How Would You Make A Better USA

Opinion Article:

I believe that admitting your personal faults is one of the hardest things to do. As for the person, so true for the nation.

I've been reading a lot about the faults of our society. I'd just like to point out that I have not read "the greats" of our society because I'm well aware of all the areas that people say are great. The concept was to get a little corss-interrogation. I also understand that there are people who believe criticiszing their own nations comes down to moaning or whining, which is interesting because they are basically doing the same thing when they criticize parts of it, or groups within the nation. To them, everyone else is flawed. To an adult, this is very juvenile and a problem that effects almost every individual and/or group.

I understand that facts, proof, and such can be a burden on people so I won't ask for that here. I want your opinions...

Name all the major/minor ways you propose the USA can be aided into becoming a better place for everyone to live.

Note: The concept is to include everyone, not just one group. When you make a plan, think about everyone in the country. How will it effect them. Will it hurt them or hinder them? Is my view a selfsih view or do I honestly think this will help as many people as possible.

Areas may include

Politics
Religion
Race
Philosophy
Economics
War/Foreign Diplomacy
Labor
Law Enforcement
Or any other field you believe is important...

You need only explain why you believe this would help people, or you may list the prime reasons you believe a truly great society is being held back from actual realization.

(I'd appreciate if partisan hackery was checked at the door. It's ultimately deconstructive and we all know it spirals down to insults and circular rhetoric. That would be one prime reason our nation is held back from truly being a great model in the world, rather than being despised.

 

Spend money! Plain and simple. Spend billions upon billions in to technology, education, infrastructure. Our country is stuck because of a ridiculous ancient ideology. Put people to work, flood the economy with money, we have more than enough laborers, more than enough resources, put people to work.

How did capitalists get this rich in the first place? Because the government spent money, lol. It is absolutely insane how in the 21st century we still have conservative ideologues trying to turn our back in to the 1800s. Ridiculous.

 

First off, we need to make voting mandatory, and make sure people understand who they're voting for. The next, stop focusing on the world, and focus on the economy at home. If the money spent on the Military Industrial complex was spent on giving the masses of people, instead of a few jobs that would be a bigger boom to the economy. Every single person should have the basic necessities. Food, water, transportation,shelter, heating, and the internet. Then give them some money and a good solid education. Let them decide how to invest it, and what they want to do with it. When people invent new things, new economies form up around it. Then those people can use their talents to improve the invention. If people in the end fail, they at least have a good solid supporting net to keep them afloat. And more importantly, a second chance. Second, we need to scale back the NSA and the overreaching government. Too many laws take away our basic civil liberties. When we ignore the law of the land, it also takes away trust in our own government, making it harder for things to get accomplished. If we take care of those, then we can have a much better society.

 

* First, Place an absolute limit on government taxation to be 18% of the GDP, and those taxes will be collected EQUALLY at exactly the same tax rate for ALL Businesses, Corporations, Individuals, and NGOs. No Exemptions, no Exceptions, no dodges or shelters, no progressive income scales, just a single flat tax for all.

If the Government needs/wants more money that the18% of GDP, then they have to be smart about how they spend that 18% to make the GDP bigger, then their next years budget increases. When the GDP drops, so does the government budget, Always.

* Second, Go back to the original intent of Federalism. The Federal Government is given strict, limited, enumerated powers and areas of actions, all other areas are the strict province of State and Local Government. Let the States once again become different by their local laws and Governance, allows competition between states, for businesses, factories, workers and their families,... Let Competition drive the State and Local to be the best for its people, knowing full well that we have options!

* Third, Completely get Government out of the Discrimination Business. Stop all AA, Apologize to the people, both black and white, men and women, whom it has hurt over the last forty years, and make a solemn commitment to Never repeat the mistake.

* Fourth, stop every single cent of foreign-aid currently being given, and put a moratorium on any new foreign-aid for 20 years. If and when foreign-aid is every resumed, put a strict limit on it at a maximum of 2% of our total Federal Spending. This does not mean closing embassies, it just means we quit trying to "Buy" friends. The "Friends" who are purchasable are usually the worst sort of foriegn leaders. The best allies do not need to bought.

Close almost all foriegn soil military bases, and bring our troops back home to either U.S. soil bases, or U.S. Territory. Rework the American Military be far more Naval and Rapid-Air Deployment able, so that we can be anywhere we need power, for the protection of OUR interests, but we do not need to be sitting in peace time on foriegn soil.

* Fifth, Pass a law that in any Government Service Employment, Teaching, Fireman, Police, ... Make It Illegal to have anyone Union represent more than 40% of those workers. Because Government Services are usually a monopoly on the service, we need to have competition between the collective representation. Having a Monopoly represented by a single Union is a recipe for Extortion.

The Citizens Receiving the Government Services should veto rights on any given Union representing its Government Service workers. It a Union gets out of line, they can be Banned, by ballot initiative proposition, from representing any workers in that sector for a minimum of 6 years and a maximum of 12 years.

-

 

I don't care about debt, I'm talking about spending money to create productivity. You know real goods and services.

You made most of this up and it's no where near the truth. Loans are not one of the demons of our economy, we do not have to default on the debt unless crazy people make us, we are nothing like Greece and any comparison to them means you literally do not understand our monetary system and the US is not pawning themselves off to the international market, lol. Where do you guys come up with this stuff?

 

I'm not too familiar with the Australian model. My instinct is to say that it is essentially lower Europe and that the good society might not spread equally to the aborgiine population...in the least. I have yet to see one on a picture illustrating an "Australian". That's my first cringe.

But...are you in Australia now? Is it really a better modl, and if so, on what points. I did hear a little about certain programs that were a lot better than the US like the election process being a month long. Wow. Compared to the US, your from the future, lol.

 

Okay, in no order of importance:
1.) Stop policing the world and admit we have no moral high ground any more because we simply do not and may not ever have. This includes operating bases in any other country unless we agree to 'trade', meaning we allow them a base on our soil in exchange for a base on ours.
2.) Eliminate money donations into politics which have no limits. Disallow corporations to be able to garner the same rights as people when they are obviously not.
3.) Make fossil fuels illegal immediately. This would change the economy overnight and maybe not immediately for the better but likely the final result would be energy independence through people discovering quickly that renewable energy is the best thing for national security.
4.) Hold banks fully responsible for any and all fraud and not only set an example for anyone who dares commit profitable fraud in the future but dismantles the banks in question with all held assets distributed proportionately to any client of the bank who may be affected, including the typical savings account holder. I'm sure they'd love getting back all of their stolen money. Who wouldn't.
5.) Disallow disproportionate manufacturing to be allowed overseas for our own benefit (i.e. become self reliant in every way possible). Manufacturing allows us to export more than we import and still benefits united states corporations, as much as they hate it.
6.) Discontinue ties to fiat. This would be extremely detrimental to us as we, quite likely, have nowhere NEAR the capital to back up what we claim and since we are still technically holding other country's metals, we could finally come clean and admit we were scamming them.
7.) Follow Japan and South Korea's lead and fund through taxes standardized broadband access as part of public infrastructure. Did you know we are 14th on the list of highest transfer speeds? South Korea's *AVERAGE* broadband user gets 20mbps for about the price of your average water bill. I personally get that every now and then and pay 100$.
8.) ...i'm pretty sure I can't think of anything else. Several of these items would devastate our country for at least a decade, and it would be a necessary pain for everyone to feel from the top to the bottom in order to remember to never do this again. It's been a long time since the great depression and people have forgotten.

Oh, one more thing...

The president would be required to wear a dunce cap until his first year that his policies showed a decrease in overall debt and deficit. If it's shown that he's increasing either, the dunce cap goes right back on his head. Every public appearance at home and abroad, he'd have to wear the cap and it would read in big red letters in the most widely used languages of the world simply 'IDIOT'.


EDIT: A couple more things I just thought of:

9.) If any person held a high ladder position or a legal position at a company with worldwide assets totaling over 1 million dollars, they are not allowed to hold any public office, whether by vote or by appointment. They can only be outsourced by the government and only by full disclosure.

10.) Teachers and schools are to be treated with the utmost respect. They will get near unlimited funding from the government to make sure everyone has access, should they choose to, go to a university or trade school and teachers will be paid their true worth to society. To butcher a Henry Rollins quote, imagine how scary we would be if we were the smartest nation on Earth...

 

I don't think the debt will go away because you don't care about it (not pecking at you). I can see what you are saying though and I think you might be addressing the "grow the economy" solution. I think that might be another one of our problems, in a way. When you look at it, grwoing the economy means people spending and more things being produced. Are they being produced here in our country or somewhere else? But aside from that, when we spend money, where does it go? Some people believe that the money we throw up rains backs down on us as businesses invest in society. I think this is wrong. Businesses invest in themselves. Spending in the US is veyr high as it is. We are predominately a consumer market. Business reap astounding profits, and growing the economy would only increase the profits by increasing sales and generally draining people of money. This seems to be what "growing the economy entails (unless I am wrong. lease correct me if I am, seriously. These are my interpretations, only) There is sme rainfall, but not the kind you think will power the economy. Our businesses are already reaping record-profits, and still, hear we are. I think it's because a growing economy only benefits the owners of it, mostly. I believe a "stable" economy is more what we need. A drastic decrease in overall spending. At least, it's one of the things.

But, how did you see it. Like, just give me the basic steps in how a growing economy benefits everyone in the country.

Yes, these are only my interpretations of the situation. Loans of every sort seem to be draining money from the public left and right. The countries huge loans/debts are just a piece of it. The individual states loans have not even factored into it. The selling of Us territoy is indeed true. Perhaps pawn might not be the right word of it, but we are indeed seling pieces of th country to foreing entities. That, I do know.

But, also, not chosing to default on a loan doesn't make it go away. Indeed, a while back, the US just ignored it's loan to France (the incident where the French sent a warship to New York harbor) so there is nothing that says we must default on our loan while we have the force to disagree. Still...I wonder about it.

My typing is horrible today...apologies.

 

First off, we have had the most stable economy in our history in the past 70 years. Business is not magic. For them to grow requires employees, materials, resources, etc. We have high unemployment, which means we have laborers, we have low capacity utilization which means we have resources, we simply need the medium of exchange to connect the dots. Growing the economy would be easy if we invested trillions in infrastructure and upgrading our country in to the 21st century. They should dump trillions of more dollars in to the economy. It would grow, people would be prosperous, life would be great. The only problem is the conservative ideology would be ruined. We are literally destroying our country because of an ideology. It's ridiculous. We should be spending trillions of more dollars than we are right now.

We live in a debt based economy. It's literally what drives our monetary system. We need more loans, more debt... not the opposite. This irrational fear of debt is what is killing this country.

 

I was just having a little fun because I fully expect this thread to collapse in an ideological cat fight by the end of the first page.

As for elections. Yes 6 weeks is considered a long time in our system. Why? Well first we dont need primaries. The Prime Minister always leads his party into the election. The opposition (The other side) has a leader that has been in front of the public and media from the time he gets elected as the head of his party. In some instances this can be years. So we dont need time to get to know him. By the time an election is called, the vast majority of Australians have a fair idea who they will vote for before the election is even called.

In all seriousness the one thing I would change in the US is the winner take all system with the electoral college. Republicans have no encouragement to campaign in California and the Democrats likewise in Texas. Most elections come down to battleground states and the rest of the country just makes up the numbers

 

I really couldn't call it on this one. I have no idea how the intricaices of the tax system pan out. I know there are rules, and how it's supposed to work, and I know there are people who dodge, ignore, or violate those rules. We have laws right now that say NO DODGING, but it's primarily the law-makers and the elite who seem most involved in doing so. This kind of dodging happens on the lower income brackets as well, and I don't have a figure for how much moeny is lost between the two. A flat tax strikes me as bad because it sounds inflexible and businesses are certainly not "individuals", thought that's how they have been codified as by law (wonder how that happened...). Your plan might definitely work, but I just don't know how to mak a projection of the scenario.

I did think that the sensible thing was that everyone would have to pay a considerably higher tax to help bring down the debt. That wouldn't scare me in itself. It's the fact that I am paying for the mistakes someone else made (1), and I am paying the very same organization that made them (2). In the end, I can only guess where that money actually ends up. Will it actually be paid to the debt, or will it be used to fund more excessive programs. Or, will it go to the debt while the government continues it's huge spending habits in a variety of areas?

It would be nice if there was a way to actually enforce this type of philosophy of budgetary restraint. I don't think it exists in our government...or there are reasons for their strange spending I am unaware of.

I often wonder if this is the best solution. There is strength in the whole, but the trade-off is that you lose freedom. There is more individual freedom in Federalism, but that might interfere with your first point since some states might not agree on a flat tax. Indeed, there will be varying rules and regulations for each state- tunring a more or less monolithc system into a system of contradicting or interruptive rules and regulations. It would undoubtedly undermine the overall power of the country. I beielve, because of the type of world we live in, the cons of becoming a type of Federalism of sovereing states would be dangerous. Up until now, nations have done nothing but consolidate more and more into unified blocks to compee against others doing the same. At this very moment, the US attempts to form an economic block of the entire North American continent. I think in terms of creating a better society, your plan might be a better one, but in terms of real world practicality, it might be like lowering your gun in a Mexican stand-off of world competiition. We might become food.

I can see why politics is so hard now. There doesn't seem to be a good way to turn, wherever you look...

The government has done this repeatedly in the past. At the expense of diggning up history, the Native Americans will tell you how much solemn pledges are worth. Next would be the African-Americans, I suppose. The problem with this is that, obviously, it is very easy to set ideals. But it is very hard to implmenet them. There will always be people who disagree,and those people may be in posiitons of power. The Constitution is an example of an ideal we have had for centuries, and we still don't seem to get it right. Mostly because there are always people who don't see "right" as "right". Good luck with this one, but I really wish it were something we could have right now.

This was one of the things that confused me. We are hesitant to spend money on the people in our own country, but we okay the government spending billions on people overseas. In the words of the government itself, it amounts to foreign aid. Helping people gain democracy and that stuff. (if that is to be believed) And yet we ignore the problems here in our own country. It would indeed be a great thing if we could even re-route half the mone spent toward foreign aid into helping our own nation. I'm not sure how everyone feels on this though.

This comes down to that Mexican standoff thing. A lot of people think- like business- the US rose to the top through friendly competition and welcomes all countries to be like it. That's stupid. China is trying, and we are all-but waving a barrel under their nose and talking about the stress on world natural resources because of it. How can people honestly believe the nation advocates the advancement of other nations? (or that businesses invite friendly competition while seeking to grow) It's a shark tank. The US has bases around the world to assure world control- the same way Britain did, Spain did, Rome did, the Ottomans did. The reason the US has grown the way it has is because it is able to influence world decisions througha combination of economic, political, and military pressure. I highly doubt the US will give up those bases.

True. But...how to accomplish this while having an effective and prevailing means of checking it. That's the age old question.

Conrary to what seems like popular opinion, most peopel want to form Unions, as you might have seen with the restaurant strike. I suppose there are a few examples of extortion in Unions, but the majority of them serve to protect their workers. But the employers have been waging a long and intense campaign against Unions of every sort. I think your plan for having checks against the Union both ouside and inside the organization is good. I think Unions are necessary, but the problem is always figuring out how to keep them...or the employes...honest. When self-interest rises, either has the potential to become corrupt.

 

Here is a small, simple, but powerful thing:

Require All High School Juniors Civics classes to watch the following movies:

Across the Universe

Mutiny on the Bounty

Saving Private Ryan

Twelve Angry Men

On the Waterfront

Network

Each student should be required to then pick a favorite scene / song / theme from each movie, and list BOTH three Pros, and three Cons to that scene. They should then present their Favs Pro and Cons to the class.

After all the students have presented, each of the Movies should be viewed again.

-

 

But where do you get the trillions of dollars you want to invest in everthing? If it is a loan, it's just a greater bubble that we live in. Suffice to say, I have only recently started studying current affiars and in depth ecnomic facts (such as are available to the public) and while every nation tends to juggle debt, the problem seems to be that the system crashes when the inconsistencies become too much to bear. This crash is alleviated with a flood of stimulus money (debt) which gets the economy up and running again, but the flood of money is not really money, it's debt. The flood of new, pioneering activity is all debt that has not been repaid, and at the moment, the remedy the recent depression, we want to pile even more money on top of that, which just pushes the problem down the line for a future generation to deal with.

I think, ideally, your plan would work if indeed we could find ideal employment for every person. But my main wonder is would this rampant reving of the economy be helping the economy as much as the workers in the ecnomy or the public base, anyway? When I take a step back, this is what we are doing. Increasingly inflating the economy to accomodate and increasing population in order to increase revenue. But the details are where the plan fails. The fact that employers are trying to find ways not to hire, and that if they must, they want to find ways to higher cheaply. Actually, one could say it's not reall the economy that's doing bad, it's the nation (people). The economy flourishes. Business is pretty stable, like you say, if not progressing at record pace. It's the side-effects that have begun to hit the American base. That's where the depression is. I'll ahve to thank you for this. I might have come through with a clearer understanding.

But, in the end, I think- aside for where you plan to get the money to fund it all- your plan has good points. Employment and economic progression. I'd just hope it was economic progression that sought universal stability in the nation as a whole rather than just the economic branch. (or have I got this figured wrong. I know that the manufacturing base has been eroding for decades, pretty much lock-step with the whole trade-deficit thing. I don't think this is felt very much by the middle class who works outside of the manufacturing side- which is why it doesn't seem like such an immeidate problem to some- but the problem has spread to the retail community (Walmart, Target, and that like) and is leading to a small wage-depression among the lower-class that might escalate in the future)

You know, from the outside looking in, that sounds like brain-washing, lol. Read what you just said. An irrational fear of debt? Instead of solving debt, debt is needed and should be increased? I'm not attacking you personally, but that doesn't seem like sound thinking. It's not irrational to fear a debt that you can manage, true, but ours seems to be increasing pretty quickly. Concerns are definitely valid, as they would be if you, personally, had a debt that was escalating quickly. The bank would not be taking it easy.

True, about the winner take all. It's been cited as a problem- specifically because of things like Gerrymandering and all other forms of the problem.

As for the thread devolving, I don't think so. At least, people will have different ideas because they have different perspectives and it's hard for people to emphathize with a way of life they have never lived- whether it being poor and owning nothing or rich and owning a lot. The self-interest of either side leads to abuses and corruptions- it's just that the rich have the power and influence to effect much more than the poor and so they would be the chief concern. I think our national and econoic mindset is to stuck on the capitalist concept of winner take all. Was hoping that a more communicable, empathetic understanding of the problems of all would create a society actually geared toward helping each other rathering than feathering their own individual nests. Right now, in a time where many peopel are hurting, it's almost insane to hear people repeat that the only way to help eveyrone is to help the economic class. That's basically what it is. Instead of the economy servicing the nation, the nation is made to service the economy. I think we should start from there.

 

Flat tax or two tier tax that is tied together so that if you want to raise the taxes on one group of people, taxes will go up for everyone else the exact same proportion.

Bills that come before Congress will by law only pertain to that specific topic, ie get rid of the pork bills. To compensate as frankly a little pork does actually help the system run better every year there will be a "pork bill" the sole purpose being that it includes all the little pet projects and since its in one bill everyone can easily peruse it and find out how is making good use of taxpayer dollars and those are are just wasting it on largess and stupid programs.

It should be illegal for more than one agency whether its state or federal to be in charge of the same thing. Therefore you can no longer have umpteen agencies that overlap on stuff such as welfare. Its inefficient and it is a huge waste of money.

Each state is responsible for the physical welfare of its residents. This means that states are responsible for 100% of any housing, food, medical, clothing etc. and the state and its residents ultimately decide whether they want to be stingy or generous with state taxpayer money. The Feds have no business in that area whatsoever. This will force states to be responsible for their actions and keep their fiscal houses in order instead of just relying on Fed handouts all the time and yes I am including all the farm subsidies that red states get.

No more federal bills with strings attached, also no more federal block grants. Any grants given to a state must be entirely for a specific goal such as increasing school hiring or building bridges or whatever they apply for and the federal government cannot attach strings to it such as "you have to do this or you won't get the money" If congress approves of a bunch of new marinas for Montana then Montana can only use the money for marinas and the Feds can't tell them that they have to make x amount of berths available for low income yachts.

Bills must be read and understood by a majority of the members of Congress before they can be passed. No more of this "We will find out after we pass it bull(*)(*)(*)(*)" like the ACA. If the majority of congressman can't pass a simple questionaire on a bill then it cannot come up for a vote. Whether this is done for random bills or every bill over a certain length that comes up I am undecided yet.

 

Let the people back into the market.

1. Categorize our patents. We could divide our patents into separate categories such as industrial mechanical, industrial electronic, business electronic, industrial chemical, medical chemical, personal mechanical, personal electronic, recycling, business mechanical, etc. Any product would receive a patent based on the category of the product. Is it mainly mechanical and mainly used for industrial purposes? (machinery, etc.) Is it mainly mechanical and mainly used for personal purposes? (lawn mowers, electric shavers, etc.) Each patent category would receive a different duration of patent protection. Time blocks could be assigned to each category. If time blocks were two years, we could have 2 time blocks for personal mechanical, 10 time blocks for medical chemical, 4 time blocks for business electronic, etc.

2. The creation of Ameri-net. Ameri-net will be a series of public utility companies designed to distribute business information. Ameri-net companies would have information on which products are protected by intellectual property, and therefore not available for manufacture by anyone but the patent holder, and which products are in the public domain, and therefore available for manufacture by anyone. In the case of public domain products, Ameri-net will have information on how to manufacture the product. Ameri-net will have information on the materials needed, the machinery/tools needed, the manufacturing process, and in many instances a downloadable program to run our home based manufacturing equipment. We've all seen CNC machines and programmable sewing machines. Ameri-net will distribute programs to run these and similar machines. Ameri-net can function as a national INTRA-net or operate with distribution centers.

3. Ensure all Americans have access to the raw materials needed to make modern products at fair prices.

4. Create community manufacturing space for those who's trades may involve clean-rooms or chemical containment areas or for those who may not be able to work at home because they rent or for other reasons. If our government can build buildings as technically advanced as our modern prisons then our government can maintain a clean-room that we can use for our benefit.

5. Eliminate business licenses and fees. Anyone can create his own business without being billed for it.

6. Change our zoning laws to create some resident/industrial and resident/business zones. These zones will allow for the construction of homes that have built-in shops or offices. The neighborhood infrastructure will be able to handle the industrial or business needs of these people.

There are other laws I could mention but these get the point across. The point is to create a system of home based production. The American people need to directly participate in the production of our material wealth. We should be the ones who determine our standard of living, not just the one percent of us who have been given legal control over all production and, therefore, all jobs. We should be able to determine our own economic fate. We should not be at the mercy of anyone but ourselves.

 

There is no "bubble" that you live in. It's simply nothing more than a number plugged in to a spreadsheet. Employment is only one part of the equation. What they do with their income is the more important part when you are talking about government spending. The government isn't trying to spend money to create a profit. They are trying to increase our infrastructure and economic growth by providing us with the necessary amount of our medium exchange.

I think peoples most fundamental problem when understanding our system is differentiating between Government and non-government and their roles in the economy.

It's irrational to fear a countries fiat debt denominated in their own currencies. Your problem is you think of government debt like your own, which is why you think I'm the irrational one even though I know you are the irrational one.

 

After reading this,,, I'm getting the popcorn and a couple of beers... Could get interesting.

 

Yep,, the election was announced a month and a bit before election day.

 

Irrespective of which side of the political fence you graze on, this current government has had more leadership changes than the Italians (not quite but trying to find an example). First Kevin, then Julia and now Kevin again. This could only be unsettling for the electorate and the government.

Aussies normally stick to one party for most of their lives, although Aussies are pretty good at swing voting. I believe the election was decided somewhere within Julia Gillard's administration. Kevin is only plugging up the holes.

Now,, what I don't understand about American politics, is this party registration thingy, like "I'm a registered Democrat" or "I'm a registered Republican". WTF!

 

It's for primary reasons. A lot of states don't want Republicans or Democrats sabotaging primaries of the other party.

 

Kick all the liberals out. I'm not even joking. This would solve probably 70% of America's problems in one fell swoop. These people create most of the problems even they are trying to fix. And they don't even realize it. If they had their own country with no conservatives, they would all be puzzled as to why it was just as "racist" and "sexist" and "greedy" as the one they just came from. Stupid people don't learn.

After the lefties were gone, I think a lot of things would eventually fall into place and solve themselves over time. The size of government would shrink back to an acceptable size. Poverty would decrease. The economy would rebound. Individual rights would be restored. The family unit would heal. We'd have a lot less laws and a lot more freedom.

Oh yeah, and the country would be a lot less annoying overall.

 

Got any facts to back this up? I'd like to see a chart or report from an unbiased source backing up these claims.


Just kidding, I know the topic said 'in your opinion'.

 

To put it into Australian parlance, it is to stop the equivalent of the Liberal Party riding in and branch stacking the Labor Party pre-selection for Kevin Rudd's seat lol

 

Perhaps. I think a flat tax system is not very flexible and generally meant to keep taxes low for the higher tiered branches as implementing it wold strain the lower classes far more, and lowering it would render it generall negligible to the higher ones. On the basis of taxing individuals with no business ties, I would say it is fair, regardless of the money you have. But if you have a business or receive income from a business, it is obviously a whole other thing. It's only fair to tax it in proportion. But that is just my take on it.

I never heard of a "pork bill" but I'm guessing it's a piece of legislation that contains other things in it apart from the main topic- in effect meaning that legislatures are sneaking stuff through the legislative process in the "fine print" so to speak? If that's the case, it's not so much stop the pork bills as stop corruption in the legislative process. I imagine the process was done as a way to sneak around other types of checks meant to correct that very kind of thing. Therefor, by removing pork bills,, they'll just find another way to sneak things into legislation.

Nice. I had this idea myself, which is actually limiting the size of businesses to ward against the formation of huge "umbrella corps". I believe the nation would benefit more by having more individual, smaller businesses than a few large ones- predominantly. It would free up a lot of the market and the competition among many smaller competitiors would actually make comptetition a viable presence. There wouldn't be the soaring revenues of the businesses we have now, but those revenues were not helping the people anyway. I very much like this plan and considered it one of two of the best methods in helping the economy- along with a revision of the loan/debt system we have in order to restrain the access to credit. Business should flow from positive capital, not negative capital. Should be built on more solid foundations, not gambles.

When concerning money, I always wonder whether money given is applied to where it was meant to. As it stands, I think the States have become hihly dependent on federal aid of all sorts, including money. While some state officials may humor the rhetoric of their base with ideas of seccession or any kind of decentralization of power, I think they have no real intention at all of falling through with it. Honestly, I think you will come up against something serious if a state ever tried to decentralize government in such a way. Just my opinion, but governments a particularly prone to seeing threats to power in domino theory format. If such a bill or legislation is even entertained, read the fine print.

These things are like the blank checks to state governments. I agree with your idea, but it will be hard pushing this one. No telling where this money actually goes...

I have the feeling that nothing is really being "snuck" past members of Congress. It sounds too illegal to be realistic. I'd have to look more into that, though. More to the point, Bills should be made reviewbale by both Congress and the entire public at large, no matter whether or not they think it is fruitless or unintelligible.