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.

 

If the Conservative Movement succeeds then What? My response!

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
In terms of a tax overhaul, I wouldn't want to see a 'flat' tax, but rather a consumption tax. I have been researching different tax scheme ideas in response to this. I will get back with something.

Great thread Endisnighe. Good job on rescinding the mandatory stuff.




posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
It is mandatory to get immunization shots.
For the common good and welfare of others and self.

It is mandatory to attend school.
Again common and self welfare.

Mandatory for car indurance.
Again common welfare.

Is it in the common welfare, since a Constitutional Represenative Republic relies on a citizen army against enemies both foreign and domestic, for everyone to know how to operate and possess a firearm?

Is it in the common welfare that all able bodied citizens know the militry routine? Before it is ever needed?

Ask Adolph why he did not march through Switzerland on two opportunities during WWII.

Is it in the common welfare in a majority rules country that the majority in fact do rule? Via the vote?


So liberty loving posters do not like the word mandatory.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


EDIT TO ADD: You throw around the Common Welfare clause in the way that current politicians throw it around. You are misconstruing the meaning and intent. May I suggest you brush up on the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers (as was suggested earlier in this thread) to understand what the Founding Fathers were meaning by "Common Welfare".

The only reason it is 'mandatory' to get immunizations is typically because your child is attending a school or you are in the military. The child one I believe is even suspect because I believe one can get around the mandatory part by claiming religious reason. I am not positive about that, but I know there are loop holes to it. -- OR -- you are home schooled.....you do not need to get immunized, so where is the MANDATORY requirement you speak of?

It is not mandatory you obtain car insurance. Don't own a car, guess what? You do not need to buy car insurance. Big difference there.

To suggest that one must be forced into military service just so we have people that are aware of military tactics and song and dance is silly.

As is stands right now, the vast majority of people that have served and have been discharged are retained for an additional amount of time as Inactive Reserves. That means the thousands of people who are getting out of the military have the knowledge and also obligation to heed the call if the Inactive Reserves were ever activated.

There is not a need to force military training upon anyone and especially to invoke Hitler.

What other mandatory statutes would like to see? Since you have no problem proposing your mandatory ideas, I have one. It is mandatory for you to register with the Federal Government your political affiliation. Now do you see where mandatory requirements lead? Mandatory goes against liberty, not with it.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by ownbestenemy]



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


That is what I meant by a flat tax, that is why the food exemption is removed. I will edit that now to be a flat sales tax.

Sorry for the mis-communication on my part.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe
>snip<

7 - All illegal immigrants will be given a 6 month window to sell all assets they do not want to take with them. They will be allowed to hold their current positions as long as that window remains open. We will pass a law that will give a fine of .5% of value of the business for hiring an illegal after this time. Also for each illegal hired, the corporate owner and board will be given a 60 day minimum sentence. Each additional offense the punishment will be tripled. End of problem with illegal aliens. And we did not even have to punish the poor illegals.edit add-immigration issue is up in the air, need to cuss and discuss

8 - All future immigration will be only allowed as placement for employment. If unemployment is high, no immigration will be allowed.edit add-immigration issue is up in the air, need to cuss and discuss


#7... How about amending your proposal to include something to the effect of "Alternately, employers wishing to retain any employee discovered to be in the country illegally can apply for a fast-tracked working visa / green card on the employee(s)' behalf. However, the employer must bear the cost of the proceedings and any associated legal cost(s) without affect to the immigrant in lieu of the aforementioned penalty. Employees approved and brought into current legal working status are exempted from current federal minimum wage guidelines until such time as the employee becomes a legal resident and completes a full application for naturalization citizenship at their personal expense. Employees not approved for said working visa will exit their employment and the country voluntarily, without delay, and are eligible to apply for re-entry no sooner than 90 days following the verified date of their transition out of the country.

#8 Instead of coupling immigration to employment as you suggest, I propose the following- Legal immigration will be allowed however those immigrants seeking work in addition to residence either at the time of immigration or at some later date prior to becoming a naturalized citizen must apply separately and receive approval for work eligibility status and their eligibility is determined by local unemployment statistics. Those approved for worker status are not subject to minimum wage regulations until such time as they become naturalized citizens. Employers must also defer positions to eligible persons in this order- first consideration given to citizens, whether natural born or naturalized, second consideration given to immigrants with eligible worker status. Employers who hire eligible immigrants without first attempting to locate citizen(s) or knowingly hires an eligible immigrant in lieu of hiring a willing citizen, will be subject to a penalty as follows: a) immigrant earns less than legal minimum wage- 200% of the amount required per pay period to bring the immigrant's wage to the minimum wage; or b) immigrant earns equivalent to or more than the legal minimum wage- 20% of the immigrant's wage.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by endisnighe

  • Any and all future laws will be required to be posted on line 7 days prior to any vote. All laws will be required to be in final form and will be required to written in common sense and common law verbiage. No pork will be allowed to be attached to any bill. Pork will be voted on on a per case basis period.edit add-constitutional justification necessary also, if no justification-no law


  • Suggest:
    All laws are required to be 25 pages or less and shall include no items that are not directly related to the primary subject matter of the law.



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:20 PM
    link   
    reply to post by abecedarian
     


    Okay, give me a little time to break that one down.


    The immigration issue is a big one.

    I am more inclined to keep these issues as simple as possible.

    I feel no ill will toward immigrants. None have taken my job or many other Americans. But I feel something must be done about the illegal type immigrants. They broke our laws coming to this country.

    I would consider a provision that allowed them to stay if they have not done any illegal acts while here and a position of employment is available and willing to sponsor them as a citizen. That could be a work around.

    I know I will not make very many people happy with some of my positions.

    I am trying to be flexible but we (everyone in the US) need to consider all ramifications of allowing the illegals to stay.

    The argument that they are not taking jobs from citizens is an untrue statement. If they were not here these jobs would either cease to exist or the pay would have to be raised. I feel jobs that cannot support a person in our country should not even exist than.

    Let me rehash my thoughts on this.



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:21 PM
    link   
    reply to post by endisnighe
     


    That is exactly what i was hoping you would say. You sir are a true defender of the constitution.



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:24 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

    Originally posted by endisnighe

  • Any and all future laws will be required to be posted on line 7 days prior to any vote. All laws will be required to be in final form and will be required to written in common sense and common law verbiage. No pork will be allowed to be attached to any bill. Pork will be voted on on a per case basis period.edit add-constitutional justification necessary also, if no justification-no law


  • Suggest:
    All laws are required to be 25 pages or less and shall include no items that are not directly related to the primary subject matter of the law.


    Good call on the subject matter. Will add that a new law will pertain only to the main subject matter of the submitted bill. Will leave out the page limit, just noticed I had place a dollar value in my tax component. I need to tie that to a real value.



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:29 PM
    link   
    reply to post by endisnighe
     
    Just adding my thoughts. I found your proposition to remove all illegals without offering some method to become legal and remain in situ to be a little harsh, but only a little. Though I personally think they should be removed I am not without compassion.

    Likewise I though the ban on immigration unless unemployment statistics could support it to be harsh too. What of those people who have married a citizen while the citizen were abroad and wanted to emigrate here? If they were coming to be say a simple house-wife, and not seeking a job, why should they not have the means to come? However, I do recognize that this could be a means to get in and then work illegally hence the requirement to apply for work status separately and the provisions to employers regarding hiring an eligible worker over a citizen.



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:40 PM
    link   
    reply to post by abecedarian
     


    Yes, I am working on the immigration component. This is probably the biggest problem I am going to come across on this thread.

    I believe I have an inkling of a compromise.

    I think if a citizen or a company wants to sponsor an illegal, this may be a solution. Still working out the details in my mind on that.

    As for future immigrants and current, some of the existing standards are quite sufficient to continue on, I just would like the numbers to be tied to the ability of our country to absorb them.

    Give me some ideas. Work out some stipulations. A previous commenter really went to town and I am still working out their post.

    edit to add-sorry that was you
    Damn I need some sleep, came home after a long day and have not left the terminal for many hours. Sometimes my brain does not want to shut down though.

    [edit on 1/2/2010 by endisnighe]



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 03:54 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by endisnighe
    reply to post by abecedarian
     




    I feel no ill will toward immigrants. None have taken my job or many other Americans. But I feel something must be done about the illegal type immigrants. They broke our laws coming to this country.

    I would consider a provision that allowed them to stay if they have not done any illegal acts while here and a position of employment is available and willing to sponsor them as a citizen. That could be a work around.

    I know I will not make very many people happy with some of my positions.

    I am trying to be flexible but we (everyone in the US) need to consider all ramifications of allowing the illegals to stay.

    The argument that they are not taking jobs from citizens is an untrue statement. If they were not here these jobs would either cease to exist or the pay would have to be raised. I feel jobs that cannot support a person in our country should not even exist than.

    Let me rehash my thoughts on this.


    I don't think you could get more sensible than that. We all know that one of the things that makes our nation great is that we have many cultures merging and uniting to form a unique identity. How many other nations will you find Jews sky diving with devout Arab-Muslim immigrants ( that is my personal experience believe it or not)? Where else will you find Mexicans and Japanese people partying together for an Irish holiday?

    The fact that there are illegals in this nation who came here because they genuinely wanted to be Americans and forge a greater life for either themselves, their children or their relatives is not that bad of a thing. Unfortunately Americans do lose jobs to illegal immigrants. Perhaps they are not the best jobs in the world but they are still jobs none the less.

    My family owns a restaurant in new jersey and we mostly hired Costa Ricans and mexicans, many of whom were questionable on there "legal" status. From first hand experience i know that these people come to our nation for two reasons. They love the USA ( half of our kitchen staff cried on 9/11, it was very moving to see them display such compassion for our nation and from that moment on i considered them true americans) and they want to make an honest living. I can't wish to deny them that because i am afraid of them getting hired as janitors or food service people. I want these people to have a fair shot at ascending the ranks of the american dream but i do not want them to do it at the expense of American Born citizens.

    Anyways i think i may have gone a little off topic here. I think the company sponsorship idea is the best track to go with ( or to at least start with) because this way both parties are protected, the company gets to keep the worker and the worker gets to keep his company. BUT we have to take into consideration that companies may prefer to fire the "illegal" in favor of avoiding the citizenship-process. I propose that we offer a protection clause to prevent the illegal from losing his job and chance at sponsorship. This to me looks like the toughest part of the illegal issue, protecting the illegals natural rights vs the companies constitutional and natural rights. Businesses can fire people for whatever reason they want so long as they do it within the persons legal rights. For example you could fire a black guy for being black but say it was because he arrived at work late.



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:16 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by fmcanarney
    25. Make possession of and proficency with a firearm mandatory.

    26. mandatory to vote.

    27. high school dropouts must join military or community service jobs.

    28. if you expel illegal immigrants maybe the multitude of unemployed government workers can fill those positions.

    29. end lobbying and pac's and special interest groups.




    [edit on 2-1-2010 by fmcanarney]


    Well I do not like 25,26,27 - heres why, they are compulsory upon an individual, would also require federal enforcement...

    27 would also not be good for artistic professions which was RECOGNIZED by the founding fathers as an important asset to this society. I think leaving these two options
    open, making drop outs first in line???

    The rest look good



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:30 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Janky Red
     


    So Janky. what do you think of MY list?

    Can you think of any that you think should be added, removed or modified?

    I am still working on the immigration issue. Still cannot decide on how I would handle that.



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:41 PM
    link   
    End, Are you sure you are not a socialist liberal POS marxist?

    I am a LIBERAL and I would say you proposals are very much in line with what I
    support. Much more controlling then what I would have thought, but great regardless...
    My FAVORITE is making a distinction between the INDIVIDUAL and the corporate,
    you are my hero now, may all American be infected with this wisdom sir!

    The only one that bugs me is the Federal licensing one - could you make a claus that could still allow for creative licensing at a federal level, such as literature, MUSIC, fine art and sigh,,, film?

    These things are investments of time and tremendous risk, if you cannot make some measly living you cannot have the freedom (time) to develop skill to the levels we all
    enjoy in our tunes and books.

    Oh and you might want to find a way to limit compounded interest and contractual legal
    jargon that is used to screw over people who might already have a hiccup in their finances, paying back is fair, but turning a hiccup into AIDS is not IMO.

    You commie you!



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:46 PM
    link   
    Oh and maybe not allow the politicians to bury pork and NON RELATED appropriations into their bills... Or is that covered?



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:58 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by Janky Red
    Oh and maybe not allow the politicians to bury pork and NON RELATED appropriations into their bills... Or is that covered?


    Oh yeah, that is definitely covered.




    12. Any and all future laws will be required to be posted on line 7 days prior to any vote. All laws will be required to be in final form and will be required to written in common sense and common law verbiage. No pork will be allowed to be attached to any bill. Pork will be voted on on a per case basis period.edit add-constitutional justification necessary also, if no justification-no law; additionally the submitted bill will only have related language pertinent to the legislation at hand to eliminate riders





    The only one that bugs me is the Federal licensing one - could you make a claus that could still allow for creative licensing at a federal level, such as literature, MUSIC, fine art and sigh,,, film?


    What I meant by licensing is not in regards to ownership or rights but of permitting and licensing for the rights of business. Remember all of the discussion about Capitalism? I would try to open up the ability to create new businesses by relaxing the licensing structure back to the states.

    [edit on 1/2/2010 by endisnighe]



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:02 PM
    link   

    Originally posted by endisnighe
  • A flat tax based on sales will be introduced.


  • I believe an overhaul of our tax code is indeed needed and should be top priority. As you have clarified in another post, not really a flat tax, but rather a consumption based tax.

    This area I believe has been researched by far smarter people than me and I for one stand by the idea of a FairTax type of proposal. I am still researching this type of tax scheme.

    Some of the idea in a consumption based taxing model make a lot of sense, as it takes away the power of the Federal Government via the IRS to use a taxing structure to social engineer whenever they feel they need to.

    Again, now that I have picked something to promote and push, I will be further reading the Pros/Cons of such a scheme.



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:09 PM
    link   
    reply to post by Janky Red
     



    End, Are you sure you are not a socialist liberal POS marxist?

    I am a LIBERAL and I would say you proposals are very much in line with what I
    support. Much more controlling then what I would have thought, but great regardless...
    My FAVORITE is making a distinction between the INDIVIDUAL and the corporate,
    you are my hero now, may all American be infected with this wisdom sir!


    You know, I also noticed a lot that myself (a leftist) most certainly agreed with. It's funny, if you get down to the core issues, the majority of right-wingers actually agreed with left-leaning libertarians ideals.



    posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 05:14 PM
    link   
    reply to post by fmcanarney
     


    I have to say that everyone so far hates the idea of mandatory.

    Mandatory anything. They kind of won me over kind of easily.

    Freedom is a Responsibility I know. It is also easily lost, that is why I liked the idea of mandatory voting. It would at least get the people at least slightly involved in their responsibility to protect their rights.

    I guess the civic minded in us will have to step up the effort.

    One person had an idea, of a fourth branch of government made up of randomly selected citizens that their only responsibility would be to examine any and all accusations of governmental intrusions into the wrong side of their powers. Breaking the Constitutional rights of citizens.

    I actually really like that idea.



    new topics

    top topics



     
    25
    << 1    3  4  5 >>

    log in

    join