General Music Chat

Number Six. A cap would be put on all government jobs. For instance: Senators and congressmen could make about as much as upper middle class, say 90k a year. The pres and vice pres about twice that. Any expense accounts would be scrutinized by CPSA's (Certified Public Servant Accountants, this would be a good job for the no longer needed IRS workers) and any unnecessary expenditures would come out of the individuals income.

hell yes


And colors-

I'd rather have an affordable socialist system of medicine that is "by the people, for the people" than the current quagmire of 'for profit' health care that is anything but "care"...

I look at it like I do the public school system - there's still 'for profit' private schools for those who wish to buy a better education (or social status) and healthcare should be no different.

Public parks are socialist, so are libraries, many recycling programs, and PBS. Pure socialism is bad, but so is pure democracy, pure capitalism, etc... it's all about balance and something we haven't had since carter... : OVERSIGHT.

All I can say is that in 1776, a group of people decided to fight against being oppressed by a government-whose only concern was feeding the power of the government. 233 years later, it's the same thing all over again. If I was in charge, I'd let loose of the reigns and watch anarchy ensue!

Well, maybe not. Might be fun, though.

Most of what is being discussed here resemble the Government structures that are now active in the countries like Canada and France.

Hey, I'm just an old hippie with old hippie ideas.
Right is right and wrong is wrong. If everybody figured that out and understood that if everyone tried to do right, it would benefit themselves as much as everyone else. We can all at least dream of Utopia.

What's socialist about that?

Everyone would have the same health insurance

I'm just reading what you guys wrote. Sounds socialist to me.

I would prefer to if everyone had access to health care; I think children not having access to health care speaks very poorly of us as a leading nation.

But the idea of everyone having the *same* health care bothers me. Where is the incentive to be the best when the government is handing out "the same" to everyone? And I don't just mean health care - I mean that in the broadest, socialist sense.

What makes our country great is the freedom we have to pursue our interests, excel at them, and reap the benefits of being tops in our field. If there is no benefit, what's the point?

I would set up a uniform program for helping others out. No more separate charities that may or may not be on the up and up.

Again, socialist. I don't want a uniform program to help people out. Maybe I don't want to help people out. Or maybe I only want to help out certain people. Maybe there are breakthroughs that I want to see happen, so that is where I want my money to go.

What happened to free choice? Wasn't our country founded on that sort of idea? Freedom of choice? Freedom to think for ourselves?

One of the things I like about charities is that I get to determine where my dollars go to. If I want to put my money toward cancer research, I can do that.

I would cut all corporate ties. Election money would be raised by individual donations of no more than $1000 per voter.

There should be NO donations whatsoever allowed in elections.

Why? Why is this necessary? Again, what if I'm a well-to-do person and I want to invest $50,000 in a candidate's campaign because I really believe in that person?

What you two are proposing is just downright Un-American.

What do you want next? No rooting for sports teams anymore? I mean, c'mon...

What are you really trying to accomplish with this sort of idea anyway? What problem are you trying to solve? Are you trying to keep candidates from spreading lies about other candidates using massive television mud-slinging campaigns? Cutting the dollars isn't going to stop politicians from lying... And it certainly won't stop people from believing them either.

I can think of a half a dozen ways to make elections more fair, and none of them have anything to do with campaign financing.

No having to file a return, it would be automatic.

Do you understand how taxes work?

and it would be non-profit so doctors can get paid well AND patients can be treated properly and with respect.

If it's non-profit, how do the doctors get paid exactly? With what money? With your tax money? That's just a deferred, socialist payment scheme.

Remember your "stimulus" money? That's actually your money already... You gave that to yourself, and in doing so incurred a debt you will have to repay down the road. Money doesn't come from nowhere...

And being treated properly and "with respect" has nothing to do with money or how a doctor gets paid. That's a human issue between hospital staff and the patient.

Hospital staff are human beings, just like you.

And none of them is perfect either...

I say 'Funk The Government" , let the people live without all the BS. Im afraid the good times are almost over. I only hope that Bama jelly doesnt get to expensive to have with my peanut butter.


And its another day in Paradise !!!!

I would prefer to if everyone had access to health care; I think children not having access to health care speaks very poorly of us as a leading nation.

These are all just ideas, and some may be overcompensating for the problems we have now. Should be some middle ground. I'm not talking pure socialism by any means, but a little in the right places may work out better than you'd imagine.

But the idea of everyone having the *same* health care bothers me. Where is the incentive to be the best when the government is handing out "the same" to everyone? And I don't just mean health care - I mean that in the broadest, socialist sense.

What makes our country great is the freedom we have to pursue our interests, excel at them, and reap the benefits of being tops in our field. If there is no benefit, what's the point?

So we leave it alone, and all the poor children still don't have health care. What I proposed about the Welfare reform could also provide free healthcare to children with disabled parents, subsidize healthcare for parents with minimum wage jobs. And the working class that makes more money can buy whatever healthcare they choose, thus providing for higher end healthcare companies to be able to make more money. As in everything, there would still be a class difference, but at least even the poor would be covered without it being a total handout.

I would set up a uniform program for helping others out. No more separate charities that may or may not be on the up and up.

Again, socialist. I don't want a uniform program to help people out. Maybe I don't want to help people out. Or maybe I only want to help out certain people. Maybe there are breakthroughs that I want to see happen, so that is where I want my money to go.

What happened to free choice? Wasn't our country founded on that sort of idea? Freedom of choice? Freedom to think for ourselves?

One of the things I like about charities is that I get to determine where my dollars go to. If I want to put my money toward cancer research, I can do that.

If you donate money towards cancer research now, how do you know the money is going where you want it to? It may go to the organization that you want it to, but a lot of it ends up in the wrong pockets. Pharmaceutical companies are part of cancer research although a lot of them spend most of that money not finding a cure and paying off the FDA to release drugs that cause other ailments. Just like sending money for food to starving nations and most of it ending up in a corrupt government official from that country's hands. The reason I proposed what I did was to police these donations and making sure they go where they need to be. I know I'm saying "police" a lot, but I mean it in a good way. We are becoming such a police state that the very word notates something bad, but police can be a good thing if it does what it should and not what it wants.

I would cut all corporate ties. Election money would be raised by individual donations of no more than $1000 per voter.

There should be NO donations whatsoever allowed in elections.

Why? Why is this necessary? Again, what if I'm a well-to-do person and I want to invest $50,000 in a candidate's campaign because I really believe in that person?

What you two are proposing is just downright Un-American.

What do you want next? No rooting for sports teams anymore? I mean, c'mon...

What are you really trying to accomplish with this sort of idea anyway? What problem are you trying to solve? Are you trying to keep candidates from spreading lies about other candidates using massive television mud-slinging campaigns? Cutting the dollars isn't going to stop politicians from lying... And it certainly won't stop people from believing them either.

I can think of a half a dozen ways to make elections more fair, and none of them have anything to do with campaign financing.

I am trying to figure out how to stop corporations from buying the candidates. Colorsfade, are you well off enough to donate 50k to a candidate or are you just using that as an example of us wanting to take away your freedom to do so? Can you see that rich people and corporations being able to do just that takes away the freedom of poor people to have a say in a government that they need more than the wealthy? I'm enjoying throwing these ideas around and am glad that you and others see it as something important to debate over. I certainly don't have all the answers. I'm trying to figure out the fairest way for all concerned but, in some cases, it can't be both ways. So who do we look out for, the poor who need a voice, or the rich who have too much of one. All I'm saying is try to look at it from both sides. If you still feel the same way, more power to you and keep at it. As intelligent as you seem to be, it sure would be nice to have you trying to help figure things out, instead of just vetoing our ideas. Besides, this is all just conjecture anyway, so let's have fun and create the "perfect government".

No having to file a return, it would be automatic.

Do you understand how taxes work?

No. But I can see everyday how they don't work. I've seen in just the past few years how complicated they've made income tax returns. I used to be able to do my own, but now there's no way I can understand it, AND I USE THE 1040EZ form. This year, I used an online tax service, but went back and tried to do it myself, just to see what the difference was. Using online, I got back $365, but doing it myself, I would have been paying in. Why are they so complicated? So we will have to use a tax service and give our money away. Who does this help? Only the tax services. And you'll notice that if you go online to the IRS to have them do it (they used to for free), that link sends you to another service that you have to pay. Coincidence? I think not.
What I was suggesting is that we pay the same amount of taxes as always, but instead of getting it back (after all the red tape) next year, they hold on to it another year and draw interest to help pay off the national debt or whatever. Then the next year, we draw exactly what we paid in this year, without having to file and look for deductions and other loopholes to get more back. We get exactly what we paid in, just an extra year later, automatically. No stimulus packages to fool us into thinking we're actually getting something extra. I'd certainly go one year without a return if it meant that every year afterwards, I'd get back just what I paid in without having to file or pay someone to get back what's mine.

and it would be non-profit so doctors can get paid well AND patients can be treated properly and with respect.

If it's non-profit, how do the doctors get paid exactly? With what money? With your tax money? That's just a deferred, socialist payment scheme.

We never said it would come from our tax dollars. Non-profit doesn't mean free. Health insurance would still pay the hospital and the hospital would still pay the doctors. But let's get realistic about it. Aspirins don't cost $100 each, bandages don't cost $500 each, and rooms don't cost $3000 a day.

Remember your "stimulus" money? That's actually your money already... You gave that to yourself, and in doing so incurred a debt you will have to repay down the road. Money doesn't come from nowhere...

I didn't get one.

And being treated properly and "with respect" has nothing to do with money or how a doctor gets paid. That's a human issue between hospital staff and the patient.

Hospital staff are human beings, just like you.

And none of them is perfect either...

I agree totally. See, we can agree on some things.

and some may be overcompensating for the problems we have now. Should be some middle ground. I'm not talking pure socialism by any means, but a little in the right places may work out better than you'd imagine.

Overcompensation is a dangerous thing. I'd encourage you to think about problem solving in a different way.

So we leave it alone, and all the poor children still don't have health care.

I don't think the status quo is a viable solution.

I think these are complex issues with no easy solutions. For instance, I live next door to WA state. They have a problem getting good doctors to locate in WA because of the high cost of malpractice suits. Doctor's insurance premiums are extreme, so if they have a choice, they take a job in another state. Some legislators are trying to change that by curbing the amount of money that gets rewarded in a malpractice suit.

Now, I'm not advocating anything here - just informing. As a guy with friends and family who work in the medical profession, I understand what it means to 'practice' medicine, and how much of their lives these folks devote to the health care of others. I also understand and empathize with the losses some people suffer and how angry they can feel when they believe a hospital or doctor is responsible. It's a complex issue with no right answer.

Bottom line is, it affects insurances costs, and that affects health care in the broader sense.

but at least even the poor would be covered without it being a total handout.

An admirable goal that I hope the Obama administration can achieve.

If you donate money towards cancer research now, how do you know the money is going where you want it to?

How do you know the money you invest with a big broker goes where you want it to? After Enron took down Arther Anderson, and Berny Madoff's Ponzie scheme, it's a wonder anyone trusts anyone else with their money.

But is that a way to run a society? Without trust?

I'm all for oversight and stiff penalties for people who break the law with other people's money. You have to have stiff penalties to deter people, and you have to have oversight to police it. But beyond that - I prefer to allow the free market to answer the call.

I know I'm saying "police" a lot, but I mean it in a good way. [/quote

The other word is "oversight". And you have to have that. That is why Enron happened; not enough oversight. That is why the current housing problem happened; not enough oversight.

The bottom line is, if you don't oversee a free market, greedy people without ethics will run wild. So you have to have oversight.

But I would rather have a free market with oversight than no market and a government run agency. At least with a free market people have a chance to make a living and excel. If you're smart, outgoing, assertive, type-A personality or have a nose for business you can create a space for yourself in the marketplace and make a living. And really, I think owning and running your own business to fill a need in a free market is about as American as apple pie.

I am trying to figure out how to stop corporations from buying the candidates.

I'm not sure that's possible. Mainly because - that is what politics is. At some point, personal ethics has to come into play, and if it doesn't...

Anyway, I've got a lot more on this topic, but I'll save it for later.

Colorsfade, are you well off enough to donate 50k to a candidate or are you just using that as an example of us wanting to take away your freedom to do so?

Does it matter? What if I said I could donate $10k? Does that change things? Bottom line is you arbitrarily put a $1K limit on the donation. The number doesn't really matter; the only thing that matters is that you've put a limit on something. And in general, limiting Americans is a bad idea. We don't like fences... History has taught us that.

I'm trying to figure out the fairest way for all concerned but, in some cases, it can't be both ways. So who do we look out for, the poor who need a voice, or the rich who have too much of one. All I'm saying is try to look at it from both sides.

I always try and see things from ALL sides It's the only way to fully analyze a problem, which must be done before you can think about solutions.

If you still feel the same way, more power to you and keep at it. As intelligent as you seem to be, it sure would be nice to have you trying to help figure things out, instead of just vetoing our ideas. Besides, this is all just conjecture anyway, so let's have fun and create the "perfect government".

I gotta run, but I'll bring some ideas later in another post

Hey, ColorsFade, in our new "government" you can be Surgeon General.
We'll let you figure out the medical stuff. I absolutely know nothing about it.

Did some one say ANARCHY ? HeHeHeHeeeeee

Nah, Sans. Just TOTAL reform. Starting from the top down.

I am afraid it has gone too far.
I believe there can be no reform without bloodshed.
I pray I am wrong.

Sans- you got that one in before I could post this one. Bloodshed. Well Hopefully not nukes and we all die..

What I was gonna say was:

Good thread y'all. I'm just pissed because I don't know if I'm going to see a cent of all that money I put into "social security" or, social insecurity, as I like to call it .. argh.. It was a LOT out of each paycheck, (as we all know) for many years. I got a letter from the ss adminiatration the other month (anybody else get one of these?) saying that as the baby-boomers go into retirement the administration will basically be "paying out more than they're receiving in" and to not expect to see as much money as they promised earlier on. Where did all my money go?!?! Rhetorical question, I suppose.. lol .. dammit.. Good luck with your perfect government, and I hope you can fix this problem too..

We'll just hire all the Bandmix musician's to put together one big band for the inaugural ball and pay you enough to retire on.
VOTE FOR US!!!!!

Now your talkin !!