Don't know who pissed in your cheerios today, but I hope you get over it. And here you go, since you can't seem to remember what you posted a couple hours ago. Peace.
To me, this seems like people arguing that because we have a really complicated tax code, that CPAs are a good/necessary thing. The way I see it, it just means we need to simplify the tax code. I guess it boils down to how it should be vs. how it is, and I respect the pragmatic viewpoint, I just think people need to be a little more open minded about ways to involve people in the process. Call me idealistic, but I'm not gunning for some kind of massive, mandatory, super in-depth system. Baby steps are fine with me, and simplifying things will go a long way towards making that possible. Apologies for getting personal, Deckard. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
I don't think it's an issue of simplification. The federal government is complex because it does a lot of things and serves a diverse nation of 300 million people. Simplifying is good if there's a reason to do it - but you seem to be suggesting simplifying just so you could be more involved in the budgeting process, as opposed to it improving outcomes. You could try this at the school board level where you actually could realistically educate people on the topics involved - and it still would come out terribly. You can't have an overarching philosophy if decisions are being made fairly arbitrarily at a much more granular level. Suppose the school wants to implement an anti-drug program that relies on a mix of education, incentives, and policing all working together. Then the community votes for two of the three - now you've got a program that was designed to all work together but is useless (or much less effective) if you take out one piece - you end up with inefficient use of funds. We already have ways for people who want to be involved in decision making to do so - go vote, go become a county or state delegate, affect your party platform, etc. But just think of where ever you work - do you want a bunch of people outside of your industry micromanaging you and suggesting how you spend money or do your job? The whole idea just doesn't make sense in principle. There's a reason we delegate authority in every single thing we do as a society - whether it be parenting, team sports, business management, or anything else. Can you name an example anywhere that there is direct democracy in a successful organization?
Referendums are a perfect example of a limited version of this idea. Just look at California and how often they vote on Propositions - it's completely destroyed their government because everyone votes to not allow tax increases or spending cuts. So when the budget is out of control, there's nothing that can be done because no one actually came up with a comprehensive philosophy - they just voted on things that sounded good at the time and now are completely destructive to the state. California's entire budgetary nightmare stems from this philosophy of running tons of things through referendum.
I'm advocating it for both reasons. A simplified government is more effective. A more involved electorate is a good thing. You're looking at this as a very in-depth, micro-managed style of government. It's not that. You're not asking people to nitpick about nuts and bolts, at least in my mind's eye. That's what we have a government and representatives for. In your example, why would you ever put 3 initiatives on the ballot separately that, unless they all pass, they are basically worthless? I'm not sure how that argues against this concept. It certainly shows an example of bad, micro-divided government though. I'm not suggesting we can't do those things as well, or in addition to, other forms of more involved participation. If you were the one paying my salary, I'd probably listen to you. And since you're the one footing the bill, it'd probably be in your best interest to have a general idea about what you want me to be doing. Or at the very least, hire somebody (or elect, teehee) who knows what to do that you have a very close, intimate relationship with (who doesn't also oversee tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people). Depends on how direct it is. Like I said, necessity gave us representative democracy. Farmer Brown didn't know his ass from his elbow about the world, and his free time was spent trying not to die. We live in a different world now, so I'm open to new forms of political participation.
They're not a perfect example, these are elections which vote on *very* specific issues. Spending dollars that they don't have, preventing tax increases that are necessary, etc. That isn't even close to what I'm envisioning. We're talking about nominally choosing where you want your tax dollars spent. Not writing checks we can't cash, or affecting tax rates, etc. It would be up to representatives to create and manage new initiatives within the range/fields where people choose to allocate their tax funds. And if a particular area isn't effective or is losing popular support, then it will become defunded and either shrink or go away altogether. It will be up to the politicians and government officials to decide how best to use the money we allocate in each area, but in this model, we have some say as to what particular areas our money goes to. We don't have a direct say in how much money is spent, or how much taxes are, etc. If we need higher (or lower) taxes, or we want to propose a new law, or project, etc., then that would still be the job of our elected representatives to propose and vote on those things.
I had a bad day yesterday. Had to put my dog of 15 years to sleep, so I was more than a bit testy. What ticked me off was that I wasn't attempting to "have an attitude" in this thread, certainly not in my initial posts to you. The attitude came later. And I get along very well with thumbs. You can ask him. You might say that your responses caught me off guard, so I got angry. I always try to disagree without being disagreeable. While not being perfect in that regard, by any means, I think I do a better job of that than many who post here. My apologies for not controlling my temper.
Losing a family member is always a challenge for the soul and there is no real recovery. My condolences.
Thanks, guys. We finally had to have him put to sleep. I thought we were going to lose him before Christmas, and he just kept hanging on. When it got to where we had to carry him out to the backyard so he could do his business, the end was near. If you set him down in the yard, he could walk, but if he fell over, he couldn't get up, which freaked him out, so it was time. He was a great dog and we'll miss him. Yes, he was like family. The house seems very empty now.
Very sad to hear this. It's never easy to have to that or to lose a great dog. Sorry for your loss Deckard
It may be too soon for you to think about this, but my sister-in-law had a black lab show up last week and she can't keep it. I hear it is a very friendly dog.
