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
Wrong.

And I'll tell you why.

In the past, there was no calling higher than service to one's fellow man.

Bullshit.

Show me one person in history, who's "service" was anything other than self-aggrandizing and a quest for power. Gandhi defeated an empire and ruled a nation, he sought power. Jesus was a myth.

Those days are long gone. "Give me liberty or give me death" isn't echoing through the halls of Washington any longer. I doubt it's being told to kids in the classroom. The art of compromise isn't being taught either.

The power of political parties is partly to blame but the 21st century "me first" society is the primary culprit.

Bullshit.

The "equality of outcome" and unearned "self-esteem" are the primary culprits. Self-reliance and the responsibility that accrues to it are what we have lost.



The goal of tyrants is to defeat the constitution. The wall that has kept the dictators and aristocracy from full rule is the constitution. If you can defeat that, nothing will restrain the complete destruction of liberty and individual rights.

Every border governor says they are 100% dead serious about it. Yet we have 15-20M illegals here?

Arnold bragged to the Mexican community that he kept the border open. Jan Brewer is serious about stopping the invasion, not many others are. Note that the central authority acted to ensure the flow of illegals when Brewer secured Arizona borders. Clearly the policy and goal the Federal government is a massive influx of poorly educated and low skilled people.

After all, they won't mind scrapping the constitution - just as you desire.

You amend the Constitution to give the Coast Guard authority to secure the borders with the awesome power of the military...meaning yes armed forces patrolling the borders using deadly force when necessary and gee, you don't have to worry about politicians saying one thing during the election cycle and doing another in-between. The conservative in me talking. Its a bad idea whose time has come.

The federal government wants the borders open. The federal government wants the population of the United States changed, the European descendents could not be ruled, they were too educated, too informed, too dedicated to liberty. Dilute them with a massive influx of third world peasants - offer the peasants trinkets from the public treasury to vote in favor of authoritarianism and then you can crush that damned constitution once and for all.

They have a plan - which is strangely similar to your plan.
Maybe BH will save you some room on his black chopper! :lol: Where do you dumbass motherfuckers come from?
 
The Founders took years to put together a system for a free people. It worked then and I believe it will work now. We just need to restore it.

Equality of 'stuff' doesn't produce anything but disatisfaction. The half that have to provide for the other half in order for the bottom half to be 'equal' are never going to be happy about that. The bottom half will always clamor for the top half to provide a better standard of 'equality' and they won't be happy either.

Equality of right to reach for opportunity yes, but all will not take advantage of the opportunity, and that's okay. There is no way to achieve equality of intellect, vision, inspiration, talent, drive, ambition, self respect, initiative, etc. Those who prepare themselves to take advantage of opportunities offered or who have the ability and initiative and temperament to create their own opportunities are going to achieve more than those who don't.

And those who do don't owe a damn thing to those who don't. They may help out the 'have nots' out of the goodness of their heart, but the Founders did not see that any of us have any kind of right for somebody else to provide us with anything.

Nobody is born knowing how to take advantage of opportunities (or even how to be responsible). Many of us are lucky enough to have had parents or other family members who taught us, but lots of people did not. A society that truly believes in equality has to prepare everyone, not leave that element to chance.

That is the responsibility of parents and not the federal government whether or not the parents accept the responsibility. Parents who will not accept responsibility for providing minimal food, clothing, shelter, and education for their children should lose those children, but it must be the local community, county, or state that makes that happen. That is not an intended function of the Federal government.

It is a poor government that encourages and/or enables parental irresponsibility.
 
And to a few members here, we are dangerously close to slipping into incivility approximating a food fight here. I would very much appreciate this thread not being reassigned to the Flame Zone. If you could just tone down the insults a bit, I would be most grateful.
 
Wrong.

And I'll tell you why.

In the past, there was no calling higher than service to one's fellow man.

Bullshit.

Show me one person in history, who's "service" was anything other than self-aggrandizing and a quest for power. Gandhi defeated an empire and ruled a nation, he sought power. Jesus was a myth.



Bullshit.

The "equality of outcome" and unearned "self-esteem" are the primary culprits. Self-reliance and the responsibility that accrues to it are what we have lost.



The goal of tyrants is to defeat the constitution. The wall that has kept the dictators and aristocracy from full rule is the constitution. If you can defeat that, nothing will restrain the complete destruction of liberty and individual rights.



Arnold bragged to the Mexican community that he kept the border open. Jan Brewer is serious about stopping the invasion, not many others are. Note that the central authority acted to ensure the flow of illegals when Brewer secured Arizona borders. Clearly the policy and goal the Federal government is a massive influx of poorly educated and low skilled people.

After all, they won't mind scrapping the constitution - just as you desire.

You amend the Constitution to give the Coast Guard authority to secure the borders with the awesome power of the military...meaning yes armed forces patrolling the borders using deadly force when necessary and gee, you don't have to worry about politicians saying one thing during the election cycle and doing another in-between. The conservative in me talking. Its a bad idea whose time has come.

The federal government wants the borders open. The federal government wants the population of the United States changed, the European descendents could not be ruled, they were too educated, too informed, too dedicated to liberty. Dilute them with a massive influx of third world peasants - offer the peasants trinkets from the public treasury to vote in favor of authoritarianism and then you can crush that damned constitution once and for all.

They have a plan - which is strangely similar to your plan.
Maybe BH will save you some room on his black chopper! :lol: Where do you dumbass motherfuckers come from?

Well cacacorn, We all know there is plenty of room next to Jabba with you. You robot minded, yes man slave. :razz:

smiley_jabba.gif
~BH
 
The Founders took years to put together a system for a free people. It worked then and I believe it will work now. We just need to restore it.

Equality of 'stuff' doesn't produce anything but disatisfaction. The half that have to provide for the other half in order for the bottom half to be 'equal' are never going to be happy about that. The bottom half will always clamor for the top half to provide a better standard of 'equality' and they won't be happy either.

Equality of right to reach for opportunity yes, but all will not take advantage of the opportunity, and that's okay. There is no way to achieve equality of intellect, vision, inspiration, talent, drive, ambition, self respect, initiative, etc. Those who prepare themselves to take advantage of opportunities offered or who have the ability and initiative and temperament to create their own opportunities are going to achieve more than those who don't.

And those who do don't owe a damn thing to those who don't. They may help out the 'have nots' out of the goodness of their heart, but the Founders did not see that any of us have any kind of right for somebody else to provide us with anything.

Nobody is born knowing how to take advantage of opportunities (or even how to be responsible). Many of us are lucky enough to have had parents or other family members who taught us, but lots of people did not. A society that truly believes in equality has to prepare everyone, not leave that element to chance.

That is the responsibility of parents and not the federal government whether or not the parents accept the responsibility. Parents who will not accept responsibility for providing minimal food, clothing, shelter, and education for their children should lose those children, but it must be the local community, county, or state that makes that happen. That is not an intended function of the Federal government.

My previous post did not mention the federal government. The topic you brought up was equality, and this question has to be addressed with something other than a jurisdictional dodge.
 
Nobody is born knowing how to take advantage of opportunities (or even how to be responsible). Many of us are lucky enough to have had parents or other family members who taught us, but lots of people did not. A society that truly believes in equality has to prepare everyone, not leave that element to chance.

That is the responsibility of parents and not the federal government whether or not the parents accept the responsibility. Parents who will not accept responsibility for providing minimal food, clothing, shelter, and education for their children should lose those children, but it must be the local community, county, or state that makes that happen. That is not an intended function of the Federal government.

My previous post did not mention the federal government. The topic you brought up was equality, and this question has to be addressed with something other than a jurisdictional dodge.

But the thread topic is the Federal Government and how to fix it if or where it needs fixing. All my comments are framed within that context.
 
That is the responsibility of parents and not the federal government whether or not the parents accept the responsibility. Parents who will not accept responsibility for providing minimal food, clothing, shelter, and education for their children should lose those children, but it must be the local community, county, or state that makes that happen. That is not an intended function of the Federal government.

My previous post did not mention the federal government. The topic you brought up was equality, and this question has to be addressed with something other than a jurisdictional dodge.

But the thread topic is the Federal Government and how to fix it if or where it needs fixing. All my comments are framed within that context.

So if the states are to be tasked with providing neglected children with equal opportunity, can equality still be guaranteed if states have different levels of resources available?
 
My previous post did not mention the federal government. The topic you brought up was equality, and this question has to be addressed with something other than a jurisdictional dodge.

But the thread topic is the Federal Government and how to fix it if or where it needs fixing. All my comments are framed within that context.

So if the states are to be tasked with providing neglected children with equal opportunity, can equality still be guaranteed if states have different levels of resources available?

There is no unalienable right to equal opportunity. There is only unalienable right to go after what opportunity we can find. The government is neither equipped nor appropriate to make opportunity for anybody as the only way it can do that is take one person's property and give it to another. I am doing my damndest to make a case for why it is wrong, corrupting, and counter productive as well as against everything the Founders believed in for the government to do that.
 
. . . .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.)

There are 18,000 baby boomers entering social security/medicare DAILY which will continue for the next 15 years--resulting in another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites on top of the 14.3 trillion in red ink now. Equating to $534,000.00 per household in American owed to the Federal Government.

$1 billion dollars.jpg

1 billion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on palets

$trillion dollars.jpg

1 trillion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on palet--Note how small same man above--is in this chart.

Now if anyone on this board can tell me who's going to pay for this--you win. 14.3 trillion now with another oncoming train wreck of 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites. In my opinion there can be no sacred cows--everything is going to have to be cut with a very sharp knife to survive this.
 
Last edited:
. . . .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.)

There are 18,000 baby boomers entering social security/medicare DAILY which will continue for the next 15 years--resulting in another 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites on top of the 14.3 trillion in red ink now. Equating to $534,000.00 per household in American owed to the Federal Government.

View attachment 13817

1 billion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on palets

View attachment 13818

1 trillion dollars--$100.00 bills stacked on palet--Note how small same man above--is in this chart.

Now if anyone on this board can tell me who's going to pay for this--you win. 14.3 trillion now with another oncoming train wreck of 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites. In my opinion there can be no sacred cows--everything is going to have to be cut with a very sharp knife to survive this.

I haven't done the math, but I read today that if we started stacking $1 million dollars every day since the birth of Jesus Christ, it would not equal even half of the deficits we have incurred in the last two years. So yes, you're right.

We CAN start now by taking care of those who have no other option and incrementally increasing the retirement age for those who don't have time to building a whole retirement fund. The rest we need to start incrementally funneling to the states to take over and structure as they see fit which could include privatizing the whole system.

We can't continue to just keep kicking the cans down the road. They have all now piled up against that 'bump' in the road the President was talking about and it approximates Mount Everest

GM110605CLR-Economic20110606013951.jpg


But first we have to convince the American people that the Federal government must be dethroned as our king and we can't look to it to take care of us any more. That is the only way to start a careful transition to a real fix.
 
Last edited:
Now if anyone on this board can tell me who's going to pay for this--you win. 14.3 trillion now with another oncoming train wreck of 64 trillion in unfunded liabilites. In my opinion there can be no sacred cows--everything is going to have to be cut with a very sharp knife to survive this.

If everything were cut 100% there wouldn't be enough to pay for it. This is what Cantor and the Tealiban either don't understand or cynically ignore.

More revenue has to be brought in. The sooner we grow up about taxes, the better.
 
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.

Good news Foxfyre: In 1984, Reagan signed a bill putting all newly hired federal employees, including congresscritters, on Social Security & Medicare, ending the separate federal retirement system.

This only applies to employees first hired after 1984, so get out there and vote against the old white-haired critters that have been creeping around DC since the 70's.
 
First, thanks to Newby for coming to the rescue here. I failed to set multiple choice options for the polls and he helped so I could fix that. (And also any other mod who looked in.)

Don't you guys pushing for campaign finance reform think fixing the other items (#4 through #8) would take care of campaign finance issues? If Congress was prohibited from benefitting ANYBODY unless they benefitted all equally, there wouldn't be much point in trying to buy a Congressman's vote.

And if they were unable to benefit themselves through their office by voting themselves bigger pensions, health plans, expense accounts, etc., the term limit problem would be remedied too. There wouldn't be any point to staying around for decades unless you were really good at your job and enjoyed doing it.

The quickest way to put the biggest dent in our corruption problem is to enact a simple and fair tax code that applies the exact same rates to everyone. Tax code favoritism is a huge generator of campaign money and tax credits are a piss-poor way to dole out welfare.
 
First, thanks to Newby for coming to the rescue here. I failed to set multiple choice options for the polls and he helped so I could fix that. (And also any other mod who looked in.)

Don't you guys pushing for campaign finance reform think fixing the other items (#4 through #8) would take care of campaign finance issues? If Congress was prohibited from benefitting ANYBODY unless they benefitted all equally, there wouldn't be much point in trying to buy a Congressman's vote.

And if they were unable to benefit themselves through their office by voting themselves bigger pensions, health plans, expense accounts, etc., the term limit problem would be remedied too. There wouldn't be any point to staying around for decades unless you were really good at your job and enjoyed doing it.


I think we need to spell it out in no uncertain terms. I don't think we should have 3rd party ads, and I don't think campaign contributions should exceed some limit, say $5000. I'd prohibit direct contributions to a campaign, it all has to get filtered through an independent agency that verifies where the money came from (no foreign donations in our elections).

Not sure what else to do to correct the intensive lobbying that goes on, but the least we can do is shed some light on who gives how much to which candidate.

:iagree: Tax reform and wide open disclosure of who spends what.
 
There's no way in hell that ANYONE should ever spend a BILLION dollars on a campaign.

Frankly, I'd like to see a mandatory equal time law in exchange for their FCC licenses.

I'm sick to death of the people who spend the most money being the only voices heard.
 
First, thanks to Newby for coming to the rescue here. I failed to set multiple choice options for the polls and he helped so I could fix that. (And also any other mod who looked in.)

Don't you guys pushing for campaign finance reform think fixing the other items (#4 through #8) would take care of campaign finance issues? If Congress was prohibited from benefitting ANYBODY unless they benefitted all equally, there wouldn't be much point in trying to buy a Congressman's vote.

And if they were unable to benefit themselves through their office by voting themselves bigger pensions, health plans, expense accounts, etc., the term limit problem would be remedied too. There wouldn't be any point to staying around for decades unless you were really good at your job and enjoyed doing it.


I think we need to spell it out in no uncertain terms. I don't think we should have 3rd party ads, and I don't think campaign contributions should exceed some limit, say $5000. I'd prohibit direct contributions to a campaign, it all has to get filtered through an independent agency that verifies where the money came from (no foreign donations in our elections).
All of which, sadly, is unconstitutional as of today. But I'd gladly support an amendment that does all of these things.

I don't think simple disclosure of who is behind political speech is a violation of the free speech clause.

Combine that with a fair & simple tax code, and the incentive for professional lobbying and corporate campaign spending diminishes greatly.
 
There's no way in hell that ANYONE should ever spend a BILLION dollars on a campaign.

Frankly, I'd like to see a mandatory equal time law in exchange for their FCC licenses.

I'm sick to death of the people who spend the most money being the only voices heard.

Those are good ideas. Are you talking about just Presidential elections or Congressional also?

Here are some of my ideas...

I would most assuredly change the redistricting system from the one where State houses draw boundaries to a zip code lottery system thereby eliminating the safe districts both parties draw for themselves.

I would amend the Constitution to make debates mandatory (I'd say no less than 6) between those who can petition to be on the stage in Presidential contests.

Two of which would be on Foreign Policy; how would you address obvious foreign threats both military and fiscal.

Two of which would be on fiscal policies. How would you address spending;

Two of which would be on domestic programs. What programs would you support, what programs would you roll back.

The first of each series would have a question panel made up of journalists who win lotteries to get on stage. The readership/viewership/hit rate of each person's organization would be the cut off line to join the lottery so you don't get a person from the Yuma Greensheet to sit there.

The second of each series would be where each candidate would get a chance to ask the others on stage questions.

I would move the Quadrennial Election from one day to a week long system by which 1/4 of the states vote on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and the following Monday (the math doesn't work out perfectly but as close to that as possible). Thereby eliminating acts of God such as bad weather, voting irregularities can be investigated and solved while the election is still going.

I'd get rid of all party identification on the ballot; no straight tickets any longer. If you want to vote for every Democrat or Republican, you have to know the names of every Democrat or Republican or Libertarian or Tea Partier on the ballot. Is that too much to ask?
 

Forum List

Back
Top