Forums » Off-Topic
1. A balanced budget amendment requiring the government to pay for all of its programs without the use of debt and to maintain and grow a surplus. The only exception should be the need to use debt for an extreme emergency and required to be paid back within three years.
This will never happen. The entitlement crowd will scream bloody murder. I'd love to see them scream, however. So I'm all for it.
2. Eliminate the ability to tack items onto congressional legislation. If its not important enough to merit its own bill, then its not that important. If members of congress habitually don't read and understand the legislation they are voting on, then perhaps cutting back to just the key issues of the day might be a rational solution.
Just limit the page count and typesize of all bills to 10 pages, doublespaced TimesNewRoman 12 pt. You could link a bunch of bills together, but each separate 10-page doc must be voted on individually, with recorded votes yay, nay, or abstain. No more voice votes.
3) Restrict lobbyists. Do not allow them to meet privately with leaders. Require them to host an open forum to any interested Congressperson instead. Ensure that other interested parties are able to engage in open debate.
I like this a lot. Additionally, these meetings must be held individually in the congressperson's state or district, be announced and advertised for 30 days prior to the meeting wholly at the expense of the lobbying organization, open to the public, without time limits, and must be televised on local stations AND transcripts (or video) posted to the internet on a special website maintained by the government but paid for by the lobbyist groups. Meetings with lobbyists outside of these conditions would result in immediate explusion from the Congress.
5) For the current crisis, cut back on or eliminate non-critical government expenses.
Duh. To me, critical federal overnment expenses are fairly standard: Defense, Espionage, Statecraft, Regulation, Interstate commerce, and Law enforcement. Everything else can go away. For everything else, States and local municipalities should get the money from their own tax base.
7) If you must use debt, use it intelligently and as an investment. At this point there is absolutely no choice but to use debt because its all we have. Increase spending on education, research, new and expanding business loans, the national infrastructure, etc.
Let's just not use debt. Let's see how creative/industrious the American people really are, and let them learn to live without their government's meddling hand for a while. If some city really need a new bridge, take up a collection from the people that use the bridge, and get local companies to bid on the project and complete it on time and under-budget. If a company wants to do research, let them take all the risk (and gain all the reward when they succeed.) If cities want to better educate their students, let them look inward and see where they can cut - instead of looking outward to see how much more money they can grab from their communities.
9) Simplify the tax code to a Flat Tax system. Limit the deductions to key aspects that should be supported like family, home and the like. The same for businesses.
Yep - get rid of the capital gains tax, tax 20% of all corporate and personal income, and you can pretty much abolish the IRS except for their division that goes after the people who basically don't PAY their tax, like that asshat Charlie Rangel (D-NY).
10) Penalize agencies and their leaders for failure to enforce existing regulations. Bernard Madoff should have never gotten away with his sceme for so long.
The FINRA and SIPC clowns are too tight with the people they're supposed to regulate. I hate to say it, but the best people to be in charge of institutions like this are the democrat hippie tree-huggers who would love nothing more than to bring down a mutual fund or two because of some insider dealing or other infractions. Put those diametrically-opposed people into the regulator position, and I guarantee Wall Street will clean up their books PRONTO. Of course, look for another couple hundred FAS memos that the investment banks and funds will have to deal with, but that will be okay because we've eliminated the capital gains tax already, yes?
12) This one is the eternal struggle between yin and yang, good and evil, God and Satan, Allah and comic strip writers, tickling and Elmo. Balance Regulation of industry and Free Market. This means that regulators are going to have to intelligently look at the impact regulation or the lack thereof is having and adjust according to need. Business needs room to breathe and grow, but it cannot and must not be trusted to not abuse an 'exploit'.
Exploits only occur when a system is too complex for everyone to understand it. The fact that there ARE exploits and loopholes is merely an indicator that the system is too complex. Make the rules black-and-white, and simple to understand, and the regulation will become more of an enforcement and not a legal issue to be argued endlessly in courts. A flat tax, honest reporting by the companies, and personal liability instead of corporate liability is a good start (a la Sarbanes-Oxley).
13) Having a social safety net is great. An individual who attempts and fails should have a cushion to land on so that they may try again. How many times did Sam Walton fail before Walmart? Adequate health care for every US citizen is a good thing. Though a person who does not follow sound medical advice with such a system should be penalized by an increase in personal cost for their choices. Businesses are not people and should be allowed to fail, particularly when they make poor or dishonest choices.
Ah yes, but NOT having a social safety net is better. The motivation to succeed is far greater when you realize that, if you don't get a job to start being productive, you may not eat for a while. Obviously there might be certain allowances for the disabled (blind, crippled, mentally impaired, etc.) but those are edge cases.
Same goes for healthcare. If you know that paying for your own root canal is coming directly out of your own personal income, you tend to brush your teeth more, and you instill that habit in your children. If you have a history of heart disease, you tend to exercise more and watch your diet. Of course, accidents happen, so medical insurance is a must for everyone, but if you make it universal and free, then everyone will take full advantage (since its free) and the system will quickly be overwhelmed.
15) The national debt is not going to pay itself off. Once the Flat tax is implemented at roughly the current $/person average, increase it by 2-5% initially and adapt as necessary to balance peoples ability to maintain a similar standard of living while paying down the debt.
Dig it. Good idea, just as long as everyone who resides in this country pays their fair share. If a flat income tax doesn't work, then just implement a 20% national sales tax to get to the folks who don't pay income taxes. Incidentally, a draconian national sales tax would really boost savings rates, I think.
16) Off topic: If we must have a health reform, then public plan that gives a standard of care to every tax paying citizen and their defendants (including retired citizens of course), while also continue to care for those who are physically or mentally unable to work. Pay for it as a percentage of the tax already taken out for Medicaid/care. Let the insurance companies cover the extras like viagra and boob jobs.
True, any national healthcare plan (if we MUST have it) should really concentrate on prevention (i.e. checkups, exams, etc.) however, also cover anything else that is required to live. Viagra, boob jobs, etc. should not be covered at all, as in 0% coverage. There should also come a time when the government won't pay for heroic efforts to sustain life (Say, after you're 100 years old, the taxpayers won't pay for your 8th triple bypass on your anemic heart. Make your peace, cause it's time to go.)
17) Thanks to LNH's well timed reminder, wouldn't a better investment have been to support and encourage QUALITY inner city jobs by offering subsidies and / or tax breaks for hiring local residents that met the desired demographic so that they could AFFORD to buy a home for their families? I know where I'd be buying my 5 cent socks, I'll tell you what!
Heh. I have a story on this one. In Milwaukee, a company (that incidentally is one of my customers) was going to setup a large, almost 400,000 sq. ft. distribution warehouse to distribute product throughout the US and Canada. Warehouse jobs would mainly consist of pick-and-pack items for shipment, they paid $15 an hour, but were seasonal employment. The local Democratic leadership looked down their nose at their proposal, and blocked the construction with disdain, claiming "These are not the KIND of new jobs Milwaukee residents want." The company went 20 miles away to the suburbs, and is growing like gangbusters, and may expand their facility to 600,000 sq. ft and require almost 500 more workers. The city where it set up shop is raking in the tax base money, and also local residents love the 1,000+ jobs that the facility created.
Now, because the jobs were not full-time and because they were not UNION, and because they were seasonal, the city of Milwaukee actively discouraged them from building within the city limits. I say that it's not just tax breaks that encourage business, it's the attitude of political leaders. These jobs would have IMMENSELY helped the city of Milwaukee, but ended up going elsewhere. Lesson: Beggars can't be choosers.
17 a)(because I don't feel like renumbering this damned thing) It is ok to offer business incentives to promote a social agenda. It is not ok to mandate compliance unless it is a human rights issue.
Carrot and stick. Offering the carrot is a great way to encourage business. Telling a business HOW to run its business is NOT OK. Of course, some businesses must be regulated, and that's acceptable - but there's a fine line between making sure no one gets hurt by a company's products, and forcing a company to act in a way that is not in their best interest. (Another Milwaukee example - the City's sick leave ordinance, which thankfully was struck down as unconstitutional - http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202431520552 )
18) Find a way to restore the US's production advantage. China maintains an artificially low currency value to achieve this. Sadly nearly every recent US innovation is being manufactured in other countries.
Eliminate Unions. Unions are the cancer that has killed/is killing all of U.S. Manufacturing. Let's face it, attaching bolts to a frame is not a $40/hour job, it's more like the kind of job a monkey could do, and that a robot SHOULD be doing. If those kinds of jobs were put out into the market as minimum-wage jobs, our manufacturing base would grow like gangbusters and we might see some growth. The astromonical cost of labor is why manufacturing is fleeing the USA.
19) Get us the FUCK off of dependency on foreign oil. Better, Get the rest of the world off of dependency on oil as well. I am by no means an environmentalist nor am I convinced that global warming is caused by human activity. However, renewable energy that does not emit pollutants only makes sense.
Nuclear all the way. At least, use it until we can improve the efficiency of PV solar cells. The U.S has a good bit of uranium, and two friendly countries, Canada and Australia, have about half of the world's uranium reserves, and I guess I would rather be beholden to them than to the Arabs and Venezuela.
If we can get mass-produced amorphous silicon chips that can generate at least 40% efficiency, well, then our energy needs will be history and everyone can just put solar panels on their home and forget about paying the electric bill every month. This technolog is getting there, but it's not there yet. Maybe 20 years? Until then, we should be following the path of Nuclear (fission) energy and electric powered cars.
Oh, and nuclear fusion is a pipe dream, we've been trying for, what, 50 years? Can't even make a break-even reaction self-sustaining.
20) Legalize marijuana and certain other non-violent, non ultra addictive or non self destructive, intoxicants. Regulate them and tax them.
I say: try it. The infrastructure for illegal distribution will be tough to eliminate, but overall legalizing pot is better than spending billions attempting to eradicate it. 21 to use it, though.
21) Legalize prostitution and regulate the hell out of it. And tax it.
The world's oldest profession. There's a moral choice here, and I would think that most Americans would recoil in horror if someone put a bill on the floor that would legalize prostitution. This will never happen, just like the balanced budget amendment. Unlike recreational drugs, I don't think the tax revenues from prostitution would amount to much.
22) World events are not a "Father Knows Best" Episode and the US is NOT Jim Anderson.
Heh. Global politics and international relations take place in a savage, ruthless arena. The rest of the world is not a "Nice Place." Other countries do not have the kind of squeamish moral qualms about pressing their advantage like the United States does. We're the only country in the world who gives a second thought to "but how would that affect these other people over here?" when we make global-reaching decisions. It's in the best interest of The United States to use every advantage it has to benefit ITS people over the people of other nations, whether that advantage is political, military, or economic. I'm fully in favor of my country doing whatever it thinks is necessary to maintain its superpower status and its hold on power for as long as it can. Sure, other countries hate the United States because we throw our weight around to satisfy our own self-interest. Just be glad that some other country is not in that position - imagine Hugo Chavez with that kind of power. Or Kim Jong Il, or even Hu Jintao, with the global power of the United States, that's scary. Of course, my opinion is extremely biased since I'm a citizen of the United States. If I was Canadian, I'm sure I'd whine like Gavan. (HA)
23) Crime and drug addiction are NOT caused by poverty. Social and cultural values and attitudes are a more significant factor. The poor in the US are still a hell of a lot better off than many peoples around the world.
I don't know where you were going with this, but I agree. I know plenty of poor people who are not addicted to drugs and do not commit crimes. It's a social and cultural problem that allows too much permissiveness of drugs and crime, and not enough emphasis personal responsibility and community outreach. Too many people "look the other way" because, in large part, they know that they aren't empowered to help others, and they think that no one will assist them in their mission to help others. That's very much a societal anomaly that was not present until maybe the last half of the 20th century in America. I believe that this attitude is a direct result of FDR and his alphabet soup agencies, whose policies instilled in Americans the attitude that GOVERNMENT had to be the ones to fix ANY problem, no matter how little. It killed off that part of the American psyche that "saw a problem and fixed it", and replaced it with "saw a problem, and filled out a government aid request form."
26) Restrict the size of government to what is necessary. Administrative costs are a bitch and cuts there is often more effective than reducing the staff on the sales floor.
Amen, brother. Government should be as small as possible, whenever possible. Since government doesn't CREATE anything; it's merely a leech on the system that the American people must tolerate in order for the country to run. There's no area of government that can be classified as an "asset", save perhaps the military - all other government institutions are "liabilities."
28) The federal government should not attempt to micro-manage the country. It should issue macro level policies and leave it to the state and local governments to implement at the micro level.
Yes! But, see my response to #23 - people expect "The Government" to solve every problem, no matter how small. The first step is to break the American people of that expectation, next to eliminate their entitlement mentality, then to empower them to solve their own problems. When they no longer expect the government to intervene, the government will (eventually) stop intervening.
I'd like to add a few:
29) Congresspeople must vote on each and every issue before them, without proxies, in person on the House or Senate floor. Those who miss more than, oh, say 5% of the votes cannot run for re-election, since they're not doing their JOB, which is representing the wishes of the people they are representing. Additionally, if they abstain for more than 10% of the votes, then I think they're not doing their job as well - I'm sure their constituents would not be so shy about expressing an opinion.
30) Gassing the "rent-a-crowd", while funny, I'm pretty sure violates one of those pesky "Bill of Rights" things... namely Freedom of Assembly. A better way to handle it would be to improve the level of reporting when the "rent-a-crowd" shows up, as in asking the protesters where they are from (many will drive hundreds of miles to rabblerouse), maybe asking the protesters some questions about the issue to see if they actually KNOW what they are there for, etc. Making the crowd look like idiots on network television will do wonders for discouraging "rent-a-crowds" in the future. Unfortunately, news organizations have become politicized these days, so you can no longer count on the objective nature of the press - which actually represents an opportunity for an unbiased news agency to come forward, perhaps with individual bloggers at its core. - Hrm. Now I have another business plan to flesh out... "Grass-Roots-NewsCorp" Time to get the LLC started...
This will never happen. The entitlement crowd will scream bloody murder. I'd love to see them scream, however. So I'm all for it.
2. Eliminate the ability to tack items onto congressional legislation. If its not important enough to merit its own bill, then its not that important. If members of congress habitually don't read and understand the legislation they are voting on, then perhaps cutting back to just the key issues of the day might be a rational solution.
Just limit the page count and typesize of all bills to 10 pages, doublespaced TimesNewRoman 12 pt. You could link a bunch of bills together, but each separate 10-page doc must be voted on individually, with recorded votes yay, nay, or abstain. No more voice votes.
3) Restrict lobbyists. Do not allow them to meet privately with leaders. Require them to host an open forum to any interested Congressperson instead. Ensure that other interested parties are able to engage in open debate.
I like this a lot. Additionally, these meetings must be held individually in the congressperson's state or district, be announced and advertised for 30 days prior to the meeting wholly at the expense of the lobbying organization, open to the public, without time limits, and must be televised on local stations AND transcripts (or video) posted to the internet on a special website maintained by the government but paid for by the lobbyist groups. Meetings with lobbyists outside of these conditions would result in immediate explusion from the Congress.
5) For the current crisis, cut back on or eliminate non-critical government expenses.
Duh. To me, critical federal overnment expenses are fairly standard: Defense, Espionage, Statecraft, Regulation, Interstate commerce, and Law enforcement. Everything else can go away. For everything else, States and local municipalities should get the money from their own tax base.
7) If you must use debt, use it intelligently and as an investment. At this point there is absolutely no choice but to use debt because its all we have. Increase spending on education, research, new and expanding business loans, the national infrastructure, etc.
Let's just not use debt. Let's see how creative/industrious the American people really are, and let them learn to live without their government's meddling hand for a while. If some city really need a new bridge, take up a collection from the people that use the bridge, and get local companies to bid on the project and complete it on time and under-budget. If a company wants to do research, let them take all the risk (and gain all the reward when they succeed.) If cities want to better educate their students, let them look inward and see where they can cut - instead of looking outward to see how much more money they can grab from their communities.
9) Simplify the tax code to a Flat Tax system. Limit the deductions to key aspects that should be supported like family, home and the like. The same for businesses.
Yep - get rid of the capital gains tax, tax 20% of all corporate and personal income, and you can pretty much abolish the IRS except for their division that goes after the people who basically don't PAY their tax, like that asshat Charlie Rangel (D-NY).
10) Penalize agencies and their leaders for failure to enforce existing regulations. Bernard Madoff should have never gotten away with his sceme for so long.
The FINRA and SIPC clowns are too tight with the people they're supposed to regulate. I hate to say it, but the best people to be in charge of institutions like this are the democrat hippie tree-huggers who would love nothing more than to bring down a mutual fund or two because of some insider dealing or other infractions. Put those diametrically-opposed people into the regulator position, and I guarantee Wall Street will clean up their books PRONTO. Of course, look for another couple hundred FAS memos that the investment banks and funds will have to deal with, but that will be okay because we've eliminated the capital gains tax already, yes?
12) This one is the eternal struggle between yin and yang, good and evil, God and Satan, Allah and comic strip writers, tickling and Elmo. Balance Regulation of industry and Free Market. This means that regulators are going to have to intelligently look at the impact regulation or the lack thereof is having and adjust according to need. Business needs room to breathe and grow, but it cannot and must not be trusted to not abuse an 'exploit'.
Exploits only occur when a system is too complex for everyone to understand it. The fact that there ARE exploits and loopholes is merely an indicator that the system is too complex. Make the rules black-and-white, and simple to understand, and the regulation will become more of an enforcement and not a legal issue to be argued endlessly in courts. A flat tax, honest reporting by the companies, and personal liability instead of corporate liability is a good start (a la Sarbanes-Oxley).
13) Having a social safety net is great. An individual who attempts and fails should have a cushion to land on so that they may try again. How many times did Sam Walton fail before Walmart? Adequate health care for every US citizen is a good thing. Though a person who does not follow sound medical advice with such a system should be penalized by an increase in personal cost for their choices. Businesses are not people and should be allowed to fail, particularly when they make poor or dishonest choices.
Ah yes, but NOT having a social safety net is better. The motivation to succeed is far greater when you realize that, if you don't get a job to start being productive, you may not eat for a while. Obviously there might be certain allowances for the disabled (blind, crippled, mentally impaired, etc.) but those are edge cases.
Same goes for healthcare. If you know that paying for your own root canal is coming directly out of your own personal income, you tend to brush your teeth more, and you instill that habit in your children. If you have a history of heart disease, you tend to exercise more and watch your diet. Of course, accidents happen, so medical insurance is a must for everyone, but if you make it universal and free, then everyone will take full advantage (since its free) and the system will quickly be overwhelmed.
15) The national debt is not going to pay itself off. Once the Flat tax is implemented at roughly the current $/person average, increase it by 2-5% initially and adapt as necessary to balance peoples ability to maintain a similar standard of living while paying down the debt.
Dig it. Good idea, just as long as everyone who resides in this country pays their fair share. If a flat income tax doesn't work, then just implement a 20% national sales tax to get to the folks who don't pay income taxes. Incidentally, a draconian national sales tax would really boost savings rates, I think.
16) Off topic: If we must have a health reform, then public plan that gives a standard of care to every tax paying citizen and their defendants (including retired citizens of course), while also continue to care for those who are physically or mentally unable to work. Pay for it as a percentage of the tax already taken out for Medicaid/care. Let the insurance companies cover the extras like viagra and boob jobs.
True, any national healthcare plan (if we MUST have it) should really concentrate on prevention (i.e. checkups, exams, etc.) however, also cover anything else that is required to live. Viagra, boob jobs, etc. should not be covered at all, as in 0% coverage. There should also come a time when the government won't pay for heroic efforts to sustain life (Say, after you're 100 years old, the taxpayers won't pay for your 8th triple bypass on your anemic heart. Make your peace, cause it's time to go.)
17) Thanks to LNH's well timed reminder, wouldn't a better investment have been to support and encourage QUALITY inner city jobs by offering subsidies and / or tax breaks for hiring local residents that met the desired demographic so that they could AFFORD to buy a home for their families? I know where I'd be buying my 5 cent socks, I'll tell you what!
Heh. I have a story on this one. In Milwaukee, a company (that incidentally is one of my customers) was going to setup a large, almost 400,000 sq. ft. distribution warehouse to distribute product throughout the US and Canada. Warehouse jobs would mainly consist of pick-and-pack items for shipment, they paid $15 an hour, but were seasonal employment. The local Democratic leadership looked down their nose at their proposal, and blocked the construction with disdain, claiming "These are not the KIND of new jobs Milwaukee residents want." The company went 20 miles away to the suburbs, and is growing like gangbusters, and may expand their facility to 600,000 sq. ft and require almost 500 more workers. The city where it set up shop is raking in the tax base money, and also local residents love the 1,000+ jobs that the facility created.
Now, because the jobs were not full-time and because they were not UNION, and because they were seasonal, the city of Milwaukee actively discouraged them from building within the city limits. I say that it's not just tax breaks that encourage business, it's the attitude of political leaders. These jobs would have IMMENSELY helped the city of Milwaukee, but ended up going elsewhere. Lesson: Beggars can't be choosers.
17 a)(because I don't feel like renumbering this damned thing) It is ok to offer business incentives to promote a social agenda. It is not ok to mandate compliance unless it is a human rights issue.
Carrot and stick. Offering the carrot is a great way to encourage business. Telling a business HOW to run its business is NOT OK. Of course, some businesses must be regulated, and that's acceptable - but there's a fine line between making sure no one gets hurt by a company's products, and forcing a company to act in a way that is not in their best interest. (Another Milwaukee example - the City's sick leave ordinance, which thankfully was struck down as unconstitutional - http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202431520552 )
18) Find a way to restore the US's production advantage. China maintains an artificially low currency value to achieve this. Sadly nearly every recent US innovation is being manufactured in other countries.
Eliminate Unions. Unions are the cancer that has killed/is killing all of U.S. Manufacturing. Let's face it, attaching bolts to a frame is not a $40/hour job, it's more like the kind of job a monkey could do, and that a robot SHOULD be doing. If those kinds of jobs were put out into the market as minimum-wage jobs, our manufacturing base would grow like gangbusters and we might see some growth. The astromonical cost of labor is why manufacturing is fleeing the USA.
19) Get us the FUCK off of dependency on foreign oil. Better, Get the rest of the world off of dependency on oil as well. I am by no means an environmentalist nor am I convinced that global warming is caused by human activity. However, renewable energy that does not emit pollutants only makes sense.
Nuclear all the way. At least, use it until we can improve the efficiency of PV solar cells. The U.S has a good bit of uranium, and two friendly countries, Canada and Australia, have about half of the world's uranium reserves, and I guess I would rather be beholden to them than to the Arabs and Venezuela.
If we can get mass-produced amorphous silicon chips that can generate at least 40% efficiency, well, then our energy needs will be history and everyone can just put solar panels on their home and forget about paying the electric bill every month. This technolog is getting there, but it's not there yet. Maybe 20 years? Until then, we should be following the path of Nuclear (fission) energy and electric powered cars.
Oh, and nuclear fusion is a pipe dream, we've been trying for, what, 50 years? Can't even make a break-even reaction self-sustaining.
20) Legalize marijuana and certain other non-violent, non ultra addictive or non self destructive, intoxicants. Regulate them and tax them.
I say: try it. The infrastructure for illegal distribution will be tough to eliminate, but overall legalizing pot is better than spending billions attempting to eradicate it. 21 to use it, though.
21) Legalize prostitution and regulate the hell out of it. And tax it.
The world's oldest profession. There's a moral choice here, and I would think that most Americans would recoil in horror if someone put a bill on the floor that would legalize prostitution. This will never happen, just like the balanced budget amendment. Unlike recreational drugs, I don't think the tax revenues from prostitution would amount to much.
22) World events are not a "Father Knows Best" Episode and the US is NOT Jim Anderson.
Heh. Global politics and international relations take place in a savage, ruthless arena. The rest of the world is not a "Nice Place." Other countries do not have the kind of squeamish moral qualms about pressing their advantage like the United States does. We're the only country in the world who gives a second thought to "but how would that affect these other people over here?" when we make global-reaching decisions. It's in the best interest of The United States to use every advantage it has to benefit ITS people over the people of other nations, whether that advantage is political, military, or economic. I'm fully in favor of my country doing whatever it thinks is necessary to maintain its superpower status and its hold on power for as long as it can. Sure, other countries hate the United States because we throw our weight around to satisfy our own self-interest. Just be glad that some other country is not in that position - imagine Hugo Chavez with that kind of power. Or Kim Jong Il, or even Hu Jintao, with the global power of the United States, that's scary. Of course, my opinion is extremely biased since I'm a citizen of the United States. If I was Canadian, I'm sure I'd whine like Gavan. (HA)
23) Crime and drug addiction are NOT caused by poverty. Social and cultural values and attitudes are a more significant factor. The poor in the US are still a hell of a lot better off than many peoples around the world.
I don't know where you were going with this, but I agree. I know plenty of poor people who are not addicted to drugs and do not commit crimes. It's a social and cultural problem that allows too much permissiveness of drugs and crime, and not enough emphasis personal responsibility and community outreach. Too many people "look the other way" because, in large part, they know that they aren't empowered to help others, and they think that no one will assist them in their mission to help others. That's very much a societal anomaly that was not present until maybe the last half of the 20th century in America. I believe that this attitude is a direct result of FDR and his alphabet soup agencies, whose policies instilled in Americans the attitude that GOVERNMENT had to be the ones to fix ANY problem, no matter how little. It killed off that part of the American psyche that "saw a problem and fixed it", and replaced it with "saw a problem, and filled out a government aid request form."
26) Restrict the size of government to what is necessary. Administrative costs are a bitch and cuts there is often more effective than reducing the staff on the sales floor.
Amen, brother. Government should be as small as possible, whenever possible. Since government doesn't CREATE anything; it's merely a leech on the system that the American people must tolerate in order for the country to run. There's no area of government that can be classified as an "asset", save perhaps the military - all other government institutions are "liabilities."
28) The federal government should not attempt to micro-manage the country. It should issue macro level policies and leave it to the state and local governments to implement at the micro level.
Yes! But, see my response to #23 - people expect "The Government" to solve every problem, no matter how small. The first step is to break the American people of that expectation, next to eliminate their entitlement mentality, then to empower them to solve their own problems. When they no longer expect the government to intervene, the government will (eventually) stop intervening.
I'd like to add a few:
29) Congresspeople must vote on each and every issue before them, without proxies, in person on the House or Senate floor. Those who miss more than, oh, say 5% of the votes cannot run for re-election, since they're not doing their JOB, which is representing the wishes of the people they are representing. Additionally, if they abstain for more than 10% of the votes, then I think they're not doing their job as well - I'm sure their constituents would not be so shy about expressing an opinion.
30) Gassing the "rent-a-crowd", while funny, I'm pretty sure violates one of those pesky "Bill of Rights" things... namely Freedom of Assembly. A better way to handle it would be to improve the level of reporting when the "rent-a-crowd" shows up, as in asking the protesters where they are from (many will drive hundreds of miles to rabblerouse), maybe asking the protesters some questions about the issue to see if they actually KNOW what they are there for, etc. Making the crowd look like idiots on network television will do wonders for discouraging "rent-a-crowds" in the future. Unfortunately, news organizations have become politicized these days, so you can no longer count on the objective nature of the press - which actually represents an opportunity for an unbiased news agency to come forward, perhaps with individual bloggers at its core. - Hrm. Now I have another business plan to flesh out... "Grass-Roots-NewsCorp" Time to get the LLC started...
Exploits only occur when a system is too complex for everyone to understand it. The fact that there ARE exploits and loopholes is merely an indicator that the system is too complex. Make the rules black-and-white, and simple to understand, and the regulation will become more of an enforcement and not a legal issue to be argued endlessly in courts. A flat tax, honest reporting by the companies, and personal liability instead of corporate liability is a good start (a la Sarbanes-Oxley).
The problem I see with this suggestion is that the system is complex, period. Making the rules black and white will not do away with exploits, but rather exacerbate the situation.
Nuclear all the way. At least, use it until we can improve the efficiency of PV solar cells. The U.S has a good bit of uranium, and two friendly countries, Canada and Australia, have about half of the world's uranium reserves, and I guess I would rather be beholden to them than to the Arabs and Venezuela.
If we can get mass-produced amorphous silicon chips that can generate at least 40% efficiency, well, then our energy needs will be history and everyone can just put solar panels on their home and forget about paying the electric bill every month. This technolog is getting there, but it's not there yet. Maybe 20 years? Until then, we should be following the path of Nuclear (fission) energy and electric powered cars.
No... while nuclear fission is an important factor in dealing with providing energy in the near to middle future, there are numerous other ways, which should be explored more extensively. Not wind power, no, not tidal power, and definitely not photovoltaic solar panels, because they break even at about the point when they start to deteriorate badly. No.
Solar thermal power plants are a viable way of generating energy, the only problem is that energy transfer is not trivial, both technically and financially.
And nuclear fission... well, everyone is going to build nuclear reactors like crazy. And the uranium will be sold to the highest bidder. That would probably be China. Not to mention that it's downright expensive to build as many nuclear reactors as are going to be needed.
The approach to the energy problem must necessarily be multi-faceted, and not rely on one single branch of technology.
The world's oldest profession. There's a moral choice here, and I would think that most Americans would recoil in horror if someone put a bill on the floor that would legalize prostitution. This will never happen, just like the balanced budget amendment. Unlike recreational drugs, I don't think the tax revenues from prostitution would amount to much.
The main point is to take away another business model from organized crime and curb human trade, not primarily make money off it.
Other than the above, I agree with you (for what my agreement's worth...). Except for... Times New Roman? Really? ;)
The problem I see with this suggestion is that the system is complex, period. Making the rules black and white will not do away with exploits, but rather exacerbate the situation.
Nuclear all the way. At least, use it until we can improve the efficiency of PV solar cells. The U.S has a good bit of uranium, and two friendly countries, Canada and Australia, have about half of the world's uranium reserves, and I guess I would rather be beholden to them than to the Arabs and Venezuela.
If we can get mass-produced amorphous silicon chips that can generate at least 40% efficiency, well, then our energy needs will be history and everyone can just put solar panels on their home and forget about paying the electric bill every month. This technolog is getting there, but it's not there yet. Maybe 20 years? Until then, we should be following the path of Nuclear (fission) energy and electric powered cars.
No... while nuclear fission is an important factor in dealing with providing energy in the near to middle future, there are numerous other ways, which should be explored more extensively. Not wind power, no, not tidal power, and definitely not photovoltaic solar panels, because they break even at about the point when they start to deteriorate badly. No.
Solar thermal power plants are a viable way of generating energy, the only problem is that energy transfer is not trivial, both technically and financially.
And nuclear fission... well, everyone is going to build nuclear reactors like crazy. And the uranium will be sold to the highest bidder. That would probably be China. Not to mention that it's downright expensive to build as many nuclear reactors as are going to be needed.
The approach to the energy problem must necessarily be multi-faceted, and not rely on one single branch of technology.
The world's oldest profession. There's a moral choice here, and I would think that most Americans would recoil in horror if someone put a bill on the floor that would legalize prostitution. This will never happen, just like the balanced budget amendment. Unlike recreational drugs, I don't think the tax revenues from prostitution would amount to much.
The main point is to take away another business model from organized crime and curb human trade, not primarily make money off it.
Other than the above, I agree with you (for what my agreement's worth...). Except for... Times New Roman? Really? ;)
isn't it funny how this thread degenerated into an "if i ruled the world" scenario. hmm last time i checked we lived in a democracy
When I hear what I hear, I see what I see and I know what I know I'm right
to think what I think
A heart operation is $ 30,000 and if you do not have the money?
Come to France and you will see that it is good the health system.
I give $ 800 (400 my and 400 my boss) per month for the "Social Security is not much since the day I'm sick I'm treated and paid
Obama has the Nobel Peace Prize for his reform health héhé
Finally, to make a better world, we should already start with birth control, but some are chosen war belly ...
Peytros the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that democracy is spoken before obeying, in dictatorship is obeyed immediately
BanzaiObama
Error is human,human is error
to think what I think
A heart operation is $ 30,000 and if you do not have the money?
Come to France and you will see that it is good the health system.
I give $ 800 (400 my and 400 my boss) per month for the "Social Security is not much since the day I'm sick I'm treated and paid
Obama has the Nobel Peace Prize for his reform health héhé
Finally, to make a better world, we should already start with birth control, but some are chosen war belly ...
Peytros the difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that democracy is spoken before obeying, in dictatorship is obeyed immediately
BanzaiObama
Error is human,human is error
Actually, Tertior, it's rather clear that your mother should have "already start with birth control" long before she did.
peytros, if you think about it, what you said does not really run counter to what we said. We are free to elect the people working towards (or engage in politics and work towards) a state of the nation/world which is closer to what we call 'ideal'.
It's all within the limits of democracy.
It's all within the limits of democracy.
We're the only country in the world who gives a second thought to "but how would that affect these other people over here?" when we make global-reaching decisions.
You had me till here. This is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever heard you say Leebs. I'm used to Americans being generally pompous and full of themselves, as well as relatively ignorant in regards to happenings outside their borders (however small they may be), but this takes the cake.
When you compare the US to countries with similar population sizes, Leebs' statement most assuredly holds true (Russia, China, India, etc.), Gav.
It's cute that places like Finland care about global warming and its impact on small Pacific island nations so much that they really address their policies to it, but it means jack squat to the question of what should a country as large and complex as the US do about global warming and atmospheric pollution. It's like telling me to be very dilligent in my renovation of a badly deterioated Taj Mahal because someone did a lovely job with the restoration of Mother Teresa's 6' x 10' hovel.
You had me till here. This is probably one of the stupidest things I've ever heard you say Leebs. I'm used to Americans being generally pompous and full of themselves, as well as relatively ignorant in regards to happenings outside their borders (however small they may be), but this takes the cake.
When you compare the US to countries with similar population sizes, Leebs' statement most assuredly holds true (Russia, China, India, etc.), Gav.
It's cute that places like Finland care about global warming and its impact on small Pacific island nations so much that they really address their policies to it, but it means jack squat to the question of what should a country as large and complex as the US do about global warming and atmospheric pollution. It's like telling me to be very dilligent in my renovation of a badly deterioated Taj Mahal because someone did a lovely job with the restoration of Mother Teresa's 6' x 10' hovel.
When you compare the US to countries with similar population sizes, Leebs' statement most assuredly holds true (Russia, China, India, etc.), Gav.
It might, it might not (not being privy to the political discourse in these countries and whatnot). Regardless, it's a moot point as this is not what he said.
You're also rather quick on the draw today eh? I deleted that not 20 seconds after I posted it.
It might, it might not (not being privy to the political discourse in these countries and whatnot). Regardless, it's a moot point as this is not what he said.
You're also rather quick on the draw today eh? I deleted that not 20 seconds after I posted it.
I actually had to pull a cached version because I forgot to quote ya the first time :P
And while his statement was broader than global warming, it's only one of many points where it holds true. Please feel free to stack our provision of food aid to those who need it most (and often deserve it least, like our good friends over in North Korea) up against any other nation's.
And I note that when someone starts crying about the need for a humanitarian military intervention in some worthless part of the globe that would be better left to bleed itself dry, nobody looks to France, China, or Russia for the military force to save Darfur/Rawanda/Whereverelse.
Perhaps you take issue with the assumption implicit in his statement, though, that there are other nations that actually make "global-reaching decisions"?
And while his statement was broader than global warming, it's only one of many points where it holds true. Please feel free to stack our provision of food aid to those who need it most (and often deserve it least, like our good friends over in North Korea) up against any other nation's.
And I note that when someone starts crying about the need for a humanitarian military intervention in some worthless part of the globe that would be better left to bleed itself dry, nobody looks to France, China, or Russia for the military force to save Darfur/Rawanda/Whereverelse.
Perhaps you take issue with the assumption implicit in his statement, though, that there are other nations that actually make "global-reaching decisions"?
"And I note that when someone starts crying about the need for a humanitarian military intervention in some worthless part of the globe that would be better left to bleed itself dry, nobody looks to France, China, or Russia for the military force to save Darfur/Rawanda/Whereverelse."
Yea, I honestly don't give a flying shit about them, why should we be getting our soldiers killed trying to save people who are only going to starve to death anyway unless we give them our crops, maybe they've got the right idea, group A kills off group B and suddenly we have enough food. I know it sounds harsh, but Malthus was right, the population of Africa exceeds the carrying capacity
Actually the only countries that could once oil runs out actually feed their populations are the US, Ukraine, Argentina, Brazille, Russia (maybe),and maybe mexico, if they can keep order. Most of the rest of the countries are hardly producing enough food even with the help of tractors and such. Plus we are staring down the second barrel of water depletion, crops use alot of water, and currently we are pumping the aquifers dry.
Desalinization might be viable, I could imagine solar collector farms in the southwest that only turn the water into steam once (a non closed cycle), with a pipeline in from the pacific, a pipe out to the plains, and power lines running off the steam turbine. I've no idea if it's actually feasible, I guess it really depends on just how efective the solar collector is.
Yea, I honestly don't give a flying shit about them, why should we be getting our soldiers killed trying to save people who are only going to starve to death anyway unless we give them our crops, maybe they've got the right idea, group A kills off group B and suddenly we have enough food. I know it sounds harsh, but Malthus was right, the population of Africa exceeds the carrying capacity
Actually the only countries that could once oil runs out actually feed their populations are the US, Ukraine, Argentina, Brazille, Russia (maybe),and maybe mexico, if they can keep order. Most of the rest of the countries are hardly producing enough food even with the help of tractors and such. Plus we are staring down the second barrel of water depletion, crops use alot of water, and currently we are pumping the aquifers dry.
Desalinization might be viable, I could imagine solar collector farms in the southwest that only turn the water into steam once (a non closed cycle), with a pipeline in from the pacific, a pipe out to the plains, and power lines running off the steam turbine. I've no idea if it's actually feasible, I guess it really depends on just how efective the solar collector is.
If you propagate yourself as the role of world cop, naturally people will look to you if there is a situation that needs policing, especially if the people you could piss off (Russia, China) are either real close or hold most of the productive capacity of your country's companies.
Water depletion is an interesting problem, what with desertification. It is a bit like the energy supply problem: Multi-faceted (yes, I like the word) and far from being easily solved.
Water depletion is an interesting problem, what with desertification. It is a bit like the energy supply problem: Multi-faceted (yes, I like the word) and far from being easily solved.
yep there's a lot of major problems coming real soon that are going to cause some major problems, any one of which could cause chaos on a good day. The bunch of them together, I'll be surprised if in 10 years we have half the population we've got today.
The fact that people are still clamoring about oil with the water situation being what it is is truly boggling to me....
Right, so when the "hard times" come, I'm headed down to look's place (the bunker) with the family, I'll scrounge up all the ammo and firearms that I can grab on the way down there - then we'll hole up and do our subsistence farming thing until things get better.
Oh and by the way, Obama STILL does not deserve the prize. I mean, WTF?
Oh and by the way, Obama STILL does not deserve the prize. I mean, WTF?
Hey, he's constantly clogging up lower Manhattan's traffic and costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in security costs alone each time -- that's something!
Of course, there's a really good, civic-minded reason POTUS is spending literally millions of taxpayer dollars on these jaunts to NYC every fucking week: fundraising for the Democratic party. It's annoying enough when I can't send runners to the courts because his helicopter is landing across the street, but it's particularlly galling to know I'm paying to provide travel and security for a private fund raising drive.
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/10/19/looking-ahead-president-obama-to-raise-tuesday/
Of course, there's a really good, civic-minded reason POTUS is spending literally millions of taxpayer dollars on these jaunts to NYC every fucking week: fundraising for the Democratic party. It's annoying enough when I can't send runners to the courts because his helicopter is landing across the street, but it's particularlly galling to know I'm paying to provide travel and security for a private fund raising drive.
http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/10/19/looking-ahead-president-obama-to-raise-tuesday/
Dude... are you telling me that you use Fox News as a source? *sigh* it seems like everyone's parroting them in one way or another these days... Go find some real sources or run back to your tea bagging orgies lol.
No, "dude," I used the first quasi-reliable source I could find via Google for simple facts that I already knew and wanted to cite rather than merely assert. I'd ask "u" to point out how Fox News is wrong in this specific instance, but I know "u" cannot. These facts are undisputed: Comrade Barry was here on the dates listed, for the events listed, and the price tags per plate were as described -- whether there's anything wrong with his having done that is (a) up to the reader to determine on their own, and (b) not something for which I'm citing Fox News.
Blindly charging into the fray brandishing an ad hominem fallacy given to "u" by someone else is the mark of a particularly anti-rational mind -- "ur" no different than one of the Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh nuts "u" so detest. I suggest "u" seek medical attention before "ur" foaming at the mouth gets "u" seriously hurt by someone smarter than "u" are.
I could retort with nasty digs at the New York Times' terrible (and well-recognized) bias, but since "u" just fell flat on "ur" face, I don't really see the need. And no, I don't use Fox News as a general matter -- I tend to stick to the WSJ and Volokh for my news, Drudge for a quick fix on the Right, and when I want see what the moonbats are saying, the NY Times. Let me guess, though: DailyKos and MoveOn.org are two of "ur" fonts of truth?
Blindly charging into the fray brandishing an ad hominem fallacy given to "u" by someone else is the mark of a particularly anti-rational mind -- "ur" no different than one of the Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh nuts "u" so detest. I suggest "u" seek medical attention before "ur" foaming at the mouth gets "u" seriously hurt by someone smarter than "u" are.
I could retort with nasty digs at the New York Times' terrible (and well-recognized) bias, but since "u" just fell flat on "ur" face, I don't really see the need. And no, I don't use Fox News as a general matter -- I tend to stick to the WSJ and Volokh for my news, Drudge for a quick fix on the Right, and when I want see what the moonbats are saying, the NY Times. Let me guess, though: DailyKos and MoveOn.org are two of "ur" fonts of truth?
Lecter, you criticizing ad hominem (fallacious or not) is a bit ironic. Especially when using the same kind of argument in the same damn post.
What you're taking issue with is my criticizing Osama for something unrelated to the Nobel prize, but that was not an ad hominem -- I never said 'B. Hussein is [blah] and therefore something he said must be wrong!' I just think he's (1) a fucking douchebag who keeps clogging up the space around my office, (2) by spending my money to do so, and (3) that the great goal for the national interest that he was serving was to ... generate money for a private organization, the Democratic party. To be fair, I'm sure all the Republican slime do the same thing -- but Bush's affectation was flying to Texas, which didn't clog up my streets.
Sharky, however, in a stunning display of idiocy, fired off a loud bray about how my source was soooooo wrong because like, dude, they're FOX! The MUST be wrong! Everyone just, like, you know, PARROTS them... dude.
When I'm citing it as a source for an undisputed set of facts only, that's just dumb.
Sharky, however, in a stunning display of idiocy, fired off a loud bray about how my source was soooooo wrong because like, dude, they're FOX! The MUST be wrong! Everyone just, like, you know, PARROTS them... dude.
When I'm citing it as a source for an undisputed set of facts only, that's just dumb.
No, I'm not taking issue with your criticizing Barack Obama, even though I do not agree with it. I take issue with ad hominem attacks, since I see them as a poor method of bringing a point across. I think you use them fairly often, and, as said, in the same post you, yourself criticize someone for doing so. I suppose that goes in the same direction, though, so I might have better kept my big mouth shut.