volfanhill
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2011
- Messages
- 35,088
- Likes
- 61,419
In all seriousness, there are several intriguing ideas here in the institutional and legislative space. One major problem is the people divide, and I'm not certain how to repair it. I believe much of it is driven by less direct interaction in this increasing digital age.
Yes, our media and politicians are drivers, but I think people not being with other people is the major issue. It's why I'm intrigued by the idea of a domestic service corp providing services like caring for our elderly and children. Providing such services would help a lot of families financially and help with earlier home ownership and having children. I would love to see more thinking around this issue.
I'm cool with state run programs. If effective, I think states could collaborate and have folks work across.Sure, if individual states want to set up such a program I’m all for it. The federal government has no business being involved.
When you ask yourself “should the federal government do xyz” and it’s not shrink the answer is always no.
I’ve seen this position put forward a good bit. My understanding is there was a clamoring for change to popular election due to some pretty valid reasons. Namely corruption in the state legislatures’ election process, deadlocks in legislatures preventing the seating of senators, and an eventual feeling of disconnect of the people with how their senators were representing them. I agree with the theory of how the original setup was supposed to work, but it evidently didn’t work as intended seeing as it was changed through the proper amendment process.Because Senators should be the voices of the state legislatures under a federal system, not yet another popular vote contest. The country is the United STATES, a compact between 50 sovereign states. The states are the actual components that make up the nation, not merely administrative districts of the federal government. It is the same principle that girds the electoral college
It would be a club for a president with an agenda. If he could strike out things he didn't like, what's the point of having congress submit anything. the president might just as well write it and sign it himself. It's a horrible idea that short circuits the protection of the division of powers.Would like to hear why yall think this is a good or bad idea. I know 1 thing thats objectively true: trillion dollar, 3000 page omnibus spending bills and "you have to pass it to read it, because the finished product was just given to legislators 24hrs before the vote" is complete 100% BS and people should have been publicly caned or had old-school duels for ever trying this BS right at the deadline the very 1st time it happened. The Dems want to make this the new norm every time they have a majority. Reagan Republican traitors vote right along with them, too.
I am not saying "line item veto" is definitely a good idea, thats why I asked for opinions. I think we should all be able to agree that needless "pork" smuggled into these bills...that have nothing whatsoever to do with the name, nor intent of the bill...are complete garbage. They are a big part of why we are trillions in debt. If the L.I.V. process is not the best way to get rid of this bullcrap, then what is? There are hundreds of billions of dollars in US taxpayers money wasted on absolute bullcrap in each of the last 2 spending bills passed by Congress. How do we stop it? A simple Google search regarding what kind of ridiculous nonsense was funded in Bidens "Inflation Reduction Act" will and should absolutely piss you off. Something has got to change.
I would like for congress to remain in session until they pass a budget. If it takes all year, so be it. No vacations. No going home to their districts. Nada. do their damned jobs.What we need is a rule or amendment that does away with omnibus spending bills. I very program or department needs to be voted on separately
I’ve seen this position put forward a good bit. My understanding is there was a clamoring for change to popular election due to some pretty valid reasons. Namely corruption in the state legislatures’ election process, deadlocks in legislatures preventing the seating of senators, and an eventual feeling of disconnect of the people with how their senators were representing them. I agree with the theory of how the original setup was supposed to work, but it evidently didn’t work as intended seeing as it was changed through the proper amendment process.
The purpose of the original intent of electing senators is well known. Evidently it wasn't working since there was an attempt to reform it for almost 100 years prior. How would you solve the problems I mentioned that caused the nation to amend the constitution to electing by popular vote? Amending the constitution isn't easy. The senators elected by the state legislatures voted to send the amendment to the states for ratification. They gave up the power voluntarily.The Senate being selected by state legislatures was supposed to counter the populism movements in the house. Since the senate was elected by individual state legislatures and had longer terms they were supposed to be insulated from national special interests. We should go back to that system.
Congress would still have the chance to override the presidential veto with line item voting. I don't see it being any different than it is now.It would be a club for a president with an agenda. If he could strike out things he didn't like, what's the point of having congress submit anything. the president might just as well write it and sign it himself. It's a horrible idea that short circuits the protection of the division of powers.
I wouldn't make it part of the GPA or any type of social score nonsense. but to your point one option we have talked about in the past was mandatory time in a service industry. like a coop in high school, you have to go be a cashier or waiter. see how people treat others "below" them, see what its like on the other side of that power structure. hopefully teach people some humility and help them see workers as people.I have a partial thought to OP's question.
One issue in America is people getting wealth, power, or success by doing horrible things or by being horrible people. They then make live miserable for everyone around them. Think Potter from It's a Wonderful Life as an example. Now not all rich people are bad, I have met many that are good and frankly more that are good than bad.
I am talking about bad people and our laws often defend or aid them.
Not sure how you get around all of this but one thought is to have 20% of GPA determined by character and to also make it an aspect in the hiring process. Good character is often a trait that helps companies and nations prosper. Perhaps also putting every child threw some form of military training and service like Switzerland or Israel would help.
This is one step to help things among many.
I think that is a real good point about interactions. I think where social media fails and causes division is because its not real.In all seriousness, there are several intriguing ideas here in the institutional and legislative space. One major problem is the people divide, and I'm not certain how to repair it. I believe much of it is driven by less direct interaction in this increasing digital age.
Yes, our media and politicians are drivers, but I think people not being with other people is the major issue. It's why I'm intrigued by the idea of a domestic service corp providing services like caring for our elderly and children. Providing such services would help a lot of families financially and help with earlier home ownership and having children. I would love to see more thinking around this issue.