It amazes me that a first world nation can reneage on its liabilities to pay its employees at the drop of a hat and, it would seem, to be exempt from, at least some, employment law. These shutdowns, although they usually don't last long, must cause a great deal of hardship to loyal employees.
If we aren't bright enough to put an end to this nonsense, we have no one but ourselves to blame.
Anyway, if you take a job where a slow period or shutdown is a possibility and you do not account for this in your financial planning then yes it is your fault if you find yourself short on money. Managing your funds and planning for negative events is part of being an adult.
I find it amusing that someone can think it's OK for an employer (any employer) to not pay you on time and think it's your fault if you don't have savings to cope with it.
You conveniently ignore the fact the affected employees are made whole with full back pay, effectively giving them a "free" vacation.We've had too many of these shutdowns since the mid 70's and it is now the norm. The federal workers are a bargaining chip and the folks doing the bargaining don't have to worry about their pay being withheld. On the question of saving enough for a rainy day ... that sounds great but life throws lots of curve balls that can't be planned or budgeted. So a flood destroyed your home and insurance will only cover part of the cost -- there goes every penny of your 6 months cushion and them some. Your 4 year old car just went out of warranty and wouldn't you know that's when the transmission would die -- there goes you 6 months cushion. You son just got excepted to a good university when you's expected him to go to community college and now you need to drop twenty-large just for starters -- there goes you 6 months cushion and then some.
I guess we can spend all evening fabricating all sorts of hypothetical sob stories in an attempt to justify people's poor financial management practices.
If we aren't bright enough to put an end to this nonsense, we have no one but ourselves to blame.Yes. It seems to me the American political system is still very much like the Britisch political system from the 1800's. This system is designed to make the rich richer and keep people from having an actual say about who is ruling them. It is very interesting that a presidential candidate with the most votes can still lose. That shouldn't be possible. Another thing is that not everyone's vote counts equal in the US.
If we aren't bright enough to put an end to this nonsense, we have no one but ourselves to blame.Yes. It seems to me the American political system is still very much like the Britisch political system from the 1800's. This system is designed to make the rich richer and keep people from having an actual say about who is ruling them. It is very interesting that a presidential candidate with the most votes can still lose. That shouldn't be possible. Another thing is that not everyone's vote counts equal in the US.Clearly you don't understand the U.S. Constitution. It purposely limits the central Federal government to specific enumerated powers only, the rest being reserved to the 50 States and the people. Such rights are protected from a
'"tyranny of the majority" that a national presidential vote would be rather then the existing 50 states each electing a president based on their State elections. It's a rational system for a representative republic government that has to represent both rural and urban states, it works. I would prefer term limits of congressional offices, like the Presidential two term limit, but maybe a future Constitutional Amendment could fix that, but I'm not holding my breath.
If we aren't bright enough to put an end to this nonsense, we have no one but ourselves to blame.Yes. It seems to me the American political system is still very much like the Britisch political system from the 1800's. This system is designed to make the rich richer and keep people from having an actual say about who is ruling them. It is very interesting that a presidential candidate with the most votes can still lose. That shouldn't be possible. Another thing is that not everyone's vote counts equal in the US.Clearly you don't understand the U.S. Constitution. It purposely limits the central Federal government to specific enumerated powers only, the rest being reserved to the 50 States and the people. Such rights are protected from a
'"tyranny of the majority" that a national presidential vote would be rather then the existing 50 states each electing a president based on their State elections. It's a rational system for a representative republic government that has to represent both rural and urban states, it works. I would prefer term limits of congressional offices, like the Presidential two term limit, but maybe a future Constitutional Amendment could fix that, but I'm not holding my breath.The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.
Another thing is that not everyone's vote counts equal in the US.
The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.
The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.
Clearly we are just talking past each other. I'm happy to keep our system and leave you the EU flavor.
There are MANY core values we share and one is democracy.
I think people are likely to realize also that its under attack soon because many of the rights which had been held by the states are now being preempted by obscure treaties.
All the aforementioned 'unenumerated rights' are being traded away.
The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.One problem is that the people of Belgian can never collectively decide against the will of those of Germany. The German national interests will logically always prevail over the Belgian ones. How is that fair? Imagine the Germans voting for measures which would severely impact ports for say, environmental reasons. The German economy isn't nearly as dependent on its ports as the Belgian economy is. That's unlikely to happen in real life due to the German economy being fairly dependent on manufacturing and therefore export, but it illustrates how issues could arise. It'd be a mistake to view people as constituents of a homogeneous continent.
Another thing is that not everyone's vote counts equal in the US.
It's supposed to be that way. The popular vote is balanced against the wishes of the various STATES. That's why there is a Electoral College. It's also why we have a both a US Senate and a US House of Representatives, to balance the power of the wishes of the various States against the wishes of the People. The US is not a populist Democracy or a Federal Republic, it is a Union of what were, as of in 1776, independent, POLITICAL, States. The United States. Get it??? That's why the framers of the US Constitution designed our political system as they did.
It doesn't work that way. At some point Germany will need the support from other countries to pass a European law. This means that compromises will need to be made all the time. Sure some rules may favour Germany but the Belgians can ask the Germans to vote for something the Belgians really want in return. That is how politics should work: navigate the ship through an optimum of compromises. Never perfect for everyone but not really bad for anyone. This is what is so broken in the US. There is too much power in a single person.
It doesn't work that way. At some point Germany will need the support from other countries to pass a European law. This means that compromises will need to be made all the time. Sure some rules may favour Germany but the Belgians can ask the Germans to vote for something the Belgians really want in return. That is how politics should work: navigate the ship through an optimum of compromises. Never perfect for everyone but not really bad for anyone. This is what is so broken in the US. There is too much power in a single person.If a vote is a vote it's going to work that way. There are 82 million Germans and 11 million Belgians. There's very little the latter has to offer the former.
You are looking at this with a way too narrow view! It is not about voting for 1 law but 100 laws. Some Belgium will vote against and some for which Belgium may vote in favour. If Germany wants a law to pass they need enough votes for their idea because it is not just Belgium which can vote against it but all the other countries in the EU. Germany has a lot of votes but not a majority or veto. So if Germany votes for something which helps Belgium, Belgium can vote for something which helps Germany.
Power in a single person is a bad idea because power corrupts. See how paranoia struck Putin and Erdogan. Trump is on the same path to self destruction.
You shouldn't assume Germany and France are always aligned (usually they are not). Anway I'm convinced that a system in which every person's vote has the same weight will work the best.
The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.
The problem is that it is not a representative government because it simply means that very few people determine what is going to happen to the most. That is a not a democracy! Also such a system is easy to rig because persuading a handful of people can swing the outcome.
The European Parliament OTOH is based on the number of inhabitants of each state so every vote counts equally. Somehow that has been working since 1952. It would be absurd that a small country like Belgium would have an equal say to a matter which would affect Germany very badly. There has to be a balance where the need of the many outweigh the need of the few.In Europe the legislative process is such that a bill has to be approved by the European Parliament (equivalent to the USA House of Representatives, allocated proportionally to the people) and by the Council of the European Union (equivalent to the USA Senate, with equal representation for each member state).
The American and the European political systems may be very different in some ways but just saying that the only representation should be strictly proportional to each individual vote shows a very simplistic view and quite ignorant of history because I do not think it has ever strictly happened. There are innumerable voting systems and they all have their pros and cons. To pretend there such thing as a "best" political system or a "best" voting system only shows a total lack of understanding of the problem.