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.
Heh, you almost got it, except that it's our representatives who forget why we elected them to represent us in Washington.
That is the problem, we elect these members to the congress and they end up working toward fulfilling their own goals, and amassing their own fiefdoms and power. We need to repeal the 17th amendment, and get our senate back to representing the states, so they do not make secret back room deals, consisting of thousands of pages of incomprehensible laws, and jam them down our throats at midnight.
The problem is that their districts are too large, and representatives cannot possible represent the million people they are supposed to in a fair and equitable way. Representatives have to rely on PACs and lobbyists both for money to refinance their campaigns, and for information about the issues they vote upon. Unfortunately, both PACs and lobbyists are providing biased information, biased polling, and money in exchange for support.
The cap on the number of representatives is ridiculous, especially in light of the technology available to our federal government. Representatives could stay in their districts, where the people they are supposed to represent would have greater access to them. They don't NEED to be in DC, where lobbyists and PACs have greater access to them.
Heh, you almost got it, except that it's our representatives who forget why we elected them to represent us in Washington.
That is the problem, we elect these members to the congress and they end up working toward fulfilling their own goals, and amassing their own fiefdoms and power. We need to repeal the 17th amendment, and get our senate back to representing the states, so they do not make secret back room deals, consisting of thousands of pages of incomprehensible laws, and jam them down our throats at midnight.
You know what I do with a representative that doesn't represent the people of my state? I don't vote for them. It is that simple.
The problem is that their districts are too large, and representatives cannot possible represent the million people they are supposed to in a fair and equitable way. Representatives have to rely on PACs and lobbyists both for money to refinance their campaigns, and for information about the issues they vote upon. Unfortunately, both PACs and lobbyists are providing biased information, biased polling, and money in exchange for support.
The cap on the number of representatives is ridiculous, especially in light of the technology available to our federal government. Representatives could stay in their districts, where the people they are supposed to represent would have greater access to them. They don't NEED to be in DC, where lobbyists and PACs have greater access to them.
That is very true, in this day and age, representatives could work in their districts 3/4 the year and only need to be in DC for a small portion of time. It would probably eliminate the DC bubble and ground representatives to the districts they represent.
The problem is that their districts are too large, and representatives cannot possible represent the million people they are supposed to in a fair and equitable way. Representatives have to rely on PACs and lobbyists both for money to refinance their campaigns, and for information about the issues they vote upon. Unfortunately, both PACs and lobbyists are providing biased information, biased polling, and money in exchange for support.
The cap on the number of representatives is ridiculous, especially in light of the technology available to our federal government. Representatives could stay in their districts, where the people they are supposed to represent would have greater access to them. They don't NEED to be in DC, where lobbyists and PACs have greater access to them.
No folks, the answer is to get rid of the lobbyist and laundered money. We can start by burning down K street and replace it with independent watch dogs that report the activates of our congressmen on local Radio in the districts they represent.
Virtually every government takes measures to help the economy, the difference being their approaches and the degree to which they intercede in the economy. The thing about capitalism is that in the long-run capitalism is about an economy of scale. Capitalism favors large corporations. As companies get bigger, they swallow their competition by forcing the competition out, or by merging with the competition. Capitalism requires business to grow, and the logical end-result of growth is monopoly. However, that's not a healthy economy. So capitalist countries have to impose restrictions on businesses; we say that the government is restricting unfair business practices (unfair business practices like monopolies, insider trading, cornering the commodities market, any practice that excludes people from participation and competition). With a decentralized federal government, where power to impose or lift restrictions were left to the state, the states would each design their laws to fit a particular agenda. I believe that money would end up controlling the state governments, widening the divide even further between the haves and the have-nots, further eroding the middle class, and creating a much less stable economy overall. The problem with less stable economies is they are less attractive for investment in the long run. Risk is a short-term playing field.
That has always been my stand. I have seen way to much corruption at the state level, as well as partisan agendas where many states seem to think their way is the only way. The nightmare of 50 state legislatures pushing their demands, many opposing each other is sorta what we have now in DC, gridlock !
So you either don't like having the people in each state pick their own Senators or you don't like the fact that the 17th Amendment made it harder to change Amendments requiring a large majority of Americans to approve.
Actually, I pointed out why there is a problem with the 17th.
Before, senators were appointed/recalled by the state representatives which was far more balanced than having them voted in by popular election. We already had popular elections for the representatives for each district they represented by those within the district. So, the people had the ability to affect the process from that approach. This held local representatives accountable to the people and senators accountable to the representatives who could vote an immediate recall of them if they failed to serve the states interest.
By making it popular election, it reduces the power of the districts. Locales could have a much stronger effect on congress. These days, there is no accountability, no immediate responsibility to the people in the state. This is why senators do what they want, when they want and because they are elected via popular elections, their bids for power are motivated to pleasing key political position in the state at the disregard of the districts.
It kills the power of the state, of the locales. The american people are not some large group of singular position and opinion. A system that operates under such pretense only serves the majority opinion which follows a line of pure democracy, a detrimental system of corruption and self interest. Layers of checks and balances are required for a government to stay honest and the 17th circumvented this process.
As for it being harder, that was the point. Changing our government should not be a process of quick and efficient means. Our entire system is built on the concept of a bureaucracy, to be inefficient, to require extreme debate and process for something to finally be approved. It was believe that if something could make it through such a detailed and restrictive process, that chances are it would reduce the likelihood of infringement on the minority opinion.
An efficient government is a fast track to tyranny. You may not think so now, you may think that because those who are in power share your desires, that such actions of disregard to individual liberty is acceptable, but you will change your position when that majority ends up being reversed.
It is a shame you do not understand this and it is your willingness to promote these infringements on liberty that will result in you enslaving yourself.
Actually, I pointed out why there is a problem with the 17th.
Before, senators were appointed/recalled by the state representatives which was far more balanced than having them voted in by popular election. We already had popular elections for the representatives for each district they represented by those within the district. So, the people had the ability to affect the process from that approach. This held local representatives accountable to the people and senators accountable to the representatives who could vote an immediate recall of them if they failed to serve the states interest.
By making it popular election, it reduces the power of the districts. Locales could have a much stronger effect on congress. These days, there is no accountability, no immediate responsibility to the people in the state. This is why senators do what they want, when they want and because they are elected via popular elections, their bids for power are motivated to pleasing key political position in the state at the disregard of the districts.
It kills the power of the state, of the locales. The american people are not some large group of singular position and opinion. A system that operates under such pretense only serves the majority opinion which follows a line of pure democracy, a detrimental system of corruption and self interest. Layers of checks and balances are required for a government to stay honest and the 17th circumvented this process.
As for it being harder, that was the point. Changing our government should not be a process of quick and efficient means. Our entire system is built on the concept of a bureaucracy, to be inefficient, to require extreme debate and process for something to finally be approved. It was believe that if something could make it through such a detailed and restrictive process, that chances are it would reduce the likelihood of infringement on the minority opinion.
An efficient government is a fast track to tyranny. You may not think so now, you may think that because those who are in power share your desires, that such actions of disregard to individual liberty is acceptable, but you will change your position when that majority ends up being reversed.
It is a shame you do not understand this and it is your willingness to promote these infringements on liberty that will result in you enslaving yourself.
So basically you don't like people voting directly for their Senators and think this has somehow destroyed our government. Not buying it.
Actually, I pointed out why there is a problem with the 17th.
Before, senators were appointed/recalled by the state representatives which was far more balanced than having them voted in by popular election. We already had popular elections for the representatives for each district they represented by those within the district. So, the people had the ability to affect the process from that approach. This held local representatives accountable to the people and senators accountable to the representatives who could vote an immediate recall of them if they failed to serve the states interest.
By making it popular election, it reduces the power of the districts. Locales could have a much stronger effect on congress. These days, there is no accountability, no immediate responsibility to the people in the state. This is why senators do what they want, when they want and because they are elected via popular elections, their bids for power are motivated to pleasing key political position in the state at the disregard of the districts.
It kills the power of the state, of the locales. The american people are not some large group of singular position and opinion. A system that operates under such pretense only serves the majority opinion which follows a line of pure democracy, a detrimental system of corruption and self interest. Layers of checks and balances are required for a government to stay honest and the 17th circumvented this process.
As for it being harder, that was the point. Changing our government should not be a process of quick and efficient means. Our entire system is built on the concept of a bureaucracy, to be inefficient, to require extreme debate and process for something to finally be approved. It was believe that if something could make it through such a detailed and restrictive process, that chances are it would reduce the likelihood of infringement on the minority opinion.
An efficient government is a fast track to tyranny. You may not think so now, you may think that because those who are in power share your desires, that such actions of disregard to individual liberty is acceptable, but you will change your position when that majority ends up being reversed.
It is a shame you do not understand this and it is your willingness to promote these infringements on liberty that will result in you enslaving yourself.
Just as a matter of clarification, senators were elected by the state legislatures. I'm sure you know this and were thinking that the state legislatures are made up of the people's representatives, but some people may have found it confusing, since we call those elected to Congress by district US Representatives.
Virtually every government takes measures to help the economy, the difference being their approaches and the degree to which they intercede in the economy. The thing about capitalism is that in the long-run capitalism is about an economy of scale. Capitalism favors large corporations. As companies get bigger, they swallow their competition by forcing the competition out, or by merging with the competition. Capitalism requires business to grow, and the logical end-result of growth is monopoly.
An we have laws against monopolies and unfair business practices. We do live in a capitalist system, but we have laws and regulations which form the framework from which businesses must operate within. We do not live in a anarchist economic state.
As to big companies forcing out little ones, you can thank a government which is over-regulating businesses, for helping to provide just that type of outcome. Sometimes government imposes so many regulatory costs and burden on companies, that only the deep pocketed multi-national conglomerates can withstand and rise above the burdens. As little mom and pop competitors are driven out of business, the big corporations swallow up more consumers.
An we have laws against monopolies and unfair business practices. We do live in a capitalist system, but we have laws and regulations which form the framework from which businesses must operate within. We do not live in a anarchist economic state.
As to big companies forcing out little ones, you can thank a government which is over-regulating businesses, for helping to provide just that type of outcome. Sometimes government imposes so many regulatory costs and burden on companies, that only the deep pocketed multi-national conglomerates can withstand and rise above the burdens. As little mom and pop competitors are driven out of business, the big corporations swallow up more consumers.
The POINT of my post was that decentralizing and stripping the federal government of its regulatory powers in terms of the economy is that each individual state must then take up such regulatory powers. And individual states are just as prone to being corrupted by corporate dollars, perhaps even more prone as they compete with other states for those corporate dollars, as the federal government. That situation is harmful to the national economy because it causes instability, which exacerbates income divides and discourages investment.
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.
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.
