• Rasmussen Report: 64% of Americans Prefer a Government With Fewer Services and Lower Taxes
    100 replies, posted
"Herpa derpa diddley-doo putting words in people's mouths is the thing to do"
64% of Americans are not economists or political theorists. It doesn't matter what the majority wants. Majority does not rule in America.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36040874]64% of Americans are not economists or political theorists. It doesn't matter what the majority wants. Majority does not rule in America.[/QUOTE] Actually, the majority ruling in America is basically the point of America, assuming you're saying it shouldn't. You know, "We the people?" If you're really saying that while the majority SHOULD rule, it doesn't, due to the power of corporations and the government, I take that back.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36040874]64% of Americans are not economists or political theorists. It doesn't matter what the majority wants. Majority does not rule in America.[/QUOTE] I've always hated the "Majority rules" mentality. If the majority isn't educated on the subject then does that make the educated minority less qualified to make informed decisions? Of course that's implying the leftover 36% are educated, but still.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36038918]Generally whenever I hear the phrase "Laissez Faire" I keep thinking it's French for "We don't know what to do".[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;-JhswPU1XMI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JhswPU1XMI[/video]
[QUOTE=Strongbad;36040894]Actually, the majority ruling in America is basically the point of America, assuming you're saying it shouldn't. You know, "We the people?" If you're really saying that while the majority SHOULD rule, it doesn't, due to the power of corporations and the government, I take that back.[/QUOTE] No it isn't. We have representative democracy. We have extreme protections for the political minority. Direct democracy in this nation invariably ends in failure. "We the People" have representation. We the People do not decide anything for anyone else. This nation was founded as a political majority abused a political minority, and as such the entire basis of our governance is designed specifically to protect the political minority from the majority. That is why we have this thing called the Bill of Rights. [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;36040908]I've always hated the "Majority rules" mentality. If the majority isn't educated on the subject then does that make the educated minority less qualified to make informed decisions? Of course that's implying the leftover 36% are educated, but still.[/QUOTE] Few people are qualified to make those decisions. Hence why we elect representatives from that small subset, rather than deciding things directly.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;36040894]Actually, the majority ruling in America is basically the point of America, assuming you're saying it shouldn't. You know, "We the people?" If you're really saying that while the majority SHOULD rule, it doesn't, due to the power of corporations and the government, I take that back.[/QUOTE] We live in a republic, which (grossly) keeps checks on the power of all groups. There are power checks on us just like on some random branch. The only people who rule is the republic's state.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36040992]Few people are qualified to make those decisions. Hence why we elect representatives from that small subset, rather than deciding things directly.[/QUOTE] Ideally, we do. But look at California gun laws, they're so abysmal. They banned a barrel shroud without knowing what it is. (it protects your hand from a hot barrel) It would definitely work if the people we elected were actually informed however
See, that's supposed to be our job in the process, though. And we're failing miserably at it. Doesn't bode well for majority rule when we can't even pick a good representative.
[QUOTE=Strongbad;36040894]Actually, the majority ruling in America is basically the point of America, assuming you're saying it shouldn't. You know, "We the people?" If you're really saying that while the majority SHOULD rule, it doesn't, due to the power of corporations and the government, I take that back.[/QUOTE] No, it really isn't. Your mindset is what fucked America. (Not that I blame you. Few people are ever taught the way the system was supposed to operate) Mob rule was one of the greatest fears of the folks laying the groundwork for the country. They knew they could mitigate the damage through education, but that the people would still be fickle and dangerous. So two aspects were introduced into our congressional system. The House and the Senate. The house operates more or less like it was intended. The people elect someone to represent their little subgroup of people and that guy goes off to try to fight for them at the federal level. There are some issues with this system, buuuuuut nothing that couldn't be fixed with a bit more political education in our schools. Then we have the senate, which is where things have gone horribly awry. Senators don't represent people, or at least they aren't supposed to. They are in the federal government to represent the interests of the STATE GOVERNMENTS. While representatives represent the people, senators represent a state. Senators are supposed to be elected by state governments, not a direct election. This is why senators are supposedly elite, they are intended to be politicians elected by politicians. To a degree, the honor still exists, as senators are given more regard than representatives, but the reasons behind this are no longer present. The idea behind this was that individually, both the state governments and the people themselves were incredibly flawed. The people were fickle and prone to emotion, while the states might be more economically centered and too conservative. Having bills require the approval of both types of representation meant that laws were rarely passed, but the ones that DID get by were of pretty decent quality and agreed upon by pragmatic conservative senators and the more emotional representatives. Likewise, the president isn't a representative of the people. He is a representative of the union. His position is supposed to be elected by a collection of state governments, because he represents all of the states together, not the people of the United States directly. Like senators, his position is supposed to be elected by politicians, because they are significantly more informed about political matters and are simply better suited to making the choice. So no. The current majority rule design is a FAILURE of our government to maintain one of the most important check and balance systems in our entire government. We had a system that was brilliant. Then we fucked it up.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36041292]See, that's supposed to be our job in the process, though. And we're failing miserably at it. Doesn't bode well for majority rule when we can't even pick a good representative.[/QUOTE] Yeah, which is why I think it still boils down to the people I think it'd be a good system if everybody actually had a vested interest in it. Considering, y'know, these people write laws. If the majority of people aren't happy with laws being proposed in Congress, it's not Congress' fault.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36041318]No, it really isn't. Your mindset is what fucked America. (Not that I blame you. Few people are ever taught the way the system was supposed to operate) Mob rule was one of the greatest fears of the folks laying the groundwork for the country. They knew they could mitigate the damage through education, but that the people would still be fickle and dangerous. So two aspects were introduced into our congressional system. The House and the Senate. The house operates more or less like it was intended. The people elect someone to represent their little subgroup of people and that guy goes off to try to fight for them at the federal level. There are some issues with this system, buuuuuut nothing that couldn't be fixed with a bit more political education in our schools. Then we have the senate, which is where things have gone horribly awry. Senators don't represent people, or at least they aren't supposed to. They are in the federal government to represent the interests of the STATE GOVERNMENTS. While representatives represent the people, senators represent a state. Senators are supposed to be elected by state governments, not a direct election. This is why senators are supposedly elite, they are intended to be politicians elected by politicians. To a degree, the honor still exists, as senators are given more regard than representatives, but the reasons behind this are no longer present. The idea behind this was that individually, both the state governments and the people themselves were incredibly flawed. The people were fickle and prone to emotion, while the states might be more economically centered and too conservative. Having bills require the approval of both types of representation meant that laws were rarely passed, but the ones that DID get by were of pretty decent quality and agreed upon by pragmatic conservative senators and the more emotional representatives. Likewise, the president isn't a representative of the people. He is a representative of the union. His position is supposed to be elected by a collection of state governments, because he represents all of the states together, not the people of the United States directly. Like senators, his position is supposed to be elected by politicians, because they are significantly more informed about political matters and are simply better suited to making the choice. So no. The current majority rule design is a FAILURE of our government to maintain one of the most important check and balance systems in our entire government. We had a system that was brilliant. Then we fucked it up.[/QUOTE] Well, that's not really accurate. The Senate was initially supposed to be an elected branch by the people, but it was given to the states as a way to get the states' cooperation and get Constitution ratified. The reason we have a House and a Senate is because there were fears that the more populous states would be able to strong-arm the entire union. Therefore, as a compromise, the framers also included a senate which has equal representation for every state regardless of their respective sizes. It had less to do with who elected the Senate than it had to do with the fact that senatorial representation was equal, and it wouldn't be possible for one state to completely overrule the rest. A lot of compromises were made to get the Constitution ratified. A lot of amendments and provisions were cut from the initial Bill of Rights, and were then later enacted. Direct election of the senate was among them. Aside from that, yeah, we have representation for a reason.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36041424]Well, that's not really accurate. The Senate was initially supposed to be an elected branch by the people, but it was given to the states as a way to get the states' cooperation and get Constitution ratified. The reason we have a House and a Senate is because there were fears that the more populous states would be able to strong-arm the entire union. Therefore, as a compromise, the framers also included a senate which has equal representation for every state regardless of their respective sizes. It had less to do with who elected the Senate than it had to do with the fact that senatorial representation was equal, and it wouldn't be possible for one state to completely overrule the rest. A lot of compromises were made to get the Constitution ratified. A lot of amendments and provisions were cut from the initial Bill of Rights, and were then later enacted. Direct election of the senate was among them. Aside from that, yeah, we have representation for a reason.[/QUOTE] We also first elected our President by a popular vote as well. The problem was that the runner-up (the person most opposed to the now president-elect) was then declared vice-president. The electoral college is their completely convoluted solution and isn't politicians electing a president. It's "majority rule" on a broken state by state basis.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;36034395]I think a lot of it is that Americans don't trust their government. When you pay higher taxes for those reasons you actually have to trust that your government is going to put it to good use.[/QUOTE] Wasn't distrust of the government the starting point of the AWoI?
[QUOTE=Hidole555;36041493]We also first elected our President by a popular vote as well. The problem was that the runner-up (the person most opposed to the now president-elect) was then declared vice-president. The electoral college is their completely convoluted solution and isn't politicians electing a president. It's "majority rule" on a broken state by state basis.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand what's happening. Majority rules on representatives only. Nothing else. It isn't a contradiction to say that electing representatives is some form of majority-rule when that's exactly what we have been saying.
[QUOTE=Sie-Sveinhund;36041496]Wasn't distrust of the government the starting point of the AWoI?[/QUOTE] Never saw the Revolutionary War acronymed like that before. But no, the reasons for the Revolution was not because of distrust but because the government was already mistreating colonists. The colonists we're not given a say in Parliament despite viewing themselves as British citizens as they had to pay taxes to Britain. This is also one of the reasons they were outraged at being taxed in the first place. "No taxation without representation." Then there was also the large amount of British troops being stationed and quartered in peoples' homes, even though there was no crisis or war going on. [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36041516]I don't think you understand what's happening. Majority rules on representatives only. Nothing else. It isn't a contradiction to say that electing representatives is some form of majority-rule when that's exactly what we have been saying.[/QUOTE] The amount of representatives, also known as electors, given to the states is off balance though. It makes voters in some states literally worth more than voters in others. If they're all electing the same President, a voter in Utah should equal a voter in California. If the votes are going to be tallied up anyway (to determine which candidate wins the electors) you're better off going with the majority of votes on a national scale anyway.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36041424]Well, that's not really accurate. The Senate was initially supposed to be an elected branch by the people, but it was given to the states as a way to get the states' cooperation and get Constitution ratified. The reason we have a House and a Senate is because there were fears that the more populous states would be able to strong-arm the entire union. Therefore, as a compromise, the framers also included a senate which has equal representation for every state regardless of their respective sizes. It had less to do with who elected the Senate than it had to do with the fact that senatorial representation was equal, and it wouldn't be possible for one state to completely overrule the rest. A lot of compromises were made to get the Constitution ratified. A lot of amendments and provisions were cut from the initial Bill of Rights, and were then later enacted. Direct election of the senate was among them. Aside from that, yeah, we have representation for a reason.[/QUOTE] That is what you are taught, it isn't accurate. At least not entirely. That only explains equal representation in the senate, it is a small compromise in the design. The senate was going to exist either way as a means to serve as a state level representation system. Our schools like to pretend that it is the only reason that the Senate exists, but that isn't even remotely true.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36041714]That is what you are taught, it isn't accurate. At least not entirely. That only explains equal representation in the senate, it is a small compromise in the design. The senate was going to exist either way as a means to serve as a state level representation system. Our schools like to pretend that it is the only reason that the Senate exists, but that isn't even remotely true.[/QUOTE] Then why was the 17th Amendment originally content cut from the Constitution to appease antifederalists? [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] You would think if it were never then plan then there wouldn't have been a compromise.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36041728]Then why was the 17th Amendment originally content cut from the Constitution to appease antifederalists? [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] You would think if it were never then plan then there wouldn't have been a compromise.[/QUOTE] Uhh, it wasn't. It didn't even come close to making it into the constitution originally. The people who wanted popular elections in the senate were very few. It wasn't until decades upon decades later that congress got fed up with the slow trickle of laws that it ever wound up getting passed. It was basically a power grab that successfully cut out the most informed party from the election process: state governments.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36041810]Uhh, it wasn't. It didn't even come close to making it into the constitution originally. The people who wanted popular elections in the senate were very few. It wasn't until decades upon decades later that congress got fed up with the slow trickle of laws that it ever wound up getting passed. It was basically a power grab that successfully cut out the most informed party from the election process: state governments.[/QUOTE] Yes it was a conspiracy you're dead-on. [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] And anti-federalists were the most powerful post-Articles political group. That too. Not as though the Constitution was written by federalists or anything.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36041880]Yes it was a conspiracy you're dead-on.[/QUOTE] It wasn't a conspiracy. I doubt many even actively realized what they were doing. They wanted to pass laws, but nobody would ever agree, so they decided it would make more sense to have everyone be directly elected. The people thought that is what they wanted, and so did much of congress. Unfortunately what they saw as a flaw, was intended to be a feature. It isn't some grand conspiracy at all, it was more a mistake than anything.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36041908]It wasn't a conspiracy. I doubt many even actively realized what they were doing. They wanted to pass laws, but nobody would ever agree, so they decided it would make more sense to have everyone be directly elected. The people thought that is what they wanted, and so did much of congress. Unfortunately what they saw as a flaw, was intended to be a feature. It isn't some grand conspiracy at all, it was more a mistake than anything.[/QUOTE] That doesn't change the fact that the system established by the 17th Amendment was initially how the Senate worked prior to the compromises made to get the antifederalist vote for ratification.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36041928]That doesn't change the fact that the system established by the 17th Amendment was initially how the Senate worked prior to the compromises made to get the antifederalist vote for ratification.[/QUOTE] No, it really wasn't.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36042091]No, it really wasn't.[/QUOTE] Who told you this? Considering you're claiming that any educational authority on the matter is invalid, where precisely were you told these things? FYI, when you say "educators are all lying about it," you do not sound very good. As if all professors in the nation have coordinated together to hide the truth, and only you have figured it out.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36042111]Who told you this? Considering you're claiming that any educational authority on the matter is invalid, where precisely were you told these things? FYI, when you say "educators are all lying about it," you do not sound very good. As if all professors in the nation have coordinated together to hide the truth, and only you have figured it out.[/QUOTE] Uhh, if you take American history at a college level, it is, at least in theory, accurate. It was for me anyhow. As was my textbook. The compulsory education provided however, was not. Very little history education taught prior to college should be accepted at face value. Hell, go to the Hermitage, former home of Andrew Jackson, and it discusses the fight to change how the president is elected in pretty decent detail as well as mentioning the alterations to the Senate years later. That is even maintained by the government itself. I had originally dismissed the idea when I first learned about it in college, but it was the hermitage that made me rethink the idea and go look it up.
[QUOTE=GunFox;36042241]Uhh, if you take American history at a college level[/QUOTE] Yeah, done that. One man does not Founding Fathers make. [editline]21st May 2012[/editline] Also don't back-pedal. You're the one who said educators are wrong. You didn't say "highschool educators are wrong," and you know by now that I'm speaking from a collegiate level of education. Your refutation of my point was "your educators are liars." Let's not pretend that isn't absurd.
I don't get FP sometimes. How does higher taxes help the poor at all? Won't they be stuck at where they are because they'll never have enough money to pay bills, etc since most of it will be going towards taxes?
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;36043571]I don't get FP sometimes. How does higher taxes help the poor at all? Won't they be stuck at where they are because they'll never have enough money to pay bills, etc since most of it will be going towards taxes?[/QUOTE] theres these things called tax brackets maybe youve heard of them
[QUOTE=LtKyle2;36043571]I don't get FP sometimes. How does higher taxes help the poor at all? Won't they be stuck at where they are because they'll never have enough money to pay bills, etc since most of it will be going towards taxes?[/QUOTE] The poor get taxed less When FP calls for higher taxes they mean for the rich
show of hands out of curiosity: who here has actually filed their own taxes before?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.