What would life be like in America if we did away with ALL government higher in standing than our mayors?

[foxmulder469]

Just seems like they are all useless.

[terambulan]

Recipe for anarchy.

[jake-the-peg]

I'd have argued with you yesterday but after yesterday's vote it seems pretty difficult.

Seems like turkeys do vote for Christmas after all

[JockSporran]

Government would be at local level, but unless there was some kind of overall national forum, the situation would break down into petty fiefdoms like Europe during the Dark Ages.

I understand your cynicism, but national and international unity is necessary for civilization.

The real problem is that everyone is used to voting in a leader who will hopefully 'run things properly'. What is really needed is participatory democracy, where THE PEOPLE have a say in every law passed.

[jno]

not at all. They voted on principle, the principles that got them elected in the first place (the ones that say you don't hand out taxpayers' money to bank directors to recompense them for failure).

What good are principles if you abandon them the moment they seem inconvenient? If our own MPs had any, we wouldn't be in Iraq; we're there because they did what they were told by their leaders. It's good to see lawmakers with minds of their own, even if I don't agree with their vote.

[jno]

I started writing before JockSporran posted, and I was answering Jake. The Swiss have something like the participatory democracy Jock suggests - which is why all women have had the vote for only 10 years or so. Those who previously participated didn't see why they should share the vote with the other half of the human race. Is that democracy or not? And is there actually any point in having parliaments if everything is to be decided by twice-daily referendums?

[jake-the-peg]

What good were principles to those in the bread line after the Wall Street Crash JNO?

Nobody thanks the man standing in the wreckage saying - at least I stayed true to my principles

[jake-the-peg]

This is actually the attitude that got the bill voted down.

There were significant safeguards things like the cancelling of Golden Parachutes and limits on banker's pay awards and a lot of oversight into the money.

But people didn't look at the detail and just saw it as a bail-out to greedy bankers so those nearest re-election lost their nerve and voted it down.

They put their own personal careers first - that was the principle at stake!

Like I said - Turkeys!

[jno]

I didn't say I agreed with the voting, Jake; but what happened was legislators listening to their constituents, which seems like a good idea to me. I'm not sure it's right to say they 'didn't look at the detail' - I have no idea how many did or didn't, but I don't think you can suggest American voters are all idiots (even if they did vote for Bush). Americans are generally quite well informed about domestic affairs, though they might not know where Iraq is.

The main factor, I suspect. is Americans' dislike of 'big government' generally, much more pronounced than in Europe. Taking over banks is seen as state socialism, which is abhorrent to the vast majority.

[EngTeach]

jno- we did not vote him in the first time- his brother rigged the election in Florida. LOL

The whole crash and bailout is very scary and very confusing. While I do not believe these CEOs should be rewarded with their usual millions in bonuses, I also feel there is some accountability on the part of the consumer as far as the mortgages go. I know some people have lost jobs and such, buy the dimwits who took million dollar mortgages with a $50,000 salary should not get a free pass. 7 years ago my motrgage broker told me my credit was so good I alone could borrow up to $900,000. Out of curiosity, I asked what the monthly payment would be. It would have been 2 1/2 times what I brought home. Why would they tell people this info?

[jno]

I know what you mean, EngTeach, but if I sold you the Brooklyn Bridge I'd expect to be charged with fraud - I don't really see why you should be charged at the same time with being gullible. The banks in effect lent money they couldn't afford to lose, the borrowers borrowed money they couldn't repay - but it was the banks that were in the lending business and should have known better. Bankers and mortgage brokers are in a position of authority and supposedly skill and experience; ordinary borrowers like you and I (and many others less smart) trusted them.

[EngTeach]

JNO- I see your point. I think my attitude comes from the fact that many of these same people who ignorantly got in over their heads are some of the same lining up for benefits. Just get tired of paying for others lifesyle, when mine is paycheck to paycheck.

I agree that the fault does fall with the banks utimately. Their greed was/is the cause of this mess.