What do you want?

[DragonStryk72]

http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=12716

Okay, as I read Steph's post, it came to me that we don't seem to really have any discussion on this board about how to actually improve things, because debates here always come down to the following:

Lib vs. Con
Rep vs. Dem
anti-(candidate's name here) vs. Pro-(candidate's name here)
pro-(issue here) vs. anti-(issue here)

We all know the things that are wrong with this country, and can spell them out in long lists. What I am asking here is how do we improve it? How do we make it better? Without citing one of the above arguments, try and put down what you truly believe would set this country back straight

Since I asked the question, I'll go first:

I believe that we need a new tax system, one that can be easily understood by the people, and which allows us to earn our full paychecks, paying in only for what we use. I believe that the Fair Tax (www.FairTax.org) accomplishes this.

I believe that we need to insist on an end to jerrymandering, an end to our regions being sliced up, so as to garner to most votes of the appropriate party to a candidate. This is against the very spirit of free elections, and the spirit of these United States.

I believe that, for things to truly improve, we must take back our rights that the government has been stripping down. Our first, second, fourth,sixth, ninth and tenth amendment rights have been stripped again, and again over the years, and it far past time for us, as a people, to re-establish those rights in full for ourselves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

I believe that we need more, not fewer military bases, to de-centralize our military in a manner that would allow most military members to remain within their home state, if not their hometown. I believe that this would improve overall security within the country by creating fewer concentrated areas within the US to target for attack, as well as improving response times for interior threats. It would,as well, improve overall troops numbers by not requiring troops to be sent great distances from heir family surroundings. The smaller bases would be more efficient in the overall aspect of doing their jobs, and remove our current status as a straw giant.

I believe that we should have a regular, standing militia in each state, not the National Guard, but an actual citizen army, directly under the command of the state. This would allow a greater latitude of opportunity for those that live in poor areas, as well as to give the people a greater sense of personal responsibility.

I believe that education is not the province of the federal government, and that its attempts to control it are setting our children back. We need to increase latitude to teachers and schools, to protect our good teachers, while being able to get rid of the bad ones, even if this means that the teachers' unions need to be abolished, and returned in a different form. When a union harms the very job function that they are put in place to protect, then they are no longer for the teachers, or for the students, and need to be shut down.

I believe that the sheer size of our own government prevents it from timely action. With 465 members of the House of Representatives, and 100 senators, that is 565 voices all trying to talk about different issues at the same time. It all becomes static, and one becomes the same as another. I think that the best solution would be either to reduce (even just capping states to a max of 10 reps would reduce the number by 145), or better, to eliminate, the HoR, reducing the federal government to only 100 senators, The president, and the Supreme Court, allowing for vastly more efficient, and less costly, government. The additional save here is that with so many fewer voices, we have fewer of them to try and see through, creating a more transparent federal government, that the people can more easily understand.

[truthmatters]

I believe we need to secure our elections. Without fair elections where all the votes are counted and you have a complete paper trail which can be checked and hand counted.

I believe no one but the individual should be allowed to give to a campaign or a party. Candidates should get free airtime. No buying of airtime.

No lobbyiest should be allowed to give any money to anyone for anything. The corporations or Unions can pay them to talk to our reps but they can not give any money to anyone to force their views to be heard.

If we did these things and got the money out of our elections we can fix anything in this country.

I would be ready to accept compromise on the ideas to our future if I KNEW it was a true democracy. As it stands now are asses are owned by the monied interests and its for them that most of the politicians work.

[DragonStryk72]

I believe we need to secure our elections. Without fair elections where all the votes are counted and you have a complete paper trail which can be checked and hand counted.

I believe no one but the individual should be allowed to give to a campaign or a party. Candidates should get free airtime. No buying of airtime.

No lobbyiest should be allowed to give any money to anyone for anything. The corporations or Unions can pay them to talk to our reps but they can not give any money to anyone to force their views to be heard.

If we did these things and got the money out of our elections we can fix anything in this country.

I would be ready to accept compromise on the ideas to our future if I KNEW it was a true democracy. As it stands now are asses are owned by the monied interests and its for them that most of the politicians work.

And none of that is anything I would argue. I agree we need to get the big money out of government.

We also need to start exercising our right to impeach candidates who do not deliver on the promises made during election time. If they are not delivering these promises, then they have defrauded us, and should be removed from such office, with a more credible person put into their place.

[MtnBiker]

I believe that we need a new tax system, one that can be easily understood by the people, and which allows us to earn our full paychecks, paying in only for what we use. I believe that the Fair Tax (www.FairTax.org) accomplishes this.





I like the idea of a fair tax or flat tax, however the unfortunate reality is most of congress's power is from spending our money and anything that would lower the amount of money collected is not likely to happen.

[Yurt]

politicians court favors, grease the wheels as they call it. if you take away money, favors will simply change value for something else. it is the way most of the world operates, you do for me and i will do for you. i do not believe it is possible to have a complete altruistic government on this earth. in our everyday lives we act like politicians. someone does something nice for or to you at work and you usually pay it back. in a relationship, you do the dishes, i'll mop the floor.

[hjmick]

I like the idea of a fair tax or flat tax, however the unfortunate reality is most of congress's power is from spending our money and anything that would lower the amount of money collected is not likely to happen.


"Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets." - Ronald Reagan

[Yurt]

And none of that is anything I would argue. I agree we need to get the big money out of government.

We also need to start exercising our right to impeach candidates who do not deliver on the promises made during election time. If they are not delivering these promises, then they have defrauded us, and should be removed from such office, with a more credible person put into their place.

i believe that to be a waste of resources and energy. simply get rid of them next time elections roll around. if we the system you indicate, you can be sure that our government will be quickly destroyed as we will be in one long, continous recall/impeachment process.

[DragonStryk72]

I like the idea of a fair tax or flat tax, however the unfortunate reality is most of congress's power is from spending our money and anything that would lower the amount of money collected is not likely to happen.

then we need to fire them, quite simply. it is over right to impeach officials who are not representing us, it is guaranteed to us. We can simply make them leave, and the new ones, I assure will be more willing to listen to reason on the subject.

My only issue with Flat Tax is that is what we started with in 1914, and then, it got turned into the monster it is today, so that's really not gonna work.

[Yurt]

then we need to fire them, quite simply. it is over right to impeach officials who are not representing us, it is guaranteed to us. We can simply make them leave, and the new ones, I assure will be more willing to listen to reason on the subject.

My only issue with Flat Tax is that is what we started with in 1914, and then, it got turned into the monster it is today, so that's really not gonna work.

that is no what impeachment is for

[DragonStryk72]

i believe that to be a waste of resources and energy. simply get rid of them next time elections roll around. if we the system you indicate, you can be sure that our government will be quickly destroyed as we will be in one long, continous recall/impeachment process.

Not really, for a little bit, yes. However, you only need to end the political careers of a few before the rest become more hesitant to put themselves in the line of fire. Quite simply put: There are a hell of a lot more of us than them. But what are your improvements, Yurt, you have not mentioned any. Same to you hjmick.

[MtnBiker]

then we need to fire them, quite simply. it is over right to impeach officials who are not representing us, it is guaranteed to us.

Congress is enjoying the lowest approval rating ever, rather than going through an impeachment process it would be more efficient to not reelect them. However how many incumbents will be reelected this year? Alot, I suspect. Sad but true.

[DragonStryk72]

that is no what impeachment is for

Actually, it really is, most people just don't even realize they have the right to call for no confidence. It's that simple, you can remove them from office if they are not holding up their end, and put into power someone who does. Their job, as representatives, is to represent us, if they are not doing that, then they are not doing their jobs, and require firing.

[DragonStryk72]

Congress is enjoying the lowest approval rating ever, rather than going through an impeachment process it would be more efficient to not reelect them. However how many incumbents will be reelected this year? Alot, I suspect. Sad but true.

Hopefully it holds true this year, that we actually elect the better people for the job, but so far, it does not look like its going that way. how many more years do we wait for it change, before we realize that we need to change it?

More importantly, MTB, what do you believe needs to happen to improve things?

[Yurt]

Not really, for a little bit, yes. However, you only need to end the political careers of a few before the rest become more hesitant to put themselves in the line of fire. Quite simply put: There are a hell of a lot more of us than them. But what are your improvements, Yurt, you have not mentioned any. Same to you hjmick.




Actually, it really is, most people just don't even realize they have the right to call for no confidence. It's that simple, you can remove them from office if they are not holding up their end, and put into power someone who does. Their job, as representatives, is to represent us, if they are not doing that, then they are not doing their jobs, and require firing.

isn't that why we have elections? the impeachment process is not for ordinary citizens to simply remove someone from office because they changed their mind, didn't keep some promise. i don't believe the impeachment process can be started by anyone but legislaters (sp?) it is an official act, at least that is my understanding. recall, like the CA governor, is a different process. but if you study what happened, you will see the massive disruption it caused and the massive amounts of money it took to remove someone from office.

such a remedy should be used only in the most dire circumstances. if we ran our government like that (removal at will) there would be no consistency and no strong leaders.

my improvements? as i've stated, not to implement some of your ideas. the fair tax/flat tax is a good idea. i would however add a clause that if you make below the poverty level, you should pay no tax. its silly to tax people at that level. i base this on my understanding that those who make up the poverty level are a very, very small percentage of the US. of the course the flaw in plan is that if that level increases to a greater percentage....and what exactly is the poverty level.

[DragonStryk72]

isn't that why we have elections? the impeachment process is not for ordinary citizens to simply remove someone from office because they changed their mind, didn't keep some promise. i don't believe the impeachment process can be started by anyone but legislaters (sp?) it is an official act, at least that is my understanding. recall, like the CA governor, is a different process. but if you study what happened, you will see the massive disruption it caused and the massive amounts of money it took to remove someone from office.

such a remedy should be used only in the most dire circumstances. if we ran our government like that (removal at will) there would be no consistency and no strong leaders.

my improvements? as i've stated, not to implement some of your ideas. the fair tax/flat tax is a good idea. i would however add a clause that if you make below the poverty level, you should pay no tax. its silly to tax people at that level. i base this on my understanding that those who make up the poverty level are a very, very small percentage of the US. of the course the flaw in plan is that if that level increases to a greater percentage....and what exactly is the poverty level.

You wouldn't pay tax below poverty level under Fair Tax. there is a prebate attached to it, which covers the taxed amount on monthly necessities, which would be paid out monthly.

that's not an improvement, that;s just more of the same 'poke holes' I mentioned at the beginning of the thread. put forward your own ideas yurt, seriously, that's the point of this thread.

There would be strong leaders, for the first time in a good long while, they would have to answer for their promises, so eventually, they'd be forced to either stop making bs promises, or make certain that the promises they make are real promises of change that represent the people that elect them.

Also, don't always expect it to be used just because it could. Americans are actually fairly willing to work with you in the case of emergency (Example: A Louisiana governnor promising to lower taxes, and then Katrina hits. People will understand him not being able to lower taxes while they rebuild the city.), we really have an amazing history of pitching when the need arises. Hell, remember 9/11, when they actually had to almost forcibly send people home from the blood banks cause they could take in any more blood? As well, the people who dropped everything to move to New Orleans to help with the rebuilding efforts?

[Abbey Marie]

http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=12716

...
I believe that education is not the province of the federal government, and that its attempts to control it are setting our children back. We need to increase latitude to teachers and schools, to protect our good teachers, while being able to get rid of the bad ones, even if this means that the teachers' unions need to be abolished, and returned in a different form. When a union harms the very job function that they are put in place to protect, then they are no longer for the teachers, or for the students, and need to be shut down.
...


I agree about unions standing in the way of getting rid of poor teachers. But, just as important is the ability, without expensive legal repercussions, to permanently remove disruptive kids from the school.

[Yurt]

DragonStryk72;214818]You wouldn't pay tax below poverty level under Fair Tax. there is a prebate attached to it, which covers the taxed amount on monthly necessities, which would be paid out monthly.

that's not an improvement, that;s just more of the same 'poke holes' I mentioned at the beginning of the thread. put forward your own ideas yurt, seriously, that's the point of this thread.

capital punishment for those that ridicule others for putting forth ideas when requested. you don't like it, fine. quit bitching and accept my posts. if i want to rip apart your ideas, so what? is there some law in your ideal country where that is illegal and where you have defined such as not being my own idea? maybe i am arguing for status quo. :poke:



There would be strong leaders, for the first time in a good long while, they would have to answer for their promises, so eventually, they'd be forced to either stop making bs promises, or make certain that the promises they make are real promises of change that represent the people that elect them.

Also, don't always expect it to be used just because it could. Americans are actually fairly willing to work with you in the case of emergency (Example: A Louisiana governnor promising to lower taxes, and then Katrina hits. People will understand him not being able to lower taxes while they rebuild the city.), we really have an amazing history of pitching when the need arises. Hell, remember 9/11, when they actually had to almost forcibly send people home from the blood banks cause they could take in any more blood? As well, the people who dropped everything to move to New Orleans to help with the rebuilding efforts?

if you want to keep saying so to convince yourself, that is your problem. imagine CA governor recall every year, in every state. imagine a senator recall every year, in every state.

you won't have brave politicians, you will have pussies that are too afraid to do anything.

[DragonStryk72]

I agree about unions standing in the way of getting rid of poor teachers. But, just as important is the ability, without expensive legal repercussions, to permanently remove disruptive kids from the school.

Truth, but we also need to be certain that there are special schools set up for these cases, and that the definition of 'disruptive' is such that it is not abused. There are children and teens who need a more disciplined approach, and to not give them such an approach, is detrimental not only to the students and teachers around them, but to the students themselves.

[Abbey Marie]

Truth, but we also need to be certain that there are special schools set up for these cases, and that the definition of 'disruptive' is such that it is not abused. There are children and teens who need a more disciplined approach, and to not give them such an approach, is detrimental not only to the students and teachers around them, but to the students themselves.

Well, of course they need special schools. You can't just throw them out on to the street, tempting though that may be.

To your second point, I think it is fairly pretty easy to spot the kind of disruptive kid who needs to be tossed out on his or her ear. Even the other kids know very well who these troublemakers are. If you start focusing on concerns about over-expelling, you end up wussing out all over again, and the problem remains.

Right now, schools live in fear of lawsuits, and I have seen some nasty kids get "un-expelled" once mom hires a lawyer.

[DragonStryk72]

capital punishment for those that ridicule others for putting forth ideas when requested. you don't like it, fine. quit bitching and accept my posts. if i want to rip apart your ideas, so what? is there some law in your ideal country where that is illegal and where you have defined such as not being my own idea? maybe i am arguing for status quo. :poke:




if you want to keep saying so to convince yourself, that is your problem. imagine CA governor recall every year, in every state. imagine a senator recall every year, in every state.

you won't have brave politicians, you will have pussies that are too afraid to do anything.

So basically, you're too weak to put forth anything real, or in any way not just a 'poke holes', despite being asked nicely to do so? I was polite, you are rude, resorting to childish histrionics keep from having to post anything with meaning.

We don't have brave politicians now Yurt, what precisely would be the difference? And again, this would not happen, it is yet another blatant exaggeration to say that it would, built to cloud real discussion. It is referred to as a deterrent for a reason, if you keep threatening a child with time out, but never do so, will the child fear time out? Of course not, no one would.

We need to start demanding out of our leaders that they be the representatives to us, the people they represent.

[DragonStryk72]

Well, of course they need special schools. You can't just throw them out on to the street, tempting though that may be.

To your second point, I think it is fairly pretty easy to spot the kind of disruptive kid who needs to be tossed out on his or her ear. Even the other kids know very well who these troublemakers are. If you start focusing on concerns about over-expelling, you end up wussing out all over again, and the problem remains.

Right now, schools live in fear of lawsuits, and I have seen some nasty kids get "un-expelled" once mom hires a lawyer.

True, it just needs definition, so that you don't get some whackjob who tries to expel a kid for calling someone names. Keep it to real disruptions.

But you bring up one other point: Judges need to be able to throw out cases based on base stupidity of the claim (burglars should not be able to sue their victims because they got hurt while breaking in), namely because it holds up the right to a fair and speedy trial by bogging down the entire system with bs complaints.

[Abbey Marie]

True, it just needs definition, so that you don't get some whackjob who tries to expel a kid for calling someone names. Keep it to real disruptions.

But you bring up one other point: Judges need to be able to throw out cases based on base stupidity of the claim (burglars should not be able to sue their victims because they got hurt while breaking in), namely because it holds up the right to a fair and speedy trial by bogging down the entire system with bs complaints.

Oh, I absolutely agree on your second point. Some cases make a mockery of the system.

[gabosaurus]

I find it interesting that everyone wants to lower or eliminate taxes. Yet, it is tax revenue that runs the country. To have a properly functioning country, you need the revenue.
Does everyone expect the other person to pay?

[Yurt]

So basically, you're too weak to put forth anything real, or in any way not just a 'poke holes', despite being asked nicely to do so? I was polite, you are rude, resorting to childish histrionics keep from having to post anything with meaning.

We don't have brave politicians now Yurt, what precisely would be the difference? And again, this would not happen, it is yet another blatant exaggeration to say that it would, built to cloud real discussion. It is referred to as a deterrent for a reason, if you keep threatening a child with time out, but never do so, will the child fear time out? Of course not, no one would.

We need to start demanding out of our leaders that they be the representatives to us, the people they represent.

i already put forth my tax plan. :poke:

i think my antics are quite grown up, in fact, it has forced your to use big words, like histrionics, unfortunately, the word is too big for you and the attempted insult falls flat on its face. i'm not CWN and will not cry if you try to insult me with medical issues, i will simply laugh at your weak attempt. you created a thread, if i want to knock down your purported changes, then deal with it. as i said before, maybe i'm arguing status quo. something you should google.

to compare child rearing with a government that is responsible for 300 million plus lives is naive.

if and when i want to present "changes" i will. until then, deal with criticism of your ideas.....guess you didn't like my capital punishment idea :laugh2:

[DragonStryk72]

I find it interesting that everyone wants to lower or eliminate taxes. Yet, it is tax revenue that runs the country. To have a properly functioning country, you need the revenue.
Does everyone expect the other person to pay?

Who here advocated lowering taxes? the Fair Tax wouldn't lower them, it would simply shift from a income tax system, wherein, saving and investing are punished, to a consumption tax, where you are taxed only on what you use beyond your household's monthly necessity. I advocated lowering the amount of government, which would have the ancillary benefit of reducing the amount needed to fund the government, but not lower taxes. www.FairTax.org

Anyhow, to the important point, Gab, what would you say is needed to improve things?

[DragonStryk72]

i already put forth my tax plan. :poke:

i think my antics are quite grown up, in fact, it has forced your to use big words, like histrionics, unfortunately, the word is too big for you and the attempted insult falls flat on its face. i'm not CWN and will not cry if you try to insult me with medical issues, i will simply laugh at your weak attempt. you created a thread, if i want to knock down your purported changes, then deal with it. as i said before, maybe i'm arguing status quo. something you should google.

to compare child rearing with a government that is responsible for 300 million plus lives is naive.

if and when i want to present "changes" i will. until then, deal with criticism of your ideas.....guess you didn't like my capital punishment idea :laugh2:

right, too weak. Oh well, I'd hoped for better. Your choice though.

[Yurt]

I find it interesting that everyone wants to lower or eliminate taxes. Yet, it is tax revenue that runs the country. To have a properly functioning country, you need the revenue.
Does everyone expect the other person to pay?

so there is no wasteful spending?

[Yurt]

right, too weak. Oh well, I'd hoped for better. Your choice though.

thats it? that all you have?

:laugh2:

[DragonStryk72]

thats it? that all you have?

:laugh2:

you won't change your mind, or contribute anything. No point in the argument. I'll just disregard your future posts on this thread, as far as it goes.

[Yurt]

you won't change your mind, or contribute anything. No point in the argument. I'll just disregard your future posts on this thread, as far as it goes.

then why bother creating a thread?

people give ideas, you don't them, so you disregard them.

better stay in your cave

[DragonStryk72]

then why bother creating a thread?

people give ideas, you don't them, so you disregard them.

better stay in your cave

you see, you complain if I ask you to do as the thread asks, you throw insults, and troll, that's not an answer to the thread. You don't want to participate, and I can't make you, I'm not going to fight you for it, Yurt.

[Yurt]

you see, you complain if I ask you to do as the thread asks, you throw insults, and troll, that's not an answer to the thread. You don't want to participate, and I can't make you, I'm not going to fight you for it, Yurt.

yet you want to fight to make people post about change....

if you can't handle people critiquing your threads, then perhaps you should take a break until you feel comfortable enough with yourself to take constructive criticism. this is an open board skippy.

calling me a troll is about the most dumbass thing you could have done.

now, back to your thread......

[Yurt]

homeschool should be a tax write off, vs a deduction (tho ask my wife which one gets the salary write down)

it is bullshit that we have to pay tax dollars for kids to go to school, when we do not want our kids in that school. it is subsidizing others, and double penalizing those who do not want to send their kids to public school.

[Kathianne]

homeschool should be a tax write off, vs a deduction (tho ask my wife which one gets the salary write down)

it is bullshit that we have to pay tax dollars for kids to go to school, when we do not want out kids in that school. it is subsidizing others, and double penalizing those who do not want to send their kids to public school.

While I think that the money 'should follow the kid', I think we should all pay our share of public education. For instance, I think that if a tax district taxes a 200k home, 3400 in education, some of that should follow the child, wherever the parents decide the child should be educated. In my area the average child receives approximately 14k in taxes. If homeschooled or private schooled, seems it fair that a percentage is given.

[Little-Acorn]

http://debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=12716

Okay, as I read Steph's post, it came to me that we don't seem to really have any discussion on this board about how to actually improve things, because debates here always come down to the following:


(sigh) How many times have I explained my solution to the problem of mass shootings and gun violence? And how many times for the problem of illegal immigration? Others have done so also. The usual response is snarls, profanity, subject-changing, namecalling, trashtalking etc.... but seldom any attempts to find anything actually wrong with the proposals actually presented.

Could it be that lots of proposals have been discussed, but people so enamored with liberal and only liberal "solutions" look right at them but don't see them? And therefore think they aren't there?

BTW, as long as government takes half of the nation's personal income as taxes, fees, "contributions" etc. as they have been for the last 20-odd years, it won't matter whether it's done thru a progressive tax, a flat tax, a "Fair" tax, a head tax or whatever. You will ALWAYS get vociferous and violent objections. Cut it down to about 15% (which just happens to be the amount currently spent on constitutionally permitted programs) and then see how much people care about your different kinds of taxes.

BTBTW.... as long as you have a tax system that charges some people more than they receive in protection, benefits etc... while charging others less than they receive, you will NEVER be able to agree on what's "fair". Always makes me laugh seeing people try to debate it. Predictably, they never get anywhere - they wind up "agreeing to disagree", and nothing is solved.

[5stringJeff]

I want freedom. Freedom from being coerced into paying for other people's retirement, health care, and sustinence. Freedom from government interference in my life. Freedom from worrying whether a phone call or an Internet search will put me on the Government's Hit List. Freedom from being prohibited to act in my own interest "for my own good," by a government that "knows better."