• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PROPOSAL to Fix a Broken United States Government

After reading the opening post:

  • I can support the proposed resolution as written.

    Votes: 3 13.0%
  • I can support most of the proposed resolution as written.

    Votes: 6 26.1%
  • I can't support much of the proposed resolution as written.

    Votes: 7 30.4%
  • I can't support any of the propose resolution as written.

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • This is the worst idea any nutter has come up with yet.

    Votes: 2 8.7%
  • Other and I will explain in my post

    Votes: 1 4.3%

  • Total voters
    23
The fact that it's a right wing fantasy to eliminate entitlements and throw everything back to the states. Nonstarter.

Cutting gerrymandering off at the knees would do a lot of good. There is nothing hyperpartisan about pointing that out.

Maybe it is a right wing fantasy, but no more than believing that a federal government that increasingly controls every aspect of our lives and swallows up a full 25% of the nation's resources is less than a threat to our liberties and potential than is gerrymandering voting districts.

I argue concepts. The OP is a concept I believe to be worthy of looking at for whatever positives can be found in it or for the sane, rational, educated people to explain why a component of it is not feasible. Unfortunately, so far it seems to be those on the right who have the ability to do that. I hope some on the left will prove me wrong about that.
 
If the responsibility for social programs is transferred to the states, where the Founders intended those programs be all the time, the federal mandates would be eliminated. And there is no such thing as an 'unfunded' mandate. Everything gets funded if even on paper. What we would do is to eliminate the federal government's power to mandate that the states provide goods or services to anybody. And neither would the federal government have power to forbid the states to provide goods or services to anybody.

It is utterly ridiculous for the federal government to take our money, siphon off a huge percentage of it to feed the enormous and ever growing bureaucracy in Washington, and then send whatever is left to the states to fund something the federal government says they have to fund.

I would remind the participants on the thread, that there is nothing in the OP that forbids the federal government from initiating any voluntary program of any kind regarding research, federal insurance programs, national relief or whatever. The resolution would simply eliminate the federal government's power to confiscate resources from the people to do things that the federal government does not have to do.

And those of you who want to make this a thread about racism or sexism or any other -isms that have ever existed in this country or that exists now, I would really appreciate you taking that to another thread as this one has absolutely zero to do with any of that. This is a thread about power and authority and who should have it now, right now, in 2014 in America.

In large part I agree with you. Look at what we're talking about here though. Look at the Federal food stamp program. We just can't hand it to the states because the states can't afford it. So then the Feds have to subsidize a state program and the whole deal stays convoluted. All I'm saying that fixing the problems we've created isn't as easy as flipping a switch. It took us decades to screw things up and now change will have to happen slowly.

If the amendment were taken is small steps, I would be in total agreement.
 
In large part I agree with you. Look at what we're talking about here though. Look at the Federal food stamp program. We just can't hand it to the states because the states can't afford it. So then the Feds have to subsidize a state program and the whole deal stays convoluted. All I'm saying that fixing the problems we've created isn't as easy as flipping a switch. It took us decades to screw things up and now change will have to happen slowly.

If the amendment were taken is small steps, I would be in total agreement.

If the states can't afford it, then nobody can because all the money comes out of the same pockets. There will be a lot more of it available if the federal government isn't swallowing up a whole bunch of it just to feed a bloated monstrosity of an ever growing bureaucracy.

But you're right that the federal government has made millions dependent on government and will have to unravel that carefully. Which is why No. 2 of the proposed resolution was specific that:

"2. As quickly as it can be done without breaking faith with those made dependent on the programs, all existing federal entitlement programs will be transferred to the states who will administer them or disband them as the people of those states see fit."
 
Ancient Greece democracy foresaw that after 4 years of democratically elected leader a dictator should follow. The dictator would keep power for 4 years and cleanse the government from the corrupt that the OP speaks of with an iron grip.

But after 4 years he should be killed and another democratically elected leader should replace the dictator. This then rotates and since leader death is involved it cannot be staged nor controlled. It assures real democracy and true communication.
 
Ancient Greece democracy foresaw that after 4 years of democratically elected leader a dictator should follow. The dictator would keep power for 4 years and cleanse the government from the corrupt that the OP speaks of with an iron grip.

But after 4 years he should be killed and another democratically elected leader should replace the dictator. This then rotates and since leader death is involved it cannot be staged nor controlled. It assures real democracy and true communication.

The upside of this would seem to be the sudden dearth of hopeful dictators, which can't be all bad! :mrgreen:

Greetings, DDD. :2wave:
 
If the states can't afford it, then nobody can because all the money comes out of the same pockets. There will be a lot more of it available if the federal government isn't swallowing up a whole bunch of it just to feed a bloated monstrosity of an ever growing bureaucracy.

But you're right that the federal government has made millions dependent on government and will have to unravel that carefully. Which is why No. 2 of the proposed resolution was specific that:

"2. As quickly as it can be done without breaking faith with those made dependent on the programs, all existing federal entitlement programs will be transferred to the states who will administer them or disband them as the people of those states see fit."

Again, good points. You will never sell the good points though if programs like government cheese suddenly disappear and people go running out on the streets claiming they are hungry and it's the government's fault. Here's why the plan is Federalized. The need for food stamps as an example is going to be greater in Mississippi than it is in Connecticut. Mississippi is more low wage, more agricultural. Connecticut has a bunch of people who work in Manhattan and don't want to live in NYC. Just like insurance spreads the risk, the feds spread the cheese, in more ways than one.

This whole situation is too complicated to solve in a few sentences, although, again I agree with you in principle.
 
No one said it was. Please understand my argument in its entirety. You seem to just be picking out certain parts to respond to and ignoring/forgetting the argument as a whole.

Actually that was precisely your argument - that the ideal of limited government as enshrined in the original intent of our Constitution was invalidated because of the limited extent of the vote. If I may quote:

Slyfox696 said:
AlbqOwl said:
WHEREAS the United States was conceived as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people; and
Nostalgia is fun. Brainwashing is fun.

The United States was conceived as "a government of the people, by the people and for the people"...as long as the people were white, land-owning Christian men. Everyone else...not so much.

If you now wish to amend that argument, you are free to do so. But let us not go around pretending that you did not start from it.

*sigh*

See above and then get back to me about lazy and inaccurate arguments.

:lol: your counter to me demonstrating that your argument was lazy and inaccurate was to reply with "see above"?

:yawn: See above for my pre-rebuttal of this lazy response :)

False. We had states which legally held one race was inferior to another and the inferior race was not even human at all, but property of another.

There's no more control any government could exercise over its people than the slavery of them.

False argument and implication - firstly, no government ever held that blacks were not human, and secondly the Federal Government enforced slavery just as much as the slave states did.

Probably, considering the light bulb wasn't even invented in the 18th century and not available in most homes throughout most (if not all) of the 19th.

:shrug: then the equivalent thereof - the fact remains that the federal government has expanded far beyond the reach of the total sum of government in the late 18th and early 19th century.

No, it's not.

Oh, a he-said-she-said? Okay. Yes it is. :)

Of course they have. States are regularly attempting to deny its citizens basic and fundamental rights, even today.

and are no more or less likely to than the federal government.

How many states are passing Voter ID laws to prevent voter fraud which does not exist?

A) voter fraud does exist
B) Voter ID is not removing anyone's rights. The government already demands that you provide proof of identity in order to access portions of government particular to you - voting is no different.

North Carolina recently added to their constitution an amendment prohibiting gays to marry (while still legally allowing first cousins to do so).

which is well within their rights, just as it has always been.

Texas is pushing hard to remove the theory of evolution from the classroom in favor of creationism.

which is equally not an imposition on anyone's rights.

you appear to have "doing things I disapprove of" confused with "abusing people's rights".

States have not and are not using the power fairly.

Of course they aren't. Neither is the Federal Government. The main difference being that State governments are more immediately accountable to the people whom they may abuse, whereas the Federal Government is less so.

Combine that with the shrinking world in which we live and the federal government needs more power to make sure all citizens are treated equally and standards exist across all the states.

:lol: yeah. Because if there is one entity we can trust with unchecked power, it's the one that's least accountable. That'll work great.

Nonsense. We centralized government functions because we needed to and technology permitted it. You don't seem to understand the difference in the world today and the world of the late 1700s. You don't seem to appreciate the fact we can now use an airplane to travel across the ocean in only a few hours, a trip which once took weeks. You don't seem to appreciate we have technology to deliver missiles anywhere in the world at any time, as opposed to the muskets and bayonets used during the late 1700s. We can strike in unmanned aircraft, I can converse in real time with someone from Japan or Italy (at the same time even) and then can drive 10 miles up the road, have lunch, drive back and be back home in a little over an hour. I can travel from Missouri to North Carolina in 13 hours, instead of the weeks it once took. Technology has fundamentally changed the world and the people of the states are no longer self-contained, at least not to the degree they once were. A centralized government is increasingly necessary to handle the realities of today's world.

Oh wow. You're so cosmopolitan. You can talk to someone in Japan? Oh man. You must have used a really big megaphone.



I lived in Japan for three years. I have traveled (even by using those giant, magic, flying, hollowed-out birds) across portions of five continents, video-teleconferenced in real time literally across the globe in order to plan the years-out sync of satellite, plane, hardware, and the physical and information effects of both kinetic and non-kinetic energy, and dealt with enabling civil society across the full spectrum of development - from the challenge of getting clean water to dealing with disaster when nuclear plants begin to spew radiation and threaten to go into meltdown. Between the two of us, I'm betting that I'm the only one that has ever actually launched, controlled, and then recovered military UAVs. But please, tell me more about how you drove 10 miles for lunch, and how that experience demonstrated for you that need v want is what drove the historical expansion of the Federal Government. I can't wait to hear how driving between North Carolina and Missouri invalidates the history of the Progressive Era.

Are there things which would be better suited for the state and local governments? Absolutely. But those who lament the fact our federal government has increasingly taken on more responsibilities don't seem to appreciate the fact there's really no other way if we want to continue to develop as a nation and stay a leader of the world.

There is a sharp distinction between taking on more and taking on as much as it has. For example, we need a standing Navy, and the Federal Government is the only one that can really provide that. We need some form of the EPA to ensure that states do not dump on each other, and the Federal Government is the proper home for that. But we do not require the Federal Government to ensure that we use politically correct lightbulbs, shower-heads, and toilets. Modern society does not require that the Federal government reach as it has, or do most of what it does.
 
You can try to work towards such goals but realistically have to understand that they're too purest and will never happen suddenly or completely. The corporate structure and government system are too large and ingrained to be so idealistically changed.

Though I support the ideas and direction, it would have to be amended and compromised quite a bit before becoming a possibility and likely will never even be a probability.
 
Ancient Greece democracy foresaw that after 4 years of democratically elected leader a dictator should follow. The dictator would keep power for 4 years and cleanse the government from the corrupt that the OP speaks of with an iron grip.

But after 4 years he should be killed and another democratically elected leader should replace the dictator. This then rotates and since leader death is involved it cannot be staged nor controlled. It assures real democracy and true communication.

LOL. I have often wished I could be appointed benevolent dictator with absolute authority to run the government for a limited period before returning a 'fixed government' to the elected leaders. And what I would focus on would be to implement those concepts in the OP as much as could reasonably be done.

Not crazy about the being killed after four years part though. Makes you wonder how many really balanced and competent people would consent to be appointed dictator. But that's probably why they discontinued that policy. :)
 
You can try to work towards such goals but realistically have to understand that they're too purest and will never happen suddenly or completely. The corporate structure and government system are too large and ingrained to be so idealistically changed.

Though I support the ideas and direction, it would have to be amended and compromised quite a bit before becoming a possibility and likely will never even be a probability.

It is intended as a concept. A starting place. I do not in my wildest imagination consider myself smarter or more competent than our Founding Fathers and it took them eleven years of debate, discussion, argument of all sides of every issue, give and take, and compromise before arriving at a concept that everybody could live with. And, even though the Constitution they gave us would need amendment and adjustment here and there--issues of sexism and racism, etc. were all worked out over time--it worked very well for more than a hundred years. And it produced the most vibrant, productive, free, innovative, prosperous, and benevolent society the world had ever seen or has ever seen to this day.

It was turned on its head, however, when Theodore Roosevelt declared that the government could do anything that the Constitution did not expressly FORBID. And he packed the courts with like minded judges who would not challenge him on that. It was a complete reversal of the concept held by all previous elected leaders that the federal government could do only what the Constitution ALLOWED. The change started a small snowball rolling that shifts more and more control and power to the federal government. That snowball has been gathering momentum, size and mass ever since until it now threatens to flatten everything the USA was intended to be.

The resolution in the OP addresses that and is intended to restore the original basis of a people who have their rights secured and then govern themselves.
 
How so? Those powerful corporations would find no advantage to use government for its own purposes anymore. Any concessions or policies or contracts the federal government granted to General Electric would have to also be extended to the Mom & Pop store on Mainstreet America. Corporations would no longer be able to buy favors from anybody in the federal government.

I don't think you have a good understanding of what corporations do to 'win' the climb to monopoly. Mom and Pop can't cut prices so low they lose money in a certain area to drive out small stores and then boost prices because the big box store is the only game in town. (try reading up on the history of Standard Oil)

Can a Mom and Pop supplier be able to produce 10,000 up armored vehicles for the Army? How about 100,000 vests or rifles? Could a Mom and Pop outfit be able to win a contract to build a new stealth plane or a new low signature jet engine?

Some of the 'resolves' are a bit silly and not thought through. 'independent audit' we have that now and it doesn't work. Will this include the military with it's almost completely out of control spending practices? Military folks are federal workers... they fund their own medical? no pension for them at retirement?

Spreading government installations around will have the opposite effect you seek. By making sure as many states as possible have a government facility all you are doing in making sure the government never gets cut in any way- loss of jobs and money into a congress critter's district. The DoD has learned that trick and as many districts as possible have a hand in many major budget items. Minor ones as well, I read up on a company that makes a 'new' AR. They got their start making 12cm mortar fin assemblies- the entire round has parts made in over 100 congressional districts.

The concept of making all laws and programs benefit as many folks as possible is again a opposite affect deal. Instead of only targeting the poor we gave every citizen food stamps- do you think the food stamp program would EVER be curtailed?

I do believe you underestimate greed and rigging the game. If you believe this new system will only attract dedicated citizens you are mistaken... you will attract those who have failed at most everything else in the corporate world and is willing to give the government a shot. politicians will still be linked with big business interests as 'bribing to win a contract' is but one arrow in the quiver.

Oh and I doubt the Founders thought states over feds on most things, the Founders threw out a looser Confederation for a much more powerful Federal government.

What I have noticed in the rise and fall of Empires and Kingdoms- as they rise to power, spread their borders, and gain wealth the tendency is to consolidate power in a central structure. As the Empire/kingdom ages the people tend to lose their ardor, the central government devolves it's power and the regions are eventually cut loose. China had this trend, the Roman Empire as well. The Brits tried a hybrid government/native administration but just couldn't turn loose of the real power in the Raj.

Anyway this seems more an acceptance of our day in the sun is passing and drawing back into regional conclaves.
 
Actually that was precisely your argument - that the ideal of limited government as enshrined in the original intent of our Constitution was invalidated because of the limited extent of the vote.
No, that's not even close to my argument. If you cannot take the time to understand the simple words I used from the very beginning, then why do you continue to post in response to me? My point from the very beginning, as I've said multiple times now, is that we did not have a government of, by and for the people (unless you were white, land owning Christian male). I then used that to show how flawed it is to say our current day government is not in line with that concept (which didn't actually exist) and then hold up as a model the government from the first days of our country.

I've said this multiple times now. I really have no idea why you cannot understand it.

:lol: your counter to me demonstrating that your argument was lazy and inaccurate was to reply with "see above"?
I thought about going with "if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black", but I was afraid you'd misunderstand me again and think I was calling you a racist. Your posts in this thread haven't inspired me to confidence in your ability to understand what I've said.

False argument and implication - firstly, no government ever held that blacks were not human
:lol:

I don't even know what to say to this obviously false statement.

and secondly the Federal Government enforced slavery just as much as the slave states did.
Good attempt at deflection. I guess it's easier than admitting you were wrong about the states exerting their power.

then the equivalent thereof - the fact remains that the federal government has expanded far beyond the reach of the total sum of government in the late 18th and early 19th century.
Once more, I can't help but notice you're deflecting from the fact you were wrong again.

and are no more or less likely to than the federal government.
False. The federal government, as you well know, is separated by three different branches of government, each providing a check on the other. Furthermore, the federal government is represented by people from all across the country with a much larger diversity of viewpoints.

A) voter fraud does exist
B) Voter ID is not removing anyone's rights. The government already demands that you provide proof of identity in order to access portions of government particular to you - voting is no different.
I'm not going to go over again why you are wrong on this. The voter fraud you're discussing is barely a fraction of the people who would be affected negatively by a voter ID law. Why do people so insist on continuing to be wrong? Why can you not just admit the states have repeatedly shown desire to abuse their power, in ways worse than the federal government does and with less checks on their power?

which is well within their rights, just as it has always been.

which is equally not an imposition on anyone's rights.
You seem to have forgotten what we're discussing. How about you go back and figure it out?

Of course they aren't. Neither is the Federal Government. The main difference being that State governments are more immediately accountable to the people whom they may abuse, whereas the Federal Government is less so.
:roll:

I don't even know how to respond to this.
Oh wow. You're so cosmopolitan. You can talk to someone in Japan? Oh man. You must have used a really big megaphone.

I lived in Japan for three years. I have traveled (even by using those giant, magic, flying, hollowed-out birds) across portions of five continents, video-teleconferenced in real time literally across the globe in order to plan the years-out sync of satellite, plane, hardware, and the physical and information effects of both kinetic and non-kinetic energy, and dealt with enabling civil society across the full spectrum of development - from the challenge of getting clean water to dealing with disaster when nuclear plants begin to spew radiation and threaten to go into meltdown. Between the two of us, I'm betting that I'm the only one that has ever actually launched, controlled, and then recovered military UAVs. But please, tell me more about how you drove 10 miles for lunch, and how that experience demonstrated for you that need v want is what drove the historical expansion of the Federal Government. I can't wait to hear how driving between North Carolina and Missouri invalidates the history of the Progressive Era.
Congratulations. In your amusing attempt to belittle my statement (amusing because it was not to pat myself on the back, as you seem to think, but rather demonstrate the shrinking world in which we live), you did nothing but blow a bunch of hot air, while demonstrating, once again, your inability to understand my simple arguments.

I'll try to simplify it for you. See if you can understand this better:

1. 1790s: Technology bad. Travel take long time. Communication over great distance hard. Centralize government unnecessary and almost impossible.
2. 2010s: Technology much better. Travel take short time. Communication over great distance easy. Centralize government necessary and possible.

Hopefully that helps you.
 
Last edited:
I don't think you have a good understanding of what corporations do to 'win' the climb to monopoly. Mom and Pop can't cut prices so low they lose money in a certain area to drive out small stores and then boost prices because the big box store is the only game in town. (try reading up on the history of Standard Oil)

Can a Mom and Pop supplier be able to produce 10,000 up armored vehicles for the Army? How about 100,000 vests or rifles? Could a Mom and Pop outfit be able to win a contract to build a new stealth plane or a new low signature jet engine?

Some of the 'resolves' are a bit silly and not thought through. 'independent audit' we have that now and it doesn't work. Will this include the military with it's almost completely out of control spending practices? Military folks are federal workers... they fund their own medical? no pension for them at retirement?

Spreading government installations around will have the opposite effect you seek. By making sure as many states as possible have a government facility all you are doing in making sure the government never gets cut in any way- loss of jobs and money into a congress critter's district. The DoD has learned that trick and as many districts as possible have a hand in many major budget items. Minor ones as well, I read up on a company that makes a 'new' AR. They got their start making 12cm mortar fin assemblies- the entire round has parts made in over 100 congressional districts.

The concept of making all laws and programs benefit as many folks as possible is again a opposite affect deal. Instead of only targeting the poor we gave every citizen food stamps- do you think the food stamp program would EVER be curtailed?

I do believe you underestimate greed and rigging the game. If you believe this new system will only attract dedicated citizens you are mistaken... you will attract those who have failed at most everything else in the corporate world and is willing to give the government a shot. politicians will still be linked with big business interests as 'bribing to win a contract' is but one arrow in the quiver.

Oh and I doubt the Founders thought states over feds on most things, the Founders threw out a looser Confederation for a much more powerful Federal government.

What I have noticed in the rise and fall of Empires and Kingdoms- as they rise to power, spread their borders, and gain wealth the tendency is to consolidate power in a central structure. As the Empire/kingdom ages the people tend to lose their ardor, the central government devolves it's power and the regions are eventually cut loose. China had this trend, the Roman Empire as well. The Brits tried a hybrid government/native administration but just couldn't turn loose of the real power in the Raj.

Anyway this seems more an acceptance of our day in the sun is passing and drawing back into regional conclaves.

It is not the prerogative of the federal government to save mom and pop stores. The states would have that prerogative if they chose to exercise it, but that is to be left up to the states. The federal government with existing RICO and anti-trust laws--those would be affected in no way via my proposed resolution--can regulate unfair trade practices that are intentionally targeted to hurt competition.

It may be that the small mom and pop business in many areas has become as obsolete as the local buggy manufacturer or the local proprietor who delivered fresh milk and eggs to your front porch. Many of us experienced the pain of real loss watching beloved old stores and businesses close up shop over the decades, but that has been going on since humankind first established commerce and industry. But I am as guilty as the next person to make that happen. I don't shop at the small store offering one or two brands and who cannot afford to discount. I shop at the big box stores with their much more attractive variety of selection and usually more attractive prices.

At the same time, my husband and I operated a small business for years offering a service that nobody else was providing. So entrepreneurship is by no means dead. It just has to change with the times as it has always done.

And yes here are some companies, like Halliburton, who can do what only one other business on Earth can do. So it is inevitable, when the government needs such services, Halliburton will get the bid. There is nothing sinister or bad about that. It is just the way it is.

As far as 'spreading around the government installations' go, I was careful to include a qualifier 'as much as possible.' The rest of the proposed resolution would so limit what the government would be able to do, there is no way such a policy would increase government. But it would prevent the government from putting all the government resources in states with the largest or friendliest demographics.

I disagree that we currently require an efficient accounting of how those entrusted with our money are spending it. They waste tens of thousands and millions of our money and just shrug and move on. I want the motive of those entrusted with it to brag at how much they saved and how efficiently and effectively they performed their assigned duties. That is the purpose of the required audit.

And I certainly do understand greed and rigging the game. Our existing federal government is the most graphic example of that I have ever seen. While there will always be crooks and liars, the purpose of the resolution is to take way as much of incentive as possible for crooks and liars to seek government positions.
 
And in response to some of the rest of you, I will point out again that the proposed resolution is very specifically targeted at very specific areas in which I see the greatest abuses of government power.

To suggest smaller, efficient, effective, economical, and competent government is NOT suggesting NO government.

To do away with programs that have no business being in the federal government is not suggesting that there be NO federal programs.

To suggest that it is inappropriate for the federal government to do some things is not saying that everything the federal government does is bad or unnecessary or unimportant.
 
It is not the prerogative of the federal government to save mom and pop stores. The states would have that prerogative if they chose to exercise it, but that is to be left up to the states. The federal government with existing RICO and anti-trust laws--those would be affected in no way via my proposed resolution--can regulate unfair trade practices that are intentionally targeted to hurt competition. It may be that the small mom and pop business in many areas has become as obsolete as the local buggy manufacturer or the local proprietor who delivered fresh milk and eggs to your front porch. Many of us experienced the pain of real loss watching beloved old stores and businesses close up shop over the decades, but that has been going on since humankind first established commerce and industry. But I am as guilty as the next person to make that happen. I don't shop at the small store offering one or two brands and who cannot afford to discount. I shop at the big box stores with their much more attractive variety of selection and usually more attractive prices. At the same time, my husband and I operated a small business for years offering a service that nobody else was providing. So entrepreneurship is by no means dead. It just has to change with the times as it has always done. And yes here are some companies, like Halliburton, who can do what only one other business on Earth can do. So it is inevitable, when the government needs such services, Halliburton will get the bid. There is nothing sinister or bad about that. It is just the way it is. As far as 'spreading around the government installations' go, I was careful to include a qualifier 'as much as possible.' The rest of the proposed resolution would so limit what the government would be able to do, there is no way such a policy would increase government. But it would prevent the government from putting all the government resources in states with the largest or friendliest demographics. I disagree that we currently require an efficient accounting of how those entrusted with our money are spending it. They waste tens of thousands and millions of our money and just shrug and move on. I want the motive of those entrusted with it to brag at how much they saved and how efficiently and effectively they performed their assigned duties. That is the purpose of the required audit. And I certainly do understand greed and rigging the game. Our existing federal government is the most graphic example of that I have ever seen. While there will always be crooks and liars, the purpose of the resolution is to take way as much of incentive as possible for crooks and liars to seek government positions.

You seem to think the states are somehow immune to bribes and corruption. That they would act in the greater good more so than the feds. But your changing stand is confusing- first you claim mom and pops get a 'fair chance' by some equal application of the law and bidding, then admit the game can be rigged against them and seem to have no problem with that. (sort of a I got mine to hell with the rest of you)

And FYI I don't mean volume sales for a 'better price', I mean deliberately undercutting the break even price until the smaller stores are forced to close. You say you found a niche no one else could supply and made a good living... seriously just how many folks do you think can do that? (hint- it doesn't take many to swamp a market/field as the pyramid am-way/am3000 schemes show.)

Now on your many 'qualified' spread 'em outs in federal installations- there in lies the devil, as i said we already have the defense industry farmed out to insure no project can die a quick death at the budget block of efficiency. if you recall any of the BRAC battles you see the folly of spread 'em out. FYI the major bases are not in the most friendliest demographic but the best places to conduct training. Weather counts in training days for most services. conducting basic pilot training in poor weather climates is bad for business. Places where freezing cold or heavy rains curtail basic training makes the military more costly.

You have never worked in a corporate system if you think the feds are the most graphic example of anything... :roll:

You seemed to have missed the military retirement issue. i'd say civil servants and the military should have a separate retirement system. You seem to not know your early American Government history- the concept of political patronage was well known and used by our founding fathers as winner takes all and all the way down to the guy who greeted the carriages.

As far as your version of the audits, too vague and not going to do more than keep auditors in business. (the very idea of independent is troubling because as several administrations have shown, don't play ball and ya don't stay around)

But as history has shown us, this talk of devolving government rides at the end of a strong empire/kingdom, not on the rise to greatness.

I'd say enforcing the laws and regulations we have and curtailing the ability to 'sponsor' regulations through lobbyists. More Warrens and less Paulsons.

No need to remake the wheel, just balance it better....
 
You seem to think the states are somehow immune to bribes and corruption. That they would act in the greater good more so than the feds. But your changing stand is confusing- first you claim mom and pops get a 'fair chance' by some equal application of the law and bidding, then admit the game can be rigged against them and seem to have no problem with that. (sort of a I got mine to hell with the rest of you)

And FYI I don't mean volume sales for a 'better price', I mean deliberately undercutting the break even price until the smaller stores are forced to close. You say you found a niche no one else could supply and made a good living... seriously just how many folks do you think can do that? (hint- it doesn't take many to swamp a market/field as the pyramid am-way/am3000 schemes show.)

Now on your many 'qualified' spread 'em outs in federal installations- there in lies the devil, as i said we already have the defense industry farmed out to insure no project can die a quick death at the budget block of efficiency. if you recall any of the BRAC battles you see the folly of spread 'em out. FYI the major bases are not in the most friendliest demographic but the best places to conduct training. Weather counts in training days for most services. conducting basic pilot training in poor weather climates is bad for business. Places where freezing cold or heavy rains curtail basic training makes the military more costly.

You have never worked in a corporate system if you think the feds are the most graphic example of anything... :roll:

You seemed to have missed the military retirement issue. i'd say civil servants and the military should have a separate retirement system. You seem to not know your early American Government history- the concept of political patronage was well known and used by our founding fathers as winner takes all and all the way down to the guy who greeted the carriages.

As far as your version of the audits, too vague and not going to do more than keep auditors in business. (the very idea of independent is troubling because as several administrations have shown, don't play ball and ya don't stay around)

But as history has shown us, this talk of devolving government rides at the end of a strong empire/kingdom, not on the rise to greatness.

I'd say enforcing the laws and regulations we have and curtailing the ability to 'sponsor' regulations through lobbyists. More Warrens and less Paulsons.

No need to remake the wheel, just balance it better....

I am not suggesting remaking the wheel. I'm saying put the original wheels back on the system--those that fit the concept of government the Founders intended us to have.

Our concern is not corruption in the state government. That is for another thread. This focus is on the federal government that we know is corrupt and how best to remedy that. Bases are not the only military installations out there across the country. The military is a constitutionally mandated function of the federal government and the OP did not address the military in any way; however excesses and corruption in the Defense Dept. would be addressed by concepts of the OP just as in all other department in the federal government.

There is no way to restrict lobbyists without taking away the rights of the people to petition their government. However, if we put the OP in effect, nobody could gain anything from bribes or campaign contributions and therefore the incentive for people to do that would be eliminated.

Repeating one more time: The OP does not dismantle the federal government and it does not remove or limit any necessary function of government. The OP is strictly focused on what is wrong with the federal government and offers a comprehensive way to fix it.

Oh, and I have a very good grasp of our early American history.
 
LOL. I have often wished I could be appointed benevolent dictator with absolute authority to run the government for a limited period before returning a 'fixed government' to the elected leaders. And what I would focus on would be to implement those concepts in the OP as much as could reasonably be done.

Not crazy about the being killed after four years part though. Makes you wonder how many really balanced and competent people would consent to be appointed dictator. But that's probably why they discontinued that policy. :)

If it would heal the USA I would sacrifice my life in the end just to cleanse you off your corrupt people after 4 years of rule. We are speaking of ruling one of the world's superpowers with an iron grip here. There should be plenty of people interested.

Too bad I am out of touch with the American people to earn their support. Not to mention no military ties at all. Otherwise there would be series of mysterious accidents upon USA's most known corrupt people. Including the asshole who brought economic recession!
 
The upside of this would seem to be the sudden dearth of hopeful dictators, which can't be all bad! :mrgreen:

Greetings, DDD. :2wave:

Morning Polgara :2wave:

The interesting thing is that the Republicans attempt to shake off corruptions by somewhat resembling the iron grip of a dictator. But just because they are not dictators, and as such do not get to be killed in the end, the powerful few get to influence whichever candidate long before they get to be in power.

The only thing that could shake USA off its corrupt wealthy people is a righteous dictator. If the dictator is not killed in the end though the risk is that you will have another Kim ruling dynasty in USA.

Wonder what surname would they have? How would they look like?
 
These would be the same federal courts who wanted to stick not an ultrasound, but surgical equipment up into your vagina, in order to forcibly sterilize you against your will, on the basis that you might prove genetically unifit? Oh yes, they sound very much like the cavalry coming over the hill to save us from ourselves :roll:
The State of Virginia wanted to do that - oddly, the same state that insists on the ultrasound probe up the vagina.




PS
Yes, as you've plainly shown, States try to do terrible things to their people.
 
Last edited:
Morning Polgara :2wave:

The interesting thing is that the Republicans attempt to shake off corruptions by somewhat resembling the iron grip of a dictator. But just because they are not dictators, and as such do not get to be killed in the end, the powerful few get to influence whichever candidate long before they get to be in power.

The only thing that could shake USA off its corrupt wealthy people is a righteous dictator. If the dictator is not killed in the end though the risk is that you will have another Kim ruling dynasty in USA.

Wonder what surname would they have? How would they look like?

They would have to be charming enough to engage people; they would have to have a new unique idea or two that would appeal to almost everyone; they would have to be considered strong willed and confident enough in their own skin to be a leader; they would have to be considered trustworthy; and they would, of necessity, have to be a brilliant orator to get their ideas across.

People are weary right now, and tired of the status quo. Does such a person exist? I think so, but we may not yet know who he is--and I say "he" because I believe it will be a he rather than a she at this time in history. There are certainly excellent women out there, but they may be better suited to another role, because we are a patriarchal society and I don't see that changing any time soon on the world stage. The days of being ruled by a Elizabeth 1 or Victoria may have passed, although they were perfect at the time, but they always had men as advisors, not other women.

Just my opinion...
 
They would have to be charming enough to engage people; they would have to have a new unique idea or two that would appeal to almost everyone; they would have to be considered strong willed and confident enough in their own skin to be a leader; they would have to be considered trustworthy; and they would, of necessity, have to be a brilliant orator to get their ideas across.

People are weary right now, and tired of the status quo. Does such a person exist? I think so, but we may not yet know who he is--and I say "he" because I believe it will be a he rather than a she at this time in history. There are certainly excellent women out there, but they may be better suited to another role, because we are a patriarchal society and I don't see that changing any time soon on the world stage. The days of being ruled by a Elizabeth 1 or Victoria may have passed, although they were perfect at the time, but they always had men as advisors, not other women.

Just my opinion...

Of course I made the concept of benevolent dictator tongue in cheek. While I am confident I could fill that role and intend no harm, the fact is many, if not most, would think I was doing great harm. The old saw that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, is too often true when it comes to government of any kind. That is why the Founders' concept of a central government that would recognize and protect our unalienable rights and then leave the people free to form whatever society they wished to have was completely new and unique. It was the first nation in the history of the world that embraced a concept of a people who would govern themselves. A nation in which no despot, monarch, feudal lord, pope, or other totalitarian government would have any authority to dictate to the people what rights they would be allowed to have and/or how they would be required to conduct their lives. The people would hold the power over their own destiny.

We have been losing that concept, bit by bit, for a very long time now. The purpose of the OP is to restore that power to the people.
 
Of course I made the concept of benevolent dictator tongue in cheek. While I am confident I could fill that role and intend no harm, the fact is many, if not most, would think I was doing great harm. The old saw that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, is too often true when it comes to government of any kind. That is why the Founders' concept of a central government that would recognize and protect our unalienable rights and then leave the people free to form whatever society they wished to have was completely new and unique. It was the first nation in the history of the world that embraced a concept of a people who would govern themselves. A nation in which no despot, monarch, feudal lord, pope, or other totalitarian government would have any authority to dictate to the people what rights they would be allowed to have and/or how they would be required to conduct their lives. The people would hold the power over their own destiny.

We have been losing that concept, bit by bit, for a very long time now. The purpose of the OP is to restore that power to the people.

:agree: It's long overdue!
 
:agree: It's long overdue!

Thanks, but you can see by the poll results up there so far that we are in a distinct minority. I have been away from DP for a long time, and I wonder if the concepts in the OP are simply not being taught anywhere any more? Or has DP become a mostly left leaning board in my absence, as left wingers almost certainly oppose most or all of the concepts in the OP?

But to expound on a line from a favorite movie, "I am a lone reed, proud to stand tall in the winds of injustice and corruption." Okay that's really corny, but I hope some will understand what I am saying. :)
 
It is intended as a concept. A starting place. I do not in my wildest imagination consider myself smarter or more competent than our Founding Fathers and it took them eleven years of debate, discussion, argument of all sides of every issue, give and take, and compromise before arriving at a concept that everybody could live with. And, even though the Constitution they gave us would need amendment and adjustment here and there--issues of sexism and racism, etc. were all worked out over time--it worked very well for more than a hundred years. And it produced the most vibrant, productive, free, innovative, prosperous, and benevolent society the world had ever seen or has ever seen to this day.

It was turned on its head, however, when Theodore Roosevelt declared that the government could do anything that the Constitution did not expressly FORBID. And he packed the courts with like minded judges who would not challenge him on that. It was a complete reversal of the concept held by all previous elected leaders that the federal government could do only what the Constitution ALLOWED. The change started a small snowball rolling that shifts more and more control and power to the federal government. That snowball has been gathering momentum, size and mass ever since until it now threatens to flatten everything the USA was intended to be.

The resolution in the OP addresses that and is intended to restore the original basis of a people who have their rights secured and then govern themselves.

You actually have to begin with an extremely idealistic base to even reach a compromise.

There are 3-4 major problems that need work. Removing as much corporate influence out of Gov as possible. Campaign and term reform, reducing waste/fraud and removing excess regulations and taxes. I think if a lot of effort could be placed on these initiatives that most of the rest would work itself out. But I just don't see that happening soon. The old sayings "money makes the world go round" and "money talks" are true for a reason.

Also we're becoming a service based economy, which doesn't pay as well or employ as many, as when we were production based. That started when the gov allowed too much free trade, which benefited international corporations, other countries and the growth formula. One of the driving concepts that's failing the world is materialistic success and wealth increase thru sales and population growth but it's simply unsustainable. No amount of efficiency will allow us to propel forward without some streamlining.

The 2008 Recession and near financial collapse was the end of the credit fueled growth machine. With all the wealth being siphoned up to the top the rest of the people don't have enough to keep the retail end spurred. Without a source of income to continue a forward momentum the economy is going to stagflate, then reverse. Eventually the Feds trying to spend our way out of financial problems with ever increasing debt is not going to work on a global scale.
 
Thanks, but you can see by the poll results up there so far that we are in a distinct minority. I have been away from DP for a long time, and I wonder if the concepts in the OP are simply not being taught anywhere any more? Or has DP become a mostly left leaning board in my absence, as left wingers almost certainly oppose most or all of the concepts in the OP?

But to expound on a line from a favorite movie, "I am a lone reed, proud to stand tall in the winds of injustice and corruption." Okay that's really corny, but I hope some will understand what I am saying. :)

People are just not as happy today as they used to be, but some are fearful about change and will revert back to "adapt to the devil you know." However, I believe it will change because it's inevitable with all the problems we face, but what it might take to get there is going to be a big problem for everyone! Sad...
 
Back
Top Bottom