So how screwed are we?

[McAvoy]

Although I have to admit, I don't think I am as cynical as this fellow. After all we made them decide not to bomb Syria.

In that case he's simply got a word wrong. Replace "changed" with "improved", and it would be spot on.

Then put an asterisk next to it saying improved for the greater good not the politicians personal good.

[sunnyside]

It seems the chief flaw of the system is that it was built with the presumption that the politicians would operate in good faith.

Yup.

The biggest mistake the founding fathers made was they assumed that politicians would be servants of the people, working towards the common good and if they weren't they'd be thrown out. Ah, to live in a simpler time.

What? No, they assumed politicians would be like, well, every other person in political power on the planet or in most recorded history to that point, meaning they'd ignore the people for their own betterment and quite probably pull a Ceaser and take the whole thing over if they had the opportunity.

Hence having a House, Senate, Supreme Court, and Presidency twisted together and hamstrung by a constitution, checks and balances, and voters.

Specifically ARMED voters.

I think things have generally gone better than they would have anticipated. They might have seen government shutdowns coming, but they might not have expected the Federal Government to balloon nearly as much as it has such that a shutdown really has an impact on GDP and peoples lives. Also the whole fiat currency and debt ceiling issues are rather new.

However they do have a number of quotes along the lines of "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" (attributed to Ben Franklin) So maybe they had some of these concerns. Of course they set things up so you had to own land to vote, so maybe they figured that would avoid the whole "vote for a living" thing.

I have, repeatedly. All I get are form letters in response thanking me for my concern and assuring me that my congressman will continue to fight the good fight for me. After I asked him to stop. So yeah.

I tip my hat to you sir. While you're generally going to get form letters in response on these things, their people make a note and the politicians get a tally. I'm given to understand they are rather swayed by those once the numbers get up there (not so many people vote in primaries so they're vulnerable)

Although I have to admit, I don't think I am as cynical as this fellow. After all we made them decide not to bomb Syria.

I think people don't appreciate how much the political parties have had to shift over time and how much our country has changed.

For example, the Democratic party used to be the pro-slavery party.

[McAvoy]

Quick note: the so called Democratic party during the Civil War was conservative by nature.

However, I doubt there will be that shift as for example what is the Liberal Agenda and what is a Neo Conservative?

[Tyyr]

What? No, they assumed politicians would be like, well, every other person in political power on the planet or in most recorded history to that point, meaning they'd ignore the people for their own betterment and quite probably pull a Ceaser and take the whole thing over if they had the opportunity.

Hence having a House, Senate, Supreme Court, and Presidency twisted together and hamstrung by a constitution, checks and balances, and voters.

Specifically ARMED voters.

In the grand scheme of things to prevent a dictatorship, yes. However they never enacted anything like term limits, assuming politicians would go, serve, and then go back to private life. Career politicians who could be completely in it for themselves were still perfectly allowed.

However they do have a number of quotes along the lines of "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic" (attributed to Ben Franklin) So maybe they had some of these concerns. Of course they set things up so you had to own land to vote, so maybe they figured that would avoid the whole "vote for a living" thing.

I still don't think voting should be a universal right.

[Teaos]

Voting could be tied to taxes, for every 1k of tax you pay you get 1 vote.

People always complain rich people dont pay taxes or enough, now they have incentive to do it, it also cuts out the leeches on society.

[Tyyr]

I dunno if I'd tie it to taxes. It's not hard for someone who makes a good bit of money to pay little to nothing in taxes. Children, a mortgage on your house, some student loans, and you can be making $80k and paying nothing in taxes. In fact tieing voting to taxes would more or less ensure that unless you were making $100k or more a year you wouldn't matter AT ALL in elections. Also, shocking as it is many wealthy people wind up paying little to no taxes due to charitable giving. I don't really want to think what would happen to charitable foundations if you start making people chose between lower taxes or their votes counting. Nothing good I'd imagine.

No, my problem is people who have no idea what they're voting on voting. Too many people vote purely based off things like skin color, the little D or R next to their name, who looks like someone "they'd want to have a beer with," etc. Ask these people what the candidate stands for and you get a blank stare of incomprehension. Every election there are numerous interviews done where the interviewer will ask who someone is voting for, then ask them how they feel about their opponents platform as if it was the person's chosen candidate and the people will go along with it because they have no idea what the person they're voting for actually stands for, has said, or proposes to do. And those idiot's votes count just as much as everyone else's.

Also, the idea of voting yourself other people's money. I'm gonna be a bastard here for a minute, but if a significant portion of your income, 30% or more, comes from the government in either welfare, food stamps, social security, etc. I don't think you should be allowed to vote. Such people are too easy to influence and create entitlement programs where no rational discussion of them can take place. Social Security is a prime example. No discussion on it will be tolerated, aside from increasing payouts, by those who are on it and they represent a voting block to big to ignore. So we're stuck with ever ballooning entitlements which we can't reform. By removing the ability of these people to vote you allow discussion of these programs to take place and reforms to happen. It also creates an incentive to get off of those programs or to never wind up on them in the first place.

I know the counter argument, well what if those not on the programs chose to end them? Well two things, first if you end those programs immediately all those people who were on them are now off them and can vote again. I wouldn't expect the guy who cancels Social Security to survive the next election. I'm not sure he'd survive to see the next election honestly. Second... well I don't know. Yeah, I don't know how you could safe guard such a system to ensure that important programs (and I actually do think that most government support programs ARE important to have) don't get defunded into nothingness. I'd say basic human decency but this is politics. I don't have a good answer for that.

[Teaos]

You could tie them in constitutionally to the point they cant be removed with out a minor revolution. We guarantee social security and food stamps ect, to a point where none of our citizens starve, BUT anyone on those programmes doesn't get to vote.

I've also heard people suggest a single 10 question test on your voting slip. 10 questions out of a ranfom pool of like 30-50, fill in a little box for the right answer on mutlichoice sheet (So it can be rapidly read by computers on election day) You need to get 7 out of 10 for your vote to count.

Basic questions that everyone getting a say in the goverment should really know, how many supreme court judges are there? How many states? Is the earth more than 6000 years old?

[Tyyr]

I'm generally loathe to start fucking with the Constitution but that would be an effective way to ensure the programs remain in place and funded to some degree. The real problem comes if you need to change the way the program is handled or managed. If it's in the constitution it takes a full on amendment to change it. Maybe some broader scope amendment, "Citizens of the United States are entitled to basic health and welfare provisions and/or assitence." So that you can't eliminate programs entirely. Maybe even tack on, "Any changes to more than 25% of funding levels shall not be enacted until after 5 years from the date of signing into law. No program may be eliminated until after 9 years from the date of signing. Funding may be reduced from the previous years level, adjusted for inflation, by no more than 10% per year." Make it so that radical changes in funding can't take place on a yearly basis, any major change will be delayed until a new administration, and any elimination of a program can't take place until you are certain EVERYONE in the government will have gone up for at least one re-election cycle.

At that point you've got time and the Supreme Court on your side to help curb radical changes but changes can still take place.

[Foxfyre]

I have been particularly screwed over because of this shutdown. My Post 9/11 GI Bill funding that pays for my college and my housing and general funding for food and school suppiles is in limbo. Thankfully my college is being understanding. Now we are nearly a default (will be I beleive the forth or fifth time the US defaulted with the last being in 1934). God I hate my own government right now.......to think I gave them 11 years of Naval Service.....

[Teaos]

Umm I'm prety sure the US has never defaulted. Its been in shut down a few times, but never ever defaulted.

[sunnyside]

Basic questions that everyone getting a say in the goverment should really know, how many supreme court judges are there? How many states? Is the earth more than 6000 years old?

So you don't think you should be able to vote in Texas?

Umm I'm prety sure the US has never defaulted. Its been in shut down a few times, but never ever defaulted.

I think that depends on how you define "defaulted". I think it's been a long time since we simply wouldn't pay a debt, actually do don't know that our government could legally choose not to pay the interest if it was in any way able to (and it will be due to taxes continually coming in every payday automatically). But there are the other sorts of "not paying your bills".

Though I'd be curious if it really was cases of non-debt payment Foxfyre. Though 1934...would that have been something to do with going off of the gold standard domestically?

[McAvoy]

You could tie them in constitutionally to the point they cant be removed with out a minor revolution. We guarantee social security and food stamps ect, to a point where none of our citizens starve, BUT anyone on those programmes doesn't get to vote.

I've also heard people suggest a single 10 question test on your voting slip. 10 questions out of a ranfom pool of like 30-50, fill in a little box for the right answer on mutlichoice sheet (So it can be rapidly read by computers on election day) You need to get 7 out of 10 for your vote to count.

Basic questions that everyone getting a say in the goverment should really know, how many supreme court judges are there? How many states? Is the earth more than 6000 years old?

Oh... don't get me started with the whole Creationism vs. Evolution or Young Earth or Old Earth bullshit that still creeps into politics.

I don't understand how people in this day and age in the US clings like they do to Creationism as being fact and actually be science.

[McAvoy]

I have been particularly screwed over because of this shutdown. My Post 9/11 GI Bill funding that pays for my college and my housing and general funding for food and school suppiles is in limbo. Thankfully my college is being understanding. Now we are nearly a default (will be I beleive the forth or fifth time the US defaulted with the last being in 1934). God I hate my own government right now.......to think I gave them 11 years of Naval Service.....

I was told the Post 9-11 GI Bill wouldn't be affected.

In two weeks I better be paid.

[Teaos]

Are people going to be back paid for this? I've heard both yes and no.

[McAvoy]

In terms of the GI Bill, you will be back paid no matter what. What is bullshit is how will you expect to pay for anything while you wait?

People like me go full time to school because the GI Bill pays quite a bit so we do not need a job and can focus on school. So when bullshit like this happens it screws us.