What are the top 10 things you want the government to do?

[Darkness]

I am a fervent supporter of what has become know as Franklin Roosevelt's Second Bill of Rights:

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

It's completely about the individual.

No, its about the society. The individual would not be able to survive without all of the other members of the society. You wouldn't be able to make a dime of that money that you think you made all on your own unless there were people to provide for all of your other needs. There are people who defend you, provide your power, make your clothes, grow your food, educate you, pave your roads, make the things you buy in the store, run the stores that you buy stuff from, etc. The Dalai Lama once said that humans are the dominant species not because we are the strongest or the fastest, but because we cooperate with each other. The society is key to all our survival. Society makes life for the individual, makes it possible for the individual to accumulate resources, and society has the right to redistribute the individual's resources for the good of society. Society is strong when it has the greatest number of healthy, educated, empowered individuals. When resources are distributed in a manner that allows the greatest number of such individuals to exist, then that is a just society.

 

[Magic Man]

Thanks, Darkness. I'm with FDR.

 

[dust1n]

Though I doubt it would make a difference to you, but I was simply wanting to you anwer the question.
Sorry for the annoyance, though - rough day.
Anyways, let's try a different approach. Because there are many reasons I have. Why should everyone not be taxed equally? This is what we've been for hundreds of years, right? Everyone wants to be treated equal. Now an unfair way to tax equally would just be to make everyone pay the same amount. $20,000, every person, every year - hand it over! But my logic does take into fact that everyone makes a different amount of money. I am not suggesting a harsh percentage for the poor to pay. You say you pay 15%? Let it stay 15%. But let it be 15% for everyone?
The thing is, though, this could not work until we get rid of the deficit. With a balanced budget, 15% (or close) for everyone should be enough.

Ok. Well we don't have a balanced budget. And 15% could theoretically work in the olden days, but we certainly wouldn't not have any of the public luxuries we enjoy today. We would have to have virtually no war budget at any point in time. The government probably wouldn't end up having enough funds for much of anything, and politicians will forever be influenced by the rich, who continuously grow richer for generations while the majority of people stay relatively the same.

And what do you suggest we do to get rid of the giant deficit until then? Will not the population double in a few decades?

 

[dust1n]

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world.

They seem so obvious when you read them.

 

[justbehappy]

Society makes life for the individual, makes it possible for the individual to accumulate resources, and society has the right to redistribute the individual's resources for the good of society.

Of course we have the right. We have the right to do anything, that's what freedom is. But is it our responsibility? No. Should we be forced to? No.
The reason society doesn't run in the perfect little manner you're suggesting is because people don't want it to be perfect. Some people don't want to live in peace and harmony and be nice to everyone, some people don't want to conform to the same reigion or dress as everyone else. Some people try to save every last cent while others buy everything they get their handson. But it's not society as a whole that keep it from running in perfect order, it's individuals. We chose what we want to do with our lives, we chose what we want to do with our money - as it should be.
Basically, the individual has the choice whether to do things for the individual or to do things for the society. Some will chose to only do things for themselves, some will chose to only do things for their friends and family, and some will do things for our country or for the world. But to say that we must act for the good of society - that's just not freedom to me.

 

[justbehappy]

We have accepted..

And why is this not in the Constitution then I wonder?

 

[justbehappy]

but we certainly wouldn't not have any of the public luxuries we enjoy today.

We would have more money to get our own luxuries. I think the government spends too much on unnecessary things (that we could be paying for ourselves) anyways.

We would have to have virtually no war budget at any point in time.

I believe we would. If need-be, though, we could collect more during hard war-times. We raise and lower taxes all the time, so it wouldn't be anything new. History has shown that our economy prospers after wars anyways.

The government probably wouldn't end up having enough funds for much of anything, and politicians will forever be influenced by the rich

Oh yes, this totally makes sense considering the rich currently pay the most...

who continuously grow richer for generations while the majority of people stay relatively the same.

So if it was enough, you STILL would not suggest it?? Do you have a problem with rich people or something? Because I do not see any justification for taxing the rich a larger percentage if the government funding was suffice.

And what do you suggest we do to get rid of the giant deficit until then? Will not the population double in a few decades?

I don't see an increase in population to be a problem. More people means more taxes coming in so it evens out. The problem is, we should not have ever been this deep in debt in the first place. And it will take a long time to get out of it, that's for sure. We have to cut funding. I would suggest a little at a time, and gradually more cuts at the economy gets better. But we can't in no way be spending more than we're getting.

 

[Darkness]

[/I]

And why is this not in the Constitution then I wonder?

Because the Constitution was adopted in 1787 and Roosevelt was born in 1882. :sarcastic

 

[doppelganger]

1. Term limits for all senators and congressmen.
2. Reasonable (and low) limits on campaign spending for government offices.
3. Prohibition of 527s and similar loopholes in campaign finance laws.
4. Require all paid lobbyists to register.
5. Require any visit by a registered lobbyist to a senator or congressman to be recorded in a log identifying the legislation or proposed legislation that was the purpose of the visit
6. Expand funding for enforcement of anti- public corruption laws.
7. Enact clearer and stricter regulations and guidelines for conflicts of interest for government regulatory agencies and their "consultants."
8. Making a constitutional distinction between a "person" who is actually a human and a "person" that is a collective organization or corporate body.


I'd be happy with those eight for starters.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

1) Dissolve the CIA
2) End policies of agression
3) Make A_E rich

... and everything else dopp said

 

[Darkness]

We would have more money to get our own luxuries. I think the government spends too much on unnecessary things (that we could be paying for ourselves) anyways.

Foreign aid and welfare are grossly underfunded.

I believe we would. If need-be, though, we could collect more during hard war-times. We raise and lower taxes all the time, so it wouldn't be anything new. History has shown that our economy prospers after wars anyways.

It is not that wars create prosperous economies, but that government expenditures raise GDP.

Oh yes, this totally makes sense considering the rich currently pay the most...

The rich pay 10 per cent more on their highest marginal tax bracket than someone making 70,000 USD with a family. President Reagan ruined this country by cutting taxes on the wealthiest and raising taxes on the middle-class, and now progressives have to fight like hell to regain all the ground we have lost.

So if it was enough, you STILL would not suggest it?? Do you have a problem with rich people or something? Because I do not see any justification for taxing the rich a larger percentage if the government funding was suffice.

I have a problem with the arrogance of rich people who think they are somehow more entitled to those monies than some dad who works two jobs to support his family, just because their grandfather built a business and they have been handed everything on a silver platter.

I don't see an increase in population to be a problem. More people means more taxes coming in so it evens out. The problem is, we should not have ever been this deep in debt in the first place. And it will take a long time to get out of it, that's for sure. We have to cut funding. I would suggest a little at a time, and gradually more cuts at the economy gets better. But we can't in no way be spending more than we're getting.

The first step is getting rid of that god-awful monster knowns at the Bush Tax Cuts. I suggest extending it for people making less than 150,000 USD for two years and then eliminating it completely. The Republican party has once against shown its truce face with the remarks of John Kyl and Mitch McConnell who believe that tax cuts offset themselves. Is there any doubt the Republican party exists solely to ensure the rich become even richer:banghead3?

 

[Magic Man]

1. Term limits for all senators and congressmen.
2. Reasonable (and low) limits on campaign spending for government offices.
3. Prohibition of 527s and similar loopholes in campaign finance laws.
4. Require all paid lobbyists to register.
5. Require any visit by a registered lobbyist to a senator or congressman to be recorded in a log identifying the legislation or proposed legislation that was the purpose of the visit
6. Expand funding for enforcement of anti- public corruption laws.
7. Enact clearer and stricter regulations and guidelines for conflicts of interest for government regulatory agencies and their "consultants."
8. Making a constitutional distinction between a "person" who is actually a human and a "person" that is a collective organization or corporate body.


I'd be happy with those eight for starters.

That would be an excellent start.

 

[justbehappy]

Because the Constitution was adopted in 1787 and Roosevelt was born in 1882. :sarcastic

Really? I'm not stupid. But amendments were created for a reason you know.

 

[justbehappy]

Foreign aid and welfare are grossly underfunded.

LOL there's nothing I can even see to the welfare part.... It's so untrue it's ridiculous. I wonder, do you come from an area where a large number of people received welfare?

The rich pay 10 per cent more on their highest marginal tax bracket than someone making 70,000 USD with a family. President Reagan ruined this country by cutting taxes on the wealthiest and raising taxes on the middle-class, and now progressives have to fight like hell to regain all the ground we have lost.

There's nothing wrong with cutting taxes for the wealthy, but doing so ALONG WITH raising taxes for the middle class I do not agree with.

I have a problem with the arrogance of rich people who think they are somehow more entitled to those monies than some dad who works two jobs to support his family

So it is a personal annoyance... I find that the case with a lot of Liberals. A complete assumption that they're all arrogant as well.

just because their grandfather built a business and they have been handed everything on a silver platter.

I do agree, BUT it's still the grandfather's choice, not yours.

Is there any doubt the Republican party exists solely to ensure the rich become even richer:banghead3?

I was looking for statistics on income compared to if you're a Republican or not, but this will do.
As for the Obama/McCain election in 2008, I think you would be surprised to know that the middle class was just as likely to vote Republican as they were Democrat, and people that made $200,000 or more were most likely to vote Democrat. Also, in the 2004 election, 42% of low-class people voted Republican. Republicans are truly not made up of just the rich, and the rich are not just Republicans. So, how can your statement be true then?

 

[Darkness]

Really? I'm not stupid. But amendments were created for a reason you know.

I'm just messing with ya. Don't take anything in this debate personally. I don't.

LOL there's nothing I can even see to the welfare part.... It's so untrue it's ridiculous. I wonder, do you come from an area where a large number of people received welfare?

Most of my friends and my families friends are middle-class.

Medicaid is about 8.3 per cent of the federal budget, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program 1.9 per cent, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 0.48 per cent, CHIP and other children's programs 1.26 per cent: aggregate equals 11.94 per cent. Meanwhile, our defence budget equals 20.3 per cent of the federal budget. I excluded Medicare and Social Security, even though they are considered welfare, because you pay into those to get a future benefit.

There's nothing wrong with cutting taxes for the wealthy, but doing so ALONG WITH raising taxes for the middle class I do not agree with.

When our relative poverty rate is at 13 per cent, there is a problem with cutting taxes for the wealthy.

So it is a personal annoyance... I find that the case with a lot of Liberals. A complete assumption that they're all arrogant as well.

I never said they were all arrogant.

I do agree, BUT it's still the grandfather's choice, not yours.

It should not be mine. It should be the choice of a democratic system to distribute resources as necessary (within reason).

I was looking for statistics on income compared to if you're a Republican or not, but this will do.
As for the Obama/McCain election in 2008, I think you would be surprised to know that the middle class was just as likely to vote Republican as they were Democrat, and people that made $200,000 or more were most likely to vote Democrat. Also, in the 2004 election, 42% of low-class people voted Republican. Republicans are truly not made up of just the rich, and the rich are not just Republicans. So, how can your statement be true then?

Three things. (1) I never claimed that rich people and/or middle-class people are more likely to vote Republican. All I claimed is that the Republican party seeks to make the rich, richer. I do not doubt the sincerity of grass roots Republicans. (2) I do believe there are many rich people who want a progressive future for America. (3) I learned that those making over 200,000 USD voted Democrat more than those making less than that in 2008, from my Introduction to Political Science Class, so I am not surprised.

 

[justbehappy]

Medicaid is about 8.3 per cent of the federal budget, Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program 1.9 per cent, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 0.48 per cent, CHIP and other children's programs 1.26 per cent: aggregate equals 11.94 per cent. Meanwhile, our defence budget equals 20.3 per cent of the federal budget. I excluded Medicare and Social Security, even though they are considered welfare, because you pay into those to get a future benefit.

Even though 11.94% doesn't sound like a lot, just think about how much we're talking. I knew kids in highschool that hide nicer clothes and phones than me and their mom/dad drove a nicer car than my parents, and they had federal aid of some form.

When our relative poverty rate is at 13 per cent, there is a problem with cutting taxes for the wealthy.

You were just saying 11.94% isn't a lot but now you're saying 13% is... Anyways, if the deficit was fixed, everyone could be taxed the same percentage.

I never said they were all arrogant.

But you said you had a problem with them.

It should not be mine. It should be the choice of a democratic system to distribute resources as necessary (within reason).

I don't know if I posted it to you or someone else, but I don't feel welfare is supported under the general welfare clause.

All I claimed is that the Republican party seeks to make the rich, richer.

But why would people who arn't rich care about that?

I learned that those making over 200,000 USD voted Democrat more than those making less than that in 2008, from my Introduction to Political Science Class, so I am not surprised.

Then why are they not voting Republican if they're just trying to get richer?

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

Of course we have the right. We have the right to do anything, that's what freedom is. But is it our responsibility?

Yes. Society is responsible to provide for itself the greatest number of healthy, educated, empowered people in order for society to be strong and ensure its survival. That is society's responsibility to the individual.

Should we be forced to?

Yes. Society has the right to compel the individual's benefiting from society to contribute the resources necessary for society to fulfill its obligation of producing healthy, educated, empowered citizens.

The reason society doesn't run in the perfect little manner you're suggesting is because people don't want it to be perfect.

It's because some people labor under the illusion that they are independent of society and do not see the multitudes of people that make their life possible.

Some people don't want to live in peace and harmony and be nice to everyone, some people don't want to conform to the same reigion or dress as everyone else. Some people try to save every last cent while others buy everything they get their handson.

?????????
We were talking about allocation of resources. I totally agree that everyone has the right to self-expression, and to do what they want with their own personal finances.

But it's not society as a whole that keep it from running in perfect order, it's individuals. We chose what we want to do with our lives, we chose what we want to do with our money - as it should be.

No argument here. The disagreement lies in how taxes should be levied and what responsibilities society and the individual have toward each other.

Basically, the individual has the choice whether to do things for the individual or to do things for the society. Some will chose to only do things for themselves, some will chose to only do things for their friends and family, and some will do things for our country or for the world.

Sadly, yes. That's the case in the United States at this particular moment in time. I hope the third group will continue to increase while the first group will decrease, but I doubt that will happen without compulsion. Fortunately, our government system contains the mechanisms to compel the first group to act responsibly, as the passage of the health care bill shows.

But to say that we must act for the good of society - that's just not freedom to me.

Maybe someday compulsory responsibility won't be necessary. Until then, I'll keep voting Democrat.

 

[justbehappy]

Yes. Society is responsible to provide for itself the greatest number of healthy, educated, empowered people in order for society to be strong and ensure its survival. That is society's responsibility to the individual.

Society cannot have a resonsibility to an individual because society is made up of individuals. And individuals only have a responsibility to themselves. They can help other individuals, but they don't have to. It is an individual choice.

Yes. Society has the right to compel the individual's benefiting from society to contribute the resources necessary for society to fulfill its obligation of producing healthy, educated, empowered citizens.

Society has no obligation to produce healty, educated, and/or empowered citizens. It's not a requirement, it's a desire, or a goal. And that is a HUGE difference.

It's because some people labor under the illusion that they are independent of society and do not see the multitudes of people that make their life possible.

No, they just don't live for the good of society is all. Freedom allows you to do that, you know.

I totally agree that ... and to do what they want with their own personal finances.

Apparently not.

No argument here. The disagreement lies in how taxes should be levied and what responsibilities society and the individual have toward each other.

The only responsbility I see individuals have to society is to follow its laws.

Fortunately, our government system contains the mechanisms to compel the first group to act responsibly, as the passage of the health care bill shows.

So we're going to control people now?? Whatever you think is 'responsible,' we MUST obey?? Freedom means we don't have to act responsibily! And the more freedom is taken away, the more we will be forced to do what other people think is right and not what we think is right. Do yu really want that??

Maybe someday compulsory responsibility won't be necessary. Until then, I'll keep voting Democrat.[/quote]
And I'll keep voting for the candidate that gives us the most freedom of choice.

 

[Internecivus Raptus]

Society cannot have a resonsibility to an individual because society is made up of individuals.

It's called the Social Contract. Society gives to the individual, the individual gives back.

And individuals only have a responsibility to themselves. They can help other individuals, but they don't have to. It is an individual choice.

Thankfully most people disagree with you.

Society has no obligation to produce healty, educated, and/or empowered citizens.

Society is obligated by the Social Contract, no matter what its particular form in each country, to produce such citizens.

No, they just don't live for the good of society is all. Freedom allows you to do that, you know.

As long as you're not part of a society.

Apparently not.

You must be talking about pre-tax money as opposed to after taxes...

The only responsbility I see individuals have to society is to follow its laws.

Exactly! and those laws say - pay your taxes.

So we're going to control people now??

That's pretty much what laws do, right? It's society's way of controlling people.

Whatever you think is 'responsible,' we MUST obey??

As long as the Democrats keep running the country, yes.

Freedom means we don't have to act responsibily!

You must be fun at parties...

And the more freedom is taken away, the more we will be forced to do what other people think is right and not what we think is right. Do yu really want that??

How do healthy, educated, empowered people threaten your freedom, unless you're Republican?

And I'll keep voting for the candidate that gives us the most freedom of choice.

See you at the polls...