How would we fix this "United States of America?"

[Cynthia]

Now that we discussed your political views, how would YOU propose to fix this United States of America?

What in your opinion can be done to make it better? Please note, this isn't about who is right or wrong, simply what you think should be done. Don't down on someone's idea.

Personally, I don't think there is anything that can be done. Everything is a double edged sword really. Make the rich pay more taxes and it's not fair that they should pay more because they make more, don't and it's not fair that the poor are paying for everything. All we can really do is improve things enough to keep people from bitching as much, but in reality, there shall never be a utopia. Not a reason to not try, but at the same time it's a never ending fight. What 1 person thinks is right, another will not. So basically it'll be this constant fight of making laws and other parties trying to overturn them, really though hasn't that been what it always was? One person makes a law or decision and another disagrees and tries to overturn it? Ironically rebellion which most associate with chaos is the only way to achieve logical freedoms and humane order. If no one disagreed we'd still have slavery and there would be no elections because everyone agreed on who should lead.

What about you? What is your idea of how we should "fix" this country? Some of the problems being: Health care, the national debt, and overall morality of the people. There's tons more but I don't feel like listing them.

[Jyosua]

I say abandon ship, and join me in creating a large, manmade island in the Atlantic, and declare it a country. :)

By the way, in case you're wondering, I really do want to make a large manmade island and do this. It would be interesting :3

[Raven]

Move to Wales. Seriously. I will take care of you all. Somehow. <3

[Meteor]

Force our politicians to actually read the bills before they vote on them.

[Gordon Freemeow]

Well I'm not one for telling your country how to handle itself. So I'll leave it at that. Economic problems are all over the world this is true, however I believe America was hit the hardest. We're not so bad over here in Scotland, so I don't think there's much that needs fixing.

Personally, I never trust the bloody government, and I don't like law enforcement. So naturally I'd say just to destroy it all, as when there is a government power, there will always be abuse, and oppression of some sort. Limitations of what we can and can't do. The alternative though is probably chaos, as people can not function in large groups without some kind of leadership. So really there's no solution to that. I don't want the government in charge, but I don't like the alternative either, if that makes any sense? It's a losing battle I suppose.

I still hold strong to my strong "fuck all police" stance though. This country needs better law enforcement.

[California Mountain Snake]

Force our politicians to actually read the bills before they vote on them.

Unrealistic. Hundreds of thousands of pages worth of bills go through the legislature each year, and even with full time staff reading and briefing a politician, no one can ever process it all. This is why parties exist: rather than hundreds of people rereading the same thing as everyone else, politicians become experts on a few subjects (One major and two minors is the phrase often bandied about), and become the cue givers for their party on those bills, letting others in the party know where they stand. Making 500 people into mediocre analysts on each bill is infeasible and inefficient; it is much better to have a few dedicated experts on a subject in the legislature than a bunch of undereducated dilettantes.

The notion that this country is "broken", especially when compared to any other country in the world, is deluded. There are definitely places that need to be worked on, but in no sense do I think the US has ceased functioning. Obviously we still have the world's largest GDP, high wages, and all the other features of the most advanced countries on Earth.

If I had a magic wand and the ability to change a key structure in the US government, I would probably get rid of the Senate, since all it does is favor rural populations disproportionately and with it a political view that does NOT represent the majority of the population. It also violates the "One person, one vote" system by giving people from rural states way more representation than they deserve. In my state of Vermont, a Senator represents about three-hundred thousand people, whereas Barbara Boxer of California represents nearly 18 million. It's unfair and backwards, and was a system made in the days when the US felt it had to capitulate to the South and powerful land owners, and now that those days have passed it needs to go away.

Every democracy has the power to right itself, and so can the US , it just needs time, and it needs people who want to gut the system to sit down and shut the fuck up because they aren't helping.

[Gordon Freemeow]

Force our politicians to actually read the bills before they vote on them.

Unrealistic. Hundreds of thousands of pages worth of bills go through the legislature each year, and even with full time staff reading and briefing a politician, no one can ever process it all. This is why parties exist: rather than hundreds of people rereading the same thing as everyone else, politicians become experts on a few subjects (One major and two minors is the phrase often bandied about), and become the cue givers for their party on those bills, letting others in the party know where they stand. Making 500 people into mediocre analysts on each bill is infeasible and inefficient; it is much better to have a few dedicated experts on a subject in the legislature than a bunch of undereducated dilettantes.

The notion that this country is "broken", especially when compared to any other country in the world, is deluded. There are definitely places that need to be worked on, but in no sense do I think the US has ceased functioning. Obviously we still have the world's largest GDP, high wages, and all the other features of the most advanced countries on Earth.

If I had a magic wand and the ability to change a key structure in the US government, I would probably get rid of the Senate, since all it does is favor rural populations disproportionately and with it a political view that does NOT represent the majority of the population. It also violates the "One person, one vote" system by giving people from rural states way more representation than they deserve. In my state of Vermont, a Senator represents about three-hundred thousand people, whereas Barbara Boxer of California represents nearly 18 million. It's unfair and backwards, and was a system made in the days when the US felt it had to capitulate to the South and powerful land owners, and now that those days have passed it needs to go away.

Every democracy has the power to right itself, and so can the US , it just needs time, and it needs people who want to gut the system to sit down and shut the fuck up because they aren't helping.

I think the mate is using the term "fix" to associate with the propaganda that people are saying America is "broken", thus why it's in quotations.

Unless of course you were responding to that propaganda.

Edited August 25, 2009 by Gordon Freemeow

[Celice]

I'm actually about ready to leave the country myself. Too many fucktards are clogging up the damn place. That won't get "fixed" until the generation dies off.

[Raven]

I still hold strong to my strong "fuck all police" stance though. This country needs better law enforcement.

I can understand why you're pissed with the law. I think your problems and hate lies with the law itself, and not the enforcers of the law.

[Phoenix Wright]

The notion that this country is "broken", especially when compared to any other country in the world, is deluded. There are definitely places that need to be worked on, but in no sense do I think the US has ceased functioning. Obviously we still have the world's largest GDP, high wages, and all the other features of the most advanced countries on Earth.

Those are my thoughts.

Personally, I never trust the bloody government, and I don't like law enforcement. So naturally I'd say just to destroy it all, as when there is a government power, there will always be abuse, and oppression of some sort. Limitations of what we can and can't do. The alternative though is probably chaos, as people can not function in large groups without some kind of leadership. So really there's no solution to that. I don't want the government in charge, but I don't like the alternative either, if that makes any sense? It's a losing battle I suppose.

Not possible. A government is needed to run a country. Trust me, if everyone was permitted to do whatever they want, people would gather and pick the "best" to have leadership. It's obviously happened already.

Oh, and to add on to America's "problem," at least we're not one of the worst countries in the world. Honestly, with such a big country with a birth of only a few hundred years ago, I'm pretty sure we're going to have some problems.

Note: Just so I'm not bitched at, that link isn't proof in the slightest. It's totally subjective. lolNorthKorea

Edited August 26, 2009 by Old Snake

[Meteor]

Hundreds of thousands of pages worth of bills go through the legislature each year

You don't find that ridiculous? How many of those pages are even worth reading?

[Agro]

Make the rich pay more taxes and it's not fair that they should pay more because they make more, don't and it's not fair that the poor are paying for everything.

Statistically speaking both are paying the same amount if taxes are equal.

[quanta]

Unrealistic. Hundreds of thousands of pages worth of bills go through the legislature each year, and even with full time staff reading and briefing a politician, no one can ever process it all. This is why parties exist: rather than hundreds of people rereading the same thing as everyone else, politicians become experts on a few subjects (One major and two minors is the phrase often bandied about), and become the cue givers for their party on those bills, letting others in the party know where they stand. Making 500 people into mediocre analysts on each bill is infeasible and inefficient; it is much better to have a few dedicated experts on a subject in the legislature than a bunch of undereducated dilettantes.

If someone doesn't have the time to read/skim what they vote on, then maybe things should be written in a shorter less verbose manner (without stupidly large amounts of amendments tacked on at the end) or they should stop being lazy. They don't need to read every bill all the way through, but they could at least skim most of it and have a few standards in terms of being concise and simple when writing law. I can probably read 300 pages in four hours (if I skim it could be more, but eh). That's 1,500 in a week assuming a five-day workday where I devote half my time to reading stuff, which leads to 75,000 pages each year if I work 50 weeks. Shave off 25,000 for variation and safety and such for about 50,000 pages a year (which is about 137 pages every day of the year if you want to do it that way). I doubt I could do that instantly with law, but I have no practice doing this (whereas many congressman are or were lawyers) and I don't see any reason why every bill has to be written in the most obscure english possible. Furthermore, I have high doubts that this much bullshit is even necessary for good government. If you can't read or skim most of it then debate it in a given year, then the answer is simple, focus on increasing the quality of work and reducing the volume.

I might be criminally insane in the sense that I come from a background where it is expected of you that you understand what you are doing or go learn it if you don't know, and it is in fact gold standard for your work to be reviewed by your peers (and I mean many and in a constantly ongoing process, not just a few people once, which is what you seem to say ought to be the case). But I'd argue everyone else is clearly in the insane group, not me.

And no, I'm not saying everyone has to be an expert in patent law, criminal law, economics, science, national defense, etc. They just have to grasp some core principles and at least skim the big stuff they plan to vote on themselves. With the addition of advisers and such, it really shouldn't be impossible. Scribble a few short notes and a page reference if anything important or confusing jumps out then have lackeys go do some more in-depth work. Just focus on the big picture. Some stuff will go faster and some slower, but on average I don't think 50,000 pages of stuff each year is either unreasonably high as a workload or unreasonably low as the amount of writing that should go into laws each year (if anything, that's still a bit much in my mind if it's all solid text). Of course, there will be variation between individual congressman as well, but this is just my rough level of what I feel would be reasonable.

[Lux Aeterna]

I'm actually about ready to leave the country myself. Too many fucktards are clogging up the damn place. That won't get "fixed" until the generation dies off.

... Would that include me...?

Anyway, usually I have a positive attitude toward such things, but it's hard when the US has messed up many times over. Can it be fixed? I'm not so sure... But I think on the tax issue people should pay equal. In percentage, that is, because I wish no malice to the poor, but the rich should not have to pay more for making that money.

[General Spoon]

Fixing the country should start with smaller, yet still effective, things. Like getting people to stop leaving their damn cigarette butts everywhere, or switching us to the metric system, or even something as simple as reducing corruption in the government.

Edited August 26, 2009 by Miror B.

[California Mountain Snake]

If someone doesn't have the time to read/skim what they vote on, then maybe things should be written in a shorter less verbose manner (without stupidly large amounts of amendments tacked on at the end) or they should stop being lazy.

The bills have to be long because if they aren't absolutely clear, then the executive branch will "interpret" the bill in whichever way it pleases, and if a bill doesn't nullify every previous law which affects it, then the judicial branch can overrule it. Long bills are part of the turf wars which protect the legislature from encroachment upon its power. Bills used to be much, much shorter, but this was in general in a time before we had such polarized politics and the president would act in good faith to interpret the bills passed up to him.

[Phoenix Wright]

Anyway, usually I have a positive attitude toward such things, but it's hard when the US has messed up many times over.

America doesn't have to be the center of attention. We aren't the only country that fucks up from time to time.

Fixing the country should start with smaller, yet still effective, things. Like getting people to stop leaving their damn cigarette butts everywhere, or switching us to the metric system, or even something as simple as reducing corruption in the government.

lolMetricSystem.

You mean littering? That's already a law here in California. What you should be asking for is better enforcement, right? Then again, "good" cops are trying to get REAL criminals, they can't always waste their time giving a $500 fine to someone who dropped a cigarette butt.

That isn't simple. Money isn't a simple matter. Ever since currency has been invented, people were being bought off.

[Celice]

That isn't simple. Money isn't a simple matter. Ever since currency has been invented, people were being bought off.

For an exact effect, reference 'Saturn Devours His Son.'

Edited August 26, 2009 by Celice

[quanta]

The bills have to be long because if they aren't absolutely clear, then the executive branch will "interpret" the bill in whichever way it pleases, and if a bill doesn't nullify every previous law which affects it, then the judicial branch can overrule it. Long bills are part of the turf wars which protect the legislature from encroachment upon its power. Bills used to be much, much shorter, but this was in general in a time before we had such polarized politics and the president would act in good faith to interpret the bills passed up to him.

This is a great story, but I don't buy it for a minute. What about "King Andy"? Andrew Johnson's Presidency (hello record for overridden vetos)? Alexander Hamilton undercutting John Jay when he went to negotiate with Britain? Or "Ma ma, where's my pa?" "Gone to the white house, ha ha ha"?

It's not even vaguely true that things used to be so much better and the executive branch somehow behaved in better faith or that politics was "less polarized". Hello? Civil War?

Furthermore, clarity does not come from length. The more you write, the more legal loopholes you create. Heck, a lot of loopholes in law are intentional (or more accurately they are intentional exceptions for one party which can easily become unintended loopholes for a different one).

Christ, how many pages is the entire constitution? Not that many by today's standards, and yet it's the core legal document of the nation.

Besides, I allowed for 50,000 pages each year (which is already a stupidly large amount yet manageable). Dedicate a few hours every day, and it can be done. Want to write more out of some idiotic desire to protect your turf (despite the fact that no amount of length will change the fact the executive branch will do what it damn well pleases and the judicial branch will overrule things anyways)? Then read more or only vote on the things you read.

[Guest T DeJames]

We are one nation. We have the right to do right in the world for we are many who are one. We are descended from those who came before and sacrificed all for a chance to be free. We are descended from those who were taken from their home land, and forced to work in this nation. We are descended from those that had nowhere else to go and sought nothing but safety. We are the children of the great ones who for one reason or another came here, mans last bastion of hope. We know that deep in our hearts that what is sometimes good for the people is not what is best for this country. We must learn to sacrifice if we are to honor those that gave so much for us. We must do more if we are to leave behind something for those that come after…This in no way pushes one side or the other as I have lost all hope in our elected officials to do what is best for this country. It will be up to the many who are one, as it has always been.

[Suichimo]

I'd do a few unpopular things and some that I'd hope would be met with more praise.

One thing I'd do is actually raise the tax. The media and politicians are always going on about all this money we're spending and where we are going to get it. Personally, get it from the people. I completely agree with Alexander Hamilton when it comes to debt. A little is good for you, it gives a reason for other countries to want you to succeed. However, we should be paying for it ourselves and I'd rather be in debt to myself than someone else. Of course, if I did that, I might be painted a dictator or something knowing today's media.

Public transportation improvements. I don't see why people don't take action on this. We want to save oil, protect the environment, etc. Get rid of a good amount of personal vehicles, not all as they're still needed. Take a look at options. To me, the best would be buses for in town travel and trains for out of town travel. We already use buses in larger towns and I think they could be fairly well adopted in smaller towns as well. After that, we already have an extensive railroad system in place. Why the hell are we mainly using it for shipping? Go down to the riverfront in my town and you'll see quite a few tracks. We used to have passenger trains going through, before I was born though. I'm certain we're not the only town like that and there are probably quite a few more. I think this would do extremely well to help out our economy.

As for the energy issue associated with it. We've seen some solutions that could work. Wind energy to power towns, etc. The basics of my idea for this is to first fund the little guys who discover the different methods. Don't let the large oil companies drown them just to keep themselves afloat. Give incentives to the people who are behind the new technology and protect them. From there, take that technology and work it into our country. Too many people think there is an instant fix for this when an instant fix would just royally screw us. We need to gradually incorporate whatever new energy source we get into our country over a period of time. My basic time period is about 30 years with the first 10 years introducing and perfecting the new source, the next 10 years adapting the country to it and setting up whatever areas are needed, and the last 10 years used for phasing out fossil fuels and all of that. Its probably not perfect but, as I mentioned, its just a basic idea.

Internet infrastructure improvements. This is mainly one of my personal issues but I still think its important outside of that. We have just about 3 months until we are a full decade into the new millennium. Why is dial-up still part of our vocabulary? Why is the only option for internet service in a good part of rural areas limited to satellite and dial-up? We're putting up 4G wireless and fiber optic landlines in the areas with the densest populations but we can't get the basic "real" high speed internet out into rural areas?

Here is a small anecdote. I live in Keokuk, Iowa. Specifically, I live about 3-4 miles outside of Keokuk, Iowa. Keokuk is serviced by a few different high speed services, Qwest and Mediacom are the two that jump at me. I have absolutely no option other than horrendously slow dial-up and extremely restrictive satellite internet. This satellite internet is a 1.5 mbps connections that has a rolling 17GB download limit, is worthless for any kind of online play, and generally goes out whenever it even starts to sprinkle. If we go over the 17GB limit the speed is reduced to sub-dial-up and is basically unusable. We pay $80 monthly for this service. The comparable plan from Qwest, literally the same just without the downsides, is $20 monthly from Qwest. Why haven't we switched? Because Qwest only offers dial-up out here and the satellite internet company is virtually unopposed. I was told this by someone who works for Qwest. My town, about 11.5k people, is honestly being weighed against towns like Phoenix, Arizona, a town of about 1.5 million, when it comes to internet expansion.

This should not be how it is ten years into the new millennium. The internet is an extremely important resource and should be easily accessible to anyone. The thing that makes this even crappier is that we used to be the #1 when it came to the internet, now I think we've dropped down to something like #37.

I say abandon ship, and join me in creating a large, manmade island in the Atlantic, and declare it a country. :)

By the way, in case you're wondering, I really do want to make a large manmade island and do this. It would be interesting :3

I remember hearing something similar to this, a manmade island, a few years ago. I think they were going to take it across the ocean or something. I don't remember.

If I had a magic wand and the ability to change a key structure in the US government, I would probably get rid of the Senate, since all it does is favor rural populations disproportionately and with it a political view that does NOT represent the majority of the population. It also violates the "One person, one vote" system by giving people from rural states way more representation than they deserve. In my state of Vermont, a Senator represents about three-hundred thousand people, whereas Barbara Boxer of California represents nearly 18 million. It's unfair and backwards, and was a system made in the days when the US felt it had to capitulate to the South and powerful land owners, and now that those days have passed it needs to go away.

We have something like that. Its called the House of Representatives and was created for the sole purpose of the larger states. The Senate is to give the smaller states a chance and the House is to give due to a states population.

[Lord Raven]

The Senate is to give the smaller states a chance and the House is to give due to a states population.

The point is so smaller states don't have that extra influence that they don't deserve. ~_~ Edited September 27, 2009 by Lord Raven

[Suichimo]

The Senate is to give the smaller states a chance and the House is to give due to a states population.

The point is so smaller states don't have that extra influence that they don't deserve. ~_~

So basically, the small states shouldn't have any real power in the government? A few of the larger states could basically shut down anything the smaller states wanted.

[Phoenix Wright]

You two are arguing over nothing. Both need a small revamp in their Checks & Balances.

Edited September 27, 2009 by Old Snake

[Jyosua]

The Senate is to give the smaller states a chance and the House is to give due to a states population.

The point is so smaller states don't have that extra influence that they don't deserve. ~_~

So basically, the small states shouldn't have any real power in the government? A few of the larger states could basically shut down anything the smaller states wanted.

That depends. If the issue is going to affect everybody, and it's in favor of the small states, the smaller states should be given a power in proportion to their population. If the issue is in favor of the smaller states, and won't affect anyone but them, then they should be given equal representation. However, that brings up the case in which the issue affects everybody, but is just downright unfair to the smaller states. In that situation, I think there should be a sort of panel of judges to decide if that is the case, and if it is, give the smaller states equal representation. Those are just my thoughts though, and this will never happen as it would require a major reconstruction of the government. And hey, if I can't even run an internet forum, what do I know about government?