posted
Since when is America in a position to surrender to China?
I have no idea what I'd change about America specifically or what out of the hundreds of things I don't think work as well as they could. However, I rather prefer the way Canada is so I supposed I'd lean towards making it more like Canada- although that might be more of a policy change than a change in government structure- I'm not sure which we are talking about.
Megan- are there actually still places in the US where you can't buy alcohol on Sundays?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*waves hand* Right here! I cannot buy alcohol on Sundays! Unless I drive to Wisconsin.
Hence why I make sure to have a full stock and wide range of alcohol on hand at all times, in case I wish to drink on a Sunday. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Chinese tyranny? Confused.... I think China's human rights record has been steadily improving.
IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read the rest of this thread yet but my change woul dbe to get rid of the electoral college. I just don't feel like my vote really count the way it is now.
Posts: 1319 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of china... do you think it would've been ok to let the chinese purchase that us oil company?
Posts: 19 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ok is subjective, buisness is buisness.
Actually, when it comes to human rights, OK is fairly objective. You may also be interested to know that the principal author of the document I just linked to is a Canadian.
Added:
Blayne, let me ask you a related question: How do you feel about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Added 2: Oops, I just realized your post above isn't directed at me. Still, the question stands. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by tern: Switch out the income tax with a flat tax.
Not a flat tax. The FairTax. A flat tax is still a tax on income, which is just amazingly counterproductive.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: The first item that I'd put on my list of candidates (possible changes) would be the elimination of legal abortion.
What about people whose religion obligates them to have an abortion? Would you make an exception for that, or are you willing to force people to commit murder?
In Judaism, if a woman's life is in danger and the only way to save her life is to abort the fetus, you must do so. If you prevent this, and the mother dies, you have committed murder.
What makes your standards more important than ours? Is this more "Christian nation" stuff?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Let’s see…. First I’d make sure that its freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Meaning that we are a Christian nation which allows religious expression not one that misinterprets laws so that God is taken away. That should solve most problems.
Except that I'd fight to the death against it. And so would many, many, many other people. Including, mind you, not a small number of Christians.
This is not a Christian nation. It never has been, and it never will be. Christians have no special status here, and I repeat that I would fight to the death (mine or anyone else's) to keep that from changing.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: I would create a flat tax for everyone. No person pays more or less that a certain amount, with no loop holes.
That's not called a flat tax. It's called a head tax. Believe it or not, a flat tax is what they call it when you only take the same percentage of earnings away from everyone.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I'm with Jay. I would make it unquestionable that we are a Christian nation. Probably put that into the Constitution as a statement clause of position a little more than policy. I mean, regardless of your protestations Kwea, we are practically if not officially, a Christian nation already. Unless TomD's argument that Christians shouldn't have much to worry about is not true.
You want a Christian nation, go off and make one. You aren't touching mine.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
We enjoy a fairly good economy, the Chinese try their best to maintain stability so that they can maintain they're rapidly accelerated growth, as it stands China's economy is doing afr better then Soviet Russia's ever was.
To them stability = growth and they have a largely cunfucian influenced whereas the individual was not as important as the West stressed individuallity.
They are as it stands slowly integrating grass roots democracy upwards to avoid what happened with Russia.
Some things they may do may be wrong to our standards but do we really consider ourselves so high and mighty that we have to force it onto other people? Its the Chinese people ultimately who will decide what is right for them and what is wrong, not some Yang gui zi.
IP: Logged |
quote:I'd make the separation of church and state ironclad. If you don't have a good solid non-faith-based reason for your legislation, it ain't happening.
Who gets to decide if it's a good solid reason?
Personally, I'd be willing to take your word for it. If you say that you have a reason other than a faith based one, you should be able to propose your law. As a religious person, I'm sure you wouldn't lie about such a thing. And if it is faith based, it should not be valid even as a proposal. Because if that's the reason, you are forcing your faith on others.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Its the Chinese people ultimately who will decide what is right for them and what is wrong...
If I felt that the Chinese people had much of a say in the matter, I wouldn't be so disdainful of China.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Some things they may do may be wrong to our standards but do we really consider ourselves so high and mighty that we have to force it onto other people? Its the Chinese people ultimately who will decide what is right for them and what is wrong, not some Yang gui zi.
Under their present system, no, the Chinese people won't decide much of anything, given that suppression of dissent and censorship are still as strong as ever over there. Basic human rights are not a question of "our standards," they are a question of universal standards. "Everyone is entitled to the following fundamental freedoms," not just us.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ricree101: I'd also like to see some way of forcing bills to only contain elements that are related to one another. I'm sick of seeing bills that go something along the lines of an education funding bill with funding for some senator's cousin's livestock show thrown in.
Not sure how such a restriction would actually be implimented, but it would be nice to see.
Of course, this still doesn't prevent wastefull pork barrel spending. At least it should prevent member of congress from being forced to voted against otherwise good bills to shoot down this type of waste.
Amen. I once made a list of no-brainers:
Expiration dates For any law to be passed, it must have an expiration date no later than 25 years from the date the law is passed. After all, if there isn't solid support for a law any more, why should it be a law?
All existing laws would expire according to a gradual scale over the next 25 years, based on their age, so that they don't all die at once.
Preambles For any law to be passed, it must contain a preamble which gives the reason for the law and the intent behind the law. And laws will have to be enforced according to the stated intent, even if a loophole may have been found in the verbiage of the law.
Single issue The whole issue with the line-item veto is that laws can contain numerous unrelated topics. This will no longer be allowed.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I would like to do something to take away much of the power that the federal government has taken over since the constitution was ratified, and give it back to the state.
The problem is that the 14th Amendment effectively repealed the 9th and 10th Amendments. You'd pretty much need to reinstate the 9th and 10th. And that could cause all sorts of nastiness.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just out of curiosity, which Christianity of the many variants would get the nod? How would Americans of other faiths be treated? Would politicians be forced to pass a religious test to be elected? How would this affect schools? Social programs? Scientific research?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would change two things about this country in order to promote justice, equality and quality of life for our citizenry.
First, I would make education the responsibility of the Federal government. Right now there are different standards, curricula, and quality of education based on where you live. Children who live in municipalities that have wealthy residents and a rich tax base get a good quality education while those who don't, don't. A national standard, paid for by federal taxes would make for a well-educated public, would prepare our citizens for the working world that they will enter after school, and can make us more competitive overall. While federal taxes would rise to pay for this, municipal taxes would plummet (because the bulk of municipal taxes pays for schools). By having a centralized Board of Education, expenses associated with the current redundancy would fall, as well.
The other change I would make would be to make access to basic and emergency healthcare the right of all citizens (and what the heck -- non-citizen residents, as well. Who needs a bunch of sick foreigners among us?) The constitution affords us the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How does that not include the right to healthcare? The current system is a rapidly fraying patchwork, leaving access to healthcare pretty much up to chance and luck. If you are unlucky enough to lose your job, you can lose your health insurance and your ability to pay for your family's healthcare. A healthy citizenry would, of course, be an asset to our country.
Other nations have seen the wisdom of adopting these policies. When it is something important that the nation values, we will find the money for it.
So far, the only thing that we seem to be able to find unlimited funds to pursue as a national goal is war.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't think we're a Christian nation. Frankly, I think that's a good thing, because it would make government even more hypocritical than it already is. I mean, the USA (and all governments) act in pretty darn unChristlike ways all the time. That's pretty bad, some would say necessary, but I think it'd be worse (even more hypocritical) if we were a Christian nation. -----
Megan,
quote:I'd make the separation of church and state ironclad. If you don't have a good solid non-faith-based reason for your legislation, it ain't happening. Period. No more attempts at creation of a theocracy.
This goes quite a distance beyond just seperation of church and state, you know. In essence it outlaws religion. It does not outlaw the practice of religion...in daily life. But don't try to do anything important with religion, like influence the world around you, because the Wise Secularists know better.
Which is a pretty intolerant and offensive way of thinking, if you're a secularist and some religious nut tries to tell you how to live your life. But not, apparently, the other way around.
I totally disagree. I'm a religious fanatic, by most standards. I know that Orthodox Judaism is the only true religion, that Christianity is just a breakaway sect that got totally out of hand, and don't even get me started on Hinduism.
And it is not okay for me to force my religion down your throats, just as it is not okay for you to force yours down my throat.
I resent the implication that there's just Christianity and secularists. We were serving God back when you guys were painting yourselves blue and worshipping trees.
Come to Israel, and I'll assert Judaism legislatively. If you want to assert your religion legislatively, go and create a country for your religion. You can't have this one.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My own suggestion - and it's one that is technically possible right now - is to make the whole thing transparent. All of it.
OK, I'd exempt information on current troop movements and such. But all of the documents, all of the files, every e-mail a politician sends or receives should be accessible by every American. If a bill is submitted I want the names of the authors on it whether they're senators, congressman, aides, assistants, or lobbyists. Especially if they're lobbyists. If it is amended I want the names of the people doing the amending. No more midnight bill rewrites that no one will admit to later. If you work for me (the people) I want immediate online access to your payroll, your contracts, your bidding process, and your communications.
When the Patriot Act was passed one of the arguments was "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." You know, I agree. Do the people's business where the people can see you.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I would change two things about this country in order to promote justice, equality and quality of life for out citizenry.
First, I would make education the responsibility of the Federal government.
Wow. I'd abolish the entire public school system, personally. It was never a good idea, and it's only gotten worse.
I don't have any problem with a refusal to educate your children being considered child abuse and dealt with as such, but any criteria regarding this should be as broad as possible.
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: The other change I would make would be to make access to basic and emergency healthcare the right of all citizens (and what the heck -- non-citizen residents, as well. Who needs a bunch of sick foreigners among us?) The constitution affords us the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How does that not include the right to healthcare?
Um... because we can have life without others giving us life. All they have to do is not kill us. We can have liberty without others giving us liberty. All they have to do is not enslave us. And we can pursue happiness without others granting us happiness. All they have to do is stay our of our way.
But healthcare is a bit different. You can't have healthcare unless healthcare professionals administer it. So guaranteeing anyone a "right" to healthcare automatically means restricting the liberty of healthcare professionals.
Is there a reason that someone should become the property of the state simply because they've trained for a profession that the state finds useful?
I know what you do for a living, Esther. But you can't volunteer everyone. This just isn't an area where government should be involved.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: This just isn't an area where government should be involved.
Ah, Lisa, I have to heartily disagree with you. Education and health are important. Along with liberty and security, they are about the most important things I can think of.
But you know what, Lisa? You are so much better at debating than I am (years of practice, I'm sure), that you have the ability to argue circles around me. And I love that about you. But I'm going to refrain from the debate, and go along merrily, just knowing with every fiber of my being that I am absolutely correct (as usual), and that nothing that anyone says can change that.
Ah, the self-satisfied harmony of it all! Drives you nuts, doesn't it?
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: This just isn't an area where government should be involved.
Ah, Lisa, I have to heartily disagree with you. Education and health are important. Along with liberty and security, they are about the most important things I can think of.
I agree about them being vitally important. That's why I think the government should be kept out of it. I mean... eating is important on the same level, no? Have you ever read this essay?
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: But you know what, Lisa? You are so much better at debating than I am (years of practice, I'm sure),
And a contrary nature. Never forget the contrary nature. <grin>
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: that you have the ability to argue circles around me. And I love that about you. But I'm going to refrain from the debate, and go along merrily, just knowing with every fiber of my being that I am absolutely correct (as usual), and that nothing that anyone says can change that.
Ah, the self-satisfied harmony of it all! Drives you nuts, doesn't it?
<sigh> Totally. But fortunately, this is Hatrack River. I suspect that there'll be people so incensed by my reason and logic that they'll have no choice but to hop into the ring. <grin>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I could only make one change, it would be to model one or more of the following on the way we use the FED to establish our monetary policy. That is, I'd take the following out of the realm of politics and political appointees and set up organizations of unbiased technocrats who, at the very least, would be responsible for recommending policy and coming up with long-term plans.
The candidate areas that would be vastly better under a Fed-like system are: - Defense - Justice - Energy - Education - Immigration - Transportation
Oh heck, let's just make the whole Federal government over into a technocracy and give the President and Congress the benefit of hearing from real experts instead of lobbyists, cronies, and hand-picked representatives from only "their" side of the issue.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd also like to post an idea that a good friend of mine has made an interesting argument in favor of. Instead of elections for Congress, we should treat it like jury duty -- a civic duty that could be assigned to ANYONE. When selected, you serve for one term and one term only. Then it's someone else's turn.
Selection is completely at random and the person given the job has to serve the term, barring illness or a small list of other exclusions.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Megan- are there actually still places in the US where you can't buy alcohol on Sundays?
I've actually never lived anywhere were you COULD buy alcohol on Sundays.
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Actually China is fairly democratic on the village and town level and they are integrating it upwards. Essentially they're aiming for a way to allow the people to vote on moral issues while having a strong centralized authority at the same time, something that Mao had originally wanted.
Next of course the Chinese people have control if they didn't want the CPC in power they would've been overthrown long ago, the lives of the average Chinese ren is far greater now then it was pre 1949 and that is undenyable fact and for as long as they're lives keep improving the people will be and have been generally content to allow the CPC/CCP to make the final decisions.
IP: Logged |
posted
Blayne, I just have to ask if you've looked at sources other than the Chinese Government to back up the claims in that document. Everything I hear of how they treated the people affected by the latest dam/hydroelectric project, and the graft and corruption that seem rampant at every level of government makes me wonder if anything they say is to be believed.
A recent report on NPR talked about the only way for peasants to get justice in one recent spate of incidents was the basically take over the local government by force (with farm implements as weapons).
Just doesn't seem to match the story you're telling us.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I resent the implication that there's just Christianity and secularists. We were serving God back when you guys were painting yourselves blue and worshipping trees.
Please, please, please, if you don't like being generalized, lead by example.
On the original topic, what I'd change if I were American would probably be public healthcare as well. I have no desire to get into the real debates in this thread, so I shall stop there.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Initially speaking, I believe the founding fathers intended the federal government to be involved very little with social issues. It dealt primarily with intersate commerce, national security, international relations, and warfare. Otherwise, the vast majority of the social issues were meant to be handled at the state level.
As for whether the founding fathers were right in regards to this bit of legislation ... who knows? But it seems to me the reason why the country was able to galvanize such a strong amount of support for the 2nd World War was the fact that things at the state-level were already running uniformly well.
Think of it this way: There are 535 congressmen & women in the legislative branch trying to make decisions that impact practically every level of our lives -- running from one end (social issues) to another (international relations & warfare). With the amount of things they're being forced to deal with, is it any wonder that things are done half-assed sometimes or that a hammer costs, per the famous example, $10,000 for the government at times? They simply are dealing with too much. Take the social politics and state-level financial issues from their docket, see how much easier their job becomes. But the problem is, the federal government likes having that much power.
So I don't expect that to ever happen.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What about people whose religion obligates them to have an abortion? Would you make an exception for that, or are you willing to force people to commit murder?
In Judaism, if a woman's life is in danger and the only way to save her life is to abort the fetus, you must do so. If you prevent this, and the mother dies, you have committed murder.
What makes your standards more important than ours? Is this more "Christian nation" stuff?
sL, why even bother asking questions if you've already decided you know what the answers are?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Is from the Declaration of Independence, NOT the Constitution.
The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, none of the rights mentioned in it are ones we are guaranteed by law. And thank the founders for that. The legal tangles that would result from "the pursuit of happiness" being in the Bill of Rights make me want to run and hide just thinking about them.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Domasai: Initially speaking, I believe the founding fathers intended the federal government to be involved very little with social issues. It dealt primarily with intersate commerce, national security, international relations, and warfare. Otherwise, the vast majority of the social issues were meant to be handled at the state level.
Actually, the founders were pretty much split on this issue. If I remember correctly, this gave rise to the first two party system in America.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Astaril: Originally posted by starLisa?
quote:I resent the implication that there's just Christianity and secularists. We were serving God back when you guys were painting yourselves blue and worshipping trees.
Please, please, please, if you don't like being generalized, lead by example.
Hey, everybody generalizes from one example--at least, I do.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Blayne, I just have to ask if you've looked at sources other than the Chinese Government to back up the claims in that document. Everything I hear of how they treated the people affected by the latest dam/hydroelectric project, and the graft and corruption that seem rampant at every level of government makes me wonder if anything they say is to be believed.
A recent report on NPR talked about the only way for peasants to get justice in one recent spate of incidents was the basically take over the local government by force (with farm implements as weapons).
Just doesn't seem to match the story you're telling us."
Mao: A Life; by Philip Short printed in London by Hodder and Stoughton copyright 1999
China! Inside the People's Republic; compiled by Committrr of Concerned Asian Scholars copyright 19 1972 simultaniously in both Canada and USA.
and finally The Rise and Fall of the Great Power: From 1500-2000 by Paul Kennedy.
and and don't forget the CIA world fact book and wikipedia.org.
Remember that when China switched to a market economy all the usual side effects of capitolism came with it aka corruption and a wealth gap.
However the CPC spent 200 billion dollars over the last 10 years on developing western china (the poorer part) as well as massive infastructure developments to help the poor.
Then you have to remember that China has 800 MILLION rural farmers developing an effective grass roots democracy is needed in China to ensure contentment and to promote productivity among the farmers. The CPC knows this and it is avaliable in over a million villages and towns.
IP: Logged |
quote: Remember that when China switched to a market economy all the usual side effects of capitolism came with it aka corruption and a wealth gap.
Blayne, I know you might be too young to remember a time before China switched to a market economy, but trust me: it had corruption and a wealth gap before it switched, too.
----------
Actually, starLisa reminded me of a change I've always supported which, while by no means the only thing that could fix the federal government, would go a long way: mandatory expiration dates on laws. I really can't see a downside.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, the thing you're constantly ignoring is just because things are better now than <1949 does not mean that the current Chinese government is good. It just means progress.
Life for the African-American in the USA was better in 1900 than in 1860, but that doesn't mean it was good, or that the American government merited as constant a defense as you give it.
Just because people haven't risen up and made bloody revolution over a government that would kill them in massive numbers doesn't mean they're satisfied.
The Chinese government spends the lives of its citizens like no other nation on earth, or in history.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, starLisa reminded me of a change I've always supported which, while by no means the only thing that could fix the federal government, would go a long way: mandatory expiration dates on laws. I really can't see a downside.
Large amounts of work for lawyers and legislators? Or is that not a downside? Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So guaranteeing anyone a "right" to healthcare automatically means restricting the liberty of healthcare professionals.
Might well be worth distinguishing between funding and direct provision.
But you can't. The moment the government has to pay doctors' fees, for instance, it has to also dictate what the doctors are allowed to charge for their services.
If there's one doctor who is the best at a certain procedure, they can essentially draft him. And they would.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What about people whose religion obligates them to have an abortion? Would you make an exception for that, or are you willing to force people to commit murder?
In Judaism, if a woman's life is in danger and the only way to save her life is to abort the fetus, you must do so. If you prevent this, and the mother dies, you have committed murder.
What makes your standards more important than ours? Is this more "Christian nation" stuff?
sL, why even bother asking questions if you've already decided you know what the answers are?
Um... because you stated outright that abortion should be illegal. You didn't say "most". You didn't say anything about exceptions.
This is the problem with legislating your religious beliefs on others. Sometimes it's not just a matter of you think it's immoral and I don't. Sometimes it's a clash between what you think is immoral and what I think is immoral.
But would you care to answer the question anyway? Or will you use your objection to the way I phrased it as an excuse for not addressing the issue?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, starLisa reminded me of a change I've always supported which, while by no means the only thing that could fix the federal government, would go a long way: mandatory expiration dates on laws. I really can't see a downside.
Large amounts of work for lawyers and legislators? Or is that not a downside?
It'd give them something productive to do. Keep them off the streets, so to speak. And it would prevent antiquated laws from accumulating.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But you can't. The moment the government has to pay doctors' fees, for instance, it has to also dictate what the doctors are allowed to charge for their services.
If there's one doctor who is the best at a certain procedure, they can essentially draft him. And they would.
Interesting, then, that this is not the way it actually works in systems which do have nationalized health insurance. [Here I am thinking of Canada in particular, although it holds for New Zealand and others as well.]
Sometimes reality resists our preconceptions in the most unexpected ways.
quote:But would you care to answer the question anyway? Or will you use your objection to the way I phrased it as an excuse for not addressing the issue?
People are going to take issue with the way you phrase your statements, starLisa, because you appear consistently to phrase your statements in deliberately abrasive and rude ways.
Whether or not you intend to be abrasive and rude so frequently, that's how you appear to many people. Possibly the problem is not with the rest of the world.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
