Change - what do YOU want

As I’ve always said, seems to me we ALWAYS have something that needs to be done. Since we are already paying people to do nothing I see no reason to not have them do something. Also since we are already paying them we don’t have to be bothered with “Minimum wage” or even a “Living wage” as we are already providing them the “Living” part.

So if you’re “Able” and I’ll even throw in the 3 armed, no legged etc people, you do “Something” if you expect the state to support you.

Seriously we have places like the salvation army/Goodwill that have “income” generated doing certain menial labor jobs and they are done by people that would otherwise be completely unproductive. No these people will never be doctors or lawyers but they have the capability to do some things. They are better off for it and so is society.

In the mean time those that are “Milking” the system and really don’t need the welfare will figure out “WTF!? if I have to work 40 hours a week I might as well go out and get a job”

Pick up trash, plant flowers, clean streets, fill potholes or even “On the job training” for a trades job or some other job. Just put people to work for the love of god. Honestly people feel better about themselves and their community when they do something rather than sit around all day long.

~Matt

I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be social security, etc .

Social security needs to be moved to more of a “Private savings accounr” but still forced participation due to the sad fact that the majority of people are just plain either to stupid or to lazy to voluntarily put it in. The current money in money out system simply does not work and will collapse if the population growth slows…which it desperately needs to.

** but if the government was not providing for our “elderly parents”, the families certainly would/should.**

The “Nuclear” family has dissolved and caused all sorts of social issues, one might say the least of the these is that many elderly people are more dependent on the government. Children SHOULD be taking care of their elderly parents, that’s the way it’s supposed to work.

For those few cases where the children can’t take care of the parents, then the rest of us need to step in and do it. Unfortunately it’s turned into a “I want the government to do my job” mentality.

Now we are raising kids that are being “Taken care of” by the parents until they are 25-30 years old. My guess is that these same kids will say “Screw you Mom and Pop” when the time comes that it’s their turn to take care of the parents.

~Matt

** stop relying on the government for anything other than law enforcement and national security.**

How do roads/highways and other infrastructure get built? Who coordinates services for folks who can’t care for themselves, such as physically and mentally disabled? Who is responsible for children removed form neglectful/abusive parents. Your perspective is simplistic. The real world is more complicated.

a qualified President would be a nice change. Its been amateur hour on Pennsylvania Avenue for too long!

Eliminate all government aid to private businesses, they should sink or swim on their own and that includes banks, airlines, insurance companies, farms etc.

Agreed.

Limit election campaigns to 2 months and cap the spending allowed for each party.

I say revamp the election process all together. Create a “District” wide pool of people that are willing to “Serve” similar to the jury pool.

Take “X” number of people from the pool and then hold an election. The winners move on, the next lowest vote gatherers stay and fill “Local” positions…everyone else goes home.

No parties needed, everything in publicly funded and no “Professional politicians”. Throw in term limits and you pretty much have fixed the whole problem of “Elections”.

Stop all negative media coverage of the economy, they are creating fear and uncertainty.

Disagree, instead we need to do a campaign that is intended to change the minds of the people to “Educate” them on the influence of the media and advertising in general. As soon as the media realizes people aren’t listening anymore maybe they will go back to reporting news rather than sensationalizing everything.

Enforce immigration laws by going after companies hiring illegal workers. It can’t be that hard.

Agreed, as well as eliminating many of the laws that pretty much protect illegal immigrants. Personally I’m not for “Shipping them all back” but for eliminating the minimum wage and allow them to fulfill jobs that we want done but simply can’t afford to have done at minimum wage cost. This would also provide a lower cost labor force as well as opportunity for many other legal citizens.

Reduce the corporate tax rate.

Agreed

All members of Congress who vote for war have to send a family member to fight.

I get the point but believe it’s a rather silly idea. Kinda like saying men should never comment on women having an abortion.

Institute a Peace Corp type program for inside the U.S.

Have it as Fatmouse said. My wife actually has an Americorp volunteer working with her at the health department.

Increase pay for teachers.

I would be for increasing pay for teachers if we revamped the school system. In general I don’t think teachers are all that underpaid and certainly aren’t underpaid in my area. I don’t see increasing pay having much if any effect on education so doing one without the other is simply throwing good money after bad.

Provide tax breaks for stay at home Mothers.

Disagree, but along with my disagreement I believe we should start eliminating “Tax breaks” in general. “Tax breaks” and “Tax credits” are nothing more than the government attempting to influence in what way people spend their money. A married couple with 4 kids with one income, in a house, and paying of college loans should pay the same amount as percentage basis as single person.

Lower personal tax but replace with a consumption or user tax

I might agree with this if you defined “Consumption”. My guess is that if this went to Washington what would happen would be everything that the “poor” bought would have no tax so it would in essence do nothing but raise the burden on the “Rich”.

You could go with a “Flat tax” but unless government did some serious spending cuts the “poor” would flip out as their taxes would go thru the roof.

I would add;

The health care system would be revamped. Education K-12 would be 12 months a year (Teachers would be paid accordingly)An “Efficiency Czar” or committee would be appointed from the private sector to look at every government agency, function etc to see if it could be done more efficiently in the private sector.Legalize drugs of any type and prostitution too.
~Matt

You would let your elderly mother suffer? Or would you take care of her?

I’m not saying that there shouldn’t be social security, etc … but if the government was not providing for our “elderly parents”, the families certainly would/should. I certainly would take care of my folks, they did for me when I needing caring for. I know people whose elderly parents live with them, and they seem to have a very close relationship with the members of their family. I think that’s a good thing.

I agree that we should be much more independent than we are, but I also agree with others that society and governmnt have transferred such a great burden of dependence that there is no realistic liberation from it.
I’m with you. There are certain classes of people that I do not mind taking care of, the elderly, mentally challenged and the disabled fall into those categories. I wish I could decide where my tax money went and didn’t go. So that’s what I want. The ability to direct my tax money to where I want it to go.

The ability to direct my tax money to where I want it to go.

Wouldn’t the ability to direct your money to where it should or shouldn’t go indicate that that service is no longer a “Necessity”? Since it is no longer a necessity does it belong under the auspices of government? Once it’s no longer under the auspices of government would you not be able to make the exact choice you want, on what “charity” to spend your money?

Point is that instead of asking for the ability to direct your tax dollars, maybe should ask for paying less taxes and then do what you want.

~Matt

I like your list. Does this mean that kangaroo will finally get help with his English? :wink:

** stop relying on the government for anything other than law enforcement and national security.**

How do roads/highways and other infrastructure get built? Who coordinates services for folks who can’t care for themselves, such as physically and mentally disabled? Who is responsible for children removed form neglectful/abusive parents. Your perspective is simplistic. The real world is more complicated.

      If we were talking about the *real world*, we wouldn't be talking about waving our magic change wands in the lavender room.

The ability to direct my tax money to where I want it to go.

Wouldn’t the ability to direct your money to where it should or shouldn’t go indicate that that service is no longer a “Necessity”? Since it is no longer a necessity does it belong under the auspices of government? Once it’s no longer under the auspices of government would you not be able to make the exact choice you want, on what “charity” to spend your money?

Point is that instead of asking for the ability to direct your tax dollars, maybe should ask for paying less taxes and then do what you want.

~Matt

If I could pay less AND direct where my monies go that would be perfect!

I’m not saying the following is what I propose or even believe that it should be this way, but simply list possibilities to confront the idea that government MUST fulfill these roles.

How do roads/highways and other infrastructure get built?

Couple of options here. A national grid of “Toll roads”. Illinois has “open road toll” which is pretty “Painless”. Some company(ies) build the roads and maintain them and then set the amount they want to charge for them. Some other routes may be cheaper and or maintained better and thus you would create “Competition”.

For congested in town areas you could simply pay a “Road bill” just like you do the garbage bill. Companies would make offers on maintaining roads and you could send the check to “Best offer”.

Who coordinates services for folks who can’t care for themselves, such as physically and mentally disabled?

Charities, just like they do now. I think we really have to take a hard look at the values of our society. If it’s important enough that people want the government to do it is it not important enough that we can do it without the government?

Who is responsible for children removed form neglectful/abusive parents.

Who removes them? I’d guess if we have a system that removes children from a home then they would be responsible for them. If the state creates the laws to remove the children under certain circumstance then they would be responsible for them. However society dictates what should and shouldn’t be a law. If society deems that children should be removed from a home under certain circumstances than I see no reason why society can’t create a private charity to deal with the results of that law rather than leaving the burden on government.

I’m not saying there isn’t a place for the government, national defense, police, legal system etc are positions the government should fulfill. I am saying that we typically take “The easy route” and say “well government should do it” rather than looking at the situation and saying “Is there anyway possible this can be done outside of government”

~Matt

If I could pay less AND direct where my monies go that would be perfect!

If you pay less in taxes you do get to direct where that money goes. I think however what happens all to often is that people tighten their fist once they get the money. I’m not sure I would spend 10% more on charity if I got a 10% tax break. But then again maybe that’s because I don’t see the “Need” as being as desperate as what the government does.

If I got 10% back, the dude that bought a ton of food on his “State card” and then wiped out a wad of cash to pay for anything that didn’t go thru WOULD NOT be getting my charity. However the lady that took in 3 of her sisters kids, on a single income would likely get more.

I think I make a far better choice than the government does in almost 100% of the cases and the choices that I screw up someone else is likely to get right.

~Matt

I don’t mean this to be smart-assed

Illinois has “open road toll”

who collects the money?

Some company(ies) build the roads and maintain them

who determines who gets awarded the contracts? Who coordinates this activity? Who makes sure it’s done ethically/legally?

physically and mentally disabled
Charities, just like they do now.

No they don’t, especially not when it comes to the most dire cases. Nonprofits still depend on the bulk of their income from government contracts.

I**'d guess if we have a system that removes children from a home then they would be responsible for them.**

that would be the government.

I see no reason why society can’t create a private charity to deal with the results of that law

Who is “society”? How does society do that? Would “society” hire some one or group of people to create a charity? Wouldn’t we have to have some agreement up front with these people about their compensation? Wouldn’t have to depend on the general public being informed about the issue (abused kids), feeling generous and also thinking that it’s important?

I may sound cynical, but I don’t believe we’re as generous a society as we think.

Illinois has “open road toll”

who collects the money?

In Illinois it’s currently the government, my point is that the same system could be created by a company and the company maintaining the road would collect the money. That way it would be “User based” just like going to the store and buying a head of lettuce.

*Some company(ies) build the roads and maintain them *

who determines who gets awarded the contracts? Who coordinates this activity? Who makes sure it’s done ethically/legally?

Same way my garbage collection or electricity is delivered. Again I have no problem with “Government oversight” but don’t see why the government should be running the actual company.

No they don’t, especially not when it comes to the most dire cases. Nonprofits still depend on the bulk of their income from government contracts.

I’m not saying they don’t currently depend on government contracts, the point is however they don’t ALL which means there is a way to do it outside of government. Certain at some point one is truly “Disabled” and can’t really even function, but that is a very very small portion of the population. There are several “non profits” in the area that function largely on donations that also get private jobs as a subsidy.

I’m not contending that the “disabled” individuals be self supportive, can’t happen. I am saying they can be productive and the rest of the support comes thru charity.

Saying “We do it this way now, so it can’t be done another way” seems rather narrow sighted to me.

**Who is “society”? How does society do that? Would “society” hire some one or group of people to create a charity? Wouldn’t we have to have some agreement up front with these people about their compensation? Wouldn’t have to depend on the general public being informed about the issue (abused kids), feeling generous and also thinking that it’s important? **

I’m not going to answer each individual question other than to say look at existing charities. They exist and in most cases are quite good at what they do.

Again these “Charities” all function under government “Oversight” and thus operate under conditions set under all of society. Other than that they all operate freely and answer all of your questions themselves.

In short I don’t see the issues you raise above as being any problem and or anything that doesn’t happen everytime a charity is formed.

**I may sound cynical, but I don’t believe we’re as generous a society as we think. **

I absolutely agree, but also ask the question why? If government steps in and takes the place of charity and at the same time forces us to be “Charitable” for any number of cases that we in general would not voluntarily support, do you not think this effects the level of charitably of society?

OTOH the US has been shown to be one of the largest, as a percentage, private donors in the world.

~Matt

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t disagree, in principle, with government not doing these activities. I just don’t know how to get there from here.
I also agree with your previous post that, as a society, we should take a hard look at our values.

I also agree with your previous post that, as a society, we should take a hard look at our values.

I think we “Get there from here” by doing the above. I’m not sure other than really harping on it, changing personally and raising our kids with the values we think are correct there is any other way to change the “Values” of a society.

The US has always pushed “Success”, but at some point we lost all the other good values and “Success” has become the only value.

Buy less for yourself, give more to others that REALLY need it and raise your children to do the same. If enough people help enough others that really need it they won’t need the government anymore.

~Matt

a qualified President would be a nice change. Its been amateur hour on Pennsylvania Avenue for too long!

What qualifies someone to be President?

I just want to know when my checks will start arriving in the mail.

C’mon, Barrack finally convinced me that the US is horrible, no one can feed their families, our schools are falling down, the roads are collapsing and its all Bush’s fault. If we could only be more like Europe.

And that fucking Wal Mart is really making life hard for me.