Prosperous America

[maat55]

What is your formula for a prosperous America? How would you balance Government with personal responsibility? I will layout my ideal version and you can layout yours or critique.

We would have a flat/consumption tax, % and on what products would be determined based on national security needs and infrastructure and any other department needed nationally.
No other taxes(corporate, capital gains, income etc.), period.
No social security, medicare, disability, department of education, welfare.
Term limits limited to two terms with no retirement compensations.
Campaign finance reformed to government provision, no special interest money.
Balanced budget required.
Deficit, only in case of national defense(Self preservation) or national disaster. Must be repaid within ten years.
States will determine educational systems.
Government will determine legal migration, but states will deal with illegals as they choose.
States will decide environmental disputes first, and if necessary, then fed.
States will decide morality laws.
States will decide healthcare, labor, environmental, drug and energy regulations.
Federal Reserve would be abolished.

This would allow states to have the control they should have and limit the federal government to its basic form. States would compete for business and population, they would determine their own public assistance programs, educational criteria, labor laws etc.

[asmom]

States will decide morality laws.

Um, nope. Coming from Georgia I'm not really a huge fan of states' rights since they don't have a good track record in that area.

[disneysteve]

Sounds like you'd almost like to go back to colonial times when there were 13 independent colonies with no centralized government (not quite, but pretty far in that direction).

Abolish Fed Reserve: How would that work? Would each state be responsible for it's own monetary policy, printing it's own currency, setting it's own interest rates, etc.?

States determine their education systems: What happens to a kid who starts school in one state and moves to another? If states all have different systems and different curricula, that could be quite a problem. Also, would make it pretty challenging for colleges to evaluate applicants coming from 50 different school systems.

Morality laws: I'm not sure I want any government entity dictating morality, federal, state or otherwise.

[blankcheck]

What is your formula for a prosperous America? How would you balance Government with personal responsibility? I will layout my ideal version and you can layout yours or critique.

We would have a flat/consumption tax, % and on what products would be determined based on national security needs and infrastructure and any other department needed nationally.
No other taxes(corporate, capital gains, income etc.), period.
No social security, medicare, disability, department of education, welfare.
Term limits limited to two terms with no retirement compensations.
Campaign finance reformed to government provision, no special interest money.
Balanced budget required.
Deficit, only in case of national defense(Self preservation) or national disaster. Must be repaid within ten years.
States will determine educational systems.
Government will determine legal migration, but states will deal with illegals as they choose.
States will decide environmental disputes first, and if necessary, then fed.
States will decide morality laws.
States will decide healthcare, labor, environmental, drug and energy regulations.
Federal Reserve would be abolished.

This would allow states to have the control they should have and limit the federal government to its basic form. States would compete for business and population, they would determine their own public assistance programs, educational criteria, labor laws etc.

I think it's incredibly difficult to say that states are the ultimate line, with the Fed gov't barely holding things together, and expect to remain a nation. Sooner, rather than later, we'd end up with divisions amongst issues so broad that people will try to break off.

[wincrasher]

Wow,

A country with regressive taxation and where pockets of discrimination and hatred flourish.

I bet that the resulting disjointed educational systems, environmental regulations and transportation systems would be great for business!

Sign me up!

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I don't want government telling me either what is moral. I'm all for gay marriage but would prefer it be civil unions and marriage only in the church. Hence as an atheist heterosexual I had a civil union as well. Make it all just a legal binding agreement.

I also think that allowing individual education systems is going to be a problem. As well as regulation with healthcare, environment, migration. Hmm...so if you don't like Texas healthcare will everyone migrate to Wisconsin?

Same thing with monetary policy without a federal reserve.

I have no problem with consumption tax, but a more fair way would be a flat tax on everyone. No stupid deductions, etc. Everyone pays the same. And no stupid child credits.

[rizzmo]

I see only a few crucial items that need to be addressed to return us to a great nation.

First, corruption in government will not be tolerated. If an elected official is found guilty of corruption, it should be treated as treason would. Punishment should be death (or at the very least life in prison with no possibility of parole) and all of his family’s assets seized and redistributed back to the tax payers. Taking special interest money to get elected or after being elected would be treated as treason, that charge would also apply to the people trying to buy our official. A tax supported government run television station whose only purpose is serving to give equal air time to people running for a particular office. There would a predefined time period before the election for these messages. It would be instituted both on a local, state and national level.

Second, taxation as a whole would be overhauled. First and foremost, income tax would be eliminated and a consumption tax would be instituted. All other taxes would be eliminated. There would be a balanced budget each year.

Third, banking needs to be nationalized. There would be one “cash” bank and that bank would be controlled by the government. This bank would serve strictly as a “cash” bank. Every person would be issued an account with this bank and in turn be issued a “debit only” card. It would be free to transfer monies to any merchant, and it would cost the merchant nothing to accept payments. You could transfer between parties online or at approved terminals. The account would pay no interest, and charge no fees. Employers would be required by law to direct deposit to this account. Once the money is in the account people are free to transfer it wherever they think is best. The purpose of this is to eliminate physical cash, this fixes many of our current criminal problems: drugs, illegal immigration, prostitution, illegal gambling to name a few. Non nationalized banks would continue to exist as they are and would provided all the same services they currently do such as checking, money market, securities, investing, and lending. Lending as a whole would change as creditors would not be able to attach anything to this account or to your paycheck. Ideally this would help teach people to live with-in there means and restore the proper level of risk to lending.

Finally, government needs to end the social security program. This program makes no sense and was not sustainable even in the best of times. No suggestion on how to do this though.

[GREENBACK]

Term limits limited to two terms with no retirement compensations.

I'm not real crazy about term limits. If you have a person in office you don't like they're great but if you like the person they suck. I think as long as the person holding office can get re-elected they should be able to continue serving. If the vote indicates the people want them there then let that speak for itself. With proper campaign practices in place this makes the most sense....IMO.

[maat55]

Sounds like you'd almost like to go back to colonial times when there were 13 independent colonies with no centralized government (not quite, but pretty far in that direction).

Exactly. The whole purpose of the government was to adhere to national security and infrastructure needs. The states having more power would introduce greater competition and the ability for the people to be better involved in important matters.

Abolish Fed Reserve: How would that work? Would each state be responsible for it's own monetary policy, printing it's own currency, setting it's own interest rates, etc.?

Congress would print and control the money supply.

Thomas Jefferson:

If americans ever allow banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.

He was against fractional banking, as well. The founders believed that the currency should be coined and backed by gold and silver and issued in a way as to maintain its value. This is not occuring today.

States determine their education systems: What happens to a kid who starts school in one state and moves to another? If states all have different systems and different curricula, that could be quite a problem. Also, would make it pretty challenging for colleges to evaluate applicants coming from 50 different school systems.

Not all parts of the country have the same outlooks on education. I would think that certain studies would be universal such as: Math, Science(?), English. IMO, public education is inadequate for those with religious views. If the government cannot offer better options, education should be more localized and controlled by the states. The people would have the option to live in states they deem to be compatible with their views. But I agree it would be difficult to start.

Morality laws: I'm not sure I want any government entity dictating morality, federal, state or otherwise.

States should be able to decide on abortions and gay marriage separate from the fed. Hospitals and doctors should have the right to deny abortions as well.

[maat55]

I think it's incredibly difficult to say that states are the ultimate line, with the Fed gov't barely holding things together, and expect to remain a nation. Sooner, rather than later, we'd end up with divisions amongst issues so broad that people will try to break off.

With the way the fed is going, many will want to anyway. As bad as California is concerning social issues, the fed is bankrupting them. Last stats I saw, California recieves .78 cents for every dollar it sends to Washington. On top of this, the fed forces them to provide multiple services to illegal aliens.

[maat55]

I think it's incredibly difficult to say that states are the ultimate line, with the Fed gov't barely holding things together, and expect to remain a nation. Sooner, rather than later, we'd end up with divisions amongst issues so broad that people will try to break off.

With the way the fed is going, many will want to secede anyway. California, despite its social nature, is being bankrupt by the fed. Last I saw, they recieve .78 cents for every dollar they send to Washington. They are also forced by the fed to provide multiple services to illegal aliens.

[maat55]

Wow,

A country with regressive taxation and where pockets of discrimination and hatred flourish.

I bet that the resulting disjointed educational systems, environmental regulations and transportation systems would be great for business!

Sign me up!

The fair tax or a consumption based tax would be minimal on certain food, clothing and shelter. The poor could avoid taxes altogether if they tried(Flea markets and garage sales, craigslist etc.)

States should be able to drill for oil, mine coal, build nuclear plants without government red tape and taxes.

Transportation would mainly fall under federal control with certain powers left to the states.

[maat55]

I'm not real crazy about term limits. If you have a person in office you don't like they're great but if you like the person they suck. I think as long as the person holding office can get re-elected they should be able to continue serving. If the vote indicates the people want them there then let that speak for itself. With proper campaign practices in place this makes the most sense....IMO.

Would you be ok with the president being able to have unlimited terms? I personally like Jim Inholfe, but because longer terms, enable longtermers to hold powerful positions for long periods of time. Many of the positions in government need turnover as does the presidency.

[maat55]

I don't want government telling me either what is moral. I'm all for gay marriage but would prefer it be civil unions and marriage only in the church. Hence as an atheist heterosexual I had a civil union as well. Make it all just a legal binding agreement.

I also think that allowing individual education systems is going to be a problem. As well as regulation with healthcare, environment, migration. Hmm...so if you don't like Texas healthcare will everyone migrate to Wisconsin?

Same thing with monetary policy without a federal reserve.

I have no problem with consumption tax, but a more fair way would be a flat tax on everyone. No stupid deductions, etc. Everyone pays the same. And no stupid child credits.

With fifty states developing a healthcare system, one will develope a good one the rest can follow or improve.

Abortion is an issue that the fed should not control.

IMO, education could improve much like how healthcare would with competition.

The federal reserve is robbing the taxpayers and creating too much volatility in the economy.

[disneysteve]

Abortion is an issue that the fed should not control.

I agree with you there, but it is also an issue that states should not control either.