"Unbreaking America" - proposed concept on fixing our political system!

[sholling]

Yea. It's really terrible when a million people exercise more political power than a thousand people.

What's magic about states?

There is a reason that the founders rejected direct democracy, distributed power amongst the states, and limited the power and reach of the federal government. The 40+ less populous states will never allow a Hunger Games like power grab by a bunch of elitists in a handful of cities that can't even run their own cities effectively yet think they should rule the rest of the country.

You know what happens if you dissolved the union? California becomes the 4th largest economy in the world and places like Nevada, Arizona, and Louisana become third-world countries.

If California goes off on its own it'll be a narrow 20-30 mile wide strip from Los Angeles to San Francisco and the rest of us will wave goodbye and chuckle while they dig up their lawns, parking lots, and golf courses so that they have some hope of feeding themselves. I'm not sure how the nation of NYC/Albany or the country of Chicago would feed themselves but the rest of New York State and Illinois want a divorce from those cities as well.

 

[Irvrobinson]

What's wrong with what you are referring to as "socialitst".

Wealth distribution is happening. The question is whether you'd like that to continue to take your wealth and move it to the already wealthy; or whether you'd like to take it based on the ability to afford the loss and see it feed starving kids.

It's also more than a little insane that you are going to, for example, vote for a GOP sheriff that opposes every position you stand for in favor of a DNC one that completely aligns with you because some other members of the party have a platform that includes something you don't like.

Me: I don't like the GOP cozying up to Nazis. What has the DNC done again?

You have a very skewed view of how wealth is created and how the economy works. "Starving children"? Seriously? The Federal budget for 2019 is $4.4 trillion. I don't think a wealth tax is going to help starving children.

What's wrong with the socialist ideas is that I'm not of a mind to have people who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives appropriate my life to support them. And these arguments about "the wealthy" paying their "fair share" always seem to morph into taxes on the merely prosperous but hard working. The ones who sacrifice to be successful. The Alternative Minimum Tax was like that. The argument was the same: some wealthy people aren't paying their fair share. For years I used to describe the AMT line on my Form 1040 by what sort of new car it would buy.

None of the DNC proposals are about fixing the taxation system, which does need fixing. It's about telling groups of voters that the reason for their lot in life is because a small group of rich people are exploiting them, and that all that has to be done to fix their lives is to exploit the small group of people. I think history is full of examples where you can take the "small group of rich people" and replace it with the name of some other small group that can take the blame. Screw that.

 

[Irvrobinson]

What's magic about states? Surely this is a problem within the state where populated counties get more votes for governor than unpopulated ones.

Here we agree, Jerry. I hate states. I've lived in five states so far, and I disliked them all in one way or another. I especially detest differences in car registrations, driver's licenses, gun laws, voting laws, estate laws, marriage laws, school funding... I could go on and on. But I'd guess the probability that the US significantly redefines the role of states in my lifetime as one in 100,000. Nah, I'm being too hopeful. ;-)

 

[Alex2507]

I don't think a wealth tax is going to help starving children.

It might ... and it's your money so ... you know, why not?





...

 

[Irvrobinson]

It might ... and it's your money so ... you know, why not?


...

Because that’s the old story, Alex. They always come just for the super-rich, and soon after I pay. Not with my vote.

 

[Alex2507]

They always come just for the super-rich, and soon after I pay.

My favorite were those old communist ****suckers that made it a f^%&ing crime to leave their sh!thole countries and the countries they occupied with their with their (I'm out of interesting adjectives) administrations.

... but I don't want to get worked up before bedtime.

 

[JerryLove]

There is a reason that the founders rejected direct democracy, distributed power amongst the states, and limited the power and reach of the federal government.

At least two distinctly separate groups of reasons, actually.

The reason that the US is a Republic is functional. The population voting directly on every issue is impractical.

The reason that the national government doesn't have sovereignty is because the US was founded as a federation of states [the EU would be similar in this regard]. Its the same reason that it's "one vote per country" in the UN.

It has nothing at all to do with the idea that 864,746 mi^2 [the size of the US in 1776] wasn't "local government" and 663,267 mi^2 [the size of the largest current state] is.

The 40+ less populous states will never allow a Hunger Games like power grab by a bunch of elitists in a handful of cities that can't even run their own cities effectively yet think they should rule the rest of the country.

You know how elitist your statement is, right? Does the hypocrisy hurt?

And as I watch the federal outreach needed to get basic services like phones to rural areas, and the huge dumping of cash into those areas to keep them afloat... I must wonder "who can't run what now?"

If California goes off on its own it'll be a narrow 20-30 mile wide strip from Los Angeles to San Francisco and the rest of us will wave goodbye and chuckle while they dig up their lawns, parking lots, and golf courses so that they have some hope of feeding themselves. I'm not sure how the nation of NYC/Albany or the country of Chicago would feed themselves but the rest of New York State and Illinois want a divorce from those cities as well.

So now you've redefined CA?

OK. Let's imagine that strip: some of the highest income land in the world, separated. Somehow all the agriculture in there (say: Nappa Valley) just doesn't count.

Fine. Let's picture that. What would happen? How would they feed themselves?

Well: as the country with probably the highest per-capita GDP outside of Qutar, I suspect they would import their food... and eastern CA better pray that the west imports if from them rather than Central or South America.

With everything from Silicon Valley to Hollywood gone, not to mention the massive industry in LA; you'd better prepare for a massive reduction in what the state does... you know, like roads and bridges; or prepare for a massive increase in your taxes.

Don't expect the Fed to help much either. California contributes $405,851,295,000 to the federal coffers.. that's 130 Billion more than the #2 state and 12% of total revenue. [for those not good with math: the "average" state would contribute 2% of the federal budget; meaning CA is paying the weight of 6 states]

So, on top of everything else, your "power to rural states" is one of those "taking money from one person and giving control of it to another" you pretend to hate. Since those cities pay the costs of the federal government, perhaps they should chose how their own money is spent?

 

[JerryLove]

You have a very skewed view of how wealth is created and how the economy works.

For example?

"Starving children"? Seriously?

Yes. Seriously: https://www.feedingamerica.org/hunger-in-america/child-hunger-facts

The Federal budget for 2019 is $4.4 trillion. I don't think a wealth tax is going to help starving children.

$150 billion would do it... $1.5 trillion over 10 years. We just cut taxes on the wealthy $2.3 trillion. So obviously we could.
Also: it's not like we are spending $0 now; so you could subtract that from the $150 billion. On top of that: there are real fiscal costs to food insecurity. Those would go away as well.
https://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2018/18_0058.htm

What's wrong with the socialist ideas is that I'm not of a mind to have people who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives appropriate my life to support them.

OK. So you oppose providing healthcare to needy children because they are "unwilling to take responsibility"?

I assume you also oppose other socialist activities in the US like public roads, public police departments, public schools, etc? Not to mention "entitlement" programs like Social Security, Medicare, and the VA.

And these arguments about "the wealthy" paying their "fair share" always seem to morph into taxes on the merely prosperous but hard working. The ones who sacrifice to be successful.

Speaking of very skewed view. Do you have any support that there's some relationship between "wealthy" and "hard working"?

Even among the wealthy who didn't inheiret their wealth; there's certainly no relationship between hard work and income. An investment banker doesn't work harder than a migrant farmer; but they sure do make more money.

The Alternative Minimum Tax was like that. The argument was the same: some wealthy people aren't paying their fair share. For years I used to describe the AMT line on my Form 1040 by what sort of new car it would buy.

Yea! To hell with those kids wanting food and medicine. That guy working three jobs who can't afford his kids medication? Why should I help him out. the soldier on food stamps? He should have thought of that before he joined the military. I could have gotten a new car! https://www.npr.org/2018/02/17/586759930/military-families-and-snap-benefits

And damn it! You earned it. It's not like your life was made possible by the hard work of those people. It's not like the road you would drive that car on was paid by the taxes of others.

And without the AMT, you get billionaires with lower tax rates than the poor half of the US.

None of the DNC proposals are about fixing the taxation system, which does need fixing. It's about telling groups of voters that the reason for their lot in life is because a small group of rich people are exploiting them, and that all that has to be done to fix their lives is to exploit the small group of people.

So, to be clear, From 1940-1980 we were "exploiting the rich"?

I think history is full of examples where you can take the "small group of rich people" and replace it with the name of some other small group that can take the blame. Screw that.

You've done exactly that in this post. You've blamed the poor, you've blamed "the elites", you've blamed "the democrats", you've blamed "the socialists".

But you are both juxtiposing two issues (blame vs fix) and also being dishonest.

What's been suggested to help the poor has been 1) better incomes, 2) food security, 3) affordable healthcare, 4) affordable education 5) A safety net in case of disaster.

By all means: let me know which one of those asks fits your description.

 

[JerryLove]

Here we agree, Jerry. I hate states. I've lived in five states so far, and I disliked them all in one way or another. I especially detest differences in car registrations, driver's licenses, gun laws, voting laws, estate laws, marriage laws, school funding... I could go on and on. But I'd guess the probability that the US significantly redefines the role of states in my lifetime as one in 100,000. Nah, I'm being too hopeful. ;-)

It is good to know we have a point of agreement.

I do think there's quite a bit not presently at the federal level that *should* be. You've just named several.

Not everything belongs there, of course. Some things belong at the state, some at the county, some at the city, some smaller than that; but our insistence on being a federation of states rather than a country has not been entirely to our benefit.

[If you think one congress is inefficient; how about 51 of them?]

 

[highfigh]

Look. If you want to really fix the political system.

1) remove corporate money.
2) make real rules to prevent conflicts of interest and make them a capital crime (if it's bribery to pay the police officer, judge, or jury... it should be bribery to pay the legislator).
3) make it illegal to campaign while in office.
4) remove consecutive terms. You can have an unlimited number of terms, but not two in a row (see: illegal to campaign in office).
5) get rid of the electoral college and senate.
6) instead of having elected people actually *do* the things like write budgets and pass laws; have them hire the people who do the things. Stop having the stock-holders elect the CIO. Instead: elect the board of directors and have them hire the CIO. As a bonus: there will no longer be "add pork barrel to get two more votes"; which is a huge issue, because there aren't votes.
7) Create true independence in the judiciary. I suggest that SCotUS nominees should come *from* the judiciary rather than from the executive branch.
8) Create a special justice unit whose sole jurisdiction is over the top level of the three branches of government. Their immunity is not helpful.
9) Lying to influence an election or law should be a form of fraud and prosecuted as such.
10) Voting districts should largely be removed; but where they exist: they should be partitioned by an independent group... preferably from another state.
11) Laws should have scope statements. Nothing within the law should be valid if it falls outside that scope (which will kill a lot of addendum)
That's off the top of my head.

#1- no brainer
#2- 'capital offense' doesn't mean it has to do with money- https://definitions.uslegal.com/c/capital-offense/
#3-They can campaign when Congress is at recess or from DC, via recorded messages
#4- not bad, but non-consecutive terms could do the same as short term limits
#5- WRT electoral College, NO. Be careful of what you wish for- it's not as simple as "get rid of...".
Get rid of the Senate? No effing way! That's the entity that counters a runaway House of Representatives and vise-versa. What we need to do is stop them from being such activists that they run away in the first place.
#6- Government is already bloated and in reality, they don't write most of the budget themselves, they have aides doing a lot of the work.
#7- there's no requirement for justices to come from the legal profession and they're supposed to be 'of the people', with no political bent. Neither side has maintained the last part.
#8- again, government is bloated- the three branches are supposed to balance themselves and generally, they do.
#9- lying to influence an election IS a crime and other laws governing electioneering already exist. The problem is that pinpointing who actually does this over the internet is hard to prove.
#10- HELL NO.
#11- not a bad idea, at all. The problem is that, by being written by lawyers, they often slip wording in that makes it difficult to see that they're screwing someone until it's too late.

 

[highfigh]

One of my controversial positions is that I don’t believe we should have such low salaries for politicians. It’s the craziest thing that somehow we think “we aren’t satisfied with our politicians so let’s pay them less”.

Then we bitch and scream about corruption all the while wishing to cut salaries. It’s illogical and we are getting what we are paying for. We get rich power hungry people. We don’t get innovators or serious thinkers ... they’re off making real money.

Government office was supposed to be public service, not a career that provides immense wealth.

 

[highfigh]

Just Dallas.

I actually don't have a problem with dropping charges on low level drug cases or other victimless crimes. I would have a problem (if I lived in Dallas) with him dropping charges in the case of violent crimes and property crimes including theft, vandalism, and criminal trespass, and I'd have a problem with him going easy on probation violations for any of those crimes. Doing so just invites more of the same criminal acts. I also don't have a problem with expunging criminal records (except for forcible rape or child molestation) for first offenders once they've paid their debt to society and kept their nose clean for two or three years.

Of course, Texas law allows residents to deal with criminals they catch breaking into their homes or stealing their property. It's not a healthy place to be a burglar or car thief.

You want to expunge the record for people who are habitual criminals who have been incarcerated for the two or three years used as a "clean period"?

Maybe for minor offenses, but not for DUI, anything with a weapon, fraud or felonies.

 

[highfigh]

They are unlikely because there's no motivation for people to reduce their own power.

And they shouldn't be able to determine their own compensation or rules governing themselves.

 

[R.Elder]

Government office was supposed to be public service, not a career that provides immense wealth.

That attitude has resulted in the poop show we currently survive under. Capitalism doesn’t end where government begins. If you want better people and better representation with less corruption...pay them more.

 

[sholling]

You want to expunge the record for people who are habitual criminals who have been incarcerated for the two or three years used as a "clean period"?

Maybe for minor offenses, but not for DUI, anything with a weapon, fraud or felonies.

I said "first offenders". I'm a big fan of "Three Strikes" laws. Second offence adds 10 years and third is 30+. Expungement is already pretty easy in many states and solves one problem - a convicted felon may be forced back into crime by the fact that can't get a job and have a family to support. The idea is that once someone completes their sentence (jail time plus probation or parole, paid their fine and completed restitution) then and only then does the clock started ticking toward expungement - make it 2 years or 10 but as long as the convict does not so much as get a speeding ticket they have a hope of recovering their lives.

 

[sholling]

And they shouldn't be able to determine their own compensation or rules governing themselves.

They should not be able to exempt themselves from the laws they foist on the rest of us.

 

[highfigh]

They should not be able to exempt themselves from the laws they foist on the rest of us.

That's already an Amendment.

 

[highfigh]

I said "first offenders". I'm a big fan of "Three Strikes" laws. Second offence adds 10 years and third is 30+. Expungement is already pretty easy in many states and solves one problem - a convicted felon may be forced back into crime by the fact that can't get a job and have a family to support. The idea is that once someone completes their sentence (jail time plus probation or parole, paid their fine and completed restitution) then and only then does the clock started ticking toward expungement - make it 2 years or 10 but as long as the convict does not so much as get a speeding ticket they have a hope of recovering their lives.

That would be much easier if gangs in prisons weren't rampant and more work was done on rehab, rather than just sitting there, contemplating their mistakes. Granted, they should have plenty of time for that, but they should come out with marketable job skills.

Recidivism is a bitch.

 

[sholling]

That's already an Amendment.

Yet they do it all the time with labor laws and investment laws, in fact it took public pressure to get them to repeal their exemption from insider trading laws.

 

[sholling]

At least two distinctly separate groups of reasons, actually.

The reason that the US is a Republic is functional. The population voting directly on every issue is impractical.

The reason that the national government doesn't have sovereignty is because the US was founded as a federation of states [the EU would be similar in this regard]. Its the same reason that it's "one vote per country" in the UN.

It has nothing at all to do with the idea that 864,746 mi^2 [the size of the US in 1776] wasn't "local government" and 663,267 mi^2 [the size of the largest current state] is.

You really should read the Federalist Papers and the Anti Federalist Papers. The founders actually explain their reasoning.