|
|
|
|
#1
08-08-2007, 04:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
Put aside the practical considerations of setting this up for the moment. Would you be against a system where at the beginning of every financial year each citizen of a country got a list of the things that their government wanted to do along with their expected cost (and the amount they cost last year) The citizen would then choose which of the things he or she personally wanted to happen and ticked the various boxes. Then here's the thing. Your taxes would equal the total cost of the program divided by the number of people who tick the box to continue that program. You could even weight it on income if you a redistributor. For example you could have
Iraq War Full presence 100 billion y/n Some presence 50 billion y/n Token presence 1 billion y/n Enforcing gay marriage ban 100 million y/n Immigration Closed borders 10 billion y/n Strict limits 8 billion y/n etc etc So you make your choices then they send you the full bill and you could either choose to pay it or change some of your choices. If you like this idea what do you think the outcome would be. If you don't, why not? 
|
|
#2
08-08-2007, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
Put aside the practical considerations of setting this up for the moment. Would you be against a system where at the beginning of every financial year each citizen of a country got a list of the things that their government wanted to do along with their expected cost (and the amount they cost last year) The citizen would then choose which of the things he or she personally wanted to happen and ticked the various boxes. Then here's the thing. Your taxes would equal the total cost of the program divided by the number of people who tick the box to continue that program. You could even weight it on income if you a redistributor. For example you could have Iraq War Full presence 100 billion y/n Some presence 50 billion y/n Token presence 1 billion y/n Enforcing gay marriage ban 100 million y/n Immigration Closed borders 10 billion y/n Strict limits 8 billion y/n etc etc So you make your choices then they send you the full bill and you could either choose to pay it or change some of your choices. If you like this idea what do you think the outcome would be. If you don't, why not? [/ QUOTE ] The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL. It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation.
|
|
#3
08-08-2007, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Put aside the practical considerations of setting this up for the moment. Would you be against a system where at the beginning of every financial year each citizen of a country got a list of the things that their government wanted to do along with their expected cost (and the amount they cost last year) The citizen would then choose which of the things he or she personally wanted to happen and ticked the various boxes. Then here's the thing. Your taxes would equal the total cost of the program divided by the number of people who tick the box to continue that program. You could even weight it on income if you a redistributor. For example you could have Iraq War Full presence 100 billion y/n Some presence 50 billion y/n Token presence 1 billion y/n Enforcing gay marriage ban 100 million y/n Immigration Closed borders 10 billion y/n Strict limits 8 billion y/n etc etc So you make your choices then they send you the full bill and you could either choose to pay it or change some of your choices. If you like this idea what do you think the outcome would be. If you don't, why not? [/ QUOTE ] The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL. It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation. [/ QUOTE ] You could group them together people could ask for a reduced paperwork list if they wanted or hell you could have a set of Obama recommends this set of ticks, Bush recommends that set of ticks etc etc. If people don't want to think for themselves fair enough but it'll cost them.
|
|
#4
08-08-2007, 06:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Put aside the practical considerations of setting this up for the moment. Would you be against a system where at the beginning of every financial year each citizen of a country got a list of the things that their government wanted to do along with their expected cost (and the amount they cost last year) The citizen would then choose which of the things he or she personally wanted to happen and ticked the various boxes. Then here's the thing. Your taxes would equal the total cost of the program divided by the number of people who tick the box to continue that program. You could even weight it on income if you a redistributor. For example you could have Iraq War Full presence 100 billion y/n Some presence 50 billion y/n Token presence 1 billion y/n Enforcing gay marriage ban 100 million y/n Immigration Closed borders 10 billion y/n Strict limits 8 billion y/n etc etc So you make your choices then they send you the full bill and you could either choose to pay it or change some of your choices. If you like this idea what do you think the outcome would be. If you don't, why not? [/ QUOTE ] The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL. It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation. [/ QUOTE ] So, are you against it because you think people are not interested enough to take the time to fill it out and will throw it away and they will not be funding programs you want? Or do you not care that many might throw the forms away and the gov't might shrink considerably (assming the forms could be placed in everyone's possession right now) so would be for it regardless?
|
|
#5
08-09-2007, 12:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL. It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation. [/ QUOTE ] True. But then again, our representatives don't necessarily read the bills or reports either. On the Patriot Act -- landmark legislation that entails the most sweeping changes to our limitations on government in order to fight global war: Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote - at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." http://www.apfn.org/APFN/HR3162.htm On classified intelligence report justifying the need to invade a sovereign nation: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has once again raised the issue of whether members of Congress read a key intelligence report before the 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq. Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, according to "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton." For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the [intelligence report on Iraq]. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/...rss_topstories If they don't bother reading stuff of this magnitude, you think they bother staying informed and reading the petty stuff? The level of incompetence we as nation tolerate from our leaders is unbelievably staggering.
|
|
#6
08-09-2007, 12:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The federal budget is how many thousands of pages? And you expect people to check or uncheck each one? LOL. It's a nice idea in theory but its a horrible idea when you think about any practical implementation. [/ QUOTE ] True. But then again, our representatives don't necessarily read the bills or reports either. On the Patriot Act -- landmark legislation that entails the most sweeping changes to our limitations on government in order to fight global war: Paul confirms rumors circulating in Washington that this sweeping new law, with serious implications for each and every American, was not made available to members of Congress for review before the vote. "It's my understanding the bill wasn't printed before the vote - at least I couldn't get it. They played all kinds of games, kept the House in session all night, and it was a very complicated bill. Maybe a handful of staffers actually read it, but the bill definitely was not available to members before the vote." http://www.apfn.org/APFN/HR3162.htm On classified intelligence report justifying the need to invade a sovereign nation: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new biography of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has once again raised the issue of whether members of Congress read a key intelligence report before the 2002 vote to authorize war in Iraq. Clinton did not read the 90-page, classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, according to "Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton." For members of Congress to read the report, they had to go to a secure location on Capitol Hill. The Washington Post reported in 2004 that no more than six senators and a handful of House members were logged as reading the [intelligence report on Iraq]. http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/...rss_topstories If they don't bother reading stuff of this magnitude, you think they bother staying informed and reading the petty stuff? The level of incompetence we as nation tolerate from our leaders is unbelievably staggering. [/ QUOTE ] I knew we'd agree on something eventually! The portions of bills that get read the closest by any representative is their special little fund raisers. I heard a snippet on the radio the other day that I havent had time to confirm, but supposedly Nancy Pelosi is the single biggest beneficiary of the pork that has been stuffed into bills in this Congress. Transparency my black a$$.
|
|
#7
08-09-2007, 12:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
...but supposedly Nancy Pelosi is the single biggest beneficiary of the pork that has been stuffed into bills in this Congress. Transparency my black a$$. [/ QUOTE ] That doesn't surprise me. Nor did it surprise me when conservatives controlled every branch of govt and passed some of the largest spending increases in our history. Small government my white a$$.
|
|
#8
08-09-2007, 01:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] ...but supposedly Nancy Pelosi is the single biggest beneficiary of the pork that has been stuffed into bills in this Congress. Transparency my black a$$. [/ QUOTE ] That doesn't surprise me. Nor did it surprise me when conservatives controlled every branch of govt and passed some of the largest spending increases in our history. Small government my white a$$. [/ QUOTE ] And what were those largest spending increases for, do tell?
|
|
#9
08-09-2007, 06:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
I heard a snippet on the radio the other day that I havent had time to confirm, but supposedly Nancy Pelosi is the single biggest beneficiary of the pork that has been stuffed into bills in this Congress. Transparency my black a$$. [/ QUOTE ]Shouldnt you at least check to see if anyone else besides rightwing radio claims this as fact before you get so loose with your black tushy? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Just a thought [ QUOTE ] The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has obtained about $63 million worth of projects, most of them in or near her district in San Francisco. But Ms. Pelosi was overshadowed by Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, who obtained $163 million in pet projects — more than anyone else in Congress and more than his own previous record of about $100 million. The Democratic totals are less than half the record set by Republicans when they controlled Congress in 2005, but they are far higher than the levels just 10 years ago... By any measure, the volume of earmarks in spending bills has exploded in the past decade, from about 3,000 in 1996 to almost 16,000 in 2005.... [/ QUOTE ]
|
|
#10
08-09-2007, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How do the non AC\'s rate this idea?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I heard a snippet on the radio the other day that I havent had time to confirm, but supposedly Nancy Pelosi is the single biggest beneficiary of the pork that has been stuffed into bills in this Congress. Transparency my black a$$. [/ QUOTE ]Shouldnt you at least check to see if anyone else besides rightwing radio claims this as fact before you get so loose with your black tushy? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Just a thought [ QUOTE ] The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, has obtained about $63 million worth of projects, most of them in or near her district in San Francisco. But Ms. Pelosi was overshadowed by Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, who obtained $163 million in pet projects — more than anyone else in Congress and more than his own previous record of about $100 million. The Democratic totals are less than half the record set by Republicans when they controlled Congress in 2005, but they are far higher than the levels just 10 years ago... By any measure, the volume of earmarks in spending bills has exploded in the past decade, from about 3,000 in 1996 to almost 16,000 in 2005.... [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] I dont listen to "right wing radio". Straight news or music, and that was on the local CBS affiliate.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
