Many "boards", whether advisory or supervisory, for entities such as hospitals, school districts, non profits and other "public good" enterprises, require members from a range of socioeconomic categories. Not just politicians or business people are on these boards. The premise is that having "real people" represented, gives these boards a more accurate picture of people needs and a better ability to supply them.
Accept for small municipalities, we don't follow this paradigm for governmental operations. With the entities listed above, the populations served are specific and rather small. For governments, these affect everybody. From local governments all the way to the White House. So why then do we not require the same mixture of socioeconomic representation?
When researching my own State Government, the last time I could find a record of a "middle class" legislator, was 1872. The guy was a b****smith, representing a large farming area, but with two major cities. Since then, it has been Lawyers, Doctors, Business owners and a few "citizen farmers" ( those are farm owners, but who do not actually farm ).
I understand that poor people cannot manage their own affairs, so a case could be made to exclude them from governmental operations, but the middle class ARE capable AND represent the overwhelming majority of people. So why are they not represented? There is no legal reason why a middle class factory worker could NOT be a Congress person or Senator, so why are they excluded and why are we satisfied with that?
I understand that poor people cannot manage their own affairs, so a case could be made to exclude them from governmental operations, but the middle class ARE capable AND represent the overwhelming majority of people. So why are they not represented? There is no legal reason why a middle class factory worker could NOT be a Congress person or Senator, so why are they excluded and why are we satisfied with that?[/quote]
How many middle class people do you know can raise the amounts of money it requires to run for office today. The day of the citizen lawmaker is gone and the offices are for sale, especially in our federal government. The media sells the candidates, and usually the one with the most money wins. The money usually comes from special interest groups and the politicians need that money so the constituents are at the bottom of the list for service and corruption rules.
lpnmajor wrote:
Many "boards", whether advisory or supervisory, for entities such as hospitals, school districts, non profits and other "public good" enterprises, require members from a range of socioeconomic categories. Not just politicians or business people are on these boards. The premise is that having "real people" represented, gives these boards a more accurate picture of people needs and a better ability to supply them.
Accept for small municipalities, we don't follow this paradigm for governmental operations. With the entities listed above, the populations served are specific and rather small. For governments, these affect everybody. From local governments all the way to the White House. So why then do we not require the same mixture of socioeconomic representation?
When researching my own State Government, the last time I could find a record of a "middle class" legislator, was 1872. The guy was a b****smith, representing a large farming area, but with two major cities. Since then, it has been Lawyers, Doctors, Business owners and a few "citizen farmers" ( those are farm owners, but who do not actually farm ).
I understand that poor people cannot manage their own affairs, so a case could be made to exclude them from governmental operations, but the middle class ARE capable AND represent the overwhelming majority of people. So why are they not represented? There is no legal reason why a middle class factory worker could NOT be a Congress person or Senator, so why are they excluded and why are we satisfied with that?
Many "boards", whether advisory or super... (
show quote)
I don't think anyone in particular has been excluded. My first thought would be their level of education. As much as some old guys might live in the past where education was not as necessary as it is today it is more important now. Our level of instant communication is unprecedented an an understanding of law is increasingly important. You don't necessarily need a degree in law but it would help. When you think of someone that is highly educated that t***slates to high motivation. To get elected you would probably need to be highly motivated because of the amount of BS you would have to endure to become elected. For a lot of people that is a deal breaker. Just a drive to solve the community and national problems is not enough , you need somewhat of an inflated ego, intelligence and a very thick skin. I currently have a daughter that is close to graduating high school. She is very bright so she takes all these are college type classes , all the hard ones. She is not exceptionally smart but is very motivated. One thing I have learned from her experience in high school is a lot more about politics and political process. Why ? She participate in the speech and debate club. She doesn't go for the easy competitions , she actually does the debating , political speeches etc. I have found by watching this stuff how little I knew about political process and how few of the kids at the high school participate because the team is fairly small. These kids have congress , write bills and compete in a setting that looks like congress if you watch one of those channels that show our actual reps in congress. I'm not trying to brag about my kid here ( okay , maybe a little) what I am pointing out is most of us don't really know how it works. The middle class needs to v**e for politicians who put an emphasis on education because that is the root of any productive society. Maybe then we would have a wider variety of the type of people capable of working in our government system.
lpnmajor wrote:
Many "boards", whether advisory or supervisory, for entities such as hospitals, school districts, non profits and other "public good" enterprises, require members from a range of socioeconomic categories. Not just politicians or business people are on these boards. The premise is that having "real people" represented, gives these boards a more accurate picture of people needs and a better ability to supply them.
Accept for small municipalities, we don't follow this paradigm for governmental operations. With the entities listed above, the populations served are specific and rather small. For governments, these affect everybody. From local governments all the way to the White House. So why then do we not require the same mixture of socioeconomic representation?
When researching my own State Government, the last time I could find a record of a "middle class" legislator, was 1872. The guy was a b****smith, representing a large farming area, but with two major cities. Since then, it has been Lawyers, Doctors, Business owners and a few "citizen farmers" ( those are farm owners, but who do not actually farm ).
I understand that poor people cannot manage their own affairs, so a case could be made to exclude them from governmental operations, but the middle class ARE capable AND represent the overwhelming majority of people. So why are they not represented? There is no legal reason why a middle class factory worker could NOT be a Congress person or Senator, so why are they excluded and why are we satisfied with that?
Many "boards", whether advisory or super... (
show quote)
this just confirms my theory...not enough lawyers in DC.
robert66 wrote:
I don't think anyone in particular has been excluded. My first thought would be their level of education. As much as some old guys might live in the past where education was not as necessary as it is today it is more important now. Our level of instant communication is unprecedented an an understanding of law is increasingly important. You don't necessarily need a degree in law but it would help. When you think of someone that is highly educated that t***slates to high motivation. To get elected you would probably need to be highly motivated because of the amount of BS you would have to endure to become elected. For a lot of people that is a deal breaker. Just a drive to solve the community and national problems is not enough , you need somewhat of an inflated ego, intelligence and a very thick skin. I currently have a daughter that is close to graduating high school. She is very bright so she takes all these are college type classes , all the hard ones. She is not exceptionally smart but is very motivated. One thing I have learned from her experience in high school is a lot more about politics and political process. Why ? She participate in the speech and debate club. She doesn't go for the easy competitions , she actually does the debating , political speeches etc. I have found by watching this stuff how little I knew about political process and how few of the kids at the high school participate because the team is fairly small. These kids have congress , write bills and compete in a setting that looks like congress if you watch one of those channels that show our actual reps in congress. I'm not trying to brag about my kid here ( okay , maybe a little) what I am pointing out is most of us don't really know how it works. The middle class needs to v**e for politicians who put an emphasis on education because that is the root of any productive society. Maybe then we would have a wider variety of the type of people capable of working in our government system.
I don't think anyone in particular has been exclud... (
show quote)
The governing process IS extremely complex, but that begs the question of why that is. If we are to live by the laws passed, we must be able to understand them and NOT by having to study law. I think the law is unnecessarily complex BECAUSE lawyers have written it that way. What better job security could there be than that?
It does not require 200 pages of law to say " when operating a motor vehicle, seat belts will be used by all occupants of said vehicle", but that's what we've got - for a seat belt law. Were the government run by ordinary people, the laws would be understandable by ordinary people. We have allowed "educated" and "professional" politicians to convince us that no one but themselves are capable of understanding governance, setting policy or making law. It is a lie that we have accepted as t***h.
lpnmajor wrote:
The governing process IS extremely complex, but that begs the question of why that is. If we are to live by the laws passed, we must be able to understand them and NOT by having to study law. I think the law is unnecessarily complex BECAUSE lawyers have written it that way. What better job security could there be than that?
It does not require 200 pages of law to say " when operating a motor vehicle, seat belts will be used by all occupants of said vehicle", but that's what we've got - for a seat belt law. Were the government run by ordinary people, the laws would be understandable by ordinary people. We have allowed "educated" and "professional" politicians to convince us that no one but themselves are capable of understanding governance, setting policy or making law. It is a lie that we have accepted as t***h.
The governing process IS extremely complex, but th... (
show quote)
We are talking about a country of over 3 hundred million people , nothing is going to be simple. You have virtually millions of ideas, all kinds of religions, wars , international trade , need I go on ? I get it with the seat belt example. It seems and in my opinion is ridiculous. Because we are a nation of laws , we are expected to comply with them. The bigger our population the more laws we are going to have. If we don't want new laws let's just get rid of congress and follow what we already have. Would that be a good idea ? Probably not. We are all complaining now that congress is not doing it's job by not making any new laws. I agree 100% that things are way too complicated. We better get back to school.
robert66 wrote:
We are talking about a country of over 3 hundred million people , nothing is going to be simple. You have virtually millions of ideas, all kinds of religions, wars , international trade , need I go on ? I get it with the seat belt example. It seems and in my opinion is ridiculous. Because we are a nation of laws , we are expected to comply with them. The bigger our population the more laws we are going to have. If we don't want new laws let's just get rid of congress and follow what we already have. Would that be a good idea ? Probably not. We are all complaining now that congress is not doing it's job by not making any new laws. I agree 100% that things are way too complicated. We better get back to school.
We are talking about a country of over 3 hundred m... (
show quote)
i think 2000 pages for obamacare iz reasonable. how would you know what it iz if you don't spend the required 8 years it takes to read it and another 8 years to understand it?
cesspool jones wrote:
i think 2000 pages for obamacare iz reasonable. how would you know what it iz if you don't spend the required 8 years it takes to read it and another 8 years to understand it?
I don't know. I believe the intention is for the benefit of the country. Since I believe Obama is not Satan, a Muslim trying to destroy America, N**i or wh**ever stupid things people claim he is, the law was written to improve healthcare in the United States. I am not qualified to decide how many pages any of it should be.
Really good point,,, not germane of course, but very liberal,,,ie worthless
robert66 wrote:
I don't know. I believe the intention is for the benefit of the country. Since I believe Obama is not Satan, a Muslim trying to destroy America, N**i or wh**ever stupid things people claim he is, the law was written to improve healthcare in the United States. I am not qualified to decide how many pages any of it should be.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.