S
stinkcat_14
Guest
The problem is that we have two parties in the US that are big government welfare state parties. Government will never shrink as long as we keep electing republicans and democrats.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
P
philipl
Guest
It is listening to the public that get our government into some of its troubles.
P
PetraG
Guest
Well, the alternative hasn’t been a joy ride, either.It is listening to the public that get our government into some of its troubles.
That is the task of elected officials: to listen to what people want and need and not necessarily to achieve those things in some particular way that is proposed by the people but to try to find a way to achieve it in a way that is both just and practical. Sometimes elected officials also hear or see what people want and find ways to achieve those that voters did not come up with themselves but that come out of a deep understanding of the lives of citizens.
Governing a free nation is very difficult. I don’t think voters take the time to appreciate that very often. Some only realize it too late, after they get themselves elected and realize that the work is not as easy and those who tried it before they did are not so lacking in ability as they let themselves think.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
We have a state in which people can move freely but have extremely different levels of wealth and opportunity. That situation could easily go into chaos if government is not handled well, including not letting numbers of people go hungry on the doorstep of someone whose home or business they could plunder. When poverty and lack of hope are the instigators, not many forms of deterence will hold off meyhem. There has to be a carrot–I mean hope of a way of leading a dignified life, not material hand-outs–not just a stick. Otherwise, the would-be Robin Hoods will be taking matters into their own hands before long.The problem is that we have two parties in the US that are big government welfare state parties. Government will never shrink as long as we keep electing republicans and democrats.
Last edited:
G
godisgood77
Guest
They were most certainly world leaders… seems like you are trying to limit the definition of world leaders to government officials… which is a flawed way to look at it as each of those leaders had wide influence over the entire world.Paul VI, Mother Theresa, JPII were not world leaders. There were leaders in the Catholic church.
Thank-you for agreeing with me… the heralded leadership of these two is something that the entire world benefited from. Churchill could have easily enter peace talks with Germany and protected England, but instead he chose to help protect the entire world. Awesome, awesome leadership.The only reason Wilson and Churchill can be “world leaders” is the world wars they were involved in.
We’re not likely to agree… He in my top 10 for leadership, setting an agenda and stepping in to help the world against evil.Woodrow Wilson was openly against the limited power to the Constitution and one of the worst President ever
G
godisgood77
Guest
Strong argument philipl !! Would read again…Our federal government should be extremely limited in its scope and power.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
This ^ says all that needs to be said.We have a billionaire CEO running the U.S. federal executive branch and his inexperience is devastating.
P
phil19034
Guest
I think we should more business people than we currently do, but we should not limit it to business people. We need a happy balance between lawyers, businessmen, and other professions in order to have a well rounded Congress.
Too many lawyers is bad and too many businessmen is bad.
BTW - a few previous people mentioned Trump. I do think Trump will be the last President without previous government experience (at least for a very long time). I do think the President of the United States should have previous experience as Governor, at least 6 years as a Congressmen (Rep or Senator), Sec of State, 4 Star General or Admiral, and/or VP.
Too many lawyers is bad and too many businessmen is bad.
BTW - a few previous people mentioned Trump. I do think Trump will be the last President without previous government experience (at least for a very long time). I do think the President of the United States should have previous experience as Governor, at least 6 years as a Congressmen (Rep or Senator), Sec of State, 4 Star General or Admiral, and/or VP.
O
on_the_hill
Guest
I agree. On the face of it, a law education can be beneficial, but it’s certainly not necessary. The legislators themselves just need to come up with the ideas and make decisions. The drafting, the researching, etc. is all done by staff, anyway.I think we should more business people than we currently do, but we should not limit it to business people. We need a happy balance between lawyers, businessmen, and other professions in order to have a well rounded Congress.
P
philipl
Guest
You need to read some of the evil thing he did.We’re not likely to agree… He in my top 10 for leadership, setting an agenda and stepping in to help the world against evil.
There are historian that make a good argument that Wilsons policy help to create the conditions for WWIIThank-you for agreeing with me… the heralded leadership of these two is something that the entire world benefited from. Churchill could have easily enter peace talks with Germany and protected England, but instead he chose to help protect the entire world. Awesome, awesome leadership.
T
Theo520
Guest
Several school systems already do this, and apparently it isn’t breaking their budgets. It doesn’t have to be expensive.The proposal to give the teachers guns also includes training, which also carries a cost. Again: where does the money come from? The taxpayers already seem to resent every penny they send into schools.
This one is on a reservation (not rich), but limited to administrators
B
Brendan_64
Guest
Businessmen are good at running businesses, that doesn’t mean they are necessarily good at running everything else, let alone a country. A country is not simply about the ‘bottom line’, citizens are not employees, and the purpose of a government is not to generate profit for shareholders.
T
Theo520
Guest
Businessmen are good at managing things, but agree that isn’t always transferable. Running a Pizza place is very different than running an IT shop.Businessmen are good at running businesses, that doesn’t mean they are necessarily good at running everything else, let alone a country. A country is not simply about the ‘bottom line’, citizens are not employees, and the purpose of a government is not to generate profit for shareholders.
A business is hardly just a bottom line, but you must pay attention to it. Similarly a Public concern must pay equal attention to it’s revenue and expenditures. Good budgeting and budget management skills are more transferrable.
Citizens are very much like customers, in both cases you need to meet their expectations for as little expenditure as possible.
Employees are employees, whether you are in Govt or private industry.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
I do think that the skills of businessmen, and the transferability of those skills, are over-rated. Areas such as health, education and defence are not comparable with running a car manufacturing company or a fast food chain.
T
Theo520
Guest
Goes for anything. Running a school doesn’t transfer completely to being a Mayor, or running most other municipal departments.
However some skills are transferable and are learned by senior positions in both public and private sector.
However some skills are transferable and are learned by senior positions in both public and private sector.
Last edited:
I
Inisfallen
Guest
I’m astonished, gobsmacked, flabbergasted, shocked, and a bit angry that this idea would be seriously floated in the United States of America.
Let’s look at what you say. You propose that we should disenfranchise those who do not pay taxes in an amount greater than they receive in “subsidies.”
I suspect that you don’t really mean all “subsidies,” just a few, those available to the least powerful in society. For example, I doubt that you mean, say, a professor at MIT or Harvard whose salary is paid by a research grant from the CDC or the NIH, who is working on a cure for cancer. Or the retiree whose health care costs are covered by Medicare (actually, I’m not sure about that one – you might mean that).
You mostly likely mean the person who’s fallen on (or who was born into, and I’ll address that in a moment) hard times and is receiving SNAP, and maybe a Section 8 housing voucher. Or the disabled child, born to poor parents, whose medical costs are covered by Medicare.
Would you include the value of a public school education in “subsidies?” Or, say, a Fulbright scholarship? NEA grants to artists, or to museums – let’s say a museum got a grant to fund a new collection, and a curator’s salary for that exhibition?
I bet you wouldn’t.
You probably don’t mean the corporate executive whose company received a huge tax exemption from a state or municipality to locate a plant there.
You say you don’t want the beneficiaries of such “subsidies” voting to tax “contributors” (as if the poor contribute nothing to our society) into oblivion.
Given the trend, over the last couple of decades, of the working poor, at least, voting quite conservatively, it doesn’t appear that you have as much to fear from them as you think. After all, Donald Trump is in the White House, and a conservative and (supposedly) anti-tax party controls both houses of Congress and most state legislatures.
Finally, do not the poor have an interest in governing their own country? Have they no right to express their opinions with their vote on whether or not we go to war, or regulate anything, or anything else we do as a nation?
And as to Jesus having anything to say about voting, Christ didn’t mention a lot of things, at least not that were recorded by the Gospel authors. Doesn’t mean they’re not good, or morally imperative. For instance, I don’t recall that He mentioned abortion, either. Or same-sex unions. But we’re pretty sure we know what He thought of those things.
This is an ugly, ugly idea, and I’d be ashamed of, and furious at, my country if we ever implemented anything like this.
Let’s look at what you say. You propose that we should disenfranchise those who do not pay taxes in an amount greater than they receive in “subsidies.”
I suspect that you don’t really mean all “subsidies,” just a few, those available to the least powerful in society. For example, I doubt that you mean, say, a professor at MIT or Harvard whose salary is paid by a research grant from the CDC or the NIH, who is working on a cure for cancer. Or the retiree whose health care costs are covered by Medicare (actually, I’m not sure about that one – you might mean that).
You mostly likely mean the person who’s fallen on (or who was born into, and I’ll address that in a moment) hard times and is receiving SNAP, and maybe a Section 8 housing voucher. Or the disabled child, born to poor parents, whose medical costs are covered by Medicare.
Would you include the value of a public school education in “subsidies?” Or, say, a Fulbright scholarship? NEA grants to artists, or to museums – let’s say a museum got a grant to fund a new collection, and a curator’s salary for that exhibition?
I bet you wouldn’t.
You probably don’t mean the corporate executive whose company received a huge tax exemption from a state or municipality to locate a plant there.
You say you don’t want the beneficiaries of such “subsidies” voting to tax “contributors” (as if the poor contribute nothing to our society) into oblivion.
Given the trend, over the last couple of decades, of the working poor, at least, voting quite conservatively, it doesn’t appear that you have as much to fear from them as you think. After all, Donald Trump is in the White House, and a conservative and (supposedly) anti-tax party controls both houses of Congress and most state legislatures.
Finally, do not the poor have an interest in governing their own country? Have they no right to express their opinions with their vote on whether or not we go to war, or regulate anything, or anything else we do as a nation?
And as to Jesus having anything to say about voting, Christ didn’t mention a lot of things, at least not that were recorded by the Gospel authors. Doesn’t mean they’re not good, or morally imperative. For instance, I don’t recall that He mentioned abortion, either. Or same-sex unions. But we’re pretty sure we know what He thought of those things.
This is an ugly, ugly idea, and I’d be ashamed of, and furious at, my country if we ever implemented anything like this.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Finally, let me say this:
We hear so often from some conservatives (not you necessarily) about how those who seem to them to oppose what they believe America and its flag stand for are dishonoring those who died fighting for this nation.
How many people died fighting for the right to vote? Do we dishonor them by saying the franchise, the most fundamental right of citizenship, is not for the poor?
I say we do.
We hear so often from some conservatives (not you necessarily) about how those who seem to them to oppose what they believe America and its flag stand for are dishonoring those who died fighting for this nation.
How many people died fighting for the right to vote? Do we dishonor them by saying the franchise, the most fundamental right of citizenship, is not for the poor?
I say we do.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.