You are single-handedly given the power to enact a 28th Amendment to the Constitution. Do you choose something related to social policy, or economic policy?
The truth is that the economical cloud is the most important thing in any society do to the fact that it is what in a way molds and gives shape to every other aspect of the society.
unconditional basic income
Anti corruption amendment!
I do agree that there must be standards for what must be taught, but why shouldn't families be able to decide in what environment their kids will learn?
Dang it this was supposed to respond to someone's thread about education.
Nix the right to bear arms.
It's a good thing this is a hypothetical. Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE who use guns with the intent to kill kill people.
I'm for gun rights, but I always thought that analogy was ridiculous. Yarn doesn't knit sweaters either, but it sure is a hell of a lot easier if you have some yarn.
Yes but if u make it illegal to have guns those bad people don't follow laws but you do so those bad people will get guns from somewhere else and then everyone will be defenseless and police won't come till after the killing so it is about stoping
So it's about stopping the crime in the moment when it's happening that saves lives and also guns are a good recreational uses as well
State explicitly that the fed govt is limited to enumerated powers. That would eliminate about 75% of it immediately, cut the budget by about the same, and resurrect the American dream.
Require people to possess a certain amount of property to be able to vote or run for office ("property" here not meaning just land, but assets and income as well).
So only those rich enough to own land can vote? Didn't we try that already? Dude, what?
Rebel, the original purpose of legislatures was to say no to the king when he proposed raising taxes. I'm not sure I'd favor this now - but there's something to it.
Or political reform
Well, Washington was right when he said that political parties will be the downfall of this country. The bipartisan madness is driving our nation apart worse than the Civil War did.
Really? Worse than the civil war?
Abolish all drug laws for social. Economic get rid of all tax and implement a flat sales tax. Everyone pays the same.
Abolish local taxes that support public schools, institute a nationwide tax that gets split evenly between all public schools, and finally abolish all types of private and charter schools and outlaw homeschooling
Why would you abolish private and home schooling?
I can't speak for dmshe, but religious private schooling doesn't teach science or when they do they say, but actually god created the world..., I'd ban homeschooling to except for in the extreme cases, such as my neighbor, who a cryptically can't function in schools and has to be homeschooled. public schools with certified teachers, at the very least no funding at ALL from the government fed or state to religious schools
You want a NATIONAL BUREAUCRACY TO run education? OMG education is already so screwed up it's not salvageable and you want a national bureaucracy to run it? No thanks...
So intelligent design and phony math is somehow better? Except for state history classes, there needs to be national education standards, not state, above and beyond Nclb. Every high school teacher I've had feels this way, my dad teaches high school feels the same way, and as part of my schools mock presidential campaigns I researched heavily and came to agree with them
Have a budget with a mandatory 5% surplus until the budget is balanced, the Social Security Trust fund no longer has any IOU's and the Government has a cushion of 2 year equivalent of the budget as an emergency fund. More to follow.
Also, all members of Congress must turn over to the US Treasury all excess campaign contributions once the election is over. And, once a member of Congress is out of office, they can no longer have ANY contact with any member of Congress.
Require all companies to publicly disclose the amount spent for lobbying and include a 100% excise tax. Basically, if you can afford to lobby, you can afford the taxes on lobbying.
If this sounds like too many amendments, many amendments have more than one provision.
I would abolish welfare. Hoover was right, it ruined this country. People who receive it lose their self worth.
Hoover? You mean the guy that refused to believe the depression was big deal, and had WWI vets driven out of Washington by force after simply asking for money promised to them?
That has nothing to do with the fact that Hoover still said that if the government got too involved, everything would go downhill. No one got us out of the Great Depression either, WWII did.
U r partly right about the Great Depression, not about Hoover though. Lets face it though, if it wasn't for the new deal not even WWII would have solved everything and even with it the Eisenhower admin. Presided over the recession of 58-59. Kennedy for me!
I never said Hoover was better, but welfare destroyed this country, and the New Deal is now why our national government is way too big. Hoover was the one to predict it, which is why he didn't try to solve the Depression through the government.
No the New Deal did not have much of an effect it was WWII that fixed the economy.
Mine would have to do with more clearly getting religion out of government. Do you know how many problems that would solve?
None at all.
Now if we can just get those on the left to stop worshipping the government...
Can you actually provide an example of a decision made by any govt that derived from religion?
Prohibition, ant abortion law, even keeping dal very had something to do with religion, although so did abolition
Try the states that are legitimately still trying to make schools stop teaching evolution. Or the fact that every kid has to mindlessly repeat the "under god" in the pledge of allegiance.
You don't need to be religious to see that abortion is the killing of one person by another. Slavery was universal before the 19th century - regardless of religion.
Prohibition was supported by some faiths, but vehemently opposed by others. The main drivers were progressives, many of whom had become atheists by 1916. There's not enough space to explain this fully.
Fruit, the states shouldn't be running schools at all. But presenting alternative theories IS science. As for the pledge, it's far more objectionable that they have to say that the country is indivisible, or pledge allegiance to the govt at all.
The universality of slavery isn't the issue. The act that space owners and pro slavery politicians used the bible to support it is the point, and answers your question, and while prohibition had both religious and non religious support, it's origin was largely religious, as are today's blue laws
Matt, the origins were religious, but by the time they were enacted, the milenialist pietest forebears of today's progressives were basically atheist. Prohibiton was their baby.
Economics - no debt, pay as you go with a 10% flat tax. NO congress exemptions! They can't retire as the 2 term limit is in stone. They use same medical as citizens use. We must get back to citizen politicians not professional losers like now.
Abolish the income tax altogether. Limit the government to its delegated powers, and the government would have more than enough income without it.
Im voting for Sundance in 2016...
All programs that use tax money to give to individuals or companies is illegal, federal government must balance the budget every year, flat tax 10% and to raise it requires 90% voter approval.
Outlaw the left. Okay no I kid. But seriously.
If you just outlaw stupid you could outlaw the left.
Wish I had a 250 character solution to our nation's issues.
Economic policy is not a Constitutional issue. Laws have not worked to the fullest what make anyone the "28" Amendment would change anything. It's the abuse of power that causes economic decline.
An accurate reading of the commerce clause would have the same effect.
Several amendments, marriage equality, proportional vote for congress and direct vote for president, the national health service, repeal presidential term limits, campaign fund limits, end to the death penalty and the era. Numbers 28-34
So essentially end even the illusion of limited government?
Sort of, but not entirely. I mean lets face it, Latin America tried our constitution, albeit with a few minor changes, but all with three split branches. Look what happened. I'd personally favor a parliamentary system, but at the very least. This
What they did not have was federalism. Governments limiting governments. We haven't really had it either since 1865, but you want to wipe it out completely.
Look I love my country, but unlike many Americans I'm willing to say, hmm maybe we did this wrong lets fix it, or this going bad lets fix it before it collapses, or this worls let's keep it. True patriotism is being willing to criticize not blind following
You realize many large Latin American nations like Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina, either currently and or have had federalist systems, many were even more unstable until they got rigid of the American systems and developed their own
Matt, the federalism of Latin America is in name only. And the things you're proposing would blindly give more power to te central govt - the same people who've caused the current mess.
I think the more important question is how does this give much more power the health service aside for a sec. Marriage equality civil right, proportional vote for congress and direct vote for prez more democratic and representative, campaign fund limiting makes elections more fair and politicians more accountable and responsible, the era civil right, repeal the death penalty human right.
As for the national health service, it's a human right, it's actually more practical, and in the one run actually become LESS costly to the tax payer. While I'm not full heatedly for obamacare, under the current system, where people can be denied coverage do to preexisting conditions thanks to my OCD, my Duane syndrome, and my ulcerative colitis I'm uninsurable. Remind me how the tyranny of business is better ;)
Ban the practice of paid lobbyist. Lobbying is allowed, but it must be done out of the goodness of your heart, no because you are being paid to do so.
You are going to put all of Harry Reid's sons out of business? They are all lobbyists but the rules don't apply to liberals so I am sure they would be fine under your watch.
What? The rules would apply to everyone.
Sure, they'd apply to everyone. Like the IRS has recently shown, in applying the rules to everyone?
And like obamacare. obama and his cronies that pushed obamacare made sure it didn't apply to them.
You are behind the times, it has already been proven that the IRS targeted both liberal and conservatives. And Congress already has government sponsored health care, and conservatives didn't want the public option so they dropped it.
Yea, depending on who the party in power was. Will you acknowledge even the possibility of selective enforcement?
When did I claim selective enforcement, as impossible? It happens all the time, we profile, people and groups all the time. To deny that is folly. But it would be fairly difficult to bypass a ban of payed lobby work if the process was transparent.
Good that you acknowledge it. Next, do you think it is likely, in the face of selective enforcement?
Also, "lobbying out of the goodness of your heart". But lobbying is done for special favors, subsidies, protections et al. It's also done out of fear of arbitrary government action. But not out of the goodness of someone's heart.
The answer really is to limit government to its constitutional bounds - which would remove all the incentive for lobbying in the first place. This would violate no one's freedom of speech, contract or association.
Bribery is supposed to be illegal too. It's still a way of life in DC.
I am pretty sure bribery would be even more widespread if it was legal...
Balanced budget amendment.
Would only be meaningful if income tax were abolished, otherwise say hello to rising tax rates.
How would we pay for war if we were attacked or help those affected by a natural disaster? Force companies/individuals to supply materials and man power for free or just throw up your hands and say "We have to balance the budget, your on your own!"
Mandatory balanced budget in government.
Education is returned to local control, disruptive students will be removed and educated through cyber school.
When we send our military in to a situation they do the job FULL overwhelming force and get out.
Welfare is turned to workfare, we will have the cleanest cities, bridges painted, parks beautified. EVERYONE on the pubic dole(depending on health condition.)can do SOMETHING and if they want their check the taxpayers are going to gt smthng in return
NO career politicians.
Captain, they why not just abolish welfare. Why have this production aimed to the use of the government, and not market demand? Why involve the theft of taxation and the corruption of government?
Keep money out of politics and restore the power to the people.
and legalize marijuana c:
You liberals would probably make it two men and a goat.
Oh look, it's Mr. Ironic Username again.
Or get government out of the private contract that is marriage altogether,
None of us are for zoophilia
There are bigger issues than marriage equality
So this is where all the stupid candidates come from. I always wondered.
"Every American citizen has the right to vote for a congressperson and senator, including those living in the District of Columbia"
Why? Isn't enough that you get the government's entire budget funneled through you?
Mandatory lie detectors for all politicians
No abortion when the fetus feels pain
Balanced budget, spending cap, 66 votes for tax hike
Consecutive term limits
No drug war
No bailouts, unfunded mandates
A politician that violates the constitution will be tarred and feathered
Without the EPA the Cuyahoga River would still be burning. That was the catalyst for the development of the EPA. The Great Lakes were so polluted that the fish population was dying and the beaches were closed. I watched it burn, Cleveland, OH
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
Anne, correlation does not prove causation. Without government courts protecting polluters from the 1890's onward, it isn't an issue. The EPA makes law without the consent of the people in any way. It's unconsitiutional.
Te government cannot fund or sponsor free enterprise.
Once government funds or sponsors it, enterprise is no longer free.
Well, there's no arguing with that. Because it's not based in reality.
Oops wrong thread.
balanced budget amendment.
Gross, no thanks. Don't force that on everyone.
If you really wanted universal healthcare, you'd want government completely out of it. As government is the primary driver behind rising costs and limited supply.
The government is not the main driver. Corporate greed is. Health care should be a human right.
Wabajaber1, corporate "greed" leads to lower prices in every area where government is not heavilyi involved. Apple is greedy, yet the price of iPhones goes down, and the quality goes up.
No way, it is not a "human right". Who has a duty to provide it then? No, your marxist wet dream is full of these supposed "rights" yet your sect would deny my REAL right to have the means and ability of self defense.
Corporations drive innovation and competition in a way your beloved government never will.
Government restricts the supply of doctors, forces people to buy insurance, gives incentives for employers to buy insurance, makes drug introduction ridiculously expensive, drives up costs through medicare, for starters.
As for "healthcare being a right" - it isn't. You don't have the right to force anyone to do something for you. That infringes on their rights. But if you want healthcare to be affordable and available - get government out of it.
Foxnews really has destroyed Americans' ability to think for themselves.
Hahaha he/she thinks I'm a republican. Hilarious.
It couldn't possibly be because I'm sick of being taxed and even more so of the government meddling in my life.
I could say the same thing about you and NPR but whatever. I'm a libertarian, I want government out of my life. They can't do anything right, it always turns into an expensive, illegal, unconstitutional, bureaucratic nightmare.
I know your a libertarian. Your inability to think outside your dogmatic worldview pretty much proves it.
Wilber, your ability to trumpet an ignorance of history, economics, and human rights is telling. That you think you are thinking for yourself, when you are parroting the establishment line is really funny. Even your insults are copied.
Haha you Republicrats do the SAME THING. You think the only "progress" is through force, control, threats, and extortion. You're all criminals who think you're helping some "poor person" you'll never meet or know. Talk about self absorbed.
Private sector can not do it cheaper. Insurance co make excessive profits. For profit hospitals also make profit. This al increases healthcare cost. Medicare actually brings down costs as they have control over what they pay.
Currently cost are high partly because hospital must cover their cost and they must treat uninsured patients. That cost is added to the bills of paying patients. This of course is more expensive than paying premiums. Therefore insuring everyone is
The best option. Even better remove the middle man insurance companies.
And institute a middle man bureaucracy that's incapable of fiscal responsibility?
I can't believe people believe this, drives me just nuts.
It is a right. Do we not have many similar rights that "force" there to be a provider? - Right to a trial by jury, public education, police protection, Etc. Would the pro private sector folks on this thread wish to have a private fire dept?
It ISN'T a right! Take your Marxist ideals back to Russia. You can't nationalize everything.
Rebelfurry insurance companies are the middle men. And you are right our government could do better and we should make them do that. We can't do that with corporate control.
Gov'ment bad! Free Market good! Me me me! Mine mine mine! Who's self absorbed?
Alright we're done here. I don't debate with childish fools.
And yes, look through this Marion's history. Only an imbecile would continue to have any faith in them.
Sorry you feel that way.
Then leave. Your opinion of what it is to be unAmerican is pretty F'ed up.
Yeah, how dare I not force others to comply with what I want and give up what they worked for in pursuit of what I think is best for their lives, or not best but I want them to pay for someone else.
Yeah, THAT'S the American way. Ugh.
I don't think what ever that was applies. This is about paying your share and not making me pay for you when you crash your pickup.
And what about all of the people who are exempt from purchasing the SAME private healthcare insurance under Obamacare? Or do you think under UHC that every citizen actually pays into the system? Your socialism doesn't work, never has, never will.
Do you also rage against car and home insurance that operate on the same models? Or are those ok because Obama and his democrat minions haven't been pimping it up since 2008 and giving you talking points to pretend like you've cared about all along?
And what about all of the people who are exempt from purchasing the SAME private healthcare.
Not sure what you mean but if you're talking about those that can't afford to pay because they don't have the income I'm happy to help with "premiums".
All obamacare did was force companies to accept more people and force those who don't have insurance to buy it. That's all it does. It doesn't really save anyone except the insurance companies.
You may be happy to but others may not be.
I'm 26 and single and surrender nearly 40% of my annual income to some level of government. Honestly, I'm sick of it. And don't give me the "roads and cops" shtick they aren't that expensive.
1. That is not all that Obamacare does. The fact that you think that proves you don't know what your talking about
2. Either you make enough money that I don't feel the least bit sorry for you or you need to figure out a better tax strategy.
I make 30k/yr. I'm including sales tax, payroll, property, regulations, registration, etc etc.
The more on insurance the cheaper it get. That's the law of capitalism. In states that are embracing this, costs appear to be going down. In those that don't they don't.
And I have to agree I find almost 40% in taxes a bit much. Unless you're rich.
I'm estimating but its certainly higher than the 20% Uncle Sam takes and another 3% to the county plus 7% on everything I buy. Then taxes on business that are passed down to the consumer.
If your including all that I can't argue that point but that would apply to everyone but the very rich that just don't pay. And, a lot of what your talking about is the state. I agree it's not a lot to live on.
Can I assume you have roommates like I did at your age. I had 2-3 and a similar income.
Smacc, your whole assertion rests on the broken premise that government is more efficient than private enterprise. This is completely false in every possible way. Govt has no reason to be efficeint, and every incentive not to.
Nope, just me here
Broken premise. That is an opinion and what is the incentive to be inefficient?
I have no doubt that private industry is efficient but there primary goal is profit. Therefore priced will be as high as the market will bare.
The primary social responsibility of any business is to make a profit. That's not a bad thing. Profit means innovation, jobs, and growth. Stop being jealous and just accept that capitalism is not some buzzword you can hate on to feel hip.
Also, google "price competition", its just one ways that businesses compete for your dollar. Maybe take an econ class instead of parroting what you heard at the coffee shop or on NPR.
The government had no drive for profit and if we apply the same efficiency without the profit motives the cost must be lower. I am assuming you believe without the profit incentive there can not be efficiency.
I believe where there is government that you have better luck of finding unicorns than efficiency or more importantly innovation.
Efficiency comes from knowing you must maximise profits by keeping costs down. Private businesses know how to be efficient. You don't need to worry about that when you're the only ones in the ring and you FORCE people to be your customers
Why be efficient when you know that if people don't pay you, they go to a cage? Government has no idea how to be efficient because they have no incentive to do so. They just consume and consume.
The number one budget rule of every bureaucracy is "use it all up because if we don't then we can't ask for more next year!" so they throw out good supplies and furniture just so they can request more money the next fiscal year.
Yes, inefficient. Govt does not get its money through voluntary transaction - but through coercive taxation. There is also no incentive to use resources efficiently, but to use them all as soon as possible - as it is someone else's money.
Your accusing me of throwing out talking point which is what you are doing as well. Medicare runs a pretty tight ship and has been forcing hospital prices down not private insurance which is driving cost up. And gov and innovation are not strangers.
Medicare does not "run a pretty tight ship". It's underfunded by over $150 trillion - and has increased the costs of healthcare in this country. The deductibles for seniors are far higher now than their total costs were before Medicare.
As for "private insurers" driving up the costs, this assumes that we have a free market in health insurance now. We have a corporate-state system - designed to drive prices up. Government is heavily involved,
If you are selling a product that people literally can't live without, where is the motive to be "efficient". Like people are going to shop around for the best deal mid-stroke. Healthcare is different.
With catastrophic care, you'd shop ahead of time. Which catastrophic care provider does the best job, who has the best prices, etc. Your inability to think outside your dogmatic statist worldview shows a lack of ability to "think for yourself" here.
I see what you did there. Very nice except I don't think you know what dogmatic or statist mean. My worldview is very flexible. I think the private sector is actually better at some things than government, but healthcare is not one of them.
Nuwriter you sound like you are reading from a pamphlet. Always sounds the same write down to the put downs.
Sorry, but I know exactly what they mean. That you can't grasp the economics of health care is telling. The private sector is better at providing goods and services. The government is better at taking things by force.
Libertarian dogma defined.
Smacc, I'd be happy if you read from a pamphlet, or opened a book, listened to a lecture. But what you're bringing to the table is economic fantasy and propaganda. Any sort of understanding would be a step up.
Not refuted, just defined. Just identifiying a set of ideas is not a refutation, much as those on the left would wish it to be so.
And hardly dogma. These principles do not come from authority (as do yours) but rather from reason.
Correct. The authority of people to govern them selves.
Not themselves, but others. If "they" were purely concerned with governing themselves, they would not need to use force, or the threat of force to do so. They would accept limits on power, as provided in the document they swear an oath to.
Well there's no arguing with that. Because it's not based in reality.
When are you going to start dealing with reality? When confronted with it, you shrink away. You like the myth better. That's fine. But it will lead to you to continue to make the same errors.
Keep digging. This is fun. Or is this a last word contest?
Clearly, you think it's the latter, as you've made no attempt at economic argument in quite some time.
Neither have you. Just talking points and speculation that's why I asked. Name a country on Earth who's health care industry is completely unregulated by government.
That is not in the pamphlet, not part of the equation.
Every major economy in the world except us and Russia has universal health care, and they are developing one now. The French British and Swedish models could be adapted to use here. How is a healthy populace so offensive to people
1) the level of govt in our lives 2) the inefficiency and absolute BS that comes with it 3) how it's funded 4) the waits and all other bureaucratic nightmares that come with UHC.
Everyone used to do slavery too, that didn't make it ok
Good night all.
Waba, I actually did. You just plowed ahead as if I hadn't. I went over five major interventions in healthcare, and you ignored them, and started with the typical (and inaccurate) foxnews nonsense.
As for "name a country" with completely unregulated healthcare, this is irrelevant. Name a country without government corruption. Governments love to intervene in such things - which is not a defense of if.
Matt, the British and Swedish models are broken. You get a better level of care right here, right now. The US has more doctors, no month or year long waits to see a specialist. More MRI machines. We don't have rationed care.
None of that is an"economic argument". It's just talking points an speculation based on you rigid libertarian ideology. I asked you to name a country so you could give an example of your theory's application in reality. So it is kind of relevant.
"Better level of care right here right now". I'd love to see your source on that, because I've not seen anything to corroborate that. Anecdotal evidence doesn't count.
We spend 50% more per capita than the next biggest spender and aren't #1 at anything.
Calling something a talking point is not refuting it. The government controls the supply of doctors, hospitals and medical schools, provides incentives for one manner of paying for care, and spends 50% of all healthcare spent in the country.
It's worth noting that your study doesn't get in to cause and effect. That the US government spends half of all these numbers is not considered.
That you've seen "nothing to correberate" that is meaningless. The NHS own website promises that you can see a specialist within 18 weeks of referral. That's almost five months. In the US, you would never wait that long.
So you make a claim with no evidence and the fact that there's no evidence is meaningless, not the claim itself? Good luck seeing a specialist at all in the US if you don't have insurance and/or money.
That is true. You really need insurance to be treated. You can try but you will likely be sent to an ED. That of course will only treat current symptoms and add to an already overwhelmed ED. Also very expensive.
Good luck seeing one in the UK if you DO have money. You are under the assumption that healthcare can be "free". This is clearly a fallacy. And numbers without explanation are just numbers.
Smacc, your worst case scenario is the socialist norm. By the way, there were doctors before their was insuarance. The current system of "insurance" is not really insurance at all.
I didn't actually mention a worst case scenario. Those were facts, nothing political. That is how we handle these patients. And I know there were docs before insurance. They didn't earn as much. Often Bartered.
It is also pertinent to point out that much innovation occurred without those astronomical wages.
But smacc, why are the wages so high? Why are the costs so high? It's the barriers to competition. It's the mandates for insurance. It's using insurance to pay for routine care.
They also didn't have diagnostic imaging machines and life expectancy was much lower. I'll take insurance and technology. The 19th century was pretty brutal. Not terribly nostalgic for the good ole days.
There are a lot of reason for high wages. I think the fact that it is a necessity plays a large role. The fact that insurance companies exist at all is another. Only with insurance could these costs be maintained.
Waba, don't confuse correlation with causation. We don't have better technology and medical procedures becuase of government-privileged insurance programs.
That it's a neccesity would drive up costs - which would then bring in more competition - driving down costs. But government gets in the way here too, restricting the supply of doctors and hospitals.
We may also rely on physicians too much. A lot can be treated by Nurse Practitioners, Respiratory Therapist, PAs, etc without involving a physician.
I think you would agree that if you have too many docs their wage should go down. Do they, no.
I do agree that there is some manipulation that keeps some costs up. I also acknowledge that gov plays a role. What I disagree with is that it is gov in its entirety. The gov does this at the behest of corporations/lobbies. Take back gov by electing
The right people. If we just weaken or dissolve it another power will take its place. Likely corporations.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
"Elect the right person" is not a plan.
Of course it is. You want certain things so you need to get people elected that will do those things. That displaces the ones you don't like. If you can not get that done, the majority is against you. That's democracy. The majority may not be right.
So, you need to convince them. Choose a communication style that is effective for your audience. Speaking to those that already believe you is easy.
Look at ANY study of major economies and health care, in virtually EVERY one we are near the bottom, how is that the best health care in the world, especially when people fear long term health care stays now more than DEATH. Our system needs to be fixd NOW
1. Term limits for all politicians.
2. Congress must balance the budget or forfeit their pay.
I think gay marriage has to be recognized on the federal level not just state to state.
One silver bullet and that's what you use it for?
I know a lot of people effective by that. Social security rights.
There is no "right to social security" - which is itself unconstitutional.
Marriage is expressly a state issue. The federal government has no jurisdiction over such a thing.
Get rid of the electoral college. Use popular vote to determine winner of presidential election.
Why not extend that to direct vote for presidents, and proportional voting for congressional elections, it would be more representative and get rid of gerrymandering by both sides
I grew up in Ohio and my vote counted. Now that I live in Oregon, it really doesn't. We barely got any advertising whatsoever for the last Presidential election. Instead, the election was a battle over 8 states. That is not representative democracy.
Yes, completely centralize government power.
If you do away with electoral college then they work on 25 largest cities and ignore everybody else to get elected.
There aren't enough people in the top 100 cities to win an election. The electoral college is so outdated...
Reform finance for congressional and presidential campaigns. No private money. Public finance only.
Economic. No more debt. Fed Gov't can only spend what it takes in. Period. Fed budget cut in half by eliminating numerous wasteful programs and Cabinet Level depts. Majority of power would be given to the States.
And kiss the country bye bye... Seriously, you have no clue do you?
What if the day after they cut all the programs u don't like and balance the budget, china invaded the US? How do they pay for defense spending? What cuts do they make? What if a tsunami hits the west coast and causes billions in damage?
The point is the federal govt. has to be able to borrow money for things the states cannot do without having to balance everything with cuts. We could never function that way.
That would turn the US into Europe....
I like it
I don't know why china doesn't n are the Middle East, all that oil.
Get a grip Brian, there's no boogeyman after you.
Says the guy who carries a gun everywhere.
Not the same topic but thanks for playing.
Foreign invasion because the United States stop being so united? A little fear monger-ish.
Carrying a firearm per the second amendment because crime exists and the SCOTUS says the cops don't have to provide any level of protection?
I'd say that's reasonable.
Brian, the Federal Government does not "need" to borrow money. The Federal Government could provide for all the delegated powers with 5% of what it spends now.
Brian, the US might be a little more able to afford "defense" spending if they weren't engaged in so much offense.
Change the way congressional districts are drawn. Not sure how. I once heard an idea to have them drawn by randomly drawn nonpartisan citizen jury type group. Current partisan methods resulting in gerrymandering are ridiculous.
Repeal the 16th amendment allowing income tax. It is an infringement on our right to property that needs to be repealed! The founders did not want income to be taxed.
Balance the budget
Repeal Obamacare and any future versions of nationalized medicine.
Abolish corporate campaign contributions. Or end voter suppression. Or end government support of churches. Or reduce military spending
Or ban the sales tax
"Government support of churches"?
I'm assuming geobekler is referring to the tax exemption churches receive for no real reason, and that they despite Reynolds v Unted States, feel they can ignore laws that "violate" their religion
Regarding "ignoring laws", congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or abridging the free exercise thereof.
Churches are non-profit organizations, and the most significant source of charity in the nation. They deserve tax exemption.
So then the portions of theLDS church that support polygamy should be allowed to practice it? Doesn't sound like anything a republican would say.
I'm not a Republican. Polygamy is not legally recognized, but there's nothing that really keeps a man from cohabiting with several consenting women after exchanging marriage vows.
Just saying to clear it up: the people who practice polygamy are in no way associated with the LDS Church.
It might be more correct to say the LDS church in no way associates itself with polygamists. The polygamists certainly claim to be Mormon.
They left the church and started their own. They are not the same.
Or repeal the 17th amendment.
Repeal the 16th amendment.
In the original interpretation of the constitution, rights were only given to white, rich, property-holding males, excluding many groups. So, just because it says "person" does not mean that all people's rights are actually protected.
Wrong reply... sorry!
I would choose to make the Equal Rights Amendment a reality. "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
So you'd just pass the 14th amendment... Again
The 14th amendment only serves to assure equal voting rights. The ERA guarantees the equal treatment of men and women under the law.
You want to read the 14th amendment and try again?
Paid paternity and maternity leave and bring minimum work vacation requirements up to at least 20 days
Without the ERA, the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee that the rights it protects are held equally by all citizens without regard to sex.
It says person, are women not "persons"?
Key word, "explicitly"
Key word, "person".
One question what is the 28th amendment
Skacey how did you make that?
Make it so banks can't gamble with our money.
So abolish the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and protections for fractional reserve banking.
It would be a social law. "No law, regulation, or any other rule should be set based off of feeling. Any limit or regulation set on the people should be based on 100% facts and figures. If there is a disagreement on the figures, the law shalnt pass"
Agree in theory at least, but whose facts, real or pseudo?
So no more new laws ever? I can get behind that.
That would in essence make any law dealing with religion in any way unconstitutional. I could get behind that
Make all congressmen and women subject to ALL of the same laws and benefits as the rest of us WITHOUT special exceptions; OR give everyone in the nation the SAME special exceptions and benefits of the members of congress.
I like the second option. Everyone should have more vacation time and excellent health insurance.