It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What America needs... based on who you are...

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: dukeofjive696969


Just make it a 6 year term and no re election, 6 year is enough to make a difference and not long enough to fill up your pockets with billions of dollars.


I agree, after all, shouldn't political positions be temporary and not a life long career?




posted on Aug, 7 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
As long as we don't vote for people sponsored by minecraft etc. But we will. we are dumb.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Change Presidency Term limits to 1 Week, No Re-election possible.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 01:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: AshFan
a reply to: MystikMushroom

How about living your life, paying a flat 15% flat tax on income? Wait... before you criticize... we cut out lifetime secret service for corrupt past officials, we make politicians pay their own health insurance, we cut out every program designed to corrupt and control or just waste money so your friends get a juicy salary! Just doing that, we pay off China, thell them to F off, and start making OUR kids build our Iphones and tennis shoes!




But then you have to add in SS deductions, Medicare deductions, FICA deductions, State and/or county income tax, and any goofy local taxes that get imposed like my location where we have things randomly pop up like an "art tax" or constant "school tax" deductions. When you make a lot of money these are an insignificant percentage of your income because the deductions are capped. When you make almost no money these deductions make up a massive chunk of your paycheck.

So the poor still get screwed. Not to mention when a person is already on the verge of being homeless 15% of their income means that they will be, when a person is wealthy 15% of their income doesn't hamper in any way their ability to provide the basic necessities of modern life. The best way to ignore and minimize the reality of the situation is to only focus on numbers and think equal numbers means equal effect for the people represented by those numbers, but it doesn't.

A better way would be to do away will all personal income tax period, and only tax commercial profit, imports, etc. and then limit the things the government has its sticky fingers in so they don't need so damn much money to function. Start with making people's personal income totally off-limits and then figure everything else out from there. Any situation where government is sticking it's hand in the pocket of someone just trying to survive is untenable, and anyone comparing that situation to taxing a corporation with overwhelming wealth ought to reevaluate their moral compass.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
How about local city positions are filled like jury duty. Your name gets picked, you serve on the city council for a year or two. Totally random.

"Ah man, I got called to serve on the city council..."

"Well, it's more interesting that jury duty..."

Just an idea I had.


That's all fine and dandy until the village idiot and a few of his buddies are selected at the same time and next thing you know there's a city code that only allows Busch Light to be sold in stores and no less than 35" mudders on your pickup.

We'd have to have a system in place to ensure diversity in opinions.


It seems to be that if we can trust the jury selection process to decide whether we live or die, it should be adequate to run a city or county for four years at a time.
We already have the system you describe handed to us by the political party system in many localities and certainly in DC. It's beyond sick, it's dead, rotten and stinking.
I've long advocated the abolition of political parties to cut campaign spending. Shorten the campaign cycle to 90 days.
I would also like to see abolition of the lifetime appointment of the Black-Robed Tribe.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gestas
Change Presidency Term limits to 1 Week, No Re-election possible.


I got one better. You become president you have one term and afterwards you die as a patriot doing something for the good of the nation.



posted on Aug, 8 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
We also need a pension cap and logical security arrangement that will end the gravy train.
All laws made are APPLICABLE to those who make them,NO EXCEPTIONS because of staion in government,unless it's a neccessary function to the job.
AUTHORIZED secure points they may take vacations ONLY so the security bill will be cheaper as well.
ALL favors would be MONITORED by AGs who were gleaned from the services,NOTHING is more thorough that a SENIOR NCO.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Ok, so we are agreed.

Term limits for all public office
Eliminate electoral college
Eliminate the FED
Same flat tax % for all
Remove the letter "C" from the English language, as we already have an "S" and a "K"
Legalize all drugs, let natural selection sort it out
Lower drinking age to 18
Raise the legal age for Sugar intake to 18

LET IT BE DONE!!



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
We need:

1) Flat tax. No deductions or loop holes. The tax code needs to be simplified so politicians can't use it to dole out favors.
2) Two term limits. None of this career politician BS. If you can't get it done in two terms, it isn't getting done.
3) Voter Test. Must be able to pass simple civics test.



Disagree on 3 as voteing is a right not a privilege.

If guns are a fundamental right in the USA so should voteing.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
We also need a pension cap and logical security arrangement that will end the gravy train.
All laws made are APPLICABLE to those who make them,NO EXCEPTIONS because of staion in government,unless it's a neccessary function to the job.
AUTHORIZED secure points they may take vacations ONLY so the security bill will be cheaper as well.
ALL favors would be MONITORED by AGs who were gleaned from the services,NOTHING is more thorough that a SENIOR NCO.


Why should politicians get special security?

They should rely on the same public services as the public.

Plus if they get assassinated they were obviously doing a # job.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert
we do, it's called the bill of rights. the majority should never run over the minority's rights. but if you are worried, there could be two ways to prevent the true village idiot from being appointed.
one would restrict the lottery to those with at least a ged/high school diploma and a sound mind.
the other could be that all major decisions are voted on by the people.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok
actually most of our assassinated presidents were doing a fairly good job, for the people, which is why they were assassinated. many, if not all, were trying to disarm the central bank and bring the money printing back into constitutional conformity.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
If they weren't all criminals they would not need protection. They would be beloved


originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
We also need a pension cap and logical security arrangement that will end the gravy train.
All laws made are APPLICABLE to those who make them,NO EXCEPTIONS because of staion in government,unless it's a neccessary function to the job.
AUTHORIZED secure points they may take vacations ONLY so the security bill will be cheaper as well.
ALL favors would be MONITORED by AGs who were gleaned from the services,NOTHING is more thorough that a SENIOR NCO.


Why should politicians get special security?

They should rely on the same public services as the public.

Plus if they get assassinated they were obviously doing a # job.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Bad guys would STILL exist,but its a wonderful thought I agree.
I want to separate cash from responsability.



posted on Aug, 9 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I want to separate on the take politicians from life.


originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: crazyewok

Bad guys would STILL exist,but its a wonderful thought I agree.
I want to separate cash from responsability.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 01:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: AshFan
Term limits for ALL political office, no more cults of personality, or shared bribery. No electoral college, no longer needed, communications advances have made this just a tool for the elite to control us. No more Federal reserve, um wake up FED we understand that scam at least.


I disagree. There are some real benefits to not having term limits. Most notably, it allows for someone to be a career politician. Being a career politician means you're making moves that ultimately don't piss off your constituency. A politician facing a term limit knows they'll be out of a job in X years. That incentivizes them to offer kickbacks to various corporations in exchange for easy paychecks once they're out of office. A politician who is always fighting to stay in office doesn't get nearly as much leeway.

When it comes to bribery, I agree it's a problem I just disagree on the solution. Bribery is already illegal, and there are already campaign finance and personal finance disclosures. We've already outlawed it and due diligence is done. The fix is to pay the politicians more than the person bribing them. Who is a politician going to listen to? The people paying them $200,000 a year that say they're getting too much or the people paying them $2,000,000 per year who say they're not being paid enough? Don't discount the spending power of the populace. For an additional $10 on your taxes you could make the lobbyists spend an additional $7.3 million to maintain spending parity with each person in congress. For $100 you could make them spend $73 million on each of those 435 members. That type of spending disparity adds up quickly and ends lobbying influence. Then once the politicians are again serving the people, you'll easily make the money back up in improved legislation.

The electoral college is another important facet of politics. The states need to stand somewhat equally with each other while still accounting for differences in population. If we go purely by the popular vote New York and California get to dictate who is in office while the people in Iowa and Montana essentially have taxation without representation. I do agree that the winner take all system is flawed and think that we should move to a proportional vote, but the college itself fills an important role.

As far as the Federal Reserve goes, congress would need to be functional first, which goes back to point #2.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 01:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
How about local city positions are filled like jury duty. Your name gets picked, you serve on the city council for a year or two. Totally random.

"Ah man, I got called to serve on the city council..."

"Well, it's more interesting that jury duty..."

Just an idea I had.


So you don't want intelligent qualified people that have an interest in serving the public good on your local city council? With the corruption rampant in politics today, what do you think the average person is going to do?

I'll tell you what they're going to do, they're going to hold their hands out to every special interest group out there that claims to have the answers for them.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I agree with you. I don't see any benefit in term limits.

It raises it's head based on guys that have been there for a while that the 'other side' don't like.

The other downside is losing good guys that otherwise would have been a positive to remain in office.



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   
*sigh* too much to say, this is long.


originally posted by: Kratos40
a reply to: AshFan
I totally agree. Especially with the electoral college nonsense. Why does my vote need to get filtered? Why are the Koch brothers allowed to give so much money to political interests? Is this legal? Is this justified? Is it part of the Constitution?

Why is the Supreme Court so partisan? How and when did it start?


I already covered the electoral college.

Why are the Koch's allowed to do what they're doing? Citizen's United is a large reason, but not the only one. It is legal, it is not justified, and in 5-15 years it will likely not be legal. As for the question of the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court who has the job of interpreting the Constitution, it is in fact part of it on the basis that using your money to promote your views is part of free speech.


originally posted by: AshFan
And when did we decide to let the executive branch have so much power? Is our new policy "Checks and balances unless there is an executive order?


Executive Orders are within a Presidents powers, and fall within the guidelines of checks and balances. The Executive Branch has the job of clarifying laws. Congress passes them while the Supreme Court determines if they're legal. The Executive however enforces them, and part of enforcing them involves articulating what you will enforce. For example, Congress can pass a law stating drivers must stop at red lights. The President cannot change this once it has become a law, but the president can change the scope of the law such that the law becomes "drivers shorter than 5' 2" must stop at red lights" or "drivers must stop at red lights unless they're driving a Camero". For that matter, President Obama has used EO's a below average number of times, and on the subject of Presidental power he has done a lot to remove much of the power grab that was enacted under Bush. The Presidency is weaker right now than it has been in a good 30 years, and possibly since Ford.


originally posted by: dawnstar
the other could be that all major decisions are voted on by the people.


The people are not qualified to make major decisions. That is why we are a republic. The idea is that we can vote in qualified people who can make decisions, or atleast be advised by those in the field. Lets give a simple example. What would your foreign policy be with Russia? How does that relate to Kazakhastan, Mongolia, Ukraine, and Finland? How does Russia's policy in those countries influence your actions towards Russia? Or how about another. How does the relationship between China and Vietnam influence Americas actions in the South China Sea? I'm betting that in order to answer any of that you would need to look some stuff up and even after you do look up the nuances in these issues you are still not an expert on foreign policy. Doesn't it make much more sense that people who are experts on those regions make the decisions?



posted on Aug, 10 2015 @ 07:43 AM
link   
A full disclosure.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join