Your annual meeting? LMAO
I think that you should run for counselman or alderman or whomever your town has for leadership. Then once you're in office you can suggest that you don't want to make any decisions or take any votes, all township decisions will go up for resolution. Contracts, labor agreements, promotions, taxes, school boards, budgets will all go up for resolution at your annual meeting.
I do agree that people living outside of your township shouldn't have a say in the internal workings of your confines which brings me back to what I wrote earlier. Only voters should be able to give to campaigns and only to campaigns that they would be represented by.
"In a democracy, a true democracy, every citizen gets to vote on each issue. "
Functionally unworkable, both from a management and timing standpoints. I'm betting that your own municipality doesn't even do that. Then you throw in county/parish, state and federal. The workload to stay up to date on all of issues at hand would reduce our GDP to near nil because that's all we would be doing. It would be complete grid lock.
"I'll go with the 320 million."
That's very populist of you. So, what's your solution or are you the type of person whose forte is identifying a problem and walking away. I gave you my idea.
So your issue isn't with the representative government but whom gets represented?
The Citizens United case threw alot of the old rules/guide;lines out the window. The fix seems rather simple to me. Only voters should be able to give to campaigns and only to candidates whom they would be represented by. General inform ads would be cut off a month or two prior to the election.
A couple of pre-coffee points;
- If you recite the Pledge of Allegence you'll find that the US is a republic.
- If the US was a true democracy we would have had a President Gore in 2000 because he won the popular vote.
The rest of your post assumes that with a democracy there won't be any "agendas" when you know full well that there will be. There would still be people who vote for the loser who are convinced that person would do a better job.
Here we go.....
"One of the shipping industry’s most influential partnerships is set to end after 19 years, after Tor Olav Trøim said he was stepping down from his role at John Fredriksen’s main holding company.
Mr Trøim’s move takes out of the mainstream shipping industry the man who has handled the implementation of many of the business moves of Mr Fredriksen, the world’s best-known and most influential shipowner.
However, the duo said Mr Trøim would step up his involvement with Mr Fredriksen’s liquefied natural gas tanker business, Golar LNG, and SeaDrill, his offshore oil rig owner. cont....."
Wallethub has a good write up that covers a number of different topics. At the bottom of their home page there's a button labeled "Studies & Reports". Click on that and page down to the Taxes section. In that section there's a report titled "States Most & Least Dependent on the Federal Government". Have fun!
That's excatly what I meant. The South, as a generalization, does get more than they pay in. I believe Texas is an exception to that though. New Mexico and Mississippi are normally at the top of the list. If I recall correctly both tend to bring in more than double what they pay to the federal coffers.
Mississippi is a complete train wreck. It's pretty much in the bottom 5 in all catagories; finances, crime, health, education, etc... They must like it that way because they continue to vote for the party of no change.
I'll see if I can find a government report for you.
You can do a search with "federal tax dollars by state received paid 2013" and choose a site that you think is credible. The normal "Conservative" sites are curiously absent.
If you look up which states are net positive with federal tax dollars, you'll find most of those are republican states as well.
JF is a majority holder in SFL and I suspect that he, and his entities, own all of the FRO bonds. I also suspect that FRO2012 will be renamed to FRO after the bonds are called.
There's investing, there's gambling and then there's stealing. This is somewhere between gambling and stealing. It's definitely not investing.
I haven't been following FRO as much as I had in the past. I'm assuming they haven't made any new conditions on the bond coming due in March. I also suspect the notes from this deal will be next in line after that bond. Equity holders are looking like they're going to get stiffed to me.
You're missing the point . Can you find a 1989 projection that accurately describes where we are today? I haven't wasted my time to look for one because there is no possible way that one exists. There are far too many moving parts to make projections out that far.
"Even the most Primitive People know there's a God."
It's time for you to stop and think about that for a minute.
I think this entire discussion is cute. As wise as a national healthcare database is, it will never ever happen. (South Korea has an amazing system that, if you're truely interested about the subject, you should look into.) To manage any nation database would require individual identifiers. You would want your medical records to be attached to you individually and not some segemnted group of people. For that to happen would require a national ID. Go ahead and do a search for "National ID" and read all of the conspiracy theories. Then you want attach health records to that ID? Good luck!
The Road to Serfdom, pp 148-149
“There is no reason why in a society which has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom. .... [T]here can be no doubt that some minimum of food, shelter, and clothing, sufficient to preserve health and the capacity to work, can be assured to everybody. ...
You can search for "Hayek basic income" and get any number of results.
On the contrary Semp, I couldn't find that one particular quote that I referred to earlier. Hayek believed in, and preached for, universal health care, minimum income (as in a monthly stipend) and basic housing for everybody. He even wrote a paper titled "Why I'm not a conservative."
"The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of
contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a "brake on the vehicle of
progress," I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What
the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we
should move." F.A. Hayek