The XXXL sweatpants that fit the majority of Americans will not fit me. Why would a political policy fit everyone any better?
Urban areas require drastically different policy than rural areas. Just look at the voter map from the previous election. Poplular votes for Obama resided almost totally in the major cities. Look at PA for example Pittsburgh and Philadelphia were the only votes for Obama.
Would a decentralized government better serve the U.S. ?
If you don't like the sweatpants that fit you, then choose a different pair. Write your congressmen and vote.
Things change with every election. As to demographics, yes bigger places tend to vote for Dems. that doesn't mean that Reps can't win in national elections, because they can and have often since the days of Lincoln. They could do better if it wasn't for some of the scandals with merit. Watergate, Iran Contra, and of course the last eight years have hurt them terribly.
Even then, both Dems and Reps have changed their beliefs and policy's since the days of Lincoln. It's hard to believe that the party who freed the slaves, voted against civil rights in the 60's and the party of Teddy Roosevelt, hates environmentalists. Or that that party who once favored the great robber barons, now back unions.
Things change with every election. As to demographics, yes bigger places tend to vote for Dems. that doesn't mean that Reps can't win in national elections, because they can and have often since the days of Lincoln. They could do better if it wasn't for some of the scandals with merit. Watergate, Iran Contra, and of course the last eight years have hurt them terribly.
Even then, both Dems and Reps have changed their beliefs and policy's since the days of Lincoln. It's hard to believe that the party who freed the slaves, voted against civil rights in the 60's and the party of Teddy Roosevelt, hates environmentalists. Or that that party who once favored the great robber barons, now back unions.
Yes. The more local the government, the more relevant the policies.
I've always wondered why people got in such a snit about the federal elections but couldn't care less about their local ones. The federal government should be small, and the local governments small also - but more effective, and more in-tune with their consitutients. That would help solve quite a lot of issues we're having now.
I've always wondered why people got in such a snit about the federal elections but couldn't care less about their local ones. The federal government should be small, and the local governments small also - but more effective, and more in-tune with their consitutients. That would help solve quite a lot of issues we're having now.
So trade that typical for something colorful, and if it's crazy live a little crazy!
-
koldchillah
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4629
- Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2002 1:45 pm
- Location: Orlando
In the end, there is a choice in this world.. Reduce gov't and give corporations more control, or regulate corporations and give gov't more control. Of course we could always settle on where we are and not change either.
Corporations have a duty to remain loyal only to their shareholders and gov'ts have a duty to remain loyal only to their constituents.
Shareholders elect a Board of Directors who guide the corporate ship. Constituents elect politicians to guide theirs.
You have to ask yourself.. Are you a shareholder, or a constituent? If you are both, then you must ask yourself, for the sake of democracy, which has more influence over the majority, the corporation in which you are a shareholder, or the gov't for which you are a constituent? Whose job is it to remain loyal to you AND your fellow Americans? The corporation, or the gov't?
Pure democracy and pure capitalism cannot co-exist, as they contradict one another entirely. We are a hybrid of both, of which neither can be pure. There is, however, a balance that can be achieved somewhere in the middle to allow for democracy and capitalism to work together simultaneously.
This is why I always oppose both extremes. We cannot allow for the deterioration of the capitalist system. We must continue to promote economic growth in the various markets, but at the same time we must always maintain enough corporate regulation and oversight so that the ability of democracy to change society is always preserved.
If either a gov't or corporation has the ability to give you everything you need or want, then that same gov't or corporation will also have the ability to take it all away.
Corporations have a duty to remain loyal only to their shareholders and gov'ts have a duty to remain loyal only to their constituents.
Shareholders elect a Board of Directors who guide the corporate ship. Constituents elect politicians to guide theirs.
You have to ask yourself.. Are you a shareholder, or a constituent? If you are both, then you must ask yourself, for the sake of democracy, which has more influence over the majority, the corporation in which you are a shareholder, or the gov't for which you are a constituent? Whose job is it to remain loyal to you AND your fellow Americans? The corporation, or the gov't?
Pure democracy and pure capitalism cannot co-exist, as they contradict one another entirely. We are a hybrid of both, of which neither can be pure. There is, however, a balance that can be achieved somewhere in the middle to allow for democracy and capitalism to work together simultaneously.
This is why I always oppose both extremes. We cannot allow for the deterioration of the capitalist system. We must continue to promote economic growth in the various markets, but at the same time we must always maintain enough corporate regulation and oversight so that the ability of democracy to change society is always preserved.
If either a gov't or corporation has the ability to give you everything you need or want, then that same gov't or corporation will also have the ability to take it all away.
"Nobody's invincible, no plan is foolproof, We all must meet our moment of truth." - Guru
-
RoscoPColtrane
- Posts: 6153
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 12:00 pm
- Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Less federal power, more letting the states make decisions based on what their citizens want.
I agree that one size does NOT fit all.
I agree that one size does NOT fit all.
****************************************************************************************
Abit NF7-S 2.0, Barton 2500+ @ 2.2 Ghz, 2 Gig ddr3200, 80gig Seagate HDD, ATI x850 PRO @ 550/600, WinXP Pro
J B K M
Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl XL Champions!!!!!
Abit NF7-S 2.0, Barton 2500+ @ 2.2 Ghz, 2 Gig ddr3200, 80gig Seagate HDD, ATI x850 PRO @ 550/600, WinXP Pro
J B K M
Pittsburgh Steelers Super Bowl XL Champions!!!!!
I feel if we took away riders this country would be a better place for it.
If we could place term limits on EVERY position we would be better for it.
If we maintained a federal tax for defense and only national programs instead of giving out different amounts based on driving laws and school performance. A state controlled tax system would result in higher state taxes lower federal and better financial control. That way we as voters would not be concerned with another states misspending because our own would be transparent and our only concern.
I don't even know how you would accomplish something like that. All the people in support of that are silenced or pushed to the back by the rich guys with all the "Constituents" because that is not in their best interest. There are too many government officials (FDA) corrupted by companies and lobbyists. While lobbyists are a good thing when you are benefiting from them, but change opinions with reasons other than what is best for the people. Our government the institution that should be only concerned with our well-being and safety are caught up in making personal wealth.
A de-centralization of government in conjunction with term-limits and no riders would take away alot of the corruption.
A career politician does more damage to our country than any terrorist organization could ever match.
If we could place term limits on EVERY position we would be better for it.
If we maintained a federal tax for defense and only national programs instead of giving out different amounts based on driving laws and school performance. A state controlled tax system would result in higher state taxes lower federal and better financial control. That way we as voters would not be concerned with another states misspending because our own would be transparent and our only concern.
I don't even know how you would accomplish something like that. All the people in support of that are silenced or pushed to the back by the rich guys with all the "Constituents" because that is not in their best interest. There are too many government officials (FDA) corrupted by companies and lobbyists. While lobbyists are a good thing when you are benefiting from them, but change opinions with reasons other than what is best for the people. Our government the institution that should be only concerned with our well-being and safety are caught up in making personal wealth.
A de-centralization of government in conjunction with term-limits and no riders would take away alot of the corruption.
A career politician does more damage to our country than any terrorist organization could ever match.