Revamp Government Top to Bottom...all other actions have failed!

I don't believe we need to scrap the system... scrapping the system would lead to chaos.

End quote

This is essentially what's holding us back. Everyone including those who know nothing at all about government and doesn't seem to care -- knows its failing but have deep fear that any attempt to fix it will only screw it totally up.

Even the best plans that have been tested and proven to work can't be implemented because we can't get the people in place/office to apply them.

For example let's start with the obvious... citizens have lost the economic power to pay the taxes that arr needed to support the current level of government. So either government must be downsized or more / enough taxpayers must come into the system.

But empowering consumers requires lowering profit margins and that is diometically opposed to big business that runs government and controls decisions

 

Okay then- a more literal answer to your OP. To remove one or the other, or "all but one" party would give us one form of government which perhaps you infer- government without politics.

But this one-party system you speak of has been tried many times and always fails. Why? Because "the people" want more than one brand of toilet paper and with one party, there's only one brand- ask Russia.

Prosaically, you are suggesting we cut out the politics and I agree with you! But it's the blind masses that are divided along party lines that complicates matters... running for office always brings out the worst.

Perhaps we need a President that doesn't toe the line but leads in the most logical, efficient way for Americans... and I think we have that today with Obama! And that's why the detractors of Obama have been attacking him 24/7/365 since the day he took office... a man like him stands for real change and this scares the crap out of the other side.

Regardless, we have had many of them. Any President in his second term is a confident man who knows he can't be ousted and will run his full legal term in office- it gives a degree of bravado. Check out any two termer to see what I mean. We have this potential with Obama- we are not in a Great Depression to his credit- perhaps he deserves a second term.

Apart from that, you are suggesting a totalitarian regime and I am against you on that.

 

And I think you are right.

 

Any opinion about David Gergen?

 

The bill was not written so that it is severable. This means that should one part of the bill, as it has been, be declared unconstitutional.

The entire bill is.

However I disagree with your premise oldmanonfire.

The Problem today, is not that our Government is "ill equipped" for dealing with the issues facing our Republic today.

Rather, the problem is that Government tries too in the first place.

If our Government is ill equipped for anything, it is wholly ill equipped to acting as everyone's "nanny".

 

By that definition, no one can ever be truly "independent".

As there is always going to be some external/internal fact, idea, motivation etc...which leads one to form the conclusion's they have.

Indeed, it's wholly impossible for an individual to formulate an opinion, informed or otherwise, without some outside influence of some kind being applied/utilized.

 

Long ago I started another thread on PF theorizing that the USA and it's citizenry have reached the Peter Principle. My DIRECT point was that in our current mode, current system, we simply do not possess the skills or wherewithal to do better. Makes no difference the myriad reasons why we have become incompetent...something must change, paradigm shifts are needed, or as all of our issues worsen, it will simply drag us further down...

 

How about this scenario; Let's assume we have a business in the private sector which employs 500,000, and is involved in products/services across several sectors, and does business globally. This company will have a Board, a CEO, other executive positions, with presidents/managers in charge of each business unit, and so on. Excluding the petty office politics which really won't burden critical decision making in this private company, day in and day out this company can be very successful WITHOUT POLITICS. Employees and departments and business units and the corporation have clear and concise goals, standard operating procedures, fiscal responsibility, etc. When critical decisions are made, they take into account the health of the business, the impact on employees, the impact on clients, the ROI for shareholders, their fiscal positions, etc.

I don't care if there are a thousand political parties, and they can get together anytime they wish, serve cupcakes and sing kumbaya, but these same idiots cannot be allowed to force their preferences on government. This is tantamount to another very detrimental issue in the USA which is religion and their never-ending desire to force their personal preferences on others! News flash to both of them; keep all of your personal preferences to yourself!!

There is absolutely nothing that I know of that says we cannot have governments at ALL LEVELS which can operate like the private sector must operate. As long as voters wish to force their personal preferences into the management of government, we will continue the status quo...

 

Although I like David Gergen, he is also politically polarized...probably more open-minded than most, but still polarized.

And David and others are trying to steer politicians to operate in politics but it simply does not work. We've got to stop trying to manage the $3.5 trillion USA government using politics!

Here's a fundamental question; WHY do we need representatives at all levels of government?

I'd be curious to read answers from anyone on this question...

 

Except we're not talking about "external/internal fact, idea, motivation etc"...we're talking about political party politics. All of us are who we are due to external influences...this cannot be avoided. BUT, when government votes on stem cell research for example, are the votes based on the best position for the citizenry or based on the position of a political party?

 

To represent!

If you were in prison... would you want one guard... who might not like you and beat you up, take your food and wash you down with the fire hose every day? Or maybe 5 guards so there is greater chance that one will stand up for you?


I tried hard but that's about the only thing I could come up with. I can see that we have need for police on a local level and on a federal level so people can't just cross state lines and continue their crime sprees. And we need special investigators to monitor banking and other types of specialized crime and fraud.

 

This is exactly the right place to start and those are good questions that need to be explored. Why do we have government?
Since we live in a large and complex society that requires a certain amount of cooperative collective endeavor, it is easier to get someone else to take care of all the myriad details than to be personally involved in all of them yourself.

There are places where citizen involvement in the detailed management of government exists. These are the towns of New England that have their town meetings every spring to decide the town budget. Every single detail of the towns revenue and spending can be brought up for debate by any voter who attends and decided on the spot by majority vote. Even so, the people distance themselves from the day to day minutia by selecting a few local citizens by popular vote, Selectmen, to referee the town meeting and oversee the town's government between town meetings. They usually meet once a week to deal with the towns business and field requests, complaints, rants, appeals etc. Their meetings are open to all comers. They have limited executive power but no power to legislate, legislation is the exclusive purview of the people at Town Meeting.

Where the scope of collective endeavor becomes larger this type of government can become unwieldy so most people adopt a representative type of government, where citizens are selected by popular vote to legislate in the people's interests in these larger matters. This is not an insensible thing to do in theory but the practicalities of representative legislative government have proven to be fraught with problems of influence where some small few often exert influence beyond their numbers.

Why do we have so many levels of government?
That is a good question.
I believe that a layered government is not necessarily a bad thing because there are many things that can be best dealt with at different levels. For example, there are local roads, county roads, state roads, and federal roads. These all serve the same purpose, moving people and goods, but is it wise to let the federal government decide which local roads need maintenance, or the county, or the state?
No, the scope of their interests are different.
In the same vein is it wise to let the local government be in charge of maintaining the interstate highway?
No, for the same reason.

Why is there so much duplication in government?
Another good question.
No doubt there is some superfluous duplication but how much?
Is the interest of the Federal legal department the same as a small town's?
Not likely.

The problem is the media blackout and voter ignorance. If the citizens were made aware of everything their elected representative did as their voice in government and discussed it with their fellow voters things would be far different. If the people sent to represent citizens in government were held accountable by the people who elect them things would be different. But they are not, because the people are not made aware of what their representatives are up to on their behalf and are continually distracted by superfluous and irrelevant media coverage.

It has gotten to the point where people like you, instead of trying to return the system of government to accountability, just want to get rid of it.

But replace it with what?

 

Eliminate government altogether, it doesn't serve any useful purpose.

 

You should go to Somalia if you want to see that in action.

 

We need government...

to collect road taxes and build and maintain roads so we are free to drive anywhere.

... oops, I forgot that they are now toll roads... scratch that


to tell us what to think

....oops, I forgot we have religion to do that


to make the nation a better place for out children

...oops, I just noticed they are dumping at least 14 trillion dollars of debt on out children.... scratch that


to regulate banks that manage our money

...oops, didn't taxpayers have to bail them out because they failed to make prudent loans... scratch that


to help us save up for old age and retirement

...oops, social security trust was raided and little pieces of IOU paper was left in it's place.... scratch that

to print money!

Yeah... finally I found something they got down pat.

 

Somalia is in much better condition without a state than with it.

As even the CIA factbook admits:

"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

http://mises.org/daily/2066

 

If Somalia is so attractive why are the big, or even any, corporations and banks not racing to set up operations there?
Why is it so hard for tourists to visit without being kidnapped?

Personal safety is something that citizens come to rely on from their government as a basic service. It seems that personal safety is not a reliable service in Somalia. Without that, all else becomes irrelevant.

 

Why do we need representatives? IMO this question leads to our problems because the representative is trying to represent particular people, in a particular location, with a million other variables as compared to others. The closer we try to 'represent' people, the more we are encouraging greedy and self-serving behavior. And the politician feeds this behavior because it helps ensure re-election.

So, instead of 535 'representatives' voting based on 535 different 'local needs', how about creating a different system in which the 535 are voting legislation for the good of the entire nation? Or...even better...just eliminate the 535 and let the state governor report to the US government executive branch?

What if all police activities were part of the federal government? One payroll system, one H/R system, no unions, all the vehicles and uniforms the same colors, one prison system, etc.? I live 3.5 miles from our small incorporated town...so we don't really get 'city' emergency services, we get 'county' services, but the county sheriff might be 30 minutes away although city services might be 5 minutes away, and if it's an accident on the freeway this requires the state CHP, and on and on and on...convoluted! All the levels of emergency service departments have redundant layers of management and overhead. So all governments end up paying more, the people actually get less services in some cases, yet cities and states complain they are broke??

 

If we wish to be acknowledged globally as a 'nation' then we must have some form of government of that nation.

Or we can eliminate the 'nation' status and let each state fend for themselves in the global arena and just declare ourselves as part of the North American continent.

Or just go back to living in giant territories and let the holstered six-gun do all of our negotiating...

 

All great reasons why we need to 'revamp government' from top to bottom...

 

I see their PURPOSE is likened to that of a referee or umpire in a sports competition. They are needed to keep the game fair, according to the rules, for BOTH sides. However, if they are paid by gamblers the outcome is predictable, unfair and one side gets cheated. That's why it's so wrong for politicians to take campaign contributions from big business who is giving up their most valuable, cherished thing... PROFIT.... to PURCHASE influence to government decisions over tax payer's money.

It's a mystery why anyone would wonder why citizens have lost the economic power to support the government. They have been hijacked, cheated and robbed by the "organizations" that bought influence to government. The next experiment in government had better take this into consideration and find a way to GURANTEE that the people who support the nation aren't cheated and depleted of their resources.

I kinda hope you are kidding because when we analyze how well the federal government is running the economy... well I just see myself dying on the kitchen floor waiting on the fed police and ems to show up.

Yes... there is excessive redundancy in many services but in some services it would be a good thing in the case of a major catastrophe. Running out of ambulances and medical services is kinda like running out of fuel in an airplane. You just don't want to be there if it happens.