Daylife/Reuters Pictures
|
President Barack Obama kicks off a campaign to rein in corporate compensation with rules limiting executive pay to $500,000 a year for companies getting taxpayer bailout funds in the future.
Obama, who sharply criticized Wall Street chiefs for accepting billions of dollars in bonuses last year while the economy fizzled, had promised compensation reform as part of a package of stricter regulations on the financial industry…
An Obama administration official said the new rules would require companies that get exceptional government funds — such as financial giant Citigroup and insurer AIG have in the past — to abide by the cap.
Additional compensation must be limited to restricted stock that does not vest until government money is paid back with interest.
Companies that have previously received bailout money would have to agree to stricter oversight and prove that they have followed already established restrictions on executive compensation, which are widely seen as being too lax…
They will also put restrictions on golden parachutes — the lavish severance packages common for senior executives — and require more transparency for costs such as aviation services, big parties, office renovations and conferences.
Do you think executives of the corporations receiving bailout bucks have been earning their salaries, bonuses, perks? Think their payscales should remain unchallenged?
#182, Poison Twin,
Get back to your original statement and answer my question as to why Congress hasn’t bothered to limit CEO salaries? You started this nonsense, see if you can finish it.
#184 – LibertyLover,
I don’t blame the corporations, I blame the government.
Have you not noticed that ever since Reagan, through every administration by either party, the corporations have been the government? How can you blame one without blaming the other? Corporations write the rules (or the lack thereof) hand them to politicians in envelopes with big checks and the politicians pass them.
If a parent keeps bailing out their teenager when they screw up, the teenage never learns. Government should have told the corporations, “You made your bed. Sleep in it.” Now, corporations KNOW the government will not let them fail. This makes the problem worse and no amount of regulation is going to solve this.
In theory, I agree wholeheartedly. In practice, I have no idea how to get out of the mess we’re currently in.
Let me rephrase. Would you work for half if your expenses didn’t drop to compensate? Would you reduce your standard of living out of altruism?
Not out of altruism, no. I would do it because I had to. We simply cannot continue to live as we have been. But, feel free to keep changing the question when you don’t like my answer.
More importantly, I already am in a state that I do not consider myself a consumerist. I buy mostly what I need plus a small amount of toys. My car is 17 years old. My computer is 3. I own just one television. I do have a few hobbies on which I spend money. I carefully consider what to spend and when as well as what is reasonable versus what just sounds cool.
Re: Tariffs
You should look up Smoot-Hartley [sic] to see what tariffs do to economies.
Interesting. It seems that when one is trying to trade with another country, it is self-defeating to put a tariff on goods from that country. However, since we no longer produce much of anything, and probably sell little or nothing to countries that have workers at sub-dollar a day wages, I don’t think the situation is the same. Also, there are tariffs and there are TARIFFS. It sounds like Smoot-Hawley was seriously overdone and was done to the wrong countries at a time when we wanted to sell them goods.
BTW, it’s really bad form to say “look up blah”; just post a link. Don’t make me do work to prove your point. It just pisses me off and makes you look like Paddy-tr0ll.
http://tinyurl.com/p8v3j
Increasing the sale price does not hurt Joe. There is more to live than blind consumerism. One need not have 7 high def TVs to be happy.
Then why enforce a minimum wage? The whole purpose of a minimum wage is to ensure people can eat. If prices continue to rise, the minimum wage has to increase and you end up with an inflation feedback loop.
Sorry, perhaps I should have specified that necessities would not be taxed.
In fact, I agree with what green just posted on another thread. We should tax consumption, not income. And, I would take luxury items much more heavily than non-luxury items and would not tax most necessities at all. A carbon tax would end up causing a tax on necessities. I would offset that with a significant tax rebate based on income level.
As for luxury imported items, I would add tariffs that would help equalize the costs of products from countries with a decent standard of living against those with an indecent one, so to speak. Or, perhaps it would even be better to do it by the median wages paid by each corporation to its line workers. I’m sure this could be worked out by better economic minds than mine.
#186, Scott,
Corporations write the rules (or the lack thereof) hand them to politicians in envelopes with big checks and the politicians pass them.
There is truth in that. Perhaps we should elect altruistic politicians instead of hiring altruistic CEOs.
But, feel free to keep changing the question when you don’t like my answer.
I had thought it would be implied. My posts tend to get long and I sometimes ass|u|me you all can read between the lines.
BTW, it’s really bad form to say “look up blah”; just post a link. Don’t make me do work to prove your point. It just pisses me off and makes you look like Paddy-tr0ll.
I thought you would be like the Poison Twins and attack the source of the information instead of the information itself. I’ll put you on my “safe to link” list 🙂
In fact, I agree with what green just posted on another thread. We should tax consumption, not income
That’s what the Constitution says.
And, I would take luxury items much more heavily than non-luxury items and would not tax most necessities at all.
Who gets to decide what is a necessity and what is a luxury item? Healthy people consider $5 co-pays at the doctor’s office a luxury and poor people consider it a necessity.
No, I have to disagree on that point. It should be the same across the board.
#187 – Liberty Loser
>>I thought you would be like the Poison Twins
>>and attack the source of the information
>>instead of the information itself.
Both your information AND your sources have been debunked as pretty much worthless, Loser. When you deign to provide sources in the first place (which you seldom do).
Remember the drubbing you took over your absurd allegations about the head of the Chicago schools? Hoo boy. That was a classic.
#188, Poison,
I don’t recall talking about the Chicago School System. I remember talking about the failed policies of it’s head administrator, though (who is now responsible for the DoEd).
No wonder you think it was a drubbing. You can’t remember what it was about. How do you even remember to wipe your ass in the morning with a memory like that?
#185, Loser,
Get back to your original statement and answer my question as to why Congress hasn’t bothered to limit CEO salaries?
Gee, you have been reading too many of Cow-Patty’s posts. THE EFFEN TOPIC IS ABOUT OBAMA LIMITING CEO’S WAGES!!!
At no time have I ever said or even suggested congress SHOULD limit or regulate anyone’s wages. All I have said is they have the authority and could if they wanted to.
Since you claim they don’t have the authority, please post some court case that said they can’t.
#187, Loser,
In fact, I agree with what green just posted on another thread. We should tax consumption, not income
That’s what the Constitution says.
Nope. Wrong again.
Amendment XVI: Income tax.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Why is it you think the Constitution only applies to what you want it to?
#190, If they had the authority, they would have done it by now. Since, they haven’t, they obviously don’t have that authority.
The authority doesn’t exist as it has never been tried.
The law is not logical. It is historical. Everything is based on precedent. Are there any precedents where they have tried?
#191, I consider the 16th amendment to be illegal and should be appealed immediately. It was passed by tomfoolery.
If the people had know what was really up or where it would lead, it would never have happened.
http://tinyurl.com/cby8xk
#193 – um, repealed. @#$%&Q#$%
#187 – LibertyLover,
#186, Scott,
I thought you would be like the Poison Twins and attack the source of the information instead of the information itself. I’ll put you on my “safe to link” list 🙂
I haven’t yet figured out who you call the poison twins. As for the source of your links, yes, it does matter. If you post links to Exxon sponsored sites regarding global warming, I will definitely call you on it.
If you find legitimate news sources for legitimate information, it should generally be OK to post a link. I even tend to consider wikipedia quite good and quite neutral. Pages that have the appropriate citations are quite reliable since you can always follow the sources.
It should be obvious which sites are biased and which are not. I tend not to post Huffington Post articles as a rule because they will never convince anyone on the right. I consequently hope not to get posts from Faux News from neocons since no liberal considers it a reputable news source.
I guess that this puts me on your not safe to link list. Just be assured that even a bad link is more credible than no link. Bad links make you biased. No links make you a troll.
#194, Loser,
#191, I consider the 16th amendment to be illegal and should be appealed immediately. It was passed by tomfoolery.
Who and on what grounds would you appeal the XVI Amendment? It was passed by 2/3 of the House and Senate and then 3/4 of the States. Those are the requirements to change the Constitution. It is now part of the “Law of the Land”.
As I pointed out earlier, you want to pick and chose which parts of the Constitution and which laws you will obey. That is wrong. It is either a take ’em all approach or you don’t deserve to be here.
There is no “government gun” pointed at your head forcing you to follow these laws. They are there by society as rules by which we will live orderly lives. Picking which laws to obey only leads to anarchy and the breakdown of society. I would much rather have an orderly society of law and order.
#190 – LibLos
>>I don’t recall talking about the Chicago
>>School System. I remember talking about the
>>failed policies of it’s head administrator,
>>though.
Hahahahahahaha! Liberty Loser!! I guess I’d repress the memories too, if I took a beat-down as bad as you did. I was feeling bad for ya.
In fact, you did a lot of “talking about the Chicago School System”. To wit, the article titled “Espressogate: Chicago Public Schools blow $67K on Capuccino machines” was posted Editor McCullough on January 8, 2009, and had nothing whatsoever to do with “it’s head administrator”. It had to do with the possibility of misuse of funds in the Chicago Public School system.
Just like every other time you’ve raised your pimply little ultra-right sebum-filled head here to spew your hatred, in a total absence of anything approaching a fact (you’re being ridiculed AGAIN for your inability to back up your silly claims), you’ve been blasted like a drunken prairie dog.
>> I consider the 16th amendment to be illegal
>>and should be appealed immediately. It was
>>passed by tomfoolery.
At least we know now how YOU wipe your ass in the morning, Loser. Just like your pajama pal Dumbya, you cleanse the fetid anal crust with sheafs of bathroom tissue torn from the Constitution. Hey, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper.
#197 – Mr. Fusion,
There is a third option for people who don’t like a particular law, try to change it. Our laws do allow for change.
I suspect that would take a tad more work than the armchair politicians of the world, i.e. bloggers, would be willing to undertake. Else, they would not be blogging here.
I, for one, do not go on serious campaigns. I draw the line at emailing my politicians repeatedly. Most people won’t even do that.
#194 – LibertyLover,
Feel free to let us know of your enormous political campaign to repeal the 16th amendment. Some of us may join you, especially if we agree with the way in which you plan to finance the government.
I would prefer a different tax system as well. However, I also agree with Oliver Wendell Holmes who said, ‘I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization.’
Personally, I disagree with you about taxing everything equally. I think most people would agree that a $100 bottle of wine is a luxury item, even those who can afford one every once in a while. I think that most would agree that a doctor’s office visit is not a luxury for anyone. Nor is a bottle of milk or a dozen eggs.
We could probably work out the details later.
However, if you want to tax doctor’s visits instead of providing them as a basic necessity like clean air and water, I probably won’t join your movement.
What was the name of your 501(c)(3) again? I’ll check out your mission statement.
#199, Scott,
Yes, you are quite correct. My thinking was a little more black and white of either living in society or get out. Changing society so it is a better place goes along with living inside it and the rules the society make.
But I do endorse your post 100% and thank you for pointing that out.
#198, Mustard,
Make me laugh !!!
Yes, I was thinking how amazing it is that certain people would rather change to another topic instead of answering the one in front of them. The audacity is overwhelming sometimes.
But we now have proof that Cow-Paddy is NOT an executive. How? Because he pays for his own health insurance. All large companies must provide for a plan for their employees.
Then there was a post on a technical subject. He wrote that he was going to “pink” one of his “peeps”. Damn did I laugh.
Well, back to work, keep the peace.
😉
Dang nab it !!! in my post #200, second last paragraph, that should read:
He wrote that he was going to “ping” one of his “peeps”.
Maybe I should go to bed instead of back to work.
#199, Scott,
Feel free to let us know of your enormous political campaign to repeal the 16th amendment. Some of us may join you, especially if we agree with the way in which you plan to finance the government.
There is a campaign to do so among other things.
http://tinyurl.com/3ldue3
As far as funding the federal government, if all income taxes were eliminated, the size of the government could be shrunk to pre-Bush levels. Think about that for a moment. If we could take back everything Bush did, we could get rid of the income tax. Amazing, huh?
I would pull the troops home. We don’t them in the 60 countries where they are.
We don’t need to send money to the states. They can fund themselves on things such as roads, healthcare, schools, etc. Why take the money from a state’s citizen and then send it BACK to the state. It’s inefficient. The cost to do so is around 25% of the funds.
If you are truly interested and not just trolling, there is a great book you should read.
http://tinyurl.com/279r2
The choice bits are actually online in pdf format. I think everyone should read it. It’s 68 pages and there isn’t much fluff so it may take awhile to absorb the true impact of what the author is saying.
Personally, I disagree with you about taxing everything equally.
What about a car? A house? The type of lawnmower? Paint? Etc. Who gets to choose what is too much car, too much house, too much lawnmower? Some paints are more expensive than others so are some luxury? Why or why not?
On the healthcare, should ALL healthcare be untaxed? What about unneeded procedures (like liposuction? Who gets to choose what is needed and what is not?
Wine — it’s been proven that red wine, in small doses each day, is good for you. Couldn’t we assume that is no longer a luxury but a preventive medicine? Who gets to decide?
Equal is the only way. Thus, there is no chance for lobbyists to massage the system and get their goods listed as required vs luxury.
And yes, I do participate in politics. I donate to CFL, I write my senators and reps (local and national), I am active in state politics from the precinct level to the state level. In case you were wondering.
#197, Poison Twin,
Did you read how it was passed? Or do you believe the ends justify the means?
Prohibition was repealed. This should be as well.
#198, Poison,
To wit, the article titled “Espressogate: Chicago Public Schools blow $67K on Capuccino machines” was posted Editor McCullough on January 8, 2009, and had nothing whatsoever to do with “it’s head administrator”. It had to do with the possibility of misuse of funds in the Chicago Public School system.
You are correct. The “article title” said that but I pointed out the problem was due to failed policies of its head administrator.
You can’t talk about a symptom without discussing the cause.
#203, Loser,
Did you read how it was passed?
Irrelevant. You claimed it was illegal. In fact, you wrote
Yet your sole basis for claiming it is illegal is that it was passed “by tomfoolery”.
What went on behind the scenes is irrelevant. The Amendment was passed by the correct number of Congress and by the correct number of State Legislatures. If there was vote trading that still doesn’t matter, all those people voted for the Amendment. That makes it legal and binding.
The Courts can not overturn the Constitution. They may only interpret it. Since the Amendment is clear and unambiguous, there is little for the courts to even hear.
You can not appeal a law just because you don’t like it. It must be overshadowed by another law or the Constitution. When it is the Constitution itself that is modified, there is no area of appeal.
#204, Scott,
Liberals and libertarians have more in common with each other, especially about social freedoms, than we have differences. I fail to see the reason for your attacks on liberals. Hey, even the first five letters are our labels match!
I agree we probably have more in common than not. However, it is lack of personal freedom to starve that is the major dividing interest. This country was founded on that principle.
What liberals fail to realize is that what the government gives, they can take away. If a social freedom is regulated, it is no longer a freedom, but a privilege.
Personally, I like to stand on my own two feet and don’t want anyone to take care of me. Liberals tend to quote straw man arguments about roads and military and any other of a dozen such things to prove that government is good. I don’t want to eliminate government. I want it to get out of the way of personal freedom. Large, monolithic bureaucracies are impediments to that.
I think that wealthy people can afford a higher percentage of taxes than poor people.
Of course they can! They’re wealthy!
But you still haven’t answered as to who gets to choose?
I think that there are things that harm the environment that must be taxed more heavily.
Why can’t the people just sue the pants off of them for violating their property rights?
I think there is ample evidence from the developed democratic nations of the world that
Officially, we aren’t a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. No where in the DoI or the Constitution does the word “democracy” (or any derivatives of it) appear. The founding father knew the danger of mob rule.
It is strongly implied (see A.XII and A.XVII) but the electors don’t have to vote for who the people voted for. Granted, there would probably be pitchforks in the streets if they didn’t — mob rule.
The states may or may not be democracies, depending on their own constitutions.
IMO, those two amendments are part of the problem today — we have devolved from a Constitutional Republic into a Democratic Mob controlled by the Special Interest of the Week.
an incompetent bureaucrat who is tasked with providing care will provide better care than a competent corporate thug whose job is to avoid paying for health care.
That is debatable but for another thread . . .
#204, Scott,
looking for cures for baldness and impotence.
Hey, there some personal things that could use a little help.
8)
#205, Poison Twin,
What? I can’t have an opinion that it is illegal? You don’t have to quote me. I stand by my opinion.
Just because you like it doesn’t make it right. It’ll be repealed someday. It has to be. This country cannot continue down the road it is on by stealing from its citizens.
When it is the Constitution itself that is modified, there is no area of appeal.
Correct. Which is why it should be repealed as was prohibition.
#208, Loser,
An opinion can not change a fact, it is only a viewpoint. A law is legal when it is upheld by a court. An Amendment can not be illegal since it is the base that laws use as their foundation for being.
From your last comment though, I think what you really mean is that you philosophically disagree with the Constitution. That though, does not make the Constitution illegal.
#206–Loser==”If a social freedom is regulated, it is no longer a freedom, but a privilege.” /// All freedoms, all everything, is regulated to one degree or another. Its beyond infantile to argue anything except WHAT the regulations should be.
We have a Bill of Rights recognizing certain freedoms. The are all balanced (regulated) off one another.
We have Freedom of Speech but not to yell fire in a crowded theater when no fire is present.
yada, yada== beyond infantile as your assertion: “Personally, I like to stand on my own two feet and don’t want anyone to take care of me.” /// Raised yourself did you? No need for police/fire department/national guard/emergency room services/public health/Border Patrol===
I would say retard, dope, or dolt as I so often do, but another synonym now comes to mind:
Liebertarian!
#209, Poison Twin,
From your last comment though, I think what you really mean is that you philosophically disagree with the Constitution. That though, does not make the Constitution illegal.
Not all of the Constitution. Just some of the later amendments that should never have made it into it.
Do you accept that prohibition should have been there to start with?
#211–Loser==why don’t you simply admit Fusion has taught you a fine point of law and appreciate his patience?
Or have you not done so?
Liebertarian!!
211, Loser,
What is, is and what was, was. I don’t drink enough alcohol for prohibition to make any difference in my personal life.
The Constitution though is what this country bases itself on. And if you are afraid of or won’t swear allegiance to the Constitution and everything this country is about, you can always leave. You can start your own nation in some far off part of the world.
What you can’t do is swear to follow only the laws YOU want to. As a society, that just isn’t tolerated.
#206 – LibertyLover,
What liberals fail to realize is that what the government gives, they can take away. If a social freedom is regulated, it is no longer a freedom, but a privilege.
When did I or any other liberal talk about regulating social freedom? I think this is a total straw man.
Personally, I like to stand on my own two feet and don’t want anyone to take care of me.
That’s only because neither you nor anyone you know has ever gone through real difficulty. Did you know, for instance, that medical expenses are by far the number one cause of bankruptcy in this once-great, non-nation? (This may not be true as of this year, but has been so for many years.)
I don’t want to eliminate government. I want it to get out of the way of personal freedom. Large, monolithic bureaucracies are impediments to that.
Would you take away our personal freedom to die outside of emergency rooms? How about to die of dysentery or cholera for lack of clean water? We’re talking about providing the basics for life. You’re making it sound as if giving someone a drink of clean water takes away their freedom somehow. Have you seen how Atlanta is doing with privatized water? How about Bolivia?
But you still haven’t answered as to who gets to choose?
We the people, in the same way that we choose our representatives, in the same way that we choose our president, if we still choose either, would, in a more perfect union, get a say in the matter. Who would you have choose the way things are? Would you continue to have corporations make the choice as they do today? Will this be difficult to enact? Hell yes. Will this be a perfect solution? No. Will this be better than what we have today? I certainly hope so.
I think that there are things that harm the environment that must be taxed more heavily.
Why can’t the people just sue the pants off of them for violating their property rights?
That might not be a bad idea. Why would it be a bad idea for charging for damaging our environmental assets? Wouldn’t we be better off with a deep economy where we simply get rid of externalities by charging for them up front? If the government must provide services, e.g. health services or water filtration, because corporations have polluted them, shouldn’t we just put a tax on the corporation or good that pays for the damage caused?
I think there is ample evidence from the developed democratic nations of the world that
Officially, we aren’t a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. No where in the DoI or the Constitution does the word “democracy” (or any derivatives of it) appear. The founding father knew the danger of mob rule.
Correct. And I disagree with the founders on the point. I’m far more afraid of rule by the elite than rule by the masses. I specified the developed democratic nations deliberately to exclude us from the list. We do not provide an example of reasonable health care. We provide quite the opposite.
Where the civilized world (not us) fails to provide some services because no society can provide perfect health care to all, they do so based on rational attempts to assess effectiveness and cost effectiveness of treatments as well as various ethical considerations. This is typically done by a panel made up of the public, members of the health care profession, and many others.
Here in the U.S., we also cannot provide perfect care to all. Here in the U.S., we simply say “no money and no health insurance”? No treatment.
But, hospitals can’t turn people away, right? Technically right. In reality, it does happen. Further, in reality, what happens is that people with no insurance only get health care when it is indeed an emergency and they can go to the emergency room. It would be far better for their health and for all of us financially to provide preventative medicine for all.
But, we don’t.
It is strongly implied (see A.XII and A.XVII) but the electors don’t have to vote for who the people voted for. Granted, there would probably be pitchforks in the streets if they didn’t — mob rule.
You asked who decides about wealthy people getting taxed more or about what is a luxury item?
Why do the members of the electoral college get to vote against the people they represent. In most cases, we never even find out who the hell these imbeciles are. And we trust them with our presidential election.
Who decides indeed!
You trust these folks? Do you know each of them personally? Are they smarter than you? Are they more educated in politics than you? Do they know more about all of the myriad of issues we as a nation face than you? Do they really have your best interest in heart? How would you know?
I’ll take mob rule every time over rule by anonymous morans answerable to no one who are completely out of the public light.
And, why do you think a life in Wyoming is worth four lives in Texas anyway? Are Wyomingites smarter than Texans? Are Wyomingites better educated? Perhaps the prison terms for victimizing a Wyomingite should be four times as long as for victimizing a Texan. Perhaps a Texan who murders a Wyomingite should be brought up on 4 charges of murder instead of only one. Perhaps a Wyomingite who murders a Texan should not be brought up on charges until they kill 3 more to make a complete human being.
#213, That’s a lame excuse for avoiding the question.
It’s always easier to feign indifference when confronted with something that proves an opposing point than it is to admit the truth.
The reason prohibition was repealed was because everyone realized it was wrong. It should never have happened in the first place because it violated the inalienable rights of the individual. The same holds true for income taxes.
Sigh. I think I have my italics right 🙂
#214, Scott,
When did I or any other liberal talk about regulating social freedom? I think this is a total straw man.
Actually, it isn’t. Strong centralized governments have historically, without exception, been detrimental to personal freedoms. By increasing the size and power of the federal government, the same thing will happen here.
That’s only because neither you nor anyone you know has ever gone through real difficulty. Did you know, for instance, that medical expenses are by far the number one cause of bankruptcy in this once-great, non-nation? (This may not be true as of this year, but has been so for many years.)
I’ve heard that as an excuse many times but have never seen any proof for that — and I’ve done the research myself. Do you have a paper somewhere describing this phenomenon? I would like to see for myself.
I don’t want to eliminate government. I want it to get out of the way of personal freedom. Large, monolithic bureaucracies are impediments to that.
Would you take away our personal freedom to die outside of emergency rooms? How about to die of dysentery or cholera for lack of clean water? We’re talking about providing the basics for life. You’re making it sound as if giving someone a drink of clean water takes away their freedom somehow. Have you seen how Atlanta is doing with privatized water? How about Bolivia?
You are confusing what the federal government does vs what the states should do. I never said anything about denying clean water.
I live in an area with privatized drinking water. It is good.
But you still haven’t answered as to who gets to choose?
We the people, in the same way that we choose our representatives, in the same way that we choose our president, if we still choose either, would, in a more perfect union, get a say in the matter. Who would you have choose the way things are? Would you continue to have corporations make the choice as they do today? Will this be difficult to enact? Hell yes. Will this be a perfect solution? No. Will this be better than what we have today? I certainly hope so.
If you let “the people” choose, you run the risk of social engineering because “the people” are too easily swayed by the Special Interest of the Week.
I think that there are things that harm the environment that must be taxed more heavily.
Why can’t the people just sue the pants off of them for violating their property rights?
That might not be a bad idea. Why would it be a bad idea for charging for damaging our environmental assets? Wouldn’t we be better off with a deep economy where we simply get rid of externalities by charging for them up front? If the government must provide services, e.g. health services or water filtration, because corporations have polluted them, shouldn’t we just put a tax on the corporation or good that pays for the damage caused?
Again, who gets to choose what those amounts are? We run the risk of special interests getting in the way — as is happening now. We’ve had nearly 40 years of the EPA and we are still griping about “big business” controlling how the regulations are written. When are we going to learn that the government isn’t going to do what is right but what is most profitable to their re-election bucket?
This one, single example should convince you that more government is NOT the answer.
Officially, we aren’t a democracy. We are a constitutional republic. No where in the DoI or the Constitution does the word “democracy” (or any derivatives of it) appear. The founding father knew the danger of mob rule.
Correct. And I disagree with the founders on the point.
Ouch. A woman asked Benjamin Franklin after the Constitutional Convention, “What did you all do?” He replied, “We gave you a republic. If you can hold onto it.”
Re: Healthcase.
My only answer to that is, “It’s not my job to care for my neighbor. And it’s not their job to care for me.”
Why do the members of the electoral college get to vote against the people they represent. In most cases, we never even find out who the hell these imbeciles are. And we trust them with our presidential election.
Who decides indeed!
You trust these folks? Do you know each of them personally? Are they smarter than you? Are they more educated in politics than you? Do they know more about all of the myriad of issues we as a nation face than you? Do they really have your best interest in heart? How would you know?
Well, by passing the two before mentioned amendments, the entire election method has been totally screwed up. Originally, it was supposed to be all handled through the state legislatures. However, by turning it into a democratic vote, the entire system is full of holes. So instead of voting for a state rep and having him vote for your choice, we have completely bypassed that. This means that senators have to appeals to millions — campaign finance issues anyone? And while the country is focused on the presidential campaign, they aren’t watching the election of the electors which is where they should have been looking.
And, yes, I do have a list of my state’s electors. I was almost one myself but couldn’t make the trip so an alternate stepped in.
And, why do you think a life in Wyoming is worth four lives in Texas anyway? Are Wyomingites smarter than Texans? Are Wyomingites better educated? Perhaps the prison terms for victimizing a Wyomingite should be four times as long as for victimizing a Texan. Perhaps a Texan who murders a Wyomingite should be brought up on 4 charges of murder instead of only one. Perhaps a Wyomingite who murders a Texan should not be brought up on charges until they kill 3 more to make a complete human being.
I am not sure what you are getting at here.