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.

 

ATS: Stick your head in the sand!!! Woo!!! Yeah!!!

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   
The other day a thread got 170 flags for stating that TPTB want us all discussing important issues, instead of burying our heads in the sand. The solution was to forget the important stuff and focus on chasing unicorns and butterflies, over the rainbow, instead of maybe focusing on solutions for a true change rather than just the darkness itself.

The irony was that the night before I posted a thread offering a 'new' solution that might just be the one total solution (we each choose item by item what we're willing to pay taxes for), combined with some other good solutions, while asking for even more good solution ideas.

The stick your head in the sand thread got 170 flags and 12 pages of replies. My solutions thread got 3 flags and FIVE replies total.

No this isn't about complaining that my thread got totally ignored, and no it isn't about KILLING elected officials. Instead it's about a rally cry to get people focused on solutions instead of problems alone, and perhaps actually motivating the masses with these solutions... AND my solution is about marginalizing the power of elected officials to the point of them being almost irrelevant.

I see very few threads on ATS, or articles out elsewhere for that matter, that focus on actual solutions. Pick any subject, and this 'constant' likely applies.

As Einstien said:

The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.


This is the 21st Century folks, and I propose a solution that can put an end to majority of our problems:
Tax Form Funding Check Boxes:

If you don't support something, don't elect (for yourself) to pay for it! Currently the "elected" Congress / President are completely off the charts funding endless things that if The People had an actual choice they themselves wouldn't fund.

They often say "vote with your pocketbook". I say lets take that concept to the extreme. Imagine if on your IRS form instead of focusing on the check-boxes of 'dependents' you claim, the majority of the ordeal would be a compendium of all of the various things government does, and taxes us for. The form would be more like a book. In the reality of the situation, there would be so much that people would only have time to flip through trying to find things they actually support.

I argue that this alone would solve pretty much everything. In fact, it would almost negate the need for congress critters and the office of the president, especially as we know it.

"Elected" officials are the root cause of our problems as far as I'm concerned. They supposedly voted in things like the income taxes, and the Federal Reserve Act. Citizens didn't vote for those things. They voted for some chumps that then served their own personal interests in whatever they got out of all that. Today, these same sorts of crony lowlifes are the gatekeepers to shutting it all down, while causing immeasurable other problems.

The libertarian / capitalist type arguments against socialism / communism being flawed because the concepts overlook human nature are correct. But they also fail to actually completely solve those same problems.

This is the 21st Century, and I'm ready for a real change. My concept wasn't even possible 200 years ago. Today it is. And this one is relevant unlike all of the bogus claims 'law makers' attempt to use to justify everything they do that circumvents the Bill of Rights etc.

Even if corruption were a non-issue about half of everyone (who actually votes) still lose: You "vote" for some (basically always establishment hacks)... oh but then you LOSE. Now that other douche is on Capital Hill voting for spending on things you likely won't agree with, and you'll be taxed for it.

And agreement is the biggest lesson I've learned about trying to affect massive social change. If people don't agree then you wont get too far in radical change. We NEED radical change, but it's hopeless in all that I've studied to find radical change that the overwhelming majority will agree upon. In fact, if most agree that a proposed change is still futile then they'll agree to go back to bed, America.

With my 'new' concept people who want certain things to happen can still pay for them to. It's like when you call the phone+internet+cable-tv company: you can choose just Internet, or everything if you're willing to pay for it.

Although I detest 'emotional wedge issues', I do often point out how it's unfair that people who don't support abortion are forced to pay for abortion related programs. If it were the other way around, and abortion were outlawed, should avid abortion supporters be forced to pay for anti-abortion programs? Considering this concept again recently brought me to the conclusion of this case point.

Imagine all of the issues. Now imagine all of those who avidly support them, and nastily don't. One example: millions of people are rightfully obsessed with having a new 9/11 investigation. Let them! Let them opt to pay for it, or ignore it. Or consider Global Warming. Vast amounts of government funding goes towards things related to that issue. Hey, if people want to pay for such things, let them. But don't force everyone else to. If people didn't have to be taxed to death in relation to things they don't support, what damage would it do for others to do so?

Who couldn't agree on a system where we can still financially support the things we like, and not fund the things we don't?

Supplements to this concept would be Electronic Direct Democracy, where ALL laws are voted on by actual citizens, and Congress critters have to on their suits wear the logos of the groups and corporations that fund them. Then you know who their propaganda represents. Sure, try to motivate us to favor things, just so long as we know who it is that funds you so we can actually know where you're coming from.

I suppose we'd still want some role for elected officials, but not to dictate everything there is to be decided on. They can still draft legislative proposals, and the like, but not dictate them. That should be up to US. And of course we'd want tons of watchdog groups.

This is my big idea. What are yours? Any flaws in mine, lets iron them out! The list of problems we face is too large for any single person, but we all can attempt to strategize solutions for the problems we do know a lot about, and help each other find the flaws and further solutions in the problems think up.

PS: If 'my' 'checkbox' idea here isn't a new one, please let me know!


[edit on 12-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   
I love the ideas, and tell me if I misunderstood, but I'll try to sum them up from my understanding :

- On tax forms, the individual chooses where his money goes. I have long been a fan of this idea and it's just too common sense to not have. We want a democracy where each person counts? This is it.

- An online voting of each issue. While ideally this would be fantastic and solve about every problem with our corrupt government, it would be virtually impossible to keep corruption out of this. It wouldn't take much at all for the government to just change the votes to match their needs. Hell, this is what they're doing now. Maybe it's not fair to fight an argument with "Well, that will just be corrupted eventually" when you look at the mess we're in.

Maybe our "elected officials" could just be in control of verifying all of the online votes, with open enrollment organizations for citizens to verify and check their work. Each county and/or state could have their own online voting where the names of each voter are taken? But SHOULD the names be taken? I just dunno about this one. As I said, I like the idea but think it would be too easy to manipulate by TPTB.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:16 PM
link   
sounds good to me! mY VOTE WOULD BE TO stop the wars now!.Wow! How much extra money would be left to create real jobs?

On the other hand, with the Supreme Courts decision on Citizen's United vs. The Federal Election Committee, I don't care what they say, our politician's are BOUGHT OFF by big business. It's been then way for a long time. Now they just don't give a damn about hiding it from us because they believe there is nothing we can do about it and they're rubbing our noses in it.

Obama this, Obama that. Like it would be different with McCain or Palin as president. What a jobke. POTUS is NOT in charge. The acronym should be Puppet of the United States.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 



The form would be more like a book. In the reality of the situation, there would be so much that people would only have time to flip through trying to find things they actually support.


What happens if a necessity gets very little support?

Let's say military or roads.


for solutions



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
For years I thought we should be able to decide where we want our money to go to. Great thread! We need some changes desperately.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
RAISE TARIFFS.

You can eliminate all taxes in this country and you will never be able to compete with slave labor...we will continue to outsource jobs until we raise our tariffs....either that or accept slave labor ourselves.

There is no way around it. Change the laws or we LOSE.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by David9176]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 



The form would be more like a book. In the reality of the situation, there would be so much that people would only have time to flip through trying to find things they actually support.


What happens if a necessity gets very little support?

Let's say military or roads.


for solutions


Your going to have to still have a base tax going to necesities like roads, fire departments, etc. But much could be voted on. As far as the military, the fact that 47% + war costs of our GDP goes to them is exactly one of the key problems. Its the main reason we can't afford anything else.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:53 AM
link   
reply to post by TheFinalTruth14
 


Layers of watchdog 'groups' would be crucial. This would be the challenge. But how hard could that be?

One thing that just came to mind could be a sort of jury duty, where you go down to help verify the integrity of the system. Considering all of the money all taxpayers would be saving we could afford to make it worth peoples time to do this, unlike the typical jury duty we have today where people don't get squat for participating.

There needs to be harsh penalties for corrupting the system: rigging 'votes', generating false data to overhype cost estimates to ensure even marginal participation still pushed things thru. You know, oversight & accountability. A system of insiders has ensured we don't have these things.

Many of the 'small' things that obviously needs to be fixed anyways should have better odds in a system where the majority participates. Most people feel completely and hopelessly marginalized, and are consumed by apathy. I've spent massive time thinking about ways to fix the system. One of the biggest problems of the system is people are apathetic. I've yet to see any better way to combat this.

It's the career politicians who should be marginalized, not everybody else. Their jobs should be more 'administrative', not legislative. Accepting handouts should be considered a conflict of interest. In municipal type administrative roles people face prison time for handouts. I think everyone can agree on this, but as it stands we're hopeless to put a stop to it without being able to vote on new measures ourselves.

For instance, the economy slips and they still vote themselves raises?!?! They shouldn't be able to do this. Imagine if EVERYONE could! They should however get bonuses, as deemed fit by their constituents, when they help boost efficiency and create jobs, rather than getting handouts from special interest groups.

The system as it is gets stuck on stupid. Congress votes in some total garbage and it takes eons for bad policies to be undone. Congress always seems to lag in what The People know. They bring in garbage like NAFTA, and it doesn't go away. Does ANYONE out there actually support NAFTA?

Or take the PATRIOT Act. Sure after 9/11 the masses would have probably voted it in, but it would have been undone dramatically after a few years. As it stands, we're stuck with it indefinitely, and power related to it expands at an seemingly constant rate.

Airport naked body scanners? After people had to go thru them one time they'd surely stop funding it the next year.

Cameras at every intersection? There would probably still be some here and there, but not EVERYWHERE. And why are they even there? One: federal funding Homeland Security crap. Two: City councils vote them in to increase revenue because state and local governments are so strapped for cash because the Federal Income Tax and runaway congressional spending leaves little leftover funds for the local institutions that should matter to people the most.

Property taxes (don't pay your 'rent' and GTFO)? Same as above: states NEED to charge property taxes because the out of control Fed's horde all the tax money.

The Pentagon wants $400 hammers and $800 toilet seats? Sure, if YOU want to pay for it. Not me.

Money to fight cancer? Here you go. Money to build 'skynet' (read my website to learn about that)?? Not a chance. This is actually a good example. DARPA is literally trying to build 'skynet'. Most people have no clue whatsoever. Why? Easy: if they had to consciously pay for it they'd probably go and see what it's about. It'd save me the past 5 years trying my damnedest to inform people and basically getting nowhere. Even if people did want to fund it, at least people would acknowledge it, and then there'd be open debate.

This list could go on and on.....



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by jam321
What happens if a necessity gets very little support?

Let's say military or roads.


2 tricky examples. First: Roads.

Roads are mostly a local issue. Implementing this system might be different when you come down to the local and state levels. But one thing is for sure: these governments would have far more funds to improve our DAILY lives if the 'booty' of the Fed's were brought under control.

Now that I think about it, can anyone say how much money would be saved if bureaucracies were made smaller by becoming more irrelevant? With more decision making in the hands of The People that ought to free up some cash in itself to improve roads.

Another thing, is after people drive on rough roads for a year or 2, beating up their suspensions and all that, odds are they'd elect the next time around to fix the roads.

Military?

We already have about 12 super aircraft carrier fleets, while no other nation in the known universe has even one. Do we really need to fund an entire new line of state of the art supercarrier fleets? Surely there would be some. But 12? And do they really need to be forward-deployed? People would still check the little boxes, but they chose to do it with their money, and in effect there wouldn't be half as many. After a decade there would hardly be more than just enough to patrol each major coastline, like it should be.

With The People in control there would still be a manufacturing base. Meaning, we could have a smaller 'standing' military, and if war came we could rise to the challenge to build what is needed like in the W.W. days.

The military section of the 'form' would be THICK. I'd check some of the boxes each year, but not ALL of them 'like I do' currently.

760 military bases in foreign nations? Guess how many people would actually fund those if they actually chose. If people are going to defend policies and programs, let them do it because they actually chose to, not because some so-called representatives did.

The Pentagon Wants to Breed Immortal ‘Synthetic Organisms’? Would you pay for it?

[edit on 12-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 02:58 AM
link   
How will your solution work with all the tax money that goes to covert programs, black ops, secret research programs, etc? How are they going to be able to check those boxes that are not on the list, because it's all top secret?



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 


Good question. That's where 'direct democracy' comes in: Most covert ops mumbo jumbo is devious and illegal. We simply vote our way into these sorts of things not existing to much capacity. And if something shady does come up, we vote for how to punish them. Like during Iran-Contra they pretty much all only got embarrassed as their punishment, which is typical of DC 'justice'. With The People actually in charge of more of these things actual justice could be served, and the establishment would basically be no more in horrifying fear of actual consequences.

When the military is brought down to size there will be less of the 'need' for constant cutting edge top secret stuff. The US spends something on par with as much of the entire rest of the earth combined on military, even though we're something like 3% of the total world population. Something has to give, and with the masses tuned in because they're actually part of the process more people would surely wake up to all of this sort of absurdity.

I can see where Direct Democracy could have it's own flaws, and hope to see more libertarian types help polish off flaws in the model, I mean beyond the integrity concepts related to such a proposal.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
If this idea has been proposed before please do let me know. If anything I'd like to see the idea as proposed by others so I can further my own arguments for it, and also polish off its flaws.

I'd also like help in drafting the best title for it. Still stuck on the title for some reason. Tricky trying to pick the best combination of words that conveys its purpose with as few words as possible.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:31 AM
link   
A truly excellent idea, one that I have not heard before. But it would never work with big government.

For an idea like this to be seen through I believe that a complete de centralization of systems of government is necessary, larger regulatory commissions would exist to monitor levels of corruption, but each provincial area would be largely politically autonomous, modal's of political ideology in all forms could co exist . . . . well, they *could*


IgnoranceIsntBlisss, you are spot on thinking that solutions are what is necessary, thanks for sharing your thoughts.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
It does sound like a good idea. Generally. I still do not see this eliminating need for beurocracy - someone has to manage finances, nor for politicians - someone has to create the tax "options" choices. But even with this it is hardly going to be more problematic and corrupt then what we have now.
The big problems that do arise
1) state will not be able to plan its budget for more then a tax year. With all the long term investment problems.
2) people will have the power to decide on issues they have no real understanding at. I have less then basic grasp about economy and about social concepts. And yet i will have the same power to influence on economical/social decisions as professor of economy. And no, it is not what goes on right now. In current flawed system politicians that we (me and professor) have the same power to choose are responsible. If all would have right to vote on any law - all will be responsible, meaning nobody will be responsible.
3) evolving directly from (2) - laws/taxes/funds and consequences will have to be explained to general public, and the side that has more mass media control,more money and more charismatic "leader" will always have their way. Which is of course just as it is now so in reality things might end in the same old.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Forced taxation is high crime, period! No one should have to pay taxes. It is against natural law. If you want a system that supports what you want then donations would do the trick. If people have all their money they can volunteer to give. That is a karmic win/win. Taxation is theft that is a loose/loose.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
The OP may be interested in Switzerland and its legislative process.

For in that country, any citizen may challenge any law. And if they can secure the support of 50,000 other people within a year they may challenge that law by means of a popular vote ... and if he gains a majority at that referendum the law fails and is removed from the statute books. Or they might propose a new law instead.

Similarly, Swiss citizens can also challenge the constitution, except to do so they need the support of 100,000 of their fellows but have one and a half years within which to mount their challenge. The people can then vote out parts of the constitution, they can vote in amendments.

The Swiss legislative system is perhaps the only one which brings true democracy as an integral part of its process.

I'm not keen on direct democracy, as advocated by the OP, nor keen on this ticklist of items you may or may not choose in your annual tax declaration. For one thing, how would you control the items on that ticklist ? I may want our country to be defended ... but I might also object to expenditure on nuclear weapons ... or B2 bombers at $2 billion each ... but I might support the development of a new battle tank. I might object to welfare checks for some, but might approve for others. That list would be endless.

And whilst there's no doubt an electronic mechanism might have its novelty value, how many people on coming home from work are really going to devote their precious free time studying the issues involved or even pressing a Yes/No button ? After a few months, the only people left playing would be the same ugly people for whom politics is their hobby and the same ones who pull the strings today.

I don't think you can entirely dispense with an elected legislature, unfortunately.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Why take the long way around? TP'sTB wouldn't, I gaurantee you that.
I truly believe the absolute eradication of few last names from the planet.
5 or 6 bloodlines. Would send a message that wouldn't have to be sent again for a long time. That's the only kind of thing they understand.
Absolutes.
We'd simply be attempting to communicate.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ReelView
 





Forced taxation is high crime, period! No one should have to pay taxes. It is against natural law. If you want a system that supports what you want then donations would do the trick. If people have all their money they can volunteer to give. That is a karmic win/win. Taxation is theft that is a loose/loose.


BaaDaa Bing. You got my vote.

It is unconstitutional to tax a persons income. It makes him unable to flat out pay for the things he needs. Giving life to the secondary tax which is
credit. Rothchilds, Rockefellers ,Vanderbilts, Sinclair's, Reynolds, Johnson.
We could start there?

[edit on 12-6-2010 by randyvs]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ser Plum
A truly excellent idea, one that I have not heard before. But it would never work with big government.

For an idea like this to be seen through I believe that a complete de centralization of systems of government is necessary, larger regulatory commissions would exist to monitor levels of corruption, but each provincial area would be largely politically autonomous, modal's of political ideology in all forms could co exist . . . . well, they *could*


I'm all for dissolution of centralized big government, while if we are to have some monolithic command and control system how it is I at least want to have a fair stake in that command.

The way you describe it works even with the main premise I've been arguing, as quite frankly majority of what would actually matter to people if they had a say in everything would be local anyways.

And I'm all for political subcultures being able to exist in the physical world.

I hope my description thus far hasn't sounded too monolithic.

Down with monolithic monopoly!



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
 


I found the first part of your post to be so very accurate. I saw the thread which you were referring to, as well as another thread that had the same premise. Lets all think happy thoughts. Lets just use the ATS boards for fun and entertainment purposes only...
PUKE!
Anyways in regards to solutions or your solution. I liked the idea but I don't think that it would completely eliminate government and even if it would thats not how it should be sold.


I argue that this alone would solve pretty much everything. In fact, it would almost negate the need for congress critters and the office of the president, especially as we know it.


The thing about that is not everyone dreams of being a rock star or basketball player some kids actually would like to be a congressman or the president. Why end this dream?

Also w/out the American Branches of office in place this country would be run by the Army.

A few solutions of my own:
Foreign exchange student program for American students should be advertised more.
Mandatory dollar tax from everyone for space exploration.
Gym memberships should be free.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by packinupngoin]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join