U.S. Shutdown, no agreement

[Purple Brain]

That's a really good explanation of the difference.

But that would mean no part of the US constitution could ever be amended. Which it has.

And in the UK nobody voted (2010) for the coalition. 36% voted Tory, 23% voted LibDem and 29% voted Labour. The Tories and LibDems formed a coalition which does not represent any single majority. Even non-coalition governments rarely have a clear majority - they just have more than 'the other party'. So the minority typically always imposes its will on the majority. (And it's a close call whether the majority of those who actually voted the minority into power support the policies of those they in good faith elected - moot point).

I'm not dismissing your definition which is quite splendid - but reality tends to bend the rules to suit its needs.

 

[Trader333]

It has been said that democracy always panders to the lowest common denominator which in itself results in lower standards than could otherwise be the case.

 

[new_trader]

Such as?

I agree that's how it is presented, but I am not convinced that it is anything other than an illusion that these rights can't be taken away.

The Bill of Rights

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

It is up to the Supreme Court of the United States to determine whether what the Government wants to do is Constitutional or not, but they have made some appalling decisions.

The individual states can nullify Federal Government decisions:

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly by the courts, and it has never been legally upheld.

 

[new_trader]

It has been said that democracy always panders to the lowest common denominator which in itself results in lower standards than could otherwise be the case.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." - Winston Churchill

 

[Pat494]

I am in favour of a system where the competent run the country under strict and reasonable guidelines.

The general public can't be trusted to elect an honest and competent group of politicians. And that group can't be trusted to form an honest and competent Government.

The 18th century Royal Navy encouraged aspiring Admirals to succeed by hanging Admiral Byng after his defeat. Clinton/Bush/Obama etc. not only wasted the richest country in the world but put the planet's economies at great risk AND there is no retribution ??

The age old question is largely undecided and that is who runs the country ? The elected politicians, the people or some other group ? If you judge past governments by past events then most would agree they are not fit to run a corner shop imho

 

[Pat494]

The events in the USA of the past 50 years is imho not a good advertisement for their 18th century system. Insisting that 3rd world countries, like Iraq adopt their very poor system is just laughable !!

 

[Splitlink]

The events in the USA of the past 50 years is imho not a good advertisement for their 18th century system. Insisting that 3rd world countries, like Iraq adopt their very poor system is just laughable !!

What they have done, over the last 50 years, has been done to look after American self interests. So have we. How unusual!

It's always been like that and it always will be,

UK unions have gone on strike for more money and African farmers have had to find the money to buy a new tractor. Is the British working man losing any sleep over that? Of course not!

Any debate that involves the behavior of a country towards mankind, in general, is, in my opinion, hypocritical and leaves me cold.

 

[Shakone]

The Bill of Rights

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

It is up to the Supreme Court of the United States to determine whether what the Government wants to do is Constitutional or not, but they have made some appalling decisions.

The individual states can nullify Federal Government decisions:

Nullification, in United States constitutional history, is a legal theory that a state has the right to nullify, or invalidate, any federal law which that state has deemed unconstitutional. The theory of nullification has been rejected repeatedly by the courts, and it has never been legally upheld.

I've read them, and some of them are so open to interpretation or full of loopholes that they're practically useless. What I was getting at though, is if someone is deemed a terrorist for example, even if the evidence is sketchy, these rights aren't going to mean a thing.

 

[new_trader]

I've read them, and some of them are so open to interpretation or full of loopholes that they're practically useless.

That's because the US founding fathers overestimated the intelligence of future generations. (Not a dig at you). You have to read it in the context of the time it was written. The US was created as a Constitutional Republic for a very good reason.

Since then, the Government has done a good job of dumbing down the voting public...I would say that I know more about the US constitution and its history than the average US voter.

 

[SURunner]

That's because the US founding fathers overestimated the intelligence of future generations. (Not a dig at you). You have to read it in the context of the time it was written. The US was created as a Constitutional Republic for a very good reason.

Since then, the Government has done a good job of dumbing down the voting public...I would say that I know more about the US constitution and its history than the average US voter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE

 

[rsh01]

Insisting that 3rd world countries, like Iraq adopt their very poor system is just laughable !!

They are 'insisting' for financial reasons....cos it makes them money. Feel free to laugh as much as you want.

Re the US being a democracy, AL Gore may disagree. So you're (not addressed to you in particular) against proportional representation? And the political power of privately funded lobbyists is democratic?

The US (and UK) is the antithesis of a democracy. Dumbing down is the key to maintaining the SQ.

 

[Hate2Lose]

No big deal. I make that in a year of trading.

Peter

Make me your assistant :clap:

 

[darktone]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zbf3DSjEP8&feature=c4-overview&list=UUhZRoC9bMegevAxFmee1oSA

 

[Pat494]

The US system obviously doesn't work, as evidenced by the $17 trillion debt, their present impasse over the budget etc.

So why should the rest of the world care, you may well ask. Being the world's largest economy we have to care is the answer, because problems there affect us all.

Regretably the rest of the world is forced to look on while they settle the budget issue. Behind this issue are more fundamental ones like who runs the country. This may be Congress's big chance to make Constitutional changes to reign in the over aggressive and the over spending Presidents. Can any one man really be expected to do a good job making so many important decisions himself ? Perhaps the time has come for Congress to insist the Presidency post is more like a diplomatic Head-of-State and less like a hogtied dictator.

 

[barjon]

............The US system obviously doesn't work, as evidenced by the $17 trillion debt, their present impasse over the budget etc.................

It's some "not working" for their system to have led a country from small beginnings to the most powerful nation on earth. And, I wonder, what would the state of our own economy look like if they had refused to incur the massive debt they now shoulder.

 

[new_trader]

It's some "not working" for their system to have led a country from small beginnings to the most powerful nation on earth. And, I wonder, what would the state of our own economy look like if they had refused to incur the massive debt they now shoulder.

Jon, are you implying that debt built America?

America was built on Capitalism, freedom and most importantly, sound money. Socialism, The Federal Reserve system and abandoning the gold standard are among the things that have ruined it.

 

[barjon]

Jon, are you implying that debt built America?

America was built on Capitalism, freedom and most importantly, sound money. Socialism, The Federal Reserve system and abandoning the gold standard has ruined it.

No, not implying that at all, NT. Sure it was built on capitalism and freedom, but it was the leadership of government that fostered all that.

I was just musing as to what state world economies would be in if US had not built up such debt, ruinous for them in the long term or not.

 

[new_trader]

No, not implying that at all, NT. Sure it was built on capitalism and freedom, but it was the leadership of government that fostered all that.

No Jon, the US succeeded despite the Government, not because of it.

I was just musing as to what state world economies would be in if US had not built up such debt, ruinous for them in the long term or not.

I find this hilarious. What you're saying is: Where would China and Japan be if they hadn't lent America all the money it has used to buy the products they made.

The world would be better off if they hadn't lent the Americans a single penny. The deal is: America gets the world's productivity and the World get's US debt or Ben Bernanke notes...

WAKE UP WORLD!

 

[darktone]

I was just musing as to what state world economies would be in if US had not built up such debt, ruinous for them in the long term or not.

Would probably be boring place, nothing to fear monger with! :cheesy:

 

[barjon]

No Jon, the US succeeded despite the Government, not because of it.

I find this hilarious. What you're saying is: Where would China and Japan be if they hadn't lent America all the money it has used to buy the products they made.

The world would be better off if they hadn't lent the Americans a single penny. The deal is: America gets the world's productivity and the World get's US debt or Ben Bernanke notes...

WAKE UP WORLD!

Well, if you refuse to believe Government played no part in fostering, facilitating and leading the charge (which flies against the facts I think) then they must, at the very least, have cast a benign eye over it.

As for the remainder. Yes, a bit of a chuckle, but it's what makes the world go round. China and Japan aren't full of fools as you seem to think.

You can keep pontificating all you like about your "sound money" and that Governments' only purpose in life is to rob us all blind, but why don't you look around you. In the material and well-being sense (not "money") most people have a better life than their children, much better than their grandchildren and much, much better than their great grandchildren. If that's what all those evil Governments have led us to then bring it on I say.

ps: as Pat points out I meant .... a better life than their fathers, grandfathers etc. Just proving NT's point that I'm an idiot .