My plan to help fix [some of] America

I was talking with a friend of mine last night about how to fix this great country of ours, and help eliminate some of the more stupid things in our government. So I wanted your guys' (and gals) take on this plan if it would even be viable...

-First, fix the EPA. Some of their regulatory measures are just ridiculous and excessive beyond need. I'd create an oversight committee to oversee their actual doings and give them stricter management capabilities.
-Second, eliminate the TSA. I would transfer all responsibility of airport security to the private sector with a set of guidelines outlined by the FAA and an independent panel of experts (not bureaucrats) for keeping security logical yet safe.
-Third, this one is a biggie- Somehow, and I'm not sure how, create a way so that Congress is not in charge of deciding their salary, fate, and retirement/pension (I might need help on this one). Create a separate entity to decide congressional salary and benefits, make them have to follow the same rules as ordinary citizens, and change their pension rules to that of the military and other government employees- 20 years of service nets 50%, 30 nets 75%, and 40 years nets 100% retirement. This would include other government/public service included with serving in congress.
-Finally, I would create, using many of the employees that were former TSA employees (but not screeners) a "Welfare Oversight and Investigations Service" (WOIS) to oversee and discover cases or fraud, abuse, misuse of funds, and drug testing for individuals on Welfare and Foodstamps. This service would help to eliminate, punish, and regulate the uses of welfare, while also encouraging those on welfare to work. I would not institute time limits to welfare, even if they are needed, especially in a slow economy. I would however create punishment for abuse, fraud and misuse of welfare to include punishment "fees" that would reduce for 60 days the amount of welfare received by the perpetrating individual, and upon 3 or more blatant infractions where more than 50% of welfare funds are either abused or misused (meaning not going directly to life support- food, shelter, clothing, hygiene, etc- or bills) the person would be cut off from welfare. Harsh I know, but the punishment would dissuade people from abusing the program.

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

I was talking with a friend of mine last night about how to fix this great country of ours, and help eliminate some of the more stupid things in our government. So I wanted your guys' (and gals) take on this plan if it would even be viable...

-First, fix the EPA. Some of their regulatory measures are just ridiculous and excessive beyond need. I'd create an oversight committee to oversee their actual doings and give them stricter management capabilities.
So you want more government then; make the dept. bigger? How about we just dissolve this one instead?

-Second, eliminate the TSA. I would transfer all responsibility of airport security to the private sector with a set of guidelines outlined by the FAA and an independent panel of experts (not bureaucrats) for keeping security logical yet safe.
Now you've got your thinking cap on. Agreed.

-Third, this one is a biggie- Somehow, and I'm not sure how, create a way so that Congress is not in charge of deciding their salary, fate, and retirement/pension (I might need help on this one). Create a separate entity to decide congressional salary and benefits, make them have to follow the same rules as ordinary citizens, and change their pension rules to that of the military and other government employees- 20 years of service nets 50%, 30 nets 75%, and 40 years nets 100% retirement. This would include other government/public service included with serving in congress.
No more creation of government entities. That line of thinking increases spending and the deficit more than their efforts could reduce it. Career politicians are a big part of the problem, and requiring them to serve 20-40 years for a pension would exacerbate the issue. If we first impose term limits and they can get their 20 years of service in some other government position, great; otherwise, no, they can serve their time and get a real job and invest in a private retirement plan like the rest of us.

-Finally, I would create, using many of the employees that were former TSA employees (but not screeners) a "Welfare Oversight and Investigations Service" (WOIS) to oversee and discover cases or fraud, abuse, misuse of funds, and drug testing for individuals on Welfare and Foodstamps. This service would help to eliminate, punish, and regulate the uses of welfare, while also encouraging those on welfare to work. I would not institute time limits to welfare, even if they are needed, especially in a slow economy. I would however create punishment for abuse, fraud and misuse of welfare to include punishment "fees" that would reduce for 60 days the amount of welfare received by the perpetrating individual, and upon 3 or more blatant infractions where more than 50% of welfare funds are either abused or misused (meaning not going directly to life support- food, shelter, clothing, hygiene, etc- or bills) the person would be cut off from welfare. Harsh I know, but the punishment would dissuade people from abusing the program.
Again, less government is better than more. I agree with implementing tight restrictions on welfare programs to reduce instances of abuse. I think it could be as simple as requiring welfare recipients provide weekly proof that they are looking for work or going to school to better their chances (cf. unemployment benefits requirements) for as long as they are receiving benefits. Tax breaks for having more dependents when already on the dole should be turned into penalties and a reduction in benefits.

Thoughts?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

Originally Posted by Ronin13
I was talking with a friend of mine last night about how to fix this great country of ours, and help eliminate some of the more stupid things in our government. So I wanted your guys' (and gals) take on this plan if it would even be viable...

-First, fix the EPA. Some of their regulatory measures are just ridiculous and excessive beyond need. I'd create an oversight committee to oversee their actual doings and give them stricter management capabilities.
So you want more government then; make the dept. bigger? How about we just dissolve this one instead?

-Second, eliminate the TSA. I would transfer all responsibility of airport security to the private sector with a set of guidelines outlined by the FAA and an independent panel of experts (not bureaucrats) for keeping security logical yet safe.
Now you've got your thinking cap on. Agreed.

-Third, this one is a biggie- Somehow, and I'm not sure how, create a way so that Congress is not in charge of deciding their salary, fate, and retirement/pension (I might need help on this one). Create a separate entity to decide congressional salary and benefits, make them have to follow the same rules as ordinary citizens, and change their pension rules to that of the military and other government employees- 20 years of service nets 50%, 30 nets 75%, and 40 years nets 100% retirement. This would include other government/public service included with serving in congress.
No more creation of government entities. That line of thinking increases spending and the deficit more than their efforts could reduce it. Career politicians are a big part of the problem, and requiring them to serve 20-40 years for a pension would exacerbate the issue. If we first impose term limits and they can get their 20 years of service in some other government position, great; otherwise, no, they can serve their time and get a real job and invest in a private retirement plan like the rest of us.

-Finally, I would create, using many of the employees that were former TSA employees (but not screeners) a "Welfare Oversight and Investigations Service" (WOIS) to oversee and discover cases or fraud, abuse, misuse of funds, and drug testing for individuals on Welfare and Foodstamps. This service would help to eliminate, punish, and regulate the uses of welfare, while also encouraging those on welfare to work. I would not institute time limits to welfare, even if they are needed, especially in a slow economy. I would however create punishment for abuse, fraud and misuse of welfare to include punishment "fees" that would reduce for 60 days the amount of welfare received by the perpetrating individual, and upon 3 or more blatant infractions where more than 50% of welfare funds are either abused or misused (meaning not going directly to life support- food, shelter, clothing, hygiene, etc- or bills) the person would be cut off from welfare. Harsh I know, but the punishment would dissuade people from abusing the program.
Again, less government is better than more. I agree with implementing tight restrictions on welfare programs to reduce instances of abuse. I think it could be as simple as requiring welfare recipients provide weekly proof that they are looking for work or going to school to better their chances (cf. unemployment benefits requirements) for as long as they are receiving benefits. Tax breaks for having more dependents when already on the dole should be turned into penalties and a reduction in benefits.

Thoughts?

---

Well said... Ok, eliminate the EPA- but that would put more out of work, and in tough times would be looked at as evil... The TSA reassignment would keep those who's jobs are eliminated in a job (well except for the screeners). I agree with having proof of looking for work or school, but I'm trying address the real issue, abuse and misuse, there is currently no one that can do that as the department of welfare lacks the man power, so setting up something to monitor the use or abuse of welfare funds is needed... granted this could be improved beyond my idea, but it is something I feel we need to do. Instituting harsh penalties for abuse would help to reduce- You wouldn't use your paycheck inappropriately if it would potentially cost you your job, so if the threat of losing their welfare checks was there they wouldn't misuse it. [Beer] Plus setting up drug screening to receive welfare and food stamps would help big time!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

Well said... Ok, eliminate the EPA- but that would put more out of work, and in tough times would be looked at as evil... The TSA reassignment would keep those who's jobs are eliminated in a job (well except for the screeners). I agree with having proof of looking for work or school, but I'm trying address the real issue, abuse and misuse, there is currently no one that can do that as the department of welfare lacks the man power, so setting up something to monitor the use or abuse of welfare funds is needed... granted this could be improved beyond my idea, but it is something I feel we need to do. Instituting harsh penalties for abuse would help to reduce- You wouldn't use your paycheck inappropriately if it would potentially cost you your job, so if the threat of losing their welfare checks was there they wouldn't misuse it. [Beer] Plus setting up drug screening to receive welfare and food stamps would help big time!

---

If the federal government wasn't regulating the environment, the private industry (first) and State and local governments (secondarily) would have to. That would mean more jobs for this specific skill set being created for those experienced folks from the former-EPA to compete for.

The tighter restrictions on welfare recipients would reduce the program by such a large margin, in such a short amount of time, it could afford to reallocate current employees to do the jobs of managing the restrictions. Sure, there would be some growing pain to begin with, but it would sort itself out in short order. I'm not a fan of drug screening; I think that is an unconstitutional invasion of individual liberty, regardless of the circumstances. The private sector retains the right to drug test employees; if welfare recipients are adhering to the tighter restrictions of actively seeking gainful employment, the private sector's right to drug test will squash most of the drug use by those on the dole.

I blame the unions. Dissolve those and that'll fix the nations problems, except the NFL. We saw how that went. Oh wait never mind that was the replacement refs fault trying to back door the NFL to get the contract for the regular officials.

P.S. that last statement was the dumbest shit I've read and heard in a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

If the federal government wasn't regulating the environment, the private industry (first) and State and local governments (secondarily) would have to. That would mean more jobs for this specific skill set being created for those experienced folks from the former-EPA to compete for.

---

That is how it should be. People would be free to pick a state that best fits their business. The national EPA should be eliminated completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

The tighter restrictions on welfare recipients would reduce the program by such a large margin, in such a short amount of time, it could afford to reallocate current employees to do the jobs of managing the restrictions. Sure, there would be some growing pain to begin with, but it would sort itself out in short order. I'm not a fan of drug screening; I think that is an unconstitutional invasion of individual liberty, regardless of the circumstances. The private sector retains the right to drug test employees; if welfare recipients are adhering to the tighter restrictions of actively seeking gainful employment, the private sector's right to drug test will squash most of the drug use by those on the dole.

---

But how many life-long welfare maggots will private enterprise want to hire. I'm sure some would work out but most would starve to death in the gutter...and rightly so.

One more thing. If we start closing Federal departments those people are going to need someplace else to work, we can't have them going on unemployment for 99 weeks.

Private enterprise will have to be up and running prior to any cuts in the Federal government.

Is the EPA currently such a hinderance to the country that it deserves a place on this short of a list?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

Is the EPA currently such a hinderance to the country that it deserves a place on this short of a list?

---

Yes.. few samples..

The Clean Air Act: The EPA puts the first-year cost of each Title V permit at $46,500 and the pre-construction permitting program at $84,500 if you have more than 25 cows. [Bang][Bang]

Remember the dust pollution? If your farm's equipment produces dust, you may be in trouble with EPA

Shit license.. if you are selling your farm animal manure for fertilizer, you must fill out a few hundred pages of permit app per truckload. There is a claim that each truck load of manure costs 15 of man hour in EPA paper work.

Don't get me started on coal power plant, muffler shop regulation, and so on.

It's CRAZY how they can get away with these w/o congress' approval.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzwacZZe5yk

Alright, sounds like unregulated regulation that needs to go asap. I'm on board.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xring

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzwacZZe5yk

---

Thanks for the post.. This shows how much EPA has negated from its original purpose.

I was HAZMAT III certified for about five years. I have put on a class A suit and SCUBA many times to deal with very very nasty substances. I dont know about cow poop but I do know about hydrafluoric acid. You guys want to go back to the good old days before love canal? Before love canal getting a toxic waste disposal license was as simple as coming up with $25. Companies bore no responsibility for the waste if a "licensed" disposal company was used. The methods of disposal were creative, adding it to dust control in roads, eceterta. There very well may be total abuse of authority in the EPA and that should be addressed but EPA power is there to protect us from monsters that are next to you everyday on the highway and railways and in the industrial park down the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xring

I was HAZMAT III certified for about five years. I have put on a class A suit and SCUBA many times to deal with very very nasty substances. I dont know about cow poop but I do know about hydrafluoric acid. You guys want to go back to the good old days before love canal? Before love canal getting a toxic waste disposal license was as simple as coming up with $25. Companies bore no responsibility for the waste if a "licensed" disposal company was used. The methods of disposal were creative, adding it to dust control in roads, eceterta. There very well may be total abuse of authority in the EPA and that should be addressed but EPA power is there to protect us from monsters that are next to you everyday on the highway and railways and in the industrial park down the street.

---

Noone has said anything that you mentioned. EPA as the whole agency however has transformed itself into the far left/liberal/green movement extension w/ a badge. On the other hand, they also played into the big industry lobbyist (e.g. fraking issue). EPA needs to be scrubbed all together!! Cut off the cancer and restart w/ the original mandate!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey

Noone has said anything that you mentioned. EPA as the whole agency however has transformed itself into the far left/liberal/green movement extension w/ a badge. On the other hand, they also played into the big industry lobbyist (e.g. fraking issue). EPA needs to be scrubbed all together!! Cut off the cancer and restart w/ the original mandate!

---

I went back and looked at what was written and your right. Lately I have heard a lot of abolish the EPA and let business (ie corporations) run free!
What you are proposing is eliminating a law enforcement agency that is there to protect us from a very real threat. Perhaps starting from scratch is appropriate. If you think its going to self regulate your smoking crack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xring

I went back and looked at what was written and your right. Lately I have heard a lot of abolish the EPA and let business (ie corporations) run free!
What you are proposing is eliminating a law enforcement agency that is there to protect us from a very real threat. Perhaps starting from scratch is appropriate. If you think its going to self regulate your smoking crack.

---

As just like anything else... It takes time for the gunk/parasite to build up. If you think EPA can self regulate and clean up itself, well your crack is much stronger than mine. [Coffee]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey

As just like anything else... It takes time for the gunk/parasite to build up. If you think EPA can self regulate and clean up itself, well your crack is much stronger than mine. [Coffee]

---

I coul;d probably use some strong crack, but i think ill have a cup of cofee instead[Flower]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChunkyMonkey

Yes.. few samples..

The Clean Air Act: The EPA puts the first-year cost of each Title V permit at $46,500 and the pre-construction permitting program at $84,500 if you have more than 25 cows. [Bang][Bang]

Remember the dust pollution? If your farm's equipment produces dust, you may be in trouble with EPA

Shit license.. if you are selling your farm animal manure for fertilizer, you must fill out a few hundred pages of permit app per truckload. There is a claim that each truck load of manure costs 15 of man hour in EPA paper work.

Don't get me started on coal power plant, muffler shop regulation, and so on. I



It's CRAZY how they can get away with these w/o congress' approval.

---

Wouldn't it be smarter to fix what's wrong with the regulations than to simply kill the EPA? If you trust private industry to regulate themselves then you should look up "Cuyahoga River" and "Bhopal".

It seems that this thread has leaned toward the EPA issue so I will start there. First off since we as a nation are taking strides towards energy independence and getting off of foreign oil, does anyone know when the last refinery was built in the US? If you said 1976 you would be correct. The regulations in place make it not cost effective to build another, so basically it is not worth literally trillions of dollars in gas production potential to build another refinery. That should tell you something. Same with the nuclear industry, which I might add if you include all the nuclear deaths throughout its history, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl and TMI you will have less than half the radiation related deaths caused every year from fossil fuel sources. Government regulation boils down to picking winners through terrorizing the public.

That does not mean that regulation is not necessary, but holy crap as a utility plant operator and former nuclear power plant operator, there is not a single aspect that goes unregulated, or unchecked. Beyond the extreme financial costs to the utility that ultimately get passed to the consumer, do you have any idea how many people are working for or contract through the EPA? 18,000 full time, and another 18,000 part time or contractors. If we exceed on any emission, they know about it within the work week and contact us regarding the fine.

Now to address the other concern that I have with the OP. I think that there are many ways to fix the government. First off we need to give them a reason to listen to their constituent population. So they should be paid at a rate consistent with their approval rating. That way if you cater to special interest groups you don't get paid. This would fix the union problem that someone hit on earlier. Along with that make it illegal to receive any additional income from any source other than a pre-established source of income. This way they are motivated to get the largest group of people happy and will work for you. Second, it needs to be a position of service, not a career. You should not be able to do more than 8 years in the Senate, Congress, or the white house. There should be no retirement benefits whatsoever associated with any of these offices. You get elected, do your best, then go back to the job that you had before you were elected. We are not electing housewives or homeless people here, they should be captains of industry, the smart and motivated. With that I understand that compensation must be worth the stress and work involved, and would necessitate much higher base wages, but the savings through abolishing the golden parachute would more than cover it. But the job-title "professional politician" should be a criminal offense, a joke and a thing of the past.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danimal

It seems that this thread has leaned toward the EPA issue so I will start there. First off since we as a nation are taking strides towards energy independence and getting off of foreign oil, does anyone know when the last refinery was built in the US? If you said 1976 you would be correct. The regulations in place make it not cost effective to build another, so basically it is not worth literally trillions of dollars in gas production potential to build another refinery.

---

One, the current national debt is $16 trillion. The GDP is $15 trillion. Your claim that a single new refinery would yield trillions of dollars in gas production is simply ludricrous. The math doesn't add up. And evidently the oil companies have excess capacity to US needs, as the US has been a net exporter of gasoline since 2011.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danimal

Now to address the other concern that I have with the OP. I think that there are many ways to fix the government. First off we need to give them a reason to listen to their constituent population. So they should be paid at a rate consistent with their approval rating. That way if you cater to special interest groups you don't get paid. This would fix the union problem that someone hit on earlier. Along with that make it illegal to receive any additional income from any source other than a pre-established source of income. This way they are motivated to get the largest group of people happy and will work for you.

---

I want politicians to listen to their constituents, but I don't want them to just do whatever the people want. That's how stupid things like Prohibition and the War on Drugs get started. It is a fine line to tread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rucker61

One, the current national debt is $16 trillion. The GDP is $15 trillion. Your claim that a single new refinery would yield trillions of dollars in gas production is simply ludricrous. The math doesn't add up. And evidently the oil companies have excess capacity to US needs, as the US has been a net exporter of gasoline since 2011.

---

I am not stating a single refinery would instantly produce trillions. I am talking about its effective life production. The only reason that we export gas is because other European nations have screwed themselves even more and limited or eliminated their production. Or the fact that they geologically do not have easy access to any large oil reserves making it prohibitively expensive to ship it there just to be refined. We export because per gallon other places pay three times as much as we do. It is about maximizing the money that they can make per gallon of gas produced because they have limited production. That is why when one refinery has a shortage in production or an outage gas prices in California spike 40 - 60 cents a gallon. We are maxed on production and have been for a lot of years.

The system through regulation is the most inefficient bunch of crap that you can imagine. For example take the oil fields in North Dakota. There is only one refinery in ND and it is at max capacity. So they ship the oil via train to Texas instead of building another refinery. How much does it cost to ship millions upon millions of gallons of oil all the way across the country? Apparently less than the EPA regulated mandates, because the cost of building a refinery otherwise is relatively low compared to other industrial processes. Also another little fun fact, they are burning more natural gas there daily just to get rid of it, than is being consumed in the rest of the US in the same time period. It naturally occurs around oil and the best that they can do is burn it because of storage and export controls. It could reduce your electric and heating costs by 50%, but they cant afford to store, transport or refine it for use.

When I say trillions it is not an exaggeration, it is a very real figure. We really could cut the cost of a gallon of gas in half if we were to build a few more refineries. We could cut the cost of natural gas in half and then it would be cost effective to build more natural gas power plants because they could compete with coal production. The trickle down effect would be a phenomenal amount of money and jobs for the US.

Now along with that I completely agree that there are some requirements that need to be met in order to protect the country that we live in from being polluted and abused for profit. But the current system is hell bent on picking winners based on who pays the politician the most. Oh you think a pipeline down to the Texas refineries is a bad idea? When someone else would pay for it? Is is when you have foreign billionaires that would rather you buy their oil.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

I want politicians to listen to their constituents, but I don't want them to just do whatever the people want. That's how stupid things like Prohibition and the War on Drugs get started. It is a fine line to tread.

---

It is not a fine line at all. You are stating that you would rather have someone tell you what is best instead of listen to the people. That is not the right thing no matter what the issue. I understand your concern that there are mass hoards of dumb people out there, but at the end of the day a politician is elected to represent their constituent population, not rule them. Yes there would be things like prohibition that come up, but as a nation we realized that it sucked and fixed it a couple years later. Nothing is permanent. But you did bring up a very good point and it is something that I did not touch on for fixing the country. We need to fix out education system. Imagine a country where you could count on the average citizen to think for themselves and think rationally. It is possible, but our current public education system is geared to basically make a bunch of little robots that can not think for themselves, where educational standards are catered to the lowest common denominator. That would need to be fixed first because it is the source of all of this. Make smart people who elect smart leaders who make us all work together more efficiently and the money problem would be solved.

I fundamentally disagree with just about everything the OP said. Except getting rid of the TSA. That I agree with. Fuck the TSA. But I disagree because those programs need to disappear completely, not just be managed better.

EPA- It should be eliminated totally. I would cut it's budget by at least 10% each year until it is gone completely. During this time, EPA regulations would either disappear or the states, if they so choose, would take over the responsibility. Some of you guys sound like we either have an unconstitutional, overbearing EPA to protect us, or evil corporations destroy the environment. Because there's nothing in between, like states, responsible consumers, and the fact that everybody breathes the same air and drinks the same water. Do some people act stupid? Of course, but why does the federal government have to punish us all? The same "at least 10% a year reduction" would apply to all unconstitutional departments, including but not limited to education, energy, agriculture, HHS, etc. If you think they're such good ideas, they need to be constitutional amendments.

TSA- Fuck the TSA. [Mad]

Congress - I think repealing the 17th Amendment would go a long way toward fixing congress. It forces people to be engaged in local and state politics (unless they just don't care) and gives states representation in congress. I'm also all about term limits. I understand that if we have a good congressman or senator we want to keep him, but as long as congress exceeds their constitutional authority, something has to be done.

All welfare should be handled at the state level.

But again, these changes can't happen overnight. They would have to be transferred slowly and steadily from the national government to the states. We'd end up paying a lot more in state taxes, but I bet we could eliminate federal individual income taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

EPA- Some of you guys sound like we either have an unconstitutional, overbearing EPA to protect us, or evil corporations destroy the environment. Because there's nothing in between, like states, responsible consumers, and the fact that everybody breathes the same air and drinks the same water. Do some people act stupid? Of course, but why does the federal government have to punish us all?

---

Suprisingly i agree with you. The culture of inefficency, lifetime entitlement, and non practical purpouse is so epidemic to the federal ABCs that they are beyond reform. Their original mandatess would be better handled by the states. Of course the states would have to be given legal power to regulate that could not be challenged in other courts, otherwise they would just be overwhelmed by the corporations they would be regulating. In all liklihood the states laws would be decided by crooked politicians on the take to special interests.

"that everybody breathes the same air and drinks the same water. "

Disagree. The CEO of the hooker chemical company didnt live within twenty miles of love canal. The CEO of union carbide was not living in the slum outside the plant at Bhopal. The crooked politicians dont live next to the plants either. If the culture of managment is one of disregarding safety that culture will influence every employee. The recent coal miner deaths come to mind. If deregulation of environmental health and safety occurs leaving a vacumn the result will be as predictable as deregulation of the banking industry and elimination of glass steagal was. Regulation by well educated impartial efficent personel is neccesary to ensure safe communitys.

To sum up (again)

Yes goverment regulation stinks.

No the corporations can not be trusted to self regulate.

What needs to occur is a simaltaneous reduction of corporate and goverment power. That would allow less powerful enities (like the states) to regulate honest businesses in a efficent and impartial fashion thus allowing the ABCs to be disasembled without jepordizing health and safety. I never knew i was such a great science fiction writer.[Bang]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

I fundamentally disagree with just about everything the OP said. Except getting rid of the TSA. That I agree with. Fuck the TSA. But I disagree because those programs need to disappear completely, not just be managed better.

EPA- It should be eliminated totally. I would cut it's budget by at least 10% each year until it is gone completely. During this time, EPA regulations would either disappear or the states, if they so choose, would take over the responsibility. Some of you guys sound like we either have an unconstitutional, overbearing EPA to protect us, or evil corporations destroy the environment. Because there's nothing in between, like states, responsible consumers, and the fact that everybody breathes the same air and drinks the same water. Do some people act stupid? Of course, but why does the federal government have to punish us all? The same "at least 10% a year reduction" would apply to all unconstitutional departments, including but not limited to education, energy, agriculture, HHS, etc. If you think they're such good ideas, they need to be constitutional amendments.

TSA- Fuck the TSA. [Mad]

Congress - I think repealing the 17th Amendment would go a long way toward fixing congress. It forces people to be engaged in local and state politics (unless they just don't care) and gives states representation in congress. I'm also all about term limits. I understand that if we have a good congressman or senator we want to keep him, but as long as congress exceeds their constitutional authority, something has to be done.

All welfare should be handled at the state level.

But again, these changes can't happen overnight. They would have to be transferred slowly and steadily from the national government to the states. We'd end up paying a lot more in state taxes, but I bet we could eliminate federal individual income taxes.

---

Agreed.

You mention a few of the many, many things that should be done at the state or county level but are being handled by the feds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

I fundamentally disagree with just about everything the OP said. Except getting rid of the TSA. That I agree with. Fuck the TSA. But I disagree because those programs need to disappear completely, not just be managed better.

EPA- It should be eliminated totally. I would cut it's budget by at least 10% each year until it is gone completely. During this time, EPA regulations would either disappear or the states, if they so choose, would take over the responsibility. Some of you guys sound like we either have an unconstitutional, overbearing EPA to protect us, or evil corporations destroy the environment. Because there's nothing in between, like states, responsible consumers, and the fact that everybody breathes the same air and drinks the same water. Do some people act stupid? Of course, but why does the federal government have to punish us all? The same "at least 10% a year reduction" would apply to all unconstitutional departments, including but not limited to education, energy, agriculture, HHS, etc. If you think they're such good ideas, they need to be constitutional amendments.

TSA- Fuck the TSA. [Mad]

Congress - I think repealing the 17th Amendment would go a long way toward fixing congress. It forces people to be engaged in local and state politics (unless they just don't care) and gives states representation in congress. I'm also all about term limits. I understand that if we have a good congressman or senator we want to keep him, but as long as congress exceeds their constitutional authority, something has to be done.

All welfare should be handled at the state level.

But again, these changes can't happen overnight. They would have to be transferred slowly and steadily from the national government to the states. We'd end up paying a lot more in state taxes, but I bet we could eliminate federal individual income taxes.

---

Not to derail the thread, but I just want to point out there is one candidate for president who has laid out almost exactly this same strategy as his plan. . .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

Not to derail the thread, but I just want to point out there is one candidate for president who has laid out almost exactly this same strategy as his plan. . .

---

Yeah right. You're totally trying to derail the thread! [Tooth]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

Not to derail the thread, but I just want to point out there is one candidate for president who has laid out almost exactly this same strategy as his plan. . .

---

You're preaching to the choir here.

Your team needs to talk to the 90% of voters who want some form government intervention and who also think y'all are crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roberth

You're preaching to the choir here.

Your team needs to talk to the 90% of voters who want some form government intervention and who also think y'all are crazy.

---

LOL agreed. I have been talking to everyone I know when given the opportunity. Political discussions are strictly and officially verboten at my place of employment.

I'm starting to think I'm crazy for imagining I can convince anyone something different is what is necessary (see signature).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

I'm starting to think I'm crazy for imagining I can convince anyone something different is what is necessary (see signature).

---

Enjoy life. These are the good old days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

LOL agreed. I have been talking to everyone I know when given the opportunity. Political discussions are strictly and officially verboten at my place of employment.

I'm starting to think I'm crazy for imagining I can convince anyone something different is what is necessary (see signature).

---

Love you sig line! [Beer]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoneyBadger

Love you sig line! [Beer]

---

Yeah, I just noticed it the other day. It made me chuckle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

LOL agreed. I have been talking to everyone I know when given the opportunity. Political discussions are strictly and officially verboten at my place of employment.

I'm starting to think I'm crazy for imagining I can convince anyone something different is what is necessary (see signature).

---

You're not crazy, you'll just need a few generations to do it.

Remember, the leftists started their bullshit in the late 1800s IIRC and now their crap has a solid foothold in America and around the world. We have to work through that and it is going to be exceedingly difficult because the media will block our work at every turn.

BTW - Your sig line is spot on. In spite of that i'll continue to work within the system.

Quote:

---

“America is at that awkward stage: It’s too late to work within the system, and too early to shoot the bastards.”
-Claire Wolfe

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danimal

It is not a fine line at all. You are stating that you would rather have someone tell you what is best instead of listen to the people. That is not the right thing no matter what the issue. I understand your concern that there are mass hoards of dumb people out there, but at the end of the day a politician is elected to represent their constituent population, not rule them. Yes there would be things like prohibition that come up, but as a nation we realized that it sucked and fixed it a couple years later. Nothing is permanent. But you did bring up a very good point and it is something that I did not touch on for fixing the country. We need to fix out education system. Imagine a country where you could count on the average citizen to think for themselves and think rationally. It is possible, but our current public education system is geared to basically make a bunch of little robots that can not think for themselves, where educational standards are catered to the lowest common denominator. That would need to be fixed first because it is the source of all of this. Make smart people who elect smart leaders who make us all work together more efficiently and the money problem would be solved.

---

I think fixing the education system is a big one; we are dragging ass behind the other major nations, and they are simply laughing at us for it. There have been a lot of proposed fixes that have failed, and I can't think of anything that seems doable. Like most topics, I feel getting the federal government out of it is a good start; leave it to the States to see what programs work and which do not, but that is a hard row to hoe. So what do you guys think? How do we go about fixing our education system?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

I think fixing the education system is a big one; we are dragging ass behind the other major nations, and they are simply laughing at us for it. There have been a lot of proposed fixes that have failed, and I can't think of anything that seems doable. Like most topics, I feel getting the federal government out of it is a good start; leave it to the States to see what programs work and which do not, but that is a hard row to hoe. So what do you guys think? How do we go about fixing our education system?

---

Fixing our education system?

How about we start with holding students responsible for their performance. No more passing the problem on to the next teacher up the line until we have high school "graduates" that can't read or write the English language, or perform simple math. The whole "everyone is a winner" feel good bullshit is killing us. Keep score. Make it embarrassing to be last or lowest scoring. Make poor students repeat courses when they fail. At the same time, allow smarter/faster/brighter kids the opportunity to excel, moving on to new material as they show mastery, rather than boring them to distraction by making them plod along with the rest of their class. Return athletics to extracurricular status, so that participation is dependent on, and in addition to, academic performance. Abolish the federal Department of Education and teacher's unions, returning control of education to the states and local school districts.

Pay teachers what they are worth. Cut the middle level administration out of the school districts, and use those funds to boost salaries for teachers to attract a better quality of applicant.

Give the teachers and principals the ability to administer real discipline, perhaps reintroducing corporal punishment in some measure. Certainly, give teachers the power to bar students that are failing from participating in any and all extracurricular activities.

This is just a start. The difference between the Jeffco schools now, compared to 30-40 years ago when I was there, is astounding. Schools that used to be in the top 5% in standardized testing are now in the bottom 30%. Graduation rate for my senior class was 88%, currently the same school is graduating barely 70%, and half of those are functionally illiterate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irving

I want politicians to listen to their constituents, but I don't want them to just do whatever the people want. That's how stupid things like Prohibition and the War on Drugs get started. It is a fine line to tread.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danimal

It is not a fine line at all. You are stating that you would rather have someone tell you what is best instead of listen to the people. That is not the right thing no matter what the issue. I understand your concern that there are mass hoards of dumb people out there, but at the end of the day a politician is elected to represent their constituent population, not rule them. Yes there would be things like prohibition that come up, but as a nation we realized that it sucked and fixed it a couple years later. Nothing is permanent...

---

I don't want to put words in Irving's mouth, but I think what he was getting at (at least this is the way I took it) is the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy. If what the people want is unconstitutional, you don't (or shouldn't) enact a law just because that's what the majority of people want. You go through the amendment process. You took it as a negative whereas, if our elected representatives actually said "No, we can't do that" more often, it's actually a positive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

Return athletics to extracurricular status, so that participation is dependent on, and in addition to, academic performance.

---

Good points. The unions need to go, and so do participation awards. What positive can ever come from rewarding mediocrity and total failure? There are no participation medals in the real world. Kids are being done a disservice by this idiotic practice.

This is how it was when I went to school. I graduated in '96, so it wasn't all that long ago (or so I keep telling myself). I failed a six-week period of AP calculus and wasn't allowed to play or practice baseball (ran laps for an hour and a half instead), and wasn't allowed to go on the annual (vacation-type) trip to Corpus Christi with the band either. There were real consequences for not performing well in academics, and it was most certainly a badge of shame. I feel I learned a valuable lesson from it the hard way.

Corporal punishment in school ceased somewhere around 6th grade IIRC, simply because they weren't allowed to do it anymore. I'm not sure it's the place of the school staff to administer something the parents should be doing, but I was taught (physically) somewhere around 3rd grade not to throw rocks at the kids playing dodgeball. Of course, I got it again from Dad when I got home from school; double-jeopardy did not apply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

I don't want to put words in Irving's mouth, but I think what he was getting at (at least this is the way I took it) is the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy. If what the people want is unconstitutional, you don't (or shouldn't) enact a law just because that's what the majority of people want. You go through the amendment process. You took it as a negative whereas, if our elected representatives actually said "No, we can't do that" more often, it's actually a positive.

---

Agreed. I'm amazed at how many people still refer to our system as a democracy. That may be another failure of our education system.

I'd love to see a politician run on a platform of how many laws he repealed or vetoed as opposed to how many new ones he enacted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teufelhund

I think fixing the education system is a big one; we are dragging ass behind the other major nations, and they are simply laughing at us for it. There have been a lot of proposed fixes that have failed, and I can't think of anything that seems doable. Like most topics, I feel getting the federal government out of it is a good start; leave it to the States to see what programs work and which do not, but that is a hard row to hoe. So what do you guys think? How do we go about fixing our education system?

---

There are several very easy ways to completely fix our education system. First you have to identify the problem. It seems complex, but what it comes down to is individual accountability and the ability to be rewarded based on merit not just being an ass in a seat. There needs to be a voucher system where the family gets $x to send their child to school. Then it would be up to schools to compete to get the most students that they can so they would have a bigger budget to attract more students and so on. From there, there would have to be a performance based standard of which to rate schools by so that you could compare them. It would behoove schools to kick out trouble makers and pay teachers more based on their ability to teach children so that they would score higher on the standardized tests and attract more children to the school. This puts accountability where it needs to be. First the student is held accountable for their grades because it could lead them to be kicked out of their school if they perform poorly. Secondly it places accountability on the school administration to trim the fat from the budget and hire the best teachers that they can afford.

I know what you are thinking, and that is that it is not fair to kick out a child just because they have bad grades, but that is exactly the thought process that got us to this point. In life not everyone gets a ribbon. As a fall back there will still be the public school system, so there will still be an education out there equivalent to what is available now, but on average a much higher percentage of children will be able to go to school in a competitive environment that would prepare them for the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sharpienads

I don't want to put words in Irving's mouth, but I think what he was getting at (at least this is the way I took it) is the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy. If what the people want is unconstitutional, you don't (or shouldn't) enact a law just because that's what the majority of people want. You go through the amendment process. You took it as a negative whereas, if our elected representatives actually said "No, we can't do that" more often, it's actually a positive.

---

I see what you are saying and I agree to a point. Re-reading his post I see that is a possible direction of his response though it was not what I got from it when I first read it. But my argument still stands. Even though we had a majority of people that wanted prohibition initially, after it was enacted the flaws in what was done became very apparent. It was not long before it was overturned and we continued on our way. There will still be stumbling blocks along the way when you are taking the needs of 310 + million people into account. That is why it is so important that we maintain our system of checks and balances, and not give any branch or collective government too much power. There is no easy fix it all solution to make our country run smoothly, but as long as it is the will of the people that controls our collective vision we are a success as a nation, and a standard to which all other nations should strive to live up to. Our power as a nation comes from our ability to control our own destiny, not from a singular document (or an individual or government interpretation of said document), and certainly not from anyone telling us what is right or wrong against the majority.