US Govenment

United States
December 20, 2009 2:17pm CST
For a long time now, our "democracy" has acted much more like a dictatorship. Our country is lead by lobbyist, and powerful people who are only worried about their own success. Our leaders are not elected because of their beliefs, but by the amount of money they can accumulate. We consider our form government to be the best in the world, but can anyone explain to me the real difference?
2 people like this
4 responses
@Netsbridge (3242)
• United States
22 Dec 09
With its superb constitution, the US government has never been a democratic government: The US government is a piracy government and has always operated by barbaric principles - anything goes that satisfies it hunger!
@xfahctor (14130)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
20 Dec 09
The form of government that was established by our founders IS the best in the world, unfortunetly we haven't followed that lay out in a long time. It's all about money and power rather then public service and carrying out the state's and people's business. But we keep putting them back in there, and they keep getting further and further entrenched in there. We deserve what ever facist coperate arsitocrocy we get at this rate. *don't blame me, I voted for Baldwin.
1 person likes this
@gewcew23 (8011)
• United States
20 Dec 09
And yet you want more government that will only create more lobbyist and more powerful people.
• United States
21 Dec 09
Gew, and yet you want less government which is much easier for a select few to control and own. Thus a dictatorship. Is that your secret plan?
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14130)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
21 Dec 09
I would contend a smaller government is easier to control debator. think about it, few people, easier to vote out, harder for them to hide and blame others, and over all just fewer chefs working on the soup -more efficiant.
@jb78000 (15173)
21 Dec 09
smallest government is a dictatorship. giving lots of power to a few seems to me to be a mistake. i think much better is distributing the power - including representation from smaller parties and independents. whatever your equivalent of devolution - i.e. in your case states having more autonomy would also seem sensible. incidently voting out the very powerful is not always that easy.
@bobmnu (8160)
• United States
22 Dec 09
Maybe we need to go back to what the founding father wanted. One representative for every 30,000 people. Think about it you would have someone representing you that you knew and could call him/her. It would be easier for a person to run and money would not be such an issue as you could meet most of the people in person. Right now my Rep has most of the rural area in this part of the state but has five larger cities (50,000 or more) in his district. What does he care about my county with its 25,000 population. If he carries the cities he can lose in the rest of the district and still be elected. If I wanted to influence my Congressman and give him $50,000 I would be influencing 1 of 8 congressmen in the state. Under the old way my $50,000 would have to be spread between 22 congressmen to get the same influence. It would be much easier to unseat someone who was not responsive to the wishes of the people. The original intent of the Senate was that the Senators were to represent the wishes of the State. If they wanted to keep their job they would see that unfunded mandates would not pass on the expense to the state government. I have never been able to talk to my US Senator in person but have talked to my State Assembly and State Senator several times in person. If I was not happy with the way the US Senator was voting I could voice my views to them and they would listen. One of the criticisms of this plan is it would make it difficult to get things done in Washington. To me this is a good thing.