It aint necessarily so - that big-government is bad

[Lafayette]

ELECTION VOTING IN AMERICA, A SPECTATOR-SPORT?

Not anyone who has the first idea of how reality works.

I am convinced that we can Tax Better and Spend Better. And most Americans will be better off for it.

Of course, if we don't try we'll never know. But given that the Average American voter prefers to stay away from the polls there is no way we will ever find out.

Let's compare the EU and the US. From Voter Turnout Rates from a Comparative Perspective;
"Figure 11: League table by countryvote to registration ratio, parliamentary (legislative)elections, 1945-2001 by
Rank, Country, (Number of elections), Vote/registration ratio":

5th, Italy,(15), 92.0
9th, Portugal, (10) 88.2
18th, Belgium, (18), 84.8
19th, Austria, (17), 84.4
21st, Sweden, (17,) 84.1
22nd, Netherlands, (16), 83.8
23rd, Denmark, (22), 83.6
25th, Czech Republic, (4), 82.8
26th, Canada,(18), 82.6
31st, Greece, (18), 80.8
34th, Germany, (14), 80.2
42nd Spain, (8), 76.4
49th Ireland , (16), 74.9
71st France, (15), 67.3
.
138th United States of America, (28), 47.7

For all the pre-election day frenzy and expenditure of money, the historical result is truly mediocre.

POST SCRIPTUM

"Democracy" in America is just a "spectator sport", and profits most national TV-station Upper-Management ...
_________________________________

 

[Lafayette]

They dont seem to realize that they are slowly eroding that freedom when they hand over more and more power to a centralized govt. Eventually we'll have laws like you do, where it is a crime to express certain thoughts.

You really must get out and about more.

The "world" is not as you vision it ... furthermore, there are countries that have a far larger dimension of Social Democracy than you think.

 

[RetiredUSN]

You really must get out and about more.

The "world" is not as you vision it ... furthermore, there are countries that have a far larger dimension of Social Democracy than you think.

So we get to celebrate serfdom, along with minority of people forcing their will on the masses?

 

[Lafayette]

So we get to celebrate serfdom, along with minority of people forcing their will on the masses?

You've got an apparent knack for melodramatic Hollywood movies.

You should be writing scripts for them ... ?

 

[RetiredUSN]

You've got an apparent knack for melodramatic Hollywood movies.

You should be writing scripts for them ... ?

I couldn't possibly top your socialistic utopian scripts.

 

[Joe Steel]

ELECTION VOTING IN AMERICA, A SPECTATOR-SPORT?

I am convinced that we can Tax Better and Spend Better. And most Americans will be better off for it.

Of course, if we don't try we'll never know. But given that the Average American voter prefers to stay away from the polls there is no way we will ever find out. ..._

Maybe not. When reasonable persons stay home, elections are won by the candidates who can convince the extremists to vote. Witness the recent success Trump has had. When good voters see this, they may be inspired to vote against what they see has a disastrous future. If good candidates make themselves available they could be elected.

 

[Lafayette]

Maybe not. When reasonable persons stay home, elections are won by the candidates who can convince the extremists to vote. Witness the recent success Trump has had. When good voters see this, they may be inspired to vote against what they see has a disastrous future. If good candidates make themselves available they could be elected.

In past elections, I suspect it was the young Dem-voters who stayed home in disgust, and the Replicant wins were determined mostly by the older-voters who (1) think voting is important and (2) typically remain faithful to the party through thick-'n-thin.

Maybe, maybe not ...
__________________________________________

 

[nothanks700]

Is BigGov such a bad thing?

To see some remarks on this forum, one might be led to believe that BigGov was Evil Incarnate.

However, a study shows that such might be a very, very wrong conclusion: Bigger government makes for more satisfied people, international study finds. Note that this study was done by questioning nationals in the countries covered by the scope of the investigation.

Excerpt:



"Elsewhere is better?" No, that is not necessarily so either. It depends upon many aspects, first and foremost of which are Social Factors (acceptance of foreigners, language barriers, standard of living, etc.)

For instance, consider the above ranking. The Italians are some of the most happy people you can live with and amongst. Unfortunately the Italians cannot seem to find and elect competent politicians to run their economy "from the top down". In fact, when you look at the lack of linkage between Good Governance and Ethnicity, note in the above list how many Latin countries are ranked at the bottom, and how many nordic countries at the top. And yet, when it comes to retirement, the bottom ranked countries are some of the most popular destination for retirees from other European countries at the top of the list!

We cannot say, either, that the US is very high up the scale. In fact, the conclusion from that list is obvious: BigGovernance in the form of important Social Services provided and well-managed by government administrations in the EU countries are why the top-nations in the above listing are European. In fact, that is the reason, I submit, that the nordic countries of Europe have such a high-ranking.

OK, now let's all chew on that conclusion .... !

NB: Notice that the work, work, work nation of Japan, which makes true the adage, "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy".

Big government is not really an issue in and of itself, in fact it can be a good thing. There is a a scale of least to most government. An anarchy would be least of course, and here you would have no road, schools, health systems, and you'd basically live in a Darwinian state with no recourse for crimes against you. As government grows larger, collective progress becomes more central, as long as we're talking about a democracy. In government's purist form, it has an incentive to value only the people for which it was formed. So ultimately, more schools, access to healthcare, access to jobs, etc. only grow as government grows, and is run efficiently.

The second scale is political corruption, it is th cancer that eats away at the otherwise healthy body. As corruption grows, the incentives gear towards the corrupt individuals in government, and government is no longer government, but monarchy. I don't think we have even close to reached that point, although many people disagree. I think for the most part, our government has enough checks and balances to avoid corruption. But keeping a close eye is always necessary.

 

[sookster]

Flint Michigan anyone?

 

[Lafayette]

SURPISE, SURPRISE ...

Big government is not really an issue in and of itself, in fact it can be a good thing. There is a a scale of least to most government. An anarchy would be least of course, and here you would have no road, schools, health systems, and you'd basically live in a Darwinian state with no recourse for crimes against you.

Scaling is the key-word. Populations grow and diversify, and governments must accommodate to the diversity. It aint easy, especially if Civil Servants remain fixated on "my job" not having realized that the job-description may have changed because conditions have changed.

When that happens, the best leave to go to private-enterprise - and, thus, the Revolving Door in DC. (That should stop when those responsible for market-oversight go into the businesses they once policed. A "cooling-off" period of 2-years should be mandatory.)

As government grows larger, collective progress becomes more central, as long as we're talking about a democracy. In government's purist form, it has an incentive to value only the people for which it was formed. So ultimately, more schools, access to healthcare, access to jobs, etc. only grow as government grows, and is run efficiently.

Necessarily, but there are economies of scale, especially where technology can be employed. As in the US, France has finally got around to declaring taxes on-line, which reduces the paperwork-manpower considerably. Other such efficiencies can be found, just like in business.

All that is necessary is the right-metrics. When businesses improve performance there is usually a measurement metric that is applied. Why not to government processes where possible?

One of the biggest failures of modern-governance, I hear, is Information Technology. That is, the data-bases in use are so old that it's a "major job" to update them to the more modern versions, thus enhancing performance of any given agency.

Until some PotUS comes along and "kicks ass", that is ...

The second scale is political corruption, it is the cancer that eats away at the otherwise healthy body. As corruption grows, the incentives gear towards the corrupt individuals in government, and government is no longer government, but monarchy. I don't think we have even close to reached that point, although many people disagree. I think for the most part, our government has enough checks and balances to avoid corruption. But keeping a close eye is always necessary.

This tendency happens much further down the "democracy ladder". When there is corruption at the top, the time to trickle-down to various underling levels can be measured in nanoseconds. Democracy is a "learning-experience". Some democracies, even those having existed for a great long time, still indulge in significant levels of corruption.

For instance, ours. Have a look (from this study done at Harvard) at all three levels, Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here is the infographic showing results for Legislative corruption in American states:


Surprise, surprise?!? (With the numbers shown, who should want to live in New Jersey, New Mexico or South Carolina ...)

POST SCRIPTUM

From the infograpich above, "What, pray tell, is the reason so many of the Northeastern states are corruption-free?" What ethic seems to be installed there?
_______________________________

 

[Lafayette]

Flint Michigan anyone?

OK, so what about Flint, Michigan? (Nice place - one day I spent a week there.)

Don't care. I don't care about polar bears, and I don't care about people who think our policies should be dictated by the effects on polar bears.

Which kinda-sorta means you don't want to be bothered by complex debates.

Right ... ?

 

[sookster]

OK, so what about Flint, Michigan? (Nice place - one day I spent a week there.)



Which kinda-sorta means you don't want to be bothered by complex debates.

Right ... ?

That's a quote in my signature from someone else.

Flint Michigan is the consequence of too little government. There's this philosophy that government is bad pretty much, because they continually want less and less and less government. Well Flint got downsized so much, they had to put lead into their water. And that's the point. There are aspects of our lives where we need government. I can't hire my own fire department. Infrastructure is a big one. If we as a community are going to use the roads, then we as a community have to maintain, and repair or replace roads and bridges. Water systems. Sewage systems. There are basic necessities where we need government. That's the problem with all or nothing thinking. It goes both ways. There is a problem when there is too much government. There is a problem when there is too little government. And it is up to the people to vote accordingly so that a balance can be maintained.

 

[jonny5]

You really must get out and about more.

The "world" is not as you vision it ... furthermore, there are countries that have a far larger dimension of Social Democracy than you think.

You dont know anything about me. Stick to the topic.

 

[Lafayette]

You dont know anything about me. Stick to the topic.

Truth hurts, huh?

It always does ...

 

[Lafayette]

Measuring Illegal and Legal Corruption in American States

That's the problem with all or nothing thinking. It goes both ways. There is a problem when there is too much government. There is a problem when there is too little government. And it is up to the people to vote accordingly so that a balance can be maintained.

When it comes to local government, most often, the problem is one of corruption and whether locally it is "big" or "small". Then, the question arises, "Is there a Whistle Blower Law?" in that state.

To understand whether your state needs serious reform of its political institutions or not, you need only consult the results of this site linked above. Then if your state has a "Whistleblower protection act of 1989" type law on its books, it is up to the state investigatory agency to investigate and a District Attorney to prosecute.

And that's the hard part. If you have no such law, then it will be practicably impossible to investigate and prosecute graft or corruption at the state level.

It also helps to have a public-access "Web Snitch Site" that outs corruption without the person reporting it needing to be identified. Corruption is illegal in most states, I suspect. The only difference, state-to-state, is the will to out illegality, then investigate and prosecute. See more about that here: Whistleblower protection in the United States

It is not Mission Impossible. What happened in Flint could have been avoided, if the citizens of Michigan had had the common will and means to prosecute illegal behaviour of the elected.

It is a great shame that harm was done before that will finally outed the wrongdoing ...

 

[Frank Apisa]

Government is a necessary part if civilization...and government is much, much more often a huge part of the SOLUTION...and not a part of the problem.

A big "part of the problem" are the people who have been duped into thinking that "government is not part of the solution; government is part of the problem."

Ronald Reagan, the person who sold that bit of crapola to Americans...did more damage to this country in that single move than any other president we've ever had. Reagan was a very likable guy...good smile. I liked him...actually voted for him the first time he ran. But this nation would be much better off had he never been president.

 

[Lafayette]

Witness the recent success Trump has had. When good voters see this, they may be inspired to vote against what they see has a disastrous future. If good candidates make themselves available they could be elected.

Just the thought that a disastrous future IS possible if the wrong candidate is elected should bring out the best to vote. Those ,that is, that really care about the country's future not only economically or politically - but humanly.

Because, if we have a two-party system, it is apparent that one side is wholly incompetent in its political ideology warped by fixations that "might is right". An attitude engendered in a country where "winning" is so effing important - in business, in sports, in marriage. On and on and on, ad nauseam.

Sharing is unimportant? We cannot devise a taxation system whereby achievement is recognized and adequately rewarded, but the non-achievers or barely achievers are not incarcerated for life below the poverty-threshold? Why is this notion so difficult to see the day in America? (Bernie has been clamoring it for years and years.)

In this religious country of ours that so many think has been "especially selected" by a Higher Being.

Surprise, surprise ...
__________________________________

 

[Lafayette]

Well Flint got downsized so much, they had to put lead into their water.

They had to tinker with the water supply and poison it?

They were not obliged to commit a crime. And a crime begets justice.

How can one be so stoopid and yet get elected to office ... ?

(Makes on wonder what the hell we are coming to ...)

 

[Fenton]

Just the thought that a disastrous future IS possible if the wrong candidate is elected should bring out the best to vote. Those ,that is, that really care about the country's future not only economically or politically - but humanly.

Because, if we have a two-party system, it is apparent that one side is wholly incompetent in its political ideology warped by fixations that "might is right". An attitude engendered in a country where "winning" is so effing important - in business, in sports, in marriage. On and on and on, ad nauseam.

Sharing is unimportant? We cannot devise a taxation system whereby achievement is recognized and adequately rewarded, but the non-achievers or barely achievers are not incarcerated for life below the poverty-threshold? Why is this notion so difficult to see the day in America? (Bernie has been clamoring it for years and years.)

In this religious country of ours that so many think has been "especially selected" by a Higher Being.

Surprise, surprise ...
__________________________________

You DONT LIVE IN THE USA.

You live in France

 

[Lafayette]

You DONT LIVE IN THE USA. You live in France

So? You jealous ... ?

 

[Fenton]

So? You jealous ... ?

You wrote " In this relgious Country of OURS that so many think has been selected ....."

This is not YOUR Country, you do not live here, the last thing we need is a bunch of eurotrash butting into US affairs

 

[eohrnberger]

You wrote " In this relgious Country of OURS that so many think has been selected ....."

This is not YOUR Country, you do not live here, the last thing we need is a bunch of eurotrash butting into US affairs

As if they don't have enough of a mess to deal with on their side of the Atlantic. :roll:

 

[Lafayette]

This is not YOUR Country, you do not live here, the last thing we need is a bunch of eurotrash butting into US affairs

My passport says differently.

M... r... a...

 

[Joe Steel]

Just the thought that a disastrous future IS possible if the wrong candidate is elected should bring out the best to vote. Those ,that is, that really care about the country's future not only economically or politically - but humanly.

Because, if we have a two-party system, it is apparent that one side is wholly incompetent in its political ideology ...

Unfortunately, too many Americans believe the two parties are pretty much the same. They don't take time to understand the fundamental positions of each and the way Americans are affected by them. They pay attention to campaign advertising but not policy analyses.

 

[Frank Apisa]

Unfortunately, too many Americans believe the two parties are pretty much the same. They don't take time to understand the fundamental positions of each and the way Americans are affected by them. They pay attention to campaign advertising but not policy analyses.

How anyone can consider the two parties as now constituted to be "the same" is beyond reason.

Fact is, the vast majority of "they are the same" comes from liberals of the far left bemoaning the fact that the Democratic Party is not willing to commit suicide by extremism the way the Republican Party is doing.

They are as nuts as the crazies on the far right.