« Suddenly SoJ has become real (updated 19apr15) | Main | The Con-Con and SoJ debates »

20 April 2015

Comments

Account Deleted

Our fed govt doesn't even follow the current Constitution, why would it follow one modified to a more conservative bent? The left can't control or run their own lives. They want a govt that will make them follow their own purported principles. They want a mommy and daddy govt that will be 'cool' and hang out with them smoking dope and letting them stay out late. But they also want a govt that will take over their responsibilities and clean up their messes. The left is infantile. Remember the pony tail guy at the 'debate' when Clinton was running for pres? Flat out admitted it.
Conservatives want what the founders tried to have. A govt that would control the government. I pay the govt to protect my rights. I don't pay the govt to transfer wealth. The states can do that.
A Con Con is a very bad idea. Mob rule (pure democracy) would be in force from the get-go.

Bill  Tozer

We don't need a Con-Con if Big Bro would act like a servant instead of our masters AND follow the rules and laws if forces us live by. AND quit exemting themselves from the laws they pass. It is about time a judge told the Justice Department that "ignorance of the law is no excuse."

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-must-return-rare-double-eagle-gold-coins-to-family-2015-4

joe smith

One person, one vote is a scary thing if one is a neo con.

Bill  Tozer

Mr. Smith. This neo con and card carrying member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy says "boo". Scared ya?

Account Deleted

Really Joe? I seem to recall a lot of popular votes here in Cali that the left went ballistic over. They ran to the courts to overturn the vote. Like all of the left, Joe loves the mob until it turns on him. And it will. History has proven it.
Our republic needs an educated electorate to function properly. The average voter has neither the life experience nor the proper training to make decisions about finance, business and criminal law. Our so-called leaders are even starting to claim that our rights come from the laws enacted by the legislature.

George Rebane

ScottO 805am - Well said. Yes, popular vote is only accepted by the Left when it fits them. Else they seek redress from the courts for 'social justice' as we have witnessed in CA where popularly voted propositions and initiatives have been overturned. This is another inconvenient truth viz joes' 1030pm.

joe smith

And just who will define the "proper training" required to cast a vote? One person one vote has devolved into one dollar one vote. Our elections are bought plain and simple.

George Rebane

joes 932am - Among most people learned in history, we have our Founders who strongly believed in the proposition that grass roots voters, busy with the affairs of everyday life, do not have the "experience nor the proper training to make decisions about finance, business and criminal law." And today the nation's advanced 'dumbth' attests to that more than ever - sadly your assessment about bought elections therefore has much truth.

And it is for that reason that the Founders bequeathed us a democratic republic instead of a democracy. They knew that democracy unmediated would quickly lead to mob rule, abrogation of the Bastiat Triangle of rights, and then tyranny - in short, the road on which we are today proudly marching.

Joe Koyote

So is what you are saying George, is that a ruling elite that makes the decisions for the peons is the best form of government and democracy, one person one vote, is a sham? To say we are marching down the road to the tyranny of the masses is a bit of a stretch. I would say plutocracy, which you seem to advocate, is a more accurate description of today's political situation, the tyranny of wealth, which isn't all that different than feudalism except that the power is vested in the wealthy rather than royalty. Of course, one could argue that the scions see themselves as royalty, so really nothing has changed much. All the revolution did was substitute one ruling class for another, typical of revolutions.
So who does have the experience and the proper training to make decisions about finance, business and criminal law, Ted Cruz? Jeb Bush? These guys are real intellectual powerhouses.

George Rebane

JoeK 1003am - Would that I could shift your mind into a higher gear - your simplistic summaries are beyond quaint. I say no such thing about your "ruling elite" - eight years of commentary here attests to it. See also my credo.

I advocate what the Founders left us and how they advised we organize our governance - nothing more or less. Although I do admit there may be other ways of such organization, getting there from here is a danger to all. The Great Divide will be the most likely alternative.

Yes, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush,..., and even people like Evan Bayh have sufficient training and background to represent less enlightened constituencies necessarily more involved in their daily round. Read the Dept of Education's longitudinal survey of adult literacy in America.

Account Deleted

It would be easier to have a conversation with Joe Smith if he could first figure out what he is for and what he is against.
Are you for or against the popular vote? Or is it one of those 'situational ethics' deals where a deeply held lefty belief gets tossed as soon as it proves inconvenient.
As to who is properly trained is easy. Some one who has an understanding of our form of govt and is familiar with the reasons as to how it was supposed to work. Children used to learn this in school and it used to be that to become a citizen you would be so trained.
You can certainly disagree with our form of governance, but you have to have a basic understanding of what the founding fathers wanted in the first place in order to have a proper basis for your disagreement.
As far as elections being 'bought', I will once again ask how much you were paid and also ask where my check is?

Gregory

The ruling elite aren't elected, they're employees of local, state and federal agencies and they have bought and paid for the politicians who have showered them with pay and benefits exceeding that of the private sector for the same sorts of jobs.

Gregory

Doublechecking, the map of northern counties that didn't reject Prop 21 sure looks like a Jefferson to me, and there's another 5 years of no statistically significant warming since that election.

Again, 23 was a groaner to begin with because it was just an oil company ploy to delay AB32, put in place without a vote of the people nine years ago.

The biggest carbon tax also isn't a tax... the requirement that power companies sell an increasing amount of grid power being solar, wind, and small hydro, no matter how much more that costs. Hey, but if you buy half as much power at twice the price, it remains affordable... really?

Gregory

Forgive the typo and the wrong thread...

D

Gregory,at 01:32 you write " pay and benefits exceeding that of the private sector for the same sorts of jobs."

That doesn't hold up under the most casual research.

For example Sylvia Mathews Burwell is current Cabinet head of Health and Human Services, receives a salary of $199,700. Here's a look at what execs in the private sector make:

"The New York Times by Compdata Surveys: $584,000 on average for an insurance chief executive officer, $386,000 for a hospital C.E.O. and $237,000 for a hospital administrator, compared with $306,000 for a surgeon and $185,000 for a general doctor.

And those numbers almost certainly understate the payment gap, since top executives frequently earn the bulk of their income in nonsalary compensation. In a deal that is not unusual in the industry, Mark T. Bertolini, the chief executive of Aetna, earned a salary of about $977,000 in 2012 but a total compensation package of over $36 million, the bulk of it from stocks vested and options he exercised that year. Likewise, Ronald J. Del Mauro, a former president of Barnabas Health, a midsize health system in New Jersey, earned a salary of just $28,000 in 2012, the year he retired, but total compensation of $21.7 million."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/sunday-review/doctors-salaries-are-not-the-big-cost.html?_r=0

George Rebane

D 1050am - I think Gregory's 132pm was referring to the legions of middle managers in govt bureaus who actually write the detailed regs and invent/execute the procedures to enforce them. These people on the whole would have a hard time finding private sector employment at equivalent compensation.

Citing govt department heads' compensation vs one time income from exercising stock options, etc is not very informative. The higher you go in govt jobs the greater is the differential with the private sector for 'managing' equivalent size organizations. Consider the President and his pay for managing a the world's richest country of over 320M.

For the lower cadres of public employees, government overwhelmingly is their last available employer that will maintain their quality of life.

Gregory

Doug needs to look harder. George needs to recognize that even the civil servant peasantry are making out like bandits.

google
pay and benefits for California civil servants vs public sector

Here's one result:
California pays an average of 28% higher across all job classifications than private California companies do, for jobs that are much more secure.

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/378974/new-aei-paper-almost-every-state-pays-its-employees-more-private-sector-does-jason

Here's a real eye opener:
http://californiapolicycenter.org/transparent-california-releases-compensation-data-for-405-cities-and-826-special-districts-statewide/

Yes, if you run a company that is profitable and manages a large money stream, there's a pot of gold. You can get a pot of gold even at the University of California and you don't have to listen to students bitching about skyrocketing tuition if you don't want to.

George Rebane

Gregory 734pm - what in my 1118pm convinced you that I don't recognize that "civil servant peasantry are making out like bandits"?

Gregory

"I think Gregory's 132pm was referring to the legions of middle managers in govt bureaus"

George Rebane

Gregory 848pm - Don't exactly know where you draw the line, but if you had read the whole paragraph you would have run into "(middle managers) on the whole would have a hard time finding private sector employment at equivalent compensation."

It goes (at least for me) without saying that lower ranks of public employees are in an even better position viz their compensation relative to the private sector. For them, the govt truly is the employer of last resort that pays them at their elevated levels. I'll try not to be so confusing the next time.

Gregory

"For them, the govt truly is the employer of last resort that pays them at their elevated levels."


I think you have that backwards... the government truly is the employer of the first resort for the sorts of people who gravitate to government jobs in the first place. They tend towards being left of center in much the same way as water tends to be wet.

George Rebane

Gregory 928pm - interesting; I think we'll just leave it there.

The comments to this entry are closed.