Yeah, especially when the head of the EPA was governor here in NJ...and did not really do a dam thing to clean up toxic waste sites here(Like Price's Pit in Pleasantville and Alycion Lake in Pitman)until the locals raised enough of a legal stink!

Christy Todd Whitman should know better.  If the government cleans up one Superfund toxic dump, the citizens will expect the government to clean 'em all up, and we all know we can't afford that!  I mean, she could have suggested the corporations who made the messes help pay to clean them up, but then the RNC would  burn her at the stake for heresy!  She was already on the suspects list, being a woman and being from the Northeast and all...
:o

im not o much as paranoid about the government, but i do picture the whole government as a bunch of selfish liars.  an example of there selfishness- the fact that bush played golf while people were drowning in the aftermath of hurricane katrina. example of liars- the fact that they denied the idea of area 51 until after many protests they finnaly said "ok there is an area 51 but we can't tell you anything about it.

im not o much as paranoid about the government, but i do picture the whole government as a bunch of selfish liars.  an example of there selfishness- the fact that bush played golf while people were drowning in the aftermath of hurricane katrina. example of liars- the fact that they denied the idea of area 51 until after many protests they finnaly said "ok there is an area 51 but we can't tell you anything about it.

Yes, but a great deal of the American public are themselves selfish liars.  Most of the things in life Americans are taught to value most have been saturated in selfishness and lying:  career, making money, making money, making money, making, money, sex,sex sex, marriage, child-rearing, making money, career, sex, going to church, feeling superior to others because you go to church going to college, feeling superior to others because you went to college, career, making money, marriage, buying big cars, buying big dogs, buying big houses, sex, making money, career, spending money at mall jewelery shops, divorce, career, sex, making money, family time, quality time, me time, and closure (not to mention career, making money, and sex).
So...when we see our politicians as selfish liars, we feel relieved nobody will be setting an example we'll feel guilty for not following.  Of course, we love politicians who preach about values, morals, and doing the right thing.  These homilies are not for us of course, they're for people who are poorer and weaker than us.  This is the reason why Jimmy Carter went down in flames after four years, and Bill Clinton remained popular for eight years in spite of the OTHER selfish liars trying to destroy him.
:D

Yes, but a great deal of the American public are themselves selfish liars.  Most of the things in life Americans are taught to value most have been saturated in selfishness and lying:  career, making money, making money, making money, making, money, sex,sex sex, marriage, child-rearing, making money, career, sex, going to church, feeling superior to others because you go to church going to college, feeling superior to others because you went to college, career, making money, marriage, buying big cars, buying big dogs, buying big houses, sex, making money, career, spending money at mall jewelery shops, divorce, career, sex, making money, family time, quality time, me time, and closure (not to mention career, making money, and sex).
So...when we see our politicians as selfish liars, we feel relieved nobody will be setting an example we'll feel guilty for not following.  Of course, we love politicians who preach about values, morals, and doing the right thing.  These homilies are not for us of course, they're for people who are poorer and weaker than us.  This is the reason why Jimmy Carter went down in flames after four years, and Bill Clinton remained popular for eight years in spite of the OTHER selfish liars trying to destroy him.
:D



Everybody's selfish, we wouldn't do things if they didn't serve our self interest some how. 

Of course, some forms of selfishness are much more noble than others. 

Honesty is something many people, but almost no politicians have.

I once heard that if you were to divide all of the money in America up equally, each citizen would have an average annual income of 50 something thousand a year(can't recall the exact figure). I'm not advocating communism. I'm pointing this out to demonstrate how the oft-given excuse by apologists for the Pension-raiders that its just not possible for people to all live equally(economically) is malarky. It is "impossible" not due to a lack of resources(be they financially or natural), but due to the shortcomings that tend to naturally occur within any human-designed system. That however does not justify allowing the opposite extreme(i.e. social Darwinism).

Communism is a noble idea, but does not work because of human nature. Capitalism, however, is just a vile ideology. The ultimate end of Communism is that everyone equally shares everything. The ultimate end of Capitalism is that one person has everything. Monopoly, anyone? Just because communism is unworkable in it's most pure form, we are expected to swallow the pill that that therefore invalidates all forms of socialism. Its kind of like throwing the baby out with the bath water, and its an interesting little trick Capitalists use to pull the wool over the eyes of the "working man". One end of the economic spectrum, communism, tends to produce "Stalinist"(basically fascist) governments like that of North Korea. The other end of the spectrum, capitalism(and I mean true capitalism, of the laissez faire kind), also produces fascist governments.

What we think of as the American Dream seems to have become so distorted. The American Dream is not to make as much money as you can stuff into your greedy little coffers. The American Dream is a car in every garage, food on every table, a roof over every head, etc. Only over the last 25 years with "Reaganomics" have we seen this shift among certain people as to what they see as the American Dream. This is also a big facade into fooling the common man into thinking that its the big, bad, commie liberals from the coast who want to take away their pensions and slash their income. Meanwhile, with this clever little smoke-and-mirrors act in place, the fascists are free to pillage the American Dream as they desire.

Think about how the 1950s are often seen as the "good ol' days". Infrastructure was better intact, education was not in the crisis it is in, the middle class was vibrant; and you know what? They had a sky-high income tax rate in that decade. Hmm, and oddly enough, the massive decay we have seen in infrastructure, education, and the viability of the American middle class all came along at the same time as Reaganomics. Quite the coincidink. Don't you think?

"Communism is a noble idea, but does not work because of human nature. Capitalism, however, is just a vile ideology. The ultimate end of Communism is that everyone equally shares everything. The ultimate end of Capitalism is that one person has everything. Monopoly, anyone? Just because communism is unworkable in it's most pure form, we are expected to swallow the pill that that therefore invalidates all forms of socialism."

Sorry, deadrockstar, but Communism is far from noble.  The object of Communism is NOT to share with your neighbor; it is to make your neighbor share with you, and if you remember your history, you will know that the grand-high muckety-mucks in the biggest Communist nation, the USSR, lived very high on the hog while the vast majority of the people lived in squalor (many of them in frozen squalor in Siberia).

Does capitalism lead to squalor amongst the people?  Monopolistic/plutocratic capitalism does, yes, which is what we have in this country for the most part.  True free market capitalism, which is what Adam Smith preached, is what allows the best in the marketplace to rise to the top.  Monopolistic capitalism may allow the best to be discovered, but if it cannot be bought out and co-opted, then the monopolists will weild their influence with the government and the press to have it denegrated, and then made illegal.

Communism and socialism are no different in their outcome than monopolistic capitalism; the only difference, in fact, is in who are the owners of the means of production.  Communism/socialism has the state as the owner, with the Party leadership keeping the bulk of the wealth; monopolistic capitalism has a small group of industrialists as the owners, again keeping the bulk of the wealth.

With true free market capitalism, the bulk of the wealth remains in the hands of the people, where people are rewarded for their hard work and their inventiveness.  Those who are lazy don't get as much reward.  Those employers who treat their employees abusively likewise get little reward, as there are many employers who will treat their employees as human beings, knowing that they get better work out of them that way.

"Communism is a noble idea, but does not work because of human nature. Capitalism, however, is just a vile ideology. The ultimate end of Communism is that everyone equally shares everything. The ultimate end of Capitalism is that one person has everything. Monopoly, anyone? Just because communism is unworkable in it's most pure form, we are expected to swallow the pill that that therefore invalidates all forms of socialism."

Sorry, deadrockstar, but Communism is far from noble.  The object of Communism is NOT to share with your neighbor; it is to make your neighbor share with you, and if you remember your history, you will know that the grand-high muckety-mucks in the biggest Communist nation, the USSR, lived very high on the hog while the vast majority of the people lived in squalor (many of them in frozen squalor in Siberia).

Does capitalism lead to squalor amongst the people?  Monopolistic/plutocratic capitalism does, yes, which is what we have in this country for the most part.  True free market capitalism, which is what Adam Smith preached, is what allows the best in the marketplace to rise to the top.  Monopolistic capitalism may allow the best to be discovered, but if it cannot be bought out and co-opted, then the monopolists will weild their influence with the government and the press to have it denegrated, and then made illegal.

Communism and socialism are no different in their outcome than monopolistic capitalism; the only difference, in fact, is in who are the owners of the means of production.  Communism/socialism has the state as the owner, with the Party leadership keeping the bulk of the wealth; monopolistic capitalism has a small group of industrialists as the owners, again keeping the bulk of the wealth.

With true free market capitalism, the bulk of the wealth remains in the hands of the people, where people are rewarded for their hard work and their inventiveness.  Those who are lazy don't get as much reward.  Those employers who treat their employees abusively likewise get little reward, as there are many employers who will treat their employees as human beings, knowing that they get better work out of them that way.

We hear lots of anti-European propaganda from those who form our economic policies in America.  Most of it is nonsense.  Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Holland, and Germany have vibrant market economies tempered by a secure safety net for all citizens.  Right-wing economists point to high unemployment rates and low rates of economic "growth" in western European countries and say, "Aha! Government meddling in the market doesn't work!"  They site statistics favorable to America's economic policies over the past 25 years.  Their arguments ring hollow.  The proof of the pudding is in the eating.  America has tens of millions of people living in grinding poverty day in and day out, and tens of millions more living on the brink of grinding poverty and in constant fear of it.  Americans are in astronomical debt from credit cards, mortgage refinancing, and student loans.  Escape from the worlds inhabited by our political and celebrity elites who paint the gaudy picture of American prosperity on your television set and drive to the once prosperous interior cities and farmlands.  You find there battle-scarred landscapes and towns rotted away.  These are the casualties of the big lie of American prosperity.  A few get extravegantly wealthy at the expense of the many, and use deceptive laws of averages to claim life is coming up roses for all.
Security is preferable to wild-eyed growth the Europeans learned after losing their empires and watching their infrastructures smashed by two world wars.  America I hope learns this before it's too late.
Donald Rumsfeld spoke of new Europe.  Countries such as Ireland and Slavakia have risen from bakwardness and poverty to thriving free-market economies with glorious service sector professions and low taxes.  But we must not forget, all this prosperity, these free markets and low taxes, are underwritten from Brussels by the administration of the European Union and is made possible by taxes paid by "old Europe" countries--France, Germany, the lowlands, and Scandinavia into the EU in the first place!  No such thing as a free lunch.
::)

we all may be selfish liars but you cant be that way when your running a country

we all may be selfish liars but you cant be that way when your running a country



Good point.  The President is (or should be) a different person when in office.

I would agree that both Communism and Socialism are both noble ideas. Their goal is to create a classless society of equals, with no regards to race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc... What's so ignoble about that? Capitalism is intrinsically geared towards a caste system, with the people at the top controlling mass amounts of wealth and property, while most everyone else lives poorly. The corporate bosses haven't earned the wealth that's at their disposal, they stole it. The world's resources belong to everyone, and those resources are the foundation of profits.

For all intensive purposes, as Maxwell points out, some of the most successful countries are socialist. Sweden being a great example of this. Germany is alright in this respect, but still far behind the Scandinavian countries. There is a large gap between the German poor and the German rich. Not anywhere near as large as in the US, but there is still a pretty wide gap. Iceland is probably the only country in the world that could arguably be dubbed a "classless society."

I would agree that both Communism and Socialism are both noble ideas. Their goal is to create a classless society of equals, with no regards to race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, etc... What's so ignoble about that? Capitalism is intrinsically geared towards a caste system, with the people at the top controlling mass amounts of wealth and property, while most everyone else lives poorly. The corporate bosses haven't earned the wealth that's at their disposal, they stole it. The world's resources belong to everyone, and those resources are the foundation of profits.

For all intensive purposes, as Maxwell points out, some of the most successful countries are socialist. Sweden being a great example of this. Germany is alright in this respect, but still far behind the Scandinavian countries. There is a large gap between the German poor and the German rich. Not anywhere near as large as in the US, but there is still a pretty wide gap. Iceland is probably the only country in the world that could arguably be dubbed a "classless society."


I think Communism is essential in countries like India, China, and Bangladesh.  Capitalism is kind of faulted.

"Sorry, deadrockstar, but Communism is far from noble.  The object of Communism is NOT to share with your neighbor; it is to make your neighbor share with you, and if you remember your history, you will know that the grand-high muckety-mucks in the biggest Communist nation, the USSR, lived very high on the hog while the vast majority of the people lived in squalor (many of them in frozen squalor in Siberia)."

WTF? You completely and utterly misunderstood what I am saying. The object of communism IS to share with your neighbor. The object/intention of an idea is not the same thing as the way an idea works in practice. I was only speaking in terms of the THEORIES of Communism and Capitalism, not on the practices of these systems. I was saying that if you compare the STATED GOALS(not results) of each economic system, you will see that the ultimate end of one(theoretically) is completely equal ownership, while the the ultimate end of the other system(Capitalism) is that there is completely unequal ownership. In other words, ONE person would own everything.  Since we know through the example of the USSR that Communism(straight up) cannot work due to human nature, and since the goal of pure Capitlaism is malevolent(how could total private ownership not be dangerous to the welfare of the people?), we must therefore strive to find a medium between the two extremes that will protect us from ourselves, so to speak. Human nature does not allow us to succesfully practice true Communism, and by the same token human nature should show us that we cannot entrust the welfare of the people to an elite(or even worse, solitary) base of private economic interests.

"Communism and socialism are no different in their outcome than monopolistic capitalism; the only difference, in fact, is in who are the owners of the means of production.  Communism/socialism has the state as the owner, with the Party leadership keeping the bulk of the wealth; monopolistic capitalism has a small group of industrialists as the owners, again keeping the bulk of the wealth."

You make one mistake. And that is that you are equating socialism as the exact same thing as Communism, which is not how I was using the term. I meant Socialism as in the Western European model, not Socialism as in referring to Stalinist governments like the former U.S.S.R. or North Korea.

"Does capitalism lead to squalor amongst the people?  Monopolistic/plutocratic capitalism does, yes, which is what we have in this country for the most part.  True free market capitalism, which is what Adam Smith preached, is what allows the best in the marketplace to rise to the top.  Monopolistic capitalism may allow the best to be discovered, but if it cannot be bought out and co-opted, then the monopolists will weild their influence with the government and the press to have it denegrated, and then made illegal.

With true free market capitalism, the bulk of the wealth remains in the hands of the people, where people are rewarded for their hard work and their inventiveness.  Those who are lazy don't get as much reward.  Those employers who treat their employees abusively likewise get little reward, as there are many employers who will treat their employees as human beings, knowing that they get better work out of them that way."


Your intentions are noble, and I do agree with the lot of what you said here. However, the statement of those who are lazy don't get as much reward is the only folly I see. If I am misconstruing this I apologize(you weren't terribly clear with that statement), but it seems you are implying you believe in a Libertarian style free market, which does not have the social net any respectable human civilization in the 21st century should have. The problem with this idea of the free market is that it does not take into account the deficiencies that occur within human run systems. You make a mistake in ASSUMING that if enough people do well within a free market system, then the benefits will just naturally trickle down. That idea to me is every bit as fantasy as the idea that pure Communism can work.

To me, free-market socialism is the best solution because it addresses human fault on BOTH sides of the equation, public AND private. The economic system is generally free-market, rather than centrally planned. This makes sense to me because we have been shown through history that governments cannot succesfully manage economies. However, we know that because economic resources are ultimately limited, the free market will not be able to take care of all of the people. To make up for this unavoidable shortcoming, you have the saftey net of national health care, pensions, worker's rights, public education, etc. Its just common sense to me.

So the way I see it is that with Communism, basically you entrust your entire future to a group of human beings who call themselves the government, and with Capitalism, you entrust your entire future to a group of human beings who call themselves "business". EITHER way, its a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing type of thing. The only way to protect the common people from both sides is a balance between these two extremes. Democratic, free-market socialism. Thats the way I see it at least.

I hope you see where I was coming from better now.  :-\\

OK, here is my view of the US Government:

It is a huge, bloated monstrocity that is an amalgam of thousands of individual parts.  And each of those parts is managed by tens of thousands of minions who only have one thing on their mind:  maintaining their own jobs.

Our System of Government may be a Representative Republic, but the Government itself is far from it.  It is a beast that is composed of hundreds of Dictatioral monopolies.  And do you think they care what our "Ellected Officials" want?  Of course not.

Our Government is no more responsible to listen to the President or Congress then it is to you and me.  It does what it wants, unless the Courts tell it to do otherwise.  And it is like that at both Federal and State levels.  Is is like this at local levels, but to a much lesser extent.

Simply look at the IRS.  They can take your money at will.  If you are late or do not pay enough, they smack you with massive fines and penalties.  But if they are wrong or make a mistake, do you get the same in return from them?  Of course not.

Look at Social Security.  What once started as a pension plan for Senior Citizens has become a monster.  They have added so many programs that even FDR would not recognize it.  And do you have a choice to pay into it?  Of course not.  Even if you have a terminal disease, you can't stop paying into it.  Even if you are over 65 and collecting it, you still have to pay if you are working.  Is this madness or what?

I have talked in here before about the Department Of Veterans Affairs.  Now there is an oxymoron if I ever heard of one.  They only care about keeping their own jobs.  I have gone there and seen empty wings and 3 month waiting lists.

For the most part, the "Government" cound not care less who the President is, or who controlls Congress.  After all, in 4-12 years, it will change.  It just keeps on going, the same as it always has.

Does anybody here really think that the IRS is any different under Bush then it was under Clinton?  Or under Reagan?  Or for that matter, under JFK?  Of course not.  And it is the same with the BLM, DOD, DOJ, HEW, and every other organization.  They know that there will be minor changes, but nothing seriously effects the Organization itself more then once every 20-30 years.

Why is this?  Well, when a President comes in, he will frequently replace the "Leader" of a group.  We get a new Secretary of State, and a few Undersecretaries.  And a few Ambassadors will be replaced.  But 99.99% of the people will keep on working just as they did under the last President (and the President before that, and the President before that, and so on and so on and so on).  And it is the same in every other department.  The figureheads change, but the Beaurocracy continues just as it did before.  "The King is Dead, Long Live The King!"

Of the 3 levels of Political Government, the Judicial has the most influence.  For the most part, they are the only ones with the power to make massive changes.  They can force some changes in the beaurocracy, but even those are largely worked around if they are unwanted (remember the much praised "Income Tax Reform"?)

The next most influential is Congress.  They only have influence because they hold the checkbook.  Tick off Congress, and you get less money.  But even that can be worked around.  And because most programs are planned 5-10 years in advance, any changes Congress makes are normally not felt for years (if ever).  They simply wait a few years, and things return to normal.

The one with the least amount of influence is the President.  Why pay much attention to him after all?  He will ony be there for 4-8 years, 10 at the most (assuming a 2 term President takes over from a President that dies half way through his term).  You simply say "Yes Sir", make cosmetic changes to satisfy the new President, and do things as you always did before behind his back.  By the time he finds out anything, he is either a lame duck or gone.

And the puppet he places in charge of your organization?  Who do you think they get their information from?  That's right, the life-long beaurocrats who have been in there for 20+ years.  They tell the puppet what they want him to think, and he tells that to the President.  If the President wants a change, they make a few minor changes, and continue as before.

And some of this comes first-hand.  In 10 years in the Military, do you think serving under Reagan was any different then serving under Bush Sr or Clinton?  Of course not.  We got the same food, live in the same barracks, went on the same training missions, and used the same equipment.  Do you think any other part of the Government would be any different?

Of you do, I have some prime Florida real estate I would love to sell you.

Actually I agree with you, Mushroom. But accepting that fact you also accept its so entrenched its unchangeable. The only thing that could change it something MASSIVE happening to this country economically or otherwise. And I'm talking much more catastrophic than anything we've been through recently. I mean, if the Great Depression could not undue it, I'd say it'll never change.

However since you can't change you might as well play the game and do what you can(that meager, meager little bit) within the system. Plus its a good way to pass the time. This may sound incredibally selfish(but I think all human beings feel it deep down), you are going to die one day and you won't have to deal with it anymore after that anyway.

Actually I agree with you, Mushroom. But accepting that fact you also accept its so entrenched its unchangeable.


I do not believe it can be changed, only steered.

Over time, the Government does change.  But it is a long and slow process, mostly because of the change of a new generation of people who run it.  Civil Rights is a good example of this.

The Governement was a "Good Old Boy" network up until the 1970's.  It is only in the 1980's and 1990's that most of the holdouts retired and left.  That kind of change is slow though, and comes about only when "fresh blood" replaces through attrician the people who controlled things before.

And I am not talking about individuals, but an entire "corporate mindset".  It takes a younger generation to change that, a group that were once thought of as "dangerous radicals"

I do not believe it can be changed, only steered.

Over time, the Government does change.  But it is a long and slow process, mostly because of the change of a new generation of people who run it.  Civil Rights is a good example of this.

The Governement was a "Good Old Boy" network up until the 1970's.  It is only in the 1980's and 1990's that most of the holdouts retired and left.  That kind of change is slow though, and comes about only when "fresh blood" replaces through attrician the people who controlled things before.

And I am not talking about individuals, but an entire "corporate mindset".  It takes a younger generation to change that, a group that were once thought of as "dangerous radicals"


I see what you mean there, and thats what I was implying.

As a progressive, things might not look that great now. But then I have to stop and think "hmm the first baby boomers hit retirement age this year" and a big smile comes across my face because I know that all we have to do is bide our time and we will be in charge. Its kinda like with a business; the business owner's son doesnt agree with the way his old man does business but while his old man is still in charge he can do little to change his ways. He just waits until his old man passes the reigns and all of a sudden you get the speech of "the days of doing business like my father are over, blah blah blah". You know?

I agree with a lot of what Mushroom is saying.  Not all of it.
Remember, Big Government is here to stay.  It's just a question of who gets the Big and who gets the Government!  The lobbyists make sure the Big money from the taxpayers goes to special interests to pour down a sieve.  The bureaucrats make sure Government authority drives all of us little folk so bonkers we don't even wanna vote anymore!
:D

I want the government to stop acting like jerks and start tending to the people, simple as that.

The Governement was a "Good Old Boy" network up until the 1970's.  It is only in the 1980's and 1990's that most of the holdouts retired and left.  That kind of change is slow though, and comes about only when "fresh blood" replaces through attrician the people who controlled things before.




The Government is still pretty muc the "Good Old Boy" Network.  Take a look at the top of the heap.  The president is the son of an ex-president.  A good portion of his advisors were advisors to his father.  If you
look at the Senate and House you will see a number of names that have recurred in congress over a generation or two(sometimes three).  So the network survives in a different form.  They just have a more sophisticated PR approach.

The Government is still pretty muc the "Good Old Boy" Network.  Take a look at the top of the heap.  The president is the son of an ex-president.  A good portion of his advisors were advisors to his father.  If you
look at the Senate and House you will see a number of names that have recurred in congress over a generation or two(sometimes three).  So the network survives in a different form.  They just have a more sophisticated PR approach.


But you are talking about ellected officials.  It is in no way for several generations to be elledted to a post (or different posts).  After all, people often tend to choose those who are familiar to them.

Many other examples are the Adams family, Kennedy clan, the Roosevelts, the Gores, or even Mary Bono replacing her husband Sonny after his death.  Or Lurleen Wallace replacing George after he had to step down because of term limits.  Or in international politics, look at the Ghandi family of India, or Juan Peron and his wives Evita and Isabel.  And in more local levels, it is not unusual to see sons replacing fathers, who replaced grandfathers.

And this is not just in "Conventional Politics".  Look at James Hoffa Jr, who took over the Teamsters in 1998.

But do not confuse "Politicians" with "The Government".

But do not confuse "Politicians" with "The Government".




OK, but I am not sure to whom you are refering when you speak of  the Old Boy Government and the
New Boy Government.

OK, but I am not sure to whom you are refering when you speak of  the Old Boy Government and the
New Boy Government.


The Gvernment is not The Politicians.

The Government is the Byzantine system of beauros, beaurocracies, and employees that make up the bulk of those departments.  I am talking about the career "Civil Servants" and the departments that they work for.

In other words, the nuts and bolts people who actually run things.  The same people who have been working there for the last 20-30+ years.  Not the figureheads who head up those departments.  They are simply political apointees, and they change with every administration.

I want the government to stop acting like jerks and start tending to the people, simple as that.

I say it's time for some serious lobbying reform...and high time for the death of Milton Friedman (ideologically speakin).

I say it's time for some serious lobbying reform...and high time for the death of Milton Friedman (ideologically speakin).


And what exactly will that change?  That only changes the words that spew out from a politician.  It really does not change the Government.

Look at "Tax Reform".  Is the IRS or taxes any different now then it was 20 years ago?  Look at Social Security.  That has been reformed many times, and it is still the same as it was when I entered the workforce in 1981, and it will likely be the same when I retire in another 20 or so years.

Look at all the reforms we have had in the INS.  Is it any different then it was before?

The Gvernment is not The Politicians.

The Government is the Byzantine system of beauros, beaurocracies, and employees that make up the bulk of those departments.  I am talking about the career "Civil Servants" and the departments that they work for.

In other words, the nuts and bolts people who actually run things.  The same people who have been working there for the last 20-30+ years.  Not the figureheads who head up those departments.  They are simply political apointees, and they change with every administration.



But many of the career civil servants are also there because of patronage.  They acquired their positions by working on the right campaign, or because the family knew someone who could get them a good position(even entry level).  Promotions into these positions have as much to do with influence and connections as the do with competence, and anyone who has worked in government know that many times influence(payoff) will trump competence.  As in any area there are many people who do an excellent job and are quite honest in their dealings, but I do believe the government to be as entrenched as the politicians.

this might stir some s**t.

http://prorev.com/quietstorm.htm

"What is tragic about the disintegration of American culture is the promise it held, the freedoms it created, the hope it sustained. The single common thread behind the forces that led to its collapse was greed: national greed, economic greed, lust for a greater audience and so forth. As Jefferson predicted, "They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights."

"On the other hand, the scattered remnants are still there - certainly larger in scale, say, than the early American colonies that adopted the Constitution yet still lost in the miasma of the paranoid, prevaricating, gluttonous parody of America the larger culture has become. Those who would preserve the better America and recreate from its damaged remains are not naive fools; they are the new founding fathers and mothers of a time and place still to come. Nor are they fantasizing. Any place, any community, any gathering can become what Hakim Bey called a temporary autonomous zone, an oasis of freedom, decency and hope, in which a new culture can take sprout. Name it, enjoy it, use it. It's the best we have at the moment."

i pretty much totally agree. this society is on the verge of crushing itself under machiavellian policies, complacent fantasies of its own greatness, and a cannibalization of the most noble aspects of its past.

i picked up "long emergency" just now, maxwell. there was a wait on it in the library...

And what exactly will that change?  That only changes the words that spew out from a politician.  It really does not change the Government.

Look at "Tax Reform".  Is the IRS or taxes any different now then it was 20 years ago?  Look at Social Security.  That has been reformed many times, and it is still the same as it was when I entered the workforce in 1981, and it will likely be the same when I retire in another 20 or so years.

Look at all the reforms we have had in the INS.  Is it any different then it was before?

I agree, it's frustrating as all hell.  But I wouldn't listen for  minute to a reforms suggested by anybody who advocates this supply-side economics garbage.  You know, such as Steve Forbes and his daffy "flat tax." 
One thing that has changed at the IRS as opposed to 20 years ago, is small-time debtors are much more likely to get hounded than big-time debtors. 
If you owe the IRS twenty million dollars, you'll hire one of those hifalutin tax attorneys to help you worm your way out of it while the IRS looks the other way.  If you owe the IRS twenty thousand dollars, they'll chase you to the end of the Earth and back, and back to the end of the Earth again!

I agree, it's frustrating as all hell.  But I wouldn't listen for  minute to a reforms suggested by anybody who advocates this supply-side economics garbage.  You know, such as Steve Forbes and his daffy "flat tax." 


Things like a "flat tax" will never happen.  Why?  Because the IRS will never allow it.  Even if somehow COngress passed it and the President signed it into law, "The System" will bock it.  Why? Because it would threaten their jobs and their security.  After all, such a tax would put thousands of taxmen out of work and shrink the size (and importance) of the IRS.

These agencies are as self-protective as any mother is over her child.  This is why we get "jurisdiction battles" between law enforcement agencies.  Anything that might make their department weaker is not to be tolerated.  It is simply a protection instinct.  And in this, the FBI or BATF is no different then the BLM or DVA.  Even the accomplishment of their stated job can (and often does) take a backseat to keeping the organization alive.

And it is not just in politics.  Look how many charities spend more money raising money then they spend in their charitable activities.  Is there any wonder I do not give money to groups like United Way, Red Cross, or those "feed the hungry children" begathons?  I would rather give my money to a local group who works out of the back of a church then to give it to Pernell Roberts or Sally Struthers (neither of which looks like they have missed any meals in the last 3 decades).