March 29, 2024, 02:08:09 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: When is 70% NOT a MAJORITY?  (Read 1521 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WhiskeyGirl
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7754



« on: November 15, 2009, 08:36:19 AM »

When is 70% NOT a majority?

I remember studying the Constitution and the formation of this great nation a number of times during my life.  Often the logic wasn’t clear or I really didn’t pay attention because I trusted my government.

When is 70% NOT a majority?  Why?

In the beginning, the wise founding fathers addressed the concerns of state that were diverse, large, and small in population.

How do you form a nation under such circumstances?  How do you ensure that the large states do not trample on the rights of their smaller neighbors to be different?  Take a different path?  Maybe a path with better results?

This was a real fear of smaller states.  It is harder to corrupt fifty states than it is to corrupt one.  Even the smallest voices have a stake and their vote should count toward our common destiny.

The result was two bodies, the House and the Senate.  Simply put, the House was based on population, the Senate was gave an equal voice to all states, regardless of size.  In theory, both had to agree that proposed changes were good for the nation and constitutional.

The man in the White House could veto the items they agreed upon, and the Congress could override the veto.

A good system of checks and balances.  In theory a good way to prevent tyrants from gaining and remaining in power.

When is 70% not a majority?  In the Senate.

Population is not distributed equally in the United States.  I keep hearing Democrat representative on TV saying 70% of Americans want Health/Insurance Reform – they want the Federal government to control their healthcare.

‘Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics’

No one ever asks the hard questions, or maybe they do and I’m not listening.

Who are they asking?  What questions are they asking? 

Are they asking “Are you in favor of free healthcare? Or Are you in favor of paying premiums of $15,000 per year, out of your pocket, for your healthcare?”

Do 70% of Americans in EVERY state want Federal Healthcare Reform?

Or, just say 95% of a few large states want healthcare/insurance reform?


A quick look at the census or wiki web site shows that in order to capture 70% of the US population, you’d need acceptance by just 18 states.  

18 states is not a majority. 

A quick look at some of the highest population states –

1   California

2   Texas

3   New York

4   Florida

5   Illinois

6   Pennsylvania

7   Ohio

8   Michigan

9   Georgia

10   North Carolina

11   New Jersey


How many of these states are almost bankrupt?  How many can’t pay the bills?  How many have unemployment rates higher than the national average?  How many have a business environment that welcomes business?  How many have a robust private insurance market?

How many have a state unemployment rate less than the nation?

I believe the intention of the founding fathers was to encourage STATES to compete with one another.  STATES determined their economic destiny, not the Federal government.

Why aren’t children from all individual states competing with children from Beijing?

Socializing high cost social programs puts residents of EVERY state at a disadvantage.  If the expense of social programs is bankrupting one state, why socialize the losses among 50?

More than one state has out of control spending, social programs, deficits, and job losses. 

If these programs don’t work at the state or local level, why does anyone think they will work when the costs are socialized over fifty states?  Fifty states won’t benefit, but they’ll have to pay the bills.

Washington doesn’t have the capacity to care about the hundreds of thousands of communities in our nation.  Washington DOES NOT have the same priorities as those that live everyday on MAIN STREET.  The priority of Wall Street and global mega business profit seems to come first.  No jobs for Main Street.

…same problem with the Wall Street bailout.  Privatize profits and socialize losses.

More states lose when the Federal government takes control of our economy, healthcare system, and destiny.

In my mind, 70% of the population shouldn’t destroy the nation, shouldn’t socialize the losses from programs that fail financially on everyone.

If every state had a robust economy, financially sound governance, and lots of integrity, consolidation might be a good idea.  Corrupt, unsound things that get bigger and bigger just spread their corruption and destruction.

If 70% live with corruption and failure, they shouldn’t take everyone over the cliff edge with them.

70% isn’t always a majority – that’s a good thing.


jmho
Logged

All my posts are just my humble opinions.  Please take with a grain of salt.  Smile

It doesn't do any good to hate anyone,
they'll end up in your family anyway...
Edward
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3816



« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2009, 11:50:08 AM »

WhiskeyGirl
Excellent insight on our currant situation.
Logged
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 6.147 seconds with 19 queries.