Democracy

[Phatscotty]

Democracies swallow themselves as soon as the voting populace makes voting the treasury a priority.

That's what you keep advocating, though.

that's me! demanding free shit!

[Woodruff]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

It is only the best form because it has never been tried. in that i mean true democracy!

True democracy absolutely has been tried. What leads you to believe it has not?

[Valykrie]

Fascism, Communism, even Anarchy, would all be great forms of government if human nature couldn't get in the way. but a government has to account for human nature, which is why democracy is currently the best form of government we have (In my opinion).

[BigBallinStalin]

Fascism, Communism, even Anarchy, would all be great forms of government if human nature couldn't get in the way. but a government has to account for human nature, which is why democracy is currently the best form of government we have (In my opinion).

Would you mind uploading the following picture as your avatar?

[thegreekdog]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

It is only the best form because it has never been tried. in that i mean true democracy!

True democracy absolutely has been tried. What leads you to believe it has not?

Seriously... people need history sometimes.

[PLAYER57832]

Democracies swallow themselves as soon as the voting populace makes voting the treasury a priority.

That's what you keep advocating, though.

that's me! demanding free shit!

You vote with what you percieve to be in your personal financial interest. Just because that might not include welfare doesn't make it any less true.

See, that is the hypocrisy here. For all the complaints about deadbeats on welfare, the truth is they cost this country far less than all the various benefits and free stuff given to larger corporations and wealthy individuals.

[BigBallinStalin]

Democracies swallow themselves as soon as the voting populace makes voting the treasury a priority.

That's what you keep advocating, though.

that's me! demanding free shit!

You vote with what you percieve to be in your personal financial interest. Just because that might not include welfare doesn't make it any less true.

See, that is the hypocrisy here. For all the complaints about deadbeats on welfare, the truth is they cost this country far less than all the various benefits and free stuff given to larger corporations and wealthy individuals.

Can you empirically support that claim? That's a bold "truth."

It also ignores the fact that deadbeats on welfare are still deadbeats, and that benefits given to corporations entice corporations to maintain business within US borders (which is economically better than having a bunch of welfare deadbeats around).

[PLAYER57832]

Democracies swallow themselves as soon as the voting populace makes voting the treasury a priority.

That's what you keep advocating, though.

that's me! demanding free shit!

You vote with what you percieve to be in your personal financial interest. Just because that might not include welfare doesn't make it any less true.

See, that is the hypocrisy here. For all the complaints about deadbeats on welfare, the truth is they cost this country far less than all the various benefits and free stuff given to larger corporations and wealthy individuals.

Can you empirically support that claim? That's a bold "truth."

Everything from State department visits and discussions to ensure that US companies are treated "fairly" to roads (rails, ironically enough are largely private) and airports/airlines, to direct tax subsidies. Most of the tax benefits are given with the promise of creating jobs. However, this often does not wind up truly playing out the way people think.

Then you have the whole bit of allowing a company (yep, Walmart comes to mind, but they are not the only ones or even the worst) to hire people for less than it takes them to live, gauranteeing that even though they are working, they STILL need taxpayer subsidies. This is done because the "companies cannot afford to pay more". Well -- WE cannot afford to subsidize those companies' workers. Particularly not when those companies are taking major profits. And, before you start crying "lazy", "could have gotten education" again, how about admitting that these people are, at least working, whereas the stockholders have just plopped down some money and "sat back to watch". Some did indeed earn that money, but many, many, many investors did not.. they simply inherited their money.

It also ignores the fact that deadbeats on welfare are still deadbeats, and that benefits given to corporations entice corporations to maintain business within US borders (which is economically better than having a bunch of welfare deadbeats around).

No, I ignore nothing. Among other things, I very much DO think we need a change to the welfare system. But, advocating change and saying "we cannot afford to fund these stupid deadbeats" are two different issues. The plain, ugly truth is that it costs us LESS to fund these people with welfare (actualy to fund their kids in most cases) than it does to pay for the exra law enforcement, disease problems, etc that happen when there is no such fall back.

Per those corporate "benefits". Sorry, but paying a company to ship jobs oveseas does NOT help us. Allowing companies to pay workers less than it takes them to live means more taxes. Its not a complete loss, no, because those welfare and medicaid dollars do go back into the communities, but you want to lay all the blame on those people getting the benefits and ignore the fact that so many of those people are really and truly working and working hard.

there IS a lot more, but getting into all of that requires getting into the tax code and various very complicated laws. i can do that, but I believe the above are more than enough to prove my point.

[BigBallinStalin]

You vote with what you percieve to be in your personal financial interest. Just because that might not include welfare doesn't make it any less true.

See, that is the hypocrisy here. For all the complaints about deadbeats on welfare, the truth is they cost this country far less than all the various benefits and free stuff given to larger corporations and wealthy individuals.

Can you empirically support that claim? That's a bold "truth."

Everything from State department visits and discussions to ensure that US companies are treated "fairly" to roads (rails, ironically enough are largely private) and airports/airlines, to direct tax subsidies. Most of the tax benefits are given with the promise of creating jobs. However, this often does not wind up truly playing out the way people think.

Then you have the whole bit of allowing a company (yep, Walmart comes to mind, but they are not the only ones or even the worst) to hire people for less than it takes them to live, gauranteeing that even though they are working, they STILL need taxpayer subsidies. This is done because the "companies cannot afford to pay more". Well -- WE cannot afford to subsidize those companies' workers. Particularly not when those companies are taking major profits. And, before you start crying "lazy", "could have gotten education" again, how about admitting that these people are, at least working, whereas the stockholders have just plopped down some money and "sat back to watch". Some did indeed earn that money, but many, many, many investors did not.. they simply inherited their money.

That isn't empirical evidence. That's your stated opinion.

It also ignores the fact that deadbeats on welfare are still deadbeats, and that benefits given to corporations entice corporations to maintain business within US borders (which is economically better than having a bunch of welfare deadbeats around).

No, I ignore nothing.

Sorry, but your earlier statement just did.

Among other things, I very much DO think we need a change to the welfare system. But, advocating change and saying "we cannot afford to fund these stupid deadbeats" are two different issues. The plain, ugly truth is that it costs us LESS to fund these people with welfare (actualy to fund their kids in most cases) than it does to pay for the exra law enforcement, disease problems, etc that happen when there is no such fall back.

Per those corporate "benefits". Sorry, but paying a company to ship jobs oveseas does NOT help us. Allowing companies to pay workers less than it takes them to live means more taxes. Its not a complete loss, no, because those welfare and medicaid dollars do go back into the communities, but you want to lay all the blame on those people getting the benefits and ignore the fact that so many of those people are really and truly working and working hard.

there IS a lot more, but getting into all of that requires getting into the tax code and various very complicated laws. i can do that, but I believe the above are more than enough to prove my point.

That's not a truth. It's your opinion until it's supported by fact.

[targetman377]

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

It is only the best form because it has never been tried. in that i mean true democracy!

True democracy absolutely has been tried. What leads you to believe it has not?

Seriously... people need history sometimes.

i would not say the Greeks had a true democracy because not everyone voted. women for example did not vote! and in a democracy everyone can vote even in a direct democracy. I would say that some native American groups could have lived in a democracy. As such they truly could have been. reason is simple if you are in a small clan it is easier to be a democracy a large number of people can not reach consensus at all

[targetman377]

America is not a democracy cause supreme power is not in the hands of the people it is in the hand of the constitution.and the federal government. Meaning that law trumps all other laws. With certain exceptions that the federal government can not do. Also in a direct democracy there is only a legislation branch there would be no need for an executive branch.We do have the best form of government though for protecting the minority. Which is something a democracy can not do. The Americans have a republic that gives power down to the people. (not too much and not too little)

[BigBallinStalin]

America is not a democracy cause supreme power is not in the hands of the people it is in the hand of the constitution.and the federal government. Meaning that law trumps all other laws. With certain exceptions that the federal government can not do. Also in a direct democracy there is only a legislation branch there would be no need for an executive branch.We do have the best form of government though for protecting the minority. Which is something a democracy can not do. The Americans have a republic that gives power down to the people. (not too much and not too little)

You might enjoy Michael Munger's lecture called "Why Democracy is Overrated"
http://michael-munger-why-democracy-is- ... et/_/91061