• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

HOW LONG DO WE HAVE?

scottmcneal

NAXJA Forum User
Location
not here
This is the most interesting thing I've read in a long time. The sad thing about it, you can see it coming.
I have always heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us, not that we deserve it.
How Long Do We Have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government.'
'A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public
Treasury.'
'From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.'
'The average age of the world's greatest
civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years'
'During those 200 years, those nations always
progressed through the following sequence:
1. from bondage to spiritual faith;
2. from spiritual faith to great courage;
3. from courage to liberty;
4. from liberty to abundance;
5. from abundance to complacency;
6. from complacency to apathy;
7. from apathy to dependence;
8. from dependence back into bondage'
Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning the
2008 Presidential election:
Number of States won by:
Democrats: 19
Republicans: 29
Square miles of land won by:
Democrats: 580,000
Republicans: 2,427,000
Population of counties won by:
Democrats: 127 million
Republicans: 143 million
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2
Republicans: 2.1
Professor Olson adds: 'In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of this great country. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare...' Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the 'complacency and apathy' phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's population already having reached the 'governmental dependency' phase.
If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say
goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.
If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message. If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.
WE LIVE IN THE LAND OF THE FREE,
ONLY BECAUSE OF THE BRAVE:peace:
 
"People shall continue to vote themselves bread and circuses until they suddenly find that there is neither bread nor circuses."

I don't recall who said that offhand, but I think it goes back to Classical Greece (the time of Plato, et al,) so it shows how long this sort of thing has been going on.

Kinda like how Mark Twain once said, "The world does not owe you a living. The world doesn't owe you a damned thing - it was here first." Again, tells you how long that sort of thing has been happening...
 
"People shall continue to vote themselves bread and circuses until they suddenly find that there is neither bread nor circuses."

I don't recall who said that offhand, but I think it goes back to Classical Greece (the time of Plato, et al,) so it shows how long this sort of thing has been going on.

Kinda like how Mark Twain once said, "The world does not owe you a living. The world doesn't owe you a damned thing - it was here first." Again, tells you how long that sort of thing has been happening...

Well I guess it is good that our politions either lie to us and do what they want to do.

Even though I like the idea of the original post, I'm not so sure I can agree with how those numbers were arrived at. How's it go? You can make statistics agree with your point 90% of the time?
 
Well I guess it is good that our politions either lie to us and do what they want to do.

Even though I like the idea of the original post, I'm not so sure I can agree with how those numbers were arrived at. How's it go? You can make statistics agree with your point 90% of the time?

I was thinking it just meant that the Republicans have more money and as a result own more land, and therefore can afford more police to police it.

LOL.
 
I was thinking it just meant that the Republicans have more money and as a result own more land, and therefore can afford more police to police it.

LOL.

Republicans are mostly funded by donations from the middle-class, which averages $50 a person. While a case can be made that the Republican party was at one time the party of the rich, the Democrats squarely hold the title now. In terms of money given to political parties, the super-rich gave considerably more to the dems. In terms of the millionaires club (Senate), again, the dems win. In terms of self-financing by wealthy candidates, the dems win.

There's an interesting analysis about the increased numbers of wealthy Democrats. Because more wealthy dems "earned" their money through inheritence, they don't understand the marketplace or the challenges associated with government and regulations. For example, compare a young "A" list Hollywood actor who amassed millions of dollars in few short years with a business owner who took a lifetime of hard work to amass the same amount. Each will likely have a very different view of wealth accumulation, appreciation, and what it takes to make a strong economy.
 
Republicans are mostly funded by donations from the middle-class, which averages $50 a person. While a case can be made that the Republican party was at one time the party of the rich, the Democrats squarely hold the title now. In terms of money given to political parties, the super-rich gave considerably more to the dems. In terms of the millionaires club (Senate), again, the dems win. In terms of self-financing by wealthy candidates, the dems win.


This is why we need to move to a publicly financed campaign system. It's all about favors. "Scratch my back I'll scratch yours" principle mixed with gambling. In 2000, the money was on Bush, so donors read the writing on the walls and ran towards him. In recent years, their reading it again and rushing towards the Democrats.

I'm just glad it's on my side right now :D
 
This is why we need to move to a publicly financed campaign system. It's all about favors. "Scratch my back I'll scratch yours" principle mixed with gambling. In 2000, the money was on Bush, so donors read the writing on the walls and ran towards him. In recent years, their reading it again and rushing towards the Democrats.

I'm just glad it's on my side right now :D

But what if 90 % of the public is really pissed off and wants to spend their money to support their favorite candidate. I doubt there will ever be a truely even handed funding option short of violating free speech.
 
But what if 90 % of the public is really pissed off and wants to spend their money to support their favorite candidate. I doubt there will ever be a truely even handed funding option short of violating free speech.

True, and there in lies the problem. If you eliminate all forms of campaign financing to prevent influence buying you cut off freedom of speech. I just think we should limit campaign donations to no more than $100, twice during the primaries and twice during the general election.

PAC's are a separate ball of wax altogether.
 
True, and there in lies the problem. If you eliminate all forms of campaign financing to prevent influence buying you cut off freedom of speech. I just think we should limit campaign donations to no more than $100, twice during the primaries and twice during the general election.

PAC's are a separate ball of wax altogether.
I'm not seeing freedom of speech problems there. So you can't give money to your favorite candidate. You can still speak up for him/her. You can still make up as many signs as you want, plant them in your yard, etc. Currently there're plenty of groups making ads for their chosen candidate, while not officially associated with the campaign.
I like the public financing idea simply because it would allow people to run who may not have the vast resources/contacts of the typical politician.
 
I saw this a few weeks and did not post for fear of being flamed. I happen to agree with all of it.
 
I'm not seeing freedom of speech problems there. So you can't give money to your favorite candidate. You can still speak up for him/her. You can still make up as many signs as you want, plant them in your yard, etc.

SCOTUS (I can't remember the exact case name) ruled that you freedom of speech of speech is not limited to just words but also expression. They also ruled specifically on campaign finance or at least upheld a lower courts judgment. You cannot prevent people from donating money to a candidate because it is freedom of expression, but just like you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, that expression can be limited.

Currently there're plenty of groups making ads for their chosen candidate, while not officially associated with the campaign.

Yeah, they're called PAC's (political action committee aka special interest groups) and often times not held to the same 'truthiness' standards that official ads are. I think they suck on both sides of the isle.

I like the public financing idea simply because it would allow people to run who may not have the vast resources/contacts of the typical politician.

What about thrid party candidates? What should be the threshold that one must reach to qualify for public financing? Any schmoe can get a few signatures and some coin together. Doesn't mean taxpayers should foot the bill for his campaign.

I'm not saying I don't like the idea of moving to a public financing system, there are just a lot of really big kinks.

Thoughts?
 
SCOTUS (I can't remember the exact case name) ruled that you freedom of speech of speech is not limited to just words but also expression. They also ruled specifically on campaign finance or at least upheld a lower courts judgment. You cannot prevent people from donating money to a candidate because it is freedom of expression, but just like you can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded movie theater, that expression can be limited.



Yeah, they're called PAC's (political action committee aka special interest groups) and often times not held to the same 'truthiness' standards that official ads are. I think they suck on both sides of the isle.



What about thrid party candidates? What should be the threshold that one must reach to qualify for public financing? Any schmoe can get a few signatures and some coin together. Doesn't mean taxpayers should foot the bill for his campaign.

I'm not saying I don't like the idea of moving to a public financing system, there are just a lot of really big kinks.

Thoughts?
I wasn't aware of the Supreme Court ruling...

I concur on the PACs not being the best...I'd go for reigning them in, no matter whether we go to public financing or not because yes, they do suck. I still don't know how true the swift boat guys ever were, but they did color my view of Kerry.

I'd say the two main parties, of course, and then the most viable third party candidate. Maybe whoever has the highest voter turnout during the primaries or something.

All I know is that I don't want any future candidate/pres able to be accused of buying his way in (guilty or not)...like Obama and his record shattering fund-raising for this campaign.
 
I wasn't aware of the Supreme Court ruling...

I concur on the PACs not being the best...I'd go for reigning them in, no matter whether we go to public financing or not because yes, they do suck. I still don't know how true the swift boat guys ever were, but they did color my view of Kerry.

I'd say the two main parties, of course, and then the most viable third party candidate. Maybe whoever has the highest voter turnout during the primaries or something.

All I know is that I don't want any future candidate/pres able to be accused of buying his way in (guilty or not)...like Obama and his record shattering fund-raising for this campaign.

Lets just hope Obama can use that fund raising magic of his to help bail out the US Treasury. Ya know, put it good use. Maybe he can sweet talk the Chinese out of a few trillion here and there.

But if we do public financing, I think we should make them all take idiot tests that they must pass before they get funding. :banghead:

Hell with or with out public financing, we should make them pass an idiot test to prove they are qualified for the job.
 
But if we do public financing, I think we should make them all take idiot tests that they must pass before they get funding. :banghead:

Hell with or with out public financing, we should make them pass an idiot test to prove they are qualified for the job.
For once, I actually agree with you Mike :wave1:
 
Back
Top