Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
From whence did you get the view that taxes are not to be used to distribute wealth? In what documentgoverning our actions might this be found. In practice it has been going on a long time--If I take your tax money and use it to help low income people pay your rent I am doing something wrong. Again, I am aiming for the greater good of the nation and slicing a bit of bacon from your ribs will not really hurt you.This is not Communistic or Socialistic--it is as American as pumpkin pie.
Again, I have failed to make my point. If I make 17k a year any taxes extracted from me reallyhurt and my standard of living is pushed further down.If I make 1 million a year, my standard of living is not pushed down to the level of the working poorand I can live comfortable despite the ravages of the graduated and progressive income tax. I will continue to eat steak, get great dental work and drive a reliable car, all things that are probably notgoing to be available to of 17K guy after tax extraction. Taxes annoy guy 2--they hurt guy 1.Those who have more ought to pay more--it is the American way. It is in place now--really!Constitutional Convention anyone?
It is best that I make no Bible comments in this forum. There is a distinct hint of Christianity terra cognita!
Yes–finding safe seats for the leaders is part of the system in other places, but that is easily fixed as we simply write the new law to mandate that people must reside in the state they represent. I do not drink Canadianbeer, but I am told it is excellent.WillyD
Cede more liberties–yes they might–on the other hand they may regain them–it is risky businesswhich is why it will in all likelihood never happen. It would take a real crisis to get us to follow this path.Perhaps a fiscal breakdown would do it.
Yes–this is often the critique–but it does not matter really. The State is looked after by the head of State. The professional bureaucrats know what to do on daily matters whilst awaiting the appointment of anew minister and life goes on.A friend described it this way. While the government is in power all the bureaucrats rush about like a herd of maddened bison and when the government falls they stop running, and get the work done on a morereasonable pace. When the new minister is in place they all begin running again-- illusion and feigned sincerity are all. The absence of a government for a short time means that all present laws are valid, but no new legislation can be passes--interesting concept--n'est pas?
That was not the profession to which I was referring. How about this–all men could build a rustic hut,but only a true professional could rise to the level of chef!Meanwhile the members of the oldest profession contnued to ply their trade. I was not there, but it is a working hypothesis.
NO__I believe that it was in China. I have been to a South Seas Pig Roast where the oven was in a stone lined underground oven–delicious.
Memory fails me, but there was a short story–19th Century I believe–explaining the origin of cooking.If I recall correctly a pig was trapped in a burning building and when the fire died this wonderfularoma spread throughout the camp. The people found the pig, ate of the flesh and were happy. Laterthat week they rounded up all the pigs and burned all their houses down. After a while they perfecteda less expensive method and the world's second oldest profession was born.
The system I am talking about is the one used in most democracies. Very few utilize a system like ours–we are not unique, but a rara avis.It works like this. The voters vote for a party or a man standing for election in a party. When the votes are counted up the head of State asks the party who has won a majority in an election to form a government to run the nation. If no single party has a majority it can form coalitions with minor parties so as to achieve that magical number of 51 percent. The winning party or parties then become the new government and get to work--BUT--there is a big plus in their system. If the government proposes aprogram or gets into a real problem with trying to govern--being inept for example--or is exposed as being corrupt--the whole legislature can force it to resign by bringing in a vote of "no confidence" whichin essence means the 51 percent majority has been lost. This leads the head of State to call for newelections hoping to find a new government that has the confidence of the people. In short, if thegovernment is not doing a credible job--throw them out without having to wait years to get rid of them.This system is not without flaws--what is--but it is an alternative to our system. Fear not--it will neverhappen the goddess of INERTIA and her companion handmaiden--DISINTEREST--almost guarantee thatno changes will be made.WillyD
I recall that this subject was covered in great depth while I was in school. The mechanism is in place and I for one think we ought to hold such a Convention as it appears that our current system is broken beyondfixing. I also recall that the Professor warned that once you convene such a convention they are free toignore their instructions and construct any scheme they please much the same as happened in 1787 when the delegates came together to revise the Articles of Confederation. Look what happened there.If such a convention were held and I were a delegate, I would push for a whole new system akin to theBritish model where the leader of the party that won a general election became the first minister ofgovernment. This of course would require separate heads of State and Government as is the case in most system of this kind. This might frighten the voters--coalition is a big strange word.Myriad details would have to be worked out, but as we have a plethora of lawyers, it would provide temporary meaningful work. The chances of this convention ever being held are, in my opinion, zero.WillyD
