Economic Growth is an Illusion

Y'all do realize that "Economic Growth" is an illusion, right?

In 1940, a 1 1/2 ounce piece of candy would cost you a nickle - 5 cents - $.05. (here)  In 1999, that same piece of candy would cost you seventy cents - 14 nickles - 70 cents - $.70.

Now, do you think the value of that candy went up that much?  No.  What happened is that the value of that nickle went down.

What is happening is that the uber wealthy are picking your pockets without you realizing.  Or you are just too scared to stand up to them.

How?  Even though they have $100 dollars and you only have $1 dollar, they want that dollar of yours for themselves.  So, they devalue your dollar, tell you that you now have $5 dollars.  Then they take one of those dollars.  Then they tell you that you have $10 dollars left.  And take two of those dollars.  Now, you think you have $8.00 - much better than the measly $1 you had before, right?  Only, what you really have left is only worth 1/4 of the original dollar - 25 cents.  But now they have $.75 cents of your original dollar, and you're happy with that.  They're still scheming on how to get that last quarter.

They've been telling you that the people who do the work are not as important as those who have the money - STOP believing that.  Its bull.  Labor deserves compensation.  "Investment" doesn't deserve anything - its a gamble that the company will do well.  IF the company does well, after making good on it's responsibility to it's workers, then the investment should get a return.  If the company doesn't do well, the investment should be lost.  Investment returns should be the last consideration of a company.  The absolute last.  Returns on Investment are a by-product, NOT an end goal.

For some extra reading:
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate-accountability-history-corporations-us/
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_corporate_law

Corporations are one major area where we need to get back to some 1776 thinking.

The Electoral College for Idiots

Some of y'all are thoroughly confused as to what the Electoral College is meant to be.

I'll start with "Tyranny of the Masses" - this was pulled from discussions on the separation of powers in our government, not the electoral college.  (See Federalist Papers 10)  We have a President (Executive), Congress (Legislative) and Supreme Court (Judicial).  The independent branches were supposed to prevent a wholesale domination of the minority by the majority.  It was supposed to be good people doing their job for the best interest of the Nation.  (we have totally failed at that)  In addition, the Congress was to be divided into a Senate and House of Representatives, elected differently.  The senate consists of two members from each state, giving all states equal representation. (see The Senate) The House of Representatives was based on the population of a state, at around 60,000 per Representative. (See House of Representatives) The membership was to change based on a population census every 10 years.

The Electoral College was put in place because the Founders didn't trust the Citizens to always elect a competent person as President (sadly turns out they were right). They wanted Congress to elect the president.  As a compromise, they came up with the Electoral College - where each state was given an Electoral Representative for each Congress-person, who would vote on president based on the votes of their citizens.  So, two for the Senators, plus the number of Representatives (based on population).  The idea was that if the citizens voted for a really bad choice, the Electoral College could change it, in the best interest of the Nation. (See Federalist Papers 68)

So, if the House of Representatives was still one representative for each 60,000 people in a state, we would have Five Thousand Four Hundred and Fifty Three members of the House. (US Population) Foreseeing this expanding population as a problem, in 1920, they pretty much skipped the reapportionment due to rural representatives stalling it.  In 1929, they froze the House at the current 435 members. It was at this time the under and over representation started - states with a larger population started getting less representation and less populous states started getting more. (House vs Population)

I can find no reference to purposefully giving less populous states more voting power for president anywhere in Founding-Era documents.  So, this is most assuredly NOT the original purpose of the Electoral College, as many corrupt individuals would have you believe. (Fact Check the Reason)  The protection from the "Tyranny of the Majority" was in the division of powers between the three branches of government.  This delusion that the Electoral College is supposed to give more power to less populous states had to take hold after some significant population growth after 1930, perhaps in the 1950's when the Nation started buckling to the corruption that has infested our government.

What needs to be changed in order to fix the Electoral College?
1. Adjust the membership of the House of Representatives as originally intended by losing the static number and adjusting the per-citizen ratio. (The Wyoming Rule would be a good method)
2. Set a law that a state's electors should be apportioned in relation to the vote of the state's citizens - in other words, abolish the winner-take-all rule.

We need to get to a place where we are more One Citizen, One Vote and restore the Electoral College to it's original purpose.  Those who don't want equal representation, should move to their beloved Russia.