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 exactly DO we want?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:36 AM
I probably have several folks furious at me, which is fine, and others who are applauding me, which is great, but that really doesn't change anything at all in the grand scheme of things.
I guess I've noticed that regardless of who is in charge or who is in political power at the time, there are divisions. Some people will love him/her, some people will hate him/her, some will be elsewhere on the scale of love/hate expanding to infinity in both directions and compressing to infinity between any two, given points. We can argue until we're blue in the face (or even purple in the face), but it won't change anything... and maybe that's what they want us to do, both sides, keep us busy and out of their hair ya know.
I'm not crazy about Obama, but I don't completely hate him. I'm not crazy about Romney, but I don't completely hate him either (now bush, I COMPLETELY, totally, utterly hated him and saw now use for him whatsoever and depised the man and the ground he walked on, but that part is over now). I even voted for McCain in the last election because I was angry at Obama over the primaries. Don't hate him, just thought Hillary would have been better and I had respect for McCain (but hated Palin). What I'm wondering about is how many other people are in the same boat I'm in but we don't even realize we're in the same boat? How many want something else from their government but just can't pinpoint what that is or who can provide it? How many are sick and tired of all this political crap that they use to keep us in constant turmoil??
Oh well... Thought I'd open up a new line of discussion, opposed to the argumentative where we can see what we DO want our government to do instead of focusing on what we don't want them to do.
Come on, there are some great minds here from all areas of the political spectrum, but something inside me tells me that there is much more in common than there is that's different.
What I’d like to do is show that we, WE THE PEOPLE, are an overlooked, very valuable resource that has gone unheard for much too long. I’m going on a basic premise:
1. The government has not addressed our concerns
2. The government has not provided adequate leadership for us
3. Political extremes keep us at each others throats
4. There IS a better way.
But, I’m not sure what that better way is. Now I know I did another thread that basically shut down all opposition (mostly because the constant bickering was driving me nuts), but now that it is quelled, lets take that energy and go in a different direction. Lets build up instead of tear down. Individually, we can’t do a single thing about any of it, but together, as a group, there is no limit to what we, as Americans, can do.
I have a basic outline in my head, but it’s not set in stone at all. First, I want to ask what it is we want. Discuss the possibilities, the desires, the hopes and dreams. Then, look at what would provide that, the means by which we can accomplish it. Finally, HOW we can go about making it happen, what characteristics would a leader need to have to fulfill the basic needs and provide contentment (not happiness mind you, that comes from within ourselves, but contentment) where people don’t feel defensive, they don’t feel they are having their basic freedoms attacked, there’s not a big conspiracy that is “out to get them”, the contentment and comfort needed in order to carry us forward.
So, I’ll start with the question:
What is it that you want the federal government to be.
1. A centralized power that rations authority out to various states?
2. An outside source that steps in as needed to settle disputes?
3. Only a protective unit to guard against outside threats?
4. Merely a “meeting place” for the individual states to come together to share ideas
5. Something else totally diffrent from what I've listed
How much power should the federal level have?

Don't worry, my approach isn't the same as it was on the other thread, I'm just asking the questions now instead of just answering them (with the exact same answer each time
edit on 3-6-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:54 AM
What I want are several things:

I don't want a government controlled by the wealthy elite.

I don't mind having a large government, but I want it to be an unobtrusive government that is concerned about protecting our constitutional rights instead of eroding the rights away for the wealthy elite.

I truly want it to be a government for the people and by the people, not for the wealthy elite.

I don't want it to become a Socialist country.

I want to stop the flow of money to illegal immigrants. There are Americans who need real help more than they and we should put our people first.

I want to put an end to RIAA's ever increasing powers to police the internet and infringement upon people's rights to privacy.

I want UHC, but I don't want it to be mandatory.

I want WALL STREET to be regulated and held accountable for it's fraudulent practices.

I want to reign in the corrupt police and other law enforcement agencies. I want to reign in the abusive cops and get rid of them.

I want to put an end to the TSA for the abusive tactic and power.

I want to be able to be critical of the government without being thought of as a subversive who should be considered a potential terrorist just because I don't agree with their politics.

I want my freedom of expression confirmed.

I want government out of marriage and other things and to stop micromanaging my life.

I want to end the credit rating from running my life. I am not a number I am a human being. I make mistakes but I shouldn't have to be punished for them for all eternity.

I want more help for people who need it, and not more military complex.

I want to see senseless wars end.

I want the surveillance of America to end.

I want the government to end the deficit and actually start making a profit so we can have a strong economic future.

I want to end China's buying of American property.

I want the government to stop taking everything it can from us small and little people. We have a right to our property and to our money.

Just a few things that are important to me.

I wonder how close that makes me to Ron Paul. But these are things I've wanted long before I knew about him.

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 10:57 AM
The closest I can come to agreement with your list of choices for the federal government is #3. Protect the nation from external threats, help mediate disputes between the several states, and stay the hell out of my life. Anything else should be handled locally if at all possible going to state level only when necessary.

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by EvilSadamClone
Government should not "make a profit" or ever have a surplus. They should only be entrusted with certain tasks like national defense, and I mean DEFENSE! They should start every year with a budget of $0.00 and justify the NEED for every penny every single year. The taxes necessary to complete those justified tasks should be assessed and only that much collected. Not one penny more.

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:09 AM
Pretty good answers so far!!
from what I'm seeing, we all want our freedom instead of being micromanaged...

Ron Paul was mentioned. I've often wondered about whether he is the actual candidate he claims to be, whether he would stick to his statements of policy or fall into the corruption that's alread there.... we're pretty apprehensive of all politicians at the moment because of all the corruption that's grown exponentially over the years.

What else do we want? What kind of leader could provide it? What would his/her qualities be? Not trying to specify any present candidate, I'm pretty sure that we, as a group, would disqualify anyone that already exists anyway...but what do we replace them with? Not a particular person, just the qualities that the person would have?

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:14 AM
I agree with the above reply posters here. Not only this country, but the world needs to have systems in place where every person has access to nutrition, play, hygene, drinkable water, stability, safety, education-based-on-common sense, and

health care.

I have a niece living in Chicago, and now she is homeless, flopping with aquaintences, but she is only 29 and keeps bleeding 'there' and often is crippled with severe lower abdominal pains. She has no health insurance or money. Me and others next-of-kin are afraid she will die on the street. If someone can tell me some good advice for her I'm all ears. I live 120 miles away from her in a small apartment with cat.
edit on 3-6-2012 by Saucerwench because: x

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:18 AM
Interesting... a common thread.. a government that's a resource instead of a control. Not something that dictates to us, but something that offers support where needed. Something that can be agreed on by the entire spectrum of political ideas?

not really going anywhere with this, it's wide open, just trying to find common ground and figure out how to build on it.
edit on 3-6-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:05 PM
I want something I can believe in, I don't want to wake up sick and disgusted by the psychopaths running the show. The example it is setting is that I must lie, cheat, scam, kill and drive fear in all those around me to get ahead in life. I don't want to be like this, I just want a simple life that respects the environment and others around me.

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 12:27 PM
good replies! lets keep this going!
We have to come together in order to make a change.
Forget the present ideologies, lets create a new ideology, one that will serve all of us, protect all of us, be a resource... what else do we want?
What should the government be? It's basic function?

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:04 PM
I think the question should be "what does society need" wants are secondary to that.

However, I will think on this and reply to it later. Nice thread.

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:08 PM

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
I think the question should be "what does society need" wants are secondary to that.

However, I will think on this and reply to it later. Nice thread.

Pretty good point! I didn't think about that. What we want and what we need aren't always the same thing. Definitely worth some thought... I WANT a billion dollars, a new vehicle, a big house, staff to wait on me.... but I NEED food, clothing and shelter. Definitely a good point.

Maybe while we figure out what we want, we can look at what we need and figure out how to get from the need stage to the want stage most efficiently?

Thanks for the mental adjustment!

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:31 PM
I just want them to let my people go.

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:39 PM

Originally posted by RealSpoke
I just want them to let my people go.

I hear ya, I think all of us want them to let all people go!
But once we are let go, what do we do? What do we want? What do we need? and how will we accomplish it?

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:58 PM
reply to post by PurpleChiten

The Feds should restrain themselves to only the powers granted to them in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. Those are the only powers granted to the federal government and all other powers should be reserved to the states and the local governments.

The concept of Subsidiarity should be the guiding principle of government.

One of the key principles of Catholic social thought is known as the principle of subsidiarity. This tenet holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.

subsidiarity (səbˌsɪdɪˈærɪtɪ)

— n
1. (in the Roman Catholic Church) a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over.

2. (in political systems) the principle of devolving decisions to the lowest practical level

Under subsidiarity, the greatest power would be held by the local government because they are the most accountable to their constituents. The further a level of government is from the voters, the lesser becomes their level of accountability until there is virtually no accountability at all at the Federal level, especially in non-elected regulatory agencies. Under subsidiarity, as the amount of accountability diminishes, so also does the amount of power of that level of government over the everyday lives of the people.

Under a system of subsidiarity, programs such as welfare and unemployment compensation would be controlled at a local level. Taxes would also be greater at the local level and lowest at the Federal level. The income generated from taxes would go more directly towards benefiting those who had paid the taxes and the members of their community.

The Federal courts should focus on handling disputes between the states and state level courts should focus on disputes between different localities within the states with local courts handling criminal and civil disputes between individuals. The Federal court system has no business determining whether a cross can exist on government land or who can marry who. Issues such as those should be handled by the local courts or by the voters.

Our system of government is completely upside down from what it should be. There is no reason that legislators in far off DC should have such power and importance in your local neighborhood. Under subsidiarity, the local elections would hold the most interest for local voters with national and presidential elections being nothing but sideshows of little importance as those offices would have little or no impact on the everyday lives of citizens.

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

So a very laissez faire type of relationship? government should serve us, not us serve them

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:18 PM

Originally posted by PurpleChiten
reply to post by FortAnthem

So a very laissez faire type of relationship? government should serve us, not us serve them

Somewhat laissez faire but, not quite.

If a people wants to have a nanny-state type government in their local area which takes care of them cradle to grave, they should be able to have that type of government, so long as they are able to pay for it themselves and do not expect people from outside their area of influence to aid in that level of support.

Under subsidiarity one state could be totally laissez faire while the next state could have a totally nanny state mentality. It would be up to what the voters wanted and how much they were willing to give up in taxes to pay for. Differences could even exist between different towns based on what the voters in those towns wanted.

It would be the ultimate test of free market principles in government; governments that functioned well and balanced the social needs of society against freedom and free market principles would thrive and attract people and businesses to them while voters would flee from a locality with overbearing government or taxes that were too high to pay for all of their programs. Local governments would be free to experiment with different types of programs to best suit the people who lived in their localities instead of using the one-size-fits-all solutions of Big Gubment.

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

ahhh, so turning the "pyramid" upside down so to speak? Most control at the local level and least control at the top... opposite of what it is now?
Very interesting!

Federal accountable to state, state accountable to local and local accountable to voters instead of the other way around

edit on 3-6-2012 by PurpleChiten because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 05:13 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

I agree with you. Government needs to get out of our stuff. It is in danger of becoming an all out Nanny State, as someone else said, micromanaging everything from trans fats in foods, to selling raw milk, to Happy Meals, and so on. But to stop a lot of that nonsense, we would have to do like Ron Paul said and get rid of some of these govt entities which create all sorts of regulations. We know that certain people like all these regulations and some do not.
Some regulations are important, and some are just plain over the top and confining, costly, and causing business to leave the country.
I believe in moderation. The govt is way out of control right now.

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:21 PM
Our Government has done many things over the past 200+ years, many things that are disagreed with from many people....
But instead of what we wan't them NOT to do, what is it was want that they should do?
Instead of "Thou Shalt Not..."
What of the "Thou Shall....." ?

posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by PurpleChiten

We need some property, good variety of people, solar panels, start farming, aquaponics and all that. Live off the land and be happy.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in