|
How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
Put aside the practical considerations of setting this up for the moment. Would you be against a system where at the beginning of every financial year each citizen of a country got a list of the things that their government wanted to do along with their expected cost (and the amount they cost last year) The citizen would then choose which of the things he or she personally wanted to happen and ticked the various boxes. Then here's the thing. Your taxes would equal the total cost of the program divided by the number of people who tick the box to continue that program. You could even weight it on income if you a redistributor. For example you could have
Iraq War Full presence 100 billion y/n Some presence 50 billion y/n Token presence 1 billion y/n Enforcing gay marriage ban 100 million y/n Immigration Closed borders 10 billion y/n Strict limits 8 billion y/n etc etc So you make your choices then they send you the full bill and you could either choose to pay it or change some of your choices. If you like this idea what do you think the outcome would be. If you don't, why not? |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
Put aside the practical considerations of setting this up for the moment. Would you be against a system where at the beginning of every financial year each citizen of a country got a list of the things that their government wanted to do along with their expected cost (and the amount they cost last year) The citizen would then choose which of the things he or she personally wanted to happen and ticked the various boxes. Then here's the thing. Your taxes would equal the total cost of the program divided by the number of people who tick the box to continue that program. You could even weight it on income if you a redistributor. For example you could have Iraq War Full presence 100 billion y/n Some presence 50 billion y/n Token presence 1 billion y/n Enforcing gay marriage ban 100 million y/n Immigration Closed borders 10 billion y/n Strict limits 8 billion y/n etc etc So you make your choices then they send you the full bill and you could either choose to pay it or change some of your choices. If you like this idea what do you think the outcome would be. If you don't, why not? [/ QUOTE ] The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL. It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
Freeriders?
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Put aside the practical considerations of setting this up for the moment. Would you be against a system where at the beginning of every financial year each citizen of a country got a list of the things that their government wanted to do along with their expected cost (and the amount they cost last year) The citizen would then choose which of the things he or she personally wanted to happen and ticked the various boxes. Then here's the thing. Your taxes would equal the total cost of the program divided by the number of people who tick the box to continue that program. You could even weight it on income if you a redistributor. For example you could have Iraq War Full presence 100 billion y/n Some presence 50 billion y/n Token presence 1 billion y/n Enforcing gay marriage ban 100 million y/n Immigration Closed borders 10 billion y/n Strict limits 8 billion y/n etc etc So you make your choices then they send you the full bill and you could either choose to pay it or change some of your choices. If you like this idea what do you think the outcome would be. If you don't, why not? [/ QUOTE ] The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL. It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation. [/ QUOTE ] You could group them together people could ask for a reduced paperwork list if they wanted or hell you could have a set of Obama recommends this set of ticks, Bush recommends that set of ticks etc etc. If people don't want to think for themselves fair enough but it'll cost them. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program, absent the administrative costs. An improved form would carry the caveat that if "n" was not above a certain threshold, then the program would be abandoned even for those that voted for it. I may support giving a portion of my income to the homeless, but not 86% of my income if "n" makes it so.
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program, absent the administrative costs. An improved form would carry the caveat that if "n" was not above a certain threshold, then the program would be abandoned even for those that voted for it. I may support giving a portion of my income to the homeless, but not 86% of my income if "n" makes it so. [/ QUOTE ] Sounds fine to me. Heck we can even vote for that threshold if you like. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program, absent the administrative costs. An improved form would carry the caveat that if "n" was not above a certain threshold, then the program would be abandoned even for those that voted for it. I may support giving a portion of my income to the homeless, but not 86% of my income if "n" makes it so. [/ QUOTE ] Sounds fine to me. [/ QUOTE ] Even when you take into account that you'll have to pay (with taxes) for the administrative costs as well? Oh, one other thing is that people would only get access to the programs they elect. For example, if you "opt out" of paying for the road system, you wouldn't get a sticker for your car saying you can drive on the roads (or some such mechanism to reduce free riders where possible). |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program [/ QUOTE ] how do you define social democracy? |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program [/ QUOTE ] how do you define social democracy? [/ QUOTE ] A democratic state where taxes are collected and redistributed through state programs in an attempt to create a better society? |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program [/ QUOTE ] how do you define social democracy? [/ QUOTE ] A democratic state where taxes are collected and redistributed through state programs in an attempt to create a better society? [/ QUOTE ] if taxes are collected dont you think that is a sign that people dont own the money they make but are told by democratic decision how much of their income to keep and how much belongs to society? Once society receives its revenue the democracy chooses how to spend each societal dollar by democracy. the OP's system says that individuals should form private groups with those that agree with them rather than a majority rules. How is this democratic? |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
if taxes are collected dont you think that is a sign that people dont own the money they make but are told by democratic decision how much of their income to keep and how much belongs to society? [/ QUOTE ] No, I don't think that. I agree that some people in a social democracy think that. I think a "true" social democrat thinks that taxes are collected to the ultimate benefit of those being taxed. I think that many modern social democrats think like you have suggested: the rich owe it to the poor (aka "society") to make their lives suck less. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] if taxes are collected dont you think that is a sign that people dont own the money they make but are told by democratic decision how much of their income to keep and how much belongs to society? [/ QUOTE ] No, I don't think that. I agree that some people in a social democracy think that. I think a "true" social democrat thinks that taxes are collected to the ultimate benefit of those being taxed. I think that many modern social democrats think like you have suggested: the rich owe it to the poor (aka "society") to make their lives suck less. [/ QUOTE ] umm what the point of democracy to begin with? i think the world your looking for is anarcho capitalist. those are the ones who think that all social services should be privatized. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
i think the world your looking for is anarcho capitalist. those are the ones who think that all social services should be privatized. [/ QUOTE ] There's nothing private about the OP's suggestion - the government would still be providing extensive services, possibly excluding competition. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Put aside the practical considerations of setting this up for the moment. Would you be against a system where at the beginning of every financial year each citizen of a country got a list of the things that their government wanted to do along with their expected cost (and the amount they cost last year) The citizen would then choose which of the things he or she personally wanted to happen and ticked the various boxes. Then here's the thing. Your taxes would equal the total cost of the program divided by the number of people who tick the box to continue that program. You could even weight it on income if you a redistributor. For example you could have Iraq War Full presence 100 billion y/n Some presence 50 billion y/n Token presence 1 billion y/n Enforcing gay marriage ban 100 million y/n Immigration Closed borders 10 billion y/n Strict limits 8 billion y/n etc etc So you make your choices then they send you the full bill and you could either choose to pay it or change some of your choices. If you like this idea what do you think the outcome would be. If you don't, why not? [/ QUOTE ] The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL. It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation. [/ QUOTE ] So, are you against it because you think people are not interested enough to take the time to fill it out and will throw it away and they will not be funding programs you want? Or do you not care that many might throw the forms away and the gov't might shrink considerably (assming the forms could be placed in everyone's possession right now) so would be for it regardless? |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] i think the world your looking for is anarcho capitalist. those are the ones who think that all social services should be privatized. [/ QUOTE ] There's nothing private about the OP's suggestion - the government would still be providing extensive services, possibly excluding competition. [/ QUOTE ] okay, but like you said, thats saying that its okay for people to recede from paying for something, but they are not aloud to obtain that service by other means should they refuse to pay. People actually support this? how much of a case is there for people to be allowed to protest an action by being given the right to recede but then forcefully deprive the right for alternative strategies for the given problem? |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
With modern technology I don't see any reason not to do this. As far as people not taking the time to look into the issues, and fill out these forms, it's more of a problem for the current system if it's a problem for the new idea. It's easily resolved by the creation of representative groups. I vote the democratic ticks, republican ticks, heck even borodog could mark your ticks for you. There is a moral inconsistentcy with forcing leaders upon other people, in the form of forced representation that has been overlooked out of praticality. All this would do is update the system to the original spirit of democracy. Direct Voluntary Democracy >>> Representative democracy. The atiquated pragmatic representative democracy is no longer needed, and I have no idea why a voter would prefer the old system. If this was in place I would also like to see competition open. Fed EX, UPS, and USPS all vying for the government contract for x number of years.
Obviously the better initiatives would find a way to exclude freeriders from receiving free benefits. And I'd also like to see it so that anyone can introduce these items provided there is some minimum interest in the idea. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
People actually support this? how much of a case is there for people to be allowed to protest an action by being given the right to recede but then forcefully deprive the right for alternative strategies for the given problem? [/ QUOTE ] Compared to the alternative (being given no right to recede and then forcefully deprived the right for alternative strategies for the given problem), yes there would be an appetite for this. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] People actually support this? how much of a case is there for people to be allowed to protest an action by being given the right to recede but then forcefully deprive the right for alternative strategies for the given problem? [/ QUOTE ] Compared to the alternative (being given no right to recede and then forcefully deprived the right for alternative strategies for the given problem), yes there would be an appetite for this. [/ QUOTE ] sure but what is the true end? whats the ideal? who holds that as their ideal? |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
This proposal has several crippling game theoretic problems. Generally, I think any voting system that incentivizes dishonest voting is a poor solution. Just about all voting systems create some incentive for dishonest voting in certain situations, but this one takes it to the extreme. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
This proposal has several crippling game theoretic problems. Generally, I think any voting system that incentivizes dishonest voting is a poor solution. Just about all voting systems create some incentive for dishonest voting in certain situations, but this one takes it to the extreme. [/ QUOTE ] Can you go into detail? |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
Direct Voluntary Democracy >>> Representative democracy [/ QUOTE ] In a perfect world this may be true (and perfection has nothing to do with technology). No individual is qualified enough in all areas to have input into the actions of the government...in fact no individual is qualified in very many of the areas where the government acts. The purpose of a representative government isnt just to mimic the representative's constituency's opinions (or his perception of their majority opinion), it is to apply the resources of the constituency to raise the overall quality of the decisions made beyond what a group of individuals would decide. That may be through the representatives own expertise, or through networks with other experts. Cliff notes: the whole >>> the sum of the parts |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
Tom, good start. Certainly it's impractical but I like it alot.
I'd be more for privatizing alot of the things that would likely appear on that list, but as for a more likely solution then that, I like it. Cody |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
No individual is qualified enough in all areas to have input into the actions of the government...in fact no individual is qualified in very many of the areas where the government acts. [/ QUOTE ] I agree and that's why I'd imagine there would be groups that people could join. The difference would be that no one would be forced to be beholden to any leader that they did not want to voice their opinion. Representative Democracy wasn't choosen because it was a better absolute method for governance it was choose for praticality. Vast Distances, and slow communications. These no longer apply as technology has bridged that divide. All constituents no longer need to travel to a single location to weigh in a decision. [ QUOTE ] The purpose of a representative government isnt just to mimic the representative's constituency's opinions (or his perception of their majority opinion), it is to apply the resources of the constituency to raise the overall quality of the decisions made beyond what a group of individuals would decide. That may be through the representatives own expertise, or through networks with other experts. [/ QUOTE ] Hopefully that is a good byproduct of representative governance. And there are some people that agree with you that it is the intent. I personally don't accept that the quality of decisions would drop under direct democracy, or that informed persons need someone to represent them. Strength in numbers still applies, the decision would be better, since a number of different experts could represent you. For instance you could vote along with Nader on consumerism, Perot on the business of government, Reagan on foreign affairs, Google on the distribution of air frequencies, and so on. Why is it better to have only one advisory and force that same adviser on everyone else. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] This proposal has several crippling game theoretic problems. Generally, I think any voting system that incentivizes dishonest voting is a poor solution. Just about all voting systems create some incentive for dishonest voting in certain situations, but this one takes it to the extreme. [/ QUOTE ] Can you go into detail? [/ QUOTE ] It's hard to go into detail because your example is a little unclear. For instance, how many times are people allowed to revise their ballot? Because, depending on certain variables, I'm not sure you would ever get any sort of equilibrium. Is the voting secret? If so, it looks to me like you've basically reconstructed the prisoner's dilemma. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
In a perfect world this may be true (and perfection has nothing to do with technology). No individual is qualified enough in all areas to have input into the actions of the government...in fact no individual is qualified in very many of the areas where the government acts. [/ QUOTE ] the question is whether or not to have competing bureaucracies and communal societies versus a monopolistic bureaucracy. do you think your point proves that latter is greater than the former? few people know anything about computers and tvs also, do you propose the government monopolize this service? |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
Another idea would be to elect representatives to make these decisions on our behalf. We could hold them accountable through periodic elections.
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This proposal has several crippling game theoretic problems. Generally, I think any voting system that incentivizes dishonest voting is a poor solution. Just about all voting systems create some incentive for dishonest voting in certain situations, but this one takes it to the extreme. [/ QUOTE ] Can you go into detail? [/ QUOTE ] It's hard to go into detail because your example is a little unclear. For instance, how many times are people allowed to revise their ballot? Because, depending on certain variables, I'm not sure you would ever get any sort of equilibrium. Is the voting secret? If so, it looks to me like you've basically reconstructed the prisoner's dilemma. [/ QUOTE ] Except when everyone defects the program is cut. So "always defect" is a poor choice. It is 'iterated' in a fashion since he stipulated that people would get their bill and then be able to revise, so your decision to free-ride increases the cost for everyone which increases their likelihood to freeride and so on. So any freeriding feeds back and shuts down programs. Which sounds awesome. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program [/ QUOTE ] how do you define social democracy? [/ QUOTE ] A democratic state where taxes are collected and redistributed through state programs in an attempt to create a better society? [/ QUOTE ] How does this differ from just "democracy"? |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] In a perfect world this may be true (and perfection has nothing to do with technology). No individual is qualified enough in all areas to have input into the actions of the government...in fact no individual is qualified in very many of the areas where the government acts. [/ QUOTE ] the question is whether or not to have competing bureaucracies and communal societies versus a monopolistic bureaucracy. do you think your point proves that latter is greater than the former? few people know anything about computers and tvs also, do you propose the government monopolize this service? [/ QUOTE ] Frankly I dont have a clue as to how you got to "competing bureauocracies and communal societies" from here. I was responding to the claim that durect voluntary democracies are superior to representative democracies, which I think is clearly untrue for the reasons stated. In your computer and TV question, no. I would suggest that those people rely on people with that expertise or "representatives" who know how to find those experts, which has nothing to do with the government. In the case of erepresentative democracy however, it is the elected who bear the responsibility to address those issues that I am incapable of providing meaningful input toward. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This proposal has several crippling game theoretic problems. Generally, I think any voting system that incentivizes dishonest voting is a poor solution. Just about all voting systems create some incentive for dishonest voting in certain situations, but this one takes it to the extreme. [/ QUOTE ] Can you go into detail? [/ QUOTE ] It's hard to go into detail because your example is a little unclear. For instance, how many times are people allowed to revise their ballot? Because, depending on certain variables, I'm not sure you would ever get any sort of equilibrium. Is the voting secret? If so, it looks to me like you've basically reconstructed the prisoner's dilemma. [/ QUOTE ] Except when everyone defects the program is cut. So "always defect" is a poor choice. It is 'iterated' in a fashion since he stipulated that people would get their bill and then be able to revise, so your decision to free-ride increases the cost for everyone which increases their likelihood to freeride and so on. So any freeriding feeds back and shuts down programs. Which sounds awesome. [/ QUOTE ] How is shutting down the program "awesome" if most people want it and most people are willing to pay for? What the OP is basically describing is a free-market where enforceable contracts are impossible, and thus efficient transactions fail to happen because you can't ensure that both parties will actually hold up their end of the bargain. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL. It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation. [/ QUOTE ] True. But then again, our representatives don't necessarily read the bills or reports either. On the Patriot Act -- landmark legislation that entails the most sweeping changes to our limitations on government in order to fight global war: Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote - at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." http://www.apfn.org/APFN/HR3162.htm On classified intelligence report justifying the need to invade a sovereign nation: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has once again raised the issue of whether members of Congress read a key intelligence report before the 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq. Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, according to "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton." For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the [intelligence report on Iraq]. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/...rss_topstories If they don't bother reading stuff of this magnitude, you think they bother staying informed and reading the petty stuff? The level of incompetence we as nation tolerate from our leaders is unbelievably staggering. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL. It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation. [/ QUOTE ] True. But then again, our representatives don't necessarily read the bills or reports either. On the Patriot Act -- landmark legislation that entails the most sweeping changes to our limitations on government in order to fight global war: Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote - at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." http://www.apfn.org/APFN/HR3162.htm On classified intelligence report justifying the need to invade a sovereign nation: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has once again raised the issue of whether members of Congress read a key intelligence report before the 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq. Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, according to "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton." For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the [intelligence report on Iraq]. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/...rss_topstories If they don't bother reading stuff of this magnitude, you think they bother staying informed and reading the petty stuff? The level of incompetence we as nation tolerate from our leaders is unbelievably staggering. [/ QUOTE ] I knew we'd agree on something eventually! The portions of bills that get read the closest by any representative is their special little fund raisers. I heard a snippet on the radio the other day that I havent had time to confirm, but supposedly Nancy Pelosi is the single biggest beneficiary of the pork that has been stuffed into bills in this Congress. Transparency my black a$$. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
...but supposedly Nancy Pelosi is the single biggest beneficiary of the pork that has been stuffed into bills in this Congress. Transparency my black a$$. [/ QUOTE ] That doesn't surprise me. Nor did it surprise me when conservatives controlled every branch of govt and passed some of the largest spending increases in our history. Small government my white a$$. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ...but supposedly Nancy Pelosi is the single biggest beneficiary of the pork that has been stuffed into bills in this Congress. Transparency my black a$$. [/ QUOTE ] That doesn't surprise me. Nor did it surprise me when conservatives controlled every branch of govt and passed some of the largest spending increases in our history. Small government my white a$$. [/ QUOTE ] And what were those largest spending increases for, do tell? |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
I heard a snippet on the radio the other day that I havent had time to confirm, but supposedly Nancy Pelosi is the single biggest beneficiary of the pork that has been stuffed into bills in this Congress. Transparency my black a$$. [/ QUOTE ]Shouldnt you at least check to see if anyone else besides rightwing radio claims this as fact before you get so loose with your black tushy? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Just a thought [ QUOTE ] The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has obtained about $63 million worth of projects, most of them in or near her district in San Francisco. But Ms. Pelosi was overshadowed by Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, who obtained $163 million in pet projects — more than anyone else in Congress and more than his own previous record of about $100 million. The Democratic totals are less than half the record set by Republicans when they controlled Congress in 2005, but they are far higher than the levels just 10 years ago... By any measure, the volume of earmarks in spending bills has exploded in the past decade, from about 3,000 in 1996 to almost 16,000 in 2005.... [/ QUOTE ] |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Any "real" social democrat (i.e. someone who actually thinks that the programs are worth funding with their own money, not just everyone else's money) would support such a program [/ QUOTE ] how do you define social democracy? [/ QUOTE ] A democratic state where taxes are collected and redistributed through state programs in an attempt to create a better society? [/ QUOTE ] How does this differ from just "democracy"? [/ QUOTE ] The "social" in the front indicates that the majority has voted for the tax/programs platform (i.e. socialism). |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] ...but supposedly Nancy Pelosi is the single biggest beneficiary of the pork that has been stuffed into bills in this Congress. Transparency my black a$$. [/ QUOTE ] That doesn't surprise me. Nor did it surprise me when conservatives controlled every branch of govt and passed some of the largest spending increases in our history. Small government my white a$$. [/ QUOTE ] And what were those largest spending increases for, do tell? [/ QUOTE ] Things like this: AT $286.4 BILLION, the highway bill just passed by Congress is the most expensive public works legislation in US history. In addition to funding the interstate highway system and other federal transportation programs, it sets a new record for pork-barrel spending, earmarking $24 billion for a staggering 6,376 pet projects, spread among virtually every congressional district in the land. The enormous bill -- 1,752 pages long -- wasn't made public until just before it was brought to a vote, and so, as The New York Times noted, ''it is safe to bet that none of the lawmakers, not even the main authors, had read the entire package." ~Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe, August 4, 2005 I'm sure you'd like to pretend it was mostly for defense, but you'd be wrong. By almost any objective measure our military today is in grossly worse shape than it was 8 years ago. Ironically, it wasn't until the Dems won the last election that the administration began to seriously propose significant increases in defense spending to start making up for the billions of dollars of equipment being worn out early and the increased lack of operational readiness across the services. And I say this as someone who isn't a Dem. The Repubs are given credit as being pro-military, but they have been asleep at the wheel. Actually not really asleep, because they know they don't have to worry about keeping our military ready for the demands they place on it in order to keep people like you believing they are doing so. So while you are thinking they are strong on defense, they have free reign to fund their massive unprecedented pork projects since 2001 -- even during a time we are supposedly in a global war and are preached the need to make sacrifices. I'll give you some AF examples as that's what I'm most familiar with: Our AF has the smallest air fleet, the oldest average aircraft age, and the smallest force strength since the post-WWII drawdown. And operational readiness has dropped 14% since the Repubs took over. So if this is the result of the largest federal budget in history, I think you should be asking yourself where it's all going. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
I think this is an interesting attempt to infuse direct democracy into the national budget.
But, just as a mule is a horse built by committee, making things like national budgets are not best built by millions of individual votes and personal opionions. I really like the idea of a representative democracy. Vote for people who represent the ideals that you support, and then let them do their job of running the country. If they do a bad job, then vote them out the next time around. I am not a big fan of direct democracy. Especially in the area of national spending. I think it would be a mess. |
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
I think this is an interesting attempt to infuse direct democracy into the national budget. But, just as a mule is a horse built by committee, making things like national budgets are not best built by millions of individual votes and personal opionions. I really like the idea of a representative democracy. Vote for people who represent the ideals that you support, and then let them do their job of running the country. If they do a bad job, then vote them out the next time around. I am not a big fan of direct democracy. Especially in the area of national spending. I think it would be a mess. [/ QUOTE ] OK. Now, explain why anyone else should have to go along with your perference if they don't want to. You like crunchy peanut butter, I like creamy. There's no reason we can't both have what we want, no reason one or the other must be selected, subsidized, promoted while the other is forbidden, suppressed, persecuted. Is there? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:37 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.