runzwsissors Loc: Calhoun, GA

What do all past government systems have in common? They have failed. What do all existing governments have in common? They too will fail. The very nature of man is to corrupt for personal gain, and this corruption, radiating from people in positions of power, takes its toll on the systems of government. This is a cumulative effect, and when it reaches a critical point, the system fails. The result is usually revolution, secession, or occupation, but regardless, it is a failed system. From the vacuum comes a replacement; dictatorship, republic, democracy or something else new and shiny. During this t***sition, war and other hardships are commonplace. So when a person comes into power who is progressive, and can motivate the rest of the government to “move forward”, where then are they moving towards? Would it not be better for a politician to leave the government system in the same condition that he entered it, if longevity is our goal? This is hard to do when there are unforeseen issues that must be addressed, but every post it note and splash of whiteout on a system’s law compromises said system.

Do not think that the United States of America is immune to this. Although we are one of the oldest living governments, we are still heading in the natural direction of ruin. People are too divided to stop it from happening, and it takes a wake up moment after it fails when we put aside our differences and pick ourselves up. Don’t get me wrong, the US has had a great run. So if prevention is not possible, the question we need to ask ourselves is what do we want to put in its place?

What should the government be responsible for and what are the government’s limits? How should we structure the government? What has failed in our current system that should be addressed and how can we prevent it from happening in the new system? Security and liberty are mutually exclusive, so which do we value more? Can a system be created that will endure, or are we doomed to continuously repeat this cycle every two to three hundred years, suffering the fallout of yet another failed system?

I want to hear a few responses before I respond to the same questions. Let’s keep partisan politics out of the discussion and approach this objectively, mindful that this is what we will be handing to our children, and to their children after them.

Loki Loc: Georgia

At the end of the Constitutional Convention, a woman is reputed to have asked Ben Franklin something to the effect of "Sir, what have you given us?" To which Mr. Franklin replied; "A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it."
You contend that the Republic is past the point of rescue. You may be correct. I believe that the problems we are experiencing have many parallels with the Roman Empire. More about that later. I firmly believe that a horrendous educational system, and appalling political naivete are at fault. In other words, we are blaming politicians for creating problems, but we are to blame because we have shirked our job of management. Ask someone at random who was on "American Idol," or who won the Braves game. Now, ask them how their Congressman v**ed last week. For that matter, ask them who their US or State Congressman or Senator is. Any system of government granting large amounts of personal freedom demands a concomitant large amount of personal responsibility. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. If you leave the government to others, others will govern.
I personally think that Jefferson was right, when he said "the government that governs best governs least." (I believe it was Jefferson). To that I might add that State and local governments are usually better equipped to deal with local problems than the Federal alternative, with their "one size fits all (poorly)" approach. The problem with government getting to big and intrusive, is that it becomes a gigantic bureaucracy, as so-called "elected officials" abdicate more and more responsbility for day to day governance to faceless, unnaccountable apparatchiks who merrily churn out mountains of regulations whose legality is as doubtful as the churners parentage. Big government cannot function without big bureaucracy, and it is easy to call abdication of authority delegation of authority, or some other semi-appropriate euphemism. I will continue this thread later, buenos noches para ahora.

L.E. Liesner Loc: New Mexico

What's wrong with going back to a Constitutional Republic like we started with. "We the People" having been remiss in our duties allowed these self serving politicians to destroy the government our Founders gave us. Read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the Bill of Rights. Compare those documents with what our government today is doing, and you will see a 180 degree change of what the Founders had in mind. There is nothing wrong with the the original theory of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, what's wrong is the politicians and the apathy of the v**ers for allowing them to stay in office.

Miss Brandi

First of all, every political position, city, county, state, federal should all have to live off of minimum wage for as long as they are in office. Second, they don't have the right to v**e for their raises or benefits, only the v**ers would have that right. When they have to live like a typical American and shop at Walmart, they will learn very quickly what is really important. Not only that, but the people who would run would be doing so out of their beliefs of what is right and wrong. Honesty might actually go to D.C. I don't think we should be isolationists, but getting a handle on immigration and on our embassies and putting Americans first would solve some major problems. No taking care of the rest of the world, if they have civil wars, they should take care of it themselves...that's why they are called civil wars. If their babies are starving and the parents are dying of AIDS...practice safe sex and learn to farm. Get rid of the Federal Reserve and the U.N.

bmac32 Loc: West Florida

Go back to the Constitution and no it doesn't mean this, follow it and keep lawyers out.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

We have learned much since the inception of our Republic. With such knowledge below are a few small thoughts.

It would be my choice to place term limits on the Congress. Because I like to think outside the box sometimes, I would add one more elected official to the national b****t. It would be Speaker of the House. No where, to my knowledge, does it say the Speaker as to be an elected Congressperson. I would further place a defined length of time the Supreme Court Justices could serve.

I will leave it to our able financial research guru Banjojack to deal with the Federal Reserve and changes in that realm.

Darrel

I can only quote Benjamin Franklin when he said; They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

He has probably being doing flips in his grave over the Patriot Act, NDAA, and NSA.

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

Miss Brandi

So, how the hell do we motive the rest of "We the people" to do their duty and accept the responsibility of their poor choices?? How do we get the least common denominators of society to put down their crack pipes and weapons (v****g precincts are gun-free zones) long enough to go v**e?? Or learn something...anything about the people running for office. It's hard not to become disillusioned when you feel like you're fighting an uphill battle while standing in quicksand??

Geno36 Loc: Texas

Antonio Gramsci's long march through the institutions has to be reversed. This will take several generations. The education system is the initial culprit. Children are no longer educated but rather propagandized. Progressive ideology has the upper hand now and it has to be eliminated with all its tenets. Political correctness, m**************m, etc.

I am too old to have children but if you have any you are an absolute fool to put them in the public school system. Home school them with accurate history and biblical concepts.

I could go on and on but this is going to take time and commitment. It will not happen in my lifetime. Sadly I believe it is past the point of no return.

Crusader

Agreed, but also abolish the IMF and the WTO. Require term limits on every appointed and elected office. Elimiate government employee benefits and retirement pensions. Eliminate special interest groups and lobbyists. Eliminate campaign contributions. All campaigns should be limited in time, about 3 months before an e******n. Each candidate should only receive equal campaign funds from the government. Abolish all Unions and Restore th Republic.

L.E. Liesner Loc: New Mexico

There are term limits on our government officials, it's called e******ns. V**er apathy creates career politicians. To paraphrase Albert Einstein "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." We the e*****rate continue to elect the same politicians over and over knowing full well that they are not doing their jobs, but maybe they'll do better the next time around. The old saying that "politicians like diapers should be changed frequently, and for the same reason" seems to fit our modern day government to a T.

Loki Loc: Georgia

I would rather they put down their crack pipes and weapons and did not v**e.

runzwsissors Loc: Calhoun, GA

This is a great turn out, of strong minded individuals. I appreciate the mature, objective responses. Some say that they would keep it the same way, if we could change a few things. Others have pointed out the obvious flaws and have accepted responsibility of our fails. Let me summarize the failures as I propose a solutions to them.

The first thing to address is the scope of the federal government's role. The founding fathers wanted states to govern themselves, and have a binding contract to cooperate in the common interest of self defense; this is known as confederation. Since then, the system has mutated, due to laws being passed and power being grabbed on a federal level to the point where they now see the need to govern every aspect of our lives on a national scale. When the federal government has more control and the states must obey every rule, this is federation. A federation is stronger in regards to national security but undermines personal liberty and state diversity. On the reverse side, confederation gives the states more power to govern and this can be catered to meet the specific needs of the states' constituents. We need to get back to a confederation system. The federal government should be limited in its power to over see only things that need to be addressed on a national level such as the common defense, interstate t***sportation, monetary exchange protocol (making of common currency), and maybe a few other areas where a common need should be uniformed. States would retain the power to determine how they conduct education, welfare, prohibitions, mandates, ect.

The economic system should be a lightly regulated free market. Government should have absolutely no influence on how the economy is doing. There should be a federal flat tax rate that is written in stone that is observed by both businesses and individuals. Regulation should be limited to forcing a business to provide a safe work place that is environmentally friendly and fair compensation and schedule for workers.

The biggest problem with our current political system is that it is infested with politicians. The second biggest problem with it is that it is a two party system. It is human nature to assume a group identity and when there is only two parties to choose from, people adopt one party or another based on their greatest concern, then adopt the remaining rhetoric of that group to become fully assimilated. This prevents individual thinking, and makes a person less objective. Another problem with a two party system is that we often find ourselves v****g for the lesser of two evils. This is how we elect despicable individuals into positions of power. So we have career politicians elected into power by a two party system. Would it not be better for a draft into congress? My proposal is just that; every two years, a social security number is randomly selected for one individual living within a congressional district. That person is being called to serve his or her country as a congressman until relieved by their replacement two years later. There would be about 3 months of learning the system and being brought up on all the issues prior to them assuming the post. They would of course have an advisor that is knowledgeable and can guide them throughout their two year career. The Senators would be appointed by the governor of their respective states. There would be no more lobbyist as we know them. Instead, groups of citizens who wish to pass legislation would address the legislative branches and let the house and senate agree or disagree. Opposed parties would also be allowed to represent their side during those same hearings. Supreme court justices would have a term of 6 years, at which point they would have to be replaced and never be eligible to regain that post. This appointment would still come from the president of the United States. The president would be elected by the people by common v**e, not e*******l college, still every 4 years. Everyone who has a petition with 40,000 names or more (just a number) and meets the other criteria to be president is eligible to run for president. There is no campaign funds to split between two parties, as it would no longer be a two party system. The e******n funds would instead be used for t***sportation, boarding, and feeding the candidate and his staff during the campaigning process. All candidates would receive equal airtime and exposure for events sponsored by the campaign funds. Each group would have to financially support their candidate as far as advertising, additional exposure, ect. Each round of the v****g would cut the remaining number of candidates in half, until such point that one candidate has 50.1% of the popular v**e or more.

Finally, I will address the budget. The problems with our budget is that we are trying to find areas to take away from, and at least some people have interest in every expenditure. It is hard to make the cuts. What if we went to it from a different angle, and started the budget all over? Don't determine what to cut, but determine what needs funding. And don't do it by dollar amounts, as that does not always coincide with what dollars are available; do it by budget percentages instead, and each year, each funded area will learn what their dollar amount is based on revenue of the preceding year. If they find themselves with a surplus, that area would do wise for saving to meet shortfalls in the future. For instance, defense spending gets 44.31% of the budget, infrastructure gets 3.1% of the budget, federal administration gets 2.55%, debt payment gets 12.3% ect. When 100% is reached, there is no more funding available, period. US postal service, social security, and other services would be discontinued and private sector businesses would meet that need. If a congress fails to meet a fiscal budget, all members of the congress should receive no pay, until such time as a budget is agreed upon.

Just some food for thought. Any ideas?