Video What the "smart" person thinks of the average american.

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Any bill that allocates any money for anything need 75% of the vote from each house, & the prez's authorization as well. If the prez vetos it can be overriden by 80% of the vote of both houses.

This will ensure that the fed gov't will only be able to spend $$ on very significant issues.

Or nothing at all..
 

Amstel

The Hoarse Whisperer
Jul 12, 2009
28,172
12,439
473
you're a whore, but in a good way. Kindof.
Wouldn't be such a problem if the country wasn't so divided.
a divided country will never change. It's simple if you think about it. obama slammed the healthcare bill through with hardly more than 50% of the vote. The reason - as a politician pushing an adgenda - you should only shoot for 50% +1 is because you don't need to satisfy (read: 'make concession to') anyone else to get done what you want.

This is voting economics. Just like you wouldn't give a dime more for a car than you need to, someone in the gov't that wants to maximize spending on, let's just say healthcare, only needs approval from 50% +1 vote. If they get anymore approval than that, they are making concession that they don't need to make.

If you have 100 people, each with a $1.00, and you decide as a group that you're all going to 'fairly' redistribute the $ between the 100 of you that you all vote who needs it, you need to buy 51 votes with that $100 dollars. buying any more means you're diluting the benefits.

The two party system thrives on division.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
a divided country will never change. It's simple if you think about it. obama slammed the healthcare bill through with hardly more than 50% of the vote. The reason - as a politician pushing an adgenda - you should only shoot for 50% +1 is because you don't need to satisfy (read: 'make concession to') anyone else to get done what you want.

This is voting economics. Just like you wouldn't give a dime more for a car than you need to, someone in the gov't that wants to maximize spending on, let's just say healthcare, only needs approval from 50% +1 vote. If they get anymore approval than that, they are making concession that they don't need to make.

If you have 100 people, each with a $1.00, and you decide as a group that you're all going to 'fairly' redistribute the $ between the 100 of you that you all vote who needs it, you need to buy 51 votes with that $100 dollars. buying any more means you're diluting the benefits.

The two party system thrives on division.

It was only 50% because of the division that already existed, plus the extra division being created by the GOP for their own personal agenda.
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
71,757
23,481
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
Any bill that allocates any money for anything need 75% of the vote from each house, & the prez's authorization as well. If the prez vetos it can be overriden by 80% of the vote of both houses.

This will ensure that the fed gov't will only be able to spend $$ on very significant issues.

I like it.

I would also add that every bill must be explicitly paid for, ie no more 'unfunded mandates'.
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
71,757
23,481
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
I don't. A country that spends nothing is a country that ceases to exit.

You do realize that we can't keep borrowing and spending forever right? Additionally, just because the federal government couldn't spend, doesn't mean the states cant.

The federal government was NEVER supposed to be this big anyway.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
I'd rather the US just balcanize. Only go with a state government. Get rid of federal and county governments. Have city/town councils instead of county governments.

In fact, no I would not like that to happen, but I think it would probably be the only way this country can live without trying to destroy itself.
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
71,757
23,481
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
I'd rather the US just balcanize. Only go with a state government. Get rid of federal and county governments. Have city/town councils instead of county governments.

In fact, no I would not like that to happen, but I think it would probably be the only way this country can live without trying to destroy itself.

That's how it was supposed to be, until someone found a loophole in the Constitution. :(
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Really? There's nothing in the constitution about a federal government?



Too many people in this country are polar opposites. Some want the country to progress in Direction "A", and the others the country to progress in direction "B". Both are trying hard as they can to push their will on the other. There is no way you can give these people what they want (and in turn end the bickering) without balcanizing the US.
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
71,757
23,481
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
Really? There's nothing in the constitution about a federal government?



Too many people in this country are polar opposites. Some want the country to progress in Direction "A", and the others the country to progress in direction "B". Both are trying hard as they can to push their will on the other. There is no way you can give these people what they want (and in turn end the bickering) without balcanizing the US.

No, there IS supposed to be a federal government, but VERY small. Anything not EXPLICITLY defined in the Constitution was to be left up to the States, which is just about everything. However, the "problem" is that the federal government is in charge of interstate commerce. This loophole has allowed for all sorts of crazy agencies like the DOE, DEA, FCC, FDA, ATF, and the huge and complex federal government that we have today.
 

Casper

Bobbert Cheapstein
Oct 6, 2009
8,299
365
41
I'd rather the US just balcanize. Only go with a state government. Get rid of federal and county governments. Have city/town councils instead of county governments.

In fact, no I would not like that to happen, but I think it would probably be the only way this country can live without trying to destroy itself.

We essentially had this for nine years (or six depending on how you count it) and it ended miserably.
 

Casper

Bobbert Cheapstein
Oct 6, 2009
8,299
365
41
Not that that necessarily applies to today though. Who knows...

The fundamental problem is that when you have so many semi-autonomous parts, it takes time for each part to act. That's why it took 3-4 years to ratify the Articles of Confederation across the existing states. I can't even imagine how long it would take to get shit done with 4 times as many states now. If there's one thing dictatorships can do it's GET STUFF DONE.
 
The fundamental problem is that when you have so many semi-autonomous parts, it takes time for each part to act. That's why it took 3-4 years to ratify the Articles of Confederation across the existing states. I can't even imagine how long it would take to get shit done with 4 times as many states now. If there's one thing dictatorships can do it's GET STUFF DONE.
Yeah, but we don't need STUFF DONE.

We need stuff NOT done for a change.
 

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,357
1,734
923
stuff done for the US would be a welcome change and it's what our tax dollars should be going to. fuck propping up every govt across the globe at the expense of our own people. that shit's not right.