Why are people thinking Obama can magically create jobs out of this air.

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

I make it a point to disagree with Helen so when I agree with her I find it to be traumatic..the truth is I sometimes do agree.

Before you waste too much time on a reply (and I think we will agree on that one as well!) be advised psychiatry has no answer - or no answer that makes sense. A search for "destructive delusions" and "psychiatry" came up with this absolutely wonderful true story:

Quote:

Dr. John Mack, a professor of psychiatry at Harvard, came to believe in the 1990s that some of his patients had been abducted and sexually abused by extraterrestrial aliens. When his patients told him about their experience with extraterrestrials, he could think of no explanation for their story, he said, other than that it was true. "Patients with false memory syndrome" can be "remarkably plausible," Dr. McHugh observes, a trait that "draws many intelligent people to their side." That Dr. Mack could have gone through so many years of education and training and have had clinical contact with thousands of human beings, and yet be able to think of no explanation for these bizarre claims other than the truth of them, suggests a rather deadening effect upon the imagination of so much learning.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122714489697843157.html

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Fido wrote:

Not a plan... Free enterprise is not an economic system... It is economic anarchy... No body thought it out...

Many people have in fact thought it out - not all of them economists. They all seem to be in agreement regardless of their politics.
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/10/how-much-does-the-market-organization-of-economic-life-matter.html

There is some sense to having 5 or more auto manufacturers all producing for the same market accepting that there will be waste, and eventual failure for some while rushing sub standard products to market, and resisting every attempt to regulate safety and fuel economy and emissions standards into their products... There is no reason to any of it, and free enterprise means a robbed and disenfranchised people must be controlled with more and more laws... Free enterprise means an unfree people... A free people, and there have been some, have always controlled their means of production and have managed their resources to minimize stress, strife, and injustice... We settle for economic anarchy because we think we can afford it; but can we??? Can we afford the oil spills??? Can we afford the inevitable wars??? Can we afford the ups and mostly downward trends, that throw people onto the streets and causes the loss of all they have gained by hard work and good fortune??? Let's just see; because from my perspective, the greatest product of capitalism is losers, and its by product is general insecurity... Is this the great promise of Capitalism???

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Quote:
Later both Democrats and Republicans became adept at misusing powers under the voting rights act to gerrymander safe districts for themselves,

Later? Gerrymandering has a long history.

Other than the parties limiting the number of representatives to the house, which reduced representation per person, and their dividing of districts between themselves to ensure power and deny to the other party any power, the absolute worst thing done was the civil service act... With the spoils system, all politicians were held responsible for the performance of government, and with the entrenched bureaucracy, even long term senators and representatives can run against the government, and be believed... When elected officials had to bear responsibility for the failures of their appointed officials, government had to serve the electorate...

1 Reply

@High Seas,

Quote:

atching the slow descent of a fellow poster from incoherence into insanity can't be pleasant for anybody - we are agreed on that much.

As you have historically been an unpleasant trouble maker, a goader of other people, and, quite frankly, a stalker, this post must be autobiographical.

0 Replies

@Fido,

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find you point. Why are you against the old civil service act which was designed to eliminate cronyism? Do you know that testing -- foisted on the nation by the bush administration at the urging of the publishing business -- is no longer the basis of civil service?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

I'm sorry, but I can't seem to find you point. Why are you against the old civil service act which was designed to eliminate cronyism? Do you know that testing -- foisted on the nation by the bush administration at the urging of the publishing business -- is no longer the basis of civil service?

There are several reasons why government does not work as well as it once did... Parties, and their gerrymandering, parties and their cooperation to limit the number of representatives in the house, and ending the spoils system which made the bureaucracy beyond the direct control of congress and president...

Is there really any reason, for example, that we could not elect cabinate heads considering all the power they hold over bureaucrats who have no democratic authority over them???

And no... I am much more aware of historical changes which seem good on their face but which really resulted in people like J Edgar Hoover having power over presidents and congress, with neither having the ability to rein him in...With the spoils system the parties had to answer for the failures of their bureaucrats, their appointments... Allowing the elected to disconnect themselves from the actions of the government allowed them the ability to run against government, as strange as that may seem...

2 Replies

@Fido,

There should be a limit on how long a person may be in government in toto e.g. George Bush was in government in various capacities for a very long time and set up a network that is conducting a coup.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

It's amazing that High Seas actually contributed three posts without name dropping.

Still more projection from the A2K master of it.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

plainoldme wrote:

It's amazing that High Seas actually contributed three posts without name dropping.

Quote:

Still more projection from the A2K master of it.

Not in the least, Gob1. I think you might want to refresh your understanding of the word.

High Seas is pretty much the queen of name dropping here at A2K but you're pretty fair at it yourself.

Would this be, like, say, projection on your part?

1 Reply

@Fido,

Why would you want to elect cabinet members by direct vote? You elect them by electing the president who choses people he feels comfortable with and whose philosophies and work ethics he either agrees with or disagrees with strongly enough that he will put them into his cabinet in order to watch them.

The trickiest part of voting is judging how well you know the candidates. Most candidates for national office are barely known. I refrained from voting in my recent union election because I knew one candidate and none of the others. How could I vote for or against anyone of them with so little real knowledge? I would not have voted for Larry Summers, based on what I know, third hand, about him. I rather dislike Rahm Emmanuel, but I feel I know nothing of the rest of the crew and have little personal reaction to them.

1 Reply

@JTT,

How can reading a post in which no names are mentioned and noting the same be projection?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

I suspect you mean my post, as you replied to it, and there were three names mentioned in it, so I'm a bit unclear as to what you mean, POM.

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

Why would you want to elect cabinet members by direct vote? You elect them by electing the president who choses people he feels comfortable with and whose philosophies and work ethics he either agrees with or disagrees with strongly enough that he will put them into his cabinet in order to watch them.

The trickiest part of voting is judging how well you know the candidates. Most candidates for national office are barely known. I refrained from voting in my recent union election because I knew one candidate and none of the others. How could I vote for or against anyone of them with so little real knowledge? I would not have voted for Larry Summers, based on what I know, third hand, about him. I rather dislike Rahm Emmanuel, but I feel I know nothing of the rest of the crew and have little personal reaction to them.

Debs said: I'd rather vote for something, and not get it, than not vote for something and get it.... It is a question of democracy and of power.... We have many millions voting for presidents presented to us not a persons, but personalities....In fact; the presidency has much more power than originally intended, and is very much a legal dictator invested with great power, and much of it by default...

The house, which was meant to be a directly representative body has instead, by limited numbers become an unrepresentative body... The districts are deliberately divided... It is not just a question of us not knowing them, but of them not knowing us, and of them not sharing our concerns and problems... Huge districts divided on purpose give cover for the representative... He can claim principals even if it is obvious it is money...

We could have smaller districts without any more people working in the house... We could have districts where it was possible to know the people who send the representatives... It would not be a sellers market, but it might be possible for people to go there with 90% of their district behind them, and for them to state clearly who they represented and for what task they we sent... And they would know, that if they did not serve their masters that they would lose their jobs no matter what they spent to baffle and bullshit the electorate... And because they would be so numerous, there is a chance that their virtue might be worth more than they could possibly be offered... The house limited its numbers to increase its power propertionately to the Senate... In fact, if they went as an army, all with the purpose of serving their constituents, it is possible the Senate would not raise a voice against them... Because their districts are all divided they are all the prisoners of their parties...The machine owns them before they ever get elected...

Nothing is preferable to a direct democracy... What the house has lost in power by the limit on their numbers and their resulting corruption the presidency has gained...If we wanted to make the government we have work, and that is impossible, then returning the house to the originally intended ratio of representatives to citizens would help... The Senate is always going to be anti democratic... The parties are anti democratic, and the Supreme Court in anti democratic... Our only hope was, and is, a house that does not divide us, and use our division to do as it pleases, but is truely representative of the people and of our needs... People can know, and represent 30K... They cannot know, and cannot possibly represent divided districts of over 600K...

1 Reply

@Fido,

There are two statements in your response that don't make sense.

Quote:

We could have smaller districts without any more people working in the house

That sounds like it isn't tethered in reality. The size of the house was limited just about a century ago. There is no way we could limit the "size" of the body represented without adding members to the House, which hasn't been done in a century.

Quote:

It would not be a sellers market, but it might be possible for people to go there with 90% of their district behind them, and for them to state clearly who they represented and for what task they we sent

What does "90% of their district behind them" mean? Are you suggesting that 90% of the people would voice their approval of a representative?

Are you suggesting that people are consistent within themselves about their beliefs? That each person is a total liberal or total conservative? That the issues themselves are somehow monolithic, that only liberals or conservatives would be able to support a solution to a problem?

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

plainoldme wrote:

There are two statements in your response that don't make sense.

Quote:
We could have smaller districts without any more people working in the house

That sounds like it isn't tethered in reality. The size of the house was limited just about a century ago. There is no way we could limit the "size" of the body represented without adding members to the House, which hasn't been done in a century.

Quote:
It would not be a sellers market, but it might be possible for people to go there with 90% of their district behind them, and for them to state clearly who they represented and for what task they we sent

What does "90% of their district behind them" mean? Are you suggesting that 90% of the people would voice their approval of a representative?

Are you suggesting that people are consistent within themselves about their beliefs? That each person is a total liberal or total conservative? That the issues themselves are somehow monolithic, that only liberals or conservatives would be able to support a solution to a problem?

The size of the house was limited on several occasions to make the house manageable... What has managability to do with government??? Do you want a managed government??? Managed by who??? The party bosses???

The house has many employees who actually run things, aids, attorneys, advisors, not to mention lobbyists... If every district sent numbers at the original ratio to the house, I doubt there would be more people there than now collecting a paycheck, but there would be a need for a larger house...
I am not saying people are consitently anything, but rather, that in a small district concerns are likely to be the same among neighbors, but that large districts are deliberately divided to twart or frustrate large segments of the population and to keep them from having the representative of their choice year after year... It is anti democratic no matter who does it...Better to have reps with less individual power and have the people in smaller groups having a sure vote on every issue... At a bare minimum; if a huge district is sending one rep with a majority of 55% to 45% of voters, then there could well be two reps, one for each group, and why not??? Let the conservatives have their voice and the liberals have their voice and let reason prevail...These people sent by fixed elections to the house are not messengers of reason... There is nothing reasonable about it...

Government should be the place where our differences are resolved, and instead government has become the place where our differences are amplified, and it is impossible for us from our divided districts to resolve our differences with a vote... And I do not care that they get their reps and we get ours... That is the whole idea, for everyone to be represented; all sides... All this working through the parties to reach government, and the parties dividing the soicety is not working to the benefit of anyone in America, and the frustration and pain is as real on both sides... Time to reform this nation, and write a new constitution... What would you want to see in it???

And yes; I do actually believe people are pretty consistent in their beliefs which makes them nearly impossible to change, and still government must work for them or they only become less open to change, more intractable...

And it think it would be impossible to cut a sizable number of districts of 30k divided by parties into rough halves... You must understand that parity as it is with many districts safe for one party are bought by giving some districts away to the other party with over whelming support for the opposition party... Some cities are abandoned to the democrats so other districts can be made safe for the republicans... We are managed by them, and the courts which are party creatures sanction it....

1 Reply

@talk72000,

George Bush spent 8 years as POTUS.
Before that he was the governor of Texas.

And exactly what network did he set up and what coup are they conducting now?

1 Reply

@Fido,

Quote:

I am not saying people are consitently anything, but rather, that in a small district concerns are likely to be the same among neighbors

Then how do you explain signs supporting an incumbent governor on the lawn of the house next door to the one sporting a sign for the Tea Totalitarian challenger?

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

bush was the handpicked candidate of his party. He served as governor for a term and a half, which is hardly experience in my book. I frankly prefer that presidents come from the Senate where they actually have experience with law.

2 Replies

@plainoldme,

Because everyone has the right to their own opinions about who to vote for.

1 Reply

@plainoldme,

I am not denying that.
However, if you had read the comment that I was responding to, you would have understood the context of my remark.

1 Reply

Why are people thinking Obama can magically create jobs out of this air.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know