04-03-2009, 10:14 PM
Hi,
And don't even think of going the "power to tax is the power to destroy" route.
After all, is religion the belief or the temple that houses that belief?
Of course the founders were not in 'elected' office for long. Many were middle aged, or older (Franklin) before there was anything like an elected office. What they all were were members of an aristocracy of wealth. They were the people with the leisure and inclination to dabble in politics. So, if you truly want to turn the country over to the Kennedys and their ilk, then your proposal might suffice.
You want to change the process, you need to change who the voters are or what they are. Which you pick to do determines if you are a Jeffersonian or a Hamiltonian. But, remember, The Articles of Confederation failed.
--Pete
Quote:Ok, maybe if the whole thing crashes and the US somehow defaults on the debt, . . .I suspect that the future will lie somewhere between the government's rosy projection and your picture of gloom. You may be right. I think not, and hope not. We'll know soon enough, and can resume the discussion (if you want to) when the 2009 and 2010 data changes from projection to historical fact.
Quote:I wish economics were physics, and even though some economists like to pretend that economics is like physics it really is not. The only things they really have in common is chaos theory. In the case of government, it should be simple.My point was that physics, with its (relatively) well understood structure of cause and effect is pretty complicated and getting more so. Both economics and government have a much more complex, sensitive (in the sense of chaos theory), relation between cause and effect. This makes them much more difficult than physics. So, why is it that many assume that only a few are capable of doing physics but almost all can do government and politics?
Quote:You atheists always remember the establishment clause, but forget the other part "or that prohibits the free exercise of religion"! :) To be fair, I did say establishment, when I also meant the free exercise part as well.I'm sorry, but how does *not* giving religion a tax (or other) advantage prohibit its free exercise? Is the worship of god based on large Norman styled buildings with stained glass windows and vaulted ceilings? Don't the Christians believe that Christ said "Give onto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's"? Does it take cash to pray, or gold to make a drinking vessel? For that matter, I do not begrudge the wealth of this world to the believers of the next -- I just want them to pay for it in this world like everyone else.
And don't even think of going the "power to tax is the power to destroy" route.
Quote:I would say that putting a tax on church revenue inter-tangles church and state to the point of violating the 1st amendment.Why? First, the state already is mixed into religion. Consider the state's long existent partnership with religion on the topic of matrimony. Consider the (now greatly reduced) blue laws. But, even ignoring all that, please explain to me how making money relates to worshiping god? Clearly all religions (that I know of) have a sacred and a secular component. As long as the state stays out of the sacred, the Bill of Rights is observed. If religion wishes to avoid secular law, let it stay out of secular matters. Let them meet in a public field, take no collection, have no paid professional leaders, acquire no wealth. It was good enough, from what I've read, for their founders, it should be good enough for the followers.
After all, is religion the belief or the temple that houses that belief?
Quote:Actually, I didn't read that book and I'm not sure which one you are referring.Sorry, got too cute there. Ludlum is a relatively popular author who writes, mostly, what are over-blown conspiracy theory books. Similar to Brown, but with a better grasp of English and a poorer ability to tell stories. And much more prolific. Not thinking of any specific book, just the genre.
Quote:I looked at the information on web sites of lawyers offering to handle estate tax issues.Strange. The exclusion is presently at about $2 million. I'd think that families worth above that would already have a lawyer and that ambulance chasers need not apply.
Quote:Yes, I want government to be run by "The People" which to me means the average person.That, given what passes for average nowadays, scares the crap out of me.
Quote:I don't want there to be a required set of knowledge to qualify for representing the people.So, someone totally ignorant of the constitution, of history, of economic theories, of the world situation, of diplomacy, of geography, and of the English language is acceptable to you? Did we not learn anything from the past eight years?
Quote:Simplify government so that even the common man can do it.You are applying the rational of a time when we were well separated from the world by two oceans, when education was the three r's, when health care was bleeding and amputations, when 'roads' were anywhere a horse could go, when armies kept their weapons over the mantel and could be assembled in minutes by ringing a bell, to an age that is much different. A simple government in a complex world is, to me, a recipe for disaster.
Quote:If you look at the founders, it was rare for anyone to be in "elected" office for more than 12 years.Give me a beak. Pretty much all the Virginia notables of that time were 'planters', a term mostly meaning gentlemen farmers who never got their own hands dirty. They spent all of their time pursuing whatever gained their interest. Those whose interest was politics (Washington, Clay, Jefferson, to name just three) did little else. The same could be said of many others. Hancock was a merchant (polite for smuggler). Franklin a publisher (as well as about fifty other things) and, of course, publishers never dabble in politics.
Of course the founders were not in 'elected' office for long. Many were middle aged, or older (Franklin) before there was anything like an elected office. What they all were were members of an aristocracy of wealth. They were the people with the leisure and inclination to dabble in politics. So, if you truly want to turn the country over to the Kennedys and their ilk, then your proposal might suffice.
Quote:I would say, it is the combination of government that has grown too complicated with too many laws, an apathetic electorate, and a pack of self centered politicians grubbing for power and money.The apathetic electorate is probably true, but I doubt if it is anything new. The 'pack of self centered politicians' is a gross generalization that has an element of truth behind it but, I think, is exaggerated. But, as to the complexity of government, that I think is inevitable given the complexity of modern life. I think that if you had your way and government was simplified, the elected officials simple men, we'd be back to where we are now in no time as laws needed to cover all the situations that crop up were passed. And, given the simple, inexperienced men you propose to make those laws, I think the government would be worse than it is.
Quote:Elections should not be contests between waring coalitions of the rich and powerful, and the corporate interests they represent.Elections are decided by getting votes. Votes are gotten by convincing an apathetic majority to go out and pick your name. Since the voters are not going to come to you, you have to go to the voters where they are, and that's mostly in front of a TV with a Bud lite in their hands. You've got their whole attention span of ten seconds to let them know who you are and why they should vote for you. That's the reality, and it is expensive.
You want to change the process, you need to change who the voters are or what they are. Which you pick to do determines if you are a Jeffersonian or a Hamiltonian. But, remember, The Articles of Confederation failed.
Quote:I would like to see the USA return to being a representative democracy.That presupposes that it once was in a sense that is different from now. It started as an 'old boys club' of wealthy (mostly) landholders. It was pretty well restricted to white christian upper class males of English descent. It passed through almost two centuries of political bosses, ward healers, and control by the wealthy. In most respects, it s closer to a representative democracy now than it ever has been.
Quote: . . . I try to self insure . . .Since February 14, 2005, my medical bills have totaled nearly $1.5 million. I sure hope that that is a big mattress you've stuffed for emergencies.
Quote:When insurance is not voluntary, they call it extortion... unless the government does it.Nonsense, unless you know of a government regulation forcing anyone to obtain insurance to protect themselves. The only insurance I know of that the government requires is automobile liability. That is not to protect the insured, it is to protect the potential victims of the insured. And it is not mandatory in most places if a person can establish that they are self insured.
Quote:When the Teamsters spend your retirement pension, they are indicted. When the government does it, it is called creative accounting.Color me confused. These two statements might be true, but just what do they have to do with insurance?
Quote:There is a level of reasonableness to living in a compassionate society, although at some point as we move toward socialist thinking, the society becomes more important than the individual."It has long been known that one horse can run faster than another--but which one? Differences are crucial."- L. Long;)
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?