What would you change about the U.S. government?

Page 4 of 6 [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

11 Jun 2010, 1:57 pm

In their successful 1928 presidential election campaign, the Republicans touted "a chicken in every pot, and a car in every backyard, to boot."

I suppose that it would be helpful if the government could come around to every household and place a chicken in every pot, along with some vegetables. But, a car in every backyard? That's a bit much. Unless the government will give us a new one every time the old one gets rusty.

Maybe the government could give us some better TV channels, to keep us entertained.

And, while they're at it, clean up that oil spill in the Caribbean.



Obres
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

11 Jun 2010, 2:50 pm

John_Browning wrote:
Have you ever considered that the rich people earned their money and it is rightfully theirs?


Real wealth isn't earned, never has been, and probably never will be. It's taken, stolen, fabricated, conspired for, and skimmed off the top, but if you believe any of the truly wealthy- that any billionaire in the history of the world has done a billion dollars worth of work or even, all by himself, has had ideas that had that much value, then I'd like to interest you in buying the Brooklyn Bridge. The really rich make their fortunes primarily off the work and ideas of others, no exceptions.



LiberalJustice
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,090

11 Jun 2010, 7:16 pm

I would repeal any and all unconstitutional laws!


_________________
"I Would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-Thomas Jefferson

Adopted mother to a cat named Charlotte, and grandmother to 3 kittens.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

11 Jun 2010, 9:56 pm

LiberalJustice wrote:
I would repeal any and all unconstitutional laws!

Who decides what is constitutional and what is not?

ruveyn



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

12 Jun 2010, 1:06 am

auntblabby wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Have you ever considered that the rich people earned their money and it is rightfully theirs?


warren buffet recently admitted that his hired help pay a higher proportion of their salaries in taxes than he ever did. how can this be a good thing? the working class works harder for their meager money than the upper class could ever imagine. why should only the "little people" pay much of what little they make, in taxes? progressive taxation is the only thing in the public policy maker's toolkit that can begin to address the problem of unequal access to society's resources, of which rich people generally get more than their share.
should the tea partiers get their wish, that only those with fat wallets should have access to police and fire protection, public parks, health care, libraries, polling place access, etc.? you may consider that kind of stinking dystopia to be heaven on earth, but that is just not my cup of tea.

1) That would depend on whether you want to reform the tax system, or if you just want to slap a new tax against the rich's money or against alcohol, cigarettes, or some other item or service to finance a new pet government agency. The former would be acceptable. The latter is the result of electing politicians that have no concept of money management.

2) The tea party isn't going to eliminate any of those things. The tea party is not so big that it can force an agenda in most areas without support from moderates.

Obres wrote:
Real wealth isn't earned, never has been, and probably never will be. It's taken, stolen, fabricated, conspired for, and skimmed off the top, but if you believe any of the truly wealthy- that any billionaire in the history of the world has done a billion dollars worth of work or even, all by himself, has had ideas that had that much value, then I'd like to interest you in buying the Brooklyn Bridge. The really rich make their fortunes primarily off the work and ideas of others, no exceptions.

It's not so much about working hard as it is working smart. Working hard usually doesn't get you very far without brains involved. And if billionaires' ideas aren't woth billions of dollars, why are they paid that much for them. Do you mean to say that Bill Gates didn't have an idea to create a company that eventually had a half trillion dollar public demand for it's products? Billionaires ideas are worth what they are because that's what the market value really is for them.

LiberalJustice wrote:
I would repeal any and all unconstitutional laws!

The definition of "unconstitutional" is hotly debated. Can you be more specific?


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

12 Jun 2010, 1:29 am

ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Public financing of election campaigns.
Ban bribery in Congress.


Bribery is already against the law. That has not stopped it. How does banning something prevent it from happening?

ruveyn


Bribing congresspeople is legal unfortunately. The Supreme Court calls it "free speech".



xenon13
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Dec 2008
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,638

12 Jun 2010, 1:33 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I would interpret the 2nd amendment in the modern day to allow for citizens to own and operate military hardware, such as combat helicopters and tanks. However, special licensing and thorough background checks would be required.


Unfortunately this phenomenon exists. Blackwater, for example.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

12 Jun 2010, 1:51 am

xenon13 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I would interpret the 2nd amendment in the modern day to allow for citizens to own and operate military hardware, such as combat helicopters and tanks. However, special licensing and thorough background checks would be required.


Unfortunately this phenomenon exists. Blackwater, for example.

I think iamnotaparakeet means being able to get them without a class III dealer's license and a special occupational taxpayer's license or making those licenses available to private owners.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Jun 2010, 3:26 am

When an intruder breaks into your house at night it's always handy to have a tank or a missile equipped helicopter to fend him off until the police arrive with an atomic bomb or some other appropriate weapon to stop burglary.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Jun 2010, 5:26 am

xenon13 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Public financing of election campaigns.
Ban bribery in Congress.


Bribery is already against the law. That has not stopped it. How does banning something prevent it from happening?

ruveyn


Bribing congresspeople is legal unfortunately. The Supreme Court calls it "free speech".


Let has have a specific case before the Supreme Court where this is the case.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Jun 2010, 9:26 am

ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Public financing of election campaigns.
Ban bribery in Congress.


Bribery is already against the law. That has not stopped it. How does banning something prevent it from happening?

ruveyn


Bribing congresspeople is legal unfortunately. The Supreme Court calls it "free speech".


Let has have a specific case before the Supreme Court where this is the case.

ruveyn


Are you really so out of it to not see that campaign contributions control the legislatures and the Robert's Supreme Court ruling that gives free rein to corporations to dump as much money they it can on people running for office more or less destroys free elections?



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Jun 2010, 10:26 am

Sand wrote:




Are you really so out of it to not see that campaign contributions control the legislatures and the Robert's Supreme Court ruling that gives free rein to corporations to dump as much money they it can on people running for office more or less destroys free elections?


I asked for a legal or case reference, not an ideological driven assertion.

I am still waiting.

ruveyn



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 100
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Jun 2010, 11:33 am

ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:




Are you really so out of it to not see that campaign contributions control the legislatures and the Robert's Supreme Court ruling that gives free rein to corporations to dump as much money they it can on people running for office more or less destroys free elections?


I asked for a legal or case reference, not an ideological driven assertion.

I am still waiting.

ruveyn


Which means you deny corruption by corporations exist? Very odd.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Jun 2010, 4:00 pm

Sand wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Sand wrote:




Are you really so out of it to not see that campaign contributions control the legislatures and the Robert's Supreme Court ruling that gives free rein to corporations to dump as much money they it can on people running for office more or less destroys free elections?


I asked for a legal or case reference, not an ideological driven assertion.

I am still waiting.

ruveyn


Which means you deny corruption by corporations exist? Very odd.


The O.P. made a specific claim and I ask for proof of it. Why don't you read the posts carefully?

Many of the large corporations are corrupt. They are bedfellows with the government. There is a two-way turnstile between government and positions in large highly subsidized corporations.

ruveyn



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

12 Jun 2010, 7:25 pm

ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
xenon13 wrote:
Public financing of election campaigns.
Ban bribery in Congress.


Bribery is already against the law. That has not stopped it. How does banning something prevent it from happening?

ruveyn


Bribing congresspeople is legal unfortunately. The Supreme Court calls it "free speech".


Let has have a specific case before the Supreme Court where this is the case.

ruveyn


He's speaking metaphorically to how the Supreme Court ruled recently that campaign contributions on the part of private corporations counts as protected speech under the first amendment and so they shouldn't be subject to harsh restrictions regarding how much money they are able to contribute or how they encourage their workers to contribute or independent ads that they may manufacture in regards to political matters (like the recent mailing that someone here got about their credit union being mad about something going on about banking reform measures).

*Searching for the ruling...it was made within the last 8 months*

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... ree-speech


^There's an article on the ruling.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 89
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

12 Jun 2010, 8:10 pm

skafather84 wrote:

He's speaking metaphorically to how the Supreme Court ruled recently that campaign contributions on the part of private corporations counts as protected speech under the first amendment and so they shouldn't be subject to harsh restrictions regarding how much money they are able to contribute or how they encourage their workers to contribute or independent ads that they may manufacture in regards to political matters (like the recent mailing that someone here got about their credit union being mad about something going on about banking reform measures).

.


I am an Aspie.. I don't do metaphors. I am literal minded and damned proud that I am.

And that is not what he said. He said plainly that the Court has held bribery as a form of protected (or free) speech. I want to know what case where that was hold by the majority of the court.

ruveyn