Has our Government become Dysfunctional?

[JakeStarkey]

A reminder: losing elections is not victimization.

My point is that constitutional limits on government power amount to an assurance that losing election will not lead to victimization. As those assurances are minimized or done away with, the threat of victimization increases.

Victimization, iow, because your side lost on what you consider are the limitations of government.

Stop whining.

 

[dblack]

A reminder: losing elections is not victimization.

My point is that constitutional limits on government power amount to an assurance that losing election will not lead to victimization. As those assurances are minimized or done away with, the threat of victimization increases.

Victimization, iow

Strawman, iow. I can see why you want to avoid the actual point and play your usual chickenshit games, but it remains.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reposted correctly.

Victimization, iow, because your side lost on what you consider are the limitations of government.

I was on the losing side. We lost but true Republicans and Americans don't whine. Stop whining.

 

[dblack]

Reposted correctly.

Victimization, iow, because your side lost on what you consider are the limitations of government.

I was on the losing side. We lost but true Republicans and Americans don't whine. Stop whining.

Still a strawman. That's all you got, idn't it?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I and asked questions and provided my thoughts, your problem is you cannot calmly & minus acrimony, discuss anything without getting snarky if folks don't agree with you.....



you seem to be in 'fractured ego' mode, seek help...oh and I cut and run to enjoy my pool and the sun for several hours, sorry I didn't check in....


well, not really

Thank you for sharing your pop psychological evaluation of my motives. The fact that you're still stuck on partisan politics notwithstanding. My ego is fine, I know I don't have the answers, I also know you aren't capable of even understanding the issues.

wry, you make me laugh.
Irony runs as thick as your head is.
There is not many, if any, that are more partisan on this board than you are. just an observation

I'm glad I humor you. Being assertive is not necessarily partisan. I simply don't like greedy, callous and self righteous people. Period. The far right seems to be populated by that set, people who are selfish; the Randians for example.

I like pragmatic problem solving, not 'solutions' based on a single ideology or emotion.

I know I don't have all the answers, but I do think about and consider - as best as I can - an issue before commenting. This thread is an example, IMO our government has become paralyzed by partisanship and is dysfunctional and I offered three ideas which I believe may return sanity to governance.

None of them will be adopted, at least in my lifetime simply because The Congress is dysfunctional. Does anyone not agree with that assessment?

Much ado on this board occurred when Obama commented about his greater flexibility to the Russian President after his reelection. Such a comment wouldn't be necessary if the president served one term only.

The Supreme Court was conceived in the 18th Century when the life expectancy for a 40 year old male was only 27 more years. The founders likely didn't consider Justices serving more than 20 years in this lifetime appointment or serving well into their 80's.

Greater ado existed on the amount of the debt and deficit spending. The Sequester ring a bell? Had Obama the ability to exercise the blue pencil:

Calitics:: The Governor's Blue Pencil

He could have made a statement on his priorities and given the Congress the ability to debate such cuts and restore those a super-majority felt deserving. We the people would then see who was the spender and who was being fiscally responsible.

So, these are my thoughts and I still remain interested in the thoughts of others, though it seems too many on both sides of the aisle are too busy complaining to actually think.

 

[dblack]

I like pragmatic problem solving, not 'solutions' based on a single ideology or emotion.

I prefer pragmatic problem solving as well. But before that matters, we need agreement on which problems to solve. In particular, in the context of the thread, we need agreement on which problems government should solve - which is an issue fundamentally informed by ideology. Not sure how we can avoid it.

 

[rightwinger]

Kill the Senate Filibuster

 

[Wry Catcher]

I like pragmatic problem solving, not 'solutions' based on a single ideology or emotion.

I prefer pragmatic problem solving as well. But before that matters, we need agreement on which problems to solve. In particular, in the context of the thread, we need agreement on which problems government should solve - which is an issue fundamentally informed by ideology. Not sure how we can avoid it.

A very thoughtful post, thanks.

Myriad problems face our nation today, trying to define and solve anyone of them has become nearly impossible. I suppose the first and most pressing problem of the day is:

Q. Is government dysfunctional?

A. Yes

Q. Why

A. Pending

I offered possible remedy's in the OP and followed up with some reasoning in the post above dblack's.

 

[dblack]

I like pragmatic problem solving, not 'solutions' based on a single ideology or emotion.

I prefer pragmatic problem solving as well. But before that matters, we need agreement on which problems to solve. In particular, in the context of the thread, we need agreement on which problems government should solve - which is an issue fundamentally informed by ideology. Not sure how we can avoid it.

A very thoughtful post, thanks.

Myriad problems face our nation today, trying to define and solve anyone of them has become nearly impossible. I suppose the first and most pressing problem of the day is:

Q. Is government dysfunctional?

A. Yes

Q. Why

A. Pending

I offered possible remedy's in the OP and followed up with some reasoning in the post above dblack's.

Agreed. And don't mean to dismiss your suggestions - I like some of them. But I'm raising the "which problems should we solve?" question because it seems like the most fundamental way in which our government is dysfunctional. Our government can't solve problems because we can't even agree on which problems it should be solving in the first place.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In my view our government has become dysfunctional primarily due to the erosion of dependable limits on the scope of its power. What makes democracy viable is the promise that the majority can't inflict its will capriciously on the minority. In order to agree to the concept of majority rule, we need to know that when we are not in the majority we won't be victimized.

The steady removal of Constitutional limits on government power have created an untenable political situation. As the government's power to dictate how we live our lives has grown, so has the threat of letting someone you disagree with run the government. That's why our elections are so bitterly contested and why the 'sides' (even when they really don't disagree all that much) are so mutually distrusting. When losing an election can mean sweeping changes to the foundations of our society (e.g. socializing health care), elections become less about choosing leaders and more like civil wars.

I like pragmatic problem solving, not 'solutions' based on a single ideology or emotion.

I prefer pragmatic problem solving as well. But before that matters, we need agreement on which problems to solve. In particular, in the context of the thread, we need agreement on which problems government should solve - which is an issue fundamentally informed by ideology. Not sure how we can avoid it.

Right. In all the world history of governance, there is absolutely no example in which power that was usurped was rolled back. There is nothing that can be done now to move the State back into its proper roll and restricted to that roll.

Has the government become disfunctional seems like a rather silly question. it's pretty far beyond disfunctional at this point and it has been that way now for decades.

I can think up a dozen ways to "fix" the problems we face today with the State. Though I find the exercise rather useless noting the above. We're simply going to have to ride this broke down rollercoaster to its bitter ending and there isnt a thing that can be done about it now.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In my view our government has become dysfunctional primarily due to the erosion of dependable limits on the scope of its power. What makes democracy viable is the promise that the majority can't inflict its will capriciously on the minority. In order to agree to the concept of majority rule, we need to know that when we are not in the majority we won't be victimized.

The steady removal of Constitutional limits on government power have created an untenable political situation. As the government's power to dictate how we live our lives has grown, so has the threat of letting someone you disagree with run the government. That's why our elections are so bitterly contested and why the 'sides' (even when they really don't disagree all that much) are so mutually distrusting. When losing an election can mean sweeping changes to the foundations of our society (e.g. socializing health care), elections become less about choosing leaders and more like civil wars.

I like pragmatic problem solving, not 'solutions' based on a single ideology or emotion.

I prefer pragmatic problem solving as well. But before that matters, we need agreement on which problems to solve. In particular, in the context of the thread, we need agreement on which problems government should solve - which is an issue fundamentally informed by ideology. Not sure how we can avoid it.

Right. In all the world history of governance, there is absolutely no example in which power that was usurped was rolled back. There is nothing that can be done now to move the State back into its proper roll and restricted to that roll.

Has the government become disfunctional seems like a rather silly question. it's pretty far beyond disfunctional at this point and it has been that way now for decades.

I can think up a dozen ways to "fix" the problems we face today with the State. Though I find the exercise rather useless noting the above. We're simply going to have to ride this broke down rollercoaster to its bitter ending and there isnt a thing that can be done about it now.

Wow. I can't think of anything less pragmatic then TakeAStepBack's post.

Maybe I don't understand what power has been "usurped" in contemporary America. Or, understand what is meant by ""mov(ing) the State back into its proper roll and restricted to that roll". Though I suspect this is TakeAStepBack's form of Libertarianism, a desire to return America to an earlier time.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reposted correctly.

Victimization, iow, because your side lost on what you consider are the limitations of government.

I was on the losing side. We lost but true Republicans and Americans don't whine. Stop whining.

Still a strawman. That's all you got, idn't it?

Not at all, and iow, you admit fail. Quit being a victim if you want to be a winner.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We cannot move America "back" to a pre-FDR or a pre-Progressive Age time without a massive apocalyptic event that takes us back to coal oil and steam or before.

All the rest of the discussion is meaningless.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We cannot move America "back" to a pre-FDR or a pre-Progressive Age time without a massive apocalyptic event that takes us back to coal oil and steam or before.

All the rest of the discussion is meaningless.

I'm not sure what you mean by "all the rest is meaningless".

 

[TakeAStepBack]

In my view our government has become dysfunctional primarily due to the erosion of dependable limits on the scope of its power. What makes democracy viable is the promise that the majority can't inflict its will capriciously on the minority. In order to agree to the concept of majority rule, we need to know that when we are not in the majority we won't be victimized.

The steady removal of Constitutional limits on government power have created an untenable political situation. As the government's power to dictate how we live our lives has grown, so has the threat of letting someone you disagree with run the government. That's why our elections are so bitterly contested and why the 'sides' (even when they really don't disagree all that much) are so mutually distrusting. When losing an election can mean sweeping changes to the foundations of our society (e.g. socializing health care), elections become less about choosing leaders and more like civil wars.

I prefer pragmatic problem solving as well. But before that matters, we need agreement on which problems to solve. In particular, in the context of the thread, we need agreement on which problems government should solve - which is an issue fundamentally informed by ideology. Not sure how we can avoid it.

Right. In all the world history of governance, there is absolutely no example in which power that was usurped was rolled back. There is nothing that can be done now to move the State back into its proper roll and restricted to that roll.

Has the government become disfunctional seems like a rather silly question. it's pretty far beyond disfunctional at this point and it has been that way now for decades.

I can think up a dozen ways to "fix" the problems we face today with the State. Though I find the exercise rather useless noting the above. We're simply going to have to ride this broke down rollercoaster to its bitter ending and there isnt a thing that can be done about it now.

Wow. I can't think of anything less pragmatic then TakeAStepBack's post.

Maybe I don't understand what power has been "usurped" in contemporary America. Or, understand what is meant by ""mov(ing) the State back into its proper roll and restricted to that roll". Though I suspect this is TakeAStepBack's form of Libertarianism, a desire to return America to an earlier time.

it's not a desire to move back to "earlier" times except in what exactly the federal government "manages" and what it does not as far as society is concerned. The government has far overstepped its bounds on that front. it no longer protects the rights and property of the individual and instead has set out vast policies in social and economic engineering. that is the type of usurps Im referring to.

If you want the govt. to run healthcare, run redistribution policies, nit pick industries with regulations and choose winners/losers, run the world over policing other nations and fighting unconstituiontal wars, run the public into unsustainable and unrepayable debts while doing all of these things, then I dont see any problems that we need to solve with the exception of forwarding special interest groups. If you think these things are what the govt. needs to do, then you have the govt. you want.

The point is there were suppose to be strict limitations on what the federal government can and can not do. The same goes with the states. items like the patriot act, NDAA 2012 and a whole plethora of others are the problems I see that need to be solved, but they will not be solved. They will not be solved because power over people in these ways is never relinquished once obtained.

We can jaw jack for hours over "what ifs" and "I proposes" when it comes to solving the nations problems. But again, like dblack said, we would first need to agree where the govt. should be involved and where it is currently involved where it shouldnt be. But we can not aggree on those things, and even if we did, we'd need to once again elect people that did more than say one thing and do another just to get elected.

You can hope for pragmatic solutions to the problems you see, but in the end, it's all just day dreaming.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Right. In all the world history of governance, there is absolutely no example in which power that was usurped was rolled back. There is nothing that can be done now to move the State back into its proper roll and restricted to that roll.

Has the government become disfunctional seems like a rather silly question. it's pretty far beyond disfunctional at this point and it has been that way now for decades.

I can think up a dozen ways to "fix" the problems we face today with the State. Though I find the exercise rather useless noting the above. We're simply going to have to ride this broke down rollercoaster to its bitter ending and there isnt a thing that can be done about it now.

Wow. I can't think of anything less pragmatic then TakeAStepBack's post.

Maybe I don't understand what power has been "usurped" in contemporary America. Or, understand what is meant by ""mov(ing) the State back into its proper roll and restricted to that roll". Though I suspect this is TakeAStepBack's form of Libertarianism, a desire to return America to an earlier time.

it's not a desire to move back to "earlier" times except in what exactly the federal government "manages" and what it does not as far as society is concerned. The government has far overstepped its bounds on that front. it no longer protects the rights and property of the individual and instead has set out vast policies in social and economic engineering. that is the type of usurps Im referring to.

If you want the govt. to run healthcare, run redistribution policies, nit pick industries with regulations and choose winners/losers, run the world over policing other nations and fighting unconstituiontal wars, run the public into unsustainable and unrepayable debts while doing all of these things, then I dont see any problems that we need to solve with the exception of forwarding special interest groups. If you think these things are what the govt. needs to do, then you have the govt. you want.

The point is there were suppose to be strict limitations on what the federal government can and can not do. The same goes with the states. items like the patriot act, NDAA 2012 and a whole plethora of others are the problems I see that need to be solved, but they will not be solved. They will not be solved because power over people in these ways is never relinquished once obtained.

We can jaw jack for hours over "what ifs" and "I proposes" when it comes to solving the nations problems. But again, like dblack said, we would first need to agree where the govt. should be involved and where it is currently involved where it shouldnt be. But we can not aggree on those things, and even if we did, we'd need to once again elect people that did more than say one thing and do another just to get elected.

You can hope for pragmatic solutions to the problems you see, but in the end, it's all just day dreaming.

I understand better now your meaning and I don't disagree on an academic level. The problem with this academic ideal is human nature.

Let me use a baseball analogy. Early on there was no rule on substitution, it could be made at anytime.

The story goes during the last inning of a game with the winning run on third base and two outs the batter hit a ball down the left field line, too far for the left fielder to catch, but still fair. The quick thinking manager of the team on the field yelled, "Smith into left for Jones", at which point the bull pen catcher, Smith, walked over and caught the ball for the third out.

The pragmatic solution to the problem was to make substitutions legal only after the umpire called time out.

Years ago there was no law restricting the pollution of our rivers. When they caught on fire it became time for a law to prevent pollution. Was that an overreach by the Federal Government? Or a pragmatic solution to a critical problem?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Wow. I can't think of anything less pragmatic then TakeAStepBack's post.

Maybe I don't understand what power has been "usurped" in contemporary America. Or, understand what is meant by ""mov(ing) the State back into its proper roll and restricted to that roll". Though I suspect this is TakeAStepBack's form of Libertarianism, a desire to return America to an earlier time.

it's not a desire to move back to "earlier" times except in what exactly the federal government "manages" and what it does not as far as society is concerned. The government has far overstepped its bounds on that front. it no longer protects the rights and property of the individual and instead has set out vast policies in social and economic engineering. that is the type of usurps Im referring to.

If you want the govt. to run healthcare, run redistribution policies, nit pick industries with regulations and choose winners/losers, run the world over policing other nations and fighting unconstituiontal wars, run the public into unsustainable and unrepayable debts while doing all of these things, then I dont see any problems that we need to solve with the exception of forwarding special interest groups. If you think these things are what the govt. needs to do, then you have the govt. you want.

The point is there were suppose to be strict limitations on what the federal government can and can not do. The same goes with the states. items like the patriot act, NDAA 2012 and a whole plethora of others are the problems I see that need to be solved, but they will not be solved. They will not be solved because power over people in these ways is never relinquished once obtained.

We can jaw jack for hours over "what ifs" and "I proposes" when it comes to solving the nations problems. But again, like dblack said, we would first need to agree where the govt. should be involved and where it is currently involved where it shouldnt be. But we can not aggree on those things, and even if we did, we'd need to once again elect people that did more than say one thing and do another just to get elected.

You can hope for pragmatic solutions to the problems you see, but in the end, it's all just day dreaming.

I understand better now your meaning and I don't disagree on an academic level. The problem with this academic ideal is human nature.

Let me use a baseball analogy. Early on there was no rule on substitution, it could be made at anytime.

The story goes during the last inning of a game with the winning run on third base and two outs the batter hit a ball down the left field line, too far for the left fielder to catch, but still fair. The quick thinking manager of the team on the field yelled, "Smith into left for Jones", at which point the bull pen catcher, Smith, walked over and caught the ball for the third out.

The pragmatic solution to the problem was to make substitutions legal only after the umpire called time out.

Years ago there was no law restricting the pollution of our rivers. When they caught on fire it became time for a law to prevent pollution. Was that an overreach by the Federal Government? Or a pragmatic solution to a critical problem?

No, I do not believe this was pragmatic. The govt. didn't say that polluting waters was infringing on the rights of others and hold those responsible for polluting accountable for their actions to the fullest extent of the law. Instead, we create another agency that only further corrupts away from its original intent. It goes right back to the unseen consequences of such "pragmatic" governance.

Some more instances that fit the mold you show in the example: FDA, EPA, DHS, DoA, DoL and DHUD.

The goveernment only grows itself in size as is the history of the State. More agencies, more red tape, more corruption and in the end, less civil liberties and freeedoms for the people. We've reached that point here in the US where there is so much micromanagement of the citizenry, that the fight is now about which things half the country believe govt. shoud do,a nd the other half say they shouldn't. It's simply the absolute failure of a constitutional, democratic republic. We tried, it went well for a time and now its just another broken record in the history of man.

 

[Wry Catcher]

it's not a desire to move back to "earlier" times except in what exactly the federal government "manages" and what it does not as far as society is concerned. The government has far overstepped its bounds on that front. it no longer protects the rights and property of the individual and instead has set out vast policies in social and economic engineering. that is the type of usurps Im referring to.

If you want the govt. to run healthcare, run redistribution policies, nit pick industries with regulations and choose winners/losers, run the world over policing other nations and fighting unconstituiontal wars, run the public into unsustainable and unrepayable debts while doing all of these things, then I dont see any problems that we need to solve with the exception of forwarding special interest groups. If you think these things are what the govt. needs to do, then you have the govt. you want.

The point is there were suppose to be strict limitations on what the federal government can and can not do. The same goes with the states. items like the patriot act, NDAA 2012 and a whole plethora of others are the problems I see that need to be solved, but they will not be solved. They will not be solved because power over people in these ways is never relinquished once obtained.

We can jaw jack for hours over "what ifs" and "I proposes" when it comes to solving the nations problems. But again, like dblack said, we would first need to agree where the govt. should be involved and where it is currently involved where it shouldnt be. But we can not aggree on those things, and even if we did, we'd need to once again elect people that did more than say one thing and do another just to get elected.

You can hope for pragmatic solutions to the problems you see, but in the end, it's all just day dreaming.

I understand better now your meaning and I don't disagree on an academic level. The problem with this academic ideal is human nature.

Let me use a baseball analogy. Early on there was no rule on substitution, it could be made at anytime.

The story goes during the last inning of a game with the winning run on third base and two outs the batter hit a ball down the left field line, too far for the left fielder to catch, but still fair. The quick thinking manager of the team on the field yelled, "Smith into left for Jones", at which point the bull pen catcher, Smith, walked over and caught the ball for the third out.

The pragmatic solution to the problem was to make substitutions legal only after the umpire called time out.

Years ago there was no law restricting the pollution of our rivers. When they caught on fire it became time for a law to prevent pollution. Was that an overreach by the Federal Government? Or a pragmatic solution to a critical problem?

No, I do not believe this was pragmatic. The govt. didn't say that polluting waters was infringing on the rights of others and hold those responsible for polluting accountable for their actions to the fullest extent of the law. Instead, we create another agency that only further corrupts away from its original intent. It goes right back to the unseen consequences of such "pragmatic" governance.

Some more instances that fit the mold you show in the example: FDA, EPA, DHS, DoA, DoL and DHUD.

The goveernment only grows itself in size as is the history of the State. More agencies, more red tape, more corruption and in the end, less civil liberties and freeedoms for the people. We've reached that point here in the US where there is so much micromanagement of the citizenry, that the fight is now about which things half the country believe govt. shoud do,a nd the other half say they shouldn't. It's simply the absolute failure of a constitutional, democratic republic. We tried, it went well for a time and now its just another broken record in the history of man.

What I see are proactive efforts to prevent and protect, you see as an overreach. Your approach IMO is reactive, i.e., let's wait until there is a harm and fix only that which created the harm; we should not make any effort to understand the nature of the harm and seek means to prevent this specific problem and others which we can infer will be harmful.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I understand better now your meaning and I don't disagree on an academic level. The problem with this academic ideal is human nature.

Let me use a baseball analogy. Early on there was no rule on substitution, it could be made at anytime.

The story goes during the last inning of a game with the winning run on third base and two outs the batter hit a ball down the left field line, too far for the left fielder to catch, but still fair. The quick thinking manager of the team on the field yelled, "Smith into left for Jones", at which point the bull pen catcher, Smith, walked over and caught the ball for the third out.

The pragmatic solution to the problem was to make substitutions legal only after the umpire called time out.

Years ago there was no law restricting the pollution of our rivers. When they caught on fire it became time for a law to prevent pollution. Was that an overreach by the Federal Government? Or a pragmatic solution to a critical problem?

No, I do not believe this was pragmatic. The govt. didn't say that polluting waters was infringing on the rights of others and hold those responsible for polluting accountable for their actions to the fullest extent of the law. Instead, we create another agency that only further corrupts away from its original intent. It goes right back to the unseen consequences of such "pragmatic" governance.

Some more instances that fit the mold you show in the example: FDA, EPA, DHS, DoA, DoL and DHUD.

The goveernment only grows itself in size as is the history of the State. More agencies, more red tape, more corruption and in the end, less civil liberties and freeedoms for the people. We've reached that point here in the US where there is so much micromanagement of the citizenry, that the fight is now about which things half the country believe govt. shoud do,a nd the other half say they shouldn't. It's simply the absolute failure of a constitutional, democratic republic. We tried, it went well for a time and now its just another broken record in the history of man.

What I see are proactive efforts to prevent and protect, you see as an overreach. Your approach IMO is reactive, i.e., let's wait until there is a harm and fix only that which created the harm; we should not make any effort to understand the nature of the harm and seek means to prevent this specific problem and others which we can infer will be harmful.

That's right. You want to pre-emptively strike at things you see as social detriment, while I'm of the position (and with lots of history on my side) that micrmanaging society has more costs than living by the letter of the law and holding people responsible once right infringments have occured.

Under your assessment, things like the Iraq war were justified under the context of pre-emptive, or pro-active policies. I mean, Saddam COULD have posed a serious threat to us or our allies. So it seems that in the name of "seeking means to prevent this specific problem", we did ourselves and the world a favor.

And you have it backwards, it's your stance that is reactionary. You see a problem and want govt to proactively atempt to mitigate it through its agency creation and enforcement agenda you call pragmatic. That's reactionary. But you have one thing right; i dont believe people should be pre-emptively punished for things they did not, or have not done simply because there is a chance it could happen.

The law was designed to protect the individual and hold the individual accountable. Not dump everyone into groups and punish or favor them according to the ebb or flow of social tidings of the day. To me, that is the ultimate in reactionary policy/stance.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

All of these measures take a back seat far-far away from the real reasons the Federal government is dysfunctional.
The main reason is the horrendous need for lobbying and election reform. Our government is completely corrupt by corporations and other special interest to the point that we are truly no longer a democratic republic, we are instead an oligarchy. Wherein the 'elite class' is corporate and special interest groups. Everyone here was quite upset about Monsanto removing the right of citizens to sue the company...well guess what kids - that has already happened, You have a cell phone? You have a bank account? You work for a large corporation? Did you know you have no rights to sue these companies in the past couple years? It is called "forced mediation", in tiny-tiny writing when you signed a sales contract/employment contract you agreed to "dispute mediation" - which means if you want to sue them you have to use a mediator OF THEIR CHOICE.
This is becoming a wide practice for many large corporations - they can do this thanks to "tort reform" legislation signed in 2008. Just one example where corporate interest supersedes citizen rights.