US goverment, Anything on the Internet is an Export.
-
@scottalanmiller I think using their salary potential as a yardstick is also a terrible idea. I do not want money to motivate any decision they make, but rather what is best for the country. How do you find the most capable and least corrupt individuals to do these jobs?
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller I think using their salary potential as a yardstick is also a terrible idea. I do not want money to motivate any decision they make, but rather what is best for the country. How do you find the most capable and least corrupt individuals to do these jobs?
Just because people make money doesn't mean they are good at what they do or good at managing money.
Justin Beiber? How many times has Donald Trump been bankrupt?
-
Keep in mind, I am not talking about a 1-man show for the entire government. I like the way things are set up with 3 branches. But every member of each branch...
The problem is that once you have someone else telling you what a law means is the moment you have given up your freedom. Yes, I realize that our form of government has been in operation for almost 2 and a half centuries. Yes, I also believe our freedoms have been eroding since that time.
-
@dafyre said:
You do raise good points. However, this last one... this is the point that I feel like our country is almost at... We have a president who is stepping all over the Constitution, and the House and Senate that are paid by big business to support big business and not the American citizens they were "voted in" to support.
Well okay but here are some thoughts...
- I hear lots of people say he is stepping on the constitution yet never hear anyone state where or point to where a court agrees in any significant way (every President gets things overturned some.) This has become one of those trendy ways to complain about an administration but what exactly is the president doing that the rest of the government is not agreeing is legal? Obamacare doesn't qualify as the courts are looking into it and it is very much not clear if it is legal or not and even if it isn't, isn't doing what is good for the public more important that the constitution? Do you feel that the constitution is more important than the people it is supposed to protect? The constitution is just a document, and one that gets changed.
- That we have poorly paid politicians behaving exactly as I predict poorly paid politicians would behave (subject to corruption and selling out) doesn't this exactly support my point of why paying them like ordinary works is a bad idea? They have nothing to risk, the only benefit to them in politics is what they earn through selling their votes.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
Just because people make money doesn't mean they are good at what they do or good at managing money.
Certainly not. But not being able to earn money suggests that they are not good at it, at least on a large scale. It's not that paying a lot find you good people, it is that not paying well eliminates them.
-
@dafyre said:
And that is why this is all just my opinion and I'm not out there trying to make it happen. 8-) I realize my ideas are probably not good ones and full of more holes than a sieve. I just feel like we already have politicians that are bottom of the barrel and corrupt (purchased by big business / lobbyists) that your average Joe paid well could do just as good as, if not better than what we have now... but I do realize it isn't as simple as that.
But we are paying them almost like an average Joe, nowhere near what their position should imply. You can't pay people like an average Joe and hope to acquire the best talent. No company would think that way, why would we treat the government as so much less important or valuable?
-
@dafyre said:
So let's put a managing body of a multi-million (billion?) dollar American company in charge of the US government. But then we're still stuck back with having a corporately owned government, only it would be an open truth instead of a hidden truth.
Many things here:
- Nothing I said implies that this makes sense. Don't confuse "worth a lot of money as a CEO" as "worth a lot of money as a politician." You still need to hire the right people with the right talent. But don't NOT hire talented people because you want "average Joes." The best politicians are worth a fortune elsewhere, likely in sales or consulting. Maybe not as CEOs. Don't use the Dilbert Principle to find your government.
- An ex-CEO as President has zero implications of big business owning anything. If you work for IBM today and quit that job to become the owner of a successful fishing business, does that mean that big business (IBM) owns the fishing business? Of course not. You are implying that once a person has had a job in business that business owns them. But I'm not "owned" by IBM or any other Fortune 100 that I used to be at. Nor am I owned by the non-profit-ish place that I work now. Once you leave a job, that relationship is over. Otherwise you could only ever hire people who had never worked before.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The constitution is just a document, and one that gets changed.
So if a law or an ammendment gets passed that America has become a Dictatorship, that is okay?
(forget how far-fetched that idea may seem for a minute...)The Constitution and the laws of the land should only be those that benefit American Citiznes -- which would in turn also benefit the politicians that work in the government... don't forget they are citizens too.
-
Just a friendly reminder to well, keep it friendly.
-
I am. 8-) I've been stuck in politics mode this week for some reason... All the mess about the confederate flag and what feels like (to me) the government trying to trample us citizens and all that.
I don't get too bent out of shape over people with far more knowledge and experience poking holes in all my ideas -- especially when I know the chances of my ideas coming to pass have about as much chance as a snowball to survive in Georgia at this time of year.
Although, I think the heatwave finally broke for a day, at least.
-
@dafyre said:
The problem is that once you have someone else telling you what a law means is the moment you have given up your freedom. Yes, I realize that our form of government has been in operation for almost 2 and a half centuries. Yes, I also believe our freedoms have been eroding since that time.
But it is widely seen as not being very free. And two and a half centuries is a tiny amount compared to historically stable governments (Pax Romana, Persian Empire, Holy Rome, Rome, etc.)
I don't feel our freedoms are eroding, not across the board. They are expanding. In what way do "we" have fewer freedoms (that don't involve oppressing others) that before?
-
@MattSpeller said:
@scottalanmiller I think using their salary potential as a yardstick is also a terrible idea. I do not want money to motivate any decision they make, but rather what is best for the country. How do you find the most capable and least corrupt individuals to do these jobs?
It's not a yard stick, I never suggested that it was. I'm saying that if you don't pay enough, anyone remotely capable could make far more money somewhere else and why wouldn't they?
So you basically guarantee bad politicians if you don't directly compensate them for doing the job and expect them to find their income elsewhere. How CAN they do their job if they need to find the money elsewhere?
-
@dafyre said:
I am. 8-) I've been stuck in politics mode this week for some reason... All the mess about the confederate flag and what feels like (to me) the government trying to trample us citizens and all that.
But isn't the Confederate flag seen to many as a symbol of a government that did trample their freedoms (it wasn't their flag, but it is now the symbol of that oppression) and was willing to go to war to protect the ability to be non-free? It's a symbol of anti-freedom.
We were just discussing this. If you support the Confederate flag, a symbol of racism and slavery and strong hatred of America then other than having more time since it was an active war, how is that different than Germany not allowing the Nazi flag and should the Nazi flag be allowed to fly in Germany?
A symbol of hatred and oppression, being allowed, takes away people's freedoms. Taking away the right to bear that symbol, takes away other people's freedoms.
So the question is not about freedom, it is about which group do you want to support? The group that is pro-oppression, or the group that feels that it was oppressed.
As a northerner who lives in Texas, that flag is a very clear symbol of anti-American sentiment and is very, very strong.
-
@dafyre said:
Although, I think the heatwave finally broke for a day, at least.
LOL, no, @art_of_shred and I were discussing the Nazi flag thing offline before you had even posted this and were in the other room getting coffee. That you brought it up while we were talking about how it compared to the Nazi flag (a hundred years from now to be similar) is an odd coincidence.
-
@dafyre said:
the government trying to trample us citizens and all that.
That's been going on a little while.
-
Now, to be fair, I'm not saying that the Confederate flag should be banned. Just making the comparison. If I compare to the Nazi flag, I have to say that I think both should be allowed. As a northerner, the Confederate flag is a clear message of hatred of me personally, as it was a symbol of that post war with little pre-war meaning (the confederate flag as we call it isn't the flag of the confederacy but was the flag of the Army of the Tennessee.) Unlike the Nazi flag which had strong pre-war meaning that was very positive and not hatred motivated. The Nazi flag was a symbol of the fight for freedom for the German state before it took on the modern connotations.
So in many ways, the Nazi flag, I feel, is far more benign than the Confederate one, but the implications are overly similar.
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
@dafyre said:
the government trying to trample us citizens and all that.
That's been going on a little while.
Since day one. Remember that freedoms were actually extremely limited at the beginning. Sure, you had way more freedom to "do things". But you had far less freedom to "be". They gave people the freedom to take the freedoms away from others - and not just in the obvious ways.
Taxes were low then, but taxes and freedom are different things. Freedom doesn't imply "freedom from taxation."
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@dafyre said:
Although, I think the heatwave finally broke for a day, at least.
LOL, no, @art_of_shred and I were discussing the Nazi flag thing offline before you had even posted this and were in the other room getting coffee. That you brought it up while we were talking about how it compared to the Nazi flag (a hundred years from now to be similar) is an odd coincidence.
Heat wave... Nazi flag... not making the connection there, lol.
-
I'd rather everyone be allowed to fly whatever flag they want and express whatever views they have. It makes it much easier to identify the oddballs and keeps it from going underground into an echo chamber to fester. Bad ideas should be confronted and challenged.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If you support the Confederate flag, a symbol of racism and slavery and strong hatred of America then other than having more time since >it was an active war, how is that different than Germany not allowing the Nazi flag and should the Nazi flag be allowed to fly in
As a northerner who lives in Texas, that flag is a very clear symbol of anti-American sentiment and is very, very strong.But it's not a symbol of racism. most people do not see it that way. It was a battle flag. CNN had an interview with several African American's saying they didn't think it was racist either. That is was about history, and they were proud that their family had served in the war. They African American soldiers got paid by one of the leaders at the end of the war for their service as well according the the people interviewed.
