US goverment, Anything on the Internet is an Export.
-
@Dashrender said:
Just shut it down.. For F's sake!
You mean the current administration? Fire every single elected or appointed government official, and start over again?
Anybody that makes more then 250k per year is not eligible to be voted back in, or appointed to any office?
I'm okay with this.
-
I don't think sovereignty means what they think that it means.
-
@dafyre said:
Anybody that makes more then 250k per year is not eligible to be voted back in, or appointed to any office?
Do you only want people that can't make big money running government, though? Only be run by the paper pushers and not the leaders? If you can't make money running the country, likely you'll look to make money somewhere else. It's a dangerous way to go, there aren't enough good, altruistic people to make a system work where the government is a punishment rather than a good job.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Do you only want people that can't make big money running government, though? Only be run by the paper pushers and not the leaders? If you can't make money running the country, likely you'll look to make money somewhere else. It's a dangerous way to go, there aren't enough good, altruistic people to make a system work where the government is a punishment rather than a good job.
Arguably, you do have a good point about making money. I'm not talking about people running the government not being paid. It's not volunteer work -- it is just like a real job. Set salaraies, you pay in to a 401k program and social security, you get the same health care options as the rest of America. You work it for a maximum of 2 terms for presidents, and a maximum of 4 terms for everybody else -- even SCOTUS and other appointed positions... (I could continue on, but that would make this an extremely long post)
In all honesty, I'd rather the National, State, and local governments be run by average joes.
No legalese. No laws that it takes 600 lawers three years, two riots, and a supreme court case to decipher. All national laws presented must be ratified by at least 3/4 majority of the states before becoming national laws, assuming that the president does not veto the law (keep the checks and balances system). State and Local laws passed must be passed by 2/3 voting majority. All Elections for elected officials are based on voting majority, period.
I am aware that there are a lot of holes in that modus operandi... so I am hoping others will help me find and plug them.
-
@dafyre said:
In all honesty, I'd rather the National, State, and local governments be run by average joes.
That's a really bad idea. The average person would be an insane disaster. The demands of government, especially of a country at the size of the US, is incredible. The average Joe I don't even want voting, let alone being in charge. Money is everything, but if the people assisting the president aren't viable seven figure people in the private sector I don't want them anywhere near the presidency.
Consider this.... you pay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to get a good CEO for a company and for good reason. The demands of a CEO and their value is well worth it. Why would you consider an entire country, and the biggest single economy in the world and the third biggest population, to be worth far less? Shouldn't it be worth far more?
I'd rather than the salary be $100m a year guaranteed with all costs covered, then let someone willing to work for just $250K do the job. The less it pays, the more "old money" controls the system (because they have the money and power to leverage being effectively unpaid to make themselves even more money) whereas the more it pays, the more that talented, smart people who can actually do things in the interest of the country will see it as a valuable job rather than eschewing it for private sector benefits.
I sure don't want to be president, America doesn't see the job as being as valuable as being an IT pro at my level and it is way more stress and less family time. Screw that. And if I, as a tech say that, imagine what the actually smart people who would be good at running a country are saying!
Pretty much, if you don't pay a fortune, who would be willing to be in politics except for the bottom of the barrel and/or the corrupt?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Pretty much, if you don't pay a fortune, who would be willing to be in politics except for the bottom of the barrel and/or the corrupt?
You do raise good points. However, this last one... this is the point that I feel like our country is almost at... We have a president who is stepping all over the Constitution, and the House and Senate that are paid by big business to support big business and not the American citizens they were "voted in" to support.
And that is why this is all just my opinion and I'm not out there trying to make it happen. 8-) I realize my ideas are probably not good ones and full of more holes than a sieve. I just feel like we already have politicians that are bottom of the barrel and corrupt (purchased by big business / lobbyists) that your average Joe paid well could do just as good as, if not better than what we have now... but I do realize it isn't as simple as that.
@scottalanmiller said:
Consider this.... you pay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to get a good CEO for a company and for good reason. The demands of a CEO and their value is well worth it. Why would you consider an entire country, and the biggest single economy in the world and the third biggest population, to be worth far less? Shouldn't it be worth far more?
So let's put a managing body of a multi-million (billion?) dollar American company in charge of the US government. But then we're still stuck back with having a corporately owned government, only it would be an open truth instead of a hidden truth.
-
@scottalanmiller I think using their salary potential as a yardstick is also a terrible idea. I do not want money to motivate any decision they make, but rather what is best for the country. How do you find the most capable and least corrupt individuals to do these jobs?
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller I think using their salary potential as a yardstick is also a terrible idea. I do not want money to motivate any decision they make, but rather what is best for the country. How do you find the most capable and least corrupt individuals to do these jobs?
Just because people make money doesn't mean they are good at what they do or good at managing money.
Justin Beiber? How many times has Donald Trump been bankrupt?
-
Keep in mind, I am not talking about a 1-man show for the entire government. I like the way things are set up with 3 branches. But every member of each branch...
The problem is that once you have someone else telling you what a law means is the moment you have given up your freedom. Yes, I realize that our form of government has been in operation for almost 2 and a half centuries. Yes, I also believe our freedoms have been eroding since that time.
-
@dafyre said:
You do raise good points. However, this last one... this is the point that I feel like our country is almost at... We have a president who is stepping all over the Constitution, and the House and Senate that are paid by big business to support big business and not the American citizens they were "voted in" to support.
Well okay but here are some thoughts...
- I hear lots of people say he is stepping on the constitution yet never hear anyone state where or point to where a court agrees in any significant way (every President gets things overturned some.) This has become one of those trendy ways to complain about an administration but what exactly is the president doing that the rest of the government is not agreeing is legal? Obamacare doesn't qualify as the courts are looking into it and it is very much not clear if it is legal or not and even if it isn't, isn't doing what is good for the public more important that the constitution? Do you feel that the constitution is more important than the people it is supposed to protect? The constitution is just a document, and one that gets changed.
- That we have poorly paid politicians behaving exactly as I predict poorly paid politicians would behave (subject to corruption and selling out) doesn't this exactly support my point of why paying them like ordinary works is a bad idea? They have nothing to risk, the only benefit to them in politics is what they earn through selling their votes.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Just because people make money doesn't mean they are good at what they do or good at managing money.
Certainly not. But not being able to earn money suggests that they are not good at it, at least on a large scale. It's not that paying a lot find you good people, it is that not paying well eliminates them.
-
@dafyre said:
And that is why this is all just my opinion and I'm not out there trying to make it happen. 8-) I realize my ideas are probably not good ones and full of more holes than a sieve. I just feel like we already have politicians that are bottom of the barrel and corrupt (purchased by big business / lobbyists) that your average Joe paid well could do just as good as, if not better than what we have now... but I do realize it isn't as simple as that.
But we are paying them almost like an average Joe, nowhere near what their position should imply. You can't pay people like an average Joe and hope to acquire the best talent. No company would think that way, why would we treat the government as so much less important or valuable?
-
@dafyre said:
So let's put a managing body of a multi-million (billion?) dollar American company in charge of the US government. But then we're still stuck back with having a corporately owned government, only it would be an open truth instead of a hidden truth.
Many things here:
- Nothing I said implies that this makes sense. Don't confuse "worth a lot of money as a CEO" as "worth a lot of money as a politician." You still need to hire the right people with the right talent. But don't NOT hire talented people because you want "average Joes." The best politicians are worth a fortune elsewhere, likely in sales or consulting. Maybe not as CEOs. Don't use the Dilbert Principle to find your government.
- An ex-CEO as President has zero implications of big business owning anything. If you work for IBM today and quit that job to become the owner of a successful fishing business, does that mean that big business (IBM) owns the fishing business? Of course not. You are implying that once a person has had a job in business that business owns them. But I'm not "owned" by IBM or any other Fortune 100 that I used to be at. Nor am I owned by the non-profit-ish place that I work now. Once you leave a job, that relationship is over. Otherwise you could only ever hire people who had never worked before.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The constitution is just a document, and one that gets changed.
So if a law or an ammendment gets passed that America has become a Dictatorship, that is okay?
(forget how far-fetched that idea may seem for a minute...)The Constitution and the laws of the land should only be those that benefit American Citiznes -- which would in turn also benefit the politicians that work in the government... don't forget they are citizens too.
-
Just a friendly reminder to well, keep it friendly.
-
I am. 8-) I've been stuck in politics mode this week for some reason... All the mess about the confederate flag and what feels like (to me) the government trying to trample us citizens and all that.
I don't get too bent out of shape over people with far more knowledge and experience poking holes in all my ideas -- especially when I know the chances of my ideas coming to pass have about as much chance as a snowball to survive in Georgia at this time of year.
Although, I think the heatwave finally broke for a day, at least.
-
@dafyre said:
The problem is that once you have someone else telling you what a law means is the moment you have given up your freedom. Yes, I realize that our form of government has been in operation for almost 2 and a half centuries. Yes, I also believe our freedoms have been eroding since that time.
But it is widely seen as not being very free. And two and a half centuries is a tiny amount compared to historically stable governments (Pax Romana, Persian Empire, Holy Rome, Rome, etc.)
I don't feel our freedoms are eroding, not across the board. They are expanding. In what way do "we" have fewer freedoms (that don't involve oppressing others) that before?
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller I think using their salary potential as a yardstick is also a terrible idea. I do not want money to motivate any decision they make, but rather what is best for the country. How do you find the most capable and least corrupt individuals to do these jobs?
It's not a yard stick, I never suggested that it was. I'm saying that if you don't pay enough, anyone remotely capable could make far more money somewhere else and why wouldn't they?
So you basically guarantee bad politicians if you don't directly compensate them for doing the job and expect them to find their income elsewhere. How CAN they do their job if they need to find the money elsewhere?
-
@dafyre said:
I am. 8-) I've been stuck in politics mode this week for some reason... All the mess about the confederate flag and what feels like (to me) the government trying to trample us citizens and all that.
But isn't the Confederate flag seen to many as a symbol of a government that did trample their freedoms (it wasn't their flag, but it is now the symbol of that oppression) and was willing to go to war to protect the ability to be non-free? It's a symbol of anti-freedom.
We were just discussing this. If you support the Confederate flag, a symbol of racism and slavery and strong hatred of America then other than having more time since it was an active war, how is that different than Germany not allowing the Nazi flag and should the Nazi flag be allowed to fly in Germany?
A symbol of hatred and oppression, being allowed, takes away people's freedoms. Taking away the right to bear that symbol, takes away other people's freedoms.
So the question is not about freedom, it is about which group do you want to support? The group that is pro-oppression, or the group that feels that it was oppressed.
As a northerner who lives in Texas, that flag is a very clear symbol of anti-American sentiment and is very, very strong.
-
@dafyre said:
Although, I think the heatwave finally broke for a day, at least.
LOL, no, @art_of_shred and I were discussing the Nazi flag thing offline before you had even posted this and were in the other room getting coffee. That you brought it up while we were talking about how it compared to the Nazi flag (a hundred years from now to be similar) is an odd coincidence.
