Zonie63 -> RE: The Year in Hate and Extremism (3/12/2013 4:16:21 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: vincentML quote:
So, the President has the power to remove a member of the Federal Reserve for cause. Removal for cause usually means a person has committed an illegal or unethical act. This does not alter my view that government actors have no power to effect the Fed's policies and are therefore not culpable for what it does. Perhaps, although the statute doesn't elaborate on that. Perhaps it's left up to the President's discretion to decide what is justifiable cause? Besides, the President is still responsible for the people he appoints, and the Senate is responsible for confirming those appointments. If they pick a clinker, then it's still their fault, even if they they can't remove him. It's ultimately the responsibility of whoever hired them. I would say the same about the Supreme Court, the CIA Director, or any other non-elected post appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. What do you think about having the Federal Reserve Board of Governors as elected posts, rather than being appointed? quote:
quote:
Corruption exists, so I always find it somewhat incredulous whenever someone suggests that the government is incapable of doing any wrong whatsoever. I have not seen anyone make such a suggestion. Not in so many words, but I always question the tactics of ridicule whenever they're used against someone questioning government policy. quote:
quote:
That was in the past, not now. We can't sit back and rest on our laurels, which is exactly what I mean when I say that our government has failed to lead. They're supposed to be looking forward, not backward. Are you suggesting socialist planning? Horrors! [;)] How far forward can a government look? In a democratic free market economy you get a democratic free market government. There are many who rage at government sponsored safety nets. I cannot imagine they would tolerate planning. So, what is it precisely that the govt should do to look forward? I wasn't necessarily thinking in terms of economics (although a bit of planning ahead might have helped). Just using basic common sense (i.e. "don't spend more money than you take in") might have helped a great deal. The people who rage at government sponsored safety nets usually are the same ones who rage against deficit spending and the national debt, although their rage doesn't seem to have even the slightest influence over governmental policy. But you don't need to have a crystal ball to be able to predict what might happen if more money goes out than comes back in. Soon, there will be no more money. If they can't at least look that far forward (as any consumer or head of household must do), then they don't deserve to lead. Simple as that. But aside from economics, let's take the examples you've brought up in this thread. The patriot groups you mentioned and their political etymology going back to fascism and the KKK. We also discussed the Civil Rights Movement and that the government finally decided to do something about that issue in the 1950s and 60s, nearly a century after the Civil War ended. Don't you think that could have happened much sooner if we had a government that looked forward back in, say, 1880 or so? quote:
quote:
What exactly do you mean when you say that they're prevented "from dealing with the complexities of a diverse society"? That's a very generalized and vague statement without any specifics. They "drop out" become exclusionary, suspicious, insular, and self absorbed. I'm still not sure if I'm understanding the reasons you think they do this, though. I've known people who have a somewhat "rebellious" consciousness, but I also find that they're far more sincere and scrupulously honest than the average person on the street. They're rugged individualists, non-conformists, marching to the beat of a different drum. So, they may not fit in with the "In Crowd," but so what? Maybe it's not that they can't deal with the complexities of a diverse society, but maybe they think society is fucked. And whether you like it or not, this particular mindset is very much a part of our culture and a part of our diverse society. Slogans such as "free your mind" and "fight the power" are a part of our national consciousness. In our movies, literature, music - one can find rebellion all over the place. quote:
quote:
The regionalism you speak of is nowhere near as strong as it used to be. That's as much a result of mobility as anything else, since people move around a lot more than they did in the past. State and regional loyalties are more diffused and watered down these days, so it doesn't have as much of an impact on our politics as it once did. You can still categorize the states in groups that for example have a majority of Evangelicals and vote Republican while those with a majority of Catholics vote Democratic. We still have rural vs urban mentalities. We still have states righters vs unionist (one nation) views. There are other issues that can be assigned to red and blue states. I always thought that "red state"/"blue state" stuff was a lot of hype.
|
|
|
|