Continuation of Check Your Perspective…
The Echo-Chamber is What Has Changed.
Those people are still available for us to consult today, what is different is the growth of the availability and widely-available echo-chamber that is now immersive. It also appears to be where people want to be. That is very, very disquieting. If we lose that part of us in American society is means we are on our way down as a society… and it will only get worse form here. If we can revive this it in America, I think then we will have the proper framework to address the immense number of problems we obviously face in modern society. I don’t say that to imply there is something the government should do about it. If society will deal with problems on its own, the government should stay away. If society does not address an obvious problem, then the Government should step in and do something.
It is almost always better if society identifies and addresses the problem rather than government. But I think if a long and easily identified problem is left alone by society for a long time, the Government must step in and do the job. I just don’t see the argument that, no matter the problem, government should just let society solve it. Essentially let social Darwinism happen and the fittest will survive. We are closer to that result than we ever have been and must be vigilant to avoid regressing as a society.
Making men & women equal is a farce and no one really is seeking such a Utopia, What needs to be equal is the opportunity for all men and women, no matter where they came from and that means Equal Educational Opportunity (also known as good schools). We know that the current educational system is not working for our students, especially those low on the socioeconomic scale. This will take a radical solution but is there a more important investment in our future we can make? Genius comes from anywhere but the rest is environmental. And to say everyone has a public school is not educational equality.
There are always those that are more competent than the rest and can use the superior competence to get ahead. The wealthy will always take advantage of the poor and always have. Warren Buffett said: “Class warfare is long over. And my class won.” He then points out his secretary pays double the taxes based on percentage of her gross income than he does makes no sense and is not fair. She pays nearly 30% of her gross income while he pays roughly 15% because it is all “capital gains” income, not “regular” income. Recall Mitt Romney paid 14.3% of income of $14 Million because it was investment income and taxed at ½ of most regular income. This is indefensible. We can carve out exceptions for our homes, but all investment money is simply crazy because there is no data it will lead to reduced investments. Will wealthy people suddenly use their mattresses? Of course not.
Money In Politics Has Ruined The Republic for “We the People…”
That is completely wrong and should be fixed but even though the majority of Americans agree with that, it will never get done because of donor’s. The wealthy – in this case just 2 people – won’t do as they did this year and pledge to spend $900 Million in a single election-cycle if they think that will get them taxed more. Taxes and the amount of regulation, if any, the big businesses they own and/or run is essentially what mostly where the Campaign and PAC donations are intended to and actually do influence. What else would they be paying for?
Is there a SuperPAC spending nearly a Billion dollars to essentially buy loyalty from our elected officials on behalf of the majority of regular Americans Citizens like us? Of course there’s not. So who wins in a game such as this is clear: who has the most money? I am talking about what big business pays elected leaders in campaign donations, Leadership PACs, and SuperPACs for. This is to be distinguished from which political campaign has the most money. Especially when they all have insane amounts of money. And we suffer with endless advertising that is based on making us decide with no real thought or effort. Until this basic problem is fixed the power will remain with the donor’s and those with money to influence the powerful rather than with the people alone. No one can argue with a straight face this is true now.
What is the R0le of Government?
I submit there has to be a role for the government, the debate should be based on what should that role be that they play, not whether they play at all. It is simple to say there is no role for government at all… which happens to be the decision at the center of the fracture of the Republican Party. They attempt the same old agenda that has been their platform for decades and the majority of voters identifying themselves as republicans are regularly rejecting. Common sense says looks at the debt and you automatically know you cannot grow your way out of that with tax cuts and the Government needs more revenue. There is 20 years of evidence to review on the issue and it appears overwhelming.
Part of the Republican Party refuses any compromise, which I think is a big problem in politics — like a deal-breaking problem — since Our Constitution constructed our Republic to be a shared power government. Shared between the intentionally built Three Branches of government based on separation of powers it is literally built for negotiation and has since our Republic was born. No compromise, no government – which is what we essentially have now. Congress has admitted it won’t do even what the Constitution says they must do, and the record is clear. Can you name anything the last Congress has passed, ANY meaningful legislation at all? There is another part of the Republican Party that knows they need to compromise is essential and government is ineffective without it. That getting some of what you want in exchange for giving a little on another issue – that is the nature of any negotiation. How this is settled will be interesting.
Most of my cases I worked on as a lawyer settled, and in nearly every settlement we didn’t get everything we wanted, but neither did the other side. If one side comes in thinking we will not move at all from our initial position (in other words “unless I get what I want” I am not agreeing to anything), there is no negotiation and nothing gets done (i.e. the status quo). The unwillingness to get even most of what you want because you are not willing to give even an inch on any other issues. This isn’t because they think it is the best decision for their constituents but to protect their donor class. This is true with both parties.
One thing everyone should agree on is that what Government we have should be effective. It should adapt to a much faster society to get things done in a far more responsive fashion (we’ve had an immigration problem for decades…?). The focus must be good government, not on the size but how effective it is at what it does. We all should also agree to get rid of what doesn’t work. It’s not that difficult to find waste and abuse and we should spend much more on the part of government that finds and reveals those problems and on what prevents governmental corruption itself. Let’s find and supplement what does work, and keep working at better, more efficient and effective solutions all the time.