georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #141
All three of your excellent ideas would be even more effective if they came into existence simultaneously at a Second US Constitutional Convention that was not dominated by elected Republicans AND Democrats AND their handmaidens.Maybe it is also worth pointing out how every "government" yet devised has existed primarily to serve its wealthiest citizens. If there's a way to erect a wall of separation between the effects of private wealth and the state, it would probably be fought tooth and nail by today's Democrats and Republicans in DC since both parties depend on the same 1% of voters to fund their election campaigns and retirements. Possibly, both major parties have outlived their usefulness to this Republic?.
Good stuff.
Both ends are causing damage, and they're both pointing the finger at the other guy. The government could play a vital and valuable service by (1) committing more to effective regulation than control, and (2) understanding that "more" regulation doesn't necessarily translate to "better" regulation.
Capitalism invites corruption just as does government. Seems to me the key is finding a proper equilibrium between the two.
.
Oh no, you've given me an excuse to say:
Do you want real change?
1. Short, strict term limits - They'd behave differently if they weren't worried about satisfying their donors
2. Publicly-funded elections - See above
3. Balanced Budget Amendment - Both parties would be forced to defend their taxing and spending agendas
Take the power from those who abuse it the most!
My weekly rant! Woot!
.
I find it very hard to imagine any one of those improvements being seriously considered by our current duopoly in DC.
![doubt :doubt: :doubt:](/styles/smilies/doubt.gif)