How would you fix the government? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Walt · 01-25-2009, 02:28 PM

If you could change just one thing about the United States government (Federal, State, Local, etc), what would it be?

Quick and dirty (and not well thought out or supported):

Welfare
I would do away with food stamps. All welfare recipients are given a charge card. On the 1st and 15th of every month, they can go down to the local government warehouse and recieve two weeks worth of food. If they run out, its their problem.

All those seeking unemployment benifits would be enrolled in the Job Corps. If work is needed in Texas and you live in Vermont, the government will provide transportation and housing. If you decline, you will no longer recieve an unemployment check.

Mandatory drug testing.

Taxes
I would implement a modified "Fair Tax" system, though Im still in the beginning stages of noodling that one out.

Gun Control
I would leave the laws as they are now though I would require local law enforcement agencies to provide free gun safety training to any and all who seek it (provided they are legally able to own a firearm).

GI Bill
The current GI bill sucks. I would give all vets 5 years free tuition at the state university of their choice. Colleges/Universities can deny enrollment for the standard reasons but cannot deny it due to prior military service.

Legal system
Losers of lawsuits must pay all of the opposing parties legal fees.

Misc
I would also place a term limit on all committee seats in the house/senate

I would place a spending limit on all campaigns so that campaigning is not limited to the wealthy or those backed by the major political parties

Im sure I will come up with more later, but that should be enough for you guys to start tearing into me.

Oh, and I would legalize marijuana, federally regulate it and tax the shit out of it just like alcohol/tobacco.

Derwood · 01-25-2009, 02:32 PM

you tell us first. that's how TFP works

dc_dux · 01-25-2009, 02:40 PM

Bring the Framers back from the dead!

I would love to hear what Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton et al would say about how their "grand experiment" has evolved.

In their own words and not what some of today's constitutional "scholars" think they would say.

KirStang · 01-25-2009, 02:54 PM

Audit government jobs for efficiency. Heard wayyy too many stories of people with 3 hour lunches and 4 hour days. Is this why bureaucracy is so inefficient?

Edit the way legislators write statutes. Many 'laws of the land' lack any sense, and must be parsed out, and even then are ambiguous.

Baraka_Guru · 01-25-2009, 03:01 PM

Solve the problem of the two-party system, including putting a limitation on such things as how much can be spent on campaigning and how much can be received for donations.

dc_dux · 01-25-2009, 03:08 PM

Transparency and Accountability

The president and every member of Congress should have monthly "people" conferences (interactive webcasts) and answer questions posed directly by the people.

A new publication, Congressional Record for Dummies, a daily newspaper in lay terms of WTF they did yesterday

Every member of Congress should include their vote on every piece of legislation on their website, with a brief explanation behind the reason for their vote

And definetly, the independent audits of every government agency suggested above.

Of the people...BY the people...For the people

Derwood · 01-25-2009, 03:41 PM

6 year term limits for both Representatives and Senators. No more career politicians

Walt · 01-25-2009, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

6 year term limits for both Representatives and Senators. No more career politicians

I considered that but placing a term limit would also leave us with a relatively unexperienced House and Senate. What if we, instead, enacted a term limit on committees? Wouldnt that help to keep said committee members relatively untouchable by special interest groups/lobbyists?

Slims · 01-25-2009, 04:23 PM

Strengthen the Bill of Rights and bring the language into modernity so there can be little confusion.

I would like to see a federal gov. that in most circumstances does absolutely nothing.

Re-emphasize states rights and repeal the 17'th Amendment. Our government was intended to be balanced and somewhat immune to the whims of the 'mob.' The 17'th Amendment made Senators directly elected by the people. As a result both the Congress and the Senate represent the people directly and nobody looks out for states rights. Originally Senators were elected by the State legislatures and Congressmen were elected directly by the people of the states...that way there were two opposing half of congress rather than simply mirror images with different rules.

Also repeal the 16'th Amendment and pass an amendment in it's place banning any form of income tax. The government has no business knowing how much money I make, much less taking it out of my pocket directly. The gov. should tax spending rather than the act of wealth creation.

Pass an amendment requiring a balanced budget with a very narrow exception for times of war requiring the commitment of more than 250,000 troops.

I would not limit campaign spending. An effective, successful, and competent leader will be able to raise money and compete in an election. Spending limits will only help those candidates who are not competitive without government intervention and I don't want those people to be put in charge.

I would tax all clubs/organizations/churches the same. To give tax breaks to an organization simply because they are superstitious while taking money from those who eschew superstition is silly.

I would give gigantic tax breaks to any corporation willing to base all operations out of the USA. By making the USA the worlds largest tax haven for corporations, companies would flock back to the states creating jobs and taxable revenue.

I would pass an economic prosperity amendment requiring the United States to Export more goods than it Imports.

AdamJacobMuller · 01-25-2009, 04:32 PM

burn it down.
yes, all of it.
start over and hope we do a better job the second go around.

Walt · 01-25-2009, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

Pass an amendment requiring a balanced budget with a very narrow exception for times of war requiring the commitment of more than 250,000 troops.

Who would be held accountable and what would the punishment be if a balanced budget was not achieved?

Slims · 01-25-2009, 04:53 PM

...Nobody

You could include a clause in the Amendment putting an emergency budget into place totaling 50% of the prior years budget spent monthly as the President sees fit until a new budget is passed. Additionally, all pay and incentives to the Senate/Congress would cease immediately.

It would sort itself out pretty quick.

samcol · 01-25-2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

Strengthen the Bill of Rights and bring the language into modernity so there can be little confusion.

I would like to see a federal gov. that in most circumstances does absolutely nothing.

Re-emphasize states rights and repeal the 17'th Amendment. Our government was intended to be balanced and somewhat immune to the whims of the 'mob.' The 17'th Amendment made Senators directly elected by the people. As a result both the Congress and the Senate represent the people directly and nobody looks out for states rights. Originally Senators were elected by the State legislatures and Congressmen were elected directly by the people of the states...that way there were two opposing half of congress rather than simply mirror images with different rules.

Also repeal the 16'th Amendment and pass an amendment in it's place banning any form of income tax. The government has no business knowing how much money I make, much less taking it out of my pocket directly. The gov. should tax spending rather than the act of wealth creation.

Pass an amendment requiring a balanced budget with a very narrow exception for times of war requiring the commitment of more than 250,000 troops.

I would not limit campaign spending. An effective, successful, and competent leader will be able to raise money and compete in an election. Spending limits will only help those candidates who are not competitive without government intervention and I don't want those people to be put in charge.

I would tax all clubs/organizations/churches the same. To give tax breaks to an organization simply because they are superstitious while taking money from those who eschew superstition is silly.

I would give gigantic tax breaks to any corporation willing to base all operations out of the USA. By making the USA the worlds largest tax haven for corporations, companies would flock back to the states creating jobs and taxable revenue.

I would pass an economic prosperity amendment requiring the United States to Export more goods than it Imports.

I like the way you think. The 17th amendment has been a huge thorn in my side since I realized what it means. The US senators are supposed to represent the individual states and not the people. The whole balance of power between the state and federal government went out the window when this was enacted.

Your other plans are along the right thinking as well.

Derwood · 01-25-2009, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

Also repeal the 16'th Amendment and pass an amendment in it's place banning any form of income tax. The government has no business knowing how much money I make, much less taking it out of my pocket directly. The gov. should tax spending rather than the act of wealth creation.

sigh......you know this would make it WORSE for the poor people, right?

Cynthetiq · 01-25-2009, 06:35 PM

I don't think the government is broken. It changes as it is supposed to. Things change as new people get voted in, or voted out.

It may not be the way that I like things right now, or even a few years ago, but I know that it will not stay like this my lifetime.

Slims · 01-25-2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

sigh......you know this would make it WORSE for the poor people, right?

No, it would make it worse for the people who do not pull their own weight in society.

Besides, since poor people don't spend very much money (in theory anyways) they wouldn't be paying much in the way of taxes.

Sorry for the lack of sympathy, but I have not yet met a poor person who couldn't have bettered their situation with a good work ethic and some discipline.

Derwood · 01-25-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

No, it would make it worse for the people who do not pull their own weight in society.

Besides, since poor people don't spend very much money (in theory anyways) they wouldn't be paying much in the way of taxes.

Sorry for the lack of sympathy, but I have not yet met a poor person who couldn't have bettered their situation with a good work ethic and some discipline.

god knows, there are thousands of high paying jobs just waiting to be filled by the lazy poor once they pull themselves up by their boot straps

the poor would pay a smaller $$ amount in taxes per year, but far more in % of income

guyy · 01-25-2009, 07:15 PM

I would change the official language to Sanskrit.

The masses will heed me because i am wise and mighty. This will be last communication in your language.

Slims · 01-25-2009, 07:17 PM

Are you familiar with how the fair tax actually works?

Right now a poor person can get money back despite not paying ANY taxes. It's a reward for failure.

Under the fair tax, all spending is taxed, but a rebate is issued for the taxes paid on poverty-level spending. So a person who is living off the basics would pay sales tax up front but would receive a check every month as compensation for taxes paid, thus paying $0 in net taxes.

Of course, everyone gets the same check for the same amount...you should shed a tear at how egalitarian it is. Everyone who spends above what is required for basic sustenance pays the full tax...no tax breaks, no shortcuts, no exceptions, it all gets taxed evenly.

And yes, I do expect the lazy poor to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Nearly all my friends come from very humble backgrounds and they have done just that. Employers pay people what they are worth. If you are making minimum wage it is because you are *nearly* worthless to your employer. If you don't like that then do something to increase your value...get an education, work harder, stop smoking crack, etc.

Derwood · 01-25-2009, 07:27 PM

SirSeymour · 01-25-2009, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

god knows, there are thousands of high paying jobs just waiting to be filled by the lazy poor once they pull themselves up by their boot straps

the poor would pay a smaller $$ amount in taxes per year, but far more in % of income

Not if the taxes on spending included some sort of graduated luxury tax. Then it becomes a choice for those who make the money. If a millionaire chooses to drive a Honda Civic then he avoids the luxury tax but if he wants that Porsche, well then it is time to get out the checkbook. There are ways to balance everything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter Sobchak

I considered that but placing a term limit would also leave us with a relatively unexperienced House and Senate. What if we, instead, enacted a term limit on committees? Wouldnt that help to keep said committee members relatively untouchable by special interest groups/lobbyists?

Having an inexperienced President every 4 or 8 years doesn't seem to brought the world to a crashing halt, why should having new Representatives and Senators be any different? I am not quite as radical as the poster who suggested the idea though. Five terms for Representatives and 2 terms for Senators sounds good.

I think most of them go with the idea of doing something right for the country but I think after a while all they want is to stay. Maybe if they go knowing they can't stay forever, more of them will be willing to the right things instead of the politically expedient things. It would also force major turn over on a more regular basis. I would love to see the numbers on how of the current members of both houses served during Clinton or Bush I. I am guessing the numbers would amaze much of America.

Changing the guy at one end of PA Ave only goes so far when most of the 535 at the other end stay the same.

Derwood · 01-25-2009, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SirSeymour

Not if the taxes on spending included some sort of graduated luxury tax. Then it becomes a choice for those who make the money. If a millionaire chooses to drive a Honda Civic then he avoids the luxury tax but if he wants that Porsche, well then it is time to get out the checkbook. There are ways to balance everything.

how does the country create a budget when it has no idea how much people will spend each year?? doesn't a recession destroy the government? also, where does the government get the billions in prebate money for the fair tax?

Slims · 01-25-2009, 07:44 PM

You are going to have to explain that.

It looks like you are saying that the 'effective' tax rate decreases on those with higher incomes because they are not actually spending what they make.

But that is silly for a couple reasons. First, according to that chart, someone who is making 58K per year is saving approximately $12,000 per year and not ever spending it. That's a bit ridiculous, and even if it were the case, people save for retirement, etc. and eventually they do spend the money, or their children do.

Second, your chart is basically saying at the extreme that everybody who make a billion dollars a year will only pay 10.5% in taxes. I don't understand how a flat 23% tax becomes 10.5%. No matter how much money is involved, 23% is still 23%. How many people make 12 billion a year anyways?

Third, I don't think even the more radical supporters of the fair tax have suggested poverty level spending in the US is 8,000 Dollars.

Ok, I am done speculating because the more I look at it the more confused I am. At least have the decency to include a legend of some sort so people can figure out what that chart is. An explanation of what it means and how it helps your case would be better.
-----Added 25/1/2009 at 10 : 46 : 20-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

how does the country create a budget when it has no idea how much people will spend each year?? doesn't a recession destroy the government? also, where does the government get the billions in prebate money for the fair tax?

Um, if the recession is so bad that people are significantly reducing their spending, then a responsible gov. will reduce it's spending as well in order to stay within it's means.

The billions in prebate money come from the billions in taxes collected...remember the prebate is basically a refund.

Derwood · 01-25-2009, 07:49 PM

flat tax and fair tax are two different things. this chart shows that a fair tax (ie only taxing spending above the government issued prebate) is actually regressive, as the rich spend a far smaller % of their income on living expenses. Someone making $40k probably spends close to 100% of their yearly income on expenses, meaning they are being taxed on nearly all of their income. The rich are saving a lot of their income and spending a smaller % of it on expenses, and are thus paying taxes at a lower rate (though are being taxed more total dollars)

SirSeymour · 01-25-2009, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

how does the country create a budget when it has no idea how much people will spend each year?? doesn't a recession destroy the government? also, where does the government get the billions in prebate money for the fair tax?

How does any business do it? No company knows 100% for sure what sales will be for the next year. They have to project. When projections are off they have to compensate mid year. Government is a business and frankly it needs to run more like one. Deficits are fine in case of national emergency but they have become a matter of habit.

You will have to ask the poster who brought up the "prebates" about those.

Slims · 01-25-2009, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derwood

flat tax and fair tax are two different things. this chart shows that a fair tax (ie only taxing spending above the government issued prebate) is actually regressive, as the rich spend a far smaller % of their income on living expenses. Someone making $40k probably spends close to 100% of their yearly income on expenses, meaning they are being taxed on nearly all of their income. The rich are saving a lot of their income and spending a smaller % of it on expenses, and are thus paying taxes at a lower rate (though are being taxed more total dollars)

It is true that someone who is making say 100,000 dollars a year and only spends 50,000 a year will pay a lower percentage in taxes....that year. But when he eventually takes that money out of savings and spends it, BAM! he pays tax. There is no escape.

But what if he invests that money and makes a profit? Then when he tries to spend those profits they also get taxed!

I realized what the 8,000 dollar figure was, and it is misrepresented in that graph. The 8,000 dollars represents the amount of money reimbursed by the government...it is a reimbursement for taxes paid on poverty level spending, which makes spending up to about $25K/year tax free which your chart fails to accurately reflect. That chart makes it look like every dollar over the first 8,000 is taxed which, I think, is deliberately misleading.

Additionally, someone who makes 50,000 per year will, after the prebate, only pay taxes on about half their income, so they will be paying a rate of approximately 12% whereas someone who is making a million a year will pay the full 23%.

Derwood · 01-25-2009, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

It is true that someone who is making say 100,000 dollars a year and only spends 50,000 a year will pay a lower percentage in taxes....that year. But when he eventually takes that money out of savings and spends it, BAM! he pays tax. There is no escape.

But what if he invests that money and makes a profit? Then when he tries to spend those profits they also get taxed!

I realized what the 8,000 dollar figure was, and it is misrepresented in that graph. The 8,000 dollars represents the amount of money reimbursed by the government...it is a reimbursement for taxes paid on poverty level spending, which makes spending up to about $25K/year tax free which your chart fails to accurately reflect. That chart makes it look like every dollar over the first 8,000 is taxed which, I think, is deliberately misleading.

Additionally, someone who makes 50,000 per year will, after the prebate, only pay taxes on about half their income, so they will be paying a rate of approximately 12% whereas someone who is making a million a year will pay the full 23%.

again, where do the billions of dollars in prebate money (otherwise known as welfare) come from?

Slims · 01-26-2009, 01:02 PM

I don't understand. If you pay 500 dollars in taxes, and the government gives you a 50 dollar rebate, the money came from your taxes. It isn't being created out of nowhere, it's a tax refund being given back.

Derwood · 01-26-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

I don't understand. If you pay 500 dollars in taxes, and the government gives you a 50 dollar rebate, the money came from your taxes. It isn't being created out of nowhere, it's a tax refund being given back.

okay, then how does the government afford to give back billions in tax rebates then?

Slims · 01-26-2009, 01:40 PM

Again, it's a zero sum game and you are inventing a non existent problem.

The government is giving back money that they should not have taken in the first place. They are taxing everybody MORE than they really intend to, and are giving back the excess in the form of a refund check.

It's not a hard concept. If my operating budget is 100 dollars a month and I take in 150 dollars in taxes, the extra 50 dollars should be given back and doing so won't bankrupt the gov.

The tax percentage was set with that rebate in mind. The level of spending OVER what the rebate covers will generate tax revenue comperable to what our current, complicated system rakes in.

The government isn't rebating what they are not taking in, therefore they are not in the red.

I can understand other objections to this tax plan and there is a lot of room for debate, but I honestly don't understand why this is a sticking point. It is a rebate to compensate people for the taxes they would have to pay on poverty level spending simply because a uniform sales tax does not discriminate well.

flstf · 01-26-2009, 01:49 PM

Sorry for the repetition:

Implement a tax system where the poor and middle class pay the same or lower percentage of their income to support our government as the wealthy.

Slims · 01-26-2009, 01:54 PM

Um, our current tax system is already that way. The wealthy pay the vast majority, both in terms of percentage and net dollars under the current system (despite popular misconception).

What exactly do you want to be different and how?

Willravel · 01-26-2009, 01:54 PM

I would close Wall Street for good. Money is not wealth. Fictitious assets will, by their very nature, destabilize any economic system. Predatory lending/deceptive lending is the single most unethical business practice in human history. And credit cards. Jesus Christ, credit cards cannot substitute for a living wage. Financial assets coming out of thin air is insane, and yet it's the economic foundation for our economy (at least as long as I've been alive).

I don't know where the idea of "if we each pursue our individual financial benefit that we'll see the benefit for society as a whole" came from, but it's bullshit and the longer our system is based on this 'principle', the deeper into the debt industrial complex we'll fall. The bottom line is that the economy should be built around what's been recently referred to as "Main Street" and Wall Street should be forever destroyed.

Slims · 01-26-2009, 01:58 PM

I would not close wall street because I feel competition and capitalism promote a healthy economy, but I would support...something to encourage a renewed emphasis on real wealth and away from credit.

flstf · 01-26-2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

Um, our current tax system is already that way. The wealthy pay the vast majority, both in terms of percentage and net dollars under the current system (despite popular misconception).

What exactly do you want to be different and how?

I don't know how to fix it but I disagree with your premise. I believe the poor and middle class pay a higher percentage of their incomes to support our government (probably somewhere between 40 to 70 percent) because most of the taxes in the distribution chain are passed down to consumers and they spend most of their income on goods and services.

Slims · 01-26-2009, 02:55 PM

Um, the rich are also consumers...they just buy more expensive goods and services.

I agree that the total tax burden on...say a can of beans is greater than the sales tax plus what the consumer pays in taxes. However, the rich are paying the same tax, plus luxury taxes, plus higher income taxes. If a rich person just 'saves' his money until his death, most of it goes to sky-high estate taxes.

Belief is a poor word choice as most people 'believe' simply because they want to believe while facts may 'convince' them otherwise if they bothered to pay attention. I am not going to post quotes or statistics as they are so subjective, but google the issue for a bit and you will see that the rich do in fact spend their money, and that they do pay most of the taxes.

The idea that rich people somehow are able to avoid spending their money or paying taxes is absurd...except for what is donated to charity.
-----Added 26/1/2009 at 06 : 16 : 26-----
Back to the original topic...

I would also allow school vouchers equal to the total cost of attendance at a public school, good for any school parents choose to send their children to. I would not only cut a check directly to whatever school a child attends, but deny the public school system that revenue if the child attends a private school system...encouraging competition and making quality education available to every family with the motivation to pursue it.

I would also hold teachers at public schools to the same standards as teachers at private schools. Pay will be performance based rather than on number of years as a teacher. I would also encourage successful, retiring businessmen and women to teach...who better to give children the tools for success than those who are actually successful in life?

Sustainable energy: I would create a nationwide drive towards non depletable nuclear power. It is clean, safe, sustainable, and for all intents and purposes unlimited. I would re-allow nuclear reprocessing and attempt to make America entirely nuclear powered within 12 years (time picked at random, insert whatever is actually attainable). This would go far towards reducing our foreign energy dependence. Meanwhile I would drill domestic oil reserves to keep that money from going to the middle east and plow a portion of those profits towards sustainable alternatives so we will have options when those reserves run dry.

Additionally, I would cease all ethanol subsidies...it simply isn't possible to produce ethanol from corn efficiently.

flstf · 01-26-2009, 03:18 PM

Slims, I have googled the issue and it is very difficult to get a definite number on what percent of the cost of goods and services is there because of embedded or hidden taxes included in the consumer's final prices. The Fair Taxers come up with something like 40% and I have seen estimates as high as 90%. The more of your income you spend on goods and services the higher percentage of your income you pay to support our government. Those who make more than they spend only pay income taxes on the additional amount.

Derwood · 01-26-2009, 03:19 PM

one of the drawbacks I've heard for nuclear power is cost of building reactors and time to build reactors. Not sure 12 years is realistic on either front

Slims · 01-26-2009, 03:22 PM

I agree it is difficult to pin an exact number embedded taxes.

My point is that NOBODY ultimately makes more than they spend.

You could start saving for retirement today, but in thirty years, that money is going to be spent, and taxed, just like every other dollar. If you die before you spend it, then the vast majority of your 'fortune' goes to estate taxes.

Oh, and people pay INCOME taxes on what they make, not what they spend. Thus, rich people are paying income taxes across the board regardless of whether they save that money or not. Even if you consider IRA's and other schemes to defer taxes, they have very low annual contribution limits and the money is taxed eventually.
-----Added 26/1/2009 at 06 : 28 : 11-----
Derwood, I agree that 12 years is a very short timeline. I didn't want to bother trying to figure out the right answer.

I also agree that the cost is very high to build a reactor. However, reactors have a very long lifetime, the fuel cost is rock bottom low (per megawatt/hr), and all that money stays in the national economy rather than going to foreign governments as it is with oil.

Allowing reprocessing would also have the added benefit of further reducing not only fuel but waste storage costs (a substantial part of a plants overall operating budget and the single biggest liability). Reprocessing spent fuel allows the plant to start with material that is already partially enriched and run the same fuel back through the reactor over and over again. It would significantly reduce the quantity and volatility of radioactive waste produced.

Willravel · 01-26-2009, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

The idea that rich people somehow are able to avoid spending their money or paying taxes is absurd...except for what is donated to charity.

It's not absurd at all, it's reality. Our tax code absolutely, positively is designed to favor the wealthy. Give this a read:
The Philosopher's Stone: How the Rich (Don't) Pay Taxes

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slims

My point is that NOBODY ultimately makes more than they spend.

I do, by leaps and bounds. My current income after taxes is about $86,000 a year. Right now I spend maybe, MAYBE $40,000. The rest goes into material investments. I have an original copy of the New York Herald from the day Lincoln was assassinated. Even if there's a rather serious economic collapse, after a recovery that piece will still be worth a great deal. Or if there's no recovery, I can leave the US and still sell it for quite a bit. And that's hardly the only thing I've purchased. I also have quite a bit in my savings (though I'm considering liquidating it and investing most of it elsewhere).

If things keep going the way they've been going for me, I'll be able to leave a substantial sum in my inheritance. That's wealth.

01-25-2009, 02:28 PM	#1 (permalink)
Walt I'm calmer than you are, dude Location: North Carolina	How would you fix the government? If you could change just one thing about the United States government (Federal, State, Local, etc), what would it be? Quick and dirty (and not well thought out or supported): Welfare I would do away with food stamps. All welfare recipients are given a charge card. On the 1st and 15th of every month, they can go down to the local government warehouse and recieve two weeks worth of food. If they run out, its their problem. All those seeking unemployment benifits would be enrolled in the Job Corps. If work is needed in Texas and you live in Vermont, the government will provide transportation and housing. If you decline, you will no longer recieve an unemployment check. Mandatory drug testing. Taxes I would implement a modified "Fair Tax" system, though Im still in the beginning stages of noodling that one out. Gun Control I would leave the laws as they are now though I would require local law enforcement agencies to provide free gun safety training to any and all who seek it (provided they are legally able to own a firearm). GI Bill The current GI bill sucks. I would give all vets 5 years free tuition at the state university of their choice. Colleges/Universities can deny enrollment for the standard reasons but cannot deny it due to prior military service. Legal system Losers of lawsuits must pay all of the opposing parties legal fees. Misc I would also place a term limit on all committee seats in the house/senate I would place a spending limit on all campaigns so that campaigning is not limited to the wealthy or those backed by the major political parties Im sure I will come up with more later, but that should be enough for you guys to start tearing into me. Oh, and I would legalize marijuana, federally regulate it and tax the shit out of it just like alcohol/tobacco. __________________ Calmer than you are... Last edited by Walt; 01-25-2009 at 03:18 PM..

01-25-2009, 02:40 PM	#3 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Bring the Framers back from the dead! I would love to hear what Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton et al would say about how their "grand experiment" has evolved. In their own words and not what some of today's constitutional "scholars" think they would say. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

01-25-2009, 03:01 PM	#5 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Solve the problem of the two-party system, including putting a limitation on such things as how much can be spent on campaigning and how much can be received for donations. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

01-25-2009, 03:08 PM	#6 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Transparency and Accountability The president and every member of Congress should have monthly "people" conferences (interactive webcasts) and answer questions posed directly by the people. A new publication, Congressional Record for Dummies, a daily newspaper in lay terms of WTF they did yesterday Every member of Congress should include their vote on every piece of legislation on their website, with a brief explanation behind the reason for their vote And definetly, the independent audits of every government agency suggested above. Of the people...BY the people...For the people __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

01-25-2009, 04:23 PM	#9 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Strengthen the Bill of Rights and bring the language into modernity so there can be little confusion. I would like to see a federal gov. that in most circumstances does absolutely nothing. Re-emphasize states rights and repeal the 17'th Amendment. Our government was intended to be balanced and somewhat immune to the whims of the 'mob.' The 17'th Amendment made Senators directly elected by the people. As a result both the Congress and the Senate represent the people directly and nobody looks out for states rights. Originally Senators were elected by the State legislatures and Congressmen were elected directly by the people of the states...that way there were two opposing half of congress rather than simply mirror images with different rules. Also repeal the 16'th Amendment and pass an amendment in it's place banning any form of income tax. The government has no business knowing how much money I make, much less taking it out of my pocket directly. The gov. should tax spending rather than the act of wealth creation. Pass an amendment requiring a balanced budget with a very narrow exception for times of war requiring the commitment of more than 250,000 troops. I would not limit campaign spending. An effective, successful, and competent leader will be able to raise money and compete in an election. Spending limits will only help those candidates who are not competitive without government intervention and I don't want those people to be put in charge. I would tax all clubs/organizations/churches the same. To give tax breaks to an organization simply because they are superstitious while taking money from those who eschew superstition is silly. I would give gigantic tax breaks to any corporation willing to base all operations out of the USA. By making the USA the worlds largest tax haven for corporations, companies would flock back to the states creating jobs and taxable revenue. I would pass an economic prosperity amendment requiring the United States to Export more goods than it Imports. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

01-25-2009, 02:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	you tell us first. that's how TFP works

01-25-2009, 02:54 PM	#4 (permalink)
KirStang Future Bureaucrat	Audit government jobs for efficiency. Heard wayyy too many stories of people with 3 hour lunches and 4 hour days. Is this why bureaucracy is so inefficient? Edit the way legislators write statutes. Many 'laws of the land' lack any sense, and must be parsed out, and even then are ambiguous.

01-25-2009, 03:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	6 year term limits for both Representatives and Senators. No more career politicians

01-25-2009, 04:32 PM	#10 (permalink)
AdamJacobMuller Upright	burn it down. yes, all of it. start over and hope we do a better job the second go around.

01-25-2009, 04:53 PM	#12 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	...Nobody You could include a clause in the Amendment putting an emergency budget into place totaling 50% of the prior years budget spent monthly as the President sees fit until a new budget is passed. Additionally, all pay and incentives to the Senate/Congress would cease immediately. It would sort itself out pretty quick. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

01-25-2009, 06:35 PM	#15 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I don't think the government is broken. It changes as it is supposed to. Things change as new people get voted in, or voted out. It may not be the way that I like things right now, or even a few years ago, but I know that it will not stay like this my lifetime. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

01-25-2009, 07:15 PM	#18 (permalink)
guyy Addict Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin	I would change the official language to Sanskrit. The masses will heed me because i am wise and mighty. This will be last communication in your language.

01-25-2009, 07:17 PM	#19 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Are you familiar with how the fair tax actually works? Right now a poor person can get money back despite not paying ANY taxes. It's a reward for failure. Under the fair tax, all spending is taxed, but a rebate is issued for the taxes paid on poverty-level spending. So a person who is living off the basics would pay sales tax up front but would receive a check every month as compensation for taxes paid, thus paying $0 in net taxes. Of course, everyone gets the same check for the same amount...you should shed a tear at how egalitarian it is. Everyone who spends above what is required for basic sustenance pays the full tax...no tax breaks, no shortcuts, no exceptions, it all gets taxed evenly. And yes, I do expect the lazy poor to pull themselves up by their boot straps. Nearly all my friends come from very humble backgrounds and they have done just that. Employers pay people what they are worth. If you are making minimum wage it is because you are nearly worthless to your employer. If you don't like that then do something to increase your value...get an education, work harder, stop smoking crack, etc. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 01-25-2009 at 07:20 PM..

01-25-2009, 07:27 PM	#20 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere

01-25-2009, 07:49 PM	#24 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	flat tax and fair tax are two different things. this chart shows that a fair tax (ie only taxing spending above the government issued prebate) is actually regressive, as the rich spend a far smaller % of their income on living expenses. Someone making $40k probably spends close to 100% of their yearly income on expenses, meaning they are being taxed on nearly all of their income. The rich are saving a lot of their income and spending a smaller % of it on expenses, and are thus paying taxes at a lower rate (though are being taxed more total dollars)

01-26-2009, 01:02 PM	#28 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I don't understand. If you pay 500 dollars in taxes, and the government gives you a 50 dollar rebate, the money came from your taxes. It isn't being created out of nowhere, it's a tax refund being given back. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

01-26-2009, 01:40 PM	#30 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Again, it's a zero sum game and you are inventing a non existent problem. The government is giving back money that they should not have taken in the first place. They are taxing everybody MORE than they really intend to, and are giving back the excess in the form of a refund check. It's not a hard concept. If my operating budget is 100 dollars a month and I take in 150 dollars in taxes, the extra 50 dollars should be given back and doing so won't bankrupt the gov. The tax percentage was set with that rebate in mind. The level of spending OVER what the rebate covers will generate tax revenue comperable to what our current, complicated system rakes in. The government isn't rebating what they are not taking in, therefore they are not in the red. I can understand other objections to this tax plan and there is a lot of room for debate, but I honestly don't understand why this is a sticking point. It is a rebate to compensate people for the taxes they would have to pay on poverty level spending simply because a uniform sales tax does not discriminate well. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

01-26-2009, 01:49 PM	#31 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Sorry for the repetition: Implement a tax system where the poor and middle class pay the same or lower percentage of their income to support our government as the wealthy.

01-26-2009, 01:54 PM	#32 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Um, our current tax system is already that way. The wealthy pay the vast majority, both in terms of percentage and net dollars under the current system (despite popular misconception). What exactly do you want to be different and how? __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

01-26-2009, 01:54 PM	#33 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I would close Wall Street for good. Money is not wealth. Fictitious assets will, by their very nature, destabilize any economic system. Predatory lending/deceptive lending is the single most unethical business practice in human history. And credit cards. Jesus Christ, credit cards cannot substitute for a living wage. Financial assets coming out of thin air is insane, and yet it's the economic foundation for our economy (at least as long as I've been alive). I don't know where the idea of "if we each pursue our individual financial benefit that we'll see the benefit for society as a whole" came from, but it's bullshit and the longer our system is based on this 'principle', the deeper into the debt industrial complex we'll fall. The bottom line is that the economy should be built around what's been recently referred to as "Main Street" and Wall Street should be forever destroyed.

01-26-2009, 01:58 PM	#34 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I would not close wall street because I feel competition and capitalism promote a healthy economy, but I would support...something to encourage a renewed emphasis on real wealth and away from credit. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence

01-26-2009, 02:55 PM	#36 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	Um, the rich are also consumers...they just buy more expensive goods and services. I agree that the total tax burden on...say a can of beans is greater than the sales tax plus what the consumer pays in taxes. However, the rich are paying the same tax, plus luxury taxes, plus higher income taxes. If a rich person just 'saves' his money until his death, most of it goes to sky-high estate taxes. Belief is a poor word choice as most people 'believe' simply because they want to believe while facts may 'convince' them otherwise if they bothered to pay attention. I am not going to post quotes or statistics as they are so subjective, but google the issue for a bit and you will see that the rich do in fact spend their money, and that they do pay most of the taxes. The idea that rich people somehow are able to avoid spending their money or paying taxes is absurd...except for what is donated to charity. -----Added 26/1/2009 at 06 : 16 : 26----- Back to the original topic... I would also allow school vouchers equal to the total cost of attendance at a public school, good for any school parents choose to send their children to. I would not only cut a check directly to whatever school a child attends, but deny the public school system that revenue if the child attends a private school system...encouraging competition and making quality education available to every family with the motivation to pursue it. I would also hold teachers at public schools to the same standards as teachers at private schools. Pay will be performance based rather than on number of years as a teacher. I would also encourage successful, retiring businessmen and women to teach...who better to give children the tools for success than those who are actually successful in life? Sustainable energy: I would create a nationwide drive towards non depletable nuclear power. It is clean, safe, sustainable, and for all intents and purposes unlimited. I would re-allow nuclear reprocessing and attempt to make America entirely nuclear powered within 12 years (time picked at random, insert whatever is actually attainable). This would go far towards reducing our foreign energy dependence. Meanwhile I would drill domestic oil reserves to keep that money from going to the middle east and plow a portion of those profits towards sustainable alternatives so we will have options when those reserves run dry. Additionally, I would cease all ethanol subsidies...it simply isn't possible to produce ethanol from corn efficiently. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 01-26-2009 at 03:18 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

01-26-2009, 03:18 PM	#37 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	Slims, I have googled the issue and it is very difficult to get a definite number on what percent of the cost of goods and services is there because of embedded or hidden taxes included in the consumer's final prices. The Fair Taxers come up with something like 40% and I have seen estimates as high as 90%. The more of your income you spend on goods and services the higher percentage of your income you pay to support our government. Those who make more than they spend only pay income taxes on the additional amount. Last edited by flstf; 01-26-2009 at 03:21 PM..

01-26-2009, 03:19 PM	#38 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	one of the drawbacks I've heard for nuclear power is cost of building reactors and time to build reactors. Not sure 12 years is realistic on either front

01-26-2009, 03:22 PM	#39 (permalink)
Slims Eccentric insomniac Location: North Carolina	I agree it is difficult to pin an exact number embedded taxes. My point is that NOBODY ultimately makes more than they spend. You could start saving for retirement today, but in thirty years, that money is going to be spent, and taxed, just like every other dollar. If you die before you spend it, then the vast majority of your 'fortune' goes to estate taxes. Oh, and people pay INCOME taxes on what they make, not what they spend. Thus, rich people are paying income taxes across the board regardless of whether they save that money or not. Even if you consider IRA's and other schemes to defer taxes, they have very low annual contribution limits and the money is taxed eventually. -----Added 26/1/2009 at 06 : 28 : 11----- Derwood, I agree that 12 years is a very short timeline. I didn't want to bother trying to figure out the right answer. I also agree that the cost is very high to build a reactor. However, reactors have a very long lifetime, the fuel cost is rock bottom low (per megawatt/hr), and all that money stays in the national economy rather than going to foreign governments as it is with oil. Allowing reprocessing would also have the added benefit of further reducing not only fuel but waste storage costs (a substantial part of a plants overall operating budget and the single biggest liability). Reprocessing spent fuel allows the plant to start with material that is already partially enriched and run the same fuel back through the reactor over and over again. It would significantly reduce the quantity and volatility of radioactive waste produced. __________________ "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." - Winston Churchill "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act out their dream with open eyes, to make it possible." Seven Pillars of Wisdom, T.E. Lawrence Last edited by Slims; 01-26-2009 at 03:28 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost