1. Quit making pennies. Now. We survived without a smaller unit of value when the cent was worth twenty times what it is today; we can live with rounding to the nearest nickel.
2. While you're at it, quit making paper dollars. The public doesn't like dollar coins? Too bad. They last much longer, and they save money. The strippers will get over it.
3. Federal government vehicles: buy sub-compacts. Waaaaaaah! It's a free car -- go on a diet.
4. Get rid of filibusters; they're a waste of time and money. Pass it now, make it take effect in 2 years.
5. Fix the patent office. It's broken and wasteful.
Anyone else? Remember, I said Bi-partisan...
|
for option #1]
Prices will increase - If we eliminate the penny, everything will have to be rounded to the nickel. Merchants will probably round everything up in their favor, costing us more for everything we buy.
The poor pay the most - A corollary to the above argument says that the poor will be affected the most, because they are most likely to make more frequent, smaller purchases, thus suffering the rounding up more often.
Charities need pennies - There are thousands of small charities that depend on penny drives to bring in donations. People think nothing of pouring out their old penny jars to support these drives, but they won't part with nickels so easily.
Nickels cost even more to make - If we eliminate the penny, we will need more nickels in circulation. Nickels cost 7.7 cents to make, (2.7 cents over face value, as opposed to 0.26 cents over face value to make a penny,) so making each nickel costs 1.44 cents more than making each penny. Since the penny costs 0.26 more than face value to make, the Mint can make 5 pennies and still lose less money than making 1 nickel. And, of course, if we eliminate the penny, we'll need a lot more nickels, which will offset the savings of stopping penny manufacture.
Pennies are sentimental - The fact is that Americans love their pennies and hate to change things. We've always had pennies and therefore always should have pennies, according to this thinking. (This is the same thinking that rejects eliminating the paper dollar in favor of a much more cost-effective coin, and that rejected the metric system despite the fact that virtually the entire rest of the world uses it.) Americans are traditionalists and the Lincoln Cent is the epitome of modern day circulating coin tradition.
Nickels cost even more to make - If we eliminate the penny, we will need more nickels in circulation. Nickels cost 7.7 cents to make, (2.7 cents over face value, as opposed to 0.26 cents over face value to make a penny,) so making each nickel costs 1.44 cents more than making each penny. Since the penny costs 0.26 more than face value to make, the Mint can make 5 pennies and still lose less money than making 1 nickel. And, of course, if we eliminate the penny, we'll need a lot more nickels, which will offset the savings of stopping penny manufacture.
Pennies are sentimental - The fact is that Americans love their pennies and hate to change things. We've always had pennies and therefore always should have pennies, according to this thinking. (This is the same thinking that rejects eliminating the paper dollar in favor of a much more cost-effective coin, and that rejected the metric system despite the fact that virtually the entire rest of the world uses it.) Americans are traditionalists and the Lincoln Cent is the epitome of modern day circulating coin tradition.
I think your first three points are somewhat valid, although I would like to point out that our country does just fine without the half cent. That said, I completely object to your last two arguments. If nickels are so expensive to make, and if Americans are so sentimental about pennies, then simply increase the value of the penny to five cents, and take the nickel out of circulation. Problem solved. :)
...If nickels are so expensive to make, and if Americans are so sentimental about pennies, then simply increase the value of the penny to five cents, and take the nickel out of circulation. Problem solved. :)
Bingo.
Option #5}
Once again please explain.
We spend tons of money to essentially create lawsuit fodder. In software, you can patent the obvious and unavoidable, then proceed to sue the crap out of everyone.
option #4 }
please explain your reasoning?
We waste a lot of time and energy finding, investigating, and nominating candidates that never even see a vote. Seems pretty wasteful to me, even before you look at the big picture: Deliberately slowing the operation of government to a crawl seems self-evidently inefficient.
No other suggestions?
|
|
Nickels cost even more to make - If we eliminate the penny, we will need more nickels in circulation. Nickels cost 7.7 cents to make, (2.7 cents over face value, as opposed to 0.26 cents over face value to make a penny,) so making each nickel costs 1.44 cents more than making each penny. Since the penny costs 0.26 more than face value to make, the Mint can make 5 pennies and still lose less money than making 1 nickel. And, of course, if we eliminate the penny, we'll need a lot more nickels, which will offset the savings of stopping penny manufacture.
Pennies are sentimental - The fact is that Americans love their pennies and hate to change things. We've always had pennies and therefore always should have pennies, according to this thinking. (This is the same thinking that rejects eliminating the paper dollar in favor of a much more cost-effective coin, and that rejected the metric system despite the fact that virtually the entire rest of the world uses it.) Americans are traditionalists and the Lincoln Cent is the epitome of modern day circulating coin tradition.
I think your first three points are somewhat valid, although I would like to point out that our country does just fine without the half cent. That said, I completely object to your last two arguments. If nickels are so expensive to make, and if Americans are so sentimental about pennies, then simply increase the value of the penny to five cents, and take the nickel out of circulation. Problem solved. :)
I just copied some google fu upon some objections to this subject. I should have stated from the first that this was not absolutely my criticism. I was on limited time and my apologies to the OP.
That being said. Sentimentality can be a reason, economically not a very good one but a reason no less. I did check the 'facts' on how much it costs to make a nickel and yes I agree if we were to give up the penny we should in fact change what the nickel is made of to compensate.
I will point a couple of things out though.
#1 we already make and circulate more nickels then pennies. It is the coin that is most minted every year.
#2 Some retailers already agree that the penny is dead and as such refuse to take them and round to the customers favor. Since no one is short changed they are in fact legally right to do so. They also seem to have a slight profit margin with the reduction as well. I could not find the NPR (yes I listen to NPR) report or I would post it.
|
|
We waste a lot of time and energy finding, investigating, and nominating candidates that never even see a vote. Seems pretty wasteful to me, even before you look at the big picture: Deliberately slowing the operation of government to a crawl seems self-evidently inefficient.option #4 }
please explain your reasoning?
There are ways and reasons to bypass or stop a filibuster up to and including Reconciliation. I think that the practice has some merit if used judiciously. Unfortunately many of our currently elected officials have a large lack of self control and common sense in its use and proper implementation. I much prefer this sort of tactic then name calling and sometimes fistfights that at times break out in other countries. Or even yelling liar out to a sitting president.
|
|
Option #5}
Once again please explain.
We spend tons of money to essentially create lawsuit fodder. In software, you can patent the obvious and unavoidable, then proceed to sue the crap out of everyone.
So you are against patents then. Or maybe the process to patent an idea? Or should it just be who ever markets the product and inventor beware of telling anyone about your new invention since you have no rights to your intellectual property? I am sorry I still do not understand your point. Maybe it is just me?
Never rolled or smoked one in my life, but please stop the damn war on pot, folks. I'm more worried about the drunk behind the wheel of the car than the stoner who has the cheetos munchies. Spend the money instead on .... oh .... education in the schools so the kids know how to balance a check book and understand interest rate on credit cards.
/soapbox
|
|
Never rolled or smoked one in my life, but please stop the damn war on pot, folks. I'm more worried about the drunk behind the wheel of the car than the stoner who has the cheetos munchies. Spend the money instead on .... oh .... education in the schools so the kids know how to balance a check book and understand interest rate on credit cards.
/soapbox
And while I understand the sentiment I can not agree with it. There are many factors of the so called war on drugs. we should not stop it. I disagree totally with the so called medical use of Marijuana. Had a few talks about this with houstonderick and a few others. Not many agree with me and so be it.
As far as teaching kids to balance a checkbook and understand an interest rate. I think this should be implemented in 6th grade and should be taught all the way through college. And be mandatory. Of course I think basic hygiene and cleaning skills should be taught to all as well.
We can agree to disagree. Don't get me wrong, I don't think paranoid schizophrenics should be smoking the bud because it only makes it worse, but it's illogical to me that marijuana is illegal, but alcohol is not. I'm not into running numbers, but it would be an interesting comparison to see the fatalities for alcohol versus marijuana usage. I stress the word usage; not death as a byproduct from the illicit trade, mind you.
Heck, I feel the same way about prostitution. Legalize and regulate it. We're all paying for it one way or another; one's just more obvious of its intent with the exchange of money for services rendered. Otherwise, it's flowers, movies, dinner, or a twinkle in the eye.
I'd go into it further, but then I'd start going into the relativism of ethics and morality with regard to society from a micro vs macro point of view, but I'm here just to have fun with the rest of you than to assail arguments and pulling out my hair. I see what it does to Pat and it ain't pretty. :D
|
|
We can agree to disagree. Don't get me wrong, I don't think paranoid schizophrenics should be smoking the bud because it only makes it worse, but it's illogical to me that marijuana is illegal, but alcohol is not. I'm not into running numbers, but it would be an interesting comparison to see the fatalities for alcohol versus marijuana usage. I stress the word usage; not death as a byproduct from the illicit trade, mind you.
Heck, I feel the same way about prostitution. Legalize and regulate it. We're all paying for it one way or another; one's just more obvious of its intent with the exchange of money for services rendered. Otherwise, it's flowers, movies, dinner, or a twinkle in the eye.
I'd go into it further, but then I'd start going into the relativism of ethics and morality with regard to society from a micro vs macro point of view, but I'm here just to have fun with the rest of you than to assail arguments and pulling out my hair. I see what it does to Pat and it ain't pretty. :D
I have yet to scream to you when it does the same to me. LOL ask the silver dragon sometime about a few of our phone calls. Or some of the convo's on the Chatroom.
That being said I am just as against Legal prostitution as I am with the Bud. Of course I am also the only person I know of who actually breaks out in hives around it. So I may have some deep seated prejudice against it.
Or it may be that I had to watch one friend who visibly got dumber over the years due to drug use. And another class mate who went to Georgia in the 90's became a male prostitute and subsequently died of aids.
But I do take it into my thoughts that we all filter our opinions based on our own experiences. And what is 'right' for me may not in fact be 'right' for others.
I have yet to scream to you when it does the same to me. LOL ask the silver dragon sometime about a few of our phone calls. Or some of the convo's on the Chatroom.
That being said I am just as against Legal prostitution as I am with the Bud. Of course I am also the only person I know of who actually breaks out in hives around it. So I may have some deep seated prejudice against it.
Or it may be that I had to watch one friend who visibly got dumber over the years due to drug use. And another class mate who went to Georgia in the 90's became a male prostitute and subsequently died of aids.
But I do take it into my thoughts that we all filter our opinions based on our own experiences. And what is 'right' for me may not in fact be 'right' for others.
You're right, it is about personal experiences. Incidently, my younger brother is a paranoid schizophrenic and he probably blazes the chronic multiple times a day. It has fueled greater conspiracy theories where he views the rest of my family as antagonists against him where I haven't seen him for a couple years -- including family functions. Aside from having his blinds drawn all year round, I wouldn't be surprised to go over there one day to see newspapers up like wallpaper and wearing a tinfoil hat, but I disgress..
I can also understand the pitfalls regarding prostitution where people enter the trade not because they have complete control over what they're doing, but it may be to fuel a illicit hard drug habit or they were forced into it for whatever reason as a means of repayment or survival.
I guess I have a Jesus/Crowley approach to life. I take the Golden Rule inversely (like Rabban Hillel did) as well as Crowley's (in)famous montage like this: do not do unto others that you do not want done unto yourself; otherwise do what thou wilt. that is the whole of the law. I disagree with the Bible's interpretation of the Golden Rule as they put into Jesus' mouth because that would be saying that I could jam cookie monster death metal vocals to others (who may dislike being subjected to it) because I like it. It should be the inverse. If I don't want to listen to neo-country-pop, then I should provide the same courtesy by not blasting stuff that I listen to out of offense to others.
I'm babbling. And probably going off the OP's topic, so I apologize :D
yeah I think we are getting sidetracked.
Crowley [he who called himself the beast] and Jesus as having the same beliefs. Wow man :D Not sure if I should party with you the ride may be tooooo wild.
I don't think I said they had the same beliefs. But philosophies, just like religion, has their similar roots / origins from somewhere ... regardless of the religious fanatic who declares from the mountaintops the primacy of their tenets and everything else is a demonic adversarial that must be purguated (sic).
My den is full of comparative religion, theology, philosophy, sociology titles. Jack of all trades, master of none. :D
I see what it does to Pat and it ain't pretty. :D
>.<
That bad huh? I gotta cut down on my arguing. :P
Check this fun link out: War on Drugs cost clock
I will +1 your argument Urizen. The jails are thronged with drug offenders, and it's doing nothing to slow the tide. Thus we pay the money above, and the cost of housing these 'dangers' to society, like the guy who tries to turn a profit on a patch of marijuanna he grew.
Prohibition doesn't work. It didn't work against alcohol. and it certainly isn't working against drugs. Get the government out of the nanny business. If you want to fight drugs, stop trying to illegalize a weed that grows from the tropics to the Arctic Circle. Concentrate on coca/poppy fields which can be targeted much easier. Besides, hemp is a very valuable plant in its own right, not even factoring in the properties of THC.
Thanks for the war on drugs clock link. I'll need to refer back to that from time to time as a fun-factoid.
Thanks for the war on drugs clock link. I'll need to refer back to that from time to time as a fun-factoid.
For the record, I personally agree with "kill the war on drugs," but it's hardly bi-partisan. ;-)
Thanks for the war on drugs clock link. I'll need to refer back to that from time to time as a fun-factoid.For the record, I personally agree with "kill the war on drugs," but it's hardly bi-partisan. ;-)
Why not? Plenty of fiscally-prudent 'Pubs would certainly be on board for that. It's not too hard to see it's a failure, even if the NeoCons love it. Just like the War on Poverty is a failure IMHO, even though the Liberal wing of the Democrats love it.
Time to clean out unworkable programs out on both sides, and look for new solutions that actually, you know ... WORK.
Why not? Plenty of fiscally-prudent 'Pubs would certainly be on board for that. It's not too hard to see it's a failure, even if the NeoCons love it. Just like the War on Poverty is a failure IMHO, even though the Liberal wing of the Democrats love it.
Time to clean out unworkable programs out on both sides, and look for new solutions that actually, you know ... WORK.
I believe the vast majority of Republicans would oppose such a measure, but I may be mistaken.
We waste a lot of time and energy finding, investigating, and nominating candidates that never even see a vote. Seems pretty wasteful to me, even before you look at the big picture: Deliberately slowing the operation of government to a crawl seems self-evidently inefficient.option #4 }
please explain your reasoning?
Need to read up on the discussions of the Founders. Slowing the process is/was exactly the point. If they can pass anything within a very short amount of time, they can rally the public to get nearly anything passed. Filibuster and the other procedures were added to filter out "kneejerk reactions".
Personally, I'd rather have a procedure where a bill has to be passed in one of the chambers (either House or Senate) and then has to delay 3 months for public inspection before it can be looked at in the opposite chamber.
I'd like to see bills only deal with a single topic too. So what if they have to pass thousands of bills per year? There's no difference in that & passing a single bill with thousands of items hidden within.
I believe the vast majority of Republicans would oppose such a measure, but I may be mistaken.
Meh. I think attitudes have changed over the last few decades. Most people 60 and under have experienced 'the drug culture' and are relatively blase about 'drugs' like marijuanna. I think legalization is an inevitability.
The real problem out there now is the massive abuse of perscription drugs. Talking to my teenaged daughter that seems the 'choice du jour' for recreational fun. They are also available in massive quantities. When I got a mild whiplash from a car accident the doctor who looked at me tossed me a thirty-pill Percoset script without so much as batting an eye. We just had a doctor arrested here whose nickname was 'Dr. Feelgood' for all the narcotics scripts he wrote. He was responsible for 1/3 of all the OxyContin perscriptions written in Massachusetts in 2004!
Don't even get me started on the abuses all the various ADD/ADHD drugs are seeing now. These chemicals are way more dangerous than THC, yet parents often let their kids 'self-medicate', and a lot of them turn a profit selling their scripts to others. We tsk tsk about marijuanna, then give our children a cornucopia of artifical mood-fixers. Real smart*.
*As someone with a child diagnosed with ADHD, I understand the reasoning behind the medication, but still I don't understand why people don't seem to care that much about perscription pill abuse while railing against marijuanna.
Need to read up on the discussions of the Founders. Slowing the process is/was exactly the point. If they can pass anything within a very short amount of time, they can rally the public to get nearly anything passed. Filibuster and the other procedures were added to filter out "kneejerk reactions".Personally, I'd rather have a procedure where a bill has to be passed in one of the chambers (either House or Senate) and then has to delay 3 months for public inspection before it can be looked at in the opposite chamber.
I'd like to see bills only deal with a single topic too. So what if they have to pass thousands of bills per year? There's no difference in that & passing a single bill with thousands of items hidden within.
To be clear, I was more referring to the filibustering of judicial nominees.
But you're right about preventing measures from moving through too quickly...I like your idea about the house->senate progression. And you're also right about me needing to read up on things...my knowledge of the Constitution is pretty shameful.
Ok folks understand that I am NOT trying to start a flame war but this is how I actually feel.
Stop the usless embargo against cuba(whats the point of it)
Stop giving money to american indians because some bleeding heart liberal feels guilty over stuff that happened over 100yrs ago. Why are we paying them anything?
Stop ALL foreign aid, we need to stop being the worlds piggy bank.
Increase border patrol in all southern states to actually stop/curb ILLEGAL immagration.
Change the citizenship laws so that unless one parent is already a citizen of this country then the child is NOT automatically given citizenship. Anchor babies need to stop, it's not fair to us tax payers or the children. If the parent drops a kid herethen the kid can stay but mommy and daddy are deported and the kid goes to an orphanage. Harsh but effective.
This one is the last one but probabbly the most controversial.
Get women out of a combat enviroment. I have been a service member and I have seen the good and bad of both sides and these young girls that join are looking for a husband or a free ride to college but rarely are thye looking for a military carrer. That statement is based from MY time in the navy and nothing else.
When you have to have 3 women do the job of 1 man because theysimply are NOT strong enough to heave around on a line or to lift a 50lbs box of stores repeatedly for 2-3hrs at a time then that makes the males have to work extra hard to take up the slack and is unfair.
Can women do most jobs yes without a doubt but thye cant do the pysical aspect of the jobs nearly as well as a male.
Even the other women in my command were disapointed in the younger women that ere comeing in and told them to either get to work or be discharged for deriliction of duty. The senior women fought long and hard to be treated as equals and were mad a fire that these new recruits were trying to sleep their way to rank and privalege.
Those are the bi-partisan ideas that I would like to see implemented.
Change the citizenship laws so that unless one parent is already a citizen of this country then the child is NOT automatically given citizenship. Anchor babies need to stop, it's not fair to us tax payers or the children. If the parent drops a kid herethen the kid can stay but mommy and daddy are deported and the kid goes to an orphanage. Harsh but effective.
This one is a bit tricky as Nation States are required by international conventions to avoid statelessness. Now this just means that a child born in the U.S. is an American citizen - the status of the parents is for each nation state to decide. Hence the U.S. can deport the parents without contravening any international obligations but probably can't stop the kid from showing up at the border when she turns 18 and presenting identification showing that she is an American citizen.
|
|
Ok folks understand that I am NOT trying to start a flame war but this is how I actually feel.
Stop the usless embargo against cuba(whats the point of it)Stop giving money to american indians because some bleeding heart liberal feels guilty over stuff that happened over 100yrs ago. Why are we paying them anything?
Stop ALL foreign aid, we need to stop being the worlds piggy bank.
Increase border patrol in all southern states to actually stop/curb ILLEGAL immagration.
Change the citizenship laws so that unless one parent is already a citizen of this country then the child is NOT automatically given citizenship. Anchor babies need to stop, it's not fair to us tax payers or the children. If the parent drops a kid herethen the kid can stay but mommy and daddy are deported and the kid goes to an orphanage. Harsh but effective.
This one is the last one but probabbly the most controversial.
Get women out of a combat enviroment. I have been a service member and I have seen the good and bad of both sides and these young girls that join are looking for a husband or a free ride to college but rarely are thye looking for a military carrer. That statement is based from MY time in the navy and nothing else.
When you have to have 3 women do the job of 1 man because theysimply are NOT strong enough to heave around on a line or to lift a 50lbs box of stores repeatedly for 2-3hrs at a time then that makes the males have to work extra hard to take up the slack and is unfair.
Can women do most jobs yes without a doubt but thye cant do the pysical aspect of the jobs nearly as well as a male.
Even the other women in my command were disapointed in the younger women that ere comeing in and told them to either get to work or be discharged for deriliction of duty. The senior women fought long and hard to be treated as equals and were mad a fire that these new recruits were trying to sleep their way to rank and privalege.Those are the bi-partisan ideas that I would like to see implemented.
One I am not in anyway trying to put down your opinions.
Two I want to touch on just a few things.I can understand not giving money to Amerindians other then what you would give any other citizen. There are some projects though that should be kept to make sure that native cultures do not die out, do not just become a gambling culture, and people do not die for just being who they are.
I can understand the idea of wanting to stop all foreign aid. I can not agree. What we do as a country impacts the world. We should be more careful however in my opinion of what aid we give and that when we give aid there is no strings attached to it. We should give because we can, and should, not to try to force others to our way of thinking. Lead by example not by force.
Border patrols in the south increasing is a good thing. My problem which is one of the reasons we have had issues with this before is how do we pay for it. I am thinking we should take the entire region and turn it all into national guard training grounds.
I understand your point as well with the citizenship. I wish I could articulate my reasons why I do not agree, but I will just let it lie that I do not agree.
I disagree with the concept of removing women from combat. I think we should rather have requirements for combat duty and anyone male or female who can not do the job should not get it. This will make most of our combatants male it will not rule out any female from being able to serve if she is capable. I also think we should go back to more strict and harsher basic training.
From a discussion and undertanding point of view, I'd like to nominate CJ's last post as a model. Certainly I'll be viewing it as such, for my own benefit. The following points really stand out to me:
Nicely done, on all points.
|
|
1. Quit making pennies. Now. We survived without a smaller unit of value when the cent was worth twenty times what it is today; we can live with rounding to the nearest nickel.
2. While you're at it, quit making paper dollars. The public doesn't like dollar coins? Too bad. They last much longer, and they save money. The strippers will get over it.
3. Federal government vehicles: buy sub-compacts. Waaaaaaah! It's a free car -- go on a diet.
4. Get rid of filibusters; they're a waste of time and money. Pass it now, make it take effect in 2 years.
5. Fix the patent office. It's broken and wasteful.
Anyone else? Remember, I said Bi-partisan...
Option one out - Australian experience with getting rid of one and two cent pieces didnt encourage an upsurge in prices, they kept their sale prices as .99 and didnt pay the tax on sales of a dollar while they failed to repay the .01
They also encouraged people to buy five of those .99 items to get the five cent round off.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
You would be better off in getting rid of Quarters (25 cent coins).
Start minting square coins as it reduces the waste metal that needs recycling.
|
Never rolled or smoked one in my life, but please stop the damn war on pot, folks. I'm more worried about the drunk behind the wheel of the car than the stoner who has the cheetos munchies. Spend the money instead on .... oh .... education in the schools so the kids know how to balance a check book and understand interest rate on credit cards.
/soapbox
And while I understand the sentiment I can not agree with it. There are many factors of the so called war on drugs. we should not stop it. I disagree totally with the so called medical use of Marijuana. Had a few talks about this with houstonderick and a few others. Not many agree with me and so be it.
As far as teaching kids to balance a checkbook and understand an interest rate. I think this should be implemented in 6th grade and should be taught all the way through college. And be mandatory. Of course I think basic hygiene and cleaning skills should be taught to all as well.
Wait, I have opinions that aren't ultra-conservative? Damn, CJ, you're trying to ruin my rep! :)
I believe the vast majority of Republicans would oppose such a measure, but I may be mistaken.Meh. I think attitudes have changed over the last few decades. Most people 60 and under have experienced 'the drug culture' and are relatively blase about 'drugs' like marijuanna. I think legalization is an inevitability.
The real problem out there now is the massive abuse of perscription drugs. Talking to my teenaged daughter that seems the 'choice du jour' for recreational fun. They are also available in massive quantities. When I got a mild whiplash from a car accident the doctor who looked at me tossed me a thirty-pill Percoset script without so much as batting an eye. We just had a doctor arrested here whose nickname was 'Dr. Feelgood' for all the narcotics scripts he wrote. He was responsible for 1/3 of all the OxyContin perscriptions written in Massachusetts in 2004!
Don't even get me started on the abuses all the various ADD/ADHD drugs are seeing now. These chemicals are way more dangerous than THC, yet parents often let their kids 'self-medicate', and a lot of them turn a profit selling their scripts to others. We tsk tsk about marijuanna, then give our children a cornucopia of artifical mood-fixers. Real smart*.
*As someone with a child diagnosed with ADHD, I understand the reasoning behind the medication, but still I don't understand why people don't seem to care that much about perscription pill abuse while railing against marijuanna.
Well said.
|
|
Wait, I have opinions that aren't ultra-conservative? Damn, CJ, you're trying to ruin my rep! :)Never rolled or smoked one in my life, but please stop the damn war on pot, folks. I'm more worried about the drunk behind the wheel of the car than the stoner who has the cheetos munchies. Spend the money instead on .... oh .... education in the schools so the kids know how to balance a check book and understand interest rate on credit cards.
/soapbox
And while I understand the sentiment I can not agree with it. There are many factors of the so called war on drugs. we should not stop it. I disagree totally with the so called medical use of Marijuana. Had a few talks about this with houstonderick and a few others. Not many agree with me and so be it.
As far as teaching kids to balance a checkbook and understand an interest rate. I think this should be implemented in 6th grade and should be taught all the way through college. And be mandatory. Of course I think basic hygiene and cleaning skills should be taught to all as well.
Dude if I hadn't actually talked to you I would have thought so. Truth be known I am so much more ultra conservative then you.;)
No other suggestions?
Here's one: Hey, Congress, how about you stop voting yourselves pay raises every year? The rest of us tend to get raises when we've done well at our jobs. Perhaps pay raises of Senators and Representatives should be decided by a vote in their home state.
|
|
No other suggestions?Here's one: Hey, Congress, how about you stop voting yourselves pay raises every year? The rest of us tend to get raises when we've done well at our jobs. Perhaps pay raises of Senators and Representatives should be decided by a vote in their home state.
Not a bad idea. However if someone is not doing a good job they are generally voted out of office.
Instead why don't they have to ask the President and the Supreme court.
Plus maybe it's just me, however I would add that this is also a good reason for term limits.
No other suggestions?Here's one: Hey, Congress, how about you stop voting yourselves pay raises every year? The rest of us tend to get raises when we've done well at our jobs. Perhaps pay raises of Senators and Representatives should be decided by a vote in their home state.
How about you don't get to continue getting your pay even once you are voted out of office.
Cut all subsidies for oil companies and agriculture companies.
Stop propping up ‘friendly’ foreign governments by giving them money, i.e. Israel, Bosnia, Pakistan.
Make professional lobbing illegal.
Limit all elected officials to 3 five year terms.
Cut all subsidies for oil companies and agriculture companies.
Stop propping up ‘friendly’ foreign governments by giving them money, i.e. Israel, Bosnia, Pakistan.
Make professional lobbing illegal.
Limit all elected officials to 3 five year terms.
Good start. I'd go even further:
- Cut all subsidies for any business. Let the chips fall where they may.
- Stop propping up any government who comes looking for a handout. Slash international aid and take a good long look at the national aid as well. Only give out money to the real deserving cases, not a blank check.
- Make lobbying a federal offense with offenders going to an actual federal pen , not 'Club Fed'.
- Limit all bureaucrats to a set 20 years they can work for the government. Eliminate 'double dipping' pensions for bureaucrats and pay raises for retired Congresspeople. Make the pay scale lower, so that it is a sacrifice to work for the government, not a sinecure. Oh, and anyone who holds an elected position who is voted out of office before the 20-year-limit DOESN'T GET A PENSION. If your constituents toss you out, that's called BEING FIRED.
Cut all subsidies for oil companies and agriculture companies.
I can see some really bad consequences of some of those for the general public.
Stop propping up ‘friendly’ foreign governments by giving them money, i.e. Israel, Bosnia, Pakistan.
That issue is more complicated that you seem to be implying.
Make professional lobbing illegal.
How do you tell who is a professional and not? Is getting paid the only qualification, therefore any organization that pays dues and reinburses those members able to make trips to see their government representatives will qualify. Seems a method to silence even more public input. It is funny "lobbying" is only done by groups we disagree with. Those groups we agree with are "promoting" our views.
Limit all elected officials to 3 five year terms.
I hardly think changing the constitution is something that is pretty cheap to do.
One I am not in anyway trying to put down your opinions.
Two I want to touch on just a few things.
I can understand not giving money to Amerindians other then what you would give any other citizen. There are some projects though that should be kept to make sure that native cultures do not die out, do not just become a gambling culture, and people do not die for just being who they are.
I can understand the idea of wanting to stop all foreign aid. I can not agree. What we do as a country impacts the world. We should be more careful however in my opinion of what aid we give and that when we give aid there is no strings attached to it. We should give because we can, and should, not to try to force others to our way of thinking. Lead by example not by force.
Border patrols in the south increasing is a good thing. My problem which is one of the reasons we have had issues with this before is how do we pay for it. I am thinking we should take the entire region and turn it all into national guard training grounds.
I understand your point as well with the citizenship. I wish I could articulate my reasons why I do not agree, but I will just let it lie that I do not agree.
I disagree with the concept of removing women from combat. I think we should rather have requirements for combat duty and anyone male or female who can not do the job should not get it. This will make most of our combatants male it will not rule out any female from being able to serve if she is capable. I also think we should go back to more strict and harsher basic training
All very valid points CJ. I like your ideas. Thanks for simply not dismissing me as a stone cold, no heart conservative killer that only cares about money.
First about the amerindians. I can see some money being used for preservation of their culture but giving them a weekly/monthly welfare check just because they are of a certain race is in my opinion wrong, the funny thing is I coul;d qualify for that type of welfare if I chose to apply but I cant stand charity.
Your second point about foreign aid is very well said and I can see why you would feel that way, after all we are supposedly the richest of nations but that is no longer the case. If we have a trillion dollare budget deficet then how can we justify giving away money that WE BORROWED to begin with. That is my biggest sticking point. I dont care about other countires because all the forign aid we give them goes to their political/religious/(insert name of power base here)leaders instead of the people we are trying to help.
As a second point or an aside which ever it is. If we stop foregin aid then maybe the counties that are now totally dependant on it will work twoard real solution rather than international welfare.
I like the national guard trainging ground idea. as far as paying for it I was going to use the money from the foreign aid and the entitlments as a way of doing it. Plus everystate can send it's natinal guard to help in areas like texas and california. as a bonus drug trafficing will be curtailed as well.
We both agree on the tougher boot camp idea. I think that is a pefect solution. I was thinking of trying to bring back the wacs/waves etc. have a dedicated non-combat branch so wounded soliders that are no longer combat able can still serve if they wish. Those soliders will miss out on combat pay but it is a elegant solution to those that are simply not pysically capable to have a 70lbs ruck sack and go on a 10 mile hick to the next target site. I have no problems with women on ship or in combat as long as they can do the job instead of saying "it's too heavy can you guys carry it for me." Again the above statement are based on my personal experiances while serving and do not reflect all dedicated service women.
I will always remember BM1 Hand as a personal mentor. She was a foot shorter than me and a totally dedicated to the navy,she even wore navy blue eyeshadow, but when it came time to do a job she was right there in the thick of it. No matter how gross or hard or whatever we e-whatevers were assigned if we needed help she gave it. She never used her rank to get out of a job(which some of her male counterparts did)and she never asked or expected any preferental treatment. Those are the kind of women that are a credit to whatever service they chose and would make excellent combat soliders.
As fr as citizenship ok we can agree to disagree on that one.
Cut all subsidies for oil companies and agriculture companies.I can see some really bad consequences of some of those for the general public.
Stop propping up ‘friendly’ foreign governments by giving them money, i.e. Israel, Bosnia, Pakistan.That issue is more complicated that you seem to be implying.
Make professional lobbing illegal.How do you tell who is a professional and not? Is getting paid the only qualification, therefore any organization that pays dues and reinburses those members able to make trips to see their government representatives will qualify. Seems a method to silence even more public input. It is funny "lobbying" is only done by groups we disagree with. Those groups we agree with are "promoting" our views.
Limit all elected officials to 3 five year terms.I hardly think changing the constitution is something that is pretty cheap to do.
I'm not an elected official or an economist, but I manage to cover all of my financial obligations with a pidly 3grand a month (house, animal care, food, auto, etc. and no credit debt) and still manage to save some cash for hard times so honestly I think I could manage our goverment finances better than the people elected do.
|
|
One of my dad's best friends from his his college days just recently retired from a government paper-pushing profession.
He liked the pay, liked the benefits, but was perpetually conflicted about his job because his managers always encouraged him to slack-off. He would be told that he was making the rest of the department look bad, and that if they were too efficient, they would lose funding.
He told me once of a conversation where his boss told him to come in late, read the paper, get some coffee, do a little work, take an early, long lunch, chat with co-workers, get some coffee, do a little work, and leave early.
+1 for ending the war on (all) drugs.
I would like to eliminate the vast majority of the government, but I doubt most folks would consider that bipartisan. Though I presume we could agree that it would save money.
Good start. I'd go even further:
Somehow, when you talk money I suddenly start agreeing with you. Good post!