Russian Propaganda, no More no Less

Discussion of current events
neverfail
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: we have been there already cass.

Post by neverfail » Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:27 pm

Sertorio wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:59 am
cassowary wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 2:19 am
As I said before, you must not be blind to democracy's flaws. It really does not work well in a multi ethnic country.
Democracy works fine in Switzerland, and they speak four different languages...
The Swiss have a shared sense of history and geography - a lot like we Australians.

User avatar
cassowary
Posts: 3019
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:30 pm

Re: we have been there already cass.

Post by cassowary » Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:37 pm

neverfail wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:26 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 8:35 am

The U.S. Senate is not a house of review. It can initiate legislation on any matter other than bills of revenue. Those are the only ones that must originate in the House of Representatives. And even with those bills often change significantly due to negotiations between the leaders of the two houses, because the House can pass one version and the Senate another, leading to what's called a "reconciliation committee".

There's also a requirement for the U.S. Senate to "advise and consent" on high level executive appointments, like Cabinet members and federal judges and Supreme Court justices, but that's not legislation.
Thanks Steve. it seems that I stand corrected and am better off as a consequence.

Jim the Moron: why couldn't you have respectfully informed me like that instead of slagging me for my misconception?.
................................................................................................

it seems that the US Senate has a greater diversity of powers than I previously imagined. All the more reason why it should continue to be elected by a popular vote and not, as Cassowary suggests, by a privileged elite constituency of multi-millionaire (and billionaire) businessmen.
All can vote for senators under my suggested reform. But the number of votes should reflect how much taxes you pay. It’s fair that those who contribute more to the public treasury should have more say in how that money is to be spent.

Secondly it will even up the balance of power between the more numerous people with below average income and those with above average income.

This will stop the slide to ever expanding government spending and welfare state, high taxes and government debt.
The Imp :D

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: we have been there already cass.

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:30 am

neverfail wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:26 pm
it seems that the US Senate has a greater diversity of powers than I previously imagined. All the more reason why it should continue to be elected by a popular vote and not, as Cassowary suggests, by a privileged elite constituency of multi-millionaire (and billionaire) businessmen.
Well, in practice, it is a privileged elite constituency of multi-millionaire businessmen, whether its members are popularly elected or not.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: we have been there already cass.

Post by neverfail » Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:55 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:30 am
neverfail wrote:
Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:26 pm
it seems that the US Senate has a greater diversity of powers than I previously imagined. All the more reason why it should continue to be elected by a popular vote and not, as Cassowary suggests, by a privileged elite constituency of multi-millionaire (and billionaire) businessmen.
Well, in practice, it is a privileged elite constituency of multi-millionaire businessmen, whether its members are popularly elected or not.
Good point, Steve.

Cassowary: Considering how monied and sectional interests already "owns" both houses of Congress and both of America's big political parties, to entrench the power of high tax payers (the same bunch) further by entrenching undue influence in the election of Senators in the way you suggest is morally outrageous and utterly unacceptable.

Considering how thoroughly capitalism already runs the USA (despite the popular vote); do you really believe that making the Senate vote dependent upon level of taxes paid by voters is going to make government in the US less spendthrift when the degree of institutionalised control already over their politics by various monied interests has failed to do so (arguably even exaggerated the problem) ? Well, I suppose that itm is your right to fantasise on. But see them for what they are - utopian pope dreams.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: we have been there already cass.

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:55 am

neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:55 am
Considering how thoroughly capitalism already runs the USA (despite the popular vote)
What does this mean? Isms don't run things, people do. And when those people run things in a system where government officials and corporate executives cooperate for mutual advantage at everyone else's expense, that's corporatism, not capitalism (or at least not what its proponents mean by the word).
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: we have been there already cass.

Post by neverfail » Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:29 pm

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:55 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:55 am
Considering how thoroughly capitalism already runs the USA (despite the popular vote)
What does this mean? Isms don't run things, people do. And when those people run things in a system where government officials and corporate executives cooperate for mutual advantage at everyone else's expense, that's corporatism, not capitalism (or at least not what its proponents mean by the word).
If you want to turn this discussion into an exercise in semantics then have it your way. The point is that monied interests routinely manipulate your politics for the sake of rent seeking on a grand scale.

Cassowary is under the impression that allowing people to vote for your Senate on the basis that the more taxes they pay the more votes they should be allowed: then the more likely it is that government in the US will finally adopt a responsible fiscal policy position and thereby balance the national budget. I say not!

User avatar
Milo
Posts: 1943
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:14 pm

Re: we have been there already cass.

Post by Milo » Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:37 pm

neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:29 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:55 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:55 am
Considering how thoroughly capitalism already runs the USA (despite the popular vote)
What does this mean? Isms don't run things, people do. And when those people run things in a system where government officials and corporate executives cooperate for mutual advantage at everyone else's expense, that's corporatism, not capitalism (or at least not what its proponents mean by the word).
If you want to turn this discussion into an exercise in semantics then have it your way. The point is that monied interests routinely manipulate your politics for the sake of rent seeking on a grand scale.

Cassowary is under the impression that allowing people to vote for your Senate on the basis that the more taxes they pay the more votes they should be allowed: then the more likely it is that government in the US will finally adopt a responsible fiscal policy position and thereby balance the national budget. I say not!
I say that both "taxes" and "pay" could get quite subjective!

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: we have been there already cass.

Post by SteveFoerster » Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:20 pm

neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:29 pm
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 6:55 am
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 3:55 am
Considering how thoroughly capitalism already runs the USA (despite the popular vote)
What does this mean? Isms don't run things, people do. And when those people run things in a system where government officials and corporate executives cooperate for mutual advantage at everyone else's expense, that's corporatism, not capitalism (or at least not what its proponents mean by the word).
If you want to turn this discussion into an exercise in semantics then have it your way. The point is that monied interests routinely manipulate your politics for the sake of rent seeking on a grand scale.
Then say that. Referring to "capitalism" doing things is meaningless, and it's not an exercise in semantics to point that out. Doubly so in that monied interests manipulating the state is corporatism, not laissez-faire capitalism.
neverfail wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:29 pm
Cassowary is under the impression that allowing people to vote for your Senate on the basis that the more taxes they pay the more votes they should be allowed: then the more likely it is that government in the US will finally adopt a responsible fiscal policy position and thereby balance the national budget. I say not!
He may be under that impression, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying. (Nor do I agree with him, as it happens.)
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

neverfail
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:47 am

Re: we have been there already cass.

Post by neverfail » Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:21 am

SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:20 pm

Then say that. Referring to "capitalism" doing things is meaningless, and it's not an exercise in semantics to point that out. Doubly so in that monied interests manipulating the state is corporatism, not laissez-faire capitalism.
Manipulating the state in competition with other monied interests for the sake of windfall profits strikes me as quite a capitalist kind of activity.

User avatar
SteveFoerster
Posts: 2060
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:17 pm
Location: Northern Virginia, USA and Dominica, West Indies
Contact:

Re: we have been there already cass.

Post by SteveFoerster » Sat Jan 12, 2019 9:36 pm

neverfail wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 1:21 am
SteveFoerster wrote:
Tue Jan 08, 2019 9:20 pm

Then say that. Referring to "capitalism" doing things is meaningless, and it's not an exercise in semantics to point that out. Doubly so in that monied interests manipulating the state is corporatism, not laissez-faire capitalism.
Manipulating the state in competition with other monied interests for the sake of windfall profits strikes me as quite a capitalist kind of activity.
I'm sure it does, because, as expected, you're making up a definition for the word to fit your preconceived notions.
Writer, technologist, educator, gadfly.
President of New World University: http://newworld.ac

Post Reply