Bankers are stealing money from everyone everywhere these days, it isn't just happening in Canada. I've stated that the bankers here in America should have been put into jail for their criminal activities long ago but our government is working with them to keep them out of harms way. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I agree, although I'd add that the public has developed an appetite (even expectation) for "the Government fixing the economy" which means politicians NEED to have a monetary system it can manipulate and pretend it actually did do something to "fix the economy" which in the end (where we're at now) leads to a government bought and controlled by that very same system. It'll take generations to overcome this perception that the government is there to "fix" things. Why anyone would think a pandering politician would have the skills needed to actually fix something is beyond me. But, here we are. It's good to see this 12 years had a father who actually sat her down and taught her something. Imagine what we could achieve if our crappy Public School system taught children to think skeptically about government!?!? Which is exactly why that doesn't happen. Thinking is the last thing our government wants the electorate to be able to do.
The government is only a reflection of the mediocre majority of citizens who vote for them. If you want smarter politicians then create requirements for IQ tests and minimum standards of university education...or require voters to pass an aptitude test. Oh, but that would be elitism wouldnt it...very un-american.
The public just votes, as they have no other alternate and clear step-by-step directions to alleviate the problem. Cute little girl says blah-blah blahblah blah. Again, the public just votes. One trick pony. Give the public a banking reform issue to vote for. One cannot make the public destitute enough to fight in the street, until they are destitute enough to fight in the street.Then it will more likely be too late. In my state, I believe it only costs two hundred dollars and a certain number of signatures to place an issue on the ballot. And the banks will turn the evil eye upon you....
If government was small, then it wouldn't really matter much if they were all that clever as they'd play little role in our lives. As it is, government makes up about 25% of the economy and plays a huge part in our lives. I'm of the mind that the Founder's didn't let the public have a say in the US Constitution mainly because most people wouldn't have approved of not appreciated it's limited elegance. Let's face it, most people WANT to be ruled over. How we lasted this long is a miracle in an of itself.
Her notion reminds me of how I was thinking that even bonds are immoral because people can use them to profit off of the government.
When the constitution refers to 'we the people' its really only referring to white men of property...because those were the only citizens with the right to vote at the time. As it was also in England. When people talk about the egalitarian virtues of the constitution they are not talking about the original document...but rather the amendments.
It may have been We The White Europeans, but, it was a wonderfully small inextricably elegant document - that led to the most prosperous people on earth (and off earth). Which was too sweet a tomato not to be plucked. We now have the largest government on the planet. Our society is in decline. The People, who once called on their own prowess, now cry to their Servants (which they sickeningly refer to as their Leaders and who have become their Masters) to do what their fathers did for themselves. - Those who don't understand the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat its mistakes.
Not just 'we white europeans'...but 'we white male europeans who own property'. It wasnt until 1791 that little Vermont passed a bill extending voting rights to all adult white males regardless of property ownership. Mathematically, I believe the document is rather clumsy when you consider that with just three parties seeking the executive power of the presidency the majority of voters will always end up with no representation. Heres how it should work imo...the three most popular candidates for president should all be elected to the office. The one with the most votes will form a cabinet and decisions will pass if backed by at least two of the three. The law will then pass to the Senate, composed of one representative from each state. No Congress necessary. Simple...less chaotic...more accountable to real numbers.
They aren't immoral because they make a bank of you. The government borrows money from you and pays you back with interest, nothing wrong with that, it should be how wars are funded.
True, but perhaps those were the only people with enough skin in the game and mental aptitude to intelligently vote. Also, it could have been seen as a way to push for the migration of people Westward. Or both as well as other reasons. Just plain prejudice? The US is the old Constitution still in use. So, it was an amazing peace of literature for it's time. That said, it was obviously inherently immoral and I am all for progression of the state of governance. I'd personally like to see more voting done by the individual. IMO, this only works with currency competition. If not then you have large swaths of the public voting to steal wealth from other parts of the public and redistributing it to themselves. Which is sort of the problem we face at present. Anyhow, let's see how things work out.
I'm guessing that the early voting restrictions had something to do with low literacy rates. The framers of the constitution believed that illiterate citizens could not be entrusted with choosing the nation's leaders...and so therefore they restricted voting only to property owners, who would have a better probability of some education.
