patrick.net

terriDeaner says

People generally seem to be angrier and more reactionary than they used to be. I think it has a lot to do with the depressed state of our country, and a general hopelessness for the future. And I think this is coming out in their posting habits, and in their rhetoric.

Yes, I think that's true.

Hate is fear. Same neurons.

Pain and pleasure as well. So much so, they can at times indistinguishable

I beg to differ on the doom and gloom, depressed state of the economy, fear of the future

Perception is reality, and life is what you make it. Try turning off the TV for a year, i promise, you'll feel much better. For those of us working class folk, things are better now that prices are falling. We make tangible things in the real economy, interact with our communities and dont sit around bitching about what sucks, we go out and make things better for ourselves. I can avoid corporations altogether, its the government that i can't get away from. Telling me what i can't do at every turn, and demanding their cut of my action. I cant think of a single corporation that adversely affects my life. I can think of three branches of government and their lackey henchman that make a career out of screwing me over

I could delete it after he repeats the same thing ten times without acknowledging the counter-arguments. Where should I draw the line?

Tough to say. I've learned most by addressing some of the righty assertions once posted to this forum.

The "Ray America" "Taxpayer" "Ron Paul Fan" "Austrian Man" axis though is here to spread a message.

Part of "being nice" is not making unfounded assertions, and addressing other peoples' counter-arguments in an honest manner.

I don't know why there's so much bullshit coming from the right these days. I kinda suspect it's just paid "strategic communications", but that is probably giving them too much credit wrt organization and capability.

How does one address the Big Lie? I just put the Big Liars on ignore after responding to them once, that's probably best to keep your forums from getting garbaged up with crap.

Patrick, you said: "the US Post Office is self-funding and does not use tax money". The same is true of UPS and FedEx.

The real problem is a 2006 Congressional mandate that requires USPS to pre fund the cost of retiree health benefits. In other words, its the government itself, that created the problem. Government is the source of most problems which is why limited constitutional government is the solution.

Patrick, I may have been a bit harsh on the ShrekGrinch topic but I just want to say you are doing a great job moderating this one.

"The explanation for All Our Problems" - Patrick, you contend that whoever pays the biggest bribe wins. Who's the crook, the one who offered the bribe (the lobbyist), or the one who accepts the bribe (the congress critter)? Or are they both crooks?

The solution for most of the problems facing America is limited, constitutional government.

"If political history is our guide democracy is the problem not the solution; the citizens have voted themselves the treasury. The reason our forefathers designed our constitution a Republic rather than a Democracy was to prevent us from being enslaved by our own excesses." [Which is where we find ourselves today - Abe]

From "Surviving Civil War II, Preparing for Economic , Social and Political Collapse" by Daxton Brown.

errc says

You dont like what (politicians and corporations) are doing, you have the option not to participate.

I disagree. You are forced to participate in this economy to live. You must pay for certain things, like sending letters, getting health care, or owning a cellphone.

You don't have a lobbyist of your own. So you don't have any power.

errc says

the for profit corporations. They are doing the only thing one can expect them to do. They wouldnt survive in this system otherwise

I agree. It's set up so that the corporations are forced to pay the bribes just like the Congressmen are forced to accept the bribes. So we should change the setup.

errc says

I can avoid corporations altogether

You most definitely cannot avoid them. And your freedom is shrinking as ever fewer larger corporations impose taxes on you. Just because it's not called a tax does not mean it isn't.

Personally, I don't feel oppressed by any part of government at all. Taxes as a % of GDP are the lowest they've been in my whole lifetime.

Honest Abe says

Government is the source of most problems

I almost agree. Corrupt government is the source of most problems.

The solution is publicly funded campaigns and a ban on private campaign money, especially corporate money.

We could also try this Federalism thing. Let the red states become shitholes again.

California has the GDP to be a very wealthy place. We've already lost much of our military spending so losing the ties to DC wouldn't cost us much.

We have the population of Canada but a GDP 1.5X higher.

Oregon and Hawaii would be welcome to join us, too!

Bellingham Bob says

We have the population of Canada but a GDP 1.5X higher.

Ah, but not the freshwater resources! That, and the rising cost of energy/oil for such a big, spread-out, automobile-dependent state weigh heavily on its future, in my opinion.

terriDeaner says

Ah, but not the freshwater resources!

We got easy access to the ocean. There's freshwater in that.

That, and the rising cost of energy/oil for such a big, spread-out, automobile-dependent state weigh heavily on its future, in my opinion.

Insolation is pretty good for most of CA. We've got to just build this out.

Iraq cost $1T. For 1% of that cost we'd have ~5 GW of PV power on tap, 1/7 of the draw as I write this.

Plus we can think about nukes again, though Fukushima tells us that big is not necessarily better when it comes to nukes.

Bellingham Bob says

We could also try this Federalism thing. Let the red states become shitholes again.

True, without the Federal tax money taken from the blue states to redistribute to the red states, the red states would be much worse off.

terriDeaner says

Ah, but not the freshwater resources!

That's what Oregon and Washington state are for. They have the water.

Southern California actually has quite a bit of oil, and enough solar energy to power the new country, if it could just be captured efficiently.

But we're getting off topic. America's not dead yet. I think ending the systemic campaign finance corruption would really save the country.

And I would think anyone who really loves the free market would want to protect the free market from being killed by bribery of government officials.

I would think anyone who really loves the free market would want to protect the free market from being killed by bribery of government officials.

Rich people don't love free markets. They love money.

Agreed, corrupt government is the source of most problems. Which politicians are not corrupt? An "honest politician" is an oxymoron in today's world, isn't it?

A very real problem today is debt bondage which a fiscally irresponsible government has forced upon all of us. Approximately $400,000 of unfunded debt is hanging around every living Americans neck, regardless of how old or young they are. Patrick, you don't feel oppressed by that government imposed burden?

No one in their right mind would allow their children to be indentured to a mountain of debt they never incurred. This is pain all of us will experience because our reckless government was not able to keep its financial house in order.

Our debt enslaves us not only to the government and the entitlement class which ran up the bill and constantly asks for more, but also to our largest and most dangerous creditor - China...oops.

Ron Paul - Campaign for Liberty!

Honest Abe says

Patrick, you don't feel oppressed by that government imposed burden?

Nah, it's less than half of Japan's burden per person, and still less than our own debt burden at the end of WWII.

It terms of debt as a % of GDP, we're number 37:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_by_public_debt

Only about 8% of the federal budget goes to pay interest on the debt. I agree it's too much, but it's a small problem compared with the corruption of our laws. The corruption of our laws led directly to all of this, via the housing bubble, bailouts, export of manufacturing to China etc.

If we can stop the flow of corporate campaign money to DC, then we at least have a chance of setting things up the way the people want them to be. Including people like you. But with our current bribery system, we have no chance.

Ron Paul Fan says

Its us vs them you Tard!

Comment deleted for being less than nice.

Bellingham Bob says

We got easy access to the ocean. There's freshwater in that.

Well... sorta.... desalinization technology is still expensive to implement, in part because it is so energy intensive. Plus, dealing with the coastal commission in CA to get ANYTHING progressive built along the coast is a real battle (at least currently...).

That's what Oregon and Washington state are for. They have the water.

Sorry, this IS off topic... but... I just thought it was a funny comparison to start with because Canada has a pornographically large supply of water compared to CA, even with OR and WA thrown in!

And I would think anyone who really loves the free market would want to protect the free market from being killed by bribery of government officials.

Back on topic, lobbying sucks. But I think Abe brought up a good point. It takes a briber and a bribee to ruin the system. Surely, if the bribers were removed, at least half of the problem would go away. But the assumption that the other half would as well might not hold true...

it's less than half of Japan's burden per person, and still less than our own debt burden at the end of WWII.

Here's a graph to put some perspective on recent events:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2v1

green is financial sector debt to GDP
red is household
purple is gummint
cyan is corporate business

See the problem?

Only about 8% of the federal budget goes to pay interest on the debt. I agree it's too much

and the stupid thing is that we should have never borrowed that money in the first place, cutting taxes on the wealthy most clearly did not work. What were we thinking, LOL.

This is how you keep the wheels of corporate welfare greased.

I've always wondered if there was a way for the people to have a vote on this issue, can you imagine seeing this on the ballot:

Shall private donations to political nominees and elected officials be banned? Yes/No

What shall be the cap on individual donations towards a political candidate? $100/$500/$1000

Shall all future presidential election ballots contain the option "None of the Above"?

That would make sense. Our system after all revolves around government policy being structured for the biggest donors.

All we need to do is find those elusive potential public officers, that would serve the public pro bono, and put the interests of society before their own self interests

One thing i see throughout the interwebs as common theme in our modern day blame game, is pointing the finger at either the government, or the corporation. I tend to think he who is most to blame, is the individual that empowers these entities. Energy is not limitless. The only way these entities have so much power, is because YOU give it to them. Try turning off the boob tube for a couple months

Patrick, do you mind citing me some examples where these corporations are negatively influencing my life? Or your life? As an American, i see no instances where i wish to do something, and a corporation stands in my way. Now the government, thats another story. Im open to the scenario that im wrong here, just need help envisioning it.

When i desire to grow medicine in my back yard, and share it with my community, it is the state that decides that i am wrong. It is the state that decides i owe them a debt, both monetarily and of my time. It is the state (and their lawyer complex) that benefits/profits. Marijuana prohibition may have been born from corporate influence and desires, but william randolph hearst is no longer alive, and not sure how much influence the duponts have over our current "drug" policy. I do know that the rent seeking bastard judges, lawyers, and police state infrastructure benefit the most from 400$ oz pot and millions of end users clogging the prisons

Bellingham Bob says

and the stupid thing is that we should have never borrowed that money in the first place, cutting taxes on the wealthy most clearly did not work. What were we thinking, LOL.

So what? Just increase the taxes across the board and be done with it.

terriDeaner says

Surely, if the bribers were removed, at least half of the problem would go away. But the assumption that the other half would as well might not hold true...

Sure, Congressmen would still have a motive to sell out, but at least it would be illegal.

Right now, they sell us out, ruin our economy, raise our bills, and it's all legal.

Patrick, I totally agree - stop the corporate campaign money to Washington.

On the matter of debt, however, how do you defend the concept of one generation enjoying the benefits of massive government largess - but not paying for it. And subsequent generations not enjoying the largess - but being forced to pay for it???

Honest Abe says

how do you defend the concept of one generation enjoying the benefits of massive government largess - but not paying for it.

Haha. Just wait,more rooster are coming home to roost.

The debt was not caused by government largess, and least not mostly.

Social Security has paid for itself so far, though I think Medicare has contributed to the debt.

Other big items: pointless war in Iraq, taking on Fannie and Freddie's debts, and tax cuts for the rich.

And another big one is reduced tax revenue due to high unemployment.

shultzie says

Yes mailing is down and letters seem to be thing of the past (along with mastery of the written word) but quite a lot of advertising relies on USPS distribution. Local neighborhood flyers, coupon books, community newsletters etc. Most end up in my rubbish bin but occasionally I'll flip through and take note.

Is the small local business going to start sending flyers via UPS?

No they will have to get your email address or market to you using GOOGLE or Apple ads on the iphone... they'll have to get with the times.

errc says

Patrick, do you mind citing me some examples where these corporations are negatively influencing my life?

Pharmaceuticals: you pay more for drugs than people do in other countries, because the drug companies bribe Congressmen to prevent cheap drug imports from Canada, for example.

Cellular: you pay more for your cellphone service than in most other places, because the cell companies bribe Congressmen to allow things like AT&T buying TMobile.

Housing: you pay more for housing because the NAR, Fannie, Freddie, and the banks bribed Congressmen to lower lending standards. Well, for a while you had to pay more, but now that it's crashed, you're screwed by the economic fallout too.

Employment: you have a harder time getting a job because big US manufacturers bribed Congressmen to let them move all their jobs to China.

Health Insurance: you pay more for insurance because Blue Shield and others bribed Congressmen to first require that you must buy insurance, and then eliminate the government option, so you must buy it from them only. They also bribed Congressment to keep them exempt from anti-trust laws, so they they never have to worry about the free market setting prices for insurance.

Defense: you pay more in taxes because Ratheon, Lockheed, and others bribe Congressmen to approve fantastically expensive weapon systems with large profit margins.

Transportation: you don't get the alternative of a decent train system like other countries do, because GM bribes Congressment to keep Amtrack underfunded, and CSX and other rail companies bribe Congress to stop any new passenger competitors from using the tracks, which were originally built partly using taxpayer money.

Entertainment: even if you just to watch a simple stupid DVD, you do not get legal permission own a DVD player that can skip the crap at the front because Hollywood has paid bribes to Congressmen to pass the DMCA.

Smoking: Kids take up smoking because the the tobacco industry bribes Congressmen to direct the anti-smoking ads to be the least effective possible

.

Entertainment: even if you just to watch a simple stupid DVD, you do not get legal permission own a DVD player that can skip the crap at the front because Hollywood has paid bribes to Congressmen to pass the DMCA.

This absolutely drives me nuts. I caught a movie in London this summer and aside from the assigned seats (which I may like, or may hate) the movie had a good 20-25 minutes of straight up commercials before the previews even started. Its ludicrous. Ditto the DVDs with unskippable previews and commercials. I'm at the point where even the fancy lead in to the menu screen just drives me nuts.

errc says

I do know that the rent seeking bastard judges, lawyers, and police state infrastructure benefit the most from 400$ oz pot and millions of end users clogging the prisons

You're totally right.

Lo and behold, the prison guards union and beer distributors lobby against legalization of marijuana:

http://blog.norml.org/2008/10/30/whos-getting-rich-off-prohibition-just-look-who-opposes-prop-5/

Prison guards like having prisoners. Beer distributors don't like alternative ways of getting toasted.

Are you convinced yet that it's our system of legalized bribery that's the problem?

The government is just a tool. The question is whether it's a tool of the people, or a tool of the corporations and unions? (Yes, the unions are a huge part of this problem. Just look at their campaign donations.)

You're totally right.

Lo and behold, the prison guards union and beer distributors lobby against legalization of marijuana:

Zing!

Hmm:

1. The private sector is always the most efficient way to run anything.
2. You can't let the gov't try to compete with us in [health insurance|health care|education|post office|research|startup funding] because they'll put us out of business!

Anyone see a contradiction?

The idea that a gov't bureaucrat is a lazy, entitled, an ineffective person when compared to the private sector worker doesn't seem very realistic to me.

My interactions with librarians, post office workers, dmv workers, police officers, etc. have been pretty good ranging from outstanding to middling. But that generally compares favorably to my interactions with private health insurance companies, private airline workers, and the bureaucratic waste endemic to my large private employer (think The Office, triplicate TPC reports, and other private sectore 'innoventions').

Ron Paul Fan says

@ Zakrajshek....

The Soviet Union tried your ideas and that didnt work out so well for them.

Everything private runs more efficient and offers a better value than anything ever put forward by government. All private parks, roads, universities are more efficient and have better quality.

The idea of government sounds great on paper, but immoral people always find their way to the top and the people pay either through force, taxes or inflation. The people always loose when they assume government is the answer.

The monopolies are immoral people, not the Free Market system. Kill the Free Market and you will kill incentive and creativity.

Are you sure it's 'always'? Have you studied every movement in history? This is the problem with the obsessive libertarians, they are so into their ideology they never look at individual situations to see if they fit the facts. Example, healthcare. There are many forms of universal healthcare, many models in the world today, but you just assume because they're government run they can't be good. Tell me, is the Swiss model better or worse than the British, and what about the Singapore model, or the French? Can't tell me, can you, because you don't bother studying these things. The world doesn't need pronouncements from idealogues. It needs people willing to roll up their sleeves and find real solutions not based on absolutes but on what is really happening.

I support the free market, but I understand that when human beings try to implement one, the brains we evolved to survive in this world end up narrowing our focus and get in the way. For this reason alone, we can't just live by platitudes because those that don't ruin it for those that do.

Hey Patrick,
I am hooked on your Model and have high hopes for it. I come hear and learn from everyone with an opinion. I find some of your visitors wish to learn, some wish to offer advise and some of the really good advisers snap and go elementary school kid once in awhile. Entertaining, but it sure damages credibility. Tuff job being the Ref, Huh ?
Through the 70s, I saw gubmint as overpowering, becoming more corrupt and insurmountable. There was only the typical media, not the real/whole truth. I was losing faith in the human race. Since the late 80s and the introduction of this little devise sitting on our desktops, providing vast amounts of information, I feel we might have a chance at looking over our EMPLOYEES (gubmint) SHOULDERS. Our elite officials are never held responsible for their crimes or negligence. Is it because no one knows ? I can imagine waking up and over coffee read this mornings issues, hit a few keystrokes and poof, ENRON is now owned by it's employees. You are right, Bribery leaves us peasants in the streets. We must make some strategic maneuvers to get around corporate monetary influence. Transparency through a keyhole. I mean keyboard. I think it is time to tree some of the corruption.

I disagree. You are forced to participate in this economy to live. You must pay for certain things, like sending letters, getting health care, or owning a cellphone.

You don't have a lobbyist of your own. So you don't have any power.

I disagree. Read some of John Locke's writings. The concept of the state of nature. Certainly you have to pay to receive things but any transaction would require that. In Amish country you have to wonder if money even has a relevance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish

The idea of someone becoming totally self sufficient on their own is extreamly rare but there is nothing wrong with participating in an economy. Someone has a surplus of apples and trades with one with a surplus of hammers etc.

You most definitely cannot avoid them. And your freedom is shrinking as ever fewer larger corporations impose taxes on you. Just because it's not called a tax does not mean it isn't.

I'm not sure what tax you are referring to. While it is true that companies can raise prices there is simply much less consumption today vs even a decade ago.

If product usage was contingent on license (subscription services..tv, virus software..heck onstar).

You can make the argument with telecommunications as that's how EFF pretty much came into existence. However, the reaction from the consumer can be quite blunt and hard to avoid.

If you read the book No Logo you think companies are coming after you. But that book was written more than ten years ago. If you read Punk Marketing then you see how the market has changed.

Also I find it odd that someone mocks my name by creating some anti name of me..that's creepy.futuresmc says

Example, healthcare. There are many forms of universal healthcare, many models in the world today, but you just assume because they're government run they can't be good. Tell me, is the Swiss model better or worse than the British, and what about the Singapore model, or the French? Can't tell me, can you, because you don't bother studying these things. The world doesn't need pronouncements from idealogues. It needs people willing to roll up their sleeves and find real solutions not based on absolutes but on what is really happening.

I support the free market, but I understand that when human beings try to implement one, the brains we evolved to survive in this world end up narrowing our focus and get in the way. For this reason alone, we can't just live by platitudes because those that don't ruin it for those that do.

Actually they do differ because I read up on them. The UK for example allows private practice. Canada forbids private medical practices. Germany is interesting because it is like Mass in that you have to buy insurance. Not all socialized/universal care systems (whatever term you wish to call it) are the same. In Canada they have reached a point where the waiting times are just too long. In Quebec it is argued that it is immoral to have some wait if the government can have someone private do it faster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaoulli_v._Quebec_(Attorney_General)

Efficiency does not mean equitable. If you distribute a given product or service to a given amount of people there can be slower service if there is no

Think about it this way. A major sports team wins a number of championships. As a result they have the stadium packed constantly. So they raise prices...demand is guaranteed. They might expand the seats, the amounts of food and drinks but there's no incentive at all to lower prices

Student loans are also this way. Schools have no incentive to lower tuition because there's a constantly flow of customers/students. Since there's a limited number of class rooms, professors, staff etc prices continue to go up

If you subsidize supply prices go down.
If you replaced student loans with block grants to states to expand their university systems that would encourage competition which would drive prices down.

On the same note if we took money spent on health care and promoted more people to become doctors, nurses and nurse practioners then health care can potentially go down in price.

The amount spent on healthcare relative to GDP actually started to go down in the late 1990's..it seems about every ten years there's a pop (70,80,90,2000)

mdovell says

In Canada they have reached a point where the waiting times are just too long

Subjective.

We've reached the point where per-capita health costs are just too damn high.

Unlike here, the system there, being a responsive government program, is improving.

Do you think US medical care will ever get less expensive on its own?

Pull the other one.

http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/products/Wait_times_tables_2011_en.pdf

If & when "ObamaCare" is realized there's going to be a bumrush on our medical services, too.

Our system is not set up to serve 90% of the population who needs care.

Our system totally fails John Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" test, while Canada's passes with flying colors.

mdovell says

The amount spent on healthcare relative to GDP actually started to go down in the late 1990's

No it didn't.

1990 12.4
1991 13.1
1992 13.4
1993 13.7
1994 13.6
1995 13.7
1996 13.7
1997 13.6
1998 13.6
1999 13.6
2000 13.7

"The real problem is a 2006 Congressional mandate that requires USPS to pre fund the cost of retiree health benefits."

Bingo!
Honest Abe hits upon a major reason that the USPS is sinking. Cities, states and counties also are sinking in part because of similar federal mandates. These rules have shown the unsustainability of pensions promised to public workers. Whether Congress did this as a political move or through genuine concern about this growing problem I don't know.

That being said, we need the USPS in order to maintain public services vital to our democracy. Rural areas are not going to be served by private corporations except at great cost. And if people haven't noticed, the poverty rate in this country just hit an 18-year high. Does anyone think that "market forces" are going to serve this growing underclass?

Despite the reasonable costs of most of the USPS services, one area in which they ARE competing with private interests is parcel shipping. Besides the flat rate boxes that USPS has (a very good deal) their parcel rates have become as extortionary as UPS and Fedex. I try NOT to ship anything if at all possible, because it adds so much to the cost.

mdovell says

The idea of someone becoming totally self sufficient on their own is extreamly rare

No, it's very common. It's called being homeless.

The Amish are a very different case, since they are a large community that chooses to live with a minimum of contact to the outside world.

mdovell says

I'm not sure what tax you are referring to.

I'm saying that when corporations bribe Congress to eliminate competition, you are stuck with involuntary higher payments. That's a tax, only it flows from you to corporations rather than from you to government.

mdovell says

if we took money spent on health care and promoted more people to become doctors, nurses and nurse practioners then health care can potentially go down in price.

I doctor I once worked with explained to me that the main function of the AMA is to lobby Congress to make sure that never happens for doctors. They bribe Congress to keep the supply of doctors artificially limited, so that you have to pay more. Same story as all the other bribes.

Bellingham Bob says

We've reached the point where per-capita health costs are just too damn high.

Yes, the bribery has gotten to the point that the whole economy is suffering badly, and the future of the country looks grim.

Did I mention that we need publicly funded campaigns and a ban on brivate campaign money to stop this?

http://my.firedoglake.com/kaytillow/2011/09/26/whats-the-real-story-behind-the-postal-crisis/

I'd bet you money that that mandate was the result of some competing interest bribing Congress to cause trouble at the USPS.

That's a tax, only it flows from you to corporations rather than from you to government.

technically it's a rent I think.

Did I mention that we need publicly funded campaigns and a ban on brivate campaign money to stop this?

I would take this further: Anyone who collects the needed number of signitures gets a certain amount of media and nothing else. That exposure, plus a campaign web site is all the exposure really needed. People who care about the issues will check out the candidate's web site, and the rest will just need to know what party.

Unfortunately, niether your way or mine addresses the issue of "news." That is, TV, Radio, and Newspaper owners could run disguised campaign ads for their favorites under the banner of reporting current events.

Transportation: you don't get the alternative of a decent train system like other countries do, because GM bribes Congressment to keep Amtrack underfunded, and CSX and other rail companies bribe Congress to stop any new passenger competitors from using the tracks, which were originally built partly using taxpayer money.

Very true, although Palo Alto/Menlo Park NIMBYs have been a great impediment to California High Speed Rail thus far, the freight companies also have obnoxious requirements that don't make sense, except for rent-seeking.

mbodell says

Hmm:

1. The private sector is always the most efficient way to run anything.
2. You can't let the gov't try to compete with us in [health insurance|health care|education|post office|research|startup funding] because they'll put us out of business!

Anyone see a contradiction?

Yes, I've brought this up to many libertarian types, and their usually weak argument at that point is that something about the government having unlimited funds for subsidies. The problem is that politics prevent government from having unlimited funds in almost every case (education? healthcare? R&D?), and likely result in government having more limited funds than private enterprise.

If private entities are always more efficient, they should be able to overcome and have more cash to plow into the business. The reality is that there is a balance between the two, and we can argue where the line should be drawn, but it's not generally at either extreme.

HeadSet says

Unfortunately, niether your way or mine addresses the issue of "news." That is, TV, Radio, and Newspaper owners could run disguised campaign ads for their favorites under the banner of reporting current events.

Agreed. The "one side said, and the other side said" news cycle without analysis gets tiring. It's an attempt to be "balanced" that falls entirely flat and is basically the death of real journalism.

No, it's very common. It's called being homeless.

I would not say it is common to be homeless. I would not call homeless people as being self sufficient. If someone was a farmer and could grow all the food he/she would need and made their own tools then I would say yes. As a community I would argue the Amish are like that to a point.

I'm saying that when corporations bribe Congress to eliminate competition, you are stuck with involuntary higher payments. That's a tax, only it flows from you to corporations rather than from you to government.

Lobbying as a concept I wouldn't call a bribe because in order to bribe people and get results you would have to get a majority to get their way. More importantly since most lobbying firms have opposition (simple Hegelian dialectic) they would compete technically to who could give the most. It is doubtful that people would give money back even though their side might have "lost". I doubt that peace advocates solicited Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders for their money back after the Iraq war started.

Any group has their interests. All groups are basically special interests. It is only natural to petition government with yea or nay on given issues. The government does have the power to make things legal/illegal, regulate, deregulate etc. This goes on the federal, state and even local level. It is not just big companies on a national scale that do this.

Vermont has a program called choices for care that enables people to take care of a elderly friend or relative and the state compensates that person $10/hr. This program provides a choice instead of a nursing home. It actually saves the state money because nursing homes aren't really nurses (I know there's part of the site targeted towards this subject). Naturally nursing home companies try to lobby to somehow say that they do "better" care but the cost structure probably scares the heck out of them.

In Mass you cannot do plumbing work in walls, ceilings or floors. If it is exposed you can put in whatever you want (toilet, sink, water basin etc). Plumbers unions lobby to keep that law in place because they fear the loss of potential revenue.

Lobbying if we like it or not can create change. Would we have had Civil Rights pass if it wasn't for the NAACP? Would abortion be legal if it wasn't for the ACLU and NARAL? Would the ability to legally have a gun be the same if it wasn't for the NRA?

It is natural to petition government and as a individual a voice is not heard which explains why people form groups around their interests.

Sometimes people within government might not have the expertise in a given subject so that is why they are lobbied. For example the ADA..how many representatives use wheelchairs or know what it is like to depend on one to use? heck right now the postal workers union is lobbying for itself to prevent cuts. Actually most governmental unions do that every day.

We might not like political parties or lobbying but at least it makes some actions predictable. In Brazil the party structure is so weak that it is meaningless. Someone new as president..ok so what does that mean? No one really knows. Predictability (right or left) can create a better environment for expectations and thus potentially stability. Granted I would say we have more gridlock now than in the 1990's..I wish Obama would take a page from Clinton.