TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:Tell me something that will work. Everything that has been tried for the past century has failed. Nearly every political neophyte that is elected as a "fresh new face" has been a disaster.

No one will admit voting for him now, but Jimmy Carter carried Texas in 1976. He was the last Democratic presidential candidate to do so.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:People will take whatever opportunity they can get to sneak into the country, smuggle drugs, or otherwise commit crimes.

What I'm trying to say is that if the U.S. could completely eliminate all illegal border crossing from Mexico, the flow would go elsewhere. It always does. Island nations like Australia and New Zealand have illegal immigration and drug smuggling. Nobody is walking there or paddling a kayak.

This problem has been going on through the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations, with Republican and Democratic control of the house and senate. It has defied every attempt to stop it.

The reason is that Americans want to employ cheap labor and don't care about legality. I know people in real life who say they can't hire a native-born American to work on roofs or do drywall. ICE has busted plants that employed hundreds of illegals for jobs like butchering chickens.

It's not just Mexicans, either. There barely is a convenience store or motel owned by native-born Americans. Most of them are operated by Asians. Why do I have a feeling all their paperwork might not pass muster?

Illegal immigration and drugs, along with gambling, prostitution, and obscene pornography, are demand-driven problems. They have been with us through all of recorded history. Even in countries where they execute offenders, they can always find more offenders.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Here's another way of looking at it:

The majority of Americans who are eligible to vote don't vote, or maybe they come out in presidential election years and vote only for president and a few other candidates with high name recognition. They may stay home and gripe, call talk shows, or whatever; but the situation does not affect them enough to make any effort to change it.

The citizens who do vote and otherwise engage in the political process generally send mixed signals to Congress and to state* and local government. If you look at national elections since 2000, Gore won the popular vote (though of course he did not win the electoral vote—it was a squeaker), W got a solid majority in 2004, and Obama got a solid majority in 2008. The House changed party control twice in that period, and the Senate once.

Pretty much the same people voted. Granted some die, some new voters come of age, some stay home or come out for a particular election for their own reasons.

The only clear message that comes out of these oscillations is that the voters are dissatisfied. I think they are mainly unhappy with unemployment and the lame economy. Again, when you look back at history from the 1930s to the present, that is pretty much what triggered all changes in party control.

Everyone wants to cut the deficit until their own personal sacred cow is threatened. For example farm subsidies will never end while Iowa has such a huge influence on candidate selection.

One man or woman serving as president, however principled, is not going to change this situation (at least IMHO).

*This is not the case in Texas. The Republicans have held all state-wide offices and the legislature since about 1999.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:I think the people can change the direction of government, but a large enough segment of the demographic in certain states needs to want the same goals. Probably the most recent time that happened was the so-called Reagan Revolution, which was a reaction to the economic stagnation and seeming impotence of the U.S. in the 1970s.

As it is now, Congress oscillates back and forth between Democratic and Republican control, and a few senior officials go in and out of power. California, Illinois, and New York balance Texas, Florida, and the rest of the southern states in electoral and congressional power.

I understand that you would like to see an end to that, but what is the common goal of the American people?

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:It often happens that a swing vote on the Supreme Court makes a huge difference in history. That said, whatever one Congress does can be undone by the next, until the program becomes established and popular—if it does.

TAM: I consider General Petraeus thoroughly admirable. I don't know whether he would be willing to run and serve as President or how he would govern.

I sometimes think anyone willing to run for office should automatically be excluded as a candidate, but I can't think of what else to do. When the ancient Roman electorate lived in one town and all knew each other, they nominated people who did not campaign for office. That's what VoiceofReason is asking for, but I think that is impractical in a country the size and complexity of the U.S.

I'll also point out that most contested elections have margins in the 54-44% range or closer (with some votes going to third-party candidates). That means nearly half the electorate does not favor the winner. Only a few presidential elections have had margins as wide as 60-40. One was Nixon in 1972 (60.7-37.5%, to be exact).

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:P.S.: Neither Congress nor the President can "run the economy." GDP growth and employment/unemployment have gone up and down regardless of the party in power, tax policies, and fiscal policies (tight money, loose credit, etc.).

If you take a long view of history, from the eighteenth century to the 1930s, the American economy (even before there was a U.S. federal government) was a roller-coaster of booms, busts, panics, and fiscal crises. In some cases the federal government had to be bailed out by private parties like J.P. Morgan. Personal or corporate bankruptcy used to be a situation that compelled people to commit suicide or go to the territories and change their name.

For all the rhetoric from my esteemed representative Ron Paul and others, the Federal Reserve Bank and other fiscal policies have stabilized the economy. As bad as it is now, we don't have "Hoovervilles" or homeless Okies looking for a place to go as in The Grapes of Wrath yet.

- Jim