The Government
- Thread starter Satya
- Start date
You've speculated that sane people wouldn't agree.
I've shown sufficient evidence that it's completely constitutional. Care to disagree with any of my points specifically as I have done with yours? Or would you like to keep slowly changing the subject?
Something having gone uncontested doesn't equate to it being legal or constitutional.
That's a bullshit statement.
Things like crop subsidization were found unconstitutional years after the fact.
And I find the implication that I was changing the subject somewhat insulting.
Nowhere have I departed from the topic at hand.
It's been a pleasure, but in your own words, "I'm not going to convince you, and see little more value to this discussion".
Later.
Right, so because you're challenging it (disregarding the way I've proved that it was; you never challenged that except to speculate that 'sane' people wouldn't say it's an amendment), it is unconstitutional. Makes sense...
The text
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.
First, which government? A country's? My local Homeowner's Assocation? Any schmuck who tries to tell another schmuck what to do (or not do) and succeeds? It all depends. Personally, I know some HOA presidents who should not be entrusted with that much power.
Well, being American, "Of the People, For the People and By the People" makes a whole lot of sense to me. Government is just people, as are Big Business and Labor Unions and all that.
^^^ yeah, what he said.^^^^
... dusting off cobwebs from brain... hmmm. Historically speaking, there have been a lot of ways. Winning wars, beheading enemies, bloody coups, propaganda campaigns, and also (in addition to the above) getting people to go along with leaders voluntarily.
I think that varies. Some people can't even stand stopping for a red light, other people seem content to let there be heavy restrictions on their behavior (I am thinking, for some reason, of Sharia law and strict religious communities.)
I don't know, probably... Most giant governments seem to have done so, but then, things change.
No, no more than rules are mean and unnecessary. You can usually get a critical mass of people to agree on most rules, which is basically what government is about. I'm glad we have a reasonably good and non-corrupt police force and firefighters, for instance. Government is often called Public Service for a reason, it is because it should function to help its citizens. Miraculously, sometimes... it does.
No, not really, because despite our problems, I think the US government is founded on pretty good principles and has checks and balances in place to discourage too much corruption. That said, I understand the threat of too much power in the wrong hands.
Did somebody say it was? There are some great or relatively harmless big businesses. But businesses are often very very powerful. Thing about business is, they don't want to kill off their customers or trading partners. They do have an inherent need (usually, not always) to keep things nice and calm and prosperous.
I thunk about it for 5 minutes! LOL. And thought back on things I'd experienced firsthand, and learned in school and from reading things like, oh.... you know, The Economist, and National Geographic, and what was that one about the nasty meat processing plants? ew. And you know, Lord of the Flies and the Constitution of the US and 1984 and stuff like that.
How much government is too much government?
Who should have the power? (the Constitution, the people, etc.)
How does the government obtain its power?
When does the government begin to infringe upon freedom?
Will the government inherently grow bigger until it collapses?
Is all government inherently corrupt, or is some of it authentic?
Do you fear the government?
Why is big business less of a threat than government?
Finally, how did you come to these conclusions?
Who governs the government? Should control be from the top down or from the bottom up? I would argue that the power elite use both the government and the corporate world to further their own interests. The two are overlapping and intertwined.
Some people want government to protect us from big business or foreign powers but who protects us from government? why do we always think we need to be governed? I do not believe that a market economy is the best mechanism for allocating resources. You just have to look at the disparity of wealth around the world to see that this system is innately unfair and basically rigged. I don't believ in a mixed economy and I don't believe in unregulated free markets either as I think this unleashes certain powers which are not benevolent. I do however find myself sympathising with free market fundamentalists dislike of government. I share the Austrian schools concerns about central banking but i do not share their belief in their solution.
I believe anarcho-communism would be a better direction to anarcho-capitalism. Globalisation seems to be creating greater integration which is not all bad, but I worry about what sort of infrastructure will be put in place to regulate the markets. I believe that wherever power is concentrated there will be oppression, corruption and exploitation. Will power be focussed centrally and further than ever from the control of the people?
Is wealth a good indication of someones ability to rule? I would argue not. I would go further and say that no one should rule. Power should reside with the people; that is true democracy. The current 'democracy' is I think largely a sham. It is a balancing act of the elite witholding as much power and wealth as possible whilst giving the people just enough that they don't rebel. This may take the form of welfare reform (which comes from the taxpayers pocket anyway) or 'philanthropic' acts which contrasted to true acts of kindness, i believe are just what the elite see as the cost of maintaining the balance of power; the recipients of the money can also be in some way related to the interests of the power elite. If this seems far fetched consider what good might be achieved if all the wealth and influence of the power elite was focused on creating a better world for the people....would things not be completely different?
I think this process is at work with education as well, through a two tiered education system. Knowledge is power and the elite do not like to share it. Economists, academics, scientists, psychologists sometimes form part of the power elite as they provide reasoning to back the acts of their rich patrons; they are the modern high priests. I think that because knowledge is not transmitted effectively from one generation of the people to the next it creates a memory lag as each successive generation must learn anew the injustice of the world and their subserviant position in it. The techniques of the power elite on the other hand grow more sophisticated all the time.
For the eyes of the public the power elite walk an illusionary tightrope between absolute power (which they already wield behind a veil of democracy) and anarchy in order to ‘protect’ the public from the dangers (real or perceived) of either doctrine. Each new proclamation to the masses from the palace balcony whether it is the ‘new nationalism’, ‘new freedom’, ‘the new deal’, ‘the third way’ seems only to keep the lever of power from falling off its fulcrum, whilst leaving it heavily tipped in favour of the rich. Each fresh doctrine whether it is ‘liberalism’ in the US or ‘social democracy’ in the UK, is just another sop for the public. The public are being strung along whilst the power elite consolidate their power. This is not democracy in action this is a plutarchy.
I do not agree with the neo-liberalist approach nor do I agree with free markets, I believe both tip the balance in favour of the rich.
Who should have the power? (the Constitution, the people, etc.)
How does the government obtain its power?
When does the government begin to infringe upon freedom?
Will the government inherently grow bigger until it collapses?
Is all government inherently corrupt, or is some of it authentic?
Do you fear the government?
Why is big business less of a threat than government?
Finally, how did you come to these conclusions?
Who governs the government? Should control be from the top down or from the bottom up? I would argue that the power elite use both the government and the corporate world to further their own interests. The two are overlapping and intertwined.
Some people want government to protect us from big business or foreign powers but who protects us from government? why do we always think we need to be governed? I do not believe that a market economy is the best mechanism for allocating resources. You just have to look at the disparity of wealth around the world to see that this system is innately unfair and basically rigged. I don't believ in a mixed economy and I don't believe in unregulated free markets either as I think this unleashes certain powers which are not benevolent. I do however find myself sympathising with free market fundamentalists dislike of government. I share the Austrian schools concerns about central banking but i do not share their belief in their solution.
I believe anarcho-communism would be a better direction to anarcho-capitalism. Globalisation seems to be creating greater integration which is not all bad, but I worry about what sort of infrastructure will be put in place to regulate the markets. I believe that wherever power is concentrated there will be oppression, corruption and exploitation. Will power be focussed centrally and further than ever from the control of the people?
Is wealth a good indication of someones ability to rule? I would argue not. I would go further and say that no one should rule. Power should reside with the people; that is true democracy. The current 'democracy' is I think largely a sham. It is a balancing act of the elite witholding as much power and wealth as possible whilst giving the people just enough that they don't rebel. This may take the form of welfare reform (which comes from the taxpayers pocket anyway) or 'philanthropic' acts which contrasted to true acts of kindness, i believe are just what the elite see as the cost of maintaining the balance of power; the recipients of the money can also be in some way related to the interests of the power elite. If this seems far fetched consider what good might be achieved if all the wealth and influence of the power elite was focused on creating a better world for the people....would things not be completely different?
I think this process is at work with education as well, through a two tiered education system. Knowledge is power and the elite do not like to share it. Economists, academics, scientists, psychologists sometimes form part of the power elite as they provide reasoning to back the acts of their rich patrons; they are the modern high priests. I think that because knowledge is not transmitted effectively from one generation of the people to the next it creates a memory lag as each successive generation must learn anew the injustice of the world and their subserviant position in it. The techniques of the power elite on the other hand grow more sophisticated all the time.
For the eyes of the public the power elite walk an illusionary tightrope between absolute power (which they already wield behind a veil of democracy) and anarchy in order to ‘protect’ the public from the dangers (real or perceived) of either doctrine. Each new proclamation to the masses from the palace balcony whether it is the ‘new nationalism’, ‘new freedom’, ‘the new deal’, ‘the third way’ seems only to keep the lever of power from falling off its fulcrum, whilst leaving it heavily tipped in favour of the rich. Each fresh doctrine whether it is ‘liberalism’ in the US or ‘social democracy’ in the UK, is just another sop for the public. The public are being strung along whilst the power elite consolidate their power. This is not democracy in action this is a plutarchy.
I do not agree with the neo-liberalist approach nor do I agree with free markets, I believe both tip the balance in favour of the rich.
Last edited:
Am i right in thinking that cap and trade basically means that if you have money you can pollute but if you don't have money you can't?
It sounds like a new way for the global rich to justify doing more damage to the environment in order to make more wealth for themselves, whilst not dealing with the fundamental problems.
The U.S. is quickly going into totalitarianism, the Federal authorities and their power are growing like a ravaging virus. The economy is on the verge of collapsing at the rate the Feds are spending money, 2015 will probably look like 1935 during the middle of the Depression.
Democrats and Republicans , neither do anything but point fingers and exchange accusations towards each other whilst at the same time selling the masses out to private interest corporations. I see it like this, America isn't a country no more but a conglomerate, the Government is manipulated by corporations and not the people. It's all about power and control.
There is no political savior coming, there is no political party that is going to save us. I do push for the 10th amendment movement, I do see that as a way to end the mighty tight fisted grasp of the Federal control freaks. A breaking away from the Union, where each state rules and runs its self , this is what I would like to see.
We have gone on decade after decade , with the bullshit phony 2 party system where they pass the ball back in forth while further eroding our rights little by little, there is too much bureaucracy and red tape. The United States has 5% of the world's population and 23.6% of the world's prison population.Drug prohibition is the prime reason why the prisons are packed.
The U.S. is collapsing, Congress is basically ceremonial , just for appearance, too many lifetime politicians that get too comfortable and going along with the status quo. NAFTA caused a lot of manufacturing jobs to go over seas, the system in Washington D.C. is just full of overblown corruption. Damn the Federal Govt. , they wouldn't just let states break away from their grip, peacefully..unless many states pulled away together. I don't see this ever happening but I am entitled to wishful thinking.
Democrats and Republicans , neither do anything but point fingers and exchange accusations towards each other whilst at the same time selling the masses out to private interest corporations. I see it like this, America isn't a country no more but a conglomerate, the Government is manipulated by corporations and not the people. It's all about power and control.
There is no political savior coming, there is no political party that is going to save us. I do push for the 10th amendment movement, I do see that as a way to end the mighty tight fisted grasp of the Federal control freaks. A breaking away from the Union, where each state rules and runs its self , this is what I would like to see.
We have gone on decade after decade , with the bullshit phony 2 party system where they pass the ball back in forth while further eroding our rights little by little, there is too much bureaucracy and red tape. The United States has 5% of the world's population and 23.6% of the world's prison population.Drug prohibition is the prime reason why the prisons are packed.
The U.S. is collapsing, Congress is basically ceremonial , just for appearance, too many lifetime politicians that get too comfortable and going along with the status quo. NAFTA caused a lot of manufacturing jobs to go over seas, the system in Washington D.C. is just full of overblown corruption. Damn the Federal Govt. , they wouldn't just let states break away from their grip, peacefully..unless many states pulled away together. I don't see this ever happening but I am entitled to wishful thinking.
Contrary to media speculation, the government really isn't spending money as fast as you might think. What you have to look at is percentage of GDP that is being spent. In the 1940s, the United States government actually spent nearly 50% of the GDP. At worst, the government will spend about 40% of the GDP of 2009 this year. That is still 10% less than the worst the government has ever gone through. And keep in mind that the average since the 60s has been about 30% of the GDP, so we are only about 10% above what is normal. Finally, you have to remember that a lot of the government spending is actually being spread out. The health care reform for example will be spread out over 10 years. Given that this is the worst recession since the Great Depression and we are at war in two countries, we are actually doing pretty good.
Last edited: