U.S. Government: How It SHOULD Work

It is meant to be. The objective wasn't to eventually work everything out over time and one day end up with centralised power. The idea was a split, with much more power at the state level than is typical in many countries, and to stay that way.

 

First of all I want to state that I believe our government has been hijacked by the corporations. As most people do believe on these forums. I also want to state that I believe the government should be a helping hand to the people. Instead of a institution that says you need to live your life this way, and if you dont there will be consequences.
Now we have a system that is structured to keep people out of the corporate interests way. In a idealistic state the government would function for the people as stated in the early works of our founding fathers. However instead it seems to work more against the people as a generalized way to make more money off the people. So now I guess that line for the people has some parenthesis after it IE: for the people ( at the top)
Everyone is afraid of revamping the government now though, because it is such a large complex structure. When they do not realize that really what we need is less government control more government help. I guess as (most) people see it now the governments intervention in their everyday lives, however minute it may be, is for their benefit. When in reality their intervention is to line the pockets of those lining their pockets.
I would go into detail about how I think it SHOULD work, but earthmother and pressedrat have pretty much already laid it out. Less government can be more in some cases. At least more productive and less conducive.

 

Indeed, the name of our country says it all United States, we are not really a single country, we a bunch of sovereign states united under a federal government. And why shouldn't it be that way? I don't want Mississippi to have a greater say in what happens in this state just like I assume they want it the same way, and what's good for Oregon isn't going to be good for Kansas. And people are held more accountable. Maybe in very large states like California and Texas it's not so much the same due to their populations, but our system means each state is to a large degree responsible for it's own policies, which means in a small state like ours, or even smaller ones where there's only a million or so people, people feel much more connected to the decision making process.

 

But that's just it. It's such an archaic idea. It's like Medieval Europe before trade was regulated. It's 50 different tax systems, tarifs, and civic laws under 1 nation. The nation-state is a caveman idea.

 

That's kind of ridiculous and regionalist. Why is it okay for your state to pay income taxes, when another state does not? Why is it okay for your state to have the death penalty, when others do not? How in God's name does that make your country united?

 

Dr. Kissinger agrees.

 

Huh? All states have to pay income tax.

 

Ceiling cat watches you masturbate.

 

Wrong.

Residents of Alaska, Nevada, Florida, Texas and... Washington... and... others don't pay state income taxes.

Haha. Nice try.

 

WTF? I don't know what you're smoking, but I'd like to try some.

 

Oh, STATE income taxes. I thought you were talking about the Federal income tax which is paid to the central bankers to pay off the interest on the national debt.

If people don't want to pay state income taxes, they can move to a state where there are none.

 

Yes, and if you don't want to live next to a negro or a gay, you should move.

 

Because the point is every state is the fact each state is 1/2 way to it's own country, if someone doesnt' like their state their free to move to another one but still be under the federal law of the united states. And why shouldn't it be, people in Alabama want the death penalty and low taxes and less safety nets, while people in New Hampshire want low taxes and no death penalty while right next door in Mass they want no death penalty and high taxes with a big social net.

Do you really think the United States could work as a country if all 50 states tried to come together under one unitary federal law? Aside from regional differences even states in the same region have huge differences between them because of hundreds of years of their own culture. From my neck of the woods Vermont and New Hampshire are 2 classic cases. Vermont is the epitome of the classic New England style of liberal, except in one area, their gun laws are basically like Alaska's, people in Vermont love their guns and you don't even need a permit to conceal carry. And then New Hampshire, they're the true oddball, as being one of the most libertarian states in the country, sometimes they seem like they should be next to Wyoming, other times they seem more liberal then Massachusetts, but they do have the best motto in the country, Live Free or Die

 

Earth

Your reply was what I predicted and expected – you haven’t got any answers (beyond the simplistic or rhetorical) so you run away without giving any, even if you claim you have a re-read just points out you haven’t.

Oh and of course you could give me more detail…it’s just…well you know…it’s just that…well it’s…

Yeah right.

Again sounds nice but doesn’t actually mean anything.

The question again is how?

The shortest way I suppose would be a revolution, are you advocating overthrowing the US government?

And what real and tangible policies would you propose to achieve you goal?

I’m sure you know but then…well…you know…it just might be that you can’t like …you know like …be bothered to answer…again.

Anyway that in itself isn’t that interesting I’ve meet such quackery a number of times but what is of interest to me and telling is that it seems that some people have taken your vague and simplistic utterances for some type deeper political insight.

Such naivety may go some way to explaining why right wing politics has held sway in the US for so long.

*

Gardener

I’m saying every fifty years, Thomas Jefferson wanted a re-write every 19 or 20 years.

I’d expect most of an established constitution to just go through on a nod as being acceptable and worthy (of standing the test of time) but a re-write debate and vote allows the discussion and on bits that may not or to things that people believe should be added.

It allows citizen participation through referendum and limits the power of a politically ‘packed’ Supreme Court to ‘interpret’ what is meant by something.

 

Proportional Representation

A good start to reform would be to bring in PR

This essay

A Brief History of Proportional Representation in the United States

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/Brief%20History%20of%20PR.htm

Shows how good PR was at reflecting the true make up of political feeling, weakened the power of the two party system and curbed corruption. And was opposed by the established political elite and the interests of wealth.

*

The essay ‘What is proportional Representation?’ sets out to show how PR could be introduced in the US with little problem, it is argued that there would be no need to amend or re-write the present constitution but my feeling is that to ward off the opposition by wealth then it would be best that it was enshrined in the constitution.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrights/democracy/abcs.html

 

I'm really quite sorry you don't understand.
I does appear that others do.
Oh well.:beatdeadhorse5:

 

I understand the point.

I'm saying that it's a broken system, a failed one, an archaic system based on remnants of colonial imperialistic divides.

Yes. I think the United States could come together quite nicely under a different Federal Law system.

 

Nah, most Americans would disagree, we like our system

 

Duh. Yeah it's broken. That's because things are heading exactly in the direction you seem to be proposing, which is the further centralization of corporate Federal government power. It's not archaic, because the old system of constitutional government was abandoned long ago, and the US today is not the same as it was 100 years ago, when the things you are demonizing as "outdated" actually applied. (Today they apply much less, if at all, thanks to people with apparently the same ideology as you.) The Constitution has been shredded and thrown out the window, and a corrupt Federal government is having its way with states' rights, which are becoming increasingly nonexistent. I would think you would be in favor of the current system, where the corporate-controlled Federal government is running amok with power and corrupting the rights of the states, because this is exactly what you seem to be proposing as the answer. If it isn't, then please explain yourself better.

 

I am guessing you like having to turn your financial information over to a potential employer before they have even agreed to hire you. I would guess you like having to do a pee test even though all you do is flip burgers at the local McDonalds. I am guessing you like your emails read in Washington, even if they are only meant for your girlfriend. I am guessing you thought making bankruptcy more expensive and difficult for the individual was a good thing, while make the same available to corporations more readily. I bet you're glad that you have to buy insurance before you can register your car. You can't just save for a contingency.I am guessing you like the fact that your government can arrest you and hold you indefinitely on terrorism based on the word of one person, without even notifying you of the charges.

Do you know that in a county near me if you get your utilities shut off for non-payment they can evict you from a home even though it's paid for?

Glad you are happy.