Fix the Government

[Morgan Evanar]

Assuming you were handed the reigns for 4 years, outline some big objectives, and what you would want to do if you had a relatively pliant Congress.

Since I'm at work, and I can't really create a proper outline, I'd start by re-organizing the inteligence agencies. As it stands, I think having three seperate intelligence agencies that don't talk to each other and weild a good deal of overlapping fuction is pretty stupid.

CIA, FBI and NSA would simply become the US Department of Intelligence and Security.

I'd also dissolve Homeland Security asap. The US Customs service would again become the US Customs service, as it has been for the past 230 years.

I might consider merging the FDA and the USDA, as they seem to have a lot of overlapping function too, but I'm not nearly as up on them as I could be.

The Coast Guard and border patrols would be funded double over what they recieve now.

US Customs, the Coast Guard, Immigration, and Border would all have a department dedicated to interacting with Intel and Security.

Immigrants would be processed through Intel and Security.

More expensive, but considerably more thourugh. Privatising paperwork from any of the agencies would be expressly forbidden, in the interest of the state.

[Jedieb]

This is all in my new book;
'How Things Will Be When I'm Running The World'

I'll try to post an excerpt later today. ;)

[Diego Van Derveld]

Keep an income-based tax accrual system :) (AKA - Consumption based is not a good idea)

Continue to do away with Dividend Taxation :D

Welfare. Overhaul. Nuff said.

Create agencies to internally audit & streamline unions. (Aka, fire slackasses, but maintain protection of honest workers)

Stiffen corporate fraud laws and sentences.

Veto bloat legislature (aka, "Hey, lets make more gun control laws")

Legalize drugs (d'oh, forgot that one.)

Tax the bejesus out of drugs!

Tax them some more!

I'll think of more later.

[Jedieb]

Fix #1
DEA and Coast Guard budgets will be cut in half!

Why? Because I'm legalizing pot and cocaine! I'm legalizing them and taxing the living daylights out of them. Now, potheads and drug addicts will bring in BILLIONS in tax revenue! Plus, I'll save more BILLIONS by not fighting a drug war that's pointless and will NEVER be won. Sure, some will OD and become hopelessly addicted. But we're losing people now anyway. This will also keep some potential stoners away from drugs. Without the allure of drugs being "forbidden" many will stay away.

Fix#2
Extreme sports will become illegal and unconstitutional.

Why? Those potential stoners need something to give them their fix. I can't think of anything more banal and trivial then extreme sports. I'll make them illegal, but I'll create a skeletal agency to enfore the anti-extreme laws. Just to give the 'Extreme Losers' the illusion that they're sticking it to Da Man!

More fixes to follow. :cool

[Morgan Evanar]

Jedieb, cmon. I doubt you're serious about the 2nd item. I'd really like other peoples opinions on this, so if you're going to make a silly please note it seperately.

I'd also legalize criminalized drugs. But thats not why the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard need their budgets doubled. I'd do that because I'm serious about national security.

2nded on Union Auditors and increased corporate smacking when there is hanky panky.

I agree with the gun control bit. Gun control is knowing where it is, where the bullets are, and knowing where the trigger lock key is. And using both hands.

[Diego Van Derveld]

If there was a way to offer tax credits or small subsidies to families where parents are involved in their childrens lives (don't ask me how!), I think that would be an excellent idea. So many spheres of "social reform" are trying to sweep dirt under the rug, and are half-hearted attempts to correct problems that are caused by craptastic family situations. I can attribute so many good things in my life to the fact that I was raised very well by my parents, and they did an excellent job. That's the best kind of reform you can ask for.

[Jedieb]

C'mom, let me have some fun!!!! There's a kernel of truth in each of my fixes. I would legalize pot. Then the Coast Guard and DEA could be put to better use than fighting a drug war that's been an unmitigated failure. The extreme sports Fix isn't legit, but they are a waste of time.

Since the odds of my becoming President are slim to none, I don't see why I can't have some fun with this. PLEASE LET ME HAVE FUN!!!! :angel

(Wait to you see what I have in store for the Presidency!)

[Diego Van Derveld]

I'd like to change the horrid design for the new World Trade Center. Why can't we make a Death Star? Kinda like the Space Needle, but with a big Death Star over New York. If I'm a terrorist, no way in Hell am I flying my plane into that! You can't get a reading on that shield, up or down! And if that doesn't work, you could always put a few SAM batteries in it for effect.

[Dutchy]

I don't get the part about the guns. Anyone care to explain?

[Diego Van Derveld]

There are people who think that you can control gun-wielding criminals that already break a few dozen gun laws by...adding more gun laws! Its an illogical, wasteful approach to correcting some instances of violent crime.

[Dutchy]

Okay, thanks. Yeah, true. If they wanna get guns, they'll get them.

Guns should be made hard to get by for the average Joe, though.

[imported_J'ktal Anajii]

Um, why?

[Morgan Evanar]

My issue with gun control beyond automatic weapons is that its fairly pointless in the States. There are so many weapons in underground circulation that to outright ban firearms doesn't really give a citizen half a fighting chance, at least in my opinion.

I think existing laws should be enforced. I think that if you want a gun, you have to wait a week for background checks, and pay $25 for a saftey course if this is your first firearm that you own. Inconvient? Absolutely. But you're talking something with the capacity to end someone's life in a fraction of a second. I'd prefer it be a touch harder to commit crimes of passion and keep it out of the hands of the insane and former criminals as best I can.

Beyond that, it is the citizen's responsiblity to take care of their weapon. The state has done its best to make sure it is not in the hands of a looney toon or a criminal.

I'd also clean up the tax code into something clear cut and understable. Well, as best I could. I only filed my taxes once, and it wasn't too bad because I had such a small income, but I do know its rather complicated for my parents.

[Morgan Evanar]

By the way, this is by no means exclusive to Americans, although there are an awful lot of us here.

Whats broken in your nation? Fix it!

[Marcus Telcontar]

1) Stop politcial donations by buisness

2) Return governemt to serving people, not business.

God knows how.

3) Resposible enviromental management - You CAN use resurces like oil and trees responsibly. Manage well. Not the extremeist Greenie view, but a moderate middle road between exploitation and preservation.

4) Stop selling Govt assets, esp those that make good money.

5) Stop excessive urban development

6) Declare a national holiday where Aussies just drink and play cricket. Oh wait..... there's one already :p

Bring back a spirit of larrikinism Aussies are known for into Govt. Have some fun. Just because your runnign a country, doesnt mean you cant have fun

[JMK]

Have people who seriously try to separate from a country thrown in jail for treason.

[Sanis Prent]

The more I learn about tax laws, the more I love it. If you manage your expenses and investments well, you can really take a major hand in just how much of your money is taxable. If you're making big purchases, hit those up ASAP. Avoid paying later, or paying incrementally as much as possible. Invest in funds that are grouped by dividend performance, etc. There are a lot of really great tricks you can learn to make April 15th a somewhat-pleasant day.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

This is a toughie...so many things to fix :(

!. National health care - everybody gets it.

2. Redundant agencies - get rid of 'em!

3. Cut the salaries of the higher paid legislators. They get
the same raise as the everyday working man.

4. Boost the death penalty. No more 5-10 appeals for those
sitting on death row. Take away their color TV's and put them
on chain gangs.

5. Ditto what Morgan said about the Coast Guard and Border
Patrols.

For the moment, thats all. Might be more later.

[JonathanLB]

I know Diego and I are on about the roughest terms imaginable and he basically hates me, BUT that being said, I honestly think what he wrote in his first post is excellent. Those changes I would also defend as an honest attempt to make the country better. I think he is right on with those suggestions and on each point I can say I agree with him.

Drugs should be legal, but yes, tax the heck out of them, then maybe that taxes could be used to repair the damage they already do to society even though they are illegal (drug treatment programs, etc.). That $20 billion that would be saved by ENDING the war on drugs could surely go towards some better ends, or better yet, IMO, be returned to who it belongs -- the people! It's our money, not the government's money. Many people would like to have some cash back if it wouldn't ruin our country or anything.

Also: "I can attribute so many good things in my life to the fact that I was raised very well by my parents, and they did an excellent job. That's the best kind of reform you can ask for."

That's a good point. I mean people wonder why society has had more problems and breakdowns over the last 50 years, well I think that has a lot to do with the breakdown of the family structure. I do not mean to suggest we should go back to some ideas of having women stay in the house and the kitchen and "do their duties" or something, I don't mean to be sexist about it, but I think it's important for both parents to show an interest in family as well as profession, if they want to have a family at all. My mom worked for my dad and was doing well at her job before they married, but when I was born she quit the job to take care of the house and me, and my sister in three more years, and that's a lot better than having a hired nanny or something. I know a lot of wealthy kids who were raised mostly by nannies and I think it's rather tragic. The parents go off and do their own thing and really don't care much about the kids whatsoever. They just are not priorities.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Legalize drugs? You have kids now, Jedieb - do you want their bus driver sniffing some coke right before he/she gets behind the wheel?

How about you, Charley? Youre in college - let your profs get stoned or high before grading your term papers.

No way guys! That stuff should never be legalized. You talk about taxing it? Look at all the people now who have stopped smoking because of the high taxes. It would be the same.

[Hadrian Invicta]

1: Reverse Roe v. Wade

2: Outlaw Death Penalty

3: Toughen prison sentences aka Bread and Water prisons

4: Reverse Assault Weapons ban

5: Enforce rest of gun laws

6: Break up Microsoft

7: Break up Unions

8: Pay raises to congress and presidency

9: Out-lawing of lobbyist

10: Balance Budget

11: End inheritence taxes

12: Dissolve ATF

13: Reverse all tobbacco settlements

14: Increase funding of Ethanol

15: Withdrawl unilaterally from all non-trade treaties, including UN and NATO

16: Balance Budget

17: Begin paying off deficet.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Daiq, whats the difference in them knocking back shots and grading? Legalizing drugs doesn't mean in all scenarios. I think they should nail stupid druggies like they nail stupid drunks, and if they're on the crap at work or behind a wheel, they're in deep trouble.



1: Reverse Roe v. Wade

2: Outlaw Death Penalty

3: Toughen prison sentences aka Bread and Water prisons

4: Reverse Assault Weapons ban

5: Enforce rest of gun laws

6: Break up Microsoft

7: Break up Unions

8: Pay raises to congress and presidency

9: Out-lawing of lobbyist

10: Balance Budget

11: End inheritence taxes

12: Dissolve ATF

13: Reverse all tobbacco settlements

14: Increase funding of Ethanol

15: Withdrawl unilaterally from all non-trade treaties, including UN and NATO

16: Balance Budget

17: Begin paying off deficet.

1. Yes please. I don't like murder.
2. Absolutely not. Use it more, and with less death row time.
3. Yes please.
4. What?? No!
5. Yes and/or get rid of the useless ones also.
6. Possibly
7. Not necessarily. Reform, yes.
8. No. They're paid adequately.
9. YES PLEASE!
10. Yes.
11. I think there's a way to write these off, but yeah, I agree.
12. Agreed.
13. Ex post facto. No thanks.
14. Absolutely
15. Not yet.
16. Redundant
17. To a degree, yes. Debt leverage in government isn't a totally bad thing though.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Daiq, whats the difference in them knocking back shots and grading?

1. Well..........absolutely nothing! :p

2. Stop using logic on me! :cry


Seriously now. Reverse Roe vs Wade? I dont think so. To use it as a continuous form of birth control is wrong. To correct one mistake, it's allowed.

[Diego Van Derveld]

The only...only time I could ever rationalize something like that is if there would be complications that would either kill the mother, child, or both. Thats the only way I could ever live with abortion.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Youre not a woman. You wouldnt have to live with it.

[Diego Van Derveld]

As a potential father, I very much would indeed. That is a very inconsiderate thing to say.

[Shawn]

Having known, back in high school, a 16 year old girl who got pregnant... I have to side with Daiquiri here. It makes me sick when I see those people going in for their 9th abortion. But I can understand the need to do it once.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Why? Why not see it through its course, and give the baby up for adoption? Why is there a need to kill it?

[Shawn]

The girl in question would have had difficulty scraping up enough money for the medical bills, much less anything thereafter. I did consider giving up the child for adoption as an option when writing that post. But it's not always so cut-and-dry.

Emotionally, physically and financially, it's not really as simple as "See it through it's course and give it up for adoption".

At the very least, having a child at her age would have meant that she would have probably failed that year of High School. There's no way I can see her attending during the later months of pregnancy. Then, assuming her family can arrange the money for hospital bills to come (at least several thousand dollars), she'd have to find somewhere to give it up.

In a best case scenario, it would have made life very uncomfortable for her and her family. All for what could have been as simple as a comdom breaking. I can't say that I agree with her having the abortion, but I certainly wasn't going to be someone who'd pressure her into having the child.

I definitely don't think that abortion should be the first option as soon as a girl/woman finds out that she's pregnant, but I can't really see it as being completely illegal.

Plus, if it were to become illegal... you'd have women going back to the coat hanger method, which often led to the death of both mother and child.

[Diego Van Derveld]

So, to cut corners on what are essentially just inconveniences, its alright to end a child's life? It still seems like a cop out. Look, I hate to inject some responsibility into some peoples lives, but there are consequences when you drop your pants, and they aren't just worrying about VD. I think people need a serious reality check. Condoms break. Its somewhere under Murphy's Law. You can't lean on that flimsy rubber crutch and expect to not worry about these things. I don't think that should exempt anyone from the responsibility inherent with sex. No money? Take out a loan. School work a chore? Distance ed and/or tutor. I know schools have support methods for this. I've seen it in action.

So, where's the need for abortion in this scenario?

And about the women with coat-hangers in back alleys...they only do it because they aren't tried for manslaughter when caught. If society would own up to what abortion really is, that wouldn't be a common reprisal.

[Shawn]

I didn't say that Abortion was the most responsible, peechy-keen OK choice for her. But I don't look down on her for it. I'm not a woman, and I'm certainly not in her position, so I'm not going to judge her too harshly. I'm just thankful that I'm not a woman in a situation like that.

I'll agree that, perhaps, if we were to treat it as murder in the eyes of the law, then we might see a decline in abortion. But that isn't the case, and I don't forsee it happening any time soon (if only because so many people would be vehemently opposed to that), so it's really kind of moot. As it stands, I think we're better off with it being taken care of by qualified doctors than without.

However: There really should be some better restraint on it. I know I've heard of doctors that try to pressure women into getting an abortion simply because it means money for them. And there are women who seem to think Abortion is a form of contraception. This is the kind of stuff that I think needs attention ASAP.

[Diego Van Derveld]

agreed.

[Oriadin]

Ooooo. Good call for a thread. I really would ring the changes in the UK.

1. Simplify EVERYTHING. Complicated words and documents only serve at confusing people. Its not nessesary. You can listen to a member of parliment talk for 30 mins without understanding what the hell they are talking about. They only do it so they can hide behind their words.

2. Do away with Private health. If it takes a poor persion 6 months to recieve health treatment, someone who can afford to pay for private health should too. If your ill, your ill. Skipping the cue because you have more money is out of order.

3. Dynamic funding. On your wage slip you should be told what tax your being charged AND what that money is going towards. Eg. 10% Education 3% Emergancy services 20% Country stock pile 15% debts owed to other countries etc etc (%s are just number plucked from the air incidently). If schools are in more need of funding, then more money gets pumped in that month. If its the National Health service then more goes into that.

4. Taking over of the National Lottery. Money from that can stop going to art galleries and doomed projects like the millenium dome and be managed better by going towards parks, charitys, as well as extra funding for school or hospitals if there is a need.

5. Increase petrol tax significantly and do away with road tax. therefor people who use the roads pay for it, rather than the old woman who take her car out once a week to do the shopping.

6. Make it dirt cheap for public transport companies to buy fuel on the provision that public transport is very cheap to use. More bus lanes too. Hopefully this coupled with the expensive fuel prices will mean fewer traffic problems and it'll be better for the environment.

7. Asylam seekers will find it extreamly tough to get in. I dont see how we can be expected to help other people from other countries with the mess this country is in at the moment. If they do come here then check ups made every few months to see how they are doing. If its safe for them to return to their home countries, then they will be told to leave.

8. Not sure how this would be put as a rule but I'll try to explain. There are many many muslims who live in and around this area. Now, because of that no christmas decoratios were allowed to be put up incase they found it offensive. Tough. This is the UK. If they live here then they are brittish citizens and being brittish means we celebrate christmas. If they dont want to celebrate it then fine but they shouldnt be allowed to stop it for others. They all speak a different language too. Many of them CANT speak English. They should be made to take lessons or what ever it takes to learn the language. If I lived in France I wouldnt expect to not to have to learn French.

9. Death Penalty brought back. Youd have to be a dead cert to be sentenced to death but why should the country have to pay for that person to live? Jail would go back to being a not nice place to live. The cells would be pretty nasty. No TVs or computer games. No pool tables or anything like that. They have to oppertunity to to college courses or whatever so they can learn how to be someone when they come out. Jail shouldnt be fun, it should be a punishment and a way for them to learn how to intigrate with society.

Anyways, its lunch time so I'll leave it there for now and I'll discuss more as and when I think about it.

Oh, on a side note No drugs would be leagalised and infact canabis would go back to becoming a more serious criminal offence.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

As a potential father, I very much would indeed. That is a very inconsiderate thing to say.

I did not mean to be inconsiderate and I apologize, Charley.

It's inconsiderate however, for men to sit in judgement on women and tell them you have to have this child.

It honks me off no end that we (women) still get the short end of the stick. It takes two to tango yet the finger is still pointed at the girl - 'why didnt you keep your legs closed?', 'If you didnt want a baby, then you shouldnt have been having sex', etc.

But what the guys? What about ALL those thousands upon thousands of males who have unzipped yet walked away scot free leaving the woman behind to take of a kid they never wanted in the first place - just as the man didnt want it?


Why? Why not see it through its course, and give the baby up for adoption? Why is there a need to kill it?

The point of abortion is not to have a child. If Im not ready for one, for whatever reason, then Im not going to carry it full term and hand it over just to have it show up on my doorstep years later. That rather defeats the purpose, dontcha think? It's the woman's body and she has the right to say yea or nay to abortion. No one else does.

Something else that bothers me about adoption. You see and hear about the Pro-Life protestors, their blockading clinics and the radical ones even bombing them. How many of these self-righteous 'judges' actually have adopted children? Id be willing to say very few. Instead, theyre happy waving their signs and pointing fingers yet do nothing about it on a 1-1 basis. More than likely, if any kind of legislator was passed uping their taxes to pay a national cost for unwed mothers, they would be among those yelling the loudest.

There are two 16 year old girls at our high school who are pregnant and my girls are friends with them. Even knowing all the methods of birth control available, accidents still happen and at this in-between age it's extremely difficult to think as an adult when your hormones are raging. At my age, I still have childish moments....dont we all? To demand, to tell these girls that they have to throw their futures away for maybe an hour of pleasure is rediculous, ludicrous and so totally beyond stupid that it's off the scale. Given the choice, they might decide to keep the babies anyway but let it be their choice.

[JonathanLB]

"It's the woman's body and she has the right to say yea or nay to abortion. "

No, it's the child's life -- nobody has the right to take a life.*


*-except the U.S. military, police, etc. in cases where national security or personal safety is directly threatened (and personal safety includes such a case as a woman who has a high chance of dying if not for an abortion, then it could be seen as justified).

[Hadrian Invicta]

Ummm maybe we should split the RoevWade into another thread so as not to hijack this one. I simply was giving what I would change about government.

Edit to my Reverse Tobacco settlements, as Charlie stated ex post facto would come in... I would simply have congress pass a bill making it impossible for future law suits. People knew good and well that smoking was bad for them, even in the '20s, I have examples of Cigarette ads in my text book that companies used to tell lthe public that their cigarette wasn't as bad for them as the other companies. Kinda funny how people forget that lol.

[Oriadin]

I was always under the impression that smoking was encouraged and the companies told you it was good for you?

Kinda how Canabis is going now :)

[Morgan Evanar]

Yes, please. This isn't to debate policy. I just want to know how different people would inact change on the government. If you have a major point of conention like Roe V Wade (which I fully support), don't hijack the thread. While it is a relevant side discussion, it by no means should be the major topic at hand.

[Jedieb]

I'll tackle Roe V. Wade and the Presidency.

Roe V. Wade
I think that abortion is wrong. My wife and I have been through pregnancies, miscarriages, and births. The lives of our children began right after she urinated on the strip. Having said all of that, I believe abortion should be a WOMAN'S choice. Those beliefs are MINE. I don't have the right to impose them on Lady D. or any other woman. Hell, it's convienient for me to hold those beliefs. I am all of the following:
Employed
Married
A homeowner
Not a teenager

I am NONE of the following:
Unwed
Unemployed
Living with my parents
The person who will have to give birth and inevitably have to live with and raise the child.

It's pretty easy for me to hold the beliefs that abortions are wrong. But that's my belief. Just because I could never ask my wife to do it doesn't mean I can tell a poor 15 or 25 year old girl what to do with her body. And you can bet that making abortions illegal would EDIThave a greater effect on the poor than the well to do.EDIT Because families with enough bank will get those abortions for their daughters if that's what they want.

There are too many abortions in this country. Hell, I knew a girl once who basically slept with an old boyfriend so she could get knocked up to get out of serving overseas. Once she got out of it she had an abortion. That's dispicable. Reversing Roe v. Wade might stop abortions like that, but it'd would also stop abortions that in a woman's eyes she has every right to make.

I'll end this with a censored version of an old Dennis Miller line: One penis, no vote.

The Presidency (Major Humor)
No more pasty faced white guys will be allowed to run for President. Sorry, but you guys have had your shot. No more PFWG's until President #87. After everybody else has had their turn then we'll open things up again. This is getting ridiculous. It's suppose to be a government for the people, BY the people but the same group keeps occupying the Oval Office year after year? How can we keep living the farce that everyone has the same opportunity to succeed in this country when the same 35-40% of the population keeps getting the most powerful job in the world election after election? And that 35-40% isn't even accurate. Check the background and bank accounts of those Presidents and you can probably group 40 of those presidents into a 1-3% group.

Here are the new rules:
1) Every other President must have breasts. (And not the saggy William Howard Taft kind, the kind that can produce milk!)
2) Hispanics, Blacks, Asians, you're all getting your turns. But you've got to let everyone vote, it's not all about you guys.
3) Extremists or charlatans like Farakhan and Al Sharpton need not apply. I'm talking about legitimate candidates like Powel, Andrew Young, or even C. Rice.


Tomorrow I'll be presenting a fix to address the injustices the U.S. government has perpetrated against Native Americans. Here's a hint; New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Nevada; you guys aren't going to like it.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Diego Van Derveld
The only...only time I could ever rationalize something like that is if there would be complications that would either kill the mother, child, or both. Thats the only way I could ever live with abortion.

What about rape?

[Morgan Evanar]

Dutchy, please take Roe v Wade elsewhere and stick to the general topic. If you really want to talk about it, start another thread.

[Dutchy]

I can't talk about abortion? Or what does Roe v Wade mean?

[Jedieb]

Deficits
I would require the goverment to submit a BALANCED budget every year. This would force Dems. to cut back on some of their social programs and Republicans would have to get rid of tax cuts that have little to no impact on low income families. Trillion dollar deficits are ridiculous because they require the government to allocate BILLIONS every year to pay off the debt and the interest.

[Jedieb]

Roe V. Wade
Back to the never ending debate.

I would require Parental notification for women 16 and under. I don't understand why there's such opposition to this. There's a myriad of seemingly minor things teens can't legally do before they're 18, but they can get abortions? if you're old enough to have sex, then you should be old enough to confront your parents and tell them you screwed up. The only rationale that I can see behind opposing this law is that Pro-Choice advocates may say that it could open the door to more anti-abortion laws. I don't think that's reason enough that my daughter should be allowed to have an abortion without telling my wife and me. How else will I be able to hunt down the dirtbag who knocked her up?

[Sanis Prent]

But without such debt, the government would be severely undercutting its fiscal potential. Deficit-killers need to realize that the U.S. government's debt is a MAJOR route of investment for the "little people" like you and me. That's where they're borrowing the cash...mainly from private investors. Ask an investor today if they are looking into purchasing T-bill securities. Its not a lot of yield, but its a rock solid investment. That's something that is definitely needed, with the markets so wildly uncertain in the short run.

[JonathanLB]

There are NO good female candidates for president, so until such time as there are, I would never support a woman president. Not on principle, but on who is available.

Hillary Clinton? I mean come on, I'd rather move to Canada. That stupid liberal b**** should be shipped to Mars and never heard from or seen again.

I'd vote for a woman president if she most accurately reflected my viewpoints, but I don't see that being the case. I think probably it would end up being some feminazi running for office, in which case I would never vote for a woman president. She'd have to NOT be a feminist, which seems contradictory. A woman running for president would almost automatically, surely be a feminist, so I'd never vote for a woman running for the position of the nation's most powerful position, no.

You don't see other countries having woman rulers either and I doubt it's coincidence. No offense, but I don't trust anything that can bleed for a week and not die. Haha, j/k, that's not my quote, I stole that from somewhere else. Direct your flames at whoever made it up. Still damn funny.

I think the problem with the "first" president of any kind, whether it be a black person or a woman or a homosexual or whatever is the fear that such a person would use the highest office for the benefits of their minority group. In the case of women, not "minority group," but the idea is much the same. Pretty soon you got some woman president telling you that we need laws preventing private organizations from restricting their memberships to men only. Yet they will turn their backs on female clubs with only female memberships, of course, because it's "not the same." Riiight.

I actually do not think it would be nearly the same problem with an African American president, not if it was a guy like Colin Powell for instance. I don't think he'd use the office for reverse discrimination or anything, but I know Jesse Jackson would.

Personally when it comes right down to it, I'd rather elect another old white guy because at least I know the pressure will be on him NOT to be racist or sexist because of his status as a pasty faced white guy.

Ultimately, though, it's all about the ideas. If a black woman ran for president and she was talking about how we need to eliminate affirmative action, cut welfare, phase out social security in the next twenty years, legalize drugs and prostitution (victimless crime, waste of money enforcing), and cut taxes across the board, I would easily vote for her over the other candidates unless they were even more promising. However, a black woman with those campaign promises? Wow that'll be the day. 90% of African Americans are democrats. Statistically, I wouldn't be likely to vote for an African American in any position, unless the person fell into that 10%.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Dutchy
I can't talk about abortion? Or what does Roe v Wade mean?

Anyone?

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by JonathanLB
I'd vote for a woman president if she most accurately reflected my viewpoints, but I don't see that being the case. I think probably it would end up being some feminazi running for office, in which case I would never vote for a woman president. She'd have to NOT be a feminist, which seems contradictory. A woman running for president would almost automatically, surely be a feminist, so I'd never vote for a woman running for the position of the nation's most powerful position, no.

"Feminazi"... geez.

Women with opinions. Scary thought, huh?

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

No offense, but I don't trust anything that can bleed for a week and not die."

Somehow, I dont think youre mother would find that amusing, Jonathan. I didnt either.

Moving ahead....Ive dropped the R vs W for now.

I think health care is one of the biggest problems we've got..or lack of, I should say.

Ive smoked since I was 14 and I agree 100% with Hadrian. No one put a gun to my head and made me smoke. Back when I was 5, my grandfather was calling them 'coffin nails' and even had a small wooden box - that held his cigarettes - with those words on it.

Dont tell me that people didnt know it was bad for you. They did. No more lawsuits.

[Jedieb]

So you're saying a 1.8Trillion dollar deficit is a GOOD thing? Then why are Republicans going to be scaling back W.'s tax cuts? Even they know that's out of control. The largest deficit we've ever had was in the $280B range. We just spent years trying to balance. Years during which the economy did quite nicely. Deficit spending and big tax cuts do not produce great results. It was voodoo economics in the 80's and it's still ridiculous.

[Jedieb]

Newsflash: Do NOT vote for anyone who will not reflect your opinions! So, unless you are white, male, and well to do, you should not vote in another Presidential election as long as you live. These people couldn't POSSIBLY "reflect your viewpoints."
That is all. :rolleyes

[Morgan Evanar]

Originally posted by Dutchy
Anyone? Not in here. Its off topic, and I'll be damned if I let this get hijacked by something that has no overall bearing on the thread. Let someone else's opinion stand, state yours, and move on.

If you want to debate an issue, do it elsewhere. You put your ideas forward here. You can respond to so and so's post, but put forward an idea as an alernate instead of bashing it.

"I don't think that would work, ___ ,I'd do this."

--
You're welcome to the thread if you want to genuinely contribute, John. Otherwise please don't post.
--
I'd also dissolve the relic known Electoral College, resulting in more direct elections.

Public University scholarships could no longer be based on race but soley on merrit and/or income.

Affirmative action is based on local population figures for a given county area of employment IE where you work is not neccerily where you live. I'd change the policy of pretty much accepting Cubans into the States without question, and allow free travel to Cuba. I figure that way they'll get a nice taste of the free market.

As for fixing the health care system, I'm not exactly sure how yet.

[AmazonBabe]

Originally posted by Marcus Elessar
3) Resposible enviromental management - You CAN use resurces like oil and trees responsibly. Manage well. Not the extremeist Greenie view, but a moderate middle road between exploitation and preservation.

This reminded me of something, what with all the gas prices going through the roof here on US soil and beyond. But my thought is mostly based here for the US:

Saddam is threatening to burn his oil fields if we go to war, and while we get some of our oil from Venezuela (sp?), most of it comes from Iraq.

And YET, Alaska has enough oil reserves to take care of the whole United States.

Why, then, do we not just use the oil in Alaska rather than having to depend on outside help?... Because of the ENVIRONMENTALISTS!!! Stoopid greenies who think the human race is a disease on this earth protest up the wazoo, with some other complications, making it basically impossible to put down oil fields in Alaska.

So, hence forth, we're stuck with relying on outside oil.

It's amazing how our own nations ppl screws over the nation, and then have the gaul to complain when the nation tries to fix said problem that would actually help the nations ppl. |I

Ok, I'm done.

You can go back to making the world a perfect place. :)

[Morgan Evanar]

NO RANTS. Sweet monkey jeebus, how hard do I have to hit you people.

PUT FORWARD SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS. HOW WOULD YOU SOLVE THE OIL ISSUE?

[Oriadin]

Invest more money on alternatives. Solar power, wind power etc etc. All the money you save on importing the oil could go on research. Sure, its gonna be hell of expensive to start with but we need to start looking out for our children, and our childrens children. Not now, today.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
Not in here. Its off topic, and I'll be damned if I let this get hijacked by something that has no overall bearing on the thread. Let someone else's opinion stand, state yours, and move on.

If you want to debate an issue, do it elsewhere. You put your ideas forward here. You can respond to so and so's post, but put forward an idea as an alernate instead of bashing it.

This whole FORUM is off-topic (http://swforums.net/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27942). :p

Anyway, I thought Jedieb wrote a whole story on abortion, so I don't understand why you jump on my 3 words on this matter.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Definitely tap the Alaskan oil reserves. Definitely.

Though they're apparently a vote away from ratifying this anyway, so :)

And Rie...we import next to zero Iraqi oil. I don't know where you got your information. France, Germany, and Russia are the prime benefactors of Iraqi oil exports, UN-sanctioned or otherwise. We actually were importing a good quantity from Venezuela, until their political scene went to hell in a handbasket.

[Morgan Evanar]

Anyway, I thought Jedieb wrote a whole story on abortion, so I don't understand why you jump on my 3 words on this matter.You're a victim of timing, more than anything else.

Forum is off topic, but the threads don't have to be.


Invest more money on alternatives. Solar power, wind power etc etc. All the money you save on importing the oil could go on research. Sure, its gonna be hell of expensive to start with but we need to start looking out for our children, and our childrens children. Not now, today.

I agree completely. All the dino juice is going to dissapear pretty soon. I think a 10 year tax incentive where alternative energy purchases are subsidized by getting half the cost of the items, that amount would be a tax deduction. Excess energy back to the grid would be bought by the local power company at 75% of your billed rate.

I just wish I could think of a good way to push Detriot twoard different systems, but I don't see a viable method for it.

Also, I'd change the pollution laws in relation to diesel, so that very effectient direct injection diesels are viable here.

I'd also re-instate Armistice Day, because I feel Veteran's Day lacks the same meaning.

Raise the minimum wage to 10/hr. All of that money would pretty much be immediately recycled back into the economy, since Americans have a propensity not to save.

[Hadrian Invicta]

I still don't understand why we dont' use ethanol. It's a viable replacement for oil based fuels, its renewable, its competetively priced with Oil, its clean burning. It would help American Farmers! Then we could tell the opec to go to hell.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Ditto on Alaska but keep the countryside pristine. No trashing it!
We've got to get to work on alternatives pronto and a 10 year plan sounds good to me!

I dont know if I would go completely to ethanol right away but I would start adding more. I think we (Illinois) have 10% in our gas? does everyone have the same mix that we do?

[TheHolo.Net]

Originally posted by Hadrian Invicta
I still don't understand why we dont' use ethanol. It's a viable replacement for oil based fuels, its renewable, its competetively priced with Oil, its clean burning. It would help American Farmers! Then we could tell the opec to go to hell. My opinion on that is this: There aren't any rich people lining the pockets of those in the right places to get it pushed, while there are in fact lots of rich people in the oil and automotive industries lining the pockets of the right people to keep ethanol from moving into the limelight and becoming a viable alternative.

[Morgan Evanar]

My opinion on that is this: There aren't any rich people lining the pockets of those in the right places to get it pushed, while there are in fact lots of rich people in the oil and automotive industries lining the pockets of the right people to keep ethanol from moving into the limelight and becoming a viable alternative.

Sooooo how do you shove it down thier throats? What kind of programs?

[TheHolo.Net]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
Sooooo how do you shove it down thier throats? What kind of programs? I'm really not very schooled in the ways of politics, but I would say something along the lines of reforms need to be made to almost all political entities as it pertains to contributions be they legitimate or not so legitimate. Find ways to illegalize and more closely control the back room payoffs that anyone with half a brain knows happen thoughout much of our government.

Do I really think such an idea is possible? Not really, but its a nice idea to believe it could happen.

[Dutchy]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
You're a victim of timing, more than anything else.

Well, pooh on Jedieb. :p


Forum is off topic, but the threads don't have to be.

I know. :)

[AmazonBabe]

NO RANTS. Sweet monkey jeebus, how hard do I have to hit you people.

FYI, I didn't read the entire thread past Marcus' first post, therefore I didn't see any warnings about rants.

Charley: As to getting some of our oil from Iraq, I heard it from my dad. Though it's possible I may have misheard what he said, so instead of hearing that other nations we are allied with getting oil from Iraq, I heard we got oil from them. :: shrug ::

[Diego Van Derveld]

The difficult part is that there are so many alternate fuel ideas. Bush is taking a step in the right direction, by subsidizing fuel cells, but is this the choice to back? What about all the others?

Alternate fuels are a good thing, but spreading funding out too far is counter-productive. To be honest, I don't know which option would be best. I'm no chemist or engineer, and I couldn't get down to brass tacks and talk efficiency. But whatever gives the best bang for the buck, we should subsidize it like crazy. Fully vest a few companies in the alternate fuel industry. Do the same for auto manufacturers, or at least to those who can adapt spin-off lines compatible to alternative fuels. Its not impossible, and I don't think the conspiracy theories are nearly as bad as some suggest, but this thing doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell if we don't take the ball and run in a specific direction.

[Morgan Evanar]

I agree, and I'm to ignorant on solutions other than hydrogen (which doesn't seem like the best one right now) to make a policy declaration on it.

The healthcare system is really broken, too, but like I said, its too complicated for me to fix it. I'm too ignorant on the interplay of providers, doctors, hospitals, etc.

If ethanol has minimal environmental feedback and is easy to procure I'm all for it as a solution, and would sling my funding that way, at least for ground transportation. I think that air travel would keep oil around for a while though, which is ok with me.

[Hadrian Invicta]

Well I was a Chem Engineer for the first half of my college Career and one thing we did talk about in measure was Ethanol. My roommate who also happens to be a Chem Engineer did his entire senior project on an Ethanol refinery plant.

Essentially it's no harder to produce ethanol in mass than it is oil based gasoline. It is however a bit more expensive. Internal combustion engines that can be fueled solely by ethanol have been produced and they are as effiecent, in terms of speed and power as gasoline. Again though, you'd have to get all these Gas companies to start selling ethanol in their pumps car companies to produce them and what not. It's really about breaking traditional power bases and what not.

[Morgan Evanar]

Ohhhh. I just thought of something very important.

I'd start a massive desalinization research initiative, because the water problem in the West especially is going to be huge in the coming years.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Ive heard that taking the salt from ocean/sea water wouldnt be economical. Not sure where I heard that but it was more than once.

If it were cost efficient and wouldnt harm the ecosystems, Id be for it.

[Morgan Evanar]

Its not cost effecient right now, but I think with some research it could be. Thats why I'd start a huge iniative on it. We seriously need to do something about the water issues this country is only begining to taste.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

One of the things I would do is stop watering the golf courses and the lawns. When it's very dry here in the summer, I take my watering can into the shower with me and let it fill up then water my flowers with it. Ive also given my dog baths like that. (in the shower with me)

[Diego Van Derveld]

I wasn't aware of any issues regarding water

[Morgan Evanar]

Um, the whole midwest has been under drought conditions for the past 2 or 3 years. They're quickly running out of aquafir, and the farmers in the northern midwest (minnesota and stuff) I think, have been hit pretty hard. NPR has had periodic updates on it.

I dunno if they got enough precipitation this winter. I hope so.

Even if they did, the aquafirs are still being emptied out at an incredible rate.

[Diego Van Derveld]

For Minnesota to have any trouble with water, that's just absolutely sad. I can't imagine why they would. That entire state is literally pock-marked by lakes, you'd think they'd be able to deal with it.

Wasn't aware of any situation in the midwest. Here, at least, I've at least got the luxury of some of the best utility works in the nation. Rock bottom prices, and excellent service (No California electrical brown-outs, and my drinking water doesn't taste assy like Florida's does). Of course, gotta love the TVA ;)

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Drinkable water for the world is running low. Ive heard that for the past 4-5 years.

[JonathanLB]

The largest deficit we've ever had was $280 billion? No.

I don't know where you got that. It was $5 trillion when I was in 5th grade. We used to watch the debt counter going up at recess. That was the entire national debt, not a yearly debt, but if that's what you were talking about, no. $280B is nothing for a nation of 280,000,000 people or whatever. Just $1,000 from every person would pay that off instantly. No it was much more than that.

"Raise the minimum wage to 10/hr. All of that money would pretty much be immediately recycled back into the economy, since Americans have a propensity not to save."

What?! haha, heck no. Eliminate the minimum wage entirely. That is my proposal. A free market decides the price of labor, not the government. Minimum wages are an example of the deterioration of anotherwise great system, capitalism. We do not need any minimum wages. They are absolutely ridiculous. It's like almost $7 here in Oregon, which is just stupid because our economy is one of the worst in the nation. It only hurts everyone more, it doesn't help. You can sit there and say, "WHAT?! Everyone needs $10 an hour at least! Come on man!" But the fact is, companies cannot afford to pay that here, it's not a reasonable minimum wage and only costs more jobs. You start raising wages like that, then pretty soon every company has to scale back employees because they can't afford to pay them, so then you have 5 people making $7 an hour instead of 6 people making $6.25 an hour, which is nice if you're one of those 5, but if you're the 6th you just got shafted.

Minimum wages are just stupid in general. It was a horrible idea from the start, it still is a horrible idea, it always will be a horrible idea. Companies pay what you are worth. If you can't do anything useful that anyone else can't do, you're not worth much in the market. You may have great worth as a person, but that's another matter entirely. If all you can do is flip burgers and can't even speak our language properly, $5 an hour is the very most your work is worth.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Jon, you should beat yourself with a brick. Have you ever worked minimum wage, and tried to make ends meet on it? The wage is set because there's always SOMEBODY desperate enough for money that business can undercut if they so desire. That's the kind of crap that you read about in "The Jungle", which I suggest you pick up before making any other comments about removing market restrictions in the manner you suggest. Whether there are homeless people, immigrants, or what have you, there's always a factor to undercut cheap labor. It becomes extremely bleak for these people without a minimum wage in place. I don't suggest raising to $10 at all (mostly because I think the administration will raise it by around a buck before 2004), but we ABSOLUTELY need such wage limitations on the bottom end of the ladder.

[JonathanLB]

I suggest you take the brick out of your poop shoot and give it to me first, then I'll beat you with it first.

Minimum wage is a load of crap. It's not my concern or the companies' concern whether these people can live on the wages or not. If they want the money, they'll take it, if not, they won't. It's that simple. If the companies are desperate for work, they'll pay the wages.

Companies in the U.S. pay what the labor is worth. You don't see that many companies actually giving out minimum wage, either, but the jobs that do pay minimum wage are very justly compensating their workers, who don't deserve any more than they make.

You act like it is a company's problem that so and so lady they are employing has 5 kids and no husband and can't survive on minimum wage. That is a load of crap.

By eliminating minimum wages, there would be absolutely no negative effect on the country whatsoever. Wages would only go down if the availability of labor goes up, which works perfectly. It's all supply and demand. It's a self-regulating, self-sufficient system that doesn't need restrictions placed upon it that only complicate matters further and muck up what works just fine without them.

If unemployment is very low, there are fewer people to take such jobs, wages go up. In times where the unemployment is higher and jobs are valued, the wages go down. It just makes sense.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Jon that is stupid, I agree with Diego here, if there was no minium wage, Fast food places would be paying people less than $2.00 nobody could survive on that. The minium wage is a great thing only wackos think its not even 90% of Republicans think its a good thing. Also about the fuel problem, I think we should invest in an alternative fuel as well, but the question is which one? Really some real good research needs to go in this, it is the only way to find out which is the best.
Also about the Water problem it is a problem in certain areas, I know in my state it is we have had a drought for like 5 years or something it is gotten very bad here not as bad as in Califorinia but still worse than in most places in the south.

[JonathanLB]

Not true at all. I personally don't know anyone who thinks minimum wage is a good idea. Ben, my dad, my friends all think it's useless.

You are wrong, too. Use your brain, please, that's all I ask. If McDonalds paid $2 for their workers per hour, what do you think would happen!? Are you that clueless? Taco Bell would pay $6 an hour, everyone would want to work at Taco Bell instead, McDonalds would have no employees because NOBODY can live on $2 an hour, and they would promptly have to change their pay policy or face labor shortages so drastic that they'd be closed 24 hours a day.

Do you know anyone who would work for $2 an hour? I don't. You could beg and make more than that. The wages wouldn't decrease to ridiculous levels because there are simply too many sources of income. There are hundreds of companies that pay low wages now. They're not all going to get together and fix prices at $2 an hour. If they did, that would be illegal and they'd be taken to court for collusion.

[Diego Van Derveld]

If McDonalds paid $2 for their workers per hour, what do you think would happen!? Are you that clueless? Taco Bell would pay $6 an hour, everyone would want to work at Taco Bell instead, McDonalds would have no employees because NOBODY can live on $2 an hour, and they would promptly have to change their pay policy or face labor shortages so drastic that they'd be closed 24 hours a day.

Wow...congrats, you know nothing about economics! Please stop pretending that you do.


Do you know anyone who would work for $2 an hour? I don't.

...BECAUSE we have minimum wage laws. Uninhibited, companies would drop those wages as far as they could, because there most certainly ARE people who are desperate enough for that kind of work. Maybe they're hard to see in your ivory tower, but they can be found quite easily. And when Mickey D's brings a van around to all these desperate people, and offers them a JOB (which some have difficulty finding at all), then they can undercut wages with impunity. These tactics were used all through the depression, if you need any evidence of what your unrestricted market is capable of.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

Tell ya what, Jon. Let your Dad and Ben, yourself and all the others who HAVE money, start working for $2 an hour and see then how useless they think minimum wage is!

With this comment and your comment about women last night, youve just earned an ignore on my list.

[Sean Piett]

Originally posted by Morgan Evanar
Um, the whole midwest has been under drought conditions for the past 2 or 3 years. They're quickly running out of aquafir, and the farmers in the northern midwest (minnesota and stuff) I think, have been hit pretty hard. NPR has had periodic updates on it.

I dunno if they got enough precipitation this winter. I hope so.

Even if they did, the aquafirs are still being emptied out at an incredible rate.

I live in Minnesota, and beleive you me, there are no issues with water supply ^_^

[Jedieb]

So much ignorance, so little time to thrash it.... Ah, forget it, I'll stick to the fun stuff.


Well, pooh on Jedieb.
Pooh ME? Well, POOH YOU!! :shootin ;)

Alaskan Oil Reserves

From what I've read, the Alaskan Oil Reserves will not provide as much oil as you might think. I think I read that the Oil Reserves that were debated about in the Presidential debates would only provide around a 6 month supply. I think directing resources towards conservation and alternative energy sources would be more prudent and a needed investment towards our future. The oil isn't going to last forever.

Oh, I can't stand it, I have to go off on the minimum wage ignorance. Remember the good ol' days BEFORE minimum wage and unions? When the poor stayed away from dead-end, soul sucking, low paying, dangerous jobs? Boy, minimum wage ruined EVERYTHING! Children and women working in sweatshops, men getting the life literally sucked out of them in coal mines, and all of them getting paid whatever pennies the market FELT like paying them. But remember, in Jon's world they could have all WALKED AWAY from those jobs and stayed in bed back at Daddy's mansion.

Stupid poor people.:smokin

The minimum wage should have COLA tied into it. If it's good enough for Congress, it's good enough for the rest of us. BTW, I'd never advocate that Congressmen should get paid less or never get pay raises. It's important work and it should be rewarded as such.

[Jedi Master Carr]

That is what I read Jedieb, the oil reserves really wouldn't last long, I think researching alternative fuel sources is a better solution.

[Sorreessa Tarrineezi]

quote:
Well, pooh on Jedieb.



Pooh ME? Well, POOH YOU!!

:lol

at any rate, Jon that was the stupidest thing ever with the minimum wage stuff you said.....

[Morgan Evanar]

Pooh ME? Well, POOH YOU!!



at any rate, Jon that was the stupidest thing ever with the minimum wage stuff you said.. Please, only post if you have something to contribute to the thread.

[Sorreessa Tarrineezi]

I had something last night but forgot it due to tiredness...sorry....

[Jedieb]

Pooh your sorriness!!!! ;)

Here's an interesting situation to consider. Let's say many developing nations increase their standard of living and levels of technology. Let's say many of these dictatorships find democracy and more and more of the world starts getting nice big highways and gas guzzling cars to tool around in. That means more and more countries would begin burning up fossil fuels at U.S. like rate. That's only going to deplete those finite resources faster.

If we don't see the last well run dry in our lifetime it could very well happen in our children's or grandchildren's. I'm betting that if countries like China and India got anywhere near a U.S. level of energy use then we'd see the wells run dry in OUR lifetime. So again, I'd start pursuing alternative fuels AGGRESIVELY.

[Sean Piett]

Yeah, one of my main policies would be pushing ehanol. Hydrogen power would be better, but so dangerous.

[Oriadin]

Stick to solar power. Its completly natural, safe and free! Well, once you have all the nessesary parts ;)

I agree with you Jedieb on the whole fossil fuels being used up sooner rather than later. There has to come a point where we put the cost to one side and start working towards things that NEED to get done. This is a global problem, not a national problem. Im sure if they all put their heads together they could come up with something.

[Jedi Master Carr]

Could go with a combination of solar and Wind. We could always go back to Nuclear it is clean unless you have a meltdown like a Chernoble so there is a huge risk there. I am curious is there any scientists who are any closer to make Fusion power work? It might be a pipe dream or something that won't happen for another 50-60 years but if they could make it work all our problems would be solved.

[Oriadin]

How does that work? I dont know what it is.

[Jedieb]

Fusion is a dream which on film can only be solved by the likes of Elizabeth Shue and Keanu Reeves. ;)

Fusion has tremendous possibilities. But I don't think we'll see it mastered in our lifetimes.

[Darth Viscera]

I'd socialize a few things, I suspect:

(Each of these would have their shoulders looked over by a House of Representatives oversight committee, i.e. House Committee on Telecommunications)

-Free health care for all citizens (you have to pay for it if you go for frivolous non-essentials like getting a face lift or upsizing your breasts)

-Salary cap would limit a person to $50 million annually, with exceptions for money that goes towards your business. The excess cash goes to the government.

-Welfare needs to be reformed and fine-tuned.

-Tax breaks for those businesses that take on govt. contracts for anything that has to do with defense.

-Federal incentives for communications companies to upgrade their networks.
We should have cheap 100mbps broadband available in this country by now like they do in Sweden, and satellite TV companies shouldn't have to compress their video so much that the lesser-viewed channels are so distorted that they're unwatchable. All TV channels should be broadcasting additionally in HDTV by now. Those who don't have HDTV ready get their broadcast licenses pulled until they are HDTV ready, end of story.

-Cut back on the trade deficit.
If we buy $40 billion in goods from a country, then they're obliged to buy $40 billion in goods from us right back. If they don't, we buy only as much the next fiscal year as they bought from us. There would be political exemptions, such as the Democratic Republic of China.

-Develop the alaskan oil fields.
The green-skinned banana monkey and the pokadot hooter penguin and whatever else forms of exotic life that eat oil for breakfast and are not human get a free one-way trip to Splitsville, Daddio. Human resources are back on the menu.

-Electoral college scraped.
Popular vote primacy.

-Tax reform.
The higher paid you are (with # of dependants being calculated also), the higher percentaqe of taxes you pay. Excess cash in the Treasury gets put into next year's social services to further raise the standard of living.

-Defense budget reform.
This would be overseen by the president and a Senate Select Committee with rotating members. If the department of defense needs X amount of cash to build a critically needed X-Ray gun which will vaporize incoming communist asteroids, then they get it pronto. The DoD gets enough cash to properly defend the country from anticipated threats and pioneer new military tech, and the committee looks over its shoulder and sniffs out any corruption which would lead to fund misallocation. More money to NASA.

-National Debt
Hopefully with all the new tax money coming in from the salary cap, rich tax hikes and trade deficit reform, we'd have enough money to pay off the national debt once and for all.

-Crime reform
Prostitution and some drugs & sales legalized and TAXED. Instead of smugglers and drug dealers buying direct from Columbia, the U.S. government buys up a large annual stockpile of drugs, slaps a shipping surcharge and a hefty sales tax on it, and resells it to the U.S. drug dealers at Columbian ports, so the drug dealers are STILL responsible for shipping the drugs.

Can't think of any more right now, tired.

[Diego Van Derveld]

-Free health care for all citizens (you have to pay for it if you go for frivolous non-essentials like getting a face lift or upsizing your breasts)

Not sure where you'll find the funding, but ok


-Salary cap would limit a person to $50 million annually, with exceptions for money that goes towards your business. The excess cash goes to the government.

No! Arg! Yikes! Bad idea!


-Welfare needs to be reformed and fine-tuned.

Understatement of the century


-Tax breaks for those businesses that take on govt. contracts for anything that has to do with defense.

No need. Defense spending is already pretty high up there.


-Federal incentives for communications companies to upgrade their networks.
We should have cheap 100mbps broadband available in this country by now like they do in Sweden, and satellite TV companies shouldn't have to compress their video so much that the lesser-viewed channels are so distorted that they're unwatchable. All TV channels should be broadcasting additionally in HDTV by now. Those who don't have HDTV ready get their broadcast licenses pulled until they are HDTV ready, end of story.

No need.


-Cut back on the trade deficit.
If we buy $40 billion in goods from a country, then they're obliged to buy $40 billion in goods from us right back. If they don't, we buy only as much the next fiscal year as they bought from us. There would be political exemptions, such as the Democratic Republic of China.

Possibly.


-Develop the alaskan oil fields.
The green-skinned banana monkey and the pokadot hooter penguin and whatever else forms of exotic life that eat oil for breakfast and are not human get a free one-way trip to Splitsville, Daddio. Human resources are back on the menu.

Absolutely.


-Electoral college scraped.
Popular vote primacy.

Reform is obviously needed, but not sure if a direct popular vote is the way to go.


-Tax reform.
The higher paid you are (with # of dependants being calculated also), the higher percentaqe of taxes you pay. Excess cash in the Treasury gets put into next year's social services to further raise the standard of living.

Absolutely not.


-Defense budget reform.
This would be overseen by the president and a Senate Select Committee with rotating members. If the department of defense needs X amount of cash to build a critically needed X-Ray gun which will vaporize incoming communist asteroids, then they get it pronto. The DoD gets enough cash to properly defend the country from anticipated threats and pioneer new military tech, and the committee looks over its shoulder and sniffs out any corruption which would lead to fund misallocation. More money to NASA.

No. Giving defense an automatic first dibs on funds allows them to squeeze more out of the budget than they need.


-National Debt
Hopefully with all the new tax money coming in from the salary cap, rich tax hikes and trade deficit reform, we'd have enough money to pay off the national debt once and for all.

You have no understanding of liability economics, and the purpose of maintaining a balance of debt. Reduce, maybe...but there is no need to eliminate it.


-Crime reform
Prostitution and some drugs & sales legalized and TAXED. Instead of smugglers and drug dealers buying direct from Columbia, the U.S. government buys up a large annual stockpile of drugs, slaps a shipping surcharge and a hefty sales tax on it, and resells it to the U.S. drug dealers at Columbian ports, so the drug dealers are STILL responsible for shipping the drugs.

First part, yes. Second part, no. That sounds like some kind of neo mercantilism.

[Jedieb]

Address Social Security and start addressing it NOW. This is one of the reasons why the debt has to be managed and why tax breaks aren't needed. S.S. isn't going to fix itself and it's already an undisputed fact that the baby boomers are going to bankrupt it (2018 I think, can't remember the exact date.) It's going to be awful tough to tell boomers who've been paying into the system their ENTIRE life that it's no longer there when it's their turn to retire.

S.S. can't be fixed without reducing benefits and increasing taxes. There's no way around those 2 realities. But the sooner the government starts REALISTICALLY tackling the problem the less benefits will have to be cut and the less taxes will have to be raised. The money loss from today's tax cuts could have been used to shore up S.S. I plan my retirement with a "They'll be no S.S. around" view, but I doubt most Americans do. Especially when they receive yearly statements tellilng them exactly what their benefits will be at their retirement. Most of those benefits are going to HAVE to be paid and we'd better start addressing this problem immediately.

[Darth Viscera]

Salary Cap

No! Arg! Yikes! Bad idea!

Why do you say that?

-Tax breaks for those businesses that take on govt. contracts for anything that has to do with defense.

No need. Defense spending is already pretty high up there.

Don't we need more cash for border patrol and the Coast Guard? Heck, in Maine you can drive into Canada, get gas, and drive back without ever having to declare anything

-Federal incentives for communications companies to upgrade their networks.
We should have cheap 100mbps broadband available in this country by now like they do in Sweden, and satellite TV companies shouldn't have to compress their video so much that the lesser-viewed channels are so distorted that they're unwatchable. All TV channels should be broadcasting additionally in HDTV by now. Those who don't have HDTV ready get their broadcast licenses pulled until they are HDTV ready, end of story.

No need.

Why on earth do you say that?


-Tax reform.
The higher paid you are (with # of dependants being calculated also), the higher percentaqe of taxes you pay. Excess cash in the Treasury gets put into next year's social services to further raise the standard of living.

Absolutely not.

Why not?


-Defense budget reform.
This would be overseen by the president and a Senate Select Committee with rotating members. If the department of defense needs X amount of cash to build a critically needed X-Ray gun which will vaporize incoming communist asteroids, then they get it pronto. The DoD gets enough cash to properly defend the country from anticipated threats and pioneer new military tech, and the committee looks over its shoulder and sniffs out any corruption which would lead to fund misallocation. More money to NASA.

No. Giving defense an automatic first dibs on funds allows them to squeeze more out of the budget than they need.

The Oversight Committee would make sure they don't squander the money.

-Crime reform
Prostitution and some drugs & sales legalized and TAXED. Instead of smugglers and drug dealers buying direct from Columbia, the U.S. government buys up a large annual stockpile of drugs, slaps a shipping surcharge and a hefty sales tax on it, and resells it to the U.S. drug dealers at Columbian ports, so the drug dealers are STILL responsible for shipping the drugs.

First part, yes. Second part, no. That sounds like some kind of neo mercantilism.

They're going to keep on smuggling drugs into the U.S. and selling them, so why not tax the heck out of them for doing so?