• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PROPOSAL to Fix a Broken United States Government

After reading the opening post:

  • I can support the proposed resolution as written.

    Votes: 3 13.0%

  • I can support most of the proposed resolution as written.

    Votes: 6 26.1%

  • I can't support much of the proposed resolution as written.

    Votes: 7 30.4%

  • I can't support any of the propose resolution as written.

    Votes: 4 17.4%

  • This is the worst idea any nutter has come up with yet.

    Votes: 2 8.7%

  • Other and I will explain in my post

    Votes: 1 4.3%
  • Total voters
    23
polgara said:
They would have to be charming enough to engage people; they would have to have a new unique idea or two that would appeal to almost everyone; they would have to be considered strong willed and confident enough in their own skin to be a leader; they would have to be considered trustworthy; and they would, of necessity, have to be a brilliant orator to get their ideas across.

People are weary right now, and tired of the status quo. Does such a person exist? I think so, but we may not yet know who he is--and I say "he" because I believe it will be a he rather than a she at this time in history. There are certainly excellent women out there, but they may be better suited to another role, because we are a patriarchal society and I don't see that changing any time soon on the world stage. The days of being ruled by a Elizabeth 1 or Victoria may have passed, although they were perfect at the time, but they always had men as advisors, not other women.

Just my opinion...
Click to expand...

Yeah but I cannot be that person because I have other priorities. So do not insist, okay? ;)
 
DDD said:
Yeah but I cannot be that person because I have other priorities. So do not insist, okay? ;)
Click to expand...

You may have to reconsider if you are asked to take on the burden! :peace:
 
AlbqOwl said:
I don't believe I referred to history other than the intent of the original Constitution and I am pretty sure I didn't engage in any fear mongering. My intent with the OP was to provide a proposed resolution for the purpose of discussion of how best to repair a federal government in serious need of repair here and now.

So what do you think about that?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




I think that you're wasting your time, but that's OK with me.

We already have a way to change our government-It's called elections.

If you don't like what the people in Washington, D.C. are doing, send some other people there.
 
grip said:
You actually have to begin with an extremely idealistic base to even reach a compromise.

There are 3-4 major problems that need work. Removing as much corporate influence out of Gov as possible. Campaign and term reform, reducing waste/fraud and removing excess regulations and taxes. I think if a lot of effort could be placed on these initiatives that most of the rest would work itself out. But I just don't see that happening soon. The old sayings "money makes the world go round" and "money talks" are true for a reason.

Also we're becoming a service based economy, which doesn't pay as well or employ as many, as when we were production based. That started when the gov allowed too much free trade, which benefited international corporations, other countries and the growth formula. One of the driving concepts that's failing the world is materialistic success and wealth increase thru sales and population growth but it's simply unsustainable. No amount of efficiency will allow us to propel forward without some streamlining.

The 2008 Recession and near financial collapse was the end of the credit fueled growth machine. With all the wealth being siphoned up to the top the rest of the people don't have enough to keep the retail end spurred. Without a source of income to continue a forward momentum the economy is going to stagflate, then reverse. Eventually the Feds trying to spend our way out of financial problems with ever increasing debt is not going to work on a global scale.
Click to expand...

The 2008 collapse happened because government, in order to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal wealth, encouraged people to buy houses they could not afford. Yes there were many who ethically or unethically jumped into the process to capitalize on it, but the core fatal error was that too many people bought property they could not afford. If the proposals in the OP had been in effect, that would never have happened because 1) the federal government wouldn't have been in the mortgage lending business in the first place and 2) we would have public servants in government instead of the opportunistic career politicians and bureaucrats that we now have.

The issue of corporate power abuse, campaign finance abuse, etc. would also be largely addressed quite competently by initiating the concepts in the OP.

IMO, the concepts in the OP address the root of the problems and stop government from creating them. Trying to put the problem back into Pandora's box simply isn't working.
 
shrubnose said:
I think that you're wasting your time, but that's OK with me.

We already have a way to change our government-It's called elections.

If you don't like what the people in Washington, D.C. are doing, send some other people there.
Click to expand...

That solution became impossible once the government assumed authority it was never intended to have. The people can no longer elect true reformers to the federal government, at least in numbers large enough to make a difference. Unless we take the power and money incentives out of the process so that there is no purpose for the professional opportunists to seek those high offices, they will continue to buy those positions for their own personal gain.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The 2008 collapse happened because government, in order to increase its own power, influence, prestige, and personal wealth, encouraged people to buy houses they could not afford. Yes there were many who ethically or unethically jumped into the process to capitalize on it, but the core fatal error was that too many people bought property they could not afford. If the proposals in the OP had been in effect, that would never have happened because 1) the federal government wouldn't have been in the mortgage lending business in the first place and 2) we would have public servants in government instead of the opportunistic career politicians and bureaucrats that we now have.

The issue of corporate power abuse, campaign finance abuse, etc. would also be largely addressed quite competently by initiating the concepts in the OP.

IMO, the concepts in the OP address the root of the problems and stop government from creating them. Trying to put the problem back into Pandora's box simply isn't working.
Click to expand...

The core problem wasn't just that people couldn't afford the loans but that they were given unsecured loans in the role of predatory lending. Fannie and Freddie started out as sources of federally funded, affordable housing for people. The deregulation of lending practices by the government wasn't initially meant to be a greedy endeavor it was to grow the economy thru increased home ownership. It simply got completely out of control because of the human weakness of greed. The banks, investors, mortgage lenders, insurance companies, markets, construction companies, average house buyers were all benefiting at first.

We're never going to separate money from government because part of their responsibility is the national security of the economy. Also they collect taxes to pay for defense, social programs, building and maintaining, parks, infrastructure, streets, highways and bridges, subsidizing industries to prevent extreme price fluctuations, etc.

Many people will argue that a career politician is more qualified and experienced at governing than Joe Six Pack.

They would find ways around your OP suggestions because that's the nature of power and those in control of it. They simply amend, rewrite and wiggle around, till they get what they want thru their leverage, position and influence. It's the oldest profession next to booty call.

I'll tell you one thing I have learned from business and debate. The simpler you make the rules and less words you use, the less room for someone to abuse and twist the meaning. My business practice had such a simple receipt and sales recording process that it was near impossible to steal from me. Only 3 steps from purchase to books, even Houdini couldn't make my money go poof.
 
grip said:
The core problem wasn't just that people couldn't afford the loans but that they were given unsecured loans in the role of predatory lending. Fannie and Freddie started out as sources of federally funded, affordable housing for people. The deregulation of lending practices by the government wasn't initially meant to be a greedy endeavor it was to grow the economy thru increased home ownership. It simply got completely out of control because of the human weakness of greed. The banks, investors, mortgage lenders, insurance companies, markets, construction companies, average house buyers were all benefiting at first.

We're never going to separate money from government because part of their responsibility is the national security of the economy. Also they collect taxes to pay for defense, social programs, building and maintaining, parks, infrastructure, streets, highways and bridges, subsidizing industries to prevent extreme price fluctuations, etc.

Many people will argue that a career politician is more qualified and experienced at governing than Joe Six Pack.

They would find ways around your OP suggestions because that's the nature of power and those in control of it. They simply amend, rewrite and wiggle around, till they get what they want thru their leverage, position and influence. It's the oldest profession next to booty call.

I'll tell you one thing I have learned from business and debate. The simpler you make the rules and less words you use, the less room for someone to abuse and twist the meaning. My business practice had such a simple receipt and sales recording process that it was near impossible to steal from me. Only 3 steps from purchase to books, even Houdini couldn't make my money go poof.
Click to expand...

Well the OP used more words than I usually use in an OP, but I wanted to cover all the bases to accomplish what I think needs to happen. But each concept is pretty simply expressed. Of course there will always be crooks, liars, and opportunists, but I do believe a reform that reflects the intent of the OP will prompt most of them to look elsewhere to enrich themselves.

Oh, and in my opinion, it was encouragement by government for people to buy what they could not afford that prompted the predatory loans. Bad government policy almost always encourages the opportunists who will come crawling out of the woodwork.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom