My Vision of the Perfect Government.

[txbo]

After careful consideration, I have concluded that only the 3.4 million America that are currently reported to have $1 million or more in investable assets should be allowed to vote in the national presidential election. I would further propose that the same would apply to Asia with 3.3 million and Europe with 3.1 million millionaires. In other words, the 9.8 million richest people in the developed world would control the governments of the world. A two party system would not be required and only the most competent individuals would be nominated. People with high assets have the most to lose and would insure only the best and brightest would qualify and would get the office. Fiscal responsibility would be in the forefront of all elections.

The poor and middle class have very little to lose if anything and the most to gain and would be served better without the emotional rhetoric that usually comes with elections. All state and local elections would be open to everyone since they are the ones that have the highest impact for the general population. A two or three party system would be suitable.

[Bluerobin]

txbo, the rich already control things. Their votes are cast in dollars.

[Deleted]

Just think how hard it would be to lobby or buy off this type of government. They're already the evil rich. Fiscal responsibility would abound. No pissing away money on no-return social programs. We'd be on our way to the most powerful country in the world again. China beware, you're ascendancy is about to be cut short.

[jarhead1976]

You should do stand up!

[EVT1]

Moneyed aristocracy-got it. Wouldn't it just be easier to vote the republicans into super majorities? Same result.

[txbo]

Jun 24, 2011 14:56:21 GMT -5 EVT1 said:

Moneyed aristocracy-got it. Wouldn't it just be easier to vote the republicans into super majorities? Same result.

No, it would probably breakdown with a 50/50 ratio. The difference would be that they have little use for social issues and would defer those to the states. The rich are more concerned with the bottom line.

[Shirina]

After careful consideration, I have concluded that only the 3.4 million America that are currently reported to have $1 million or more in investable assets should be allowed to vote in the national presidential election.

So, in other words, the Constitution really doesn't mean anything to you. I just hope I never catch you quoting it in some other post since your above "idea" (such as it is) is a flagrant violation of that document. In fact, we would become a true plutocracy, so you aren't even interested in preserving democracy in this country.

My advice is to invent a time machine and return to medieval Europe where royalty and the aristocracy thrived, had absolute power, and turned an entire civilization into a throng of impoverished serfs. I think you'll have a better chance of harnessing the energy of a super nova to power your time machine than you will in ever getting such a nonsensical idea as yours put into practice.

This is wholly and utterly an un-American idea, though it would keep tens of millions of conservatives from voting. Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all ....

[txbo]

Jun 24, 2011 15:16:26 GMT -5 Shirina said:

After careful consideration, I have concluded that only the 3.4 million America that are currently reported to have $1 million or more in investable assets should be allowed to vote in the national presidential election.

So, in other words, the Constitution really doesn't mean anything to you. I just hope I never catch you quoting it in some other post since your above "idea" (such as it is) is a flagrant violation of that document. In fact, we would become a true plutocracy, so you aren't even interested in preserving democracy in this country.

My advice is to invent a time machine and return to medieval Europe where royalty and the aristocracy thrived, had absolute power, and turned an entire civilization into a throng of impoverished serfs. I think you'll have a better chance of harnessing the energy of a super nova to power your time machine than you will in ever getting such a nonsensical idea as yours put into practice.

This is wholly and utterly an un-American idea, though it would keep tens of millions of conservatives from voting. Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all ....

Give me a break, right now elections a bought and paid for. Only two to three percent of the population actually elect the president. The average American has little knowledge of the process and hears about 50 sound bites that sways his vote. We think that we actually elect the person that is the most qualified. In fact, we elect the person that they give us and tell us is most qualified. Right now, a computer program that spits out a name every four years would have the same result.

[Deleted]

In other words, the 9.8 million richest people in the developed world would control the governments of the world.

Although I don't agree with it, it is a much more logical solution that anything that I've heard coming out of the Democrat camp.

[txbo]

In order for a state to receive educational funding, they must graduate a combination of 15,000 to 20,000 engineers, and scientist annually.
Commensurate with the population.

[privateinvestor]

In other words, the 9.8 million richest people in the developed world would control the governments of the world.

Isn't this the way it is now??

[bubblyandblue]

txbo - love that sarcasm -
and, oldtex takes the bait

[marshabar1]

Your vision has already been realized, txbo.

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws. ~ Mayer Amschel Rothschild

[Deleted]

Sorry, txbo, not an original idea.

[txbo]

How many here would be able to vote in such a proposed presidential election? I need to know who should get my karma points.

[bubblyandblue]

45,000,000 people - I don't know.
Maybe more than the eligable voters that actually vote. How many people who post on these sites actually post - I would love to ban anyone from posting who does not vote.

[Deleted]

Jun 24, 2011 15:16:26 GMT -5 Shirina said:

After careful consideration, I have concluded that only the 3.4 million America that are currently reported to have $1 million or more in investable assets should be allowed to vote in the national presidential election.

So, in other words, the Constitution really doesn't mean anything to you. I just hope I never catch you quoting it in some other post since your above "idea" (such as it is) is a flagrant violation of that document. In fact, we would become a true plutocracy, so you aren't even interested in preserving democracy in this country.

My advice is to invent a time machine and return to medieval Europe where royalty and the aristocracy thrived, had absolute power, and turned an entire civilization into a throng of impoverished serfs. I think you'll have a better chance of harnessing the energy of a super nova to power your time machine than you will in ever getting such a nonsensical idea as yours put into practice.

This is wholly and utterly an un-American idea, though it would keep tens of millions of conservatives from voting. Maybe it's not such a bad idea after all ....

So you think that a majority of the US population aren't like the medieval serfs living off the kings land paying their yearly tithe to the kings castle. Don't pay your property "tax" and let me know what's different. Time to hook up that supernova!

[santorumolet]

At first glance I liked the proposal for the perfect Govt. But I believe that we are setting the bar way too low. Lots of Americans have a million dollars in investable assets, but got there with a middle class income and careful savings over the lifetime. I propose a $1M+ annual income AND a $10M+ investable asset base. That will keep the riff-raff out.

[❤ mollymouser ❤]

Would this mean an end to political ads on tv, on radio, mailers in my mailbox, and those annoying robot phone calls?

[Mad Dawg Wiccan]

How about making it a "For Sale to the Highest Bidder" office? Whoever can pony up the most cash wins.

[txbo]

Jun 24, 2011 20:07:59 GMT -5 @santorumolet said:

At first glance I liked the proposal for the perfect Govt. But I believe that we are setting the bar way too low. Lots of Americans have a million dollars in investable assets, but got there with a middle class income and careful savings over the lifetime. I propose a $1M+ annual income AND a $10M+ investable asset base. That will keep the riff-raff out.

We always hear that many people are millionaires and how easy it is to reach that goal. Yet out of a 300 million population only 3.4 million fall into this category. Investable assets are cash, stocks and bonds only not houses, cars or jewelry.
However, if you like we could establish that high-net-worth individuals (HNWI) in excess of US$1 million are the poor. Very high-HNWI are individuals who have investable assets between US$5 million and $50 million or the middle class. Ultra high net worth only those with above US$50million, or the upper class.
I believe the poor should be included. We don’t want to hear the constant whining how the ultra-HNWI is screwing over the HNWI and the very high-HNWI.

[eastcoastliberal]

I am so far away from $50M ...

[Deleted]

So, basically you are for shortcutting straight to violent revolution...

[ed1066]

Jun 24, 2011 20:45:05 GMT -5 Mad Dawg Wiccan said:

How about making it a "For Sale to the Highest Bidder" office? Whoever can pony up the most cash wins.

That's what they did last time, and the guy who got the most money from Wall Street, terrorists and oil companies won. Look where it got us...

[ameiko]

How about if everyone gets a certain number of votes in proportion to the amount of taxes they pay?

[Deleted]

txbo, the rich already control things. Their votes are cast in dollars.

Do you know I hear that all the time. I'm just wondering why if that's true we are even discussing raising taxes on the rich. One would think if they controlled everything that subject would never come up. Seems to be a flaw in the theory.

[gobermitcheese]

So the political offices would go to the richest americans. Great idea! Paris Hilton for Congress 2012!

[txbo]

Jun 26, 2011 11:14:22 GMT -5 gobermitcheese said:

So the political offices would go to the richest americans. Great idea! Paris Hilton for Congress 2012!

People like PH may have a vote but would never be considered for any office. The office holder would serve one four-year term and would be selected for his/her specific knowledge in the goals that need to be achieved during his/her term. He/she would be responsible to lead the country in the direction that has been outlined for him. No more infighting, support and help would come from all concerned.