checks and balances

by teejay 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  teejay

  I must've been in grade school when the idea of checks and balances made total sense to me. Recent events have made what I learned long ago an even more valid concept.

  The U.S. government was initially founded on the principle that no one individual (or group) should be able to rule without any kind of impediment. Whatever one person (or group) wanted should be counter-balanced by the wants of some other individual (or group). The Founding Fathers here in America didn't want to cramp anyone's style... they just wanted the best for everybody. They wanted to distance the New Country--as much as they could--from the despotism of King George's England. Simply put... they wanted the greatest amount of freedom, the greatest amount of happiness, for the greatest number of people. These days, there must be a term for that.

  Now in light of this, when I was a good and obedient and loyal Dub I was under the impression that the Founding Fathers weren't the originators of this principle of checks and balances. Back when I was a good Dub, I read somewhere in the Good Book where this three-legged principle of rulership was outlined. In that particular instance, it was outlined that god, THE god, happened to hold all three of the aforementioned legs of the governance. Yeah, the idea that any one person (or group)can sucessfully hold the reigns on all three areas of governance won't work among us puny humans, but the principle was made clear: there should be checks and balances. Nobody, at no time, should hold full sway. Ever.

  **********

  A side point.... to whom it may concern...

  Online life IS NOT LIFE.

  Online life, even at its best, is only a diversion from REAL life. It's oft said... "get a life." Well, regardless of our situation, it's really not that hard (if you know how to go about it), and based on the reality that we aren't here that long, maybe getting a life (starting today) isn't such a bad idea.

  Just a thought.
• 

  Francois

  Right on the money, sir.

  However. The democrat party is attempting - via manipulation of the tax code - to make itself the single, sole, power in this land. Don't believe it? Look at who pays the taxes in this country. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 4% of the taxes. The top 50% pay 96%. The top 1% of income earners pay 34% of the taxes. This is fair?

  The democrat party doesn't care about fair. When they've got a minority of people paying ALL the taxes, then no one will care WHO that minority votes for in an effort to get out from under the tax burden. They will be such a small group compared to the vast number of people who pay NO tax. You gonna vote for someone who says, "Making the rich pay all the taxes is unfair. If elected, we will more evenly divy up the taxes. Some of you who now pay no taxes will pay if we are elected." You gonna vote for that guy? Hell no.

  I say again. The democrat party is the anti-christ - or something very close. We don't need one party controlling all three branches of government. And that's where we're heading. When the dems take total control they'll see to it they never lose another election. They're good at that kinda thing. Be very afraid.

  francois
• 

  teejay

  send me your number, Frank.

  I'm sending you mine. You crack me up.
• 

  teejay

  btw, Frank,

  You said: "We don't need one party controlling all three branches of government. And that's where we're heading."

  For once, we agree. We have a doofus republican president, a conservative (read: "republican") Court, and a legislature that may very well go republican this Fall. Remember: it was YOU that said that we don't need one party controlling all three branches. Of course, that's very old news. When one party controls them all, bad things usually follow. But then, *that* is what this thread is all about. checks and balances.

  p.s. "politics" ain't what this thread was about. I figger you know that a'ready, but I thought I'd say it anyway.
• 

  Amazing

  Hi Teejay: For 40 years we had a Democrat controlled House and Senate ... and many of those years, a Liberal (Democrat) Supreme Court, and many equally Doofus Democrat Presidents (except Jimmy Carter who was and is a good man.) Life was about like it is now ... American political parties have their differences, but the forces inherant in American culture from corporate industrial influence to grass-roots pressure groups all help keep balance ... our economy is not so much a function of what Congress of the President do ... but far more to do with Foreign Investment, especially from Pacific Rim nations.

  Only during the last 8 years have we had a Republican hold on all three branches of Government ... and our economy has performed much better. It has been long overdue, because large business has been held back too long. But I find that under both parties we have more and more laws and rules, and still things do not improve that much overall, but tend to be more burdensome. Sometimes good laws make it through and help us, but most of these, if you review them closely, are laws designed to reduce or eliminate earlier bad laws.

  The Liberals tend to distrust people and business, and place heir faith in government and its programs to benefit society, whereas Conservatives tend to distrust government and place their faith in people and business to solve problems - our Constitution is legally rooted in very limited government. It was never intended to limit the people, or enlarge government. The reason is the our ancestors came out of a period in history where government was a bad nightmare that controlled everything.

  I agree with you about the purpose of checks and balances ... the government that governs least governs best ... so, I like grid-lock ... I like a closely divided House and Senate ... I think its good for us to have a Republican control for a while to act as a check against an otherwise 40 years of Democrat rule ... we need this for a while ... but, as much as I love my Republican buds ... we do need to have some Democrats take over once in a while to keep honesty and balance ... In fact, I would love to see the Libertarians take congress for once and then the Socialists later on, to bring a little humility to the Democrats and Republicans ...
• 

  jws

  francois wrote:

  However. The democrat party is attempting - via manipulation of the tax code - to make itself the single, sole, power in this land. Don't believe it? Look at who pays the taxes in this country. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 4% of the taxes. The top 50% pay 96%. The top 1% of income earners pay 34% of the taxes. This is fair?

  Taxes and percentages. If 1000 people all make $50,000 per year and pay 10% each in taxes, that's 5 million in taxes. If a rich business man makes 50 million and pays 10% in taxes, that's 5 million in taxes. Each pays 10%, yet the one man pays half the taxes in this simplistic example. 1 man pays the same as 1000 others.

  Don't the top earners pay more taxes as a whole mostly because they earn more money and there is more to be taxed? Yes, I know tax rates go up the more you make, but they do level off to a fixed percentage.

  The republicans want tax-breaks and loopholes for the rich. They want them to pay less. Instead of taking home 45 million, the republicans would have him take home 46 million or 47 million, or hell, why not keep the entire 50 million. While the poor guy still pays his 10% and could really use that extra money to improve his life or that of his family.

  The best thing would be to make it equal for all. If that can't be done and tax must be imposed, why not affect those who have it to spare more than those that don't?
• 

  RandomTask

  The best thing would be to make it equal for all. If that can't be done and tax must be imposed, why not affect those who have it to spare more than those that don't?

  Yes, why not just redistribute all wealth. And how are we to determine what amount and to whom the money should go. Why is it even the government's right to take away money earned by people in the first place only to give it to others who make less. That doesn't seem equitable to me. The government is just made up of men and women like you and me, they don't have any "special powers" that are above our own to percieve what is right and wrong for us. And that was the point of the founding fathers, that government should be as limited as possible. The huge monstrosity of a bureaucracy that the U.S. government is today would make the founding fathers roll in their graves! Basically if anything the goal for our society should be for everyone to be self sufficient and not dependent on the government unless they have an extreme special need. For who are you to tell me that I make too much and should be forced to give you any of my money?

  I'm not lashing out at you, just giving you my point of view.
• 

  DanTheMan

  I agree w/Amazing in that Liberal vs. Conservative is just another one of the checks and balances systems that has made this country great (never thought I'd say those words, but I'm appreciating more and more lately how really great a system we have in the U.S.)

  For those who hate the dems and liberals, it's not like I hear them calling for the abolishment of private property or anything. What I mean to say is that Liberal and Conservative are very relative terms. If you consider yourself a Conservative, I'm sure I could find somebody whose conservativism would make you look like a total liberal in comparison. Extremism is the danger, regardless of which ideology it springs from.
• 

  jws

  Why is it even the government's right to take away money earned by people in the first place only to give it to others who make less.

  Perhaps it isn't their job. But taxes need to be collected to pay for things. Where does government get money? Who pays the crews that fix the interstates? Who pays our armed services?

  Which, by the way, the armed services are government jobs. I never hear conservatives griping about more military spending or increasing military jobs. They do gripe whenever a "liberal" cuts military jobs. Cutting "big government".

  The way I see conservatives is very much like the WBTS. They may be for less government, but certainly not personal freedom. When you look at the right-wing, it wants to take this country backwards in time to when religions held a much bigger part in your life. They probably even want to take it back to a time before civil rights, but I may be going too far there.

  When I think of liberals, I see people trying to find solutions and better ways of doing things. Yes, their programs may cost taxpayer dollars, but at least I see experimentation to find what works and what doesn't rather than shying away from it all. Especially in the way of cleaner energy, conservation of natural resources, health care, etc.

  Whereas conservatives say, let it all work itself out. Let economic "survival of the fittest" dictate. Yet, they give breaks to the wealthy and to large corporations, giving the fittest even more of an advantage. As for helping the little guy, no business is going to do that on it's own. Business is cutthroat. It's not going to invest in anything that doesn't return a profit. I believe it is the responsibility of the government to ensure its people have a descent standard of living and education and health care. Whether that's done using private firms or govt ones.

  As for the little guy, most probably believe they get what they deserve. As a former JW who, at one time, looked down on all other peoples, I did. But now I've come to realize that people are mostly equal. They can all aspire to the same peaks or sink to the same lows. The difference is opportunities. And as a national history, the poor have been discriminated against. They do not have the same opportunities to get to where the middle class is and it's not for lack of character either. Who gets the crappiest schools with the worst teachers? The poor. Who gets the worst health care and has shorter lifespans? The poor. It's themes that have run through our national history since we became a nation. And it's a trap. It's extremely hard for the poor to avoid the cycles. The deck is stacked against them. And if our government can resolve that, even if it means spending more money on them, then I'm all for it.