Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

K.I.S.S.

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by Doalrite
I also find the fact that people would rather talk about mundane unimportant things rather than talk about things that would actually benifit everyone.


Your 'simple' ideas would only benefit a few. I take issue with a number of your solutions but as someone earlier mentioned...you seem to want to adhere to the constitution until it gets in your way.



Please explain how would it benifit a few, and where do I not want to follow the constitution. I have no problem discussing this as I want this to evolve.


If your going to make statements at the very least be specific about what you are talking about, don't sound like a politician. Or what is the point of even saying anything.
edit on 4-8-2012 by Doalrite because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Doalrite
 


I actually spent a good amount of time replying to this last night but then accidentally hit F5 (this refreshes the page) and lost everything. A short summation is as such:

Allowing states to pass whatever laws they like unless they're unconstitutional begs to question how long it would be until a new form of enslavement occurs at the state level. Then we guess how long until the next civil war.

Forbidding the the federal government from taxing individuals is unconstitutional due to the 16th amendment. Then we get back to placing the states ahead of the federal government in specific areas, as you laid out, which is what we tried with the articles of confederation. It ended with the states just ignoring the federal government and leading to the greatest expansion of federal power the country has ever seen, the adoption of the US constitution.

Keeping it simple only works with simple problems. We're the third largest country on the planet both in land mass and population, we have the largest military, and we have the most money. Our problems are rarely so simple as to require a one page, fix all solution.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
You seriously think that by allowing states the right to make their own laws that they would create slaverly???
I mean seriously.


The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially outlaws slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On December 18, Secretary of State William H. Seward proclaimed it to have been adopted. It was the first of the three Reconstruction Amendments adopted after the American Civil War.


As you can see if a state were to pass a slave law it would be unconstitutional and the Federal Government would have a job to do. So it would never happen... plus people have evolved further than that.

wikipedia

First by having citizens pay taxes to the state only and then the state paying taxes to the fed gov. State would want to maximize on how many citizens they have because the more people the more money. Second we are americans and have the right to move any where in the U.S. and this foremost would dictate what laws states would pass... we as people would have the power to create change.


On February 3rd, 1913, the states ratified the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It reads:
"The congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

This amendment gives the federal government the power to tax a person's income. These income taxes can be used to pay for the government's new programs. Taxes are not based on a flat rate but can change according to the amount of income earned. The richer you are, the more taxes you pay. If you're poor, you get a break.

If you examine the bill closer you will find that the amount of states needed to ratify this amendment was never met, and adding to that, this bill is completely unconstitutional as it is a direct unpartitioned tax
Read more: wiki.answers.com...


Unfortunately the 16th admendment has been contested and I do disagree with this one because of the facts. I do believe the federal government should receive tax money.. I just feel it should go to the states then the states pay washington. Then the more Profitable the State the more the Federal Government recieves. Which in turns makes the Fed Gov. wanna help make each state as PRODUCTIVE as possible.

Actually keeping it simple with most things works well.

And no we don't have the most money our money is almost worthless and we are on the edge of fiscal collapse.

Oh but we can just keep printing money from nothing right???



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 09:15 AM
link   
love this motto. I live by it..

Another gem is

think pink....

works when you are mad, exhausted, or just fed up....think pink....and kiss.....



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by BIHOTZ
 


absolutely.

I think there are people out there that believe they are so smart that they make things much more complicated than they have to be.


what is so hard to understand that if you have a household that makes a profit each year its a good thing, and multiple households that make a profit make a profitable town, and mutliple towns that are profitable make profitable counties, and multiple counties that are profitable make a profitable state and multiple states that are profitable make for a healthy profitable federal government.

We hear of the trickle down affect and accept it because it is the government that tells us this.

It should be Trickle Up Effect.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Doalrite
 


You're so willing to throw away the 16th, why not the 13th? You say we've evolved beyond that mentality so why not just get rid of it? It's superfluous outlawing something that no one does anyway.

Taxes aren't simple for a lot of different reasons. That's not even the start of it. Laws aren't always that simple because they're not applicable all the time. I don't even know how to address your top-down approach to government officials because it doesn't make any sense.

The world is a complicated place, if you don't want complication then go to Wyoming or Montana. Fewer people to complicate things.



posted on Aug, 5 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by links234
reply to post by Doalrite
 


You're so willing to throw away the 16th, why not the 13th? You say we've evolved beyond that mentality so why not just get rid of it? It's superfluous outlawing something that no one does anyway.

Taxes aren't simple for a lot of different reasons. That's not even the start of it. Laws aren't always that simple because they're not applicable all the time. I don't even know how to address your top-down approach to government officials because it doesn't make any sense.

The world is a complicated place, if you don't want complication then go to Wyoming or Montana. Fewer people to complicate things.


Your making things complicated either because you just aren't smart enough to understand or your are purposefully being ignorant. I dont want to do away with the 16th however I do believe it needs to be modified.

I don't understand your reasoning about coming back to this slaverly thing...the american public isn't as racist as the media likes to make it out as, if you don't have anything to add that is postive or builds this thread please stop posting.



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Well its plain to see that you really didn't have anything to add... to bad.


I believe another thing to help america would to be to commision new cities to be built.. efficient and without the need for cars.

a city of the future

people spend so much money on cars... why don't we try to build a culture without them



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
I agree with most of what you are proposing. The most recent post however, nope. I don't want to live in a city. Ever. Grew up in one and it's country life for me. =)



posted on Aug, 8 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
I agree with most of what you are proposing. The most recent post however, nope. I don't want to live in a city. Ever. Grew up in one and it's country life for me. =)


Remember its about diversity...

Building gets the economy going, and there are lots of people that are city people. The next step in civilization would to build "modern" citys that are layered in ways to work the best.

I wouldn't wanna live in a city either but I would help build one. Build it so that the city would produce a profit by filling with people.

Have tier lvl housing, so people that are young can live in dorm like apartments that cost nothing, communtiy kitchens and access for everyone to everything, gyms, librarys, internet.

We need to evolve. We need diversity. Everyone should have a place to live how they wish, no matter what your beliefs



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
where did you go links?



posted on Aug, 10 2012 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Doalrite
 


I agree with everything you said, even the 2 years in the military. Those 2 years ought to be mandatory if you want government benefits like cheap student loans, pell grants, and 2nd amendment rights.

Flat Tax, limited Federal Government, State's Rights, and military training to get kids out of mommy's house and teach them a little discipline and responsibility before turning them loose in the world. I think you nailed it!



posted on Aug, 11 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Thankyou this is something that has been on my mind for a while now.

It would also get kids starting to make adult decisions. It would jump start their lives and would be benifical to the country and to themselves.

None would be in any danger of going to war. Their is plenty to do in our own country.

We would have honor and pride of our nation because it wouldn't be a typical military service.

I wish I had had the option when I was younger. I would've tried signing up at 16.



posted on Dec, 7 2012 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Instead of simply making government live in its means our beloved'd elected officials are growing government... instead of fixing the spending problem they want to just do away with the debt ceiling.

Would you like to know how Oblamyomomma plans on making everything fair and balance for everyone.. only one possibility, by crashing the dollar so it is worthless and no one has money. Then letting people panic and lose everything they own.

The only way to be fair about it is to start everyone over at zero..... which means everyone owns NOTHING.

Woo Hoo Go obamar



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:09 PM
link   
i think i should start this whole thread over. I feel that this is the main problem with america and yet it is never discussed in length by anyone.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Doalrite
 



I think that getting most spoiled kids out of their mothers home and give them an opportunity to work and grow themselves would be good.


Most kids can't wait to get out of their "mother's" home after having been convinced by the third grade that their parents know nothing, like how to use the proper recycling bin or ~ OMG, having guns in the home.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by frazzle
 


I have 2 teens and one soon to be. Only one wants to leave and its because he is a wild child.. however they all see how hard it is to get by and none of them seem to know what they wanna do in life. I know lots of people with their kids staying well into their 20's because its easier and they can play video games and not have responsiblities.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Doalrite
 


I know a couple 20s kids who are still at home because they are working and saving to graduate from college without government loans, other than that, most would rather be independent of their parents. The kids are not responsible for the economy, they only have to pay for the failure of their elders to bring the government back to its senses before it reached this point.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Just make a flat tax of maybe 15% on purchases. Exclude food/medicine. So no income tax. Just a tax on what you buy. Tariff imported goods at the same rate and keep it simple.



posted on Jan, 6 2013 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmiec
Just make a flat tax of maybe 15% on purchases. Exclude food/medicine. So no income tax. Just a tax on what you buy. Tariff imported goods at the same rate and keep it simple.


wouldn't that be nice however it is more about the incentive for people to help each other. About people getting envolved.





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join