U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-03-2010, 10:04 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
17,435 posts, read 12,534,246 times
Reputation: 14521

Advertisements

Fiscally Conservative Government Absent Partisanship

There is a simple way to restrain government spending. There is a simple solution that would rein in government.

Simply legislate that it is a conflict of interest for any recipient of public funds to vote.

As long as the recipients can vote themselves more from the public treasury, there is little to stop them. Self interest is human nature.

The government excels at bribing people. If you bribe enough people, you generate a self interest bloc that will fight any reduction in bribery.

The same can be said of the "public servants".

Consider "legal bribery" and the attempts to cap it, as in campaign funding. Isn't it sad that a candidate for public office has to stoop to such means?

Again, let us apply the simple solution : anyone who receives bribery (ahem - contributions) cannot vote on anything affecting the donor.

For the general elections, it means that any recipient of public funds - salary, grant, loan, or benefit - cannot vote. Period.
Recipients cannot be choosers.
If you paid taxes, but did not receive anything from the public treasury, you can vote.

For the legislators, it means that they cannot vote on any bill that affects their donors. There is no limit on how much they accept - just can't vote on any bill that affects those "generous" contributors. {Enforcement is simple - any bill found to have been voted upon by a "tainted" legislator is immediately null and void, and requires a new vote - absent the "tainted" legislator.}

In other words, you can contribute as much as you can afford, but you cannot "buy" influence. In fact, it bars the recipient from voting on any bill that affects you, the donor. Would that choke off campaign funding? Perhaps. But, then, what kind of government has resulted from such "legalized bribery"?

I don't think the founders wanted a democracy, using bribery, opinion polls, and popularity contests to run the government.

I think they clearly stated that government had two jobs:
1. Secure rights (inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property ownership), and
2. Govern those who consent.

And a government charged with securing your right to life, liberty and property did not have the delegated power to deny your right to life, liberty, nor take your property - without your consent. But I could be wrong.

However, if only the PAYERS of taxes could vote for candidates, and the TAKERS of taxes could not, how long would government operate as a "cash cow" to be milked?

And if legislators who were flush with contributions could not vote for hardly any bill, would "special interests" have any clout?

I think that would be a refreshing change.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-03-2010, 10:11 PM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,882 posts, read 31,881,964 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Fiscally Conservative Government Absent Partisanship

There is a simple way to restrain government spending. There is a simple solution that would rein in government.

Simply legislate that it is a conflict of interest for any recipient of public funds to vote.

As long as the recipients can vote themselves more from the public treasury, there is little to stop them. Self interest is human nature.

The government excels at bribing people. If you bribe enough people, you generate a self interest bloc that will fight any reduction in bribery.

The same can be said of the "public servants".

Consider "legal bribery" and the attempts to cap it, as in campaign funding. Isn't it sad that a candidate for public office has to stoop to such means?

Again, let us apply the simple solution : anyone who receives bribery (ahem - contributions) cannot vote on anything affecting the donor.

For the general elections, it means that any recipient of public funds - salary, grant, loan, or benefit - cannot vote. Period.
Recipients cannot be choosers.
If you paid taxes, but did not receive anything from the public treasury, you can vote.

For the legislators, it means that they cannot vote on any bill that affects their donors. There is no limit on how much they accept - just can't vote on any bill that affects those "generous" contributors. {Enforcement is simple - any bill found to have been voted upon by a "tainted" legislator is immediately null and void, and requires a new vote - absent the "tainted" legislator.}

In other words, you can contribute as much as you can afford, but you cannot "buy" influence. In fact, it bars the recipient from voting on any bill that affects you, the donor. Would that choke off campaign funding? Perhaps. But, then, what kind of government has resulted from such "legalized bribery"?

I don't think the founders wanted a democracy, using bribery, opinion polls, and popularity contests to run the government.

I think they clearly stated that government had two jobs:
1. Secure rights (inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property ownership), and
2. Govern those who consent.

And a government charged with securing your right to life, liberty and property did not have the delegated power to deny your right to life, liberty, nor take your property - without your consent. But I could be wrong.

However, if only the PAYERS of taxes could vote for candidates, and the TAKERS of taxes could not, how long would government operate as a "cash cow" to be milked?

And if legislators who were flush with contributions could not vote for hardly any bill, would "special interests" have any clout?

I think that would be a refreshing change.
Not so bad but I think you left out too many voters that need to be stopped from voting. Those would be those who take any kind of money from government. Don't you see that those who take money from government will likely vote for those who give them the money.

I pay income taxes but I am also on Medicare and I only pay $110 per month for it so that leaves me outside looking in at the polling place. I think that those getting Medicaid should be barred since few, if any of them, pay any income taxes.

I think you want to take the vote away from too many people and will have trouble finding anybody to vote.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 10:17 PM
 
Location: Missouri
4,273 posts, read 3,614,370 times
Reputation: 1933
Too much thinking here. The legislation that should be passed is a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget. Forty-seven states have the requirement, it's now time for the federal government to have the same.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 10:23 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
17,435 posts, read 12,534,246 times
Reputation: 14521
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
I think you want to take the vote away from too many people and will have trouble finding anybody to vote.
Very true - but you can't have a society that penalizes (taxes) the producers (workers) and rewards (enriches) the consumers (takers) and expect long term prosperity. Eventually, "smart" people endeavor to be takers and not be givers.

Losing the vote is a small price to pay for access to the goodies. And it will eliminate the squabbling between recipient blocs, in the political process.

If the givers (tax payers) wish to be generous, let them vote for candidates who reflect those values.
But I do not think that tax takers should have the power to make other people generous on their behalf.

Thought experiment:
If it turns out that 90% of the American electorate are recipients, and are barred from voting, what do you think that the remaining 10% will support?

An [] increase or [] a decrease in tax payer funded "freebies"?
[x] A decrease.
And that decrease will INCREASE the number of tax paying voters, in the next election.
The question is: will the former recipients vote for MORE or LESS spending on tax payer funded "freebies" now that they're no longer beneficiaries?

If MORE is their choice, fine.
If LESS is their choice, fine.

But I suspect that they will choose less spending, when it comes down to "voting their wallet".
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
17,435 posts, read 12,534,246 times
Reputation: 14521
Quote:
Originally Posted by geofra View Post
Too much thinking here. The legislation that should be passed is a constitutional amendment that requires a balanced budget. Forty-seven states have the requirement, it's now time for the federal government to have the same.
Under current law, a balanced budget is impossible.

1. Congress cannot create money. It can only coin (stamp bullion) or borrow money on the credit of the U.S.
2. Usury is mathematically impossible to pay in a finite money token system.
3. The national debt is impossible to repay, and the interest requires the creation of more money tokens to service it.
4. The public debt cannot be questioned, pursuant to Amendment 14, clause 4.

By constitution [Art 1, Sec. 8, Sec. 10, USCON] and law, only gold and silver coin are lawful tender for PAYMENT of debt. Federal Reserve notes (debt) are authorized by Congress' power to borrow on the credit of the U.S. government. But debt cannot pay debt. The national debt, over 13 trillion dollars, cannot be paid by "dollar bills". In fact, it is a physical impossibility to pay off 13 trillion dollar debt. Pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792, the amount of gold bullion required, is roughly 650 billion ounces. World wide (estimated) above ground gold is 5.5 billion ounces. (Silver is no remedy, because it was demonetized in 1873). At current mining rates, and assuming that the bullion existed, and that the USA could take all the gold in the world, it would take 87,000 years to pay off the debt - if it was FROZEN right now. (Does that rate the category of IMPOSSIBLE? I believe so.)

In 1933, Congress repudiated their promise to redeem said notes in House Joint Resolution 192. (And Nixon closed the "gold window" for foreign holders of the worthless notes.)

In 1933, FDR expropriated all circulating gold dollars, and criminalized the possession of real money.

Since only new debt authorizes the emission of new notes (see: Title 12 USC Sec. 411), any attempt at ending deficit spending means no new FRNs are authorized. That creates a static money token supply (current monies are not lawful money), which results in economic chaos, as in 1999-2000.

Technically speaking, notes are not money, never were money, can never be money. Notes are promises to pay money IN THE FUTURE. They are never "backed", for it there was real money in the vault, then they would be certificates (i.e., receipts).

Once repudiated, said notes became worthless securities (no par value). However, they act as legal tender via FICA. All enumerated participants, as contributors under the Act, are equally liable parties on the debt. Thus each worthless note is THEIR own obligation. Under the law of notes, an obligated party cannot object to the tender of their own notes, in discharge of obligation.

However, if 51% of the American people ceased volunteering to be "contributors" under FICA, that would collapse the Federal Reserve note (insufficient collateral). And it would probably collapse international trade - at least until its replacement would be agreeable to the trading partners.

Unfortunately, there is not enough gold bullion to operate a national economy, let alone international trade.
(Fort Knox depository has 147.4 million ounces - roughly 1/2 ounce per capita. Or less than $10 per person, by law.)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2010, 11:42 PM
 
Location: Prepperland
17,435 posts, read 12,534,246 times
Reputation: 14521
Though it would appear that we're doomed - there is a solution and it doesn't require any new laws.

Remember, the USCON says only gold and silver coin PAY debt - that is recognized by the courts.
What they don't say is that AGREEMENTS can also be enforced by the courts.
Since 1935, duly enumerated Americans have been exposed to a justice system operating without lawful money, nor within the original confines of the organic documents that founded the nation. Of course, the government can excuse itself by virtue of "our consent", as evidenced by the signatures on all those applications for participation under FICA - a potent agreement.

However, if 51% leave FICA and collapse the Federal Reserve note, that leaves a vacuum in the money supply.

Solution: private promissory notes.
A common example is a coupon for a free item or service. Fine print on said coupon will state 1/20 of a cent cash value - regardless of the actual value.

If people awoke to their legal power to create their own medium of exchange, denominated in that which they can do or produce, they would side step the money drought.

Such a private money system would only work within small communities where the issuers and traders are known for their "creditworthiness" (history of honorable behavior). Those who are not trustworthy - they have to deal in cash... whatever that will be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Under current law, a balanced budget is impossible.

1. Congress cannot create money. It can only coin (stamp bullion) or borrow money on the credit of the U.S.
2. Usury is mathematically impossible to pay in a finite money token system.
3. The national debt is impossible to repay, and the interest requires the creation of more money tokens to service it.
4. The public debt cannot be questioned, pursuant to Amendment 14, clause 4.

By constitution [Art 1, Sec. 8, Sec. 10, USCON] and law, only gold and silver coin are lawful tender for PAYMENT of debt. Federal Reserve notes (debt) are authorized by Congress' power to borrow on the credit of the U.S. government. But debt cannot pay debt. The national debt, over 13 trillion dollars, cannot be paid by "dollar bills". In fact, it is a physical impossibility to pay off 13 trillion dollar debt. Pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1792, the amount of gold bullion required, is roughly 650 billion ounces. World wide (estimated) above ground gold is 5.5 billion ounces. (Silver is no remedy, because it was demonetized in 1873). At current mining rates, and assuming that the bullion existed, and that the USA could take all the gold in the world, it would take 87,000 years to pay off the debt - if it was FROZEN right now. (Does that rate the category of IMPOSSIBLE? I believe so.)

In 1933, Congress repudiated their promise to redeem said notes in House Joint Resolution 192. (And Nixon closed the "gold window" for foreign holders of the worthless notes.)

In 1933, FDR expropriated all circulating gold dollars, and criminalized the possession of real money.

Since only new debt authorizes the emission of new notes (see: Title 12 USC Sec. 411), any attempt at ending deficit spending means no new FRNs are authorized. That creates a static money token supply (current monies are not lawful money), which results in economic chaos, as in 1999-2000.

Technically speaking, notes are not money, never were money, can never be money. Notes are promises to pay money IN THE FUTURE. They are never "backed", for it there was real money in the vault, then they would be certificates (i.e., receipts).

Once repudiated, said notes became worthless securities (no par value). However, they act as legal tender via FICA. All enumerated participants, as contributors under the Act, are equally liable parties on the debt. Thus each worthless note is THEIR own obligation. Under the law of notes, an obligated party cannot object to the tender of their own notes, in discharge of obligation.

However, if 51% of the American people ceased volunteering to be "contributors" under FICA, that would collapse the Federal Reserve note (insufficient collateral). And it would probably collapse international trade - at least until its replacement would be agreeable to the trading partners.

Unfortunately, there is not enough gold bullion to operate a national economy, let alone international trade.
(Fort Knox depository has 147.4 million ounces - roughly 1/2 ounce per capita. Or less than $10 per person, by law.)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-04-2010, 12:12 AM
 
Location: Prepperland
17,435 posts, read 12,534,246 times
Reputation: 14521
Quote:
Originally Posted by roysoldboy View Post
Not so bad but I think you left out too many voters that need to be stopped from voting. Those would be those who take any kind of money from government. Don't you see that those who take money from government will likely vote for those who give them the money.
Perhaps you didn't see this in the original post:
For the general elections, it means that any recipient of public funds - salary, grant, loan, or benefit - cannot vote. Period.
Any recipient - ANY RECIPIENT - cannot vote.
Any welfare recipient cannot vote. (God help the Democrats!)
Any government worker, whose salary is paid by the taxpayer cannot vote.
Any pensioner, whose pension is paid for by the taxpayer cannot vote.
Any politician in office cannot vote (in the general election) while in office, and accepting a paycheck - however, if he refuses his pay and all associated benefits of his office - he may vote in the general election.

This will also disenfranchise any business (and its stockholders, etc) that contracts with the government. If paid with taxpayer money, the owner(s) and workers are benefiting from public monies, and can't vote. (God help the Republicans!)

This might eradicate the practice of spreading around government contracts to all congressional districts. The recipients of government contracts can no longer vote.

Hmmmmm, this might shrink the potential voter pool to less than 10% of the nation.
Wouldn't that be something to witness!
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43 AM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top