View Single Post
Old 06-25-2007, 08:42 PM   #10
SilentScope001
May The Force Serve You.
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,236
Quote:
Don't we decide by electing our officials?

Don't like the way thngs are being done, should vote for someone else next election.

It's only a matter of time before [somewhat] younger politicians that are actually in touch with the times are elected into office. Maybe they'll do a better jpb spening our money.
Well, you see, the government is spending all our money, not just my money. I like to know where MY money is going, and I like to know how to direct spending of it, but only that money.

It's hard to throw out the incumbents, but it really does not matter. If 51% of the epeople votes to spend 100% of the money in one area, then what about the 49% of the people? They have to pay too, even if they don't like the results. Democrats have to pay for the War in Iraq, Republicans have to pay for Social Security, etc. and that may not be fair for either party.

I know the government needs control over funds, that why most of the money is heading to government's control. But I do wonder of having taxpayers having a token amount of taxes that they get to decide where it goes to, similar to how citizens can vote to decide who they support. The rest of the money gets decided by the majority rule and by politicans, but we have all indepedent right over a small portion.

Prime: Prehaps the tax form would list catogeries that may allow for you to decide where the money can generally goes to, rather than individual programs. If you want more money for Police, you then write that you are earmarking parts of your taxes to the Police. The exact details of where the money that goes to the Police can be decided by the Police departments, but the fact that you are giving money to Police rather than other causes would be good.

Defenders of the System: I understand that our Leaders are democratically elected, but I am also worried about the rights of the indivudal in the process. We are a Democracy, but that doesn't mean the majority should be granted so much power over the minority. That's why we got the Bills of Right to stop the majority from attacking the minority.

But it's isn't just about the minority's views. I think it could be stated that most people (the majority) are funding projects they hate, and that they think that the money should be spent elsewhere. It could lead to political activism, but it is more likely to cause political disillusionment, and people deciding to boycott the government in question, refusing to vote for instance, keeping a hostile netruality towards both political parties. And the political activism won't have you take the money back that you funded for the projects you hate, you still fund them for the duration of the campagin, and you have an uncertain chance of actually succeding.

I like to give those people an ability to have some actual control over the government, because if they are given said power, prehaps we can stop this political disillusionment and ease this sort of hatred. Politicans and voters still manage most of the money, but having indivudals manage their own money allow them to realize that they are part of a Union, that they are part of the United States of America, and let them realize that they are in control of their own government rather than being under the control of the majority.


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Onion
"The Cambodian government has established many exciting-sounding 're-education camps' where both intellectuals and everyday citizens can be sent at any time," Day said. Well, we at Barnes & Noble have always supported re-education in America, and we intend to extend this policy to our new customers." For every hardcover book sold, Barnes & Noble will donate a dollar to the Cambodian government to help re-educate local children.
Full Article Here
SilentScope001 is offline   you may: quote & reply,