The Root

[myrmaad]

I'm not going to do the politics. It's just too ridiculous to do here, you know there are actually political interest websites, where debating politics is much more appropriate than here, in my humble opinion.

 

But I will say this: i have observed over my near 50 years of life that we in the US have venerated and enshrined a wasteful, greedy, avaricious way of life.

[RZ1029]

Here we go again...

 

Its hard to say whats wrong with the federal system.

 

I only used the NRA as a example, I disagree with strong gun control. The NRA does however pay congress to keep gun control away.

They're lobbyists. It's what they do. They try to press their issues by whatever means they can. Schmoozing congressmen and women isn't illegal, last I checked. That being said, there's a difference between lobbying and bribery. While I'm not extremely intimate with the matters of the NRA, I don't believe they've crossed this line.

 

I don't think a bunch of local governments would help anymore then a strong federal government.

So... no government at all? Don't see where you're going with this statement. I'm for strong federal government, it's centralization which is important for maintaining what little sense of efficiency we have retained in our bureaucratic politics.

 

A federal government with power checks is harder to corrupt then a bunch of local systems.

So... the federal government IS actually better? I'm confused.

 

Sure the local systems may be less corrupt in data, but certain local systems may be badly corrupt.

Less corruption with more concentration..? Or more corruption with less concentration? And I'm not sure it really matters here.

 

I don't know if that made any sense since I am kinda multitasking right now, but what I am trying to say is that I don't think the federal government is the root.

I think the federal system is messed up due to the money and nothing more. I think the system would be fine without people paying them off.

Money... from where? From who? Their lack of money or what?

 

The federal government is only part of the corruption since the corporations are paying them.

"Them", "them", "them". Who is them? Senators and Representatives? Others involved in government, like law enforcement or municipal governments? Or maybe President Obama's receiving payment from the military contractors in exchange for giving them some business?

 

So I think then root is not the fed, but the root is the money they get from banks and companies.

They...?

 

Ill make a list of reform actions below to better show my views

 

1. Pass a bill to make campaigns fair, this would be done by giving a equal amount of money to each person running and would be paid for by taxes. Private donations would not be legal. This bill should also make it illegal to work for large corporations in a high paying position for a certain period after getting out of office.

Wait... so I'm not allowed to help the campaigner I want get into office because it wouldn't be fair? Life's not fair. I work and go to school, I don't have time to go out and hit the streets handing out pamphlets for his or her election. I give money to support the candidates I want, or towards causes I support.

 

By doing this it would greatly help so people could get into office based on values, and not based on the money they get.

So apparently more money = instant election? Whut!? I missed that part! I should go rob a bank and run for President. Then I could pardon myself. Money helps, but if the people don't want you, you aren't going to win.

 

2. Get rid of all tax loopholes.

I approve.

 

3. Get rid of the federal reserve. Hopefully this would be done in the same bill tax loopholes are fixed in.

Hmm... I'm not sure about this. If we keep it, it needs overhauling, but I'm not entirely sure getting rid of it is the answer. I'm no economist.

 

4. Ban all government funding to multinational corporations. If you want help from the USA, then you can move to the USA.

I'm not a fan of government funding any company, barring DARPA. (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- they are the guys who paid for the Internet and all sorts of fun things like night vision. They are the ones who provide for a lot of the military advancement that helps keep us on top.)

 

5. Set up a tax funded healthcare system like in Canada.

No thank you. I'd rather not have to wait for three months to see a doctor about a life-threatening issue. While I know it can work well sometimes, I've seen it fail too often for things that really matter for me to be able to get behind it.

 

6. Get rid of the FCC, merge the FBI, CIA, and TSA into one group. Make strict laws in the FDA so that it would be impossible to work for the FDA if you ever worked in drug companies.

 

The FCC is a waste of money, it is pretty much just for censorship. The wireless safety checks can be done by the FDA. It might be a good idea to just change the FDA to the Product Safety Administration.

The FCC isn't quite the waste you think it is, and yes, it is there in part for censorship of what is considered questionably appropriate. And what the heck would the FDA know about wireless safety checks?

 

By merging the FBI and CIA it will be much better for in country investigations and out of country investigations. The merging of these groups should also save tax money.

No and no. Merging the organization just means more chaos. You'll still need just as many people, and honestly both of these groups need more than they have now. They are separate for the exact reason you think they're beneficial. The CIA is a no-holds 'git 'er done' organization intended to deal with what can't be dealt with otherwise and keeping information flowing regarding our assets, enemies and potential points of interest. The FBI is purely investigative for domestic crimes, they don't have the equipment to work internationally, nor the training or proficiency. Unless you want to combine the two organizations to save some money on bulletproof vests. (Now they can all just say FBI instead of needing FBI and CIA)

 

7. The USA military is too separate from the government at this point, there should be more laws regulating military actions.

They answer directly to Congress and the President. If they don't control them, that's their own fault. Autonomy is needed because most elected officials do not understand the basics of military tactics, much less how to efficiently operate a chain of command consisting of millions of people. And besides, under the War Powers Resolution, all that really needs to be done is 48 hours notice to Congress before boots hit the ground. From there, the President can operate for 60 days before needing Congressional approval.

 

8. Media companies should not be allowed to intentionally lie to their audience. This is one of the things people will disagree with a lot due to the 1st amendment, but if the media lies to people and changes their views the people will be tricked into doing and saying what the media wants.

Perhaps we should educate people not to be quite so stupid and easily convinced, then? I make a habit of checking their facts. I don't quote news organizations unless I'm making a point about the news. I go to the history books, eyewitness accounts, and official documents. But of course I'm not calling anyone stupid, I feel pity, if anything, for those who don't bother to check their facts. Then I correct them and set them on their way, for better or worse.

 

I agree that the government is corrupt, but I don't think they are the root of corruption. I think the root is the corporations.

[marharth]

Here we go again...

 

Its hard to say whats wrong with the federal system.

 

I only used the NRA as a example, I disagree with strong gun control. The NRA does however pay congress to keep gun control away.

They're lobbyists. It's what they do. They try to press their issues by whatever means they can. Schmoozing congressmen and women isn't illegal, last I checked. That being said, there's a difference between lobbying and bribery. While I'm not extremely intimate with the matters of the NRA, I don't believe they've crossed this line.

 

I don't think a bunch of local governments would help anymore then a strong federal government.

So... no government at all? Don't see where you're going with this statement. I'm for strong federal government, it's centralization which is important for maintaining what little sense of efficiency we have retained in our bureaucratic politics.

 

A federal government with power checks is harder to corrupt then a bunch of local systems.

So... the federal government IS actually better? I'm confused.

 

Sure the local systems may be less corrupt in data, but certain local systems may be badly corrupt.

Less corruption with more concentration..? Or more corruption with less concentration? And I'm not sure it really matters here.

 

I don't know if that made any sense since I am kinda multitasking right now, but what I am trying to say is that I don't think the federal government is the root.

I think the federal system is messed up due to the money and nothing more. I think the system would be fine without people paying them off.

Money... from where? From who? Their lack of money or what?

 

The federal government is only part of the corruption since the corporations are paying them.

"Them", "them", "them". Who is them? Senators and Representatives? Others involved in government, like law enforcement or municipal governments? Or maybe President Obama's receiving payment from the military contractors in exchange for giving them some business?

 

So I think then root is not the fed, but the root is the money they get from banks and companies.

They...?

 

Ill make a list of reform actions below to better show my views

 

1. Pass a bill to make campaigns fair, this would be done by giving a equal amount of money to each person running and would be paid for by taxes. Private donations would not be legal. This bill should also make it illegal to work for large corporations in a high paying position for a certain period after getting out of office.

Wait... so I'm not allowed to help the campaigner I want get into office because it wouldn't be fair? Life's not fair. I work and go to school, I don't have time to go out and hit the streets handing out pamphlets for his or her election. I give money to support the candidates I want, or towards causes I support.

 

By doing this it would greatly help so people could get into office based on values, and not based on the money they get.

So apparently more money = instant election? Whut!? I missed that part! I should go rob a bank and run for President. Then I could pardon myself. Money helps, but if the people don't want you, you aren't going to win.

 

2. Get rid of all tax loopholes.

I approve.

 

3. Get rid of the federal reserve. Hopefully this would be done in the same bill tax loopholes are fixed in.

Hmm... I'm not sure about this. If we keep it, it needs overhauling, but I'm not entirely sure getting rid of it is the answer. I'm no economist.

 

4. Ban all government funding to multinational corporations. If you want help from the USA, then you can move to the USA.

I'm not a fan of government funding any company, barring DARPA. (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- they are the guys who paid for the Internet and all sorts of fun things like night vision. They are the ones who provide for a lot of the military advancement that helps keep us on top.)

 

5. Set up a tax funded healthcare system like in Canada.

No thank you. I'd rather not have to wait for three months to see a doctor about a life-threatening issue. While I know it can work well sometimes, I've seen it fail too often for things that really matter for me to be able to get behind it.

 

6. Get rid of the FCC, merge the FBI, CIA, and TSA into one group. Make strict laws in the FDA so that it would be impossible to work for the FDA if you ever worked in drug companies.

 

The FCC is a waste of money, it is pretty much just for censorship. The wireless safety checks can be done by the FDA. It might be a good idea to just change the FDA to the Product Safety Administration.

The FCC isn't quite the waste you think it is, and yes, it is there in part for censorship of what is considered questionably appropriate. And what the heck would the FDA know about wireless safety checks?

 

By merging the FBI and CIA it will be much better for in country investigations and out of country investigations. The merging of these groups should also save tax money.

No and no. Merging the organization just means more chaos. You'll still need just as many people, and honestly both of these groups need more than they have now. They are separate for the exact reason you think they're beneficial. The CIA is a no-holds 'git 'er done' organization intended to deal with what can't be dealt with otherwise and keeping information flowing regarding our assets, enemies and potential points of interest. The FBI is purely investigative for domestic crimes, they don't have the equipment to work internationally, nor the training or proficiency. Unless you want to combine the two organizations to save some money on bulletproof vests. (Now they can all just say FBI instead of needing FBI and CIA)

 

7. The USA military is too separate from the government at this point, there should be more laws regulating military actions.

They answer directly to Congress and the President. If they don't control them, that's their own fault. Autonomy is needed because most elected officials do not understand the basics of military tactics, much less how to efficiently operate a chain of command consisting of millions of people. And besides, under the War Powers Resolution, all that really needs to be done is 48 hours notice to Congress before boots hit the ground. From there, the President can operate for 60 days before needing Congressional approval.

 

8. Media companies should not be allowed to intentionally lie to their audience. This is one of the things people will disagree with a lot due to the 1st amendment, but if the media lies to people and changes their views the people will be tricked into doing and saying what the media wants.

Perhaps we should educate people not to be quite so stupid and easily convinced, then? I make a habit of checking their facts. I don't quote news organizations unless I'm making a point about the news. I go to the history books, eyewitness accounts, and official documents. But of course I'm not calling anyone stupid, I feel pity, if anything, for those who don't bother to check their facts. Then I correct them and set them on their way, for better or worse.

 

I agree that the government is corrupt, but I don't think they are the root of corruption. I think the root is the corporations.

I pretty much stopped reading when I saw...

"Wait... so I'm not allowed to help the campaigner I want get into office because it wouldn't be fair? Life's not fair. I work and go to school, I don't have time to go out and hit the streets handing out pamphlets for his or her election. I give money to support the candidates I want, or towards causes I support."

 

I am trying to figure out how anyone can possibly thing its OK to pay someone so they can run more ads against their opponent and greatly increase their chance to win even if they are completely lairs...

 

Not sure if you knew but people have to use mass media to get elected now days, and you need money to run ads and campaign. I can assure you if you don't have money you have no chance of winning any election.

 

I was replying to someone else in context of what they said, so the federal and local government thing was addressed to them.

[grannywils]

I will try to tackle this thread with an open mind and not too broad a scope. There is so much to be said, but I will attempt to find one path to follow for now.

 

As mentioned earlier I truly believe that it is our duty as patriots to speak out for America; not only for the best in her, but when we see her flaws to try and help her improve them. America is my Country, and I would love to say that it is perfect, but unfortunately I cannot even come close. Do I want to go live somewhere else? Not on your life. But I do want to see us work towards a better America.

 

There have already been many interesting points made and discussed on a variety of subjects. Myrmaad made an interesting point by simply saying that the US has venerated and enshrined a wasteful, greedy, avaricious way of life.

 

And although I can agree with her to a large extent, I don't see that as the root of the problem but rather as one of many offshoots or symptoms, if you will.

 

Where did it all begin to go wrong? When this contry was founded by some of the brightest most foresighted men (because they were mostly men back then) their ideas and ideals if followed had the ability to create the greatest nation ever. If you really read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they are truly incredible documents. And, if followed, they benefit every single one of us even today.

 

Here is where I see the trouble beginning... Back then, and maybe for the first hundred years or so, we as a Nation took pride in those documents, and we more or less followed standards that they set. Yes, we squabbled over some very serious matters within; but our basic nature was to be the Nation we set out to be. There was pride of workmanship. We worked hard to improve ourselves, in education, in lifestyle, in making a better Nation for the future. We were proud of ourselves and of each other.

 

Somewhere along the line that began to change. It began to become more a matter of competition between us vs them; not only within the US, but outside of our borders. We wanted more in our own neighborhoods and around the world. Suddenly hard work and study were not enough. Instant gratification seemed easier. Let's take it from someone else, or blame him if we cannot get it right now.

 

We were becoming a stronger Nation, and of course became available to help out in conflicts abroad, and we did our part. That is not what I am referring to. I'm talking about our internal attitude. Pride of workmanship began to slip. Let's make more and do it cheaper became the new mantra. The worker became less important and he became less invested in doing the job the way his daddy would have done it, etc., etc., etc. Assembly lines came along, and maybe there were less jobs for skilled workers; so why bother taking real care in what you did. And maybe there were a few less jobs. So blame the "other" people coming along who might work for less, if you missed out on a job, etc., etc., etc. This was all happening very subtly and insidiously over the years. But gradually it became the norm.

 

This Nation that once took pride in what it did and in looking after itself and it's neighbors was now a Nation totally divided. It has never gone back to what the Writers of the Constitution had in mind. Government, in my opinion, has no clue what the Constitution means. And I would be willing to bet that a majority of the populice don't either, and more importantly don't care.

 

I'll stop for now. I have glossed over so much and left out so much and only touched the surface; but I was trying to start at the root (sort of the primordial ooze, as it were). I'd be interested to hear if anyone has any thoughts on the above.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RZ1029]

I pretty much stopped reading when I saw...

Well that's not very nice. I read all of your posts.

 

"Wait... so I'm not allowed to help the campaigner I want get into office because it wouldn't be fair? Life's not fair. I work and go to school, I don't have time to go out and hit the streets handing out pamphlets for his or her election. I give money to support the candidates I want, or towards causes I support."

 

I am trying to figure out how anyone can possibly thing its OK to pay someone so they can run more ads against their opponent and greatly increase their chance to win even if they are completely lairs...

In some ways you're right. In other ways, I understand a necessary evil and the fact that sometimes lies are what gets the job done. In case you didn't know, WWII was won through cleverly crafted lies. Oh, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, resolved with a lie to the face of the American public and a handshake behind their backs. I want the man or woman that gets the job done that I elected them to do: watch out for me and my rights and build the nation up. That being said, I have disdain for the political mudslinging that elections often devolve into and wish talking about anything other than what you're going to do just wasn't allowed.

 

I don't CARE that the other guy had an affair. I'm not putting him in charge of my personal life. I DO care that he's going to do this and this in the terms of health care reform, gun control, et cetera.

 

Not sure if you knew but people have to use mass media to get elected now days, and you need money to run ads and campaign. I can assure you if you don't have money you have no chance of winning any election.

Yes and yes. I am aware of both, or I wouldn't give money to support the candidates I like. That being said, I also know the power of the Internet and guarantee you that if you have enough support to stand a chance, you will get your screen time. Case in point: Mr. Donald Trump. He has money, yes, but he's not paying for most of his screen time, as far as I can tell.

 

I was replying to someone else in context of what they said, so the federal and local government thing was addressed to them.

Yeah, I figured that out after I re-read. Thanks for the clarification.

[Aurielius]

Maybe I shouldn't of said what I said about the flat tax or civilian service, I would like to know what your civilian service would be, and what your proposed flat tax rate would be.

First off why should only those that serve in the Military serve the country, do we all not benefit from the advantages of the nation? A civilian internal peace corps or a more modern WPA to reconstitute our infrastructure would be an advantage to the nation. There was a commonality of purpose to those in prior generations that shared a common experience that is currently lacking in the younger generation.

 

A flat tax rate as in what Ron Paul suggests would close the loopholes completely, there would be no need for reform after it's institution, corporations would have no avenue of escape and you might find that the revenues would be higher than they are currently.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Aurielius

[marharth]

Maybe I shouldn't of said what I said about the flat tax or civilian service, I would like to know what your civilian service would be, and what your proposed flat tax rate would be.

First off why should only those that serve in the Military serve the country, do we all not benefit from the advantages of the nation? A civilian internal peace corps or a more modern WPA to reconstitute our infrastructure would be an advantage to the nation. There was a commonality of purpose to those in prior generations that shared a common experience that is currently lacking in the younger generation.

 

A flat tax rate as in what Ron Paul suggests would close the loopholes completely, there would be no need for reform after it's institution, corporations would have no avenue of escape and you might find that the revenues would be higher than they are currently.

 

A flat tax would close the loopholes, but there are still ways to fix the loopholes in our current tax code.

 

The issue I have with a flat tax is that the poor will pay more taxes, and the rich will pay less.

 

I think people should help there country, but I don't think people should be forced to.

 

 

@RZ1029

 

The thing is that if someone has more money then the other person they can win based entirely on donations and not on what they beleive.

 

If both people running had the exact same money to run ads, they would be able to get into office based entirely on values.

[Aurielius]

Maybe I shouldn't of said what I said about the flat tax or civilian service, I would like to know what your civilian service would be, and what your proposed flat tax rate would be.

First off why should only those that serve in the Military serve the country, do we all not benefit from the advantages of the nation? A civilian internal peace corps or a more modern WPA to reconstitute our infrastructure would be an advantage to the nation. There was a commonality of purpose to those in prior generations that shared a common experience that is currently lacking in the younger generation.

 

A flat tax rate as in what Ron Paul suggests would close the loopholes completely, there would be no need for reform after it's institution, corporations would have no avenue of escape and you might find that the revenues would be higher than they are currently.

 

A flat tax would close the loopholes, but there are still ways to fix the loopholes in our current tax code.

There have been revisions in the tax code for as long as there has been a tax code and it's still has more loopholes than ever, when I was young it was possible to figure out your own taxes,do you know anyone that does by themselves without some assistance?

 

The issue I have with a flat tax is that the poor will pay more taxes, and the rich will pay less.

The rich would have no loopholes or safe havens to bypass their taxes.

 

I think people should help there country, but I don't think people should be forced to.

Just as long as it is someone else sacrificing themselves for their country and not you? The Military risks their lives but you don't want to risk your time?

 

 

[marharth]

Maybe I shouldn't of said what I said about the flat tax or civilian service, I would like to know what your civilian service would be, and what your proposed flat tax rate would be.

First off why should only those that serve in the Military serve the country, do we all not benefit from the advantages of the nation? A civilian internal peace corps or a more modern WPA to reconstitute our infrastructure would be an advantage to the nation. There was a commonality of purpose to those in prior generations that shared a common experience that is currently lacking in the younger generation.

 

A flat tax rate as in what Ron Paul suggests would close the loopholes completely, there would be no need for reform after it's institution, corporations would have no avenue of escape and you might find that the revenues would be higher than they are currently.

 

A flat tax would close the loopholes, but there are still ways to fix the loopholes in our current tax code.

There have been revisions in the tax code for as long as there has been a tax code and it's still has more loopholes than ever, when I was young it was possible to figure out your own taxes,do you know anyone that does by themselves without some assistance?

 

The issue I have with a flat tax is that the poor will pay more taxes, and the rich will pay less.

The rich would have no loopholes or safe havens to bypass their taxes.

 

I think people should help there country, but I don't think people should be forced to.

Just as long as it is someone else sacrificing themselves for their country and not you? The Military risks their lives but you don't want to risk your time?

 

 

The military volunteer to do what they do.

 

I don't feel like killing myself over a few pointless wars, some people choose to fight in the wars.

 

I also don't want to spend my time working for a country when I didn't choose to be born in it.

 

Most people work more then half of their lives anyways.

 

 

The rich wouldn't have loopholes, but a flat tax would be the same tax rate for everyone and not a percentage.

 

That would mean the bottom would get taxed more, and the top would be taxed less in comparison to their overall wealth.

[Aurielius]

The military volunteer to do what they do.

I don't feel like killing myself over a few pointless wars, some people choose to fight in the wars.

I also don't want to spend my time working for a country when I didn't choose to be born in it.

Most people work more then half of their lives anyways.

 

 

You once posited the statement that people think you hate America, I don't think thats the case, you just don't give a damn. No one is asking you to fight, just fix up the country or is that too much effort? It seems the only thing that you feel is your due is a free ride without any troublesome civic contributions. If you feel that you are so 'hard done' by being born in America, there is always emigration to another country.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Aurielius