Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Political Nightmare: How would you fix the USA?
12
Political Nightmare: How would you fix the USA?
2012-08-28, 8:26 PM #1
Be serious. Everyone's already heard the jokes.

We have a healthcare crisis on our hands. Our budget... isn't. We're in wars where we don't belong.

So what do you think is the solution to America's problems? Be radical, or be reserved. Back up your ideas with stats and concepts. I know this thread will be a little heated, and that's fine. But let's be honest, it'll be fun and a good exercise as well.

I'll start off: I think we should cut back on the military significantly. Pull out troops out of other countries as soon as possible, and only maintain a military necessary to protect our borders. Redirect funds from military research to NASA and working on the country's infrastructure (jobs for those who would have gone into the military).

Throw a portion of the remaining funds into education, and the rest into a new universal medical plan that eliminates medicare or the need for other health insurance. Raise taxes on a logarithmic scale for the tax brackets to assist in paying off some of the deficit. Phase out social security (those who paid in up to the cutoff will get what they paid in), and allow citizens to decide how to invest their own money.

These are just ideas that I've considered, and I'm sure it's got more holes than swiss cheese, but it's a fun idea to consider. What about the rest of you?
2012-08-28, 8:31 PM #2
legalize mariijuana
Peace is a lie
There is only passion
Through passion I gain strength
Through strength I gain power
Through power I gain victory
Through victory my chains are broken
The Force shall set me free
2012-08-28, 8:42 PM #3
it's hard for me to be serious in these threads so instead of my usual "declare myself supreme overlord" i'll just step back while laughing at the post above mine
eat right, exercise, die anyway
2012-08-28, 9:24 PM #4
Originally posted by The_Lost_One:
legalize mariijuana


I sure would like to know how that's going to fix our problems. And no, being "high" isn't the answer.
2012-08-28, 10:31 PM #5
Eliminate most targeted tax credits, exemptions, and deductions. Professor Calvin Johnson at the University of Texas School of Law has demonstrated that Congress could raise an additional $1 trillion a year in tax revenue, without raising tax rates or instituting a value added tax, just by getting rid of these "tax expenditures." They're essentially an especially insidious type of spending that Republicans can engage in while claiming they're just decreasing taxes, and they encourage suboptimal investment decisions to boot. Substantially increase the top marginal tax rate, which is very low (35%) by historical standards, and consider a modest increase in the second-highest marginal rate. Also look at applying the lower 15% capital gains tax rate only to capital gains that are reinvested. Any real tax expert could probably provide hundreds of other equally politically impossible ways to fix the budget.

Health care is much simpler in theory, and just as impossible in practice for the time being: We need a single-payer system. I think the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a definite improvement, but it's both an overly convoluted solution and an incomplete one, the unfortunate product of a bad political environment.

I'll go ahead and be the first to bring up immigration, another policy area that's badly in need of reform. The current state of immigration policy is bad for everyone; bad for us because undocumented immigrants don't pay income tax (sometimes), and bad for immigrants because they're horribly exploited by anyone who wants cheap labor. There are eleven million undocumented immigrants in this country, and if they didn't leave within a year or so of the housing market crash, they're not leaving for anything short of The Day After Tomorrow. Having spent a semester studying the vast body of federal immigration law, I can tell you all that it's so byzantine and so perverse, it makes the federal income tax code look sane by comparison. What we really need is a line-by-line review, crossing out anything that's archaic, incomprehensible, or needlessly cruel. Among other corrections, I'd see the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 repealed in toto; anyone who can find anything of worth in those vindictive monstrosities is welcome to reintroduce it in a new bill. After the cleanup, I'd provide a path to citizenship, without requiring return to home country, for all undocumented immigrants who can establish habitation within the country as of a given date and have committed no "aggravated felonies" (a very narrow category of crimes thanks to the above-mentioned repeal of AEDPA and IIRIRA) or state felonies.

As for something really radical? Abolish the Senate. The thing doesn't serve a useful purpose, as far as I can tell.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2012-08-28, 10:37 PM #6
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
I sure would like to know how that's going to fix our problems. And no, being "high" isn't the answer.


It doesn't fix any problems, but it would alleviate some of them: Prison overcrowding (obvious), tax revenue (legitimating an already-existing sector of our economy), spending (enforcement of drug laws is costly). I'd never call it a solution, but I don't have a problem with it being part of the solution.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2012-08-28, 11:45 PM #7
Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
As for something really radical? Abolish the Senate. The thing doesn't serve a useful purpose, as far as I can tell.


What, you mean besides being the far saner of the two houses and mitigating a lot of awful legislation?

And also one that doesn't allow for gerrymandering?

My ideas to fix the USA:

-Host real presidential debates (not the rigged ones with off-limits questions) and invite candidates from many parties to join (green, libertarian, etc.)
-Popular vote.
-Outlaw super-pacs. Cap corporate donations to something small and reasonable. Cap the amount of money that can be spent on presidential campaigns to something reasonable.
-The government should issue currency directly.
-Re-institute Glass-Stegall immediately.
-Make the rich pay some taxes. 35% is low as ****. And they don't even pay that much thanks to their plethora of loopholes. Close the loopholes and raise their taxes within reason.
-Penalize established media outlets for telling verifiable lies. Fine them, harshly if necessary, until they finally get the picture.
-We have the technology to vote on pretty much any issue democratically. We should consider doing this more often.
-Outlaw private prisons.
-No more people in jail for doing drugs. If that doesn't lower the incarceration rate to sane levels (like before 1970), then find some way to lower it. We imprison a ridiculous amount of people compared to the rest of the world.

-Health care. Eh. I think Obama has the right idea. The mandate isn't ideal, but it's all we can do as long as we live in a country with so many retards. The idea is to eventually transition to single-payer once enough old people finally die to allow for some sane politics.

I'll refrain from touching education reform because my ideas there would be extremely radical.

Here's a taste of one of my less radical postions, though:
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2012-08-29, 12:28 AM #8
Raise taxes and cut spending. Ream of the bloodsuckers in Wall Street and the baby-killing lobby (this will only be possible if they don't see it coming, a necessary tactic when dealing with mobsters in general). Kick the redneck states out of the union. Repeal the constitution. Deport everyone who's lazy or disabled. Ban guns. Force men to take maternity leave. Don't elect a president who expends his political capital to create another entitlement. Ban political parties from writing campaign legislation. Require run-off elections. Ban the Republicans from obstructing congress. Ban the Democrats from creating new entitlements without cutting existing ones (or raising taxes).

2012-08-29, 1:09 AM #9
(I was joking)
2012-08-29, 1:30 AM #10
Your face is a political nightmare.
Star Wars: TODOA | DXN - Deus Ex: Nihilum
2012-08-29, 1:34 AM #11
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
Phase out social security (those who paid in up to the cutoff will get what they paid in), and allow citizens to decide how to invest their own money.


So what happens for people who don't have spare money to invest? If you're working 2 jobs and still can't pay your bills? (I'm working on the assumption that social security is pretty much the same as the UK state pension, apologies if I'm wrong).

Originally posted by Freelancer:
-Make the rich pay some taxes. 35% is low as ****. And they don't even pay that much thanks to their plethora of loopholes. Close the loopholes and raise their taxes within reason.

So here's something I've often wondered about taxes: there's an understanding that many (most?) people in the US don't want to raise taxes on the rich because, even if they do not sit in the income bracket that would be affected, everyone still believes that 'anyone can make it' (despite social mobility decreasing pretty much everywhere - including here in the UK). So nobody wants to 'penalize' a group that they hope to one day be part of.

But, as you point out, the top rate of tax (35% over there, 45% here) is paid by pretty much nobody. (Am I right in thinking that Romney is boasting that he paid all of 13% last year? As though that is impressive?). The amount of loopholes and offshore havens is atrocious. So why not work out an actually sensible rate, which could well be lower than the current rate, and close every loophole so that everyone really did have to pay that rate. For the people not currently in the bracket, it appears fair, and possibly even like they would be saving money if they ever made it into that income group. And the only people who could complain would be those who are engaging in serious tax avoidance, who are surely universally hated by now.

Originally posted by Freelancer:
-Penalize established media outlets for telling verifiable lies. Fine them, harshly if necessary, until they finally get the picture.

A thousand times yes.
<spe> maevie - proving dykes can't fly

<Dor> You're levelling up and gaining more polys!
2012-08-29, 1:39 AM #12
What Michael MacFarlane posted, plus:


  • Forbid the officers and executives of publicly-traded companies from participating in the stock market. Remove all legal responsibility for stock performance from the officers, executives, and board members of publicly-traded companies. Prohibit all shareholder reprisal due to stock performance, including lawsuits and dismissal. This would supersede any contract.
    • Currently companies are required to do a lot of extremely questionable things in order to maximize shareholder value, which has robbed the American economy of a lot of long-term stability and potential growth. Doing this would allow the officers of companies to focus on the real market of goods and services, instead of the rigged gambling game of the reprobates on Wall Street.

  • Prohibit proxy votes by investment management companies. Eliminate the voting rights from any stocks held by firms and intermediaries instead of households.
    • Three reasons:
      • This would discourage savings in financial firms like hedge funds. Ideally, small shareholders would be limited to a small handful of companies, encouraging those shareholders to also become emotionally invested - and personally involved - in the businesses they own.
      • Additionally, right now the voting rights held by financial intermediaries are exercised, without restraint, by the majority shareholders and managers of those funds. By creating this law it would cut the knees out from folks like Daniel Loeb, do-nothings who play activist shareholder with their clients' money.
      • Finally, this would eliminate a stock ownership loophole that allows individuals to achieve a majority control over large conglomerates while only investing a tiny portion of their wealth. For example, this is how the Lees keep total control over Samsung, even though they own less than 5%.

  • Require that all stocks purchased in a buyback be either cancelled or placed into an ISO pool. Prohibit the sale or re-purposing of stocks earmarked for incentives.
    • This would prevent the over-reporting of market capitalization, require companies to correctly report stock buybacks as losses rather than savings, and discourage companies from using buybacks to impose a price floor on their stocks.

  • Gradually reduce the minimum wage to $0 in the very long term.
    • This would decrease the opportunity cost of education. This would also reduce the prices of essential goods.

  • Gradually increase the reserve requirement over the long term (50% demand, 25% time). Eliminate deposit insurance. Eliminate lending of last resort.
    • The negative consequences are a severe decrease in the supply of money and an increase in interest rates. The numbers I gave above would shrink the US money supply by about 80%.
    • However, in the long run, it would result in a dramatic price correction. For example, before federal mortgage financing and guarantees, the real (inflation-adjusted) median house price in the United States was $38,350. Now it is $263,000.
    • The elimination of deposit insurance would remove a safety net from financial institutions, which would require them to take fewer risks with their deposits.

  • Gradually introduce tariffs to offset weaker foreign regulations and subsidies, on all goods and services, including finished goods and labor. For finished goods this would be computed by weighting the sources of inputs.
    • This mitigates the economic influence of foreign governments, requiring them to compete on fair ground with American businesses.
    • For example, China and rare earth metals:
    • Rare earths aren't actually rare, they just aren't found in 'veins' like other metals. They can be extracted virtually anywhere, although it's extremely bad for the environment. The reason China has a monopoly over the world's supply is because they have weak ecological protection laws, and the government subsidized the production of rare earths beyond what the free market could bear. Foreign producers of rare earths couldn't compete and were pushed out of the market.
    • China is now using their control over the world's supply of rare earths to subsidize their labor market. They have instituted quotas for rare earth exports, and subsidize rare earths purchased by the domestic manufacturers of finished goods for export.
    • Americans cannot compete against China without a no-holds-barred regulatory race to the bottom. Instead, the prices of Chinese exports would be artificially increased to reflect the unfair trade practices (dumping) of the Chinese government.

  • Eliminate all agriculture subsidies. Introduce stronger agriculture pollution legislation.
    • The US command economy agriculture programs have resulted in a drastically skewed food market.
    • Corn is a wasteful crop, but it is produced in vast amounts due to the various purchasing and subsidization programs. The last time I checked, as much as 40% of the United States corn production was being used for (industrial) ethanol production, even though sugarbeet and sugarcane are more than twice as efficient for this purpose.
    • Pig farming is also extremely bad for the environment. Pig farms are very likely America's worst industrial polluters, generating enormous amounts of greenhouse gases (methane), polluting rivers and contaminating groundwater.

  • Introduce legislation which classifies as negligent trespass the unauthorized pollination of crops with patented GMO pollen.
    • This would criminalize the actions of Monsanto, which uses its patented crops as a weapon to eradicate small farms and steal land.

  • Create a "jail" for corporations charged with felonies. A corporate prison sentence would mean they are not allowed to participate in any market (including labor) for the duration of the sentence. With universal jurisdiction, very bad news for GE, Bayer, Coca-Cola, Nestle, and many other extremely evil companies.
    • This would force companies to compete on even grounds. Cash fines are ineffective against corporations. The real damage of this law would be the elimination of a corporation's ability to retain personnel (because the company is not allowed to pay them). This means very real penalties for companies that choose to finance banana republics instead of basing production in the United States.

  • Tax corporations having a significant American stake at the full income tax rate, regardless of where the income is being reported.
    • This would eliminate the use of tax shelters like Ireland, Singapore, and Puerto Rico, increasing tax revenue from American-owned corporations.
2012-08-29, 5:57 AM #13
Originally posted by maevie:
So what happens for people who don't have spare money to invest? If you're working 2 jobs and still can't pay your bills? (I'm working on the assumption that social security is pretty much the same as the UK state pension, apologies if I'm wrong).


I have no idea how it works there, but here, Social Security is paid into from your paycheck. It's like a tax, you never see the money (although it is on your paystub). The more you work and pay into it, the more you get at the end. So by phasing it out, people would actually get more money per paycheck, and they could invest the extra money into their own retirement plans instead. This would be a good idea since Social Security is basically unsustainable and all the money you put into it is almost guaranteed not to come back out.




Quote:
A thousand times yes. [Editors note: In regards to blocking media from lying]


I'm not a fan of blocking free speech. If they want to spew lies, well, that's their thing. But, I DO think they should be required to state that they've done so. Something like the "side effects" part of drug commercials. To me, this would be even more damning, and at the same time far more hilarious.
2012-08-29, 6:27 AM #14
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
I'm not a fan of blocking free speech. If they want to spew lies, well, that's their thing. But, I DO think they should be required to state that they've done so. Something like the "side effects" part of drug commercials. To me, this would be even more damning, and at the same time far more hilarious.

While that sounds like it would be amusing, there's no guarantee it would be effective. This article is about the New York Times stating a Romney ad is lying. And the campaign doesn't care because their polling still say it's working. So they will continue spouting lies, not even pretending they're true, and what is to stop them? And it's exactly the same with the media. (As pointed out here, when 4/5 Republicans still don't believe Obama was born in the USA, it's clear these people don't care about truth or rationality.)
<spe> maevie - proving dykes can't fly

<Dor> You're levelling up and gaining more polys!
2012-08-29, 7:04 AM #15
Oh no, I don't mean some sort of article. I mean they have to say it's a lie during the broadcast, right after they said it. I'm not sure if you've seen our drug commercials here, but I used them as an example because it's 10 seconds of describing the drug, and 20 seconds listing all the side effects. It's hilarious and basically scares you from ever wanting to take the drug.
2012-08-29, 7:52 AM #16
...They actually advertise drugs over there?
nope.
2012-08-29, 8:11 AM #17
I used to be way more involved and informed on local, national, and global politics, but I've checked out in the last couple of years. The only real policy shift I was aware of was the 1 trillion dollars of untaxed dollars Micheal mentioned. The rest of what Jon`C said addresses many of the problems and concerns I've had for a long time, especially the stock market. I have asked direct questions about how to limit and eliminate some of those problems, and those seem to be incredibly astute answers. I barely know how the stock market works though, so I'm just impressed by all the numbers. The policy suggestions, especially basic limitations on corporate campaign spending however, I am incredibly in favor of.

I'm curious to learn more about the changes you proposed to minimum wage, Jon`C. Any further reading?
ᵗʰᵉᵇˢᵍ๒ᵍᵐᵃᶥᶫ∙ᶜᵒᵐ
ᴸᶥᵛᵉ ᴼᵑ ᴬᵈᵃᵐ
2012-08-29, 9:02 AM #18
Originally posted by Baconfish:
...They actually advertise drugs over there?

Yes, it's really quite scary. I remember seeing those ads last time I was over there (15+ years ago). Something for us to look forward to as we march towards Virgin Healthcare!

I see what you're saying Matty, I just genuinely don't think it would make a difference. People either care whether something is true, or they don't.
<spe> maevie - proving dykes can't fly

<Dor> You're levelling up and gaining more polys!
2012-08-29, 11:29 AM #19
Originally posted by maevie:
So here's something I've often wondered about taxes: there's an understanding that many (most?) people in the US don't want to raise taxes on the rich because, even if they do not sit in the income bracket that would be affected, everyone still believes that 'anyone can make it' (despite social mobility decreasing pretty much everywhere - including here in the UK). So nobody wants to 'penalize' a group that they hope to one day be part of.


To be fair, I've never actually heard anyone offer that as a defense for why they want lower taxes for the rich. That's more of a jab used by the left to mock poor people who want lower taxes for the rich.

Originally posted by maevie:
But, as you point out, the top rate of tax (35% over there, 45% here) is paid by pretty much nobody. (Am I right in thinking that Romney is boasting that he paid all of 13% last year? As though that is impressive?). The amount of loopholes and offshore havens is atrocious. So why not work out an actually sensible rate, which could well be lower than the current rate, and close every loophole so that everyone really did have to pay that rate. For the people not currently in the bracket, it appears fair, and possibly even like they would be saving money if they ever made it into that income group.


Yes, you're right about Romney. He's been under fire about his taxes, including the possibility of his use of an amnesty program for offshore tax havens in 2010. He claimed that 13% was the least he's ever paid in taxes, as if that is supposed to help him get out of trouble. A lot of people have questioned why it's possible for him to have paid so little. As for your solution, that is exactly what Obama has been trying to do, but the Republicans have been blocking him at every turn.

Originally posted by maevie:
And the only people who could complain would be those who are engaging in serious tax avoidance, who are surely universally hated by now.


Universally hated? Not by a long shot.. tax avoidance is practically a core platform of the Republican party. Even run-of-the-mill people who consider themselves Republicans often express sentiments like paying as little as possible in taxes is one's patriotic duty.

---

Like JediKirby, I'm also curious about Jon's plan to phase out minimum wage over time. I agree it would lead to lower prices, but wouldn't it lead to lower wages as well? I agree it would decrease the opportunity cost of education, but the only way I can see it helping education entirely is if you stop shoveling free money to students. Are you also in favor of that? How do you explain that a high minimum wage appears to be working quite well for Australia?
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2012-08-29, 12:00 PM #20
Originally posted by maevie:
(As pointed out here, when 4/5 Republicans still don't believe Obama was born in the USA, it's clear these people don't care about truth or rationality.)

And,

Quote:
It is not that criticisms of Obama are quantitatively racist, per se, but rather that they are qualitatively so in too many instances; a distinction, yes, but one that does not alter the underlying reality.

In other words, it is one thing to disagree, even mightily, with a president’s policies.

It is quite another to suggest that that president is really a foreign imposter: over, and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. And to accept no proof, no matter how extensive, that he really is an American after all.*


but guys I'm not racist, I married a mexican chick
2012-08-29, 12:23 PM #21
Increase taxes on the richest. I'm family friends with a top 1% family. They don't need more money. They can afford to drive to their house in the mountains instead of fly. They don't need to spend $200 on a bottle of wine with dinner. An $80 bottle will still taste great. They don't need new cars every 2 years, every 3 years is not bad. If you think I'm exaggerating with any of these things, I'm not. The guy owns a factory and pays some of his workers minimum wage. Some of them barely get by, just so he can practically throw money away at pointless ****. I have little respect for the richest in the United States.

Pull out of Afghanistan and retrain military personnel in engineering and construction and pay them to help cities and municipalities improve basic infrastructure (fix bridges that don't meet requirement, fix roads, etc.) We throw tons of money away on the military. We could train good American citizens to fix problems within our own borders instead of blowing **** up outside of them.

Decriminalize drug possession for minor amounts, keep strict punishments for trafficking/dealing/manufacturing. While prison jobs will be lost, it's a bit ridiculous what proportion of United States prisoners are there on drug related charges.

I'd like to see the financial sector regulated more heavily, but at the same time it's important to remember that too much regulation can be just as harmful as deregulation. I don't have a clear solution for this. The scandals with LIBOR has made it obvious that banks are incapable of self regulation. Sadly though it seems LIBOR is already being overlooked by most despite how big of a ****ing deal it actually is.

I'd eliminate the seventeenth amendment. The seventeenth amendment gave reason for senators to pass needless legislation and add pork to bills. AFAIK, the original intent was that the house of representatives propose taxing legislation and are dependent on the people (directly elected & in proportion to population). The senators were to be elected by state senates, i.e. a sort of aristocratic election and dealt with spending legislation. With senators now being elected directly by the people, senators have a motive to spend to keep their office (which, naturally they can be elected indefinitely so a senator who spends lots of federal money in their state will likely be re elected). I feel it's a broken system and we should go back to the old system, with changes to prevent senator seats not being filled (which was why the bill was passed in the first place).
2012-08-29, 1:56 PM #22
Most of what Jon'C said would be awesome. especially,
Quote:
  • Eliminate all agriculture subsidies. Introduce stronger agriculture pollution legislation.
    • The US command economy agriculture programs have resulted in a drastically skewed food market.
    • Corn is a wasteful crop, but it is produced in vast amounts due to the various purchasing and subsidization programs. The last time I checked, as much as 40% of the United States corn production was being used for (industrial) ethanol production, even though sugarbeet and sugarcane are more than twice as efficient for this purpose.
    • Pig farming is also extremely bad for the environment. Pig farms are very likely America's worst industrial polluters, generating enormous amounts of greenhouse gases (methane), polluting rivers and contaminating groundwater.

[*]Introduce legislation which classifies as negligent trespass the unauthorized pollination of crops with patented GMO pollen.
    [*]This would criminalize the actions of Monsanto, which uses its patented crops as a weapon to eradicate small farms and steal land.

    [/LIST]
    [/LIST]
    Potable water is likely to become a HUGE issue in the relatively near future. And Monsanto is a terrible TERRIBLE company.

    I would also propose NOT raising taxes on the wealthy, but absolutely remove loopholes so they ARE taxed at their full tax rate.

    Also reduce payroll and other taxes related to employment on small businesses.

    Social security is going have to be fundamentally changed or phased out. It is not a matter of how you "feel" about it. It is simply not sustainable in its current form.

    Contractual compensation packages in government jobs likely need to be done away with for the most part(this is likely more a local and state issue).

    Scale down the military. A lot. However, IF we are going to engage in military operations FULLY fund them so troops get any and all equipment they will need to do their job effectively. Along this same line do scale down operations in Iraq and Afghanistan but for the love of god DO NOT ANNOUNCE WITHDRAWAL DATES AS A GOD DAMNED POLITICAL PLOY!!!!

    reform nearly everything having to do with healthcare. everything.

    there is a lot that could be done in our prison/criminal justice system that could greatly reduce costs where drug use(not sale) is concerned.
    Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
    2012-08-29, 2:35 PM #23
    Set a cap on how much money one can receive and spend for campaigning. This would go a long way to eliminate those "career" politicians and make way for people who actually give a damn and want to do something about it. Reform healthcare. It is broke to all hell. And I agree with CM on the lying media issue. Preferably, the warning should say,( flashing or scrolling at the bottom of the screen) "The above is complete and utter bull****."
    obviously you've never been able to harness the power of cleavage...

    maeve
    2012-08-29, 2:50 PM #24
    Put a damn term limit on federal representatives and senators. fresh blood in every four and 12 years respectively.
    My girlfriend paid a lot of money for that tv; I want to watch ALL OF IT. - JM
    2012-08-29, 3:51 PM #25
    Increase the number of representatives in the House to accurately reflect population growth with shorter terms. Keeps it closer to the original intent and would better reflect the people's will instead of a power-hungry ******* who spouts off the party line and does more harm than good.
    $do || ! $do ; try
    try: command not found
    Ye Olde Galactic Empire Mission Editor (X-wing, TIE, XvT/BoP, XWA)
    2012-08-29, 7:09 PM #26
    Originally posted by Cool Matty:
    Back up your ideas with stats and concepts.


    I think that would do it right there, actually.

    Originally posted by Jon`C:
    This would criminalize the actions of Monsanto, which uses its patented crops as a weapon to eradicate small farms and steal land.


    I actually used to be really angry about this, but I then I realized that I never had any hard information to support my position, just vague rumors. When I looked into it, I could only find one instance of it happening, sort of, and it was in Canada, and the farmer didn't end up having to pay any actual penalties, other than legal fees. And Monsanto did have a point.

    http://www.reddit.com/r/ProGMO/comments/q05e2/the_myth_about_monsanto_suing_farmers_for/

    Quote:
    Potable water is likely to become a HUGE issue in the relatively near future.


    Really? Why so?
    2012-08-29, 10:40 PM #27
    Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
    Really? Why so?


    probably the easiest way of putting it is, we are depleting our water tables, largely with agriculture, at a faster rate than they are able to replenish naturally. combine this with industrial and agricultural/farm waste that runs into and pollutes above ground sources (rivers and such) and we are faced with a diminishing supply of potable water against a stedily increasing demand.

    you also have a growing problem of "privatization" of water supplies. generally I am in favor of privatizing a whole host of products. water is not one of them.
    Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
    2012-08-30, 10:20 AM #28
    Originally posted by Reid:
    Decriminalize drug possession for minor amounts, keep strict punishments for trafficking/dealing/manufacturing. While prison jobs will be lost, it's a bit ridiculous what proportion of United States prisoners are there on drug related charges.


    Decriminalization only solves a few of the problems with the War on Drugs, and could potentially exacerbate other problems. The drug market would still be left to the criminals and cartels and they would still be just as easily available to minors, for example. Also, continuing to bust domestic grow-ops would keep the market open to foreign cartels. Legalizing and regulating (for soft drugs, at least) is a much better solution. I'm not fully convinced that hard drugs should be legalized, though. It's possible that if soft drugs are legal, the demand for hard drugs would shrink.
    I'm just a little boy.
    2012-08-30, 9:33 PM #29
    One of my good friends, a tax attorney, has just informed me that experts in the field believe the revenue-maximizing top marginal tax rate would be somewhere between 65% and 75%. (This is arguably information I should already have had, but whatever.) Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you that Mitt Romney will produce an increase in federal revenue by lowering tax rates.

    Originally posted by Freelancer:
    What, you mean besides being the far saner of the two houses and mitigating a lot of awful legislation?

    And also one that doesn't allow for gerrymandering?


    Any part of a legislative process that prevents or weakens bad legislation will also prevent or weaken good legislation, probably in approximately equal measure. This aspect of the Senate is at best a matter of preference. But consider that all of my proposals (minus the one we're discussing now), all of Jon`C's (I believe, except for the eventual elimination of minimum wage laws, which would require some state-level repeal as well), many of yours (some others would require constitutional amendment, Supreme Court decision contrary to established precedent, or voluntary or state-level action), and almost all of Reid's (minus the obvious constitutional amendment) would require active federal legislation, either passing new laws or repealing old, bad ones. None of this country's major problems are going to be solved by preventing legislation. We need a process that's more responsive, not less.

    If you're not convinced by that, then there's no reason we can't counterbalance the loss of the Senate with the introduction of additional brakes on legislation in the House, which could take whatever form you'd like. In that case we've eliminated a preposterously undemocratic institution designed for a purpose (namely, the protection of individual states' interests) that no longer matters, and no one's worse off except for 100 more unemployed Americans.
    If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
    2012-08-31, 2:19 PM #30
    Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
    One of my good friends, a tax attorney, has just informed me that experts in the field believe the revenue-maximizing top marginal tax rate would be somewhere between 65% and 75%. (This is arguably information I should already have had, but whatever.) Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you that Mitt Romney will produce an increase in federal revenue by lowering tax rates.


    You're tax expert is spouting off about pretty limited studies. That 70% number is calculated using only the simplest of simple models with 1 tax rate, and a broad estimation of a single labor elasticity.

    A good study on marginal tax rates adjusts for, and must address the following issues:

    1. Because marginal rates and average rates move together, it's often hard to disentangle the marginal effect from tax reform
    2. Accurate estimation of labor elasticity
    3. Capital/Money flight
    4. The optimization of tax also depends on if that tax money is spent wisely compared to the private market
    5. Being able to shift money between capital, corporate, and income accounts
    6. Income inequality trends

    AKA, much tax research is horribly simplified and in no way represents current progressive tax systems. Not saying you are wrong, we probably should raise the marginal tax rate, but saying that 70% is a good number is just misusing research.
    "His Will Was Set, And Only Death Would Break It"

    "None knows what the new day shall bring him"
    2012-08-31, 2:27 PM #31
    Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
    One of my good friends, a tax attorney, has just informed me that experts in the field believe the revenue-maximizing top marginal tax rate would be somewhere between 65% and 75%. (This is arguably information I should already have had, but whatever.) Remember that the next time someone tries to tell you that Mitt Romney will produce an increase in federal revenue by lowering tax rates.


    Your tax expert is spouting off about pretty limited studies. That 70% number is calculated using only the simplest of simple models with 1 tax rate, and a broad estimation of a single labor elasticity.

    A good study on marginal tax rates adjusts for, and must address the following issues:

    1. Because marginal rates and average rates move together, it's often hard to disentangle the marginal effect from tax reform
    2. Accurate estimation of labor elasticity (recent research (Seshadri I know is an author here at my Uni) shows that taxes effect occupational and willing to work choice BIG time)
    3. Capital/Money flight
    4. The optimization of tax also depends on if that tax money is spent wisely compared to the private market
    5. Being able to shift money between capital, corporate, and income accounts
    6. Income inequality trends

    AKA, much tax research is horribly simplified and in no way represents current progressive tax systems. Not saying you are wrong, we probably should raise the marginal tax rate, but saying that 70% is a good number is just misusing research.
    "His Will Was Set, And Only Death Would Break It"

    "None knows what the new day shall bring him"
    2012-08-31, 2:35 PM #32
    Education reform, from probably the ground-up. It's the only long-term solution I see that would do more than solve symptoms of a political culture's decline. How that reform takes place is a question I cannot answer, as anything I can think of still requires the implementation from a people who arguably will only continue to propagate an education that is useless or hurtful to future generations (which isn't to say I believe the current education that can be received is wholly either), as well as requires the future generations' abilities to learn from our mistakes.

    I'm afraid I'm not educated enough in these fields like some of you seem to be, though it does seem to me that any system reform will be useless without a culture adapting the spirit of the reform. Even from a cynical perspective, building a system to capitalize on people's faults seems questionable at best, and I generally give credit to human ingenuity to exploit and cheat any system, for good or evil.
    The Plothole: a home for amateur, inclusive, collaborative stories
    http://forums.theplothole.net
    2012-08-31, 4:31 PM #33
    Originally posted by Gebohq:
    Education reform, from probably the ground-up. It's the only long-term solution I see that would do more than solve symptoms of a political culture's decline. How that reform takes place is a question I cannot answer, as anything I can think of still requires the implementation from a people who arguably will only continue to propagate an education that is useless or hurtful to future generations (which isn't to say I believe the current education that can be received is wholly either), as well as requires the future generations' abilities to learn from our mistakes.

    I'm afraid I'm not educated enough in these fields like some of you seem to be, though it does seem to me that any system reform will be useless without a culture adapting the spirit of the reform. Even from a cynical perspective, building a system to capitalize on people's faults seems questionable at best, and I generally give credit to human ingenuity to exploit and cheat any system, for good or evil.


    I know this is going to sound horrible to some, but frankly I feel that we should split up education based on intelligence and do vocational training/, "practical" math, and contract competence (basic legal comprehension) classes for students not capable of higher algebra and calculus. Let the smarter, more math capable students take algebra.

    There's a million problems inherent in a situation like this though, but frankly I feel it's necessary. Maybe students who perform well in practical math can move up to algebra/calc - you know, reinforce hard work in a practical area with more opportunity.
    2012-08-31, 5:03 PM #34
    I feel that this notion, that certain types of mathematics are useless to certain types of people, is a product of profound pedagogical and cultural failures that can never be healed until we as a society are willing to correctly recognize that student apathy is a direct consequence of teacher incompetence.
    2012-08-31, 5:45 PM #35
    Nevertheless, if Reid's vocational training would guarantee a modest income, I would gladly lock myself out of his fancy math classes and be a bricklayer.
    "it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
    2012-08-31, 5:52 PM #36
    Originally posted by Jon`C:
    I feel that this notion, that certain types of mathematics are useless to certain types of people, is a product of profound pedagogical and cultural failures that can never be healed until we as a society are willing to correctly recognize that student apathy is a direct consequence of teacher incompetence.


    I knew there was a reason I keep you on ignore!
    COUCHMAN IS BACK BABY
    2012-08-31, 6:07 PM #37
    Originally posted by Tracer:
    I knew there was a reason I keep you on ignore!


    Female teachers' math anxiety affects girls' math achievement (Beilock et al, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2010)

    Quote:
    There was no relation between a teacher’s math anxiety and her students’ math achievement at the beginning of the school year. By the school year’s end, however, the more anxious teachers were about math, the more likely girls (but not boys) were to endorse the commonly held stereotype that “boys are good at math, and girls are good at reading” and the lower these girls’ math achievement.


    But hey, at least you have me on ignore. :eng101:
    2012-08-31, 6:33 PM #38
    Originally posted by Jon`C:
    I feel that this notion, that certain types of mathematics are useless to certain types of people, is a product of profound pedagogical and cultural failures that can never be healed until we as a society are willing to correctly recognize that student apathy is a direct consequence of teacher incompetence.

    Do you care to elaborate on why you feel this way?

    Originally posted by Freelancer:
    Nevertheless, if Reid's vocational training would guarantee a modest income, I would gladly lock myself out of his fancy math classes and be a bricklayer.

    Bricks need to be layed. Being honest is hard..
    2012-08-31, 6:39 PM #39
    Have you ever had a manual labor job, Reid?
    >>untie shoes
    2012-08-31, 6:45 PM #40
    Originally posted by Antony:
    Have you ever had a manual labor job, Reid?

    Absolutely yes, I have.
    12

    ↑ Up to the top!