Do we really need a president?

Imagine that there was a universal holding account for all the taxes collected from every American. At any time, anyone can monitor how much money was in this account but no individual could gain access to the funds. Now imagine that there was an app created that allowed every American with a smartphone to submit ideas for new laws and environmental preservation acts with a proposed budget displayed next to it. Anyone could view the laws proposed and vote for or against the law. If people wanted an expensive act put into play, taxes would increase accordingly and if they voted to appeal a law, taxes would go back down. People could submit ideas for laws on a national, state, regional or local level effectively replacing the need for a governor or even a president to make the kind of changes a society needs to function correctly.

Just food for thought.

 

You'd basically have to gut the Constitution to the core and start over. Also, you run into the problem of tyranny of the majority.....once the majority of the public finds they can vote themselves the proceeds of the national treasury, what is to stop them from doing so ?

Also, it would become quite transparent that taxes only make up a portion of what the govt spends....in recent years, up to 50% of spending has been financed with borrowed 'money', basically printed into existence by the FED.

 

Yes we need a President. I think in every aspect there is always a leader, elder. A leader is needed but a tyrant is not. I think that voting in a leader is good because if you have something like North Korea and you have power passed down is bad.

 

I think what you are getting to is real Democracy and while it sounds good in theory...I'm not sure it would work in reality- meaning - TnAndy has it right as it would truly turn into a tyranny by the majority without regard for the rest of the nation which would lead to cracks and surely splinter the nation in the long run - meaning - Civil War. We got a good system if they would just follow it. I admit, there are times I would like to say the hell with it also and send the A-10s in to deal with all those whacko demonstrators but they are doing nothing wrong under the Constitution as long as they're peaceful so...

 

Sure, for the amendments that were added to the constitution involving the president. There really wouldn't have to be that many changes except for there would be no government. I don't think there would ever be the problem of majority tyranny because I really doubt enough selfish people would be able to work together to out number the people who would oppose such a thing. A true American would want to see his country succeed... but given the nature of economics, I can understand why you would think that they would also want to suck it dry.

I don't think so though. I don't see why this wouldn't make a viable alternative to government.

 

I'm talking about a system that is not influenced by individual wealth. I'm talking about a system that is influenced by the majority vote.

 

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" Winston Churchill

You would have to come up with a completely new form of government. I've played around a few times trying to design a new form of government, one that would take power from all the Senators and Congressmen and turn them into clerks and administrators to inform the people on different topics coming up for vote and then the people would vote on each and every topic in place of these corrupted, narcissistic, pompous, professional blood-suckers...but...Alas Babylon! No-joy. It wouldn't work for numerous reasons...back to the drawing board.

 

First thing that comes to mind is "what authority decides on the ideas? That's sort of how and why our Democratic Republic was formed but it took wars and years of debate to draft a form of government that stood for over two centuries. Simple equation is that we have reached critical mass in terms of population, and seem to want to protect the infestation of our planet by supporting those that natural selection should have killed off.

 

Cruel, Heartless and 100% correct.

 

Yeah, kinda sad ain't it?

 

The bottom line problem is the 16th amendment passed in 1913.
Once they were given the "right" to tax income they slowly at first but steadily went nuts with taxes.


The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.


Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

The people. I don't know about you but I think that it's about time that the decisions and actions of America should represent the will of the people instead of psychotic politicians going on quests for world domination.

 

My thought is that the school system is mostly responsible for that.

 

The states that had 18-19 year old drinking laws were told by the feds unless you raise it to 21 you will not get federal highway funds...the money folks in your state paid in income taxes for highways not 1 dollar back for 1 dollar paid in taxes but varying amounts less based on pork barrel highway projects in other states plus funding the administration of the fed DOT.

What if road money for your state came from and was manged in your state?

 

Just to mention: The 16th Amendment was voted down, It never passed. But when it was announced after the votes were counted that "The 16th Amendment is now in effect.", it suddenly was.

Those who vote control nothing, Those who count the votes control everything.

We, fortunately, do not have a democratic form of government. We have a Constitutional Republic.

That, at least, allows some small chance that the fickle whimsy of the masses will not change every aspect of daily life on a daily basis.

A pure Democracy does not work, and can never work because it not only allows the public to vote on every issue, it requires the public to vote on every issue.

Otherwise, it's not a pure Democracy.

So every citizen could (and would have to) spend every hour of the day, every day, voting on issues like whether Dade County should buy 200' of road right-of-way, or Fairbanks, Alaska should put up a different style of street light. Or whether Hockeypuck, AZ should allow the construction of a 12' diameter wind turbine in somebody's back yard.

That being said, freeloaders love bread and circuses, and politicians love to buy votes with your tax money.

A lot of sins can be committed in the name of Democracy. It can justify anything for anybody.

That's why the thieves and parasites harp about fairness and Democracy, while ignoring the Rule of Law and the Constitution.

They want that free ride forever, and they'll never admit that it must eventually come to an end, one way or another.

 

I think Betsy would be working hard at that....it's a work in progress for the next 4 years or so. A nation of home schoolers would be interesting to behold.

I understand your lack of excitement, ghrit....utopias are very rarely utopian for the folks that get to live in them.

 

It might pay you to actually READ the Constitution if you think that only a few amendments pertain to the presidency. It actually isn't that long or complicate, just consisting of 7 Articles.

You're dreaming. Go ask anyone getting govt benefits of any kind to give them up....see how you get. Better still, go buy a home in a place that has a 'good strong HOA'.....you'll get a real education in a mini-education in democracy.