U.S. Government: How It SHOULD Work

That's just the thing. "Our system" that Madcap speaks of hardly exists anymore, unless he is praising the modern police and surveillance state (which has usurped the Constitution) and saying most people like that, which I doubt is the case.

 

Isn't that what we have. Isn't that why Texas gerrymandered not long ago. Remember the democratic elected officials hiding out. The way the system works today it can be gamed by big money.

 

That has nothing to do without constitutional federal presidential system of government vs a parliamentary/unitary system.

 

I don't remember those being the only options posed by the original poster. And I don't think that's what Odon and I were discussing.

 

Sure. If you support the status quo, all the power to you.

 

I've explained myself several times in this thread. It's not my fault you can't understand what I'm saying and now wish to put words in my mouth.

 

Rat would have you believe that the states alone are empowered and intelligent enough to rule our lives. I like the fact that some of the unreasonable crap states try to play out are found unconstitutional and overruled.

 

Yeah, and then there are times when States like to overturn constitutional rights, like taking back a person's right to get married - or a person's right to have an abortion, etc. This kind of crap happens because of a weak, inflexible, and archaic federal Constitutional law.

 

No we still have the right to abortion because of a federal ruling in California. And I have faith that what the churches and other interests lobbied for in November will be overturned. It's checks and balances and we should never underestimate them.

I completely abhor the fact that we now have capital punishment, to me that is the gossest misuse of government. But some bought into it for the reason that they thought it would make us safe...that argument never works for me. Or the other argument was that it was cheaper...the lowest bargaining chip in my opinion, but one bought by many.

 

Sorry to back track on you here, but can you explain what you mean by this?

 

No problem. Here read for yourself. Hasn't spread to my county 35 miles away, but if they find it profitable it probably will.

http://www.redding.com/news/2009/apr/07/committee-wants-redding-to-stop-power-evictions/

Their reasoning was:

Do you buy that?

Liberalizing what a good paying cutomer is? Where is any concern for who actually owns the property?

 

thanks for the link...

I really don't know what to say about that whole thing except that if people had homes that weren't dependent on grid power to survive, that wouldn't be an issue...

In terms of governance though, the council ended the practice, which is what one would hope they would do... although there is the question of how it got started in the first place.

 

Yeah, but we are talking about working folks that bought and paid for their property, but since Enron they have some problems from time to time paying their utility bill. And Redding let's the power company red tag them and throw them out. I am glad it's ended, but I wonder about the folks that got evicted before it hit the news and just succumbed because the police were called in. I really don't think it should be the utility company callng the shots.

 

Not until people had been evicted. And since when do utilitiy companies proscribe who can remain in their homes. Probably since Enron.

This can happen in your neighborhood if you let your guard down.

 

I don't know if you are purposely mis labeling who it was that was doing the red tagging and to what extent or not.

The utility company was disconnecting customers (presumably for non-payment), they then sent that customers name to the city office, of which, less then 1% of were then red-tagged.

What type of control is that? If I was enron and that was all the power I could exert, I think I would give up as an evil super power.

 

Because they didn't accomplish as much evil as they could they are the good guys.

My problem is these folks owned the property, who gave the utility companies the power to evict them? When did it happen and how much public discussion was there before it was made statute? It's not a matter of how badly they raped you, but that they did, and who helped them accomplish the act.. Much like the torture arguments going on today. Torture is wrong no matter what phony results you come up with.. Letting the utility companies evict people from homes and property is wrong!

No one that owns their property should ever face eviction because they can't pay a god damn utility bill!

But it happenned and it happenned in the US in California last winter. Why was it allowed to happen and how can we stop it from happenning in the future. Those are the governmental changes I want to see happen and right now!

You can talk all about parlimentary vs republican representation, but if you can't provide a vehicle for the average citizen to counter corruption like this what the hell are we talking about?...protecting the rich?

 

you read my post wrong.

the state constitutions would be under the federal constitution

federal laws like "pot is illegal" could be superceded by state constitutions (like nevada's) which allow medical marijuana.

NO MORE PATIENTS BEING ARRESTED

nevadans voted for that ammend to the constitution twice, it won, twice, and now, nevadans with diseases that it helps, can get marijuana, the federal government has a useless racist law, still on the books, and so the feds can still come after nevadan patients.

that is bullshit

now, if it were just a state law? sure, supremacy, absolutely. but, it is the state constitution, which should supercede federal law, we are nevadans for a REASON.

as to donating to yale, people who do donate to yale are mostly former yalies, are almost exclusively doing it for the tax break, and expanding their multi billion dollar endowment, pointlessly, yale doesn't have the best collegiate level high energy physics lab in the world, they could, they can afford it, but they choose to instead invest the money in being a prestegious school

not a good one.


someone should not get as much of a tax break giving them money they don't need as someone who gives money tyo a local food bank, that is supporting people who really need it.

how do I expect administrative costs (not all medical costs, just administrative, again, you misread) to drop to 8% in ten years?

hong kong dropped their administrative costs from 30% to 4% in a year and a half

we have a more complex system, so I suggest less harsh change, but, that is NOT too much to ask.


it is not needless to change the value of charities, it takes welfare burden off of the state, and allows taxpayers to put their tax dollars where they feel they should be spent.

if I do not want to support the rehabilitation of meth addicts with my tax dollars, I should not have to (I would much rather support heroin addict rehabilitation to be honest with you, and, even then, better causes)


if someone wants to pay taxes, they still would be able to, they would still be able to support the military industrial complex

but, honestly? I think a lot less people would

I think that the u.s. military, would have to trim down, and stop wasting money SO needlessly.

I think that lockheed would stop being to milk the government with shitty products, and projects, and I know there would be less fat to be given to corrupt fucks like halliburton.

it would make america a more peaceful nation, less imperial, and, we would have happier, healthier citizens


Aristartle, I really am dissapointed in you, you are either using games of rhetoric, and politic, or you simply did not read my post. there are too many flaws, and constructed "traps" in your argument for me to believe it was sincere.

 

I'd love to be able to say my taxes can't be used for war, any war. But it's not going to happe.

 

that is part of my plan, if you give the money to responsible charities, and non-profits instead, you don't have that problem.

I also think that the american governemnt should enlist auditors, from the citizenry, it would be like jury duty, just, you could decline, it would require background checks, and you would do it for a year or more

you would go through government documents, and find things you thought weren't okay, you would put them on a list, and that list would be made public, those things that the public determined to be morally reprehensible, would be dealt with



for example, I think that all of the CIA operators who were responsible for torturing anyone should be taken off duty, be given full psychological care, for a certain minimum period of time, and for as long as they need it after.

the people responsible for ordering these practices would be brought before a court, and formally charged for what happened.

if they were found to not be criminally liable, they would be free to go, if they were, they would be sentenced as any other criminal

I would like to see dick cheney go to jail for authorizing torture

the more power you have, the more responsibility you bear.

 

Earth

They may think they understand what you are saying but that doesn’t mean they understand the meaning of what you are saying.

I want to understand the meaning of what your saying, that is to get beyond the simplistic homilies and rhetoric and to get a that meaning, and that is what you constantly refuse to do.

The thing is that I get the feeling that your views, on a fundamental level are not that different from those of such right wingers as Hipstatic or Rat.

I’d like to find out but you don’t seem to want me to do, why?