For A Better America (Page 3/10)
Red88FF JUN 21, 12:30 AM

quote
Originally posted by Fats:
Some things that used to be unheard of are common place today. I for one have no problem seeing a girl in a tight pair of jeans, 30 years ago seeing that would be unheard of. Today you don't see a girl without skin tight jeans.
Brad



Wow, where were you in the 60's and 70's?. I remember Rowan and Martin's Laugh In back in the mid 60's and a very sexy Goldie Hawn dancing around to that evil rock and roll. Hee Haw in the 70's etc... 30 years ago was only 1983. Heh, but I do get your point.
theBDub JUN 21, 02:52 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Voting and campaigning:
Term limits are needed. America already realized this when they limited Presidential terms. It needs to extend to Congress also. Fifty years of political family dynasty is akin to kingship. It creates a power vacuum of new ideas.
A voter ID should be mandatory. Both sises of the isle have been harmed by elections being stolen. Dead people voting, multiple votes, fake citizens. All threaten our election process.
Equal representation also needs to be addressed. No more of the big cities dictating the wishes of a whole state. Perhaps the Electoral College set up needs to be revisited.
Political affiliations should be banned from the ballots. People should know who they are voting for, not a political ideological promise. Many good candidates which both sides can like have to pick a side to even get on the ballot. The Independents, the Libertarians, the Green Party, even the Socialist and Communist leaning people, all have to masquerade as a D or R which confuses those that don't want that.
Political parties should be abolished. There should not be war chests of money to help sway weak candidates into office, only to gain political party strength.
Which brings me to campaign financing. No one should be able to outspend another. Why does our President (who can't even be re-elected) keep using taxpayer money, Air Force One, and his bully pulpit to campaign ... for more money. If anything, the money a President can raise should go into the Treasury.
Related to campaigning, the raising of political ideologies in educational settings must be abolished. Shaping young minds with ideological dogma (thanks rayb) is accomplished with propaganda. In effect, it is brainwashing. Colleges, like was required by the media, should be required to provide equal representation of all ideas.




I don't have an opinion on term limits for Congress. I can see positives and negatives to them.
I agree voter ID should be mandatory. There are no legitimate arguments for otherwise.
I think the Electoral College needs to be revisited, but not done away with. I used to have an idea for how to fix it... can't think of it right now. I'll edit this statement if I remember my thought.
Political affiliations should be barred from ballots, but political parties should not be abolished. People have the right to organize under specific ideas and create a more powerful force. However, third parties need better access to the presidential debates. The percentage rule that is in place now is all but impossible to overcome given that third parties don't have a voice in the first place.
People should be able to raise and spend money as they will. If people willingly donate I have no problem with campaign funds.
On education: Who is to decide which ideas to be presented? You say all ideas. What if they have no merit? By college time, students can think for themselves.


quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Taxation :
The IRS needs to go. It has become a joke. Not only has it been used, past and present, to target political enemies, it's morass is beyond comprehension. The Internal Revenue code is seven times the length of the Bible, twice the length of Tolstoy's "War and Peace". The federal tax code with its 44,000 pages, 5.5 million words, and 721 different forms is a patchwork maze of complexity and a testament to confusion over common sense. Even our Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy "Turbo Tax" Geither, who oversees the IRS, could not figure out how to do his taxes. Americans are forced to go to accountants to get their taxes done.
By the way, if you go to the US Government Printing Office ( www.gpo.gov ), you can order a complete set of Title 26 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (that's the part written by the IRS), all twenty volumes of it, at the bargain price of $974, shipping included. According to the US Government Printing Office, it's 13,458 pages in total. The full text of Title 26 of the United States Code (the part written by Congress--available for an additional $179) is a mere 3,387 printed pages, bringing the adjusted gross page count to 16,845. That $1,153.00 dollar tax code will only be good for one year as it grows in length every year. Lobbyists are always bribing our lawmakers for special loopholes. Politicians use it to to win votes.
The "customer service we get from the IRS is horrendous. It is an agency which strikes fear into citizens. It dictates deadlines and we have recently seen they can not meet those required of them. Any monies owed past due, interest is charged daily, something private entities are prohibited by law from doing. Houses and properties can be seized, bank accounts confiscated, and wages garnished. To defend one's self from the IRS can cost thousands.
Something different needs to be done. A flat tax or a fair tax I would have to think about.




Yep, the IRS needs to go. I am in favor of either all sales tax or a very low flat tax, with a higher sales tax.


quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Fiscal accountability.
I want to see a balanced budget amendment, and the auditing of the Federal Reserve.

Governing and serving :
Working for the government is not a right. It is a privilege we the voters grant certain people (even if by proxy). Just as licensed driving is a right, requiring people to involuntarily give up their Fifth Amendment rights, government workers should be required to do the same. If they plead the Fifth they should relinquish their jobs and be prohibited from working for the government or in any position with a private company which deals with the government. It's about accountability.
End runs around Congress need to stop. A President using his departments to make rules at his whim is wrong. All rules should need Congressional approval. The existence of a Department should not be "forever". They should be subject to regular cost/benefit analysis. Our Dept. of Education has spent billions and test scores are down. I concede a President the power to nominate a department head, which has to be approved by Congress, but I think they are accountable to Congress. That Congress can fire them, via the same confirmation rules.
I want an end to "riders" on proposed legislation. A bill should be able to stand on it's own. I am tired of Congressional vote buying by promising pork to another's district/state. Our forefather's realization that a separation of powers is needed is as true today as then. That separation has become muddied.




Things just need to be refined and enforced. There is a good separation of powers, but through the years people have found "loopholes" that nobody argues with.


quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Transparency.
Officials should be required to report to the people regularly and for a set amount of time. Be required to answer, at the very least, a specific amount of questions. No more bloviating to fulfill the appearance of answering to the people. Every press outlet should receive the same amount of time. No more picking "friendly audience" press outlets to carry their water. The so called "news conferences", where the press is granted the favor of asking questions, should be required to take regular "Joe the Plumber " questions. I know everybody in America can not ask at the same time but I believe a method could be worked out. We can even create a Dept. of Citizens, . It really is not a bad idea. Many police internal review boards have had to include regular citizens.
Speeches. I would ban them being done with the "backdrop pawns" which are used to bolster a politician's point. A speech should also stand on it's own. A speech should never be a lecture. It should require a follow up with it's merits being questioned, in just a public bully pulpit as of which the speech was given in. At a later date, as a speech is a prepared remark(s).




Reputable news organizations should be allowed in press conferences, bar none. The whole "You can come in if you don't ask me about this, this, or this" is ridiculous.
But speeches I don't care about. Speeches should, however, be delivered by the writer.


quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Unions in government
This is all kinds of wrong. A mini government within our government, ? Government exists to protect the rights of all people. Why do we need an entity to operate within our government which seeks to carve out it's own rights ?

Lobbyists
Our Constitution granted us the right to redress(?) our government. By lobby is an effective method. Cash prostitutes that procedure. Redress should be done by person, not by hired gun. Granted, spokespersons are a natural and logically effective method to streamline a process but cash prostitute it. I say no ex government worker should lobby until after five years of employment.
I not a genius. I realize some of my thoughts would/may not be feasible, or have unintended consequences, or likely don't go far enough. I would like to hear your thoughts.



People have a right to assemble. I'd say instead of banning unionizing, take all those government jobs and put them to the private sector.
Lobbying should only be used for its intended purpose: to inform. No more promises and winks going around the table.
cliffw JUN 21, 08:53 AM

quote
Originally posted by Red88FF:
Did you write this all out or is this a cut and paste from an article?


It is all mine. I started it on 06-17-2013 09:45 AM here. It got no traction so I decided to start a thread dedicated to it. I have been writing it for the last few days. I would be thinking about it and when an idea struck me, I would jot it down. The night before last and yesterday morning I organized them for presentation. A couple of the thoughts I have heard before, such as a Social Security fund lock box, line item veto (which I rejected in favor of stand alone bills), and term limits, but by and large they are my thoughts. I have a couple more.

Freedom
States should be able to secede, have the right. Without war. The tenth amendment granted powers not delegated to the Feds to the states. Government is supposed to fear the people. Especially fear them leaving. Much like marriage. The Emancipation Proclamation decreed that no one should own another. I argue that by extension, the government should not own people or states. Too often we are treated as commodities.

Fiscal accountability.
All monies collected shall be spent on the reasons for promised collections. Social Security lock box for example.

Economics
The Constitution granted the federal government the power to coin and print money, not to pick and choose winners and losers. Both of companies and locations. Let the local governments and private individuals create business. It is one thing for Congress to create laws which govern the economy but creating rules by department to move money is wrong. (Example: Fire Resistant Clothing mandated by OSHA for every job in the oil fields. I have been in it all my life and have never known of people to catch on fire. Any who did burn were gonna burn anyway.) Too often government does stuff just to move money around.

Governing
Blackmailing states with our money to impose social will needs to stop.
Executive orders. They shall not be used to make end runs around Congress as it defeats the balance of powers. Our executive is not a dictator.
I very much like your thought here Red :

quote
Originally posted by Red88FF:
I would very much like to see an immediate end to any and all retirement benefits or special rules for medical INS for the senate and congress and president.


I will add to it that all governing officials should have to abide by all the same rules and laws they force us to abide by.
I think Executive Privilege needs to be revisited. I do not now much of it's history but it seems as a way to hide stuff they do not want to be found out about. I see no compelling reason why it's needed. Transparency is what we deserve.
I also agree with you whade :

quote
Originally posted by whadeduck:
I believe we need to have Congress stop policing themselves. What good does it do when you have the criminals decide if they've done anything wrong or not? As long as they make their own rules, the will of the people will never be followed in my opinion.


I'll add a couple of thoughts. What we have are lawyers writing the rules, which benefit lawyers. No matter how you see ObamaCare, I think legal care is much more needed. Especially if you are fighting city hall which have never ending deep pockets. Every aspect of our lives are affected by the laws they create, from buying a house to starting a business, to operating a business with a myriad of gooberment regulations. If nothing else, one should be able to recoup the monies they spend if they are found in the right. This would keep weak prosecutions from persecuting us.
Also we can not even trust Congress from banning themselves from insider trading and we have seen how they always vote themselves a raise. Yes, Congress setting their own rules is like the wolf guarding the chicken coop.

I also think we need a Hall of Shame. We honor the great leaders with monuments. We need a national shrine for the bad ones. As so they will try to stay out of it.
Thanks all for your feedback. I guess I should respond.

quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:
Humans taint everything they touch.


Don, Donald, Donnie, yes and no. I have seen you opine this many times for different reasons. Sometimes to excuse (it seems to me), sometimes to justify (it seems to me), sometimes to say we can't do anything about it (it seems to me). Maybe sometimes in resignation to the fact. It is true but humans can be and are willing to be (for the most part) corrected. If they are not, others will do it for them. It is also the humans who do the good in the world. There would be nothing to taint if it were not for humans.

quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:
The ideas seem logical (I could get behind all of them), but also very simplistic.
I think that in the working world, things are much more complicated.


Could get behind then or will get behind them ? Print out what you like. Send it to your representatives. Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer. Tell them you want their thoughts on them. Demand a response.
I see we question the need for term limits or not. That is good. Perhaps deserving it's own thread as their are many argument pro and con.
Brad, I need to get busy. This little endeavor of mine has consumed more time than I would like. Not that I mind, I am just busy and type forty minutes a word. I will get back to you.

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
Government exists to protect the rights of all people.



quote
Originally posted by motoracer838:
Somebody needs to turn on the tv, or what have you been smoking???
Joe


I would like to hear what you mean, perhaps give myself a chance to clarify my thoughts. Care to discuss ?
Government wages. I'll add to the discussion later.
theBDub, Brandon, thanks for taking the time. I'll need to get back to you later also.

I mentioned in my first post that it saddened me that people only identified their desires by a political flavor. What saddens me more is the ones who do not participate. The others sections of PFF have many Americans in it. Many in this T/OT section also do not participate. I get that political bickering is frustrating, boring, perhaps pointless. I get that many may not be current on events, ie ignorant. I get that many may not have debate skills (I learned mine right here). I get that some may fear being jumped on for their opinion (which they might not be able to articulate well). It's their country to lose too. We all have something to contribute. I am an uneducated dumbazz but I can believe I can make a positive difference.
What's up with you Neptune ? RayB ? There are other usual suspects that are not posting, .

Thanks all.
Gokart Mozart JUN 21, 09:01 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Voting and campaigning:
Term limits are needed.
A voter ID should be mandatory. Both sises of the isle have been harmed by elections being stolen. Dead people voting, multiple votes, fake citizens. All threaten our election process.
Equal representation also needs to be addressed. No more of the big cities dictating the wishes of a whole state. Perhaps the Electoral College set up needs to be revisited.
Political affiliations should be banned from the ballots.



In his 1796 Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington warned against "the baneful effects of the spirit of party" as inciting American citizens "with ill-founded jealousies." Yep. Smart man.

We have the technology to monitor illegal activity because the voting is a closed loop network. We still use paper sign in procedures. This should become electronic. Votes and voters should have encrypted tracking numbers that can't be used for anything but monitoring. Red flags can be instantly thrown if there's illegal activity. With a current database of registered voters, it we become harder and harder for illegal votes. Not on the list, can't vote.


quote

Fiscal accountability.
I want to see a balanced budget amendment, and the auditing of the Federal Reserve.

Transparency.
The so called "news conferences", where the press is granted the favor of asking questions, should be required to take regular "Joe the Plumber " questions. I know everybody in America can not ask at the same time but I believe a method could be worked out.



Do we need a PR team for the secretary of the undersecretary?

The IRS should become the Application Assessment Service. They should see if existing programs and departments are really needed. Get rid of the multiple layers of government.

One of the most important jobs is balancing the budget. If they can't do it, they get fined and/or fired.

There are some things in government spending that we shouldn't know about. Should it be public knowledge how much goes into R&D (and should they know every program?) of new technology and every defense program? We won the cold war with spending, could it happen against us in the future especially if they understand how far we'll spend?

Computers will be great for conferences. People can (for a simple phrase) Tweet their questions to a site. With the technology of tracking key words ( the government has a few ideas of that), similar questions can be grouped and the questions can be answered in real time.


quote

Governing and serving :
Working for the government is not a right.
I want an end to "riders" on proposed legislation. A bill should be able to stand on it's own. I am tired of Congressional vote buying by promising pork to another's district/state. Our forefather's realization that a separation of powers is needed is as true today as then.



We vote them in office. If they don't vote as the majority says, they need to be recalled. If they don't vote, they need to be recalled. If they leave office early for anything but severe health issues, all benefits need to be revoked and if a special election is required, they have to fund it. If they have severe health issues, why did they run in the first place? Their pensions are comparable to everyone else. 10 years as public servant before they become vested. 25 years before retirement.

On the same venue, why do they have to pay taxes if they're getting paid with taxes? Same with the military. If they have a business on the side, tax them with the revenue they make on that or use their service as a tax deduction.

Riders are not what the people want. Usually it's what business wants. Businesses are not people. They do not deserve their own vote.


quote

Lobbyists
Cash prostitutes that procedure.



Every month there should be a list of who received what from who, or what. Every year all members compile a list to show what they received. If things are given under the table, when found severe penalties on both parties should be given, not just monetary, but banishment from lobbying for a time period would be a good deterrent.
Gokart Mozart JUN 21, 09:07 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:
What we have are lawyers writing the rules, which benefit lawyers.



I read this a while ago.
http://edmannino.com/blog/t...-not-the-right-kind/

In the past few days, a number of legislators, both Republican and Democrat, have raised serious questions regarding apparent deficiencies in the Affordable Care Act. To the extent that deficiencies do in fact exist, here is one explanation, from a prior post:

The most represented profession in the 113th Congress is law. Some 45 of 100 senators and 128 of 433 representatives are lawyers. See Dorothy Gambrell, “173 Lawyers and a Buddhist Walk Into a Capitol…,” Bloomberg Businessweek, January 14-January 20, 2013, 28. Is this a good or bad thing?

What is bad is that these lawyers don’t seem to read the draft legislation they vote on. News reports relate that the Affordable Care Act and Dodd Frank Financial Reform bills — both of staggering length — were passed before legislators had any realistic time period to review them even in a cursory fashion. More recently, the so-called fiscal cliff bill reached the floor of the House three minutes before it was voted on and passed.

What lawyer in private practice would let a client sign a contract or will he or she had not read? Which lawyer would herself pass a contract or bill on to the client for signature if she had not read it? Yet lawyers in Congress apparently do this all the time, relying on their leadership or staff to tell them what the bill provides.

In private practice, this would be clear malpractice. In public life, it has become the norm. In former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s words, legislators have to pass the bill to find out what is in it.

So my answer is No, there are not too many lawyers in Congress. There are simply not the right kind. Good lawyers read bills and analyze them. If this were to become the new norm, lawyers could meaningfully assist in crafting coherent legislation. We might have fewer laws — but they would be better ones in my view.
cliffw JUN 21, 09:20 AM

quote
Originally posted by TK:
None of the problems are insurmountable, they just have to take action. Therein lies the problem. How do we get a large group of people to actually sit down and take action ?


That is a good question. I meant to answer it in my last post. Not a complete answer but first things first. We need to have a conversation. We need to frame it as appealing. We need to keep it simple.

quote
Originally posted by Boondawg:
The ideas seem logical but also very simplistic.
I think that in the working world, things are much more complicated.


Do they have to be ? No. Look at our Bill of Rights. Pretty succinct.

Gokart, I am looking forward to reading your contribution, can't right now though.
avengador1 JUN 21, 09:50 AM
There are many good ideas floating around in this thread. The only problem is people's apathy to try and implement any of them. Most believe they cannot make a difference or don't even care to make one. Many just think "what does it matter?", that is why our country is where it is.
jaskispyder JUN 21, 09:53 AM

quote
Originally posted by avengador1:

There are many good ideas floating around in this thread. The only problem is people's apathy to try and implement any of them. Most believe they cannot make a difference or don't even care to make one. Many just think "what does it matter?", that is why our country is where it is.



I don't believe it is apathy... It comes down to getting support and finances, and those come with strings attached. This is how we got into this mess to begin with.

cliffw JUN 22, 01:25 PM
Just a mental note for myself.

Governing
What's up with Harry Reed not allowing Bills to come up for a vote ?
Formula88 JUN 22, 03:53 PM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

Just a mental note for myself.

Governing
What's up with Harry Reed not allowing Bills to come up for a vote ?



It's the Republican's fault. If there's enough support for a GOP or bipartisan bill that the administration doesn't want, that leaves him no choice but to refuse to allow it to come up for a vote.
Otherwise, Obama could be put in the position of having to sign or veto a bill he doesn't like. The GOP minority in the Senate is forcing Reed to do this.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 06-22-2013).]