It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


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

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:04 PM
reply to post by jimnuggits

Lack of funding is a joke when some other expenses are considered.

One thing that stands out in your example is that, if an eight grader is reading at a third grade level why wasn't it addressed locally?

I would think that state government would have no problem providing funding in these special cases. If they do have a problem and they offer excuses or play the blame game then it's just politics as usual.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:38 PM

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.

I seriously doubt you'd want to live in such a world. Your faith in mother nature is sadly misplaced.
Basically, picture the movie Mad Max, and that's what you'd have with anarchy.

SOMEONE will move up and try to establish order...THEIR order, and they'll do it with thugs and guns, and to better THEIR lives, not yours.

Without a safe environment, and complex society, we wouldn't have all these wonderful there would have been NO time to invent them. We'd spend the majority of our day seeking to provide food (maybe even shelter), and the rest of the time trying to defend it (when we felt safe enough to sleep). Do you think the car would have been invented if Ford had to go out each day and kill a rabbit or pick some berries?

You think there's no government in the animal kingdom? A beehive is probably the envy of communists. With many mammals like ourselves, the strong dominate the pack, while the lessers do all the work (sound familiar?). There's government all right, but often, it's leaders are chosen by lethal combat.

edit on 26-9-2011 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:44 PM
Freedom and Prosperity.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 01:50 PM

Originally posted by macman

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.

While I do understand where you are coming from, and I have fairly moderate views on gun control, wasn't really thinking along those issues, more along the lines of Corporate regulation. Another member had stated that industry would regulate itself, and the post you responded to, was addressing the fact that they would not.

If corporations had never felt free to dump whatever into our air, water, and land, there would be no need for environmental regulations. If big Ag, had truly regulated itself, and had never sickened or killed people, there would be no need for food regulations. We could go on and on with these, but I think you can see the point I was trying to make here.

Now to tackle your issue for an example. I am ex-military, and a gun proponent who understands many of the restraints that are in place. If someone wants a shotgun, rifle, or hand gun, I really have no problem with it, as long as they are trained in there use, we do not need more accidental shootings, and unfortunately, they happen all the time. Next, we get into fully auto weapons, with a shotgun, rifle or handgun, I am somewhat limited in the number of people I can harm vs a certain amount of time.

Now throw in a weapon that is fully auto, potentially, I can harm a whole lot more people in a shorter period of time. Given that line of thought, should my drunk ass neighbor, who with a handgun might accidentally kill a person or two, now be given an rpg, so that in a drunken rage, he might be able to take out two or three families. My thoughts on gun control are that some common sense needs to be applied as to who is allowed to own what, not per se, to punish others.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by jimnuggits
Are we talking federal/national government, or all levels of government (including state/local) period?

Clarify that and I may be able to go further. Otherwise, I would say starting out - justice and full disclosure.
Protect the people and their liberty, as long as one is not harming another or interfering with their rights, do not hunt them down or lock them up (no 'victimless' crimes - if everyone involved with or directly affected by something is in agreement with it, then no harm or foul and best you leave them to it).

Release the captives - anyone incarcerated for a crime only against or amongst themselves should be released, only incarcerate those who have committed violence or theft, etc., against another.

Government should provide a strong defense, and this includes not having the military scattered around the world and burnt out, with the borders wide open and government inciting violence by other countries/groups against its own people through stupid behaviours. Keep any armed services at home and strengthening the borders and actually defending the people, while resting and being ready to act as need in the event of an actual threat.

If government is to be involved with any foods or products, they should protect the consumers and not the providers - no allowing companies to hide GMO or irradiated ingredients, no hiding or inclusion of certain ingredients under generalities or other vague deceptions, etc. - full disclosure for the awareness and informed consent of the consumer. Beyond that, it's up to the buyer to beware of what they're buying.

No conscription. Ever. If your country is in need of bodies for defense, and is worth defending, the bodies will present themselves.

Justice should be blind. Any criminal penalties must be enforced without prejudice or bias across the board, regardless of social stature, wealth, position, and so forth. Stop allowing the rich and connected to live under their own legal preference.

Any redundant/inneffective/chronically failing government employee/department/agency should be terminated, it's duties absorbed or consolidated for streamlining into an existing agency or position, and any funding given to such redirected to Treasury for infrastructure repair or maintenance (or directed into other valid and efficient solcial programs, such as SSI, etc.), or otherwise returned and its share no longer allotted for collection from the people.

Don't rob from Peter to pay Paul. Stop bleeding money in unnecessary endeavors, pay out what is owed to those who have paid in, and let everyone else see to securing their own futures. I PERSONALLY believe that, allowed to handle the funds currently & previously taken from me for such government programs, I could likely make better arrangements to secure my own retirement. If I'm unable to, that's my bad, and I will be more than happy to keep working as long as I have to.

A lot more kicking around up there, but that's all I can pump out for now, thanks.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 02:51 PM
The government that governs best governs least.

I am of the opinion that we should have as little government as possible. Everyone keeps simply focusing on the US federal government and saying we should weaken it. Good great I agree. But we should not sell ourselves out by empowering State governments in the feds place. Jefferson said in times of peace most government should come from as local to the citizen as possible. This encourages the citizen to be involved directly with government and his representation.

We can keep the structure of the Fed and Statee but most of our government should be at the local court house. What we as citizens need and this applies to all countries is a government that maintains the peace and acts as arbitrator for disputes that is all. National Defense and a system of courts to administer justice. There are more details to this idea that cant be given in a short post but think more in terms of how life was in the old west. The REAL old west not Hollywoods vision of it.
The idea that business and corporations will not regulate themselves is comical. Why do you think that corporations and businesses currently get away with so much? They act under cover of government regulation. Think of it this way. Why does the government issue permits and licenses? They will tell you its for your safety. Okay so if the licensed company commits an act that results in your harm then the government is liable right? After all THEY assured us that since they had issued a license that this company was compitent. WRONG. No they get to issue the paper and walk away with a fee and assume no liability at all. With no laws demanding governent involvment and government oversight there is no means of manipulation or lobbying to craft the laws to protect your business intrests. Your business sinks or swims on its own NO BAIL OUTS. Your business must face the results of the damage its practices have wrought. The court system provides the outlet to pursue damages.
Education should not involve the state. Education should be the choice of the parents. It should not be up to the States to decided a standard. It should be the parent to deides the best education for their child. All schools should be privatly funded and be forced to compete with each other for students by producing. This competition will promote innovation and methods of learning will explode. For those parents that are poor charity and donations will fund schools for them.
A consumption based tax (retail sales tax) will provide sufficent funding for government services and all other income earned by the individual will be kept by that individual.

Many of you worry that if the above practices were put into place that there would develope a very segmented society with very rich and very poor. That will not be the case. As some of you have pointed out government itself is an impediment to progress and enables failure. Social stratification is to some degree unavoidable and thus must be accepted however if the power of government is so small that it cannot be used by the top to insulate itself from the bottom then movement through that stratification is assured.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Dragoon01
Many of you worry that if the above practices were put into place that there would develope a very segmented society with very rich and very poor. That will not be the case.

Actually those practices have already been tried and a segmented society was the result. Most third world countries probably have alot of those ideas in place.

There's a point where government becomes more of a burden than a benefit. The important thing is to identify that point and increase or trim as needed. The real challange is getting that change implemented. That is why I proposed doing away with representative government. That way the only way to get legislation passed by buying votes would mean 51% of the population would have to be payed instead of a few politicians.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:21 PM
Good topic.

My government should be progressive and place great value in intelligence, innovation and technology. The fruits of this labor should be overwhelming and should provide not only for the nation, but also the human species.

My government should be efficient, always careful not to invest too heavily on a single concept. It should always remind itself to function as simply as possible, as the world it creates will always become more and more complex around it.

My government should be powerful, develop the tools to combat any threat in any age and on any end of the spectrum and into the unknown.

My government should be humble, withdraw from any regulation or conflict at the slightest hint of disapproval.

My government should not be a "government", it should be the catalyst of its citizens desires.

So... 2/5 is what I get. In any case all any government is inevitably becomes some guys desire to rule the world.

What if all civilizations that ever existed (ETs, of course) eventually just become one individual controlling everything? So any ET race we may ever potentially meet would in reality be a single entity that has developed the means to control everything it encounters by some means?

Life tends to try to destroy its competition so the very most basic nature of any life potentially anywhere is to eliminate and control everything around it? Who (or what) ever decides to destroy and control everything it ever sees and does the best first will eventually... uh... win the universe?

So as far as my government is concerned, I'll take what I can get I guess, maybe I'll start one myself? Anyone with me? No...? Well okay.
edit on 26-9-2011 by RSF77 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:44 PM

Tell, in your own words, your political stance.

Don't have one.

What should Our government do, or not do?

Cease to exist.

But they are necessary in this world and existence, so then i want them to do there job ie govern and not what we have today which is more along the lines of governing those on the bottom of the pyramid at there expense to conform for those at the top of the pyramid.

What problems are so important that we must solve them together?

Some problems can be solved together, some can not, government can not solve any problems when it tries to solve problems together because that just ads up to one group solving problems, that leads to other problems to other groups. A government as an all encompassing entity does not exist, and will not exist, not in this universe. It will always be a struggle for power an a balance, end of story.

Government should stay out of trying to solve problems that do not breach the over all scope of things, and just deal with checks and basic balances, especially on those who make the checks and balance's. But that to will lead to problems, mostly along the lines of this line from a comic/movie "If the watchmen watch the world, then who watches the watchmen?"

But no matter what it will lead to problems on any path you take, the best bet is to take the path with least problems. ie the path of the flow of water, and not of making mountains out of molehills.

Example: I believe that the government must protect citizens from outside aggression, environmental devastation, and provide a level playing field for all its citizens, including food, shelter and a good education until such time as every member of our democracy can contribute to the greater good.

As good as any and way better then most, now if only it were as easily done as its said.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 06:23 PM
I think we should cut down the size of government, return power to the states, and abolish many of the federal governments current "projects" like stopping the wars over seas, cut all the foreign aid and focus only on necessary defense, abolish the federal reserve and the department of education and possibly the income tax if possible. I think an amendment to keep business out of politics might be nice too.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:03 PM
reply to post by jimnuggits

Well I think that the government's responsiblities should decrease as its distance from the people increases, so state government should have greater responsibility than that of federal and local should carry the most of all three. The federal government should handle treaties with foreign countries, pass laws pertaining to the country as a whole though this should be done under close scrutiny by the public, and handle taxes to pay for infrastructure again pertaining to the nation as a whole and the protection of the nation from INVASION. The state's should handle all other powers concerning taxation and law making within themselves and the federal government shouldn't attempt to pass laws violating those of the states. Law enforcement should rest with the locality, meaning a township should be responsible for enforcing the laws of the land in its borders, and that includes fugitives. It would certainly be acceptable for mulitple townships to cooperate with one another in this aspect. Overall the main purpose of the government should be to promote individual freedom and prevent infringement on peoples rights other than that they shouldn't have any power and the power that they do have should not be in anyway usable to infringe upon a persons freedom/rights except in the case that the action of a person is infringing upon the freedom/rights of another person. i.e. murder, rape, arson, theft, slavery and a few other examples. And the government on any level certainly shouldn't interfere in the market except once again to ensure that it stays free.

In short the most important thing is FREEDOM, all policy should be based on what promotes more freedom, i.e. prohibition of alcohol and 'drugs' = less freedom so no, universal (mandatory) health insurance = less freedom so no, any issue = less freedom no, any issue = more freedom yes

edit on 26-9-2011 by MoralityMatters because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-9-2011 by MoralityMatters because: I wanted to make sure I was clear

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:22 PM

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by beezzer

As a teacher, no department of education makes me very nervous.

Could you make a case for it?

No standards?

What would be considered a 'good education' then?

I am with beezer here, the department of education is detrimental to education not good for it all, it is a one size fits all creature but no two students are alike, so how can an agency so far removed from the people provide an acceptable educational system, no department of education hardly means no standards.
I also am personally against mandatory education too on a side note, it says that what is being taught is not valuable enough to seek out oneself, I think their should be public education but no one who doesn't want to be there shouldn't be. I know many people wouldn't be in school if they weren't forced to go and if mandatory education went away they wouldn't come, and they would regret it one day and their children would go.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Partygirl
"I believe that the government must protect citizens from outside aggression, environmental devastation, and provide a level playing field for all its citizens, including food, shelter and a good education until such time as every member of our democracy can contribute to the greater good."

Sounds good to me, no objections, although I'd like to see the fine print on what exactly constitutes a "level playing field." I have a feeling there is room for disagreement within that broad and noble sentiment.

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

I really don't get the Christian part in combination with running any government, but you are entitled to your opinion. Religion and politics however, ARE NOT one in the same and should not be mixed under any my first wish would be to keep religion and politics completely separated.

Besides I personally, could care less about your "Christian/Religious Values" it adds no value to political views. What in the hell does GOD have to do with politics. Are you guys taking political science, economics etc., in lieu of Bible Study now a days?????? WTF

Wow, I just got off track so I'll be back later to give the rest of my opinion. But I will say this...for starters get rid of those G@d Damed Electoral Votes!!!!!!

Darn Christian threw me for a freakin' loop!
edit on 9/26/11 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:32 PM
I'd just like to reiterate what I said over here: Link

All I have to say is that all the parties...Reps., Dems., Tea Party etc., act like a bunch of snotty nosed noobs!

There, I said it....they all suck!

Anyone defending any of these jerks can take their "leaders" and their stupid indirect Electoral College and shove it! There's only one party...the American Party and we should be the sole direct voters...wake the hell up everybody!

Until the Electoral Vote is abolished and you religious folks learn to keep your personal lives in your churches, synagogues or where ever you practice your specific religion(s), honestly what's the point in commenting further. My opinion never counts and my voice is never heard......neither is yours.
edit on 9/26/11 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: still can't get my spelling right, I give up

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:39 PM
reply to post by MoralityMatters

There is a large part of me that can agree that after a certain age, or skill set, basic education classes should cease being mandatory.

I mean I went through 'general' education classes for two full years into college. What a waste of time and money!

I like the apprenticeship program; At thirteen, cut them loose from public school, and give them over to a school that interests them, or, at least, compliments their natural learning style and intelligence. Art school, science school, math school, engineering, roofing. Every subject for every learner.

I have taken a day to consider Beezer's idea about dismantling the Federal Department of Education, and I can say this: Perhaps we could get rid of it, if it in fact cannot account for any benefit for the learners in our country.

There is, indeed, no 'standard' student. Obama was right for scaling back (drastically) No Child Left Behind.

Teaching is more like farming than it is like manufacturing. There is no palpable, instant product, other than one's intellect.

But what promotes a 'Masters' Degree in 'Science' is something that still I feel needs to be regulated and measured by a federal agency, with no 'dog in the race', so to speak.

This thread has proven, to me at least, that very sensitive 'hot button' issues can be talked about peacefully, if we THROW AWAY OUR LABELS!!!

High fives all around...!

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by jimnuggits

I'm pretty much with you on this. On the economic side a sort of split system, where everyones basic human needs are taken care of. Beyond that a completely free market system to help promote entrepreneurial innovation, with a set of laws in place to keep a level playing field, and protect environmental issues.

For those who care only about low taxation and their own concerns, I believe they are living with their heads in a hole. If enough people are suffering from poverty, starvation, and homelessness around you, one way or another you will pay for it. The cheapest price is with a dollar, in my opinion.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by Theorytripper

It's funny, six pages of responses, and no one disagreed about providing every citizen with food, shelter and education. (maybe they just didn't see it)

If we did that, and that alone, we could do so much more, and innovate everything with the free market. America would absolutely thrive.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 08:52 PM
Government, in theory at least, is an extension of "we the people." It should reflect the needs and desires of those it represents. For example, I don't object to welfare for those who need it, only to those that fraudulently play the system. That includes the agencies that manage the programs in a way that maintains case loads to justify their jobs. The problem isn't "the government," but how effectively it functions. It is merely a tool. More local levels of government may be better at managing programs than larger ones. The right tool for the right job with some means of measurement for effectiveness. The problem, to my eyes, is that corruption is rampant in all levels of government but especially at the federal level. Well intended programs have become unmanageable, unaccountable, ineffective and completely manipulated by politics and financial interests. More or less "government" won't matter as long as it remains compromised and incompetent. That's just my $.02

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:07 PM
reply to post by jimnuggits

What matters to me is that people stop pretending the government has been taking care of them, will take care of them in the future, or wants to take care of them. If you want something done right, do it your self. Don't wait for the government villains to do it for you.

Government is protecting us from what? They take about half of our money. I guess I'm to believe the other half would be gone to without them? I'm not so gullible as to believe such a thing.

Why should Hong Kong be the freest place in the world? America is now an embarrassment and a has-been, and its because people have decided to let the government solve all their most serious problems. Such ridiculous naive ideas are destroying the US economy.

I have great respect for people who step up to the plate to help take care of humanities most pressing problems. I have great disrespect for people who step up and say we need to solve our problems by doing nothing our selves but rather delegating out the solutions to a gang of thugs who use violence to get what they want... specifically the government organisations of today.

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 09:12 PM
reply to post by Carl1949

I like to think the corruption emanates from the value we currently place on luxury as a substitute for meaning in our lives, and not from 'evil lazy federal workers.'

I don't truly care how many people push paper around, as long as we all get fed, have a place to lay our heads, and get an education in something.

If that happens, we can take care of bigger needs, personally.

The possibilities are endless.

So, stop all government programs cold, save SS and medicare.

Feed and house and educate every last American for free for four years.

Watch the magic.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in