Jim Burgardt

Someone is shy

Jim hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Jim Burgardt
Posted over 1 year ago
Political parties should be banned in the United States of America.
" Neither party places the needs and the will of the people beyond its own self-serving interest. And that MUST End!" -- Juan Valdez I interpret this as meaning that the practice of putting personal interests ahead of the need and will of the American people must end -- not that political parties must necessarily end. We just need to get people into office like Bernie Sanders, who puts the best interests of our country above political party ideology (he is an Independent) and seems to have adopted our country's best interests as his personal interest. Thanks to the billions of dollars that have been injected into partisan politics, our government has been corrupted to the point where we no longer have a republic that is truly representative of the people. Instead, it represents big money interests first and foremost. Government by the people and for the people is now a joke, but not a funny one. During the Nixon years, John Dean told the President that there was "a cancer on the Presidency" that must be excised or his Presidency would be in danger. We now have a cancer on our entire political leadership that must be excised our or entire country will surely fail.
Noface
Jim Burgardt
Posted over 1 year ago
Political parties should be banned in the United States of America.
I have few questions you regarding E2D. Since voting would be done electronically, and the Internet seems to be increasingly hacked from inside the US and outside, how can we develop an internet-based election system that we can guarantee would be absolutely secure from hacking that could alter the outcome of elections? Our existing legislative body at the federal level consists of two houses -- one with representatives of each state, and the other representing individual districts within each state. How would we have to restructure our present system to incorporate the E2D system? Section 4 of this "manifesto" states that elected representatives must always vote on bills in accordance with the views expressed within the Party. Is this putting too much power into the hands of a single entity? What sorts of enforceable controls would be put on this entity that would ensure that its central leadership couldn't manage or manipulate matters for their own benefit? Many of the provisions of the manifesto would require major changes to our Constitution. Such changes have to be initiated either by Congress at the national level, or by individual state legislatures. Can you realistically see something like this happening with elected legislators (both at the federal and state levels) whose political campaigns are heavily financed by powerful financial interests would would strongly oppose any such change? And, last, the name used for this document is "Manifesto." Don't you suppose that name, as well as the fact that it would put the people back in control of their government, is likely to associate the movement with Communism and the document with the Communist Manifesto, thereby killing the movement in this country before it even gets off the ground here?
Noface
Jim Burgardt
Posted over 1 year ago
Political parties should be banned in the United States of America.
Luis, You are absolutely right on your first point. Our "representatives'" have re-election as their highest priority, and it takes increasing amounts of money to accomplish that. Therefore, politicians kowtow to the big money interests (including Wall Street, big corporations, and the wealthiest members of our society) to get those contributions, and then these same elected officials pass legislation that favors them, to keep those contributions coming. And, as far as I am concerned, you are also right on your second point. It is the voters who allowed this to happen , sometimes by voting a straight party line, and sometimes by voting over and over again based upon name recognition (usually the incumbent), which is why we have had more than 100 members of Congress who have served there for 36 to 57+ years). And 16 of these "representatives" are still in office. Too many people think that their vote is not important, or that it doesn't matter if they vote or not. They do not realize that they are killing our democracy in the process by enabling this cycle to continue in perpetuity. However, I will differ with you on your last point. I will blame the two major political parties for taking advantage of this situation to their own benefit and to the detriment of the country and its people whose interest they are supposed to represent. They twist and spin the truth in such a way that it is exceedingly difficult to tell what exactly the truth is. They lie about their opponents and cover up things about themselves. It would be nice if they could be hooked up to a lie detector every time they open their mouths. :o) Our politicians are masters at convincing people, and millions of our citizens fall prey to it every election. It is up to those of us who see through these shenanigans to inform and educate those who fall for their propaganda to the extend that they often vote against their own (and their country's) best interests.
Noface
Jim Burgardt
Posted over 1 year ago
Political parties should be banned in the United States of America.
Politicians and political parties have turned their priorities upside down, creating new American aristocracies (which our founding fathers sought to escape), to the detriment of our middle and lower socioeconomic classes. This is the way I feel their priorities should be: 1. Our country and its people – “We the people,” the first three words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. 2. The people of the state or district from which they were elected, regardless of any political affiliation. Ideally, it should stop here, but realistically, we know it probably won't, but the next priorities should be minimal and at a far distance from the first two, 3. The people from their home state or district who voted them into office or who belong to the same political party. 4. Their financial backers (lobbyists, self-serving corporations, special interest groups, and wealthy financiers). 5. Their political party, providing support for their platforms to gain their endorsement and support. 6. Their own self-interests (usually pride, prestige, and wealth), but primarily getting re-elected. Instead, this is how their priorities actually stack up: 1. Their own selfish interests, especially re-election. 2. Their political party. 3. Their financial backers. 4. The people from their home state or district who voted them into office or who belong to the same political party. 5. The people of their home state or district, regardless of any political affiliation or voting record. 6. Our country and its people. References: "Big Problems with Our Two-Party System" and "Congress Ignores the Will of the People"
Noface
Jim Burgardt
Posted over 1 year ago
What are some realistic and creative ways to reduce wealth inequality?
I have a Google blog entry on a subject close to this. It is far too long to post here, but here is a very brief synopsis: I have no harsh feelings for rich people in general. However, when their tremendous wealth comes either directly or indirectly from the sweat and labor of others, then I believe they have a moral obligation to help those people who helped them make their billions. Here is my basis for bridging the socioeconomic gap and opening the doors to a more cohesive society. Education leads to better communication. Communication leads to better understanding. Understanding leads to better cooperation. Cooperation leads to better results. To accomplish this, I propose a government-sponsored college-level education for all citizens in the lower socioeconomic groups, coupled with a government-sponsored public works employment program to provide actual work experience for permanent employment. Needless to say, a program such as this would be quite expensive. However, I believe that we will be making a huge investment in our country's future, along with many other benefits. It should also open the lines of communication, understanding, and cooperation among the various socioeconomic groups, breaking down barriers, destroying prejudices, and promoting social cohesion at levels we have not see in this country for more than 200 years. If you are interested and want more details than I can post here, you should be able to find my blog site by doing a Google search on "Restoring Democracy: The Road to Social Cohesion," and my blog on this subject should be at the top of the list. Good luck on your paper. You seem to be getting some very good perspectives here on the subject. Jim