1468
New Legislation Proposes to Take Wall Street Out of the Housing Market
(www.nytimes.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
1468 points (99.3% liked)
News
22962 readers
3822 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
And this is the sort of legislation that should be passed by direct referendum, will of the people, and not by representatives who have been bought out by special interest groups. Desperately needed but unlikely to happen.
the country would function so much better if we just sent out ballots to everyone to vote on every bill if they want to
That's how Brexit happened in the UK.
I agree about not trusting the politicians, but not sure I trust the general public much more unfortunately.
The founding fathers didn't either that's why they put a buffer in in case there was a nuance not under stood by the general public. The only problem is I don't think they envisioned a party hell bent on the country's destruction.
The greatest flaw in the founder's reasoning was that they trusted public servants to fight for what's best for the country. They expected public figures to always attempt to do what's best for the country and their constituents and built our systems based on a lot of trust.
They never expected there to be half the country that doesn't care about the rules and only works for their own benefit.
They didn't really... there are a LOT of check and balances in the US constitution.
There were a few holes though. FPTP is possibly the biggest one, yet the easiest to forgive them for because they literally didn't know any better, but FPTP causes bipartism which leads to line-toeing which necessarily weakens the "balance" part of check and balances.
Then there's the almost complete immovability of the US constitution which gives enormous power to the SCOTUS and led to a whole lot of gaps being filled with fragile "tradition" or nefariously repurposed (2nd amendment, citizens united, executive orders, yada yada). This isn't just on the founders for trusting states too much to continuously reform the constitution, but also lies squarely on this frankly insane cult around the revolutionary mythos which made it entirely taboo to reform anything the founding fathers ever did to the point that no meaningful amendment was passed in over a century.
Complain all you want about the founding fathers, but they aren't to blame if a vast majority of Americans would almost certainly, in a hypothetical referundum, vote against even the smallest constitutional reform on the grounds that "it ain't what the Almighty Fathers intended". The very fact that you're talking about the Founding Fathers' intent as is if it has ANY BEARING on today's politics shows just how deeply ingrained this personality cult is.
A two party system was one of George Washington's fear. It breeds division while both sides occupy themselves making us emotional about how much the other side does wrong. Then they get more donations and more power. They don't care if they aren't effective because they know we won't ever go to the other side.
... There's a great Freakonomics episode on the duopoly formed by the Democratic and Republican parties and how they both benefit while stifling the competition from other parties that could provide more varied perspective.
My takeaway - support rank choices voting and elimination of closed primaries (which encourage extremism in candidates).
Just look at your presidential race, sadly I agree
Bad example, Trump lost the popular vote both times. Dang electoral college was responsible for that travesty. Also George W. Bush lost the popular vote in his first election too. Thanks again, electoral college.
People voted for him, those people are fucking brain dead
I don't disagree, just saying it's an instance where direct democracy would have been better than having this representative layer of the electoral college in between.
Well we're on the same page now
That’s because we need a maximum age to vote too.
A maximum age to vote?
Wtf?
So old people should have no voice?
I kind of see what they're saying. If you're on your way out, you probably shouldn't have a ton of sway on how the world operates after you're gone.
But that is a suuuuper slippery slope.
"The law abhors dead hand control."
Voting is a basic human right, though.
I non-sarcastically love your optimism. But part of me really believes that 50% of the country votes however their church tells them to. So I'm not sure it'd be better.
Johnson should have teeth.
Mine doesn't have a mouth though, just a small opening
It's more like one fourth. Half the country doesn't vote at all.
I would be very careful with that. US should try having a more representative government first.
So long as you don't like a functioning economy, sure.
That's just asking for more special interest capture. We want initiatives and referendums, but not for everything.
You'd get people voting for all the projects and none of the budget.
You are getting down voted for telling the truth.
It happens. I'm not concerned about it. I've seen that happen first-hand. If people don't want to acknowledge it, they can learn it for themselves.
Direct voting is the future.
We're not ready for it yet. Everyone still bitches about corrupt politicians but still thinks direct voting is a bad idea, lol.
Rubes.
Stupid take. Nobody thinks rote popularity contest is a good idea. There's too much to know. Too much to regulate. Have to employ experts.
If it were left to popular vote, do you think we would have the Exclusionary Rule? A ban on cruel and unusual punishment? A right to remain silent? Any criminal rights?
Any minority rights at all?
So just vote for the issues that matter to you.
Either way, you get more control than having someone else make the decisions for you.
"Abstain from votes you feel unqualified for while the unqualified radicalized masses vote every time" isn't exactly the winning strategy either. Fact is a large portion of the population has no problem voting incompetently and/or under the influence of malicious talking heads.
I don't see why you think the constituency would routinely make worse decisions than the people they put in power.
What makes you think politicians are exempt from this?
Honestly how old are you?
We have frequent ballot measures in California and as a voter I do a lot of work to understand those ballot measures that many do not have the time or the ability to do. California ballots may have 5-10 questions on them, and these things already take a long time to properly research and understand...Can you imagine the complexity when you're talking about national issues and especially thinking of running the entire government that way?
It's a full-time job. There's no way it's scalable to run a country this large with this many competing interests using direct voting. You'd spend your whole life voting on or researching on voting on things.
Ultimately, you'd wind up with industry writing all of the law proposals and a misrepresented version of those coming across some kind of voting device. We'd still continue our slow slide into some sort of industrial feudalism, just without the politicians to blame for it.
I think proportional representation and ranked choice voting are both better ideas.
Mmm, your entire point can be negated by acknowledging that politicians and elections are usually bought out.
Do you think Congress represents the will of the people? Do you think it should?
How is anything I've posted negated by the fact that corruption exists?