Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maple MAGA who wrote (737276)	1/9/2021 3:04:12 PM
From: PJr	4 Recommendations Recommended By Curbstone ig kckip Maple MAGA Respond to of 793957

I've been a long time believer that political parties are the culprits that created and have perpetuated the swamp. Eliminating them is a solution that would stop partisan bickering and present representatives with infinite combinations of separate issue based coalitions rather than what has essentially become party dictated coalition mandates on how members must collectively vote. The only problem with getting to that solution is that 535 people can and will definitely say "no" to that proposal since it dries up a major portion of their reelection money and PR funding. Dissolution of political parties would also eliminate a VERY effective and protective shield for their personal accountability. As is always the case, "If Congress didn't want it this way, it wouldn't be this way." Here is just one example of how the effects of political parties work to the detriment of common sense and the country's interests. If a party believes that bold action must be taken to reduce income disparity which is a growing and polarizing problem in America, why would that same party advocate open border policies? Poverty and illiteracy are root causes of income disparity. Welcoming poverty and illiteracy into the country by means of uncontrolled immigration exacerbates growing income disparity and even creates additional unrelated problems. Yet a political party demands action to resolve income disparity while endorsing a plan that facilitates greater income disparity. I'm not yet cynical enough to believe that we have even one "individual" member of Congress who if free from affiliation with a political party could support both of these positions during a campaign or with a floor vote. But a collection of individuals directed by a political party platform can and do endorse both sides simultaneously. The reason? Political parties find great collective value in retaining unresolved emotion generating campaign issues rather than solving those issues. There are dozens of other similar examples and neither party has a monopoly on this counter-productive arrangement. That's what makes it easy for a politician to maintain a straight face during a campaign stop to criticize a tax break for the wealthy or big business when they voted for that very loophole that provided the tax break or denied similar to the middle and lower income classes. Political parties incentivize inaction or conflicting actions that result in poor outcomes. On the other hand, authority with no personal accountability makes life good for a Member of Congress. Thank you, political parties. It's comforting that at least 535 people can be satisfied with our Legislative Branch of government. PJr