What matters to you politically... No Labels Allowed.

Originally posted by beezzer
I believe government should protect from outside aggression.
After that?
Nothing much else.

Leave it to the individual states for everything else.

I would also add that the government should enforce contracts. I should be able to enter into any type of contractual relationship that I want with another party, but the government should be able to enforce if one of us defaults.

Beyond that, they shouldn't be involved in anything else.

National Defense and Contract enforcement.

I believe that our Government should do its job and be Governed by the people and for the people of this once great nation, instead of the corporate elite always having there say, also the government should keep Religion and politics seperate, when mixed together, its a bomb!!! To many people having different beliefs there is no wonder we cant get our Governmnet to do anything. Also the Governmnet should stop all these free hand outs to people who are just riding the system, stop the monthly checks, and make people get off there lazy ass, and get out and work, build, help, whatever it may be, nobody should have a free ride until Retirement. Unless you are disabled or mentally not there, then you should get help, but really any able body person should be up right now, getting ready for work, school, family, But no way in hell should you be sitting down playing video games, smoking weed, and getting a monthly check from the Gov, Crazy world crazy

We need to:

1. Stop trying to be the world policemen. Simply put, it's too expensive. We shouldn't have troops on foreign soil unless there is some direct benefit to our interests, and protecting that interest results in a profit over non-involvement. The sole exception is aiding in the case of a natural disaster or crisis.

2. Stop paying blood money to nations to not seek a nuke program. Simply put, it's paying extortion. Let them get nukes. The more that have them, the less likely war is to happen (because of the consequences). The tech is over half a century old anyhow, so anyone who wants it can easily have it (and likely keep it secret while we pay them the money!)

3. Become a PRODUCER nation again. There are ways to do this, even with higher labor wages.

4. Utilize our own oil reserves. We haven't built a new refinery in this nation in ages, and there is no reason for it (other than a lot of government red tape). We have larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, if we just tapped them. In a decade, we could (if we really wanted to), tell all foreign oil to take a hike, and put a HUGE dent in the Middle East's oil profits.

5. Work on social reform like healthcare, social security, etc. However, the above things have to happen first, to provide the FUNDING for it.

6. Pay off the debt. With the above steps, we could erase our deficit, and get back to a surplus.

7. Revamp campaign finance and the whole two-party system. It's ridiculous that we should be locked into thinking we can only choose two final candidates for President (or any other office).

8. Restructure taxes to where they provide incentive for business, without giving loopholes that result in companies paying almost NO taxes.

9. Engage in wars only for a clear objective (and gain), not police actions.

10. Provide tools to educate voters and encourage more participation in the process. The PEOPLE, not special interest groups, should be the ones putting people into office.

reply to post by jimnuggits


Government should Protect it's people and it's borders. Enforce the laws we all ready have. Give the states the right to determine what is best for them. And set some new term limits. For all political office's. The seperation of church & state should be at the forefront of it all.

It's really simple. Pull out that Constitution, dust it off and apply the words written within it. Do it now, before it's dismantled even more. That Virginia earthquake, it was our founding fathers, rolling over in their graves.

Sorry. did not mean to reply to you direct, Just the thread,

Resign en masse . The majority of functions they do can be done cheaper, easier and more efficiently by private companies. As to disaster aid what ever happened to good old fashioned neighbor helping neighbor in such times rather than whinging for handouts from government, charities and relief groups.
People need to accept that part of living is risk always has been always will be. Also they need to be responsible for their own actions rather than be a burden and expect big brother to provide their every need and protect them from the world.
World would be in better shape with no damn governments of any type.

the re-establishing of the free territory of trieste: my hometown has been a city state since 1719. after the II the allied force and onu gave us the constitution of free teeritory, and a non taxed international port. during cold war, italy occupied half of it, jugoslvia the other half. now that this is over, we want our freedom back. i want my doughter not to be raised in poverty brought by italy, but in a free state wich con commerce with the whole world.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by macman
You are under the impression that by doing away with the Fed Ed Dept, the states would drop standards.
That is going into the same belief that the people are too dumb to decide for themselves.

Actually I'm not under that impression which is why I don't think it makes a difference.

According to GeorgiaGirl's post that isn't even that case so what is it that the Dept of Ed is doing that makes you think they are strong arming individual states?

While what she stated shows that money does indeed got to the top, if we look at Govt history, where there is money there is control.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Cuervo

 

OK but those countries are also culturally diverse. All contries are not matter how small they are. Heck you can see changes in a city like LA just by going to different parts of the city. I'm just saying that that is not the reason. Sounds like a cop out to me.

Those nations are not "diverse". They are pretty darned homogeneous. America is uniquely celebrated as being diverse and, as such, we have unique situations. LA is a great example of that blend and they have their own identity being as such. But if you dropped off a bunch of cowboys from Texas in the middle of LA, I'm sure they wouldn't agree on whether or not it was day or night. So why have one centralized place tell those Texan cowboys and those cats from LA who they can marry and what they can smoke? Makes no sense to me.

I think I like you a little bit more every day.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by macman

 

Do you not believe we should 'prop each other up' BEFORE we 'fail on our own merit'?

I currently live in Oklahoma, but if my countrymen in Virginia got down on their luck through no fault of their own, I'd want the Federal Government to help get them back on their feet. Wouldn't you?

With the propping up comes no personal responsibility.

Lets face it the Govt does not help. They create conditions where people think they are getting help, but just getting set up to become dependent on the Govt.

If I fall, and I get up on my own, then I have learned how to get up when I fall again.
If I fall, and you help me up, I learn to depend on you to help me up.

reply to post by macman


Social programs should be a hand up, not a hand out. That said, sometimes they really don't make sense.

Example, there was a time when my wife and I were both on unemployment. Luckily, the overlap wasn't a long time, but still, made for a very hard couple of months. (obviously, both of us were trying madly to get another job, and did so).

However, a really weird thing. With both of us on unemployment, you'd think that we'd qualify for food assistance. Turns out, we made $200 too much per month (on unemployment) to qualify. Can you believe that?

We used unemployment assistance for its intention (as an interim assist while trying to find more work)...and I'm thankful it existed. It allowed us to get back on our feet within the year...but there needs to be a LOT more common sense applied to how it is done.

reply to post by Gazrok


Yep, I agree.
Now, think what you could have done with the money if it went to your pocket, instead of the Govt's unemployment.

From age 15 to mid 30's, I could have invested that and have a better return then unemployment and the rules that come with it.

I believe there should be no government at all. Leave the people alone and let mother nature keep us in check. No other animals have a government. The world spins with or without one; probably a little less wobbly without one.

reply to post by macman


I guess we differ greatly here, I am not under the assumption that laws are written for what-ifs, I am under the assumption (Dangerous word, I know, but don't have time to do the actual research), that laws and regulations are written for the most part, after the fact. When a problem becomes known, they attempt to enact legislation to prevent it from happening again.

Somewhat like locking the barn after the horse is stolen.

Before anything in your post can happen, the citizens of whatever country have to realize we are human before anything.

And by being human before anything else, are guaranteed respect as such. See the problem, in my opinion is that people lack that fundamental respect for each other.

No, not respect as a conservative, or geologist, or rapper. Respect as a human being first. That respect is due to every single human on this planet regardless of race, sex, etc

Most of the problems of this world arise because of lack of respect. I respect a person as a person first. A breathing human being, just like myself. Then whatever other professions or views he has that might impress me, I add on to the list. He could be racist, I may not respect his racist views, but he is still a human and still guaranteed that first level of respect.

That is the key to the garden of Eden.

Originally posted by BubbaJoe
reply to post by macman

 

I guess we differ greatly here, I am not under the assumption that laws are written for what-ifs, I am under the assumption (Dangerous word, I know, but don't have time to do the actual research), that laws and regulations are written for the most part, after the fact. When a problem becomes known, they attempt to enact legislation to prevent it from happening again.

Somewhat like locking the barn after the horse is stolen.

If you believe in Liberty and Freedom, you will hopefully come to the idea that just because one person does something, a law should not be developed denying others freedom.
Say someone buys a legal M16, fully auto rifle.
Now, said person goes out and kills people.
The knee jerk reaction is to not only react to the person, but then to ban the purchase of the rifle.
That ban does nothing to punish the person that committed the act.
It punishes everyone else.
it does not stop people from illegally getting the rifle and does not stop murder.

That is the difference.

We don't need more, bigger, stricter and intrusive laws.
We need to just establish punishment for the action of murder.

Politicians need to be put back in their place and serve the people, not the other way around. They are not entitled to serve us but rather allowed to. On the federal level, they need to get back to upholding the Constitution.

Divisiveness needs to be stopped in it's tracks. No more "us" and "them"; it's all about "We". Cronyism and the protectionist mentality of our politicians needs to come to a end. Complete transparency and accountability. Corruption is to be deal with severely and swiftly. Non-partisan watchdog groups will keep our government in check, from the President down to the janitors at the White House.

More control needs to be put back into the hands of the people. Key issues will be voted on by the the citizens, not congress or the senate. The old boys club will be a thing of the past; you show up to work and serve the people not to make back room deals in exchange for a position on the President's cabinet.

All interest accrued by the Fed, on money printed out of thin air will go to fund public healthcare, insured by private insurers. All politicians will be afforded the same healthcare and insurance that is available to the general public.

Appeals to the administration for special consideration concerning grants, contracts, etc will be in a public forum, not behind closed doors. If you want to be considered for a contract, you will present your merits to a bi-partisan board and such awards will be given based on merit, qualifications, experience, etc. There will be NO "string pulling". If there is, it will be dealt with as serious breech of protocol.

Once our public servants have been reeled back in and their duties redefined and reiterated then we can tackle the issues.

Originally posted by Partygirl

As a Christian, I also want a government headed by Christians that protects and encourages Christian values.

I originally wanted to post in response to the OP, but I feel the need to address the above comment. I used to share this thought, but now feel extremely troubled when I see someone bring the label of "Christian" or "God" into politics now that I have opened my mind up and actually researched and prayed about the issue. Mind you, I consider myself a devout Christian (not a Christian only on Sunday mornings), but I want to make a couple of points here.

First, think about the past and all of the harm inflicted by the established roman catholic church (Holy wars, etc.). I am sure some people in the church had good intentions, but anytime religion is intertwined with politics, the results are disastrous. The religious party always claims they are doing the right thing, while the rest of the people abhor them and their actions. Politics=power. Power=corruption. Christianity in politics = power = corruption on a large scale, no matter if the intentions are good. Even today, you hear a lot of non-believers (even on ATS) bashing Christianity because of actions attributable to the church in the political arena. Think about the discovering of America- where protestant whites literally invaded the country (supposedly pursuant to God's intentions) and killed thousands of Indians and native peoples, enslaved Africans to make the trip, and pushed many native tribes to the verge of extinction. Would we, as Christians, want these actions to be associated with Christianity?

Second, Christ always taught others to love one another, and NEVER taught war or retaliation as a means of revenge (if you disagree, please prove me otherwise). As an example, take 9/11 (assume the official story is true). Can you imagine a bunch of Christian politicians responding to 9/11? Would the U.S. have simply "turned its cheek"? I think not! I am speculating but I believe we would have still engaged in war against terrorism. This is exactly the opposite of what Christ taught, and would be hypocrisy at its finest. Think of how many non-Christians would be completely turned off from Christianity and how many people in the world would not be led to Christ. The government and politics are always going to involve wars for power or certain agendas. Christ (and God) did not intend for Christians to get caught up in the mess.

Christ taught that we, as Christians, are "in the world" but not "of the world". We should be distinct from anything established for worldly purposes (government, politics, corporations, etc.). This does not mean that Christians cannot participate in government or politics, but that we should not bring the name of "religion" into our participation. If you oppose something in the political arena, oppose it on moral grounds- not religious grounds. Do not taint the name of Christ or his teachings. If you go back and look at Christ and his teachings, as well as the teachings of his followers (Paul, etc.), most of the time they were addressing hypocrisy in the church, and hardly (if at all) did they address governmental/political leader matters.

Bring our troops back, and protect our borders. TSA isn't doing such a good job either.

Repeal the Patriot Act and NAFTA. I'm sure there are many other things that need to be repealed.

Tell the Federal Reserve to go jump in the lake. Much of the money we owe is interest due to them. Put creating money back in US government's hands.

Keep the welfare programs especially now, and reduce them when people can get back on their feet. Mainly due to the increase of jobs, and people needed to fulfill those jobs.

After NAFTA is repealed, any company overseas who calls themselves a US company or transferred from the US to overseas can get hit with a 50% tarrif tax I believed it is called. Basically for causing harm to the citizens of the US, and being too greedy. Any company that decides to bring all their operations back to the US will have that 50% lifted, and they have six months to a year before they are slammed with it again.

Do away with all corporate and business tax deductibles and loopholes. Start with a clean slate.
* They can get 5% flat deductible for their overhead.
* The more employees you hire, the less taxes you pay. Their deductible can increase when their employees increase up to 50% off of their taxes.
* They can get a tax deductible for lowering their prices on all products they sell, and keeping them lowered for a minimum of a year. If they raise the prices after a year, the deductible goes away. The lower the prices go, the more deductibles they can get of say up to 25%.

Business top executives can only make 300X of the lowest paid employees. If they want larger salaries, then they will have to increase the wages of the lowest paid employees. All other wages have to fall in between the top paid and lowest paid employees.

Get rid of the stock market game. If you absolutely have to keep it, corporations only have to buy back their stock at the price they sold the stock initially plus 5% interest. Corporations could pay out 5% of profit a year split across all owed stocks until what is owed is paid off. Other than that if investors want to play the stock market game they can. Their profits and losses comes from the actual trading. It will not change what the corporation owes on the stock even if an investor pays 10x what the original was worth. If the stock plummets and the corporation is still strong, it will not kill or bankrupt the corporation. The investor might go bankrupt, but the corporation will continue paying out based on profit made.

Once these and other laws designed to increase job growth and lower prices, then we can look at reducing welfare. By this time unemployment rates should have gone down and not just governmental static rates.

Social security should be integrated into a true retirement plan where the government can't take money out of the plan no matter how much surplus it gets. Those who show they have their own retirement plan can receive a tax deduction since their social security money is going to help stabilize it for those who need it and will need it. It could turn into a charity retirement fund for the poor. A person can donate into social security, and get even further tax deductions. If you donate $50, you get $50 tax deduction up to x amount.

The tax code needs to be simplified. I know some believe in eliminating taxes all together. I don't think that will happen.

I like the idea of true universal healthcare such as France and Canada has in the movie Sicko. Maybe my idea goes a little further. All hospital, doctor, and medicines are paid for. I know you are paying for it in taxes. I still believe it will be a lot cheaper to pay for it in taxes than have to buy health care insurance at today's rates. Even with everyone having to buy it in the future, I still believe the rates will stay the same if not go up. For those of you who say I'm young and healthy, and don't need insurance. Eventually you will be old and in need of care. Who is to say that you won't have an accident tomorrow where you will need surgery? I like the idea in the movie Sicko where in France you can stay in the hospital and actually recover. You are not kicked out early because of insurance or it is too expensive.

For those who argue it will create death panels, I'm sorry they are already here. Our insurance has created some great death panels by denying coverage for the smallest little misstep a person makes. Everyone says private business does things better than government. According to that theory, the government can't be any worse, and more people will more than likely get treated and live.

I honestly believe if the government takes care of it's people properly there will be lower crime, more production, and higher moral overall.

Can I dare to dream working less hours, making more money, and reasonable child care and babysitting costs even for children who are a little older. Not young enough to be in child care, but not old enough to be on their own either.

I think the government's role should only be military and every state should govern themselves.

reply to post by macman

Of course where there is money there is control but she said that the control of the content of what is being taught is in the hands of the state so blaming the fed sounds like the states passing the buck.