Author Topic: Amendments  (Read 1635 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63670
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Amendments
« on: July 31, 2017, 09:16:35 AM »
Not that it matters this late in the game, but OK...people want to have a discussion, fine.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/344275-huckabee-calls-for-repeal-of-17th-amendment-after-healthcare-failure

This vote that vote, whatever...want to repeal the 17th and go back to the way it was?  Fine with me, just don't stop there!

14th - Strike that "naturalized" sh*t!  And that rebellion sh*t too, the Founders never intended us to be slaves if that's what the Republic sunk to doing! 

16th - Gone!

19th - Gone!  In it's place...only landowners of any gender can vote once they reach adulthood!

24th - now moot, end it.

26th - now moot, end it.

That's just off the top of my head...

Questions?
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Online IronDioPriest

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 10828
  • I refuse to accept my civil servants as my rulers
Re: Amendments
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2017, 09:58:11 AM »
I think non-taxpayers should not have the right to vote, period.
"A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

- Thomas Jefferson

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
Re: Amendments
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2017, 10:45:36 AM »
I think non-taxpayers should not have the right to vote, period.

They will game it.. I paid local sales tax.. So I get to vote.

Anyone receiving material wealth  in any form - housing, food,  or money, is exempt from voting in that year  as its a conflict of interest.
That includes employees of companies that do government contracting or provide materials to the government .. and Public School teachers, and Public University Faculty and so on.  Basically if you are on a government pay roll you don't get to vote.

Exception: Active Military and Vets  (Heinlein model)  Service Guarantees Citizenship

Everyone else? Well you just have to not be a leach on the rest of us. .

I don't think being landed is a good way to decide. Its a good rough cut, but its too easy to manipulate laws around land ownership, and it won't get everyone we need to exclude.
 


Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: Amendments
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2017, 12:10:41 PM »
Quote
... That includes employees of companies that do government contracting or provide materials to the government ..

You do realize that eliminates millions who work for firms that do private sector work as well, pay taxes and own property.

Quote
... only landowners of any gender can vote once they reach adulthood!

Let's not use the language of the Left; only landowners of either sex can vote once they reach adulthood!"
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Online Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63670
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Amendments
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2017, 06:44:11 AM »
Quote
... That includes employees of companies that do government contracting or provide materials to the government ..

You do realize that eliminates millions who work for firms that do private sector work as well, pay taxes and own property.

Quote
... only landowners of any gender can vote once they reach adulthood!

Let's not use the language of the Left; only landowners of either sex can vote once they reach adulthood!"

Agreed.

And the landowner issue can have gaming limited Weisshaupt if we establish a minimum acceptable level, we can debate what that is...the point being - being a landowner means one has more at stake in ones township, county, state and nation.  What would be acceptable for land value and whatever sits upon it?  $50k, $100k?  Even at $50k it would be hard for even Darth Soros to buy enough land to parcel out to easily manipulated dregs...$500B would buy only 10M votes.  And if pandering did take place it would be directed at those voting landowners, not the parasites of society.  I think the benefits of such a system outweigh any other concerns.
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
Re: Amendments
« Reply #5 on: August 01, 2017, 09:53:45 PM »

You do realize that eliminates millions who work for firms that do private sector work as well, pay taxes and own property.



Yes. I realize that. Maybe there won't be such a rush to work for the government or contractors  then. In real life I am sure it will create separate companies  - Martin Marietta Private Enterprise and Martin Marietta Government  - Should be easier to keep military funded research under wraps, and if you don't like it, don't work for one of those companies. Maybe to attract people those entities might have to pay employees more, but maybe that will cut down on the $500 toilet seats and $4000 hammers. I can't say its perfect ..just better than alternatives.  Problem is if you say, well you can vote if you provide "services" to the government,  just imagine the services we would pay for.. smiling perhaps? Waving goodbye? Breathing?  It would just be gamed to death.  Its a lot harder to game a law that says if you paycheck comes- even in part -  from a government coffer, you can't vote.  But if you want to suggest something better I am listening..


 
Quote
Let's not use the language of the Left; only landowners of either sex can vote once they reach adulthood!"

It didn't used to be language of the left . Gender had a meaning synonymous with biological sex once.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2017, 09:57:04 PM by Weisshaupt »

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
Re: Amendments
« Reply #6 on: August 01, 2017, 10:08:59 PM »
And the landowner issue can have gaming limited Weisshaupt if we establish a minimum acceptable level, we can debate what that is...the point being - being a landowner means one has more at stake in ones township, county, state and nation.  What would be acceptable for land value and whatever sits upon it?  $50k, $100k?  Even at $50k it would be hard for even Darth Soros to buy enough land to parcel out to easily manipulated dregs...$500B would buy only 10M votes.  And if pandering did take place it would be directed at those voting landowners, not the parasites of society.  I think the benefits of such a system outweigh any other concerns.

Yeah well, lets go with an example. Say we had an amendment in 1910  that made the requirement  10K in property.  ( media income was $438 a year - and government incomes were $590) 
https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/his/e_prices1.htm

10 Year loans were the longest term possible, and remained so until Socialist FDR forced the 30 year loan upon bankers ( using the same tactic they did with insurance - the government will back the loan if it goes bad- that is why Freddie and Fannie MAC are too big to fail)
 
A set value - especially in fiat, would only encourage the government to create more  inflation or bad loans or both  , to create a larger electorate they can bribe with their own money. Or they go the other way and add taxes, fees and regulations that make it a more exclusive club than it is now.  And periodically the number would need to be adjusted.. and you can expect it to get worse with each adjustment... because no matter how you value it ( 10 oz of gold) as we have seen they will set up a paper system to game that too.  We can't stop them from gaming, but we need to  Make it really obvious to the most stupid person when it is happening by making the rules VERY simple and easy for everyone understand. The Constitution is damn simple and  see how they mangle that.

In the end a Constitutional government can only be maintained with a moral people. We are no longer that group.

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: Amendments
« Reply #7 on: August 01, 2017, 11:03:54 PM »
Quote
It didn't used to be language of the left . Gender had a meaning synonymous with biological sex once

Not for humans; for humans, gender is for grammatical usage.

As for the "working for the government", I do have another idea:  if a construction company, for instance, bids on and wins a government contract, in addition to bidding on and winning contracts in the private sector, its employees get to vote.   

It's honest work and personal taxes are paid.  If/when the government is made smaller, there will be less government work and more private sector work and less of an issue ..... for you.

For somebody who has a problem with the idea of racial tribe loyalty, you sure do draw a fine line on this point.

Quote
In the end a Constitutional government can only be maintained with a moral people. We are no longer that group.

What's with the "we"?  You don't speak for me and mine, Weisshaupt.
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
Re: Amendments
« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2017, 06:17:15 AM »
Not for humans; for humans, gender is for grammatical usage.

Sure. But still binary. You are right now its been co-opted I shouldn't use it


As for the "working for the government", I do have another idea:  if a construction company, for instance, bids on and wins a government contract, in addition to bidding on and winning contracts in the private sector, its employees get to vote.   

It's honest work and personal taxes are paid.  If/when the government is made smaller, there will be less government work and more private sector work and less of an issue ..... for you.

And the government will be kept small how? I think preventing the people who benefit directly from Government Largess from having any say  in who hires them is a good thing. Its a conflict of interest otherwise... Think how the teachers Unions sit there and negotiate a contract with a politician they hired and control. That happens in every industry. If you are paid by the government you shouldn't  be able to compromise the person who is hired to represent the American people in hiring and contracting for services by making him "your man"  -  by voting  or lobbying. 


For somebody who has a problem with the idea of racial tribe loyalty, you sure do draw a fine line on this point.

Wubba huh?  I am not getting how you are getting to race, and I admitted back then that division  on racial lines was probably the likely outcome - just not one that makes me overly excited.  I think we would be stronger as an Ideological tribe.. but readily admit that such a organization is vastly more difficult to establish and maintain.  But who wins government contracts and get paid government money isn't tribal if the nation is composed of one tribe. And if it isn't, and other tribes are excluded from participation in government or in working for it- then the laws don't apply equally and we lost something very important. (A small Island off of the Europe because a world superpower because? Oh right. Everyone though they would be treated fairly in the legal system - even if they were foreign..)

Or are you saying that Government workers and those who contract for the government form some sort of tribe?
 

Quote

What's with the "we"?  You don't speak for me and mine, Weisshaupt.

You and yours are a Minority. Are you looking for some reason to be mad at me?
 I speak of the characteristics of the  general population. We can't found a new republic with the group we got. Just saying.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2017, 11:40:39 AM by Weisshaupt »

Online Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63670
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Amendments
« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2017, 07:10:08 AM »
And the landowner issue can have gaming limited Weisshaupt if we establish a minimum acceptable level, we can debate what that is...the point being - being a landowner means one has more at stake in ones township, county, state and nation.  What would be acceptable for land value and whatever sits upon it?  $50k, $100k?  Even at $50k it would be hard for even Darth Soros to buy enough land to parcel out to easily manipulated dregs...$500B would buy only 10M votes.  And if pandering did take place it would be directed at those voting landowners, not the parasites of society.  I think the benefits of such a system outweigh any other concerns.

Yeah well, lets go with an example. Say we had an amendment in 1910  that made the requirement  10K in property.  ( media income was $438 a year - and government incomes were $590) 
https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/his/e_prices1.htm

10 Year loans were the longest term possible, and remained so until Socialist FDR forced the 30 year loan upon bankers ( using the same tactic they did with insurance - the government will back the loan if it goes bad- that is why Freddie and Fannie MAC are too big to fail)
 
A set value - especially in fiat, would only encourage the government to create more  inflation or bad loans or both  , to create a larger electorate they can bribe with their own money. Or they go the other way and add taxes, fees and regulations that make it a more exclusive club than it is now.  And periodically the number would need to be adjusted.. and you can expect it to get worse with each adjustment... because no matter how you value it ( 10 oz of gold) as we have seen they will set up a paper system to game that too.  We can't stop them from gaming, but we need to  Make it really obvious to the most stupid person when it is happening by making the rules VERY simple and easy for everyone understand. The Constitution is damn simple and  see how they mangle that.

In the end a Constitutional government can only be maintained with a moral people. We are no longer that group.

Well you raise a good point on corruption and gaming perpetrated by Neo-Keynesian schemers and their accomplices in politics...but it does not mean my skin-in-the-game idea is DOA...we can solve much of the gaming by having new amendments to: a) ban the government from bailing out private institutions (and have the only exception being if in a state of war and the national security [ie-ability of the nation to fight and kill its enemies] is directly affected), b) ban the government from over-leveraging by - 1) requiring a balanced budget (waived only by legislation in cases where a declared state of war exists) 2) capping the national debt and 3) requiring all new spending initiatives having matching spending eliminations, b) ban the government from creating private organizations so that crap like Fannie/Freddie et al are illegal, c) slash government regulations and end agencies perpetuating fraud and abuse...we know who they are!...and ban them from ever rising again.
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
Re: Amendments
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2017, 11:54:19 AM »
.but it does not mean my skin-in-the-game idea is DOA...

I agree that voters need to have skin in the game. Just trying to figure out how to weed out the takers from the makers. Only Makers should get a vote. (But now Pan will remind me that government workers/contractors  also Make things...) 

The problem is that anything we do as a filter  will have adverse effects. My plan deprives honest hardworking people of a vote. Yours is subject to and incentivizes Keynesian manipulation (and no I don't think regulations or laws will address it sufficiently  - what is going on with the debt ceiling  right now?)

But perhaps it s just easier to restore balance by taking away women's suffrage. If women had never been allowed to vote universally, then none of this would have happened.  But then we must we are depriving a minority of thinking  women their vote.

But we definitely need a check that requires skin in the game to vote.  I thought of using a simple net balance - if you take more in benefits than you pay in.. but then what is classified as a benefit and what is the equivalent value is open to gaming. Its just a variation on saying that you must provide "value" to the government for the payments it doles out.. The government now pays for handshakes at the welfare line.



Online Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63670
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Amendments
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2017, 12:08:29 PM »
.but it does not mean my skin-in-the-game idea is DOA...

I agree that voters need to have skin in the game. Just trying to figure out how to weed out the takers from the makers. Only Makers should get a vote. (But now Pan will remind me that government workers/contractors  also Make things...) 

The problem is that anything we do as a filter  will have adverse effects. My plan deprives honest hardworking people of a vote. Yours is subject to and incentivizes Keynesian manipulation (and no I don't think regulations or laws will address it sufficiently  - what is going on with the debt ceiling  right now?)

But perhaps it s just easier to restore balance by taking away women's suffrage. If women had never been allowed to vote universally, then none of this would have happened.  But then we must we are depriving a minority of thinking  women their vote.

But we definitely need a check that requires skin in the game to vote.  I thought of using a simple net balance - if you take more in benefits than you pay in.. but then what is classified as a benefit and what is the equivalent value is open to gaming. Its just a variation on saying that you must provide "value" to the government for the payments it doles out.. The government now pays for handshakes at the welfare line.

I say keep it simple, cut off as many of the avenues for abuse and corruption as possible, nothing will be 100%...I know I could make it work with 90+ % success....

But, it is all academic anyway...there is no reforming...no time for that and little if any prospect of effecting it...people have only two choices regardless if they like or acknowledge it - 1) stay on your knees and enjoy being a serf and all the misery pain and death statism entails...or 2) rise and slay the statists and reclaim your freedom.

The clock is ticking and I am not sure how many ticks or tocks are left to play out...
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Online Pandora

  • Administrator
  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 19529
  • I iz also makin a list. U on it pal.
Re: Amendments
« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2017, 12:47:40 PM »
.but it does not mean my skin-in-the-game idea is DOA...

I agree that voters need to have skin in the game. Just trying to figure out how to weed out the takers from the makers. Only Makers should get a vote. (But now Pan will remind me that government workers/contractors  also Make things...) 

The problem is that anything we do as a filter  will have adverse effects. My plan deprives honest hardworking people of a vote.

> snip <

It does, and you have not thought this through.

What are you gonna say to the guy who part-time plows govt parking lots during the winter to help make his nut?  Or the small lawn-mowing business in the same situation?  The office cleaners?  The local car dealership whose mechanics repair your vehicle and also service govt's?  Sorry, fellas; you gotta give that up and make your ends meet someway else or no vote for you?

How about the 19 year-old who not only has a student loan but lives at home with Ma, whose wages come in part from services rendered to govt?  You want to tell that guy he doesn't get to vote because he benefits from Ma working 'for the govt'?

How many magnitudes out can this be carried before you've invalidated the voting privileges of most of the country?

I get your point that money made from the govt tends to skew one's point of view toward bigger government, believe me.  But this way ain't gonna work.  As for rescinding the women's vote, I'd sooner go along with that, in a New York minute.
"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer." - Mark Twain

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Offline AlanS

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 7908
  • Proud Infidel
Re: Amendments
« Reply #13 on: August 02, 2017, 01:44:54 PM »
As for rescinding the women's vote, I'd sooner go along with that, in a New York minute.

Barring you and my lovely bride. ::curtsy4::
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

Thomas Jefferson

Online benb61

  • Established Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1441
  • My 2 fast cars
Re: Amendments
« Reply #14 on: August 02, 2017, 02:51:10 PM »

I tend to agree with Pan.  I work for a large airframer (140,000 employees nationwide) along with 1000's of other engineers in So Cal.  The company has commercial,  defense and space programs, all of which earn money from Government contracts (which the majority of employees have no say in what contracts we bid on, we are just trying to provide the best product for our customers, be they the airlines or the military).  Nearly everyone of my coworkers that I speak with here in the LA area voted for Trump (most engineers are logical thinkers).  I own property (a town home in a gated community), I pay upwards of 50% of my income to taxes of some sort (sales, gas, state income, federal income, local, property, etc) as do the people I work with, should I and all of my coworkers be banned from voting?  I would think that the working middle class (the people that are being most abused by the Libtards/e-GOP/bureaucrats) should have the right to vote well before the Rich Millionaire or the inner city Birthing Cow, who both want something from the government for free (or as little effort as they need to put out).  If you pay more in taxes than what you get directly from Uncle Sugar (EBT, Section 8 Housing, Disability, etc) that should be the ticket to the ballot box period.
Eschew Obfuscation

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
Re: Amendments
« Reply #15 on: August 02, 2017, 04:10:28 PM »
I tend to agree with Pan.  I work for a large airframer (140,000 employees nationwide) along with 1000's of other engineers in So Cal.  The company has commercial,  defense and space programs, all of which earn money from Government contracts (which the majority of employees have no say in what contracts we bid on, we are just trying to provide the best product for our customers, be they the airlines or the military).

The employees do have a say in where they work though, right? And I am only talking about the federal government  here, not local governments.  Its only a conflict of interest if you work for the government that are are participating in the election for. And sure, most independent engineers are conservative - but many government shops are unionized and everyone likes a bigger paycheck they don't need to work for.



Nearly everyone of my coworkers that I speak with here in the LA area voted for Trump (most engineers are logical thinkers).  I own property (a town home in a gated community), I pay upwards of 50% of my income to taxes of some sort (sales, gas, state income, federal income, local, property, etc) as do the people I work with, should I and all of my coworkers be banned from voting?  I would think that the working middle class (the people that are being most abused by the Libtards/e-GOP/bureaucrats) should have the right to vote well before the Rich Millionaire or the inner city Birthing Cow, who both want something from the government for free (or as little effort as they need to put out).

The original idea was letting only landed people vote- and that cuts out a lot of the middle class as well. But then you get into gaming what it means to be landed.. if I have a mortage I can't afford to pay and my home is underwater, am I still "landed" - how many in the middle class can afford your town-home  in a gated community?

If companies like yours wanted to pursue government contracts, wouldn't they divide and have one division for commercial, and other for government? I suspect if the rules required a person to give up their vote, it would also come with a  monetary premium. So Pan's hard luck cases would benefit monetarily, and give up a right ( by choice) that 50%  of them aren't using and are too low information to use effectively anyway. 

But everything can be gamed, because what if Contractor A hires Cleaning unit B  to clean its building. A is the one getting paid from the treasury, and B is providing a secondary service to A.  Your Large airframer could just hire the commercial side of the company to do the work.. but at least that sort of  gaming is  harder to hide...
 
   
Quote
  If you pay more in taxes than what you get directly from Uncle Sugar (EBT, Section 8 Housing, Disability, etc) that should be the ticket to the ballot box period.

Yeah, that was my original idea too;  Its better than what we have - and eliminates the moochers. It does not eliminate the sinecures. Look at public pensions for police and teachers negotiated by their unions. These are, for the most part, good hardworking people, who have portions of their paychecks stolen so that a union boss can sit across form his buddy old pal and no one representing those footing the bill is at the table. That is going to blow up (and soon) - in my areas every year they ave a referendum to raise more money for the schools but really it is to try and keep the teachers pension funds solvent.

Glen Reynold's "Revolving Door" surtax takes care of some of that, but any entity being paid by the government susceptible to the same sort of graft...  How about  instead of denying voting you are denied from making political contributions?


I am not saying I have the right or only ideas here. .. just trying to find the most palatable ones for stopping the people from voting money to themselves out of the public treasury


Online Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63670
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Amendments
« Reply #16 on: August 03, 2017, 06:42:30 AM »
Unions abolished, there, solved that.  Next!
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
Re: Amendments
« Reply #17 on: August 03, 2017, 09:23:03 AM »
Unions abolished, there, solved that.  Next!

We have the same problem with corporations. In fact the way things are - Corporations have to pay to play or they will be whacked.  Corruption is incentivized by a need to survive.

Gibson Guitar anyone?

Quote
    Two months before the raid, lobbyists slipped some arcane supply-chain reporting provisions into an extension of the Lacey Act of 1900 that changed the technical definition of “fingerboard blanks,” which are legal to import.

Because if you pay enough money, you can have competitors attacked for using even slightly different processes than you do . And then there is asymmetrical application of the law against opponents as well.. but the more I think about it  more I think this may work better as a ban on political contributions for people getting money from contracts and denying them the vote-- if it also comes with a ban on all employee unions. Only I am not sure that is a good idea either. I think Unions served a valid purpose at one time and place, monopoly employers using  company script -- and with times obviously going to get tougher.. Mind if Unions exist we would need a right to work added to the bill of rights.  But we need even more rights explicitly spelled out -

 A Right to Parent - requiring that the state abide by a parents decisions concerning a child except were abuse of that child is PROVEN in court of law. 

A Right to due process concerning all Money seizures - including for taxes - with a trials to be held within 3 months of any such taking, and if acquitted, the government to pay 20%  APR all on all assets  seized for the period they are in government possession - to be deducted in part from the salaries of the Government employees involved in the  case. This also applies to involuntary tax withholding. ( try to implement Social security and call it a tax now...)

A right to do business and associate  with whomever you please either as buyer or seller, and the right to refuse business as buyer or seller..  unless your business is a natural monopoly or the only one providing such services for 200 miles, and any restrictions you impose are clearly posted in the establishment's window. ( now try to implement Obamacare)

A right to do business in Cash or by barter


I also think that we need a two currency system in the US. One backed by a defined basket of commodities run by basically a second elected  Bank government unbeholden to the political powers in this nation in any way, and accountable directly to the people via elections.

And another currency  based on a common crypto-currency mined by the states ( and possibly also by the people)

The Commodity backed currency would be considered the rock solid stable currency of savings.. and the crypto-currency the less stable - money of investment, because the crypto currency and grow ( or shrink ) more easily in response to real economic growth.. as as that growth actually creates real wealth - then it can be converted to the commodity based on real wealth as savings.


Again they are just thoughts.. criticism welcome.


Online Libertas

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 63670
  • Alea iacta est! Libertatem aut mori!
Re: Amendments
« Reply #18 on: August 04, 2017, 06:51:09 AM »
Again, easily solved...no corporate welfare of any kind...no improprieties tolerated in the award of any government contracts...punishments severe, mandatory and immediate...in fact no individual welfare either...we can argue over how short a term is short enough for UI too before work is necessary...or its automatic enrollment in a national work crew that can do all the dirty jobs others won't do...or you starve and die...

No more disincentives to work and productivity!

Remember the lesson the Pilgrims learned?

Once lesson is enough!
We are now where The Founders were when they faced despotism.

Offline Weisshaupt

  • Conservative Superhero
  • *****
  • Posts: 5731
Re: Amendments
« Reply #19 on: August 04, 2017, 08:51:00 AM »
Again, easily solved...no corporate welfare of any kind...no improprieties tolerated in the award of any government contracts...punishments severe, mandatory and immediate...

Who watches the watchmen?

Corporate welfare is a horrible term . There is a big difference between a tax break on money a corporation earned and  handing that money to someone who didn't earn it. It presumes that money was the public and it was given back .. though of course we have all of the illegal real handout crap that occurred during the Lehman crash to consider.

But simply banning such handouts and tax breaks probably won't work. That is how you get $5000 toilet seats. They simply find another way to get the money pushed around.. but its largely  symbiotic. Corporation scratches politician's back, politician uses his power to help corporation (or corporate sector)  The power lies largely with the offical..and the company must find ways to reward the politician - political contributions, putting the work in his district, providing information mining on voters  ( Google/Facebook) or influencing voters( MSM & social media)  and the politician must have the power to benefit those corporations.  Somewhere you have to interfere with that process  and if possible, channel or disperse that energy into areas where damage is minimized. Preventing political contributions from any entity or individual in business with the government will help - Glenn Reynolds revolving door surtax would help, and requiring corporate  taxes to fall on everyone under the same rules ( no carve outs /subsidy for an industry or company ) and steep penalties as you suggest will help. But I still feel they will find a way. 
We do need regulation, and I think it will help if we limit that power by  returning it to the individual states where it belongs - but the problem will persist at the state level, but now at least there are 50 governments to bribe..) SO EPA, etc are all State things, not federal.

 But I think no matter what you do these jerks will barrel through your paper barrier and implement thier own systems.  Its probably better to channel that flow than to try and dam it up. The founders knew there would be graft and corruption in their government because it was a government of men - so they sought to minimize the opportunities for and damage done by it.

 I think Bill Whittle's ala carte government idea is a good one. We have welfare ,and social security, schooling , and even health care programs offered by the government. At age 18 you can pick which programs you will choose to participate in. You can STOP participating at any time. If you wish to participate again, you have to pay the real value (accounting for inflation)  of the  back taxes ( back to 18  if you never entered) before you can get benefits. Those programs can only use money they collect from participants  via taxes, and they MAY NOT borrow. That way you make the liberals say out loud what they always leave unspoken..they have their program, their program can tax participants however it needs to.  "WE NEED TO USE FORCE AGAINST THE UNWILLING!"

I saw that Young Turk guy debating Ben Shapiro on you tube.. and he claims that "of course the healthy subsidies the sick... that's insurance" and I was so disappointed Ben did not take him down on that . No 1) Insurance is a service you purchase voluntarily and with consent. If you don't like the plan one guy is offering you can find one that suits you.  Single Payer is single decider. The government Constitutionally has no power to do this, so shouldn't Democrats be first pursuing an amendment to gain that consent instead of running roughshod over the people using improper processes, text that originated in the senate and judicial  corruption to mangle words to achieve this? Is consent to this "insurance" important, or are you so sure that you know better that you are comfortable aiming guns at people's heads and telling them what decisions to make? And force him to answer the question.

I am fine doing even the military as voluntary pay way as well. Don't believe in War? Don't believe in  having a strong military... then don't pay for it. Of course we will have a formal program where foreign powers can legally bid for and peacefully seize your household, people and all, as the spoils of war... wanna bet everyone pays?

Other benefits  aren't so easy to deny.. wen they truely are in the general welfare. National road systems for instance. Even if you don't drive you are benefiting from goods delivered over a road.

There should be a National Standards and Regulatory body..who works on and comes up with standards and practices -- standardization in say - grades of gas will make gas cheaper as then refineries don't hove to retool to make gas for California, etc. This body would have NO  legal Authority- Much like the IETF- if you produce crap it won't be used. .. It would simply publish standards which state or other entities could adopt, or adopt with amendments. - Again everyone benefits - a true general welfare service. 

There should also be a statistical bureau  that collects and publishes data - on crime, economics, census, etc. Their job would NOT be to analyze it, only to publish it. Others can crunch numbers if they have a question they want to answer..again everyone would eventually benefit from that information being available.

For things that are really general welfare - they actually benefit everyone, and where individuals can't be denied the benefits they provide, or charged directly for that benefit, I am not sure how to ensure they are funded - without opening a door  to more graft and sinecure positions. What we need is a test that ensures a given function will in fact be to the entire public's benefit.

Overall a RIGHT  to opt out of any government program (with the consequence you can't or will be prevented from getting  any benefit from it)  will help keep a lot of things in check