What kind of government do you want?

[Pete7469]

I want a benevolent dictator that mostly agrees with me.

Ever since I found out libturds would support me if I decided to identify as a woman.

I figured **** it why aim low? I should be the Emperor of the Western Hemisphere.

If you help make that a reality I will be that benevolent despot. Free helicopter rides for libturds.

 

[PredFan]

The smallest one possible.

 

[task0778]

I want a government that knows and understands it has limits and that there are things they can't fix and parts of people's lives they shouldn't be involved in.

AND I believe our gov't should also be limited to policies we can pay for. I was brought up to avoid debt, pretty much except for a house and a car you should live within your means. I cannot accept creating a huge debt that future generations will have to pay interest on, let alone the principle. It won't be long before interest rates rise to their historical levels near 4 - 5%, and as the debt increases the interest alone will reach and exceed a trillion dollars a year. I think that is irresponsible and inexcusable or our part today.

 

[Slade3200]

Yet there is still debate. So there must be a system that passes judgement and is responsible for enforcement pertaining to the constitutionality of our laws. Right?

What can I say, there are a lot of people, like you, that refuse to do their own homework and continue to spew ignorance.

You can say something intelligent that either reflects understanding of how our system deals with the things you are complaining about or you can present ideas on how you would like to see them handled

Simple, follow the text, it's self-explanatory. If you not smart enough to understand simple text, look to what the men who wrote it had to say, they understood the meaning of their words better than anyone.

BTW until you can show me in the text of the Constitution where the government is granted the power to regulate goods that never enter commerce get back to me. If you can't then your admitting that the assumption of any such power is extra-constitutional.

Where in the constitution does it say that the government can regulate our airspace? Is it your opinion that the FAA is unconstitutional?

So you're admitting the example I provided is indeed extra-constitutional?

Yes I could agree with that. But I make the point about the FAA because there will inevitably be things that evolve into our society that weren't covered by the framers in the 1700's. So there are ultimately going to be these "extra-constitutional" elements presented by our lawmakers that are intended to best serve the welfare of their constituents and our country. The constitution frames a system where states and lawmakers have the right to create these laws and there is a system to pass these laws, veto these laws, and even a system to check the constitutionality of these laws.

 

[Slade3200]

I want a government that knows and understands it has limits and that there are things they can't fix and parts of people's lives they shouldn't be involved in.

AND I believe our gov't should also be limited to policies we can pay for. I was brought up to avoid debt, pretty much except for a house and a car you should live within your means. I cannot accept creating a huge debt that future generations will have to pay interest on, let alone the principle. It won't be long before interest rates rise to their historical levels near 4 - 5%, and as the debt increases the interest alone will reach and exceed a trillion dollars a year. I think that is irresponsible and inexcusable or our part today.

I agree, the fiscal irresponsibility of our government has been a tremendous problem. Creating debt isn't the problem, as that is actually beneficial to a growing economy, but the magnitude of the debt, and wasteful spending, is what has gotten out of control

 

[IsaacNewton]

Executive orders signed by president:

Reagan -------380
G.W. Bush ---290
Obama -------275

Let's keep the facts straight shall we.

The Republicans in the Senate ended the democracy when they stated THEY would decide how many years a president serves, not the Constitution which states a president will appoint Supreme Court justices. The Republican senate said it didn't matter who Obama picked they wouldn't even vote on him. It's ended, that's it. One party has decided THEY are above the Constitution. The people voted a FOUR YEAR term for a president and one party decided to nullify that vote.

It's ended. The clock is just tickety tocking until all parties figure it out.

Just extrapolate forward cons to when the Democrats control the federal government. Do you suppose the revenge factor will be off the scale? Just as the OP noted? You bet it will and that day will come, maybe soon. And then buckle up.

It's finished, let's break it up while we can.

 

[SeaGal]

...There is an essential element that our government plays, which is to stand up to the rich/powerful and provide voice and opportunity for the "little guy"

Standing up to the rich/powerful is not an essential element of our form of government - Lady Justice was never intended to be a social/redistributive warrior. Equal justice under the law is the promise. Opportunity is 'provided' by way of not restricting opportunity through class or quota. And, yes, there are protections in place regarding wages, prices and fair practices - however some claim they are draconian, and others that they are only as good as the enforcement of them.

The rich have no enforcement arm - only the government does...and blaming our ills on the rich allows those holding the reins of government to remain unaccountable.

I'm not as concerned about a politician with a 'For Sale' sign on his forehead as I am great groups of voters willingly selling their votes for the promise of 'bread and circuses'.

With that said... Our current system has too much money in politics and too much corruption in our government which needs to be addressed

The fault is not in the system - it is that we continue only to see the corruption and influence in the 'other' party's candidates...and vote accordingly.

 

[dblack]

The fault is not in the system - it is that we continue only to see the corruption and influence in the 'other' party's candidates...and vote accordingly.

I couldn't disagree more. The system encourages the 'lesser-of-two-evils' voting logic that is electing the worst of the worst (or, arguably, the second worst).

 

[SeaGal]

The fault is not in the system - it is that we continue only to see the corruption and influence in the 'other' party's candidates...and vote accordingly.

I couldn't disagree more. The system encourages the 'lesser-of-two-evils' voting logic that is electing the worst of the worst (or, arguably, the second worst).

Define what you mean by 'system' then - I am referencing our form of government as the system.

 

[Flopper]

I'd prefer a more french or German like government. A parliamentary democracy system or a more modern form of the presidential republic(like France)that allows far more parties and options at the voting both. They're far younger and have about 200 years of experimentation to come to their model, while ours we're still arguing over the power structure! lol.

Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...

I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.

However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.

Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.

Question for the board: is the system flawed or is it just the people running it? I don't there can be a perfect governmental system that is corruption-proof. Or idiot-proof either.

Since the people that created the system were imperfect, they created a flawed system which would be run by flawed people.

I have visited many countries and lived in a few and I can say honestly I have never seen a country where it's citizens were so critical of their government and their leaders. Yet they will proclaim loudly that it is so much better than the rest of world.

 

[dblack]

The fault is not in the system - it is that we continue only to see the corruption and influence in the 'other' party's candidates...and vote accordingly.

I couldn't disagree more. The system encourages the 'lesser-of-two-evils' voting logic that is electing the worst of the worst (or, arguably, the second worst).

Define what you mean by 'system' then - I am referencing our form of government as the system.

Ahh.. I'm specifically referring to our federal election process. Plurality voting props up two strong parties and discourages alternatives. It's the biggest reason we're saddled with two crappy parties and keep electing them even when the serve up turds like Clinton or Trump.

 

[task0778]

I'd prefer a more french or German like government. A parliamentary democracy system or a more modern form of the presidential republic(like France)that allows far more parties and options at the voting both. They're far younger and have about 200 years of experimentation to come to their model, while ours we're still arguing over the power structure! lol.

Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...

I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.

However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.

Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.

Question for the board: is the system flawed or is it just the people running it? I don't there can be a perfect governmental system that is corruption-proof. Or idiot-proof either.

Since the people that created the system were imperfect, they created a flawed system which would be run by flawed people.

I have visited many countries and lived in a few and I can say honestly I have never seen a country where it's citizens were so critical of their government and their leaders. Yet they will proclaim loudly that it is so much better than the rest of world.

Personally I do not claim the American system of gov't is the best there is, but I'm pretty sure our political leadership sucks. So we are right IMHO to be very critical of what's going on in Washington but that doesn't mean the framework is seriously flawed. Certainly we should be looking at what can be done to make it work better, although making those kinds of changes won't be easy to do. Maybe we need a 3rd political party with enough clout to force the Dems and Repubs to negotiate with them and each other to arrive at more optimal outcomes. But I fear the future is not bright if we continue down the road we're on now.

 

[SeaGal]

Executive orders signed by president:

Reagan -------380
G.W. Bush ---290
Obama -------275

Let's keep the facts straight shall we.

Yes, let's.

How about Carter and Clinton or Bush the First?

Of course, factually speaking, not all EO's are created equal, nor are all presidential proclamations.

Furthermore - for the sake of our mutual interest in keeping facts straight - Article II, section 2 of the US Constitution states - and he (POTUS) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, - See more at: Article II - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

You can certainly argue whether or not the Senate's action was prudent - but ya don't get to declare that it was unconstitutional...if facts are your concern, that is.

The left has giddily/carelessly spent the last 10 years kicking America in the teeth - America kicked back, and now you want to take your almond joys and go home? See ya'.

 

[Flopper]

I want a government that knows and understands it has limits and that there are things they can't fix and parts of people's lives they shouldn't be involved in.

AND I believe our gov't should also be limited to policies we can pay for. I was brought up to avoid debt, pretty much except for a house and a car you should live within your means. I cannot accept creating a huge debt that future generations will have to pay interest on, let alone the principle. It won't be long before interest rates rise to their historical levels near 4 - 5%, and as the debt increases the interest alone will reach and exceed a trillion dollars a year. I think that is irresponsible and inexcusable or our part today.

I agree, the fiscal irresponsibility of our government has been a tremendous problem. Creating debt isn't the problem, as that is actually beneficial to a growing economy, but the magnitude of the debt, and wasteful spending, is what has gotten out of control

When the people are not fiscal responsible, there is little reason to think the government that represents them will be. The average adult has less than $5,000 saved for their retirement. 25% of Americans have no savings at all and half the country would exhaust their savings in less than a month if they lost their job.

One measure of fiscal responsibility is a comparison of debt to assets. The United States has a debt (public and private) of 145 trillion against assets of 269 trillion, a debt to asset ratio of only .53. The average American family debt to asset ratio is just bit over 1.0.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd prefer a more french or German like government. A parliamentary democracy system or a more modern form of the presidential republic(like France)that allows far more parties and options at the voting both. They're far younger and have about 200 years of experimentation to come to their model, while ours we're still arguing over the power structure! lol.

Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...

I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.

However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.

Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.

Question for the board: is the system flawed or is it just the people running it? I don't there can be a perfect governmental system that is corruption-proof. Or idiot-proof either.

Since the people that created the system were imperfect, they created a flawed system which would be run by flawed people.

I have visited many countries and lived in a few and I can say honestly I have never seen a country where it's citizens were so critical of their government and their leaders. Yet they will proclaim loudly that it is so much better than the rest of world.

It is ironic....And the hatred of our government is all directed to weakening it and destroying the ability to lead the world they so praise out of the otherside of their ******* mouths about. So much pride but with little clue on why we're powerful...

-They judge Mexico for having dirty water but then want to kill off the epa that made our standards possible. Hell, they judge all these countries for having polluted air but still have the nerve to want to do away with the epa.
-They judge those monkeys in africa for having disease and dying from it all the time but want to kill off the cdc and government medical research the provides 50%+ of the funding for our higher standards.
-They judge Africa or the third world for having shitty infrastructure but then say how the government should do away with our funding....Once again the vast majority of the funding comes from tax payers. lol...
-They want to kill the fda even through our medication would be at the same standards of africa or south asia.
-They see a dying kid in africa starving to death and they point out how the people should get educated or are too stupid to be educated...Well, what do they want to do here in America? Defund education or turn it into a system that only benefits the rich.

Yet they have the nerve to call me stupid for fighting to maintain our country as a world power. What a bunch of fools.

If they got their way everything they brag about would be gone within 10 years....

 

[SeaGal]

Ahh.. I'm specifically referring to our federal election process. Plurality voting props up two strong parties and discourages alternatives. It's the biggest reason we're saddled with two crappy parties and keep electing them even when the serve up turds like Clinton or Trump.

Ok.

I think the federal election process has stood us in good stead for a long time so I don't think we need to radically alter it.
We live in the here and now - but if we look back in time I believe we'd find that money, corruption and influence peddling plus dire predictions about the other guys have long been part of the election process.

One of my concerns is the length of the current campaign season - sometimes it begins nearly as soon as the oath of office is taken. (WH or Congress) Another is the amount of money spent - although it could be argued that that money just goes back into the economy lol, and money spent does not necessarily translate into votes - and should even less with the amount of free air time available.

There is a modification to the federal electoral process that I think deserves debate - popular vote national primaries, after each party selects their candidate, followed by electoral college decided run-off. It could make a multiple party system viable.

 

[Flopper]

I'd prefer a more french or German like government. A parliamentary democracy system or a more modern form of the presidential republic(like France)that allows far more parties and options at the voting both. They're far younger and have about 200 years of experimentation to come to their model, while ours we're still arguing over the power structure! lol.

Our system the presidential republic is far more restrictive and known for corruption...Probably partly because of how hard it is to get any new ideas passed through congress....At least in my studies on the topic as all you have to do is look at Mexico, Brazil for examples of this...

I think our government should have the power to invest, regulate, and govern in the interest of the people.

However at the present moment the Fed Govt is working perfectly and we just got a really good new SCOTUS justice out of the process.

Maybe 3 or 4 more soon too.

You wouldn't be saying the same thing if Clinton was president and the congress was going nuclear to get in her SCOTUS picks, right? So in that case I'd think you'd agree that its a very flawed system. Just because it is working in your favor at this moment, doesn't make it good.

Question for the board: is the system flawed or is it just the people running it? I don't there can be a perfect governmental system that is corruption-proof. Or idiot-proof either.

Since the people that created the system were imperfect, they created a flawed system which would be run by flawed people.

I have visited many countries and lived in a few and I can say honestly I have never seen a country where it's citizens were so critical of their government and their leaders. Yet they will proclaim loudly that it is so much better than the rest of world.

Personally I do not claim the American system of gov't is the best there is, but I'm pretty sure our political leadership sucks. So we are right IMHO to be very critical of what's going on in Washington but that doesn't mean the framework is seriously flawed. Certainly we should be looking at what can be done to make it work better, although making those kinds of changes won't be easy to do. Maybe we need a 3rd political party with enough clout to force the Dems and Repubs to negotiate with them and each other to arrive at more optimal outcomes. But I fear the future is not bright if we continue down the road we're on now.

There is another solution other than a 3rd party, one that worked well for us for over a 150 years, coalitions. Up to the mid-twentieth century, there were liberal and conservative factions with in each party which did not clearly identify themselves within the party. When there were deadlock in congress, each party would reach across the aisle for support and form a coalition to break the deadlock. Today, that is almost impossible because of the polarization within the parties. Somehow, someway we have got to break the political polarization or the future for this nation is going to be pretty bleak.

 

[Slade3200]

I want a government that knows and understands it has limits and that there are things they can't fix and parts of people's lives they shouldn't be involved in.

AND I believe our gov't should also be limited to policies we can pay for. I was brought up to avoid debt, pretty much except for a house and a car you should live within your means. I cannot accept creating a huge debt that future generations will have to pay interest on, let alone the principle. It won't be long before interest rates rise to their historical levels near 4 - 5%, and as the debt increases the interest alone will reach and exceed a trillion dollars a year. I think that is irresponsible and inexcusable or our part today.

I agree, the fiscal irresponsibility of our government has been a tremendous problem. Creating debt isn't the problem, as that is actually beneficial to a growing economy, but the magnitude of the debt, and wasteful spending, is what has gotten out of control

When the people are not fiscal responsible, there is little reason to think the government that represents them will be. The average adult has less than $5,000 saved for their retirement. 25% of Americans have no savings at all and half the country would exhaust their savings in less than a month if they lost their job.

One measure of fiscal responsibility is a comparison of debt to assets. The United States has a debt (public and private) of 145 trillion against assets of 269 trillion, a debt to asset ratio of only .53. The average American family debt to asset ratio is just bit over 1.0.

I agree, that is just crazy. I'm sure that easy access to loans and credit cards along with the lessening risk of true hardships and consequences have fed the problem. Solutions seem to be in better education and better regulation of our financial institutions lessening their ability to take advantage of our citizens

 

[OKTexas]

What can I say, there are a lot of people, like you, that refuse to do their own homework and continue to spew ignorance.

You can say something intelligent that either reflects understanding of how our system deals with the things you are complaining about or you can present ideas on how you would like to see them handled

Simple, follow the text, it's self-explanatory. If you not smart enough to understand simple text, look to what the men who wrote it had to say, they understood the meaning of their words better than anyone.

BTW until you can show me in the text of the Constitution where the government is granted the power to regulate goods that never enter commerce get back to me. If you can't then your admitting that the assumption of any such power is extra-constitutional.

Where in the constitution does it say that the government can regulate our airspace? Is it your opinion that the FAA is unconstitutional?

So you're admitting the example I provided is indeed extra-constitutional?

Yes I could agree with that. But I make the point about the FAA because there will inevitably be things that evolve into our society that weren't covered by the framers in the 1700's. So there are ultimately going to be these "extra-constitutional" elements presented by our lawmakers that are intended to best serve the welfare of their constituents and our country. The constitution frames a system where states and lawmakers have the right to create these laws and there is a system to pass these laws, veto these laws, and even a system to check the constitutionality of these laws.

Yep, the framers knew things would change over time and the Constitution would need be updated. That's why they included Article 5 so congress could propose changes or the States could propose their own changes, and then either accept or reject them as the States deemed fit.

The reality is the congress and executive have chosen to ignore the proper method of change and with the complicity of the federal courts have imposed on the country an extra-constitutional government. There are people like you that applaud this imposition and the never ending expansion of federal powers, where I and many others call out the federal government for their lawlessness and continue to demand that the sins of the past be corrected or the changes be properly adopted by the States. You see, under our Constitution, the States are the ultimate sovereigns and only they can legally adopt the needed changes.

 

[Slade3200]

You can say something intelligent that either reflects understanding of how our system deals with the things you are complaining about or you can present ideas on how you would like to see them handled

Simple, follow the text, it's self-explanatory. If you not smart enough to understand simple text, look to what the men who wrote it had to say, they understood the meaning of their words better than anyone.

BTW until you can show me in the text of the Constitution where the government is granted the power to regulate goods that never enter commerce get back to me. If you can't then your admitting that the assumption of any such power is extra-constitutional.

Where in the constitution does it say that the government can regulate our airspace? Is it your opinion that the FAA is unconstitutional?

So you're admitting the example I provided is indeed extra-constitutional?

Yes I could agree with that. But I make the point about the FAA because there will inevitably be things that evolve into our society that weren't covered by the framers in the 1700's. So there are ultimately going to be these "extra-constitutional" elements presented by our lawmakers that are intended to best serve the welfare of their constituents and our country. The constitution frames a system where states and lawmakers have the right to create these laws and there is a system to pass these laws, veto these laws, and even a system to check the constitutionality of these laws.

Yep, the framers knew things would change over time and the Constitution would need be updated. That's why they included Article 5 so congress could propose changes or the States could propose their own changes, and then either accept or reject them as the States deemed fit.

The reality is the congress and executive have chosen to ignore the proper method of change and with the complicity of the federal courts have imposed on the country an extra-constitutional government. There are people like you that applaud this imposition and the never ending expansion of federal powers, where I and many others call out the federal government for their lawlessness and continue to demand that the sins of the past be corrected or the changes be properly adopted by the States. You see, under our Constitution, the States are the ultimate sovereigns and only they can legally adopt the needed changes.

So back to my question. Is the FAA unconstitutional for regulating our airspace? Are you saying there should be a constitutional amendment that defines what the FAA and orgs like them can and can't do?