You far right people, what would your perfect country look like?

[guzzijohn]

Describe your president.
Describe you military.
Describe your immigration policies.
Describe your social services.
Describe your education plan.
Describe your taxation plan.
Describe your economy.
Describe your banking/business regulations.
What laws do you want to see removed/added?
Describe your foreign policy.
Describe your trade policies.
Anything else that you think relates.

[Pat/Rick]

Everything is in the Constitution and BOR's.As ORIGIONALLY INTENDED Nothing more, nothing less.
The only difference would be modelled after Switzerland. The PEOPLE vote on tax increases.

[subdjoe]

guzzijohn wrote:

Describe your president.

One who follows the Constitution. And puts our Republic first.  

Describe you military.

Well trained, well equipped.  Enlisted paid what they are worth.  Strong enough to protect our Republic and our interests.

Describe your immigration policies.

All are welcome so long as they are not a drain on our public resources.  Student and temporary visas strictly enforced.  BUT ... gotta come in legally.  If you are here for an extended time, say 7 years or more, you must be in the process of becoming a citizen, or be asked to leave.

Describe your social services

.

Describe what you mean by social services.

Describe your education plan.

An issue for the States and Counties.  Shouldn't be a federal issue at all.

Describe your taxation plan.

Up to the poverty level, no income tax.  Above that, a flat tax of say 10% on all income.

Describe your economy.

Prosperous.

Describe your banking/business regulations.

Define, that is way too open ended.  Obviously fraud should be prosecuted.  

What laws do you want to see removed/added?

Junk most of them beyond the Constitution.

Describe your foreign policy.

Don't mess with us.

Describe your trade policies.

Why should the government be involved in trade?  Other than to levy tariffs?


Dial the feds back to the bare bones minimum as defined by the Constitution (you know, that document that tells how our government is 'constituted.') guided by:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

and

I see...with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic...aided by a little sophistry on the words ‘general welfare,’ a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare.

JEFFERSON, THOMAS, Letter to W. B. Giles, 1825

and

Thomas Jefferson - On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

and

Thomas Paine -A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. all delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.

and

Alexander Hamilton - No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.

[subdjoe]

So, john, I assume you are a leftist, judging from how you worded the subject title.  What would YOUR ideal America look like?  Inner city slums with everyone depending on the government for everything?

[skarke]

guzzijohn,

A dissertation on a conversational forum would be rude, so speaking for myself only, our Government at the Federal Level would be pretty small.  In fact, government in general would be MUCH smaller.  The notion of the Federal Government having a role in such things as Johnson's Great Society is preposterous.  Future banking regulation would be predicated on moving away from the Fed.  Defense would not have much of a role in policing the planet.  Capitalism wins every time, just look at China's resurgence after moving to a Capitalist friendly industrial model.  Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security?  Give me a break.  How about family, church, personal responsibility, shared risk through insurance (one caveat, if a person is physically or mentally disabled, then we can and should provide for their needs).

Immigration?  Follow the law.  If there is no incentive to travel to the US to jump on the entitlement bandwagon, instead there was a pro-opportunity, pro business culture of entrepreneurialism, wagon pullers would be coming, not wagon riders.  Others would emigrate elsewhere.

Conservatism is really quite simple:  Small government, low taxes, National security.  That is pretty much it.

If you really are interested in anything other than a "potbelly stove" discussion, I'd recommend that you visit this site and read a few articles.  At least then you'll have a few opinions accompanied by the authors' logic.

http://www.heritage.org/research/all-research.aspx?categories=lecture

[skarke]

subdjoe, great post.

[subdjoe]

subdjoe, great post.

Thank you.  I suspect that the last part is the best. But then, I stole it from the best.

[guzzijohn]

Describe your president.
A person with integrity, willing to listen to all sides but then makes a firm decision. Does not come across that the U.S. is superior to the rest of world but our own success as a country would leave other countries wanting to model. Believe it or not a lot like Ronald Reagan, especially in his first term. But please Lord do not give us another George W Bush.

Describe you military.
Keep the aircraft carriers and planes that can project global power if needed. Ground forces to be more streamlined, versatile and be able to react quickly to a variety of threats. Streamline the military support structure. Reduce nuclear force to 100 warheads. That should be enough for deterrent, especially with the power accuracy of current conventional weapons.

Describe your immigration policies.
Ideally pretty much what Subdjoe wrote. To be honest I do not how to get out of the current mess we are in without spending tremendous amounts of money and other resources and still keep some kind of decent relationship with Mexico.

Describe your social services.
Continue with SS and medicare with more opt out options. Bolster overall supports and services for those that are truly disabled. Expand work readiness training and adaptation supports for the disabled so to make more taxpayers than tax takers. It takes money up front to save huge amounts in the longterm. Here again a tough one but some type of medical system that allows everyone at least preventive medicine care and catastrophic coverage.

Describe your education plan.
I agree, should be a state and local control thing as long as as we do not go back to segregated schools and still give strong support to special education.

Describe your taxation plan.
Either a flat income tax and/or more use of sales tax instead of income and property taxes. All law enforcement/court fines go either to the schools or medical care but NOT back to the counties/cities, or police departments directly.

Describe your economy.
A free market economy but with closer control of monopolies.

Describe your banking/business regulations.
This one we will probably really disagree on but I would like to see a cap on executive pay so there is no longer companies laying off workers while upper management is getting untold millions or even billions. Now if it is a totally private ownership company the owner can make whatever they can make. Business and banking has proved that given to much freedom greed will take over and win.

What laws do you want to see removed/added?
A more libertarian set of laws that stay out of individual daily and personal lives and yes that includes abortion. Much tighter restrictions on wiretaps and surveillance. Making wide spread cultural changes in law enforcement to reduce the us/them problem. Get rid of the paramilitary mindset. Reinforce the SERVE and PROTECT part of law enforcement. Get rid of laws and regulations that are just revenue machines.

Describe your foreign policy.
Get off our high horse attitude of don't F#&% with us. Just be more subtle about it. Greatly reduce our global policing that we have got ourselves into. ALWAYS try diplomacy before warfare. Be more restrictive in whom we sell arms too and any arms sold are a step down in capability to what is issued to our armed forces.

Describe your trade policies.
Overall not much change. Come up with incentives that will bring back manufacturing to the USA. I see this as being very difficult without causing major inflation due to wage differences. Also robotics will continue to replace factory workers as they become more capable which will still displace workers.

Okay, in a nutshell that is my take.

[Hooker]

My country looks a lot like subdjoe's except:
All taxes are paid at the state and local level.
The State governments pays the Federal government only the cost of doing the things that they are burdened with by the Constitution.
Everyone pays the flat tax on dollars spent.
All taxes and spending increases must be passed by a vote of the people.
The UN is gone and all foreign aid is cut off.

Pat

[lakota]

MINIMAL GOVERNMENT INTRUSION INTO MY EVERYDAY LIFE.

[Swampman]

America in the 1950s.  It's been going down hill ever since.

[billy_56081]

My President, one who is for America first

Military, kill people and break things. The best weapons and training and the full backing of the Goverment for thier actions.

Immigration, come here legally or we will take all of your property and deport you with only the clothes on your back. Military with kill orders on  the border.

Social programs, that's what family is for.

Eduation plan, the local and state goverments can handle that.

Taxation, sales tax on all but food housing and clothing. Tax all non necesary iimports.

Economy, free market will work very very well.

Banking, free market will self regulate, those convited of fraud, executed in public.

Laws removed, any outside the bounds of the constitution. Anyone who poroposes an uncostitutional law convited of treason and publicly executed.

Foreign policy, mess with us and we will wipe you off the face of the earth.

Trade, we will trade with you for what we need only.           

Other, party names will be removed from ballot.

[Swampman]

I'm glad you guys don't run this country.

[nw_hunter]

My President, one who is for America first

Military, kill people and break things. The best weapons and training and the full backing of the Goverment for thier actions.

Immigration, come here legally or we will take all of your property and deport you with only the clothes on your back. Military with kill orders on  the border.

Social programs, that's what family is for.

Eduation plan, the local and state goverments can handle that.

Taxation, sales tax on all but food housing and clothing. Tax all non necesary iimports.

Economy, free market will work very very well.

Banking, free market will self regulate, those convited of fraud, executed in public.

Laws removed, any outside the bounds of the constitution. Anyone who poroposes an uncostitutional law convited of treason and publicly executed.

Foreign policy, mess with us and we will wipe you off the face of the earth.

Trade, we will trade with you for what we need only.           

Other, party names will be removed from ballot.

Dang Billy!Why don't you just advocate killing everyone and then committing suicide

That way there's no chance of anyone slipping through the cracks.

[guzzijohn]

Come on folks. Subdjoe and Hooker are the only ones that really gave any thought to this. I really want to hear more detail as in some ways I do not think we are all that far apart (but are in others). I will discount billy_56801 as a dark joke and not a real reply. If I am wrong about that God help us. Subdjoe asked that I post my thoughts which I did.
GuzziJohn

[magooch]

I'd take America as it is, but with a few deductions.

 Send all illegals back to where they came from--including all of their offspring.

Stop fighting wars with grunts.  Let the Air Force and Navy do it with the most efficient means and weapons that can be provided.

Death penalty for drug dealers, producers and importers.  Death penalty for career criminals.  Death penalty for anyone caught voting fraudulently.  Death penalty for politicians who lie.

I run the funeral business.

[MGMorden]

Dang Billy!Why don't you just advocate killing everyone and then committing suicide

That way there's no chance of anyone slipping through the cracks.

Indeed.  The motives may be different but the methods are reminiscent of Fidel Castro, Hitler, and just about any other random tyrant in History.  As a matter of fact it fits the strict definition of terrorist: those that hope to achieve their goals by striking fear in the hearts of the people.  And ironically enough the same poster has posted on how bad the Muslims are for doing public executions.  It'd be just fine and dandy for us to do it though?  It's the pinnacle of hypocrisy.

I thank goodness we're not all to that point.  Most of the world hates us for the wrong reasons.  No need to validate their claims by truly becoming the monster they accuse us of being.

Oh yeah, and PS:

Anyone who poroposes an uncostitutional law convited of treason and publicly executed.

You do realize that with the first amendment in place, anyone can PROPOSE anything they want right?  So the law you just proposed would in and of itself, be unconstitutional.  Thankfully due to that fact it wouldn't be implemented in the first place, otherwise that statement would have earned you an execution under your own law.

[SHOOTALL]

It would be one with less crime as the punishment would fit and get the bad guys off the street. The president would not have an agenda nor would congress. They would follow the consitution and only make laws needed and not in conflict with the consitution. We would stay out of other countries business unless ask to help and then only limited help. Allow only non trouble makers in that will carry their own weight. 17% tax for all . No coorprate taxs , they are just passed on anyway. Term limits . Banking and business limited over sight on federal level. most on state level. Soical limited to those who can't help themselves. Education is state. Trade should be protected , wheat for oil etc. A blance . Foreign policy protect our intrest and don't back down. Finish what you start and only start a war if it is nessary to protect American intrest. Military should be strong and only deployed with the intent to protect America and itself. Never ever rattle a saber . If we send the military they should have a clear goal. And then be left alone to accomplish it. Let the world understand when they come they mean business , the gloves are off.

[skarke]

I thought about my answer.

[billy_56081]

I put quite a bit of thought into mine also.

[yellowtail3]

You far right people, what would your perfect country look like?

Well, I'd be king.

[Heather]

SUBJOE FOR PRESIDENT!!!! 

Heather

[billy_56081]

Wow, TM we had all suspected it but finally in your own words you have proved it. You are left of presbo and the dems. Wow! Wow! Wow! Marx would have bowed down to you.

[MGMorden]

Basically, I'm reiterating Ron Paul constitutional stuff... I just happen to believe in progressive taxation as the only way to break up a logjam of consolidated wealth and fair as flat tax is regressive...the other option is for the poor masses to just come and take it from the wealth class...btw,,,who coined the term 'capitalism',,,betcha don't know.?

That is sort of what happened with the French Revolution.  Not so much that they were on capitalism, but the poor got fed up with the rich living the life of luxury while they lived in squalor, and, having numerical superiority, they basically had had enough and took it by force.  Right or wrong, if the system gets TOO out of whack you're never going to wave any amount of law books at an angry mob that outnumbers you hundreds of times over and proclaim that what you have isn't theirs.  There is a point when they'll take it, because their situation has become so dire that the status quo doesn't offer them anything. 

With that in mind, Capitalism works great when you have a strong and thriving middle class.  The more out of balance that gets, the uglier it gets.  Sadly, over longer lengths of time it tends to diverge into a class of ultra-rich and the middle-class and lower class starts to merge down at the bottom.  When that happens the system is out of whack.  It needs shaking up and "rebooting" from time to time to stay efficient, ergo the whole "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. " quote from Jefferson (Jefferson really was on top of his game ). 

I did hear an interesting idea on a podcast today though.  Wasn't really a full thought out plan, more just a thought someone had, and I'm sure there are a million reasons why it wouldn't work, but it was interesting to me.

The thought was simply this: we go to flat rate taxing (and at a fairly heavy rate), but only on UNSPENT income at the end of the year.  Naturally you have to buy the necessities of life so by the fact that you're spending money on them, you're not taxed on them.  The rich can still enjoy a higher quality of life and be tax free on their purchases.  What it would instead tax, is the hoarding of money.  Super-rich people hoarding more money than they can ever possibly spend (and hence taking it out of the economy forever) do a lot towards creating that aforementioned wealth gap, so under this idea excess unspent income would get hit with a heavy tax at the end of the year.  The basic thought was to ensure a healthy and continuous flow of money into the economy (hoping that people would spend now, rather than later, in order to avoid extra tax burdens on the money they make at the end of the year). 

Like I said, I'm sure there are many problems with it, but it did pique my curiosity.

[scootrd]

The thought was simply this: we go to flat rate taxing (and at a fairly heavy rate), but only on UNSPENT income at the end of the year.  Naturally you have to buy the necessities of life so by the fact that you're spending money on them, you're not taxed on them.  The rich can still enjoy a higher quality of life and be tax free on their purchases.  What it would instead tax, is the hoarding of money.  Super-rich people hoarding more money than they can ever possibly spend (and hence taking it out of the economy forever) do a lot towards creating that aforementioned wealth gap, so under this idea excess unspent income would get hit with a heavy tax at the end of the year.  The basic thought was to ensure a healthy and continuous flow of money into the economy (hoping that people would spend now, rather than later, in order to avoid extra tax burdens on the money they make at the end of the year).  

Like I said, I'm sure there are many problems with it, but it did pique my curiosity.

I heard that similar suggestion a while back and it peaked my interest as well, I meant to put more thought into researching all the pro's and cons's but didn't get around to it. Was definitely a new approach to the issue (at least to my ears) I had never heard or thought of before.

Question - For those that are strict constitutionalists,  I haven't kept up with the news as of late ..why are those who are supposedly running on strict adherence with no change to constitution talking about monkeying around with the 14th amendment, and brown wants to repeal the 16th and 17th amendment ? (did I hear what I thought I heard correctly?)  can they possible have it both ways , either you adhere the way it was written or you don't , if you don't and try to change it , how can they still call themselves constitutionalists?

I'll rely on posters here to chime in as I am not going to turn the news on again for quite a while as everything is just depressing and I am sick of hearing only bad garbage guised as news in my life.

Also a second question (I am not being a smart alec , I am asking a question)
How can those who are so against government governing ... Govern?

[jimster]

Also a second question (I am not being a smart alec , I am asking a question)
How can those who are so against government governing ... Govern?

The constitution is not against governing. It limits it some.  Personally I never met anyone who is for absolutley no government at all...I'm sure there are a few out there, I would think it's a very small group.

Mostly people are tired of the open corruption in government, the amount of power the government takes, which can only be done through confiscation of our money. Money is power, if they take our money in taxes we won't have much power. That about sums it up in a nutshell.  They have lifted about 11 thousand bucks out of my pay already this year and I won't get any back, I don't like letting the government hang on to it.  I'm not wealthy, I could have done a whole lot with that 11 grand so far this year. I would not need the government to support me when I get old either if they would let me keep my money.

You far right people, what would your perfect country look like?

It would look like a country where people did not need government to take care of them and could keep their own profits to care care of themselves.
I don't know if that's far right...some say it is...I don't really care what they call it, it means freedom to me.

[nomosendero]

Obama & all Lefties are really into that progressive way of doing things, "progressive" tax rates. Obummer like others wants to make it more progessive. We could call it the Employers Tax Of 2011.
Last I heard broke people aren't hiring.

[scootrd]

Also a second question (I am not being a smart alec , I am asking a question)
How can those who are so against government governing ... Govern?

The constitution is not against governing. It limits it some.  Personally I never met anyone who is for absolutley no government at all...I'm sure there are a few out there, I would think it's a very small group.

Mostly people are tired of the open corruption in government, the amount of power the government takes, which can only be done through confiscation of our money. Money is power, if they take our money in taxes we won't have much power. That about sums it up in a nutshell.  They have lifted about 11 thousand bucks out of my pay already this year and I won't get any back, I don't like letting the government hang on to it.  I'm not wealthy, I could have done a whole lot with that 11 grand so far this year. I would not need the government to support me when I get old either if they would let me keep my money.

Thanks Jimster for responding to my second question the way you did . I really wanted others thoughts and wasn't trying to be a wise guy by any means.

perhaps other will respond to my first and second question with their thoughts as well.

[nomosendero]

guzzijohn wrote:

Describe your president.

One who follows the Constitution. And puts our Republic first.  

Describe you military.

Well trained, well equipped.  Enlisted paid what they are worth.  Strong enough to protect our Republic and our interests.

Describe your immigration policies.

All are welcome so long as they are not a drain on our public resources.  Student and temporary visas strictly enforced.  BUT ... gotta come in legally.  If you are here for an extended time, say 7 years or more, you must be in the process of becoming a citizen, or be asked to leave.

Describe your social services

.

Describe what you mean by social services.

Describe your education plan.

An issue for the States and Counties.  Shouldn't be a federal issue at all.

Describe your taxation plan.

Up to the poverty level, no income tax.  Above that, a flat tax of say 10% on all income.

Describe your economy.

Prosperous.

Describe your banking/business regulations.

Define, that is way too open ended.  Obviously fraud should be prosecuted.  

What laws do you want to see removed/added?

Junk most of them beyond the Constitution.

Describe your foreign policy.

Don't mess with us.

Describe your trade policies.

Why should the government be involved in trade?  Other than to levy tariffs?


Dial the feds back to the bare bones minimum as defined by the Constitution (you know, that document that tells how our government is 'constituted.') guided by:

"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison

and

I see...with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic...aided by a little sophistry on the words ‘general welfare,’ a right to do, not only the acts to effect that, which are specifically enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think, or pretend will be for the general welfare.

JEFFERSON, THOMAS, Letter to W. B. Giles, 1825

and

Thomas Jefferson - On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

and

Thomas Paine -A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. all delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.

and

Alexander Hamilton - No legislative act contrary to the Constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy (agent) is greater than his principal; that the servant is above the master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people; that men, acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. It is not to be supposed that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by judges as fundamental law. If there should happen to be a irreconcilable variance between the two, the Constitution is to be preferred to the statute.

Trully an outstanding post!!

[skarke]

Marx coined the term Capitalism, but his economic modeling was all wrong.