News Media & 2008 US Election: Is Democracy at Risk?

[quadraphonics]

Wow, this thread went on a wild jag...

I don't particularly like either of the parties, myself. But let's keep some perspective: the important thing in a democracy is to have more than one party. The rest is a matter of taste. As far as the two-party system goes, it's a direct consequence of the electoral system designed in the Constitution. So, we need to either change the Constitution (which is going to require a prolonged, widespread local and state movement towards parlaimentary systems) or accept it and move on.

Getting fired up once every four years and blaming a TV conspiracy for keeping your pet candidate out of the race isn't going to go anywhere. Even if we passed media access laws like they have in France, the most it would accomplish is to make the two parties a little more responsive to fringe party concerns. Which might be worthwhile, but, again it would be better to address the issue directly in terms of the election system.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Ron Paul

Thanks for the links to the Ron Paul stuff, Benzoate. I'd caught one of those interviews on the news and I wanted to hear more of what he was saying.

He brings up lots of good points that I wish were being discussed more, like the potential inflation problems that will probably show up from the bailout. But he doesn't have any solution to the inflation thing that could be added to the bill, nor any real solution to the crisis; he just wants to run the entirety of the existing economy and financial system through the woodchipper.

His basic premise seems incoherent to me; he appears to be saying that the reason why everything is out of control now is because we have an ability to control it in the first place. He wants the economy to be restructured so that the government has no way to affect or control it, and evidently everything will just magically take care of itself.

I agree that sometimes we get in trouble because one part of the government or another fiddles around too much but it just doesn't make any sense to me that the measures he proposes will result in a system that works better. Especially all his talk about silver and gold somehow being more "real" than fiat currency. You can't eat gold, it doesn't keep you warm in the winter, and you can't build a house out of it. There's no actual or sensible reason that gold and silver should be the "precious" metals rather than, say, cobalt and tantalum.

Gold and silver only ended up being valuable because they're shiny and stone age people could easily make jewelry out of them and because, like fiat currency, they're compact and portable. They just aren't any more of a solution to modern problems than converting to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wampum" -based economy would be.

⚛​

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Here's another interview with Paul from yesterday, which I think touches on most of his good criticisms of the bailout (mixed in with proposals that mostly don't sound too hot to me):

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/01/roberts.ron.paul.cnn

Yeah, come to think of it, that really sums it up: usually his analysis of situations in domestic affairs or things like the Iraq war I find very good or even spot on exactly what I think, often better than what I hear most other politicians saying. It's just that the solutions he proposes usually seem questionable or downright nutty.

⚛​

 

[Benzoate]

I never said that Obama's 'newness' and 'interest' didn't come from him being black. I'm actually quite certain that is the major reason he has gotten as much attention and support as he has. That and people being tired of the republicans in office (whether the perception of there being a difference is accurate doesn't matter, that's still the perception).

As far as Ron Paul goes I (as in I personally) think he is a loon for his desire to overturn Roe v Wade, pull out of NATO, pull out of the UN, dispose of the IRS, dispose of the Department of Education, and in short his focus on supposed "states rights" potentially taking us back to a collection of bickering and disparate colonies. We could go on all day and would need a seperatethread to really discuss these ideas though so I am just saying they are my personal opinion and my opinion is not entirely uninformed.

We are investing more money into education than any other country in the worldhttp://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_tot_exp_as_of_gdp-education-total-expenditure-gdp.,yet
are children performed the poorests in fields such as math and science. So lack of money is not the problem . I don't think we need the IRS to fund the US government. The IRS isn't in the constitution. There have been many court cases in this country that challange whether pay federal income tax is constitutionally or not; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_protester_constitutional_arguments

Many people have won those cases are are not paying federal income taxes. Many legal experts are disputing whether we pay for a voluntary income tax. Even former IRS commissioner said, "M. Caplin who said, "our tax system is based on individual self assessment and voluntary compliance." ; We have lots of taxes to pay , in addition to the federal income tax like corporate tax, excise tax, property taxes , local income tax, sales taxes, state income tax, even a 'sin tax'. I suggest you watch John Stossel wonderful documentary on how are money is spent and where they invest are taxes at.

 

[Benzoate]

Here's another interview with Paul from yesterday, which I think touches on most of his good criticisms of the bailout (mixed in with proposals that mostly don't sound too hot to me):

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/10/01/roberts.ron.paul.cnn

Yeah, come to think of it, that really sums it up: usually his analysis of situations in domestic affairs or things like the Iraq war I find very good or even spot on exactly what I think, often better than what I hear most other politicians saying. It's just that the solutions he proposes usually seem questionable or downright nutty.

⚛​

Well , I think that congress passing a bill that would help out wall street is kind of nutty if most Americans are against these bailouts. They are intentionally ignoring there constituents.

 

[Astronuc]

The IRS isn't in the constitution.

That's true - BUT the Constitution did provide the Congress with the ability to raise taxes, pay debts, regulate commerce, pass laws to do all that and more, and Congress established the US Treasury.
http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/history/act-congress.shtml

And the IRS is part of the Treasury.

Furthermore - "The 16^th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax."
http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=149200,00.html

Amendment XVI [Income Tax (1913)]

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxvi.html

 

[LordofDirT]

Let's not forget the constitution has implied powers.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

Why doesn't the mainstream news media, democratic and republican, pay more attention to foreign events outside of what our enemies or friends are doing?

 

[CaptainQuasar]

Well , I think that congress passing a bill that would help out wall street is kind of nutty if most Americans are against these bailouts. They are intentionally ignoring there constituents.

I think it's more the kind of situation that they know they're damned if they do and also damned if they don't, and they think it'll be worse in the end if they don't do anything.

Sure, people say right now that they're okay with it if all the banks and financial institutions fail. But guess whose heads would be on the chopping block once the s▒▒t actually hits the fan and state governments can't pay their employees (already predicted in some states) and people in the private sector lose their jobs, or no one in the high school class of 2009 is able to get school loans and so colleges and universities start closing, or people have trouble getting the loan to buy their next car. All of those constituents would simply say "well you should have known better, you were the ones in charge!"

⚛​