Full disclosure: I'm very nearly an old-phart now. Which means that I remember very well what used to be taken for granted, "here in the good ol' U S of A." Which leads me to wonder when this generation of Americans will finally start to take back their birthright:

You can't have a government in the face of bribery ... especially not when bribery is sanctioned.
And it isn't, of course. The US Constitution rates "bribery" along with "treason," calling both by name. But when the Supreme Council of Nine Princes proclaimed otherwise ... no doubt in response to a tidy secret payment of their own ... no one visibly complained.

You can't have "representation" when no one can lose their job, and everyone knows it.
The British have a delightful system in which they can kick-out everyone in their government and replace them all in about two weeks. They've done it before, and their reps know they'll do it again. The USA has far less turnover in its Congress than the Soviets had in their Politburo.

You can't point fingers at "the other party" and pin troubles on them, if "the OTHER party" isn't doing its job either.
All that this does is what it's intended to do: to deflect the fury of the populace with the equvalent of a two-colored matador's cape.

Health care is a fundamental human right, not a for-profit business.
If you are looking at "the bottom line," you are not providing care. It doesn't matter if that hospital is profitable. It does matter that it is "a fine, well-equipped hospital" that anyone can walk into.

It's not the Government's job to prop-up, nor to be the bill-collectors for, any private enterprise.
Especially not one that, by definition, only makes money when someone else doesn't get medical care.

Usury is a crime. Not a respectable business.
Yet "title pawn" shops are everywhere. Loans are being made at well over one-thousand percent interest. This industry is, once again, "a generous contributor."

Affordable education is also a fundamental public interest.
... not an avenue for funneling public money into private institutions. Education can't be something that's only afforded to those who call themselves wealthy, and that can only be obtained through usurious loans that cause them to become poor.

Every single thing that cries for funding "in the name of Defense" does not, in fact, deserve it.
Nor should that spending ever be "in secret." Yet, today, millions of dollars a minute disappear into this maw, and no one knows where it goes (except those who secretly receive it). Money, itself, loses all meaning in the face of this practice.

Fifty years ago, you didn't even think to ask about any of these things, with the possible exception of "blame the other party." The country was still fresh from having banded-together to serve the public interest of winning World War II. It didn't confuse itself as to what "public spending" was for, and it didn't count itself poor in any way. What I see today is that this very image is being replaced with "we's po' folks." My instinctive reaction to this idea is exactly like the Allied general's famous retort: "Nuts!" But, why don't I hear that same sentiment now? Where did this passive defeat-ism come from?

I thought your example of ursury was going to be collateral debt obligations composed mainly of subprime mortages and insured with credit default swaps.

I think the crucial problem is the point you made about real representation. Congress doesn't have much turnover because of (1) gerrymandering and (2) low turnouts. Here the constituency boundaries are drawn up by non-political civil servants in a commission. Here you don't have to jump through hoops to register as a voter: everyone is registered (even if they don't want to). Here you don't have to travel long distances and queue for ages at a polling station: there are masses of them because they're cheap to run — we still tick boxes on bits of paper! The one thing where we are the same as you (worse luck) is the first-past-the-post system.

There was an interesting article (Christian Science Monitor?) recently on a recent survey that showed how few USians agree with the party they vote for: they just pick the least unacceptable option. I wondered how they even manage that. When the election comes next year, every British party will be publishing a manifesto setting out their plans in detail. And (almost) every candidate will be committed to it, or they wouldn't have got selected.

I don't think it is defeatism. It takes huevos to stand and take blows for what you believe in.
Most folks now stand up and take blows for "I needed that!"
Like a Black Friday crowd.

It has been generations since WW2, The 60's. You are just noticing apathy more because of the net and TV.
Don't let it effect you. I am the product of 2 concentration camp survivors. It is fine to just appreciate
being alive.

When the crap hits the fan. You will remember this thread and wish for the apathy days.
Because change usually means.
No one gets out alive.

You have lobbyists that take 'contributions' in order to further their cause, therefore it is a euphemism, its still bribery. I venture to guess you don't have the means to 'donate' to a certain cause, at least not as much as a 'lobbyist' does. It is outright bribery, again its just not called that, its called lobbying.

But there is no turnover at all. You have senators/congressmen/women that stay in office until they die, thats not good either. The president has only 2 terms, why can't we have something similar to that for the rest? (notice I did not include Supreme Court judges).

Both parties are guilty of this, so what else is new?

It is all about the bottom line. Remember, healthcare is not a right in the US, because the free-market will fix it, the free-market will fix it all. Socialized medication is bad....Free market!

Thats what the government did during the banking crisis, (and if memory serves me , it was under....a Republican administration to be fair democrats would have done the same thing, so why is big business complaining about 'socialism'? Remember, its socialism for the rich, capitalism for the poor. The gov. will always bail out the big guys, and leave the little ones out to dry by sticking them with the bill.

I am for business making a profit, but when big business wants to cut every single corner, take advantage of so many tax-loopholes that they pay next to 0 their fair share of taxes, well then, I kinda have a problem with that.

Again, 'free market'. Gotta let the banks dictate rates. I hope by now you are reading between the lines and picking up on my sarcasm .

By now it should be obvious that it is all for profit, not like they really care about what happens. They'll just shout patriotism to throw sand in your eyes. Go to war for 'wmds', oh btw we'll just help ourselves to your oil resources. How much is crude oil now? And why is it so expensive even though a barrel is less than 80$ or so... Hrmm. Oh, remember that thing the Arab nations had, the whole 'Arab Spring' thing? In Libya, oh yea we gotta give them support, but Egypt? Meh, no oil and Mubarak is on our payroll anyways.... See where I am going with this?

I don't think it is passive-defeatism. It is war fatigue and rightly so. Nothing was accomplish just two pointless wars. Fifty years ago, no one imagined paying $3+ for a gallon of gas. If the Soviet Union was still around today, I am sure also they would just be in awe and take pointers from us on how to keep the masses in place.

Panem et circesses. Essentially meaning 'bread and circus' , provide the masses with that, and nobody will say anything, and if that doesn't work, well then lock them up for being a terrorist.

Sorry if I seem so ...oh Whats the word...jaded? But there it is, its the truth.

I am, surprisingly enough, confident that eventually enough ka-ka will pile-up around the air-movement device for people to finally refuse to accept it. I'm quite astonished at just how much is being "accepted" today, however.

Likewise I am astonished to see bribery descend (and entirely without apology ...) to what can only be described as "depravity" and, indeed, "absurdity." A good friend of mine has a patented way of cocking her head to one side, looking you straight in the eye, and saying: "Really?" When that happens, you know that her personal B.S. detector has gone off.

I guess I'm simply astonished ... "do you honestly think that you are somehow getting away with all of this?"

And with regard to "the rest of the world community" ... "do you honestly think that these people, with their national histories stretching back sometimes many thousands of years, are somehow hoodwinked by what you're doing?" Nevermind what your official-opinion of yourself is ... do you honestly think that well-seasoned world leaders share that opinion, of what is still the y-o-u-n-g-e-s-t nation on this ancient stage?

The answer to both questions, of course, is a resounding "No!" But I am both stunned by this behavior, and embarrassed for my country.

I don't like to be "embarrassed for my country." (That is to say, "for what its damned-fool leaders, all 700-or-so of them, are doing.") It's like witnessing public drunkenness ... of your parents.

"Do they honestly think they can get away with this?" The answer is a resounding yes, otherwise why are they doing what they are doing in the first place? As you pointed out it has sunk to a leave of blatant depravity. Its not about hiding it from the public, at this point its just how much can you get away with while the masses accept it. Lets say even if they were up in arms, so what, they have law enforcement, cops, ATF, FBI... I am sure they can find 'grounds' to silence opposition.

As for "the rest of the world community" , it does matter because the US may be a 'powerful nation', it won't do it any favors by having a negative world view by the whole world community. Being the 'big kid' doesn't make you that much more powerful, and in fact would spur the others to gang up on you.

I can drone on-and on about Iraq and Afghanistan, but all I am going to say is that the US will never accomplish it's democratic vision for those countries. Culturally they do not accept it, plus they just see the US as an invading force anyways. Besides, if the Mongols and Soviets were unable to fully hold Afghanistan what makes the US so special that it thinks it can? But I digress and leave it at that. Didn't mean to go off topic too much

I've lived in some much much worse places. I try not to complain as I know I can still buy food, have a shelter over my head. I have the right to vote and despite what others say, my vote does count. You are free to donate your time to charity to make it a better place too. Spend a few years in a third world country or even a modern one like Japan and see if you don't find that your hate towards US is unfounded. Yes, every country has problems. You are so blessed and you don't know it. Go out and feed the poor, help a widow or homeless.

Being in a country that has "preferential voting" I, personally, like the idea of first past the post. If we got rid of preferential voting then it would be the people, not the back room men who no one knows who they are, who choose from a list who they are represented by.

This reminds me of a line from Master and Commander where Russell Crowe says to the doctor he should choose the "lesser of two weevils".

Only 2? Korea (which is still technically at war), Vietnam (which was a total loss), Iraq (how many times did we send ground forces in?), Afghanistan, and the world is not a safer place. I agree it is war weariness but the "Commander-In-Chief" keep sending people off to fight wars that cannot be won.

BTW I agree with your sentiments I just think the war count is a little inaccurate.

@ Sundialsvcs, when you have entire cities, some of which use to be the hub of manufacturing (e.g. Detroit) go into bankruptcy because the sector of the economy that kept these cities alive has been in a semi permanent downturn for the last 30-40 years there is a problem. We have a similar situation here in Australia where by the end of 2017 we will have no real large scale manufacturing done in this country and we will have to most import things from OS (probably China thanks to the new free-trade agreement, ironically GM is shutting down its Australian operations and sending them to China). I'm all for a global market place but each country has to be able to provide employment for its people but if we do a Khmer Rouge and force the population into Agrarian jobs and ignore things like manufacturing, health, education, science, the country will go downhill. Unfortunately, and I believe this is the case for Australia at least and most probably the US as well, the only people to blame are the people themselves. When election campaigns are like Hollywood epics it says to me the people just want entertainment.

Korea - it was the Southern and US forces that refuses to sign a peace agreement, as far as Vietnam this goes into just US policy biting it in the bum which is well deserved actually. The reason I say this is because beforehand Vietnam was still under the French, the Communist forces wanted to throw off the yoke of France but the US itself did not want Vietnam to be independent of France if it meant it becoming a Communist state. That kinda tends to go on with other countries. If the country in question is free and hates your guts, better install a puppet instead. Sure it may be ruled by a bastard, 'but he's our bastard.' Case in point, the reappointing of the Shah in Iran order for US to get more oil, but what was the human rights record of the Shah, oh and what happened after that in 1979??

Its even more complicated in the Middle East, and the US is not the only one to blame, France and other colonial powers are responsible for carving up the middle east which you see the map as it is now, arbitrarily carved up with no account taken along ethnic/religious lines, 'ok we're leaving, we are going to draw the boundaries for you, and if there is a problem well its not ours.'

I'm droning on-and-on but my last example is Saudi Arabia, the supposed US ally, nevermind the human rights record of that country and it is even possible that the Royal family might be the ones funding the damned insurgencies in Irag and Syria,...hrmmmm , but again I digress .

This I did not know, thanks for the edumacation
Uncle Ho (as I believe he is affectionately called) wrote to the then President of the USA and asked for US assistance. The US refused to even acknowledge the letter and Uncle Ho then wrote to the CCCP and China (who he disliked immensely) and of course they come running to offer assistance and this fed the old "Domino" theory quite well.
The whole middle east thing is a complete and utter political minefield and one that I, and I am sure the vast majority of people, do not fully understand. Everytime I see Iran on the news I am reminded of one of my doctors (the man I credit for saving my life) and my mothers doctor (who are both "Persian") who have openly said the Shah was nothing compared to what took over from him. I have no doubt US, and other western nations, policy with regards to the Shah was wrong but when intelligent and kind people tell me he was as meek as a fluffy toy compared to what has come since I have to take heed of their words. They lived there, I have never.

I have said many times in many different places the situation in the middle east stems from millennia of hatred. From the Crusades back to Alexander the Great, Egypt, the Hittites, the Babylonians etc etc etc the middle east has been the focal point of conquest (for what reason I do not understand, it is sparsely populated, mostly desert, and up until the discovery of oil really had nothing of worth to any conqueror apart from a direct root to the silk road).

Arabia ruled by the Saudi tribe who oppress all other tribes in Arabia. If only the British did explore for oil when given the chance after WW1.

I take great exception to this way of viewing your fellow Americans. It's dangerous. We (Americans) all live here. To hate it would be like hating your Home... in fact exactly that. What you are reading here and elsewhere is not hatred. That's what people who try to control us want us to believe - divide us into niches and "those aren't really Americans (or insert whatever nationality since it exists everywhere) because "they don't hold the values we do sacred and hate us for it". It is divisive by design.

The very reason that the US was formed as a multiple party system with checks and balances is because peaceful resolution of conflict is essential but that conflict itself is also vital to any Democratic Republic. In "the good old days" it at least tried to be "of the people, for the people and by the people".

Unfortunately when the Articles of Confederation were tossed out largely due to the work of Alexander Hamilton, an elitist who believed in the natural rightness of an Aristocracy and used propaganda in the near monopoly he had on media, newspapers, (rather like his successors William Randolph Hearst and Rupert Murdoch), to slant the Constitution to favor a ruling class. Fortunately others came to the rescue with The Bill of Rights, somewhat defusing that terrible imbalance. However when we stopped real Capitalism, when the Fed was able to regulate, punish and reward corporations it didn't take long at all for corporations to learn that a very high priority on controlling those who can control you, and choose which side of that reward/punishment fence you live, is highly productive and necessary... for them.

We drifted away from Capitalism toward Oligarchy and Fascism. Now corporations and the officials who champion their cause yell "Capitalism! Free Market!" when in fact they hate that. They hate competition and prefer complete control. The also yell "Family!" because who can be against that? and "Individualism!" because that keeps us from overcoming differences to form any group big enough to be a real threat. These are all Straw Men. Read Mein Kampf if you want to see it completely explained far better than I can, although I hear rumors that buying a copy or borrowing one from a Public Library will now put you on a watch list". It didn't used to.

I don't see how limiting the term or number of terms of any government officials will make any substantial difference now because not only does our vote only really count in Primaries, we don't get to vote on the Board of Directors of Corporations who pull the strings of whomever is in office.

While it is likely true that most Americans don't realize how good it still is compared to many other countries, that is not how we got that way. We didn't compete with others. We tried to set our own standard and let them work it out for themselves. That was none of our business, then. I think it is worse than useless to believe what directions we are headed in are acceptable just because "it's not as bad as over there". It's worse because it furthers us down the road to an utter lack of dissent and when dissent is stifled, a country or an ideology is on the downhill slope to implosion.

Being "embarrassed by" is not the same thing as "hating". It is in fact exactly because it (and here I don't mean the geography, or even the inhabitants, but rather that ideology that made us great once upon a time) is revered and perceived to be falling short even contradictory to the health of our Nation that people do and should complain.

The above are just my opinions based on historical events and trends and you are free to disagree. I just thought it might be worth examining that Pavlovian response of "Americans hating America". I suspect it is an extremely rare bird and certainly not in evidence here, so far.

Here is a great quote:
Which of the three elements is currently ruling in the USA, in your opinion? In my opinion it's the scum of the Earth. So the question is really: when will you elect honest statesmen? You can not keep voting for plague or cholera [your two-party system] and expect any improvements. (Well, you can expect it, but it's not going to happen.)

You need honest idealistic people in charge of the nation. Otherwise it rots from inside. You are observing the symptoms of this rot. Another great quote:

All very well, but this thread reminds me of "The Mappined Life" by Saki. The more things change....

well for the last few years we have seen the "symbolic " things like the dumping of tea off a ship

BUT we have yet to see a "Boston commons massacre"

once that happens
the Beetles song ".. so you think you want a rev...."