Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!
21988 messages in 1005 discussions
Latest May-17 by Showtalk
2871 messages in 222 discussions
5949 messages in 306 discussions
6683 messages in 437 discussions
2969 messages in 237 discussions
6482 messages in 148 discussions
1283 messages in 648 discussions
966 messages in 94 discussions
3601 messages in 218 discussions
3032 messages in 133 discussions
7121 messages in 595 discussions
1853 messages in 101 discussions
8299 messages in 418 discussions
13051 messages in 646 discussions
862 messages in 25 discussions
I'm in agreement with you, but unfortunately most people aren't good with self control, especially with money so we have our current situation.
Sometimes politicians think they can keep their promises. But when promises involve big spending, it is unfair to the country. Eventually they all run out of money, then people end up being worse off than they were.
I wouldn't necessary agree here, big spending usually benefits most people, take Canada's Covid working benefit: CERB, it covers nearly everyone and benefits the entire country, but has put us into tremendous debt that will be made up for in tax increases, but if you plan appropriately, you won't be blindsided.
Showtalk said...The difference is whether they lie intentionally to get votes hoping people will not notice later or if they intend to keep promises and find out that they can’t.
I would say that's probably 70% lie/30% can't do or 80% lie/20% can't do.
Yes, both camps exist and I actually believe that the latter (unable to keep promises) makes them more vulnerable to be replaced and thus they tend to lie more to ensure they keep their seat! And then it becomes perpetual such that those who continually don't or can't keep their promises tend to lie the most!
And that's where the line starts to blur between the two so is there really much of a difference?
The_Rock (JABRONI256) said...Remember, I'm speaking from the point of view of being Canadian, things work differently here vis a vi the provinces and the feds.
Canada is different than the US.
But Japan is also quite a bit different than the US.
However, there are a lot of things which I've experienced first hand in Japan that have given me a better understanding about how government should work.
The area where I live has 309 houses with close to 800 people including children living in the area.
That area has an area President who is in charge of the entire area.
That area is further broken down into 5 subsections with roughly 60 or so houses in each subsection.
Each subsection has it's own subsection Manager who reports to the area President.
Then, each subsection is broken down into 3 blocks with roughly 20 houses per block.
Each block has their own block Chief who reports to the subsection Manager.
If something needs to be done on a block (picking up garbage thrown on the streets or empty lots, grass on empty lots is growing out into the road, the water drainage is blocked, etc.), the block Chief handles it with the people on their own block. If the block Chief is unable to handle the situation because it's outside of his block (i.e. a street that runs between two blocks), then that block Chief gets in contact with the other block Chief to resolve the issue.
If neither of the block Chiefs can handle the situation then it gets escalated to the subsection Manager.
If the subsection Manager cannot handle the situation because it's on a shared road/street with another subsection, then that subsection Manager gets in contact with the adjoining subsection Manager and they figure out how to resolve the issue.
If neither of the subsection Managers can resolve the situation, then it gets brought up to the area President. Each level of management is requested to handle the situation at the lowest level possible. And even if the situation is brought up to the level higher than them, the upper level does his utmost to get it resolved at a level below them if possible, otherwise the upper level gets involved.
And this goes all the way to the top.
If an area President cannot resolve the issue themselves then they get the adjoining area President involved to again, resolve the problem at the lowest level possible. (i.e. comms between areas is done through the area President, but once the problem is to be discovered at another area block level, then the block level Chiefs of the different areas coordinate what they'll do to rectify the problem at the lowest level possible. If the block Chiefs cannot resolve it then notification is made to the area President tops again and the next level up (subsection Managers) are brought into play between the two areas.
If neither area President can resolve the issue, then... and only then is City Hall brought into the equation.
And that again follows the same such that if one City Hall cannot resolve the issue, the adjoining City Hall is called in and then escalated to the Prefecture (State) Government only if required.
If that cannot resolve the issue then two Prefecture (State) Governments get involved and if they cannot resolve the issue, then, and only then is the federal government brought into the picture. And even then, each level works their hardest to get the lower levels to handle the situation at the lowest level possible.
I've been block Chief 7 times and subsection Manager 3 times. I've yet to become area President as that's a full time job where you have to work with local City Hall 3 ~ 4 times a day thus mainly only those whom have retired or don't have to work become area Presidents. But I've worked directly with the area Presidents numerous times when I was subsection Manager.
Reason: The higher up it goes, the longer it takes to resolve and the more expensive things become. The higher up you go, the more red tape and number of people involved.
Edited to add: [And likewise, the private sector can usually do a much better job for a much cheaper price than the government can!]
That’s quite detailed, rather unnecessarily as I understand your conservative libertarian bent anyway. The problem in my jurisdiction or perhaps issue is the better term, is part of the separation of powers, aspects of public services given power and autonomy to the Provinces, child care isn’t one of them, whereas education is, go figure.
Provincial Governments can only work the edges, so to speak, creating these universal child benefit packages, giving a certain amount of money per child per household which in theory could be used to afford child care, although often isn’t.
The_Rock (JABRONI256) said...I understand your conservative libertarian bent anyway.
ROFLMAO... then you don't understand me in the least! Which only goes to show how little you really know.
The_Rock (JABRONI256) said...The problem in my jurisdiction or perhaps issue is the better term, is part of the separation of powers, aspects of public services given power and autonomy to the Provinces, child care isn’t one of them, whereas education is, go figure.
Your jurisdiction is neither the US nor Japan.
In the US, the term “Separation of Powers” was coined by the 18th century philosopher Montesquieu. Separation of powers is a model that divides the government into separate branches, each of which has separate and independent powers. By having multiple branches of government, this system helps to ensure that no one branch is more powerful than another. Typically, this system divides the government into three branches: the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The United States federal government and forty states divide their governments into these three branches.
In the US, Child Care falls under the Judicial branch of government.
40 U.S. Code § 590 - Child care: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/40/590
So you cannot compare or attempt to compare apples with oranges when your government doesn't specify the differences and or where child care falls within your government's organization!
The_Rock (JABRONI256) said...Provincial Governments can only work the edges, so to speak, creating these universal child benefit packages, giving a certain amount of money per child per household which in theory could be used to afford child care, although often isn’t.
Can be used but isn't... sounds like a broken system if you ask me!
And might I remind you, the US also has numerous similar problems too.
Your provinces seem to operate at a higher level than our states do.
Our debt can’t be covered with tax increases anymore.
They also find that their positions can bring them unheard of wealth. If that isn’t true, why do they go to DC with modest incomes or investments and leave ridiculously well off?
That is very complex. Are any of those paid positions? Did you like the job? The closest we have to that are HOAs, but that affects only a small percentage of homes. We also have Neighborhood Watch, but only for safety.