For my money, I still think we have the best political system in the world. We just have some kinks to work out from time to time. We can solve this corruption issue.
On Nov 27, 6:54 pm, "David R. Block" <[email protected]> wrote: > So instead of 535 crooks we'll have THOUSANDS????? > What could go wrong?? > David > > "Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon > by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who expresses an idea contrary to > basic liberal dogma is preaching 'hate.' How shallow these people are."—Neal > Boortz > > > On 11/27/2011 9:29 AM, Kevin Kervick wrote:Totally with you Mike. One of our > contributors is leading that charge.http://www.thirty-thousand.org/ > "The framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights intended that the > total population of Congressional districts never exceed 50 to 60 thousand. > Currently, the average population size of the districts is nearly 700,000 > and, consequently, the principle of proportionally equitable representation > has been abandoned." > Kevin > What if we had 10,000 elected part-time congressmen (a single > representative per ~30,000 citizens)? That would seem to address > quite a few workload and expertise questions. > Not only that, it would bring many more minor parties and independents > into representation, flood out lobbyists, and increase representative > responsiveness. It would certainly also decrease the expense of > running an election, possibly leading to some middle income or working > class reps. > On Nov 26, 8:01 am, "Kevin Kervick"<[email protected]>wrote:The argument > that size does matter comes from the idea that our representative system that > depends on upward influence cannot be efficient if it is being asked to do > too much stuff. That's why I believe it would be immediately helpful to > shrink the beast. It cannot work if it is too large. > Kevin > Actually, the "issue" of Big Government is mostly a non-issue for me. > I want the government to do its job, to be efficient, not to be corrupt, > not to be owned by special interests, to spend in a ruthlessly responsible > way, > to levy taxes that are necessary and not one dime more, and to be based > on actual justice and objective evaluations of our problems. The size > of gvt is FAR less important to me than if it does these things > or does not do these things. > Billy > ------------------------------------------------------------- > 11/23/2011 5:18:39 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,[email protected]: > I thought that you liked big government and lots of regulators and > regulations. > And it should probably be titled "How Bigger Government props up Big > Finance," because the Government would have to be big enough to support not > only its weight, but also the weight of "Big Finance" in order to be able to > prop the latter up. > David > "Remember, to a liberal, anyone who makes money in an endeavor frowned upon > by liberals is 'greedy' and any person who expresses an idea contrary to > basic liberal dogma is preaching 'hate.' How shallow these people are."—Neal > Boortz > On 11/23/2011 5:04 PM,[email protected]: > Real Clear Politics / Real Clear Markets > November 22, 2011 > How Government Props Up Big Finance > By Marc Joffe & Anthony Randazzo > Since medieval times, writers and ethicists have counted envy among the seven > deadly sins. In utilitarian terms, envy is at best a zero-sum game because it > can only be satisfied when someone loses. > Given this moral and practical failing, it is a shame that envy plays such a > large role in the Occupy Wall Street protests spread around the country. And, > yet, the Occupy movement does have a point that transcends this negative > emotion: the financial industry has grown large on the backs of government > handouts, manipulated regulation, and taxpayer bailouts. > While there is no objective size the financial industry should be, it is fair > to say it would never have become this large without the crony capitalist > system that has masqueraded as a free market. In the process, the financial > industry has absorbed resources that could better be used elsewhere while > imposing large, systemic risks on the economy. Watching others grow rich from > special privilege understandably leads to envy, but from this perspective, > the high compensation received by financial industry leaders is merely a > symptom of a much larger problem. > Big finance has achieved its present girth on the back of numerous policy > decisions - some going back centuries. Many of these policies had the > intention of protecting the general public, but often had the unintended > consequence of enriching bankers beyond the product of their labor. > For example, central banks often seek to encourage growth by lowering > interest rates for small businesses and individuals. But in the process it is > mainly large banks that benefit from higher margins, as the Fed provides > lendable funds at a steep discount - not all of which is shared... > > read more » -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
