have to adopt the best answers and solutions from what ever source will provide them. Either Dogma must die, or we all will as a society.

FYI it works in forming your own understanding of the wonders of the world too. Too many things missed by this method or that ideology, to see it in totality requires the ability to view from the vantage post of Einstein's "global observer". To reach that commanding height REQUIRES a multi-dimensional and multi-discplined approach.

That's the only way this works. We are out of time, and no longer able to apply a band-aid to tide us over. We either get it right, or else. Simple as that.

[jtabeb]

Re: Are we ready to change the system?

jtabeb, the marx to morpheus metamorphosis is much for my meandering myopic and midget mentality to mull. (what up, Cool?)

Better fit as pointed out by a fellow ituliper. (thanks) I'm not a marxist, or a socialist, or a fiat capitalist. Just trying to see how far down this "rabbit hole" goes.

BadJuju Senior iTuliper

Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Tennessee Posts: 122

Re: Fire Economy De-programming Toolkit

---

Quote:

Originally Posted by jtabeb You have to let it and yourself go. It is the only way that it, and you, can make the leap necessary to see things how they are vs. seeing things the way that others want you to see them. (In my personal experience, anyway.)

jtabeb is Morpheus?! :eek:




BTW who paved this rabbit hole with gold bricks?;)

http://www.nowandfutures.com/grins/g...brick_road.mp3

[World Traveler]

Publicly funded elections

I think we will only have truly representative government when we have publicly funded elections and commercial (money-making) TV, radio stations, and print media that take political ads are told they must give a specified amount of equal time to each major candidate running for federal office.

Right now, politicians are in a bind. They must raise huge sums of money to run for office, particularly at the federal level. To pay for TV ads, campaign staffers, etc.

So the rich (persons, corporations, financial firms, etc) end up owning the politicians. And we have a federal government that legislates and issues executive orders that, time after time, are clearly against the best interests of the majority of the American people.

There of course be a lot of kinks to work out (how to handle state and local elections, etc.), but starting at the federal level would be a step in the right direction and could have an immediate impact.

Other countries do it, why can't the U.S.?

P.S. I don't expect to see it soon, the special interests would howl and raise a major ruckus before giving up their power.

[jtabeb]

Re: Publicly funded elections

I think we will only have truly representative government when we have publicly funded elections and commercial (money-making) TV, radio stations, and print media that take political ads are told they must give a specified amount of equal time to each major candidate running for federal office.

Absolutely YES.

If not, well you know who Hitler is and how he came to power right?