How I would reboot the USA

[Gonz]

I have no doubt that if the bulk of the power to govern was with the states then people like you would be complaining about how powerful the states are, how they try to run your lives and manage your business.

I'm not forced to live in Massachusetts. I don't care what they do...so long as it's affects don't wander to where I do live.

However, to some degree, you're right. The state, whether it's a federal beauracracy or a nation-state or a municipality, should never have power over it's citizens. We the people, not they the rulers. That's what the fight was for a couple hundred years ago.

And I know you'll be complaining about it because of one statement you made: " We should be fighting them with everything we have." No justification given. Just fight them for the sake of fighting somebody

Justification is given by every stroke of a pen. Our government is overstepping its authority. It's grown too big & powerful. We've become lazy, lackadaisical & unaware. We've handed power to those that wish us harm, and we've done it gladly.

study this

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

 

[JJR512]

So, what would you have happen? Would you have the USA become a true democracy? How much will it cost to have 300,000,000 people vote on every issue and decide every policy?

Once you go representative, you will always have people in power doing what they want. I agree with you that this should not be, but how to prevent it?

One of the big problems I have with every political candidate for anything is they always talk about what they want to do and plan to do. I would like to see a politician say, "Pick me and I will do what you want me to do; I will base my actions, decisions, and policies on what you tell me, through email, mail, and phone messages."

How about mandatory voting?

It seems that what you are truly complaining about here is the misuse and abuse of power. Although that has nothing to do with what I was originally talking about (which was more about funding), I'm interested to here how you think what you're complaining about can or should be solved.

 

[Gonz]

So, what would you have happen? Would you have the USA become a true democracy? How much will it cost to have 300,000,000 people vote on every issue and decide every policy?

A/K/A anarchy. Not a chance.

Once you go representative, you will always have people in power doing what they want. I agree with you that this should not be, but how to prevent it?

Term limits.

One of the big problems I have with every political candidate for anything is they always talk about what they want to do and plan to do. I would like to see a politician say, "Pick me and I will do what you want me to do; I will base my actions, decisions, and policies on what you tell me, through email, mail, and phone messages."

In theory, I love it. However, "YOU" is who? Me or spike?

How about mandatory voting?

The stupid, uninformed & negilgent should nor vote. I'd be all for the original way...property owners only.

It seems that what you are truly complaining about here is the misuse and abuse of power. Although that has nothing to do with what I was originally talking about (which was more about funding), I'm interested to here how you think what you're complaining about can or should be solved.

Misuse or abuse of authority includes putting monies where they are not supposed to go. The Constitution defines what the federal gov't is allowed to do. It specifically forbids overstepping states rights.

We are not the United State of America.

 

[JJR512]

In theory, I love it. However, "YOU" is who? Me or spike?

Spike hasn't even posted in this thread, why would you think I'd be talking to him? Anyway, the quote is what the politician would be saying, so the "you" in the quote would be part of what he says, so it would refer to the people he was addressing.

The stupid, uninformed & negilgent should nor vote. I'd be all for the original way...property owners only.

By "property" do you mean real property? Sure would suck for the renters. Some people who don't own any real property pay more in rent and earn more money than some other home owners. And don't forget that the stupid, uninformed, and negligent can be property owners, too.

Misuse or abuse of authority includes putting monies where they are not supposed to go. The Constitution defines what the federal gov't is allowed to do. It specifically forbids overstepping states rights.

So it the current government unconstitutional?

 

[BlurOfSerenity]

I'd be all for the original way...property owners only.

i could be wrong, but didn't the "original way" also restrict voting to white men?

 

[Gonz]

Spike hasn't even posted in this thread, why would you think I'd be talking to him?

When a pol says "I'll fix it for you", to a crowd, he's only going to make 50% of the crowd happy (roughly). When you wrote

"Pick me and I will do what you want me to do; I will base my actions, decisions, and policies on what you tell me, through email, mail, and phone messages."

I'm just curious, "you" is represented by whom?

By "property" do you mean real property? Sure would suck for the renters.

Yep.

Renters have put nothing at stake for their roof.

So it the current government unconstitutional?

About 60% of it, yes.
Roads, armies & stamps. That's the federal governments job. Medicare, SSA, bailouts, aren't.

Section. 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[JJR512]

I'm just curious, "you" is represented by whom?

Again, "you" refers to the people that the politician is addressing. When a person is talking to a group of people and says "you" to the group without singling any one person out, it is assumed that "you" refers to the group.

Renters have put nothing at stake for their roof.

So, let me get this straight. Suppose I move to Phoenix, Arizona just before they have a general election for Mayor. I get there just barely in time to buy a house and to register to vote in that election. So because I own a home there, my opinion is now more important than the guy who has lived in Phoenix all his life, works in Phoenix, and chooses to rent an apartment? The vote from the guy who is new and town and has no idea about the local political landscape, the issues and problems with the city, doesn't know a damned thing about what the city needs, is more important than the opinion of a guy who just doesn't want to take care of a lawn or yard or building maintenance?

Roads, armies & stamps. That's the federal governments job. Medicare, SSA, bailouts, aren't.

Why? Why does the power need to be at the state level? Why not at the federal level? Why not at the county level? Again, I put forth that it does not matter where the power is. If someone wants to abuse it and is clever enough to get elected, and the power is at the state level, then that person will run for state office instead of federal, and the power will be abused at the state level. This country is run by people and those people will do the same thing regardless of whether their checks are signed by the federal or state government.

But if the power shouldn't be at the federal level, why should it be at the state level? Why not at the county level? If the same set of rules and laws shouldn't apply equally to the people in Maryland and Texas, because, after all, what to the people in Maryland have in common with the people in Texas, then why should the same set of rules and laws apply equally to the people in Prince George's County, MD, and Washington County, MD, because, after all, what do the people in Washington County have in common with the people in Prince George's County?

I Pledge Allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

 

[Gonz]

Again, "you" refers to the people that the politician is addressing. When a person is talking to a group of people and says "you" to the group without singling any one person out, it is assumed that "you" refers to the group.

Which is why your wish is a pipedream. If the pol is addressing a group that consists of the left, the right & those who change with the wind. He can't promise to do what suits all. So, he must be a leader & chose. If he choses wrong, he's voted out of office.

So, let me get this straight. Suppose I move to Phoenix, Arizona just before they have a general election for Mayor. I get there just barely in time to buy a house and to register to vote in that election. So because I own a home there, my opinion is now more important than the guy who has lived in Phoenix all his life, works in Phoenix, and chooses to rent an apartment? The vote from the guy who is new and town and has no idea about the local political landscape, the issues and problems with the city, doesn't know a damned thing about what the city needs, is more important than the opinion of a guy who just doesn't want to take care of a lawn or yard or building maintenance?

Why are you voting if you're so ignorant of the local scene?

Why? Why does the power need to be at the state level?

Why? Because the Constitution specifically limits the power of the federal government. It specifically gives more power to the state, and the people. It limits the authority of the federal government. The Constitution is the absolute authority on the powers of the fed. A nation of laws, not a nation of men.

It's how the USA was intended & formed. Read up on our history. Power comes from the people. You can talk to your city council or county council far easier than you can talk to your Senator. Sheers numbers. The municipality gives power to the county who gives power to the state who gives power to the feds. Keep it local & you maintain control. People in Maine should not be deciding Oregons county propositions. What do Floridians know about snow removal?

If you want these things changed, directions are written on how to change them. It's called a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[JTP]

Anybody watched that great HBO mini-series "John Adams" with Paul Giamatti?
It ROCKS!

 

[JJR512]

Which is why your wish is a pipedream. If the pol is addressing a group that consists of the left, the right & those who change with the wind. He can't promise to do what suits all. So, he must be a leader & chose. If he choses wrong, he's voted out of office.

Ahh but go back to what I was saying. This politician isn't promising to do anything at all, let alone something that will suit everyone. What he is saying to everyone is he wants them (the people, the constituents, the people he's talking to) to tell him what to do. Of course, you are right that if he is addressing a wide variety of people, he will get a wide variety of differing opinions. His job would be to determine what the majority opinion is and then go do that.

In other words, this politician would be asking his constituents to do what they're supposed to be doing in the first place: Take an active role in your governance. Don't just sit back and read about it and watch it happen on the news. Tell your representative what you want and don't want. The politician is saying that he will actually pay attention to and abide by the majority of what he is told by his constituents.

Why are you voting if you're so ignorant of the local scene?

Because you said I had the right to! To point out the flaw in your system! To illustrate that coming up with only one very simple qualification to determine voting status allows many people who shouldn't vote to vote and prohibits many people who should be able to vote from voting.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...

Please note that it does not say, "We the white male land owners..."

It's how the USA was intended & formed. Read up on our history. Power comes from the people. You can talk to your city council or county council far easier than you can talk to your Senator. Sheers numbers. The municipality gives power to the county who gives power to the state who gives power to the feds. Keep it local & you maintain control. People in Maine should not be deciding Oregons county propositions. What do Floridians know about snow removal?

"You can talk to your city council or county council far easier than you can talk to your Senator..." Which is exactly the reason behind the rest of my question beyond just the part you quote! If power being at the federal level is so bad for the reasons that both of us described, then why should it go to the middle (the state level) instead of to the opposite end of the spectrum, to the local level? Using your example of snow removal, consider the state of Arizona again. There are parts of the state where it doesn't snow at all, and there are parts of the state with an average annual snow fall of 100 inches.* So you have used snow removal as an example to illustrate why power should be at the state level instead of the federal level, but if that's the case, then by your own analogy, what to the people in Maricopa County know about snow removal? Then again, what do the people in Coconino County know about sand storms? Doesn't your example (snow removal) just prove my point that if power shouldn't be at the federal level (as you feel it shouldn't), then the best place for it to be would be the local government?


* Some OT factoids for you: The average annual snowfall in Flagstaff, AZ is 100 inches. Flagstaff is in Coconino County. Flagstaff typically gets multiple snowstorms per winter, with most or all of the snow typically melting away between each storm. There are other areas of Arizona that get less snow on average, such as in Pinetop, where the average annual snowfall is only 47 inches, but in Pinetop, once it snows, the snow mostly remains until spring, with each successive snow adding to the previous; thus, in unplowed/uncleared aread of Pinetop, it's typical to have a few feet of snow on the ground by the end of the really cold season.

 

[Gonz]

I'm all for local control. You were subscribing to federal.

His job would be to determine what the majority opinion is and then go do that.

What if the majority are wrong?

 

[JJR512]

I'm all for local control. You were subscribing to federal.
Wrong! Once again, let me remind you that I was not "subscribing" to any major change in the power structure of the government at all. My original post had nothing to do with that. My original post was about how certain parts of the existing government are funded and perhaps changing that; it was about wasteful redundancies, with many departments, bureaus, agencies, etc. doing similar jobs; it was about the exact same thing in the military; it was about perhaps combining or merging said departments, et al into fewer or single entities, and streamlining command and administrative functions within those.

My original post had nothing at all to do with changing our system of government at all (whether referring to the system we actually have or the system we have on paper, which, according to you, are two entirely different systems). My original post had nothing to do with anything in the Constitution. So quite frankly, you coming in and asking if I'd toss the Constitution makes about as much sense to me as if you had asked if I'd toss the Declaration of Independence.

What if the majority are wrong?

Then they will have to suffer the consequences. Why would you ask such a simple question? What happens today if the majority of voters are wrong? They suffer the consequences. It's not a new concept. Hopefully, though, the wrong majority will learn from their mistake, understand it was their mistake, and make a better decision next time. At least they got involved, though.

 

[H2O boy]

i say we get back to where we started. the feds do jobs a b and c, the states do jobs d e and f, the municipals do jobs g and h, and the citizens do the rest for themselves or do without. made a few generations a lot stronger and smarter too it seems. its amazing what people will do for themselves when they know nobodys going to provide it for them. i think its time people under 35 learned a little about it

 

[JJR512]

To piggyback on what you just said, many people need to be reminded of the famous words that a Democrat once said:

Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.

 

[catocom]

yep, even more of a joke now, than it was the first time I heard it.

 

[JJR512]

What's the joke, what JFK said or that he thought anyone might actually take it to heart?

 

[Gonz]

Wrong! Once again, let me remind you that I was not "subscribing" to any major change in the power structure of the government at all.

If I had the unlimited power and authority to restructure the USA, here are some of the things I would do.

Then you went about demolishing the Constitution, giving powers where no power exists....whixh places you among the average 85% or so.

Roads, stamps & armies. Let the beauracrats do the treaty thing. That's it.

The less government the better.

Read these...it explains where we came from.

 

[JJR512]

That is just hypothetical posturing. No one person will ever have "unlimited power and authority". It's meant to be an analogy, or maybe it's a metaphor... I don't know what the proper terminology for it is, it's just a figure of speech that is meant to indicate "here is what I would like to see happen".

And I will disagree that the federal government should stop with roads, stamps, and armies. Here is why: When a disaster strikes a place, whether it's natural or otherwise, and the local emergency systems are overwhelmed, it's nice and neighborly for fellow countrymen in other states to send some help. Well when that help comes, wouldn't it be nice if they can actually provide the help they went there to provide? How are they going to do that if the emergency responders from every state are trained to their own state's unique standards and use their own terminology? What's going to happen when some guy, nominally in charge, tells a group of emergency responders from several states what to do and he gets responses like "10-4", "Roger", "Copy-direct", "Understood", etc.? Nobody will know what anybody else is talking about, nobody will know what anybody else is capable of doing or allowed to do, it will be mass chaos, and nothing will get accomplished. Or...maybe you think that states shouldn't be helping each other out, that maybe New York would have been better off being left to deal with 9/11 by itself?

Well, maybe you're right. Maybe states shouldn't help each other out. Let each state deal with its own problems. And of course, you have to extend that further; let each county in a state deal with its own problems, too, can't have one county helping out another. And of course, you have to extend that further; let each town and municipality take care of its own problems. And when you get hit by a car and a bystander calls 911, and your town's ambulance is already helping somebody else, I'm sure you'll be happy to wait the 1-2 hours it takes your town's ambulance to clear its current call. Yes, I'm sure you'll be very happy indeed to wait for that ambulance to show up, because you wouldn't want the next town's ambulance to come help you out; no, that wouldn't be fair to the people of that town, would it? After all, they paid for that ambulance and those paramedics with their tax money so it wouldn't be right for that town's emergency services to come help their neighboring town's people, would it?

Aw hell, why stop at the local level? If you somehow managed to miraculously survive getting hit by a car and having to wait 2 hours for your own town's ambulance to show up, then get this: When your neighbor comes by and asks to borrow some sugar, an egg, a garden hose, whatever, just tell him, "Fuck off, I paid for it, nobody should be helping anybody out at all! You've got a road to get to work, you've got stamps to mail shit, there are armies to defend you, what the hell else can you possibly want? Stop bothering me!"

 

[Gonz]

Works for me.

Tell ya what, if you want to study central planning-look at the Soviet Union or China. Those are (were) large central power seats. Look how well they're doing.

Say, isn't that capitalism?

 

[catocom]

What's the joke, what JFK said or that he thought anyone might actually take it to heart?

the latter.
No not 'anyone', just most.