73% support the "Buffett Rule"

[Pandora]

I know openmind is no longer on this forum but this idea deserves discussion.

I think it is an idea that could be followed through on to a degree. However, we do not live in a democracy, we live in a republic, and populism is not without its grave faults.

This could be applied in some areas but not in all. Unpopular but necessary programs need to be funded too.

Do you have some examples of unpopular but necessary programs?

Most necessary programs I would think are popular, its programs like the giving methadone to street people to hope they don’t rob you for drug money that I think are not popular and also not necessary But programs like foster children and child abuse programs I think most people support and are very needed.

 

[dogtowner]

Do you have some examples of unpopular but necessary programs?

Most necessary programs I would think are popular, its programs like the giving methadone to street people to hope they don’t rob you for drug money that I think are not popular and also not necessary But programs like foster children and child abuse programs I think most people support and are very needed.

IRS, justice, census

 

[Dr.Who]

isn't this why we run the House for only two year terms ? to make sure they pay attention to what WE want ? any sort of direct democracy is subject to fraud. elections are no different but the fraud is harder to effect on a grand scale than some internet thing.

That is exactly why we have terms in the house.

Our country has a balance of popular influence and a ruling body that answers to its own conscience and the const.

A gov that answers to no one cannot work any more than a ruling system run by popular vote.

 

[PLC1]

Lobbying is important and useful. A million people who share the same view would have trouble communicating that to their representatives but when they join their voices and hire a spokesperson then that is just lobbying.

The problem is not so much with the lobbyists saying what they want but with the congressmen making laws that in the end favor one special interest and not providing equal protection under the law.

Correct, and they make such laws why? Because the lobbyists are so convincing and friendly, or does it have something to do with money?

 

[Dr.Who]

Do you have some examples of unpopular but necessary programs?

I was speaking in theory. Does anyone doubt that such a program exists? (not so much the necessary part but the more the unpopular part) The people of this country are fickle and subject to whims that are so easily influenced a single statement from a celebrity could sway the masses. If we had such a system then there would be that much more incentive to sway those masses.

Would the IRS cease to exist? It is draconian and perhaps it does deserve to be abolished. But the gov does need a mechanism for collecting taxes and it would have to be replaced by someother IRS. Would all IRS's cease to exist leaving the gov unable to collect taxes? I doubt it. Would the turmoil of programs being ended constantly cause havoc? Probably.

What of programs that were at one time vastly unpopular but later became popular when they demonstrated their value? Each of these would have been ended prematurely. Doesn't every single principled politician who stands by his integrity run counter to the popular movements in his district? Wouldn't a popular defunding of each congressman cause him to support zero issues that were principled? One could argue that term limits cause congressmen to pander to the voters rather than to act for what is right. A system that were too populists would be like having one day term limits. No term limits would give congressman to ability to ignore us but too short or too populists of a system would erode his intergrity. We need balance.

WWII was unpopular when it began but it destroyed the Nazis. If we had waited for popular support would the delay have caused problems?

So,no I do not have good examples. I ask again does anyone doubt that good examples exist?