Once and for all, to fix the Federal Government. . . .

To fix the Federal Government, check all that apply:

  • Elect Democratic super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

    Votes: 2 3.6%
  • Elect Republican super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

    Votes: 8 14.3%
  • Be sure that the President and Congress are of different parties.

    Votes: 4 7.1%
  • The Pres, staff, Congress, fed employees live under same laws as all.

    Votes: 30 53.6%
  • Do away with Federal Government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

    Votes: 21 37.5%
  • Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

    Votes: 19 33.9%
  • Term limits

    Votes: 23 41.1%
  • A zero tolerance malfeasance policy.

    Votes: 26 46.4%
  • None of the above.

    Votes: 5 8.9%
  • Other (I'll elaborate in my post.)

    Votes: 13 23.2%

  • Total voters
    56
. . . .give a good argument for why one, some, or all of these would apply, would be necessary, or would be a bad idea.

(Civility and respect for respectfully stated opinions requested please. We can set up a food fight or insult fest for the children elsewhere.)

1. Elect Democratic super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

2. Elect Republican super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

3. Be sure that Executive Office and Congressional Branch are of different parties.

4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

9. None of the above

10. Other (I'll elaborate in my post.)

Number five includes VA benefits too. Better re-think that one. Number six would hit the poor the hardest. I can't understand why some folks think they can balance the federal budget on their backs. I suppose those folks would then complain about the homeless and dispossessed clogging the streets. Poor students of history would support number 6.

We have term limits! Two four year terms for the president and an election every six years for senators, every two years for congressmen. Use the voting booth, not a mandatory hook.

The one suggestion I'd make is bulldozing every building on K Street and making professional lobbyists run for the hills. Special interests, particularly the banking, investment houses and multi-national corporations have greater access to elected officials than average citizens do.

It is a Constitutional Function of the Federal Government to provide the Common Defense and I have no problem with taking care of those who put their lives on the line for their country. I do not see the military as the same thing as government administration.

I think careful students of history, once they fully appreciated good intentions producing unintended negative consequences, would strongly support No. 6 at the Federal level. The Founders were quite clear and wise re the risks and dangers of charity dispensed at the federal level. And implementation of No. 6 takes care of any lobbyists who have bad motives in their lobbying processes.

And. . . .implementation of No. 6 also gives the people incentive to exercise term limits at the voting booth. If they can't vote themselves money and benefits by keeping the same scoundrels in office, they will be more likely inspired to elect people who will have the best interests of the whole country at heart.
 
. . . .give a good argument for why one, some, or all of these would apply, would be necessary, or would be a bad idea.

(Civility and respect for respectfully stated opinions requested please. We can set up a food fight or insult fest for the children elsewhere.)

1. Elect Democratic super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

2. Elect Republican super majorities in Congress and Executive Branch.

3. Be sure that Executive Office and Congressional Branch are of different parties.

4. The President, his staff, Congress, and federal employees must live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us.

5. Do away with federal government pensions and health plans – they can fund their own.

6. Do away with all forms of Federal Government charity or benevolence of any kind.

7. Term limits

8. A zero tolerance malfeasance policy. Misuse the people's money for your own or a friend's benefit and you are out of Congress and/or the federal government.

9. None of the above

10. Other (I'll elaborate in my post.)

Number five includes VA benefits too. Better re-think that one. Number six would hit the poor the hardest. I can't understand why some folks think they can balance the federal budget on their backs. I suppose those folks would then complain about the homeless and dispossessed clogging the streets. Poor students of history would support number 6.

We have term limits! Two four year terms for the president and an election every six years for senators, every two years for congressmen. Use the voting booth, not a mandatory hook.

The one suggestion I'd make is bulldozing every building on K Street and making professional lobbyists run for the hills. Special interests, particularly the banking, investment houses and multi-national corporations have greater access to elected officials than average citizens do.

It is a Constitutional Function of the Federal Government to provide the Common Defense and I have no problem with taking care of those who put their lives on the line for their country. I do not see the military as the same thing as government administration.

I think careful students of history, once they fully appreciated good intentions producing unintended negative consequences, would strongly support No. 6 at the Federal level. The Founders were quite clear and wise re the risks and dangers of charity dispensed at the federal level. And implementation of No. 6 takes care of any lobbyists who have bad motives in their lobbying processes.

And. . . .implementation of No. 6 also gives the people incentive to exercise term limits at the voting booth. If they can't vote themselves money and benefits by keeping the same scoundrels in office, they will be more likely inspired to elect people who will have the best interests of the whole country at heart.

What would you have done after Hurricane Katrina?
 
Foxfyre, I'm not disagreeing with you or Oddball on the two posts just above - but neither of them claim that everyone benefits equally (which is what you first argued and probably didn't really mean).

All I'm saying is that it's often impossible for the government to spend ANY money without some group yelling that they're getting the shaft while another group benefits more.

There were people yelling at the government from week one of the Republic. Nobody or nothing is going to make everybody equally happy.

But at least we can pass and implement laws to keep our fearless leaders from using their positions to enhance their own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth at our expense. Then if they pass a bill benefitting a particular constiuency or group or entity without extending such benefit to all, then No. 8 kicks in.
 
Number five includes VA benefits too. Better re-think that one. Number six would hit the poor the hardest. I can't understand why some folks think they can balance the federal budget on their backs. I suppose those folks would then complain about the homeless and dispossessed clogging the streets. Poor students of history would support number 6.

We have term limits! Two four year terms for the president and an election every six years for senators, every two years for congressmen. Use the voting booth, not a mandatory hook.

The one suggestion I'd make is bulldozing every building on K Street and making professional lobbyists run for the hills. Special interests, particularly the banking, investment houses and multi-national corporations have greater access to elected officials than average citizens do.

It is a Constitutional Function of the Federal Government to provide the Common Defense and I have no problem with taking care of those who put their lives on the line for their country. I do not see the military as the same thing as government administration.

I think careful students of history, once they fully appreciated good intentions producing unintended negative consequences, would strongly support No. 6 at the Federal level. The Founders were quite clear and wise re the risks and dangers of charity dispensed at the federal level. And implementation of No. 6 takes care of any lobbyists who have bad motives in their lobbying processes.

And. . . .implementation of No. 6 also gives the people incentive to exercise term limits at the voting booth. If they can't vote themselves money and benefits by keeping the same scoundrels in office, they will be more likely inspired to elect people who will have the best interests of the whole country at heart.

What would you have done after Hurricane Katrina?

I would have gathered information on what relief was needed in each area and ask the American people to send what was needed. The American people have always come through at times like that. I would have mobilized the National Guard and other military as necessary for search and rescue, security, and distribution of relief supplies. I would have made federal LOANS--that's loans, not grants--available to those who needed to rebuild but did not have access to regular means of financing. The federal loans would carry higher interest rates than the private sector however so as not to compete with the private sector. And, just like student loans, I would expect those loans to be repaid.

And I would encourage those who cannot afford to insure themselves in high risk areas to relocate elsewhere.
 
It is a Constitutional Function of the Federal Government to provide the Common Defense and I have no problem with taking care of those who put their lives on the line for their country. I do not see the military as the same thing as government administration.

I think careful students of history, once they fully appreciated good intentions producing unintended negative consequences, would strongly support No. 6 at the Federal level. The Founders were quite clear and wise re the risks and dangers of charity dispensed at the federal level. And implementation of No. 6 takes care of any lobbyists who have bad motives in their lobbying processes.

And. . . .implementation of No. 6 also gives the people incentive to exercise term limits at the voting booth. If they can't vote themselves money and benefits by keeping the same scoundrels in office, they will be more likely inspired to elect people who will have the best interests of the whole country at heart.

What would you have done after Hurricane Katrina?

I would have gathered information on what relief was needed in each area and ask the American people to send what was needed. The American people have always come through at times like that. I would have mobilized the National Guard and other military as necessary for search and rescue, security, and distribution of relief supplies. I would have made federal LOANS--that's loans, not grants--available to those who needed to rebuild but did not have access to regular means of financing. The federal loans would carry higher interest rates than the private sector however so as not to compete with the private sector. And, just like student loans, I would expect those loans to be repaid.

And I would encourage those who cannot afford to insure themselves in high risk areas to relocate elsewhere.

Couldn't employing the National Guard for the service of the people of Louisiana be classified as dispensing charity from which only those people will gain a benefit?
 
The way you've worded it doesn't result in the desired goal.

"ALL forms of charity and benevolence" could easily be argued that the government wouldn't be allowed to spend on anything but its own defense. I'm pretty sure that's not what you want, and at any rate is certainly not a tenable situation.

I guess I don't see the problem you see with that. Could you clarify?

I see that as the federal government getting out of benefits programs entirely. The federal government could not use the people's treasury to benefit any person, group, or entity unless all, rich or poor alike, are benefitted equally. The federal government would be prevented from sending foreign aid of any kind. Government installations would be equally spread among the various states according to population. The Federal government would provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare without prejudice), and respect the unalienable rights of the people to pursue their own happiness.

That is how the founding fathers envisioned the federal government they wrote into the Constitution.

And if we went back to it, that would take care of most lobbying problems.

No foreign aid?

Imagine this situation;
A major emerging power, seen as a strategic threat to the United States, is travelling about the world dishing out largesse to smaller and poorer countries to gain access to their territories and resources and their general goodwill.
How would you respond?

I'd make sure we were stronger than the emerging power and otherwise consider it none of our business. You can buy friendly overtures for a little while, but nobody has ever bought a friend yet. And in my opinion, it is futile to try.
 
What would you have done after Hurricane Katrina?

I would have gathered information on what relief was needed in each area and ask the American people to send what was needed. The American people have always come through at times like that. I would have mobilized the National Guard and other military as necessary for search and rescue, security, and distribution of relief supplies. I would have made federal LOANS--that's loans, not grants--available to those who needed to rebuild but did not have access to regular means of financing. The federal loans would carry higher interest rates than the private sector however so as not to compete with the private sector. And, just like student loans, I would expect those loans to be repaid.

And I would encourage those who cannot afford to insure themselves in high risk areas to relocate elsewhere.

Couldn't employing the National Guard for the service of the people of Louisiana be classified as dispensing charity from which only those people will gain a benefit?

Not if it is the Louisiana National Guard. If neighboring states want to help on their dime that would be great.

You understand that in my 'perfect world' the taxpayer is at most 'loaning' their property for the benefit of those in distress. And they should expect that they will be paid back. What the people themselves donate is what charity was always intended to be, however. And it should not be the prerogative of the Federal government to choose what the people will be required to donate as charity.
 
I guess I don't see the problem you see with that. Could you clarify?

I see that as the federal government getting out of benefits programs entirely. The federal government could not use the people's treasury to benefit any person, group, or entity unless all, rich or poor alike, are benefitted equally. The federal government would be prevented from sending foreign aid of any kind. Government installations would be equally spread among the various states according to population. The Federal government would provide the common defense, promote the general welfare (meaning everybody's welfare without prejudice), and respect the unalienable rights of the people to pursue their own happiness.

That is how the founding fathers envisioned the federal government they wrote into the Constitution.

And if we went back to it, that would take care of most lobbying problems.

No foreign aid?

Imagine this situation;
A major emerging power, seen as a strategic threat to the United States, is travelling about the world dishing out largesse to smaller and poorer countries to gain access to their territories and resources and their general goodwill.
How would you respond?

I'd make sure we were stronger than the emerging power and otherwise consider it none of our business. You can buy friendly overtures for a little while, but nobody has ever bought a friend yet. And in my opinion, it is futile to try.

Well, that certainly seems easy enough.

The further great consequence of that I suppose, is that there will more jobs for Americans as you have to step up the exploitation of your own resources such as oil and steel once you pull back to your own borders.
 
I'm in favor of #4, 6, 7 & 8.

I would also like to see the elimination of all Political Parties and Political Action Committees.

No corporate donations/spending on campaigns.... If you can't vote in the election, you can't donate anything of value to the candidate (corporations can't vote).

A $100 per candidate per year donation limit for every voter.

Voter registration cards with a photo on them for every voter. No card, no ballot. Period.


That would be a good start.
 
In my opinion, implementing No. 5 and 6 would take care of most of it as we would again have public servants in government instead of career politicians.

i picked 4, 6, 7, and 8.

I wouldn't object to 5 happening either I just wasn't really sure if you meant take away all govt workers or just elected officials crazy lifetime healthplans.
 
No foreign aid?

Imagine this situation;
A major emerging power, seen as a strategic threat to the United States, is travelling about the world dishing out largesse to smaller and poorer countries to gain access to their territories and resources and their general goodwill.
How would you respond?

I'd make sure we were stronger than the emerging power and otherwise consider it none of our business. You can buy friendly overtures for a little while, but nobody has ever bought a friend yet. And in my opinion, it is futile to try.

Well, that certainly seems easy enough.

The further great consequence of that I suppose, is that there will more jobs for Americans as you have to step up the exploitation of your own resources such as oil and steel once you pull back to your own borders.

No problem from me with exploting and utilizing our own resources. But the benevolence angle is the reforming policy that applies to this thread. While I think strengthening our own borders, economy, defenses, etc. will enhance our overall prosperity, and being prosperous makes us a desirable trading partner even with those who are probably our spiritual enemy, I see that as procedural and policy issues we can tackle once we have reformed government.
 
In my opinion, implementing No. 5 and 6 would take care of most of it as we would again have public servants in government instead of career politicians.

i picked 4, 6, 7, and 8.

I wouldn't object to 5 happening either I just wasn't really sure if you meant take away all govt workers or just elected officials crazy lifetime healthplans.

Well, once we have reformed and restored integrity and principle to our federal government, I will want to get it totally out of the business of healthcare. So if federal employees are going to live under the same rules as everybody else, the taxpayer won't be furnishing healthcare to federal employees. In my 'perfect world' however, the employees would be able to form and fund their own group if they wanted to. I would like to see insurance policies, just like auto insurance or other forms of insurance, become the private property of the person and therefore portable.

But first we have to reform government and remove incentive for federal employees to be a lobby and voting bloc before we can reform healthcare.
 
I'd make sure we were stronger than the emerging power and otherwise consider it none of our business. You can buy friendly overtures for a little while, but nobody has ever bought a friend yet. And in my opinion, it is futile to try.

Well, that certainly seems easy enough.

The further great consequence of that I suppose, is that there will more jobs for Americans as you have to step up the exploitation of your own resources such as oil and steel once you pull back to your own borders.

No problem from me with exploting and utilizing our own resources. But the benevolence angle is the reforming policy that applies to this thread. While I think strengthening our own borders, economy, defenses, etc. will enhance our overall prosperity, and being prosperous makes us a desirable trading partner even with those who are probably our spiritual enemy, I see that as procedural and policy issues we can tackle once we have reformed government.

The point I was making that withdrawing foreign aid - benevolence if you will - and spending would be effectively withdrawing from direct international influence.

You can be sure that other countries will be prepared to fill the vacuum.
 
Well, that certainly seems easy enough.

The further great consequence of that I suppose, is that there will more jobs for Americans as you have to step up the exploitation of your own resources such as oil and steel once you pull back to your own borders.

No problem from me with exploting and utilizing our own resources. But the benevolence angle is the reforming policy that applies to this thread. While I think strengthening our own borders, economy, defenses, etc. will enhance our overall prosperity, and being prosperous makes us a desirable trading partner even with those who are probably our spiritual enemy, I see that as procedural and policy issues we can tackle once we have reformed government.

The point I was making that withdrawing foreign aid - benevolence if you will - and spending would be effectively withdrawing from direct international influence.

You can be sure that other countries will be prepared to fill the vacuum.

Fine. Let somebody else spend their money instead of ours. The American people will continue to open their hearts and wallets to people hurting, hungry, in trouble all over the world as they have always done. And funneling such benevolence through private organizations is far more likely to get it to people who need it than will the US government writing a check.

More than 150 nations receive US foreign aid. Among the 30 largest recipients of US aid in the U.N., 29 vote against us most of the time. Those nations who vote with us are far more likely to be nations that promote personal freedoms and receive no U.S. aid.

Since 2000 about 95 percent of U.N. member states that receive U.S. assistance have voted against the United States most of the time in the U.N. General Assembly on non-consensus votes

You can't buy friends.
 
Fix the federal government FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL? It ain't broken. God help us if we think we can fix government for once and for all. The Founding Fathers understood that there would be nut cases who wanted to "fix the federal government" and they created checks and balances in the greatest system of government ever to appear on the globe. The problem is that the teachers union stopped teaching American history to kids so they grew up thinking they could fix politics for once and for all. All you have to do is recognize that the people hire and fire the politicians, pay attention to the issues and vote your conscience.
 
Foxfyre, I'm not disagreeing with you or Oddball on the two posts just above - but neither of them claim that everyone benefits equally (which is what you first argued and probably didn't really mean).

All I'm saying is that it's often impossible for the government to spend ANY money without some group yelling that they're getting the shaft while another group benefits more.
Roads are equally available to all, whether you personally partake of their use or not.

Equal availability to everyone <> Equal benefit for everyone.
 
Fix the federal government FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL? It ain't broken. God help us if we think we can fix government for once and for all. The Founding Fathers understood that there would be nut cases who wanted to "fix the federal government" and they created checks and balances in the greatest system of government ever to appear on the globe. The problem is that the teachers union stopped teaching American history to kids so they grew up thinking they could fix politics for once and for all. All you have to do is recognize that the people hire and fire the politicians, pay attention to the issues and vote your conscience.

It's all the teachers' fault!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Expecting the Federal Government to fix itself will simply never happen. Institute a balanced budget, fixed debt limit and term limits by Constitutional amendment. If citizens don't take back government it will simply crush us and itself under the weight of debt, power and corruption.
 
you want to "fix" government? get rid of the need for corporate donors. set a given amount for each candidate who obtains a minimum number of signatures and gets on the ballot. no candidate could use their own money or money from donations to supplement the federal funds.

of course, citizens united pretty well screwed any chance of that happening.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top