Wow, I just got spammed in my comments. COOL!! Well, I think it's cool because it's in a foreign language. I thought about deleting it, but I then thought..."I don't think anybody that reads my site is gullible enough to start clicking those links," so I'm keeping it up. Don't let me down, people!
In other news, I was made aware of a very interesting NY Times piece the other day. It's titled, "CONGRESS PASSES WIDE-RANGING BILL EASING BANK LAWS." It talks of how this deregulation bill would negatively impact the economy and how the bill made it easier for financial entities to enter other financial markets (i.e.-it made this current recession possible.) It's publication date? November 5...1999. You can insert your own ironic/sarcastic rebuttal now.
Interestingly enough, this bill passed the house and senate with majority votes from both parties, indicating that although Clinton signed it into law, and Bush did nothing about it, it wasn't just the Executive Branch that royally effed our economy up back then. I'm started to really dislike the majority of congress-people. I WANT TERM LIMITS IN CONGRESS!
I can't prove that they would have prevented this, let's not be naive, but I can't help but to wonder how much they were influenced (for a lengthy amount of time) by lobbyists. Term limits would not only harbor in stupid congress-people, but I imagine they'd also impact the lobby...in a good way (for Americans, that is, not the lobbyists).
27.3.09
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm with you on term limits. I've decided that just about everyone in Congress are liars, hypocrites and just plain greedy. And so are the lobbyists for that matter.
ReplyDeleteWhile term limits have obvious advantages, I for one am chalking this (as well as the vast majority of other problems) up to the two party system. A multi-party system would offer the checks and balances needed against both high powered lobbyists as well as ensuring (to a larger degree) that the right bills are passed for the right reasons.
ReplyDeleteI am inclined to think seriously about term limits, but to be fair, there were not many serious people who foresaw the catastrophe that came partially because of loosened regulation during the '90s (I obviously exclude far-left anti-globalization conspiracy theorists who are always saying the sky is falling from "serious people." You can predict doom constantly, but you should not then expect anyone to be impressed when you are right every once in awhile).
ReplyDeleteIn hindsight, the basic assumptions behind deregulation were naive (as many of its former proponents have admitted), and the Obama Administration should continue to push for re-regulation. But to throw up your hands and say that everyone in Congress is greedy is to take the lazy way out, and is probably not very productive.
Brad, having lived in a country with many many parties, I saw a very interesting thing. First of all, while there were many parties, there were still only perhaps five parties in Parliament, and two had the majority, and the other three had perhaps less than 2% of the vote.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree that more choices and stances should be represented, what I've experienced is that multi-party systems eventually consolidate into two main parties, with wide beliefs on either side. Even toward the end of my stay, I saw candidates from one of the main parties endorsed by 10+ "little parties" just so they could cover all of their bases.
Brett, I offer term limits as a simple idea that *needs* (in my view) to be implemented. I apologize if I led anyone to believe that such implementation would prevent any future disaster. I still stand by my view that it would be one of the most powerful tools against the lobby.