How Would You Make A Better USA

Is it? Or is it simply a rational response to dealing with a large group of people who operate in group-think and are stubborn and uncompromising. I made that post after some observations about quite a few posters in an ongoing discussion in the GLBT section. These people essentially refused to condemn vicious, disrespectful, and even illegal behavior against innocent people to promote their cause. And it got me thinking. If these people feel so justified in stooping to such horrid levels because of a blind allegiance to a cause, then how are you supposed to reason with them? It's not even possible. And that's where the problem arises. Some people simply cannot be reasoned with. Those people choose conflict over diplomacy because they are fueled by emotion instead of reason. And so they leave you with only two options in response; fight back or surrender.

You see, ultimately it doesn't matter if conservatives try to be mature and diplomatic about the issues. Because if the people on the other side aren't willing to meet them halfway, then it accomplishes nothing. So yes I do, in fact, think kicking the stubborn and unreasonable out of the country is a perfectly logical solution. And I think it would actually be quite effective. It's confronting a problem in the only way that actually produces results.

 

This is interesting...

 

He's been Zinn-ified.

 

I think group think is evident in all groups. Your previous post is a common and often repeated condemnation of liberal/Democrat beliefs. I understand you have you viewpoint, but without mentioning parties, give us your bare suggestions of how we could improve the US in some way.

No, not at all. It's true. Did Zinn say that, anyway? It sounds like something Chomsky would say...

Either way, no, there's records of the many confrontations between the people and their government, the general suppressions of the working classes (of all shades) compared to their employers/masters/whatever. It was basically the way of life until the growing development of both the middle class, the political class, and urban life- as well as the total subjugation of slaves as the worker bees.

Or is there an alternative to this?

 

How is money affecting American politics?

(If money's influence cannot be reformed/mitigated, there is little need to talk about much else.)

 

If it was possible, I'd do away with the Party system and allow each representative vote on bills by their own conscience and not be forced to vote the way a Party wants them to.

I would make it a law that bills had to go up by themselves and not with any others, so it would pass or fail on it's own merit. To many things get passed because they are hooked with other bills and would never get passed on their own.

I would dedicate so much money from taxes go equally to the candidates running for office and no other money would be allowed.

 

I would quit funding schools by the district one lives in. Not fair the rich schools get all the stuff and the poor ones don't, where teachers buy supplies out of their own pocket. Every school in a state would fund the same. Every kid has a chance to get a good education.

 

I would build more boys and girls clubs. Give these kids some place to go when they get out of school and no parents are home. It might very well cut down on gangs and also give these kids some needed exercise.

 

Politicians SHOULD be demonized. They cut education, healthcare, and other crucial programs while never even putting their own pay and benefits, which included tax paid health care, which is ironic since many of them are so against using tax money to pay for healthcare. It should be the first thing cut ALWAYS, and if they do not pass a balanced budget every year, their pay should be automatically halved.



And as for the job quota, we could simply change it to require a certain amount of full time jobs. Or give a bigger credit for full time jobs than part time ones.

- - - Updated - - -

Politicians SHOULD be demonized. They cut education, healthcare, and other crucial programs while never even putting their own pay and benefits, which included tax paid health care, which is ironic since many of them are so against using tax money to pay for healthcare. It should be the first thing cut ALWAYS, and if they do not pass a balanced budget every year, their pay should be automatically halved.



And as for the job quota, we could simply change it to require a certain amount of full time jobs. Or give a bigger credit for full time jobs than part time ones.

 

There is a cost for incurring debt that cannot be ignored or deemed irrational...interest on the loan. If the US government has $17 trillion in debt and MUST pay 3% interest, this just happens to be $510 billion per year! Each extra trillion$ that we accrue in debt is $30 billion more in annual interest payments. So currently American taxpayers must provide annual taxation of ~$500 billion before they spend a penny on anything else in government. Spend another trillion$ and pay another $30 billion in taxation. Meanwhile, as long as the principle amount is not paid down, every year into perpetuity, American taxpayers must pay this interest payment.

IMO government should spend equal to tax revenues. Government spending to force the creation of jobs and stimulate the economy is temporary...only lasting as long as the government money keeps flowing. If the fundamental root causes of a poor economy or high unemployment, etc. are not remedied in parallel with government economic stimulus, then all we gained was a false economy and a little time. I always say Americans cannot consume themselves into economic prosperity which means we need to greatly increase US exports...this is where I would be focused...

 

Why? I've given you the most honest answer I can give you. There's not much sense in paring it down any further.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JG5ZsHW4C8

 

American's do not pay for interest on intragovernment debt which is about 33% of our debt and 95% of the interest payments to the Fed is returned to the Treasury. Interest expense to debt holders is probably the least of our concerns.

 

The experiment has obviously failed, so I'd start again and bring it back under sensible British control where it belongs.

 

You mean Islamic control ? Nah. We'll stick with English-speaking, Christian, American culture, devoid of mosques, terrorists with bloody hands, footwashing basins, ass-lifting hordes, minarets, and a Koran on every corner.

 

I would reduce the role of government to paving roads, printing money, and defending individual liberty. I would hold myself and my fellow citizens accountable for all consequences of their actions--intended or otherwise, thus insuring that my fellow citizens were free to pursue a life of their own choosing.

 

I'm not sure people who need to have the 'basic necessities' (internet--really?) provided to them by government largesse are the kind of people I'd trust to "decide how to invest" the money we provide them with under your plan.

 

Swap 'liberals' with 'statists' and then we agree. One does not need to be a liberal to be a statist.

 

i would add a 51st state..one for solar power only..hybrid cars..organic food only..and totally funded by its residents..this state would be occupied by liberals and environmentalists ..it would be located in antartica

 

Some less unreasonable choices of mines:

• Remove the electoral college
• Change presidential terms to six years with no option for immediate re-election
• Remove most barriers to free-trade, tariffs, subsidies, etc
• Abolish corporate and capital taxes
• Reduce the military by a significant amount to mostly R&D

 

So are you saying that if I am a supporter of gay marriage, women's reproductive rights, and gun rights, for example, I ought not be able to give money to organizations that share my views and advocates my position?

 

Not to speak for Johnny-C, but I don't think that's what he's saying; I think he's saying that those organizations shouldn't be giving money to Congresspeople to purchase their votes.

 

All I'm saying, is that the politicians competing for office and those serving in office... should not be receiving money from anyone other than what taxpayers afford them through their 'salary'.

If they want to make more money, move back into the private sector.

 

A ha ha! Yeah, the UK is such a roaring success these days... FFS you can't even take a crap in Ambleside anymore without being surveilleid by government cameras!

 

Please clarify what you mean by "taking money." Bribery is already illegal...