What would you change in America?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by G51989, May 11, 2014.

  1. G51989, May 11, 2014
    Last edited: May 11, 2014

    G51989 macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #1
    Lets say, you were El President, your party has won the senate and congress, and you have the Supreme Court in your pocket, anything you would want, would happen.

    What would you change? And Why?

    I would do the following

    1: Increase funding to education

    2: Start a massive overhaul of every inch of Americas failing infrastructure

    3: Close overseas bases in Europe and Japan, as well as many others. End the treaty with Japan and allow them to increase their offensive military ability. Staying in South Korea until the Koreans can develop a better military.

    4: Negate the Military to providing defense and keeping shipping lanes open. No more world police

    5: Trim the military budget from nearly 600 billion to 200 Billion, make equipment and personal cuts

    6: Outlaw lobbying

    7: Publicly funded elections

    8: End the student loan program for private schools, have the goverment cut a check for qualified students for state run schools. It would actually be cheaper than paying banksters to give out overpriced loans. If you want private school, it comes out of your own pocket.

    9: Start an American high speed rail program linking all the major cities, this would provide America with an amazing advantage, being able to move people and goods across entire regions at a fraction of the cost of airliners. And in some cases, it would be fast

    10: Increase taxes across the board.

    11: Increase EPA regulation for cleaner air and water

    12: Form nationalized defense contractors, this would allow us to develop weapons at a lower cost than with the current contractors. American technology outside of a couple of new projects and systems, isn't any better than Russian or European made arms, and costs about 5 times as much. Why?

    13: Seal the border with Mexico, lax up our immigration laws

    14: End Free trade with everyone besides Mexico and Canada, increase Tarrifs

    15: Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act

    16: Repeal the Patriot Act

    17: Legalize gay marriage across the country, states rights can suck my ass in this case

    18: End the war on drugs, Legalize things like Weed, Shrooms, LSD, Acid, and other soft non addictive drugs

    19: Enact a women's fair pay law, if a business is caught discriminating aanist women, they will have their assets seized and sold off, with the owner in jail for a min of 15 years

    20: Disband the FDA, and form a new department that isn't owned by Monsanto

    21: Close all tax loopholes, no more of companies like GE paying nothing

    22: Remove all tax breaks and hand outs for dirty energy

    23: No taxes to green energy companies, time to pick a winner. And the winner is clean air and water, and energy indepdence

    24: Start a new nuclear energy program, and start a real war on destroying the coal industry.

    25: Massively expand solar, wind and hydro

    26: I would place more restriction on handguns

    27: I would end handouts to banks, and any large business for that matter

    28: Universal single payer healthcare, like first world countries have.

    29: Living wage law

    30: All GMOs will be labeled

    What would you do?

    From " zin :

    Personally, if I had that much power in every branch of goverment, I would have already ordered in troops to assassinate the bankers, and anyone associated with them before I made the policy.
     
  2. The Doctor11 macrumors 603

    The Doctor11

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2013
    Location:
    New York
    #2
    Um... Give a reward to anyone who puts at least 500 mb download Internet some where that doesn't have any good Internet.
    Oh and by the way I have 2.8 download Internet...
     
  3. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #3
    I like the bulk of your list. I would find a way to so strongly discourage state sales taxes that they would be eliminated, and, increase the minimum wage to about $13-$14. The inflationary effect of the minimum wage increase would be countered by the deflationary effect of the cut in sales taxes (to be made up for by an tax increase on the super-rich).
     
  4. zin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 5, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #4
    18: Agreed, but with restrictions to promote sensible consumption. And also only sold through a Government-owned corporation so the revenues can be used for public services.

    --

    31. Nationalise all natural monopolies including gas, electricity, water utilities, telecoms (infrastructure), railways, and roads, and create State Government companies to operate them. 50% of the profits reward the employees, 50% of the profits re-invest in the companies.

    32. Nationalise the entire banking industry. The creation and control of the money supply should never be delegated to private (commercial) banks or quasi-public (The Federal Reserve) entities.

    Although, I admit, even if I had the legislature and the courts in my back pocket, #32 would still be difficult because I'm sure private bankers would have me assassinated within a few days of announcing the policy.
     
  5. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
  6. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #6
    I really like these, i am adding to them to the orignal post
     
  7. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #7
    I notice a tone of violent fantasy in a lot of your posts about people you don't agree with.

    Why is that?
     
  8. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #8
    I would look toward a more egalitarian, quasi-Athenian democratic system. Instead of strictly codified laws, we would have a system of broad principles, interpreted by "grand juries": questions of legal interpretation would be resolved by 20-member citizen panels who would have to attain at least a 14 juror concurrence to agree on a question – with the latitude to present a verdict that a compromise result rather than a winner/loser result. Because a jury sits for no more than a month and is drawn by lot, the governing body becomes a moving target that is all but impossible for powerful forces to control.

    Officials and bureaucrats merely manage operations, rather than set policy or enact laws. Complaints and disputes about their actions are mediated by one of these jury panels. A national president and/or congress are short-term, at-cause jobs that are filled when the need is inescapable.

    Private businesses exist in a specific single location. For cases where greater scope is called for, a non-profit co-op can be formed to coördnate the activities of its member businesses, taking no more than one percent of the net revenue for co-op operations overhead. No business may own non-contiguous property, only the property which it needs to operate. All financial institutions – banks, investment managers, stock exchanges, insurance companies, any business that handles the flow of capital – must be non-profit co-ops, with the one percent overhead constraint.

    And real estate developers must live/work in the property the develop, for at least twenty years after the project is completed.
     
  9. G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #9
    Violent fantasy? A president being killed over trying to rein in the banking industry has already happened.

    Who do you killed JFK? Private banking cartels.
     
  10. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #10
    (1) Take measures to reduce wealth inequality, investing in the education and welfare of people as much as the physical infrastructure.

    (2) Pass a constitutional amendment to ban autonomous machines that kill.

    (3) Pass a constitutional amendment the limits tax law to 10 pages and the tax code to 20.

    (4) Require voting of eligible voters, but add a 'no confidence' option that would trigger a re-run of the election if it won the majority.
     
  11. G51989, May 12, 2014
    Last edited: May 12, 2014

    G51989 thread starter macrumors 68030

    G51989

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    NYC NY/Pittsburgh PA
    #11
    I agree with most of that.

    However, with number 2, completely banning guns is a bad idea. I am against carrying concealed weapons in cities, or anywhere you want.

    However, as an avid hiker and camper, I can tell you that I never go out camping without my Colt 911, if you go out to Bear country, you need a gun. Bears, and I have done lots of hiking out in Alaska, it's never happened to me. But moose and bear attacks are very real and happen often, a large caliber pistol is the best way to go.
     
  12. macmesser macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2012
    Location:
    Long Island, NY USA
    #12
    Your program calls for an all-powerful government anyway.
     
  13. Southern Dad macrumors 65816

    Southern Dad

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Location:
    Georgia
    #13
    That's a pretty broad agenda. I agree with some of the steps but I think some of them would bite us. I'm for a smaller role of the federal government. Let the states handle fixing their own infrastructures and schools. The federal government should be responsible for the interstate highways and schools on military bases/reservations and in DC.

    Nobody living in New York should be subsidizing the building of a two lane bridge in Georgia.
     
  14. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #14
    Yes, you talk about having people killed here. And in the Bundy thread you went on and on about wanting tanks to be used against the protesters. You even posted photos of military equipment you think would be useful.

    Why the bloodlust?
     
  15. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #15
    I literally meant autonomous killing drones, not personal weapons controlled by a human being. The UN is discussing controlling and/or banning autonomous robotic killing machines and I would like to make sure that the US does not start down the road of making them. Ever. Our human-controlled weapons are bad enough.
     
  16. bobfitz14 macrumors 65816

    bobfitz14

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #16
    Woah now. While I agree with the majority of points on your list, I do not agree with this notion in the slightest. I despise most Congressmen, lobbyists, etc. but to order troops to kill a group of people based on their occupation title goes against the task I see at hand: positive change.

    I'd rather take their political power and financial assets and watch them suffer than kill 'em off.

    I wish PRSI came up on "New Posts" less often.
     
  17. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    5) FYI, the VA is $150 billion. Assuming you don't want to cut veterans benefits (health care, income security, training and rehabilitation, etc). You're effectively cutting the active military budget from $450 billion to $50 billion.

    6) What is lobbying? I don't think you can ban lobbying. Lobbying is a good thing: constituents talking to representatives about their concerns. The things you have to outlaw are campaign contributions and revolving door appointments (pass a law that favors my industry, get a job in my industry when you leave congress). There's nothing wrong with trying to convince a representative of your point of view as long as the only thing you can offer him or her is the wisdom of your advice.

    ----------

    Georgia's going to get much poorer if it's not going to be subsidized by richer states.

    Edit: my mistake. Georgia's not bad. It pays in 65.5 billion and gets out 68.3 billion. When you take into account that the federal government currently pays out more than it takes in, Georgia is a net contributor state.
     
  18. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #18
    (7) Not only publicly funded elections but I would introduce Multiparty democracy, and proportional representation as a way to break the cycle of toxic two party gridlock in Washington.
     
  19. ejb190 macrumors 65816

    ejb190

    #19
    Where do I even start?

    I see a lot of isolationist tendencies here. Remember that's why it took us so long to get involved in WW 1 and WW 2. Historians generally agree that earlier US involvement could have shortened both wars by over a year. Also, our future is going to be reliant on exporting to the world market. Shutting the doors tight is not a good way to start.

    I think the infrastructure ideas are critical to our future. The high speed rail will be fought by the auto and airlines lobby. To that you say to ban lobbying. Which brings another problem. Is this a restriction of Free Speech? If I approach an elected official with an idea for a bill (money or not), is that lobbying? Finding a way to take the money out of campaigns might be more effective by removing the financial sway of lobbyists then just outlawing lobbying all together.

    There's a lot of other things here that have made me think a bit. I don't agree with a number of them, but the thought experiment on how some of these could be implemented and what they would look like is kind of interesting.

    Finally, I have to say something about GMO's. I find it really deceptive that the food industry is scrambling to say their products don't have GMO's (Like Cheerios) where there are NO GMO products to start with. There are no GMO oats on the market today and I know of no research in that direction. Kind of disingenuous to the public to say your product doesn't contain something that does not exist in the first place.
     
  20. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #20
    Are there any breakfast cereals that contain GMO ingredients? If so, I'd say Cheerios aren't being disingenuous at all because their product (a breakfast cereal) can be differentiated from other competing products on the basis that it does not contain GMOs.

    You're also assuming that most consumers would know that there are no GMO oats on the market today, whereas I'd wager that a large percentage of consumers wouldn't know that cheerios are made of oats.
     
  21. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    #21
    There is another theory that because the US entered WWI in 1917, the allies were able to beat the Central Powers and impose the vindictive treaty of Versallies , which ultimately lead to Hitler and WWII.
    So indirectly the US caused WWII.

    If the US had not entered WW I, the war would have ended in a negotiated peace treaty, as neither side could have carried the war for another year.

    Of course this is all hypotheical, but a more isolationist US would make for a safer world in the 21st Century, no more lies about WMD, no more wars for OIL.
     
  22. ejb190 macrumors 65816

    ejb190

    #22
    Gee. It says "Toasted Whole Grain Oat Cereal" on the box right under the name "Cheerios".

    But the statement that there are no GMO's where none exist is fear mongering and creates a perception to the general public that GMO's are something that need to be feared.

    Now I'll agree that GMO's need to be managed and used carefully. Don't get me started on how the over-use of Roundup resistant crops accelerated the proliferation of gylphosate resistant weeds. But it's well known that the public will easily come to fear something it doesn't understand. Especially in agriculture where they are completely reliant, yet extremely disengaged.

    Maybe this should fall under Number 1 on G51989's list
     
  23. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #23
    This is kind of problematic: given the way the legal system works, actually proving this might be difficult and costly (and the burden of proof is not on the defendant). Personally, I would just push through the full-on ERA, why not? And make sure to enshrine choice in it.
     
  24. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #24
    First, it was the French who drove the vindictive planks of the Versailles settlement, over - I might add - the urging by the US not to penalise Germany too severely. Second, Japan had nothing to do with Versailles, so WWII was coming even if it did not start in Europe. Third, suppose Versailles had been equitable and Germany had not been bankrupt, it is very likely that the European powers would have engaged in relentless border clashes and conflicts rather than experiencing peace. Whatever one's stand on current US interventionism, US isolation in the past was disastrous for both the people of Europe and of Asia.
     
  25. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #25
    America needs one term of dictatorship by the right person.
     

Share This Page