What the hell is the USA anymore? What type of government?

[vernarial]

I don't for a second believe we are a democracy, or even a capitalist state. Wiki has a rather incomplete list of the types of government. They don't mention republic in that list or fascism for that matter. Originally the USA was supposed to be a Republic. It even says it in our Pledge of Allegiance.
Anyway I was wondering what everyone(including people outside of the USA) thought our current form of goverment would be categorized as? Personally I would call it pretty close to an Oligarchy Or maybe a Plutocracy. What do you think?

[RoBoBoy]

tyranny

[multi]

it's an evil empire run by corporations
and John Howard.. you think its Bush and that senile old asshat that run the show but it really always been our Johnny all along. He was there in washington for the 911 event which he probably helped ochestrate months or years before Bush even got into office. As the the leader for the worldwide organization of conservatives he has been calling the shots all along. Don't underestimate this guy, you might think he is a little two-bit nobody but he holds reign over the most powerful conserative leaders in the world today.

[JackSpratts]

i run the whole enchilada, when i'm not too busy surfing dawn's threads. or napping.

[Mazer]

Well now, are we talking about what kind of government the Constitution established or what kind of regime is in power at this particular moment? The short answer to the first question is a constitution-based federal republic with strong a democratic tradition (that's what the world factbook says, anyway). But even that isn't sufficient as people can't always agree whether we're a federal union of states or a single nation. If people cannot agree on what the United States should be then what's our basis for comparison in deciding what the United States has become?

Vern, you're an ambitious one, asking such questions on this forum.

[floydian slip]

Corporationocracy. Sponsored by...

[Mazer]

Here's an interesting take on where our government is headed:

Federalism vs. Nationalism: Katrina and the Courts

Thursday, September 15, 2005

By Ralf Seiffe

OPINION - Earlier this week, Teddy Kennedy brought up the New Orleans flood at John Roberts’ confirmation hearings.

Conservatives immediately brought up the senator’s own troubles with deep water and held his remarks as evidence that the 12-step program isn’t working.

As amusing as these jokes were, it might be better to listen to the senator and to recognize that his rancor reveals Democrats’ desire to create a national, rather than a federalist government. The situation in New Orleans spotlights the conflict.

As Hurricane Katrina reconstituted itself in the Gulf, it became evident that the storm posed a real threat to coastal areas. The federal government anticipated the storm’s severity and acted to the extent it could. The President declared a national disaster before the first raindrop fell and by doing so, made all the powers of the federal government available to the governor.

Instead of availing themselves of these benefits, Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin, exercised their prerogatives to manage the disaster on their own and to reap the political benefits.

This turned out to be a terrible decision and they were quickly overwhelmed by the hurricane and its aftermath. Soon, but not soon enough, they asked the cavalry to show up.

By now it’s clear that the governments responsible for disaster management failed.

Indeed, the president has already recognized the federal government’s shortcomings and taken responsibility. The governor and the mayor have yet to take any personal responsibility and future investigations will find their actions materially contributed to the scale of misery the disaster caused.

We can wait for the investigations to pin specific blame but we can discuss the actions governments should have taken.

The Left has ignored the Blanco and Nagin’s performance, reserving its harshest criticism for the federal response and for George Bush, particularly. However, those who make these critiques either misunderstand or ignore the limits on the federal government’s powers.

Let’s assume that those advocating an immediate federal response do so with only virtuous motives. Wall-to-wall coverage of the human misery in the city moved all hearts. To any objective observer, the situation at the Superdome was one that could only be relieved by federal help.

Critics immediately began to blame George Bush for all this but it appears the President’s detractors confuse his respect for federalism with some malicious intent regarding the refugees.

This conflict between the humanitarian thing to--immediate federal intervention--and the rules we use to govern ourselves--respect state officials--perfectly exemplifies the major theme of Congress since the 1930’s.

Should we preserve our federalist government or replace it with a nationalist one?

A federal government is an association of sovereign states that have given limited privileges to the federal establishment.

A national government is one that vests ultimate sovereignty in a national government. By advocating that the feds instantly intervene in the disaster before obtaining a state governor’s request, those who recommend immediate federal intrusion must first accept a national government.

Since the New Deal, the federal officeholders have sought to increase Washington’s powers. This isn’t news to conservatives. But after generations of allowing nationalists to increase their powers, Ronald Reagan appeared and began to change the prevailing attitude. Voters confirmed this vector in 1994, even if the Republicans have not lived up to their promises since then.

This has not meant that those who would replace federalism with nationalism have given up. Despite their inability to control the legislative process, these nationalists still recognize that concentrating power in a “nationalized” federal government is, for them, a worthwhile objective.

Without control of the legislature, the one venue in which the Left still makes progress is the federal courts. It is in their interest to fill these courts, including the Supreme Court, with those who prefer expanded federal power.

Success means they must control, to the extent possible, the process by which judges are made. Presidents nominate all federal judges and the Senate gives it advice and consent. Senate rules concentrate this power in the Judiciary Committee so the entire nationalist agenda arguably passes through the committee.

That’s why it is no accident that the Four Horsemen of the Hard Left--Kennedy, Biden, Leahy and Schumer--serve on the Judiciary Committee.

The Left has assigned them the task of promoting candidates that believe in the concept of a national government and hindering jurists who believe the federal system which recognizes government’s powers are limited.

The Four Horsemen have been very successful and that’s why Preident Bush’s campaign promise on judges resonated with conservatives.

The President’s victory and his re-election doesn’t seem to matter much to Left; the President’s first term was littered with the carcasses of conservative nominees.

Roberts will be confirmed and he will keep the chief justice’s conservative status. The president will then have the opportunity to replace Sandra Day O’Connor with a bona fide originalist. Given the number of 5-4 decisions, this could make a huge difference in the nationalists’ ability to move their agenda.

Teddy Kennedy is right to bring up the flood because it highlights the stakes involved in choosing judges.

Roberts’ relative youth and another nomination on deck means the Left may be losing it judicial influence. That will frustrate their long term goal of accumulating power and they will be forced to seek other means to advance their agenda.

That’s worrisome because, as the storm showed, they are advocating a national government that won’t respect limits of its powers in New Orleans or in any other place.

Imagine that, a government that can't keep its hands to itself. I think we're already there. Maybe the federal government should leave all domestic issues to the states, as the 10th amendment intended.

[vernarial]

Vern, you're an ambitious one, asking such questions on this forum.

I posted it at Crapolarex quite awhile ago, and got a limited response. So I thought I'd try again here. I was talking about what type of government we currently have. I also agree that we could be considered a Corporatist state/nation.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by RoBoBoy

tyranny

Only if you don't get involved and vote.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by multi

it's an evil empire run by corporations
and John Howard.. you think its Bush and that senile old asshat that run the show but it really always been our Johnny all along. He was there in washington for the 911 event which he probably helped ochestrate months or years before Bush even got into office. As the the leader for the worldwide organization of conservatives he has been calling the shots all along. Don't underestimate this guy, you might think he is a little two-bit nobody but he holds reign over the most powerful consecrative leaders in the world today.

We are a country run by blood sucking government workers that just vote for their paycheck. It's a given that over 50% of the people in the USA get their checks from our gov. one way or the other.

When other industries experience a slow down there are layoffs and cost cutting measures. This has NEVER happened with gov. workers. The worst that happens with them is that they get reclassified/transfered with usually a pay raise. Private industry has had to cut back on health care benefits because of the costs. Have any of you heard of the same thing happening to our wonderfully gov employees?

Here in CA they get to retire at 50 with 90% of their pay, full health benefits and a cost of living increase every year. They, like most gov workers don't even pay into SS. I probably won't even get SS, But I'm sure I'll liable for funding our "wonderfull" hardworking govm'nt workers.

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by vernarial

I posted it at Crapolarex quite awhile ago, and got a limited response. So I thought I'd try again here. I was talking about what type of government we currently have.

In that case I think we have a republic that thinks it's ruled by the mob, a mob that thinks it's ruled by the corporate world, corporations that think they're ruled by labor unions, labor unions that think they're ruled by bureaucracy, a bureaucracy that thinks it is ruled by secrecy, secret societies that think they're ruled by tradition, traditions that actually are ruled by pop culture, a culture that's ruled by intellectual property law, IP laws that are ruled by international treaty, treaties (being the second highest law of the land) are ruled by the Constitution, the Constitution is ruled by the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court is ruled by the republic. The president probably fits in there somewhere, too. It's a big ball of red tape with no room left for science or religion which means it's a complicated mess for no good reason.

[Ramona_A_Stone]

Currently, I'd say a Peter-Principality.

[Mazer]

Dude, stop reading my mind.

I almost mentioned the Peter principle, but I figured what I had already written was bad enough.

[albed]

My opinion is the U.S. government is now basically a kleptocracy with the majority of its power based on it's ability to steal wealth from people and corporations and use it to support itself and its agendas.

[multi]

Originally Posted by albed

My opinion is the U.S. government is now basically a kleptocracy with the majority of its power based on it's ability to steal wealth from people and corporations and use it to support itself and its agendas.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by multi

Come on milti...

He said kleptoe.. (as in can't help but steal)

The guy/girl has to be right every once in a while. Shehes damn right this time.

[vernarial]

Originally Posted by Ramona_A_Stone

Currently, I'd say a Peter-Principality.

Then how did Bush rise to his current exalted position? He wasn't competent enough to run an oil corp or a baseball team. How is he supposed to run a country?

[Mazer]

Originally Posted by vernarial

Then how did Bush rise to his current exalted position? He wasn't competent enough to run an oil corp or a baseball team. How is he supposed to run a country?

The vast majority of government jobs are not electoral and the Peter principle applies to them directly. However, it requires a corollary when applied to elected officials: in a hierarchy every elected official tends to rise to his perceived level of incompetence. Because elections are so fickle, true competence is indiscernible. Bush could be the worst president ever, or the best, but we'll never know as long as elections continue to hinge on his public image. In a couple decades when the Bush doctrine is no longer the central focus of politics, we'll be able to tell how competent he really was.

[Nicobie]

Originally Posted by vernarial

Then how did Bush rise to his current exalted position? He wasn't competent enough to run an oil corp or a baseball team. How is he supposed to run a country?

I guess you could vote for hilllary

[vernarial]

I haven't voted for anyone in the 2 major parties in a long time. I don't trust Hillary any more than Bush.