I missed your suggestion for a book. But I don't read books much. They take a few ideas that may be good & hide them in a bunch of extra words.

I read the news paper. I read a lot of financial news on the internet. I have a few stocks & look at what is happening hoping to make better choices. I check on Salon & several right wing sites & look for the truth. At times I just follow what ever news seems interesting.

You can say or think of me as you will. But I will match my views for openness & fairness with any one.

I am interested in doing the right thing. I came to this site looking for truth.

This country is going down the tubes.
We both have ideas as to why.

I assume one reason. You another.

I state that if the country is to be saved it has to come from those of us who at least feel we are in the middle.

It is not wrong to want things to be better. It is not wrong to have more than others.

But each of us has to at some point say I have enough.

I don't see that spending 53 Million for a car is a good thing.
Any system that produces that while 47% of the people are just takers has a serious problem.

Come on now wouldn't you say that, that person has more than enough?

Do you really believe that the system will ever reward you so well? Do you ever want to be able to buy a 53 million dollar car? If you could would you?

I say let the $53,000,000 car be the symbol that capitalism. stands for.

I am interested in doing the right thing. I came to this site looking for truth.

This country is going down the tubes.
We both have ideas as to why.

I assume one reason. You another.

I state that if the country is to be saved it has to come from those of us who at least feel we are in the middle.

It is not wrong to want things to be better. It is not wrong to have more than others.

But each of us has to at some point say I have enough.

I don't see that spending 53 Million for a car is a good thing.
Any system that produces that while 47% of the people are just takers has a serious problem.

Come on now wouldn't you say that, that person has more than enough?

Do you really believe that the system will ever reward you so well? Do you ever want to be able to buy a 53 million dollar car? If you could would you?

I say let the $53,000,000 car be the symbol that capitalism. stands for.

This is a great turn out, of strong minded individuals. I appreciate the mature, objective responses. Some say that they would keep it the same way, if we could change a few things. Others have pointed out the obvious flaws and have accepted responsibility of our fails. Let me summarize the failures as I propose a solutions to them.

The first thing to address is the scope of the federal government's role. The founding fathers wanted states to govern themselves, and have a binding contract to cooperate in the common interest of self defense; this is known as confederation. Since then, the system has mutated, due to laws being passed and power being grabbed on a federal level to the point where they now see the need to govern every aspect of our lives on a national scale. When the federal government has more control and the states must obey every rule, this is federation. A federation is stronger in regards to national security but undermines personal liberty and state diversity. On the reverse side, confederation gives the states more power to govern and this can be catered to meet the specific needs of the states' constituents. We need to get back to a confederation system. The federal government should be limited in its power to over see only things that need to be addressed on a national level such as the common defense, interstate transportation, monetary exchange protocol (making of common currency), and maybe a few other areas where a common need should be uniformed. States would retain the power to determine how they conduct education, welfare, prohibitions, mandates, ect.

The economic system should be a lightly regulated free market. Government should have absolutely no influence on how the economy is doing. There should be a federal flat tax rate that is written in stone that is observed by both businesses and individuals. Regulation should be limited to forcing a business to provide a safe work place that is environmentally friendly and fair compensation and schedule for workers.

The biggest problem with our current political system is that it is infested with politicians. The second biggest problem with it is that it is a two party system. It is human nature to assume a group identity and when there is only two parties to choose from, people adopt one party or another based on their greatest concern, then adopt the remaining rhetoric of that group to become fully assimilated. This prevents individual thinking, and makes a person less objective. Another problem with a two party system is that we often find ourselves voting for the lesser of two evils. This is how we elect despicable individuals into positions of power. So we have career politicians elected into power by a two party system. Would it not be better for a draft into congress? My proposal is just that; every two years, a social security number is randomly selected for one individual living within a congressional district. That person is being called to serve his or her country as a congressman until relieved by their replacement two years later. There would be about 3 months of learning the system and being brought up on all the issues prior to them assuming the post. They would of course have an advisor that is knowledgeable and can guide them throughout their two year career. The Senators would be appointed by the governor of their respective states. There would be no more lobbyist as we know them. Instead, groups of citizens who wish to pass legislation would address the legislative branches and let the house and senate agree or disagree. Opposed parties would also be allowed to represent their side during those same hearings. Supreme court justices would have a term of 6 years, at which point they would have to be replaced and never be eligible to regain that post. This appointment would still come from the president of the United States. The president would be elected by the people by common vote, not electoral college, still every 4 years. Everyone who has a petition with 40,000 names or more (just a number) and meets the other criteria to be president is eligible to run for president. There is no campaign funds to split between two parties, as it would no longer be a two party system. The election funds would instead be used for transportation, boarding, and feeding the candidate and his staff during the campaigning process. All candidates would receive equal airtime and exposure for events sponsored by the campaign funds. Each group would have to financially support their candidate as far as advertising, additional exposure, ect. Each round of the voting would cut the remaining number of candidates in half, until such point that one candidate has 50.1% of the popular vote or more.

Finally, I will address the budget. The problems with our budget is that we are trying to find areas to take away from, and at least some people have interest in every expenditure. It is hard to make the cuts. What if we went to it from a different angle, and started the budget all over? Don't determine what to cut, but determine what needs funding. And don't do it by dollar amounts, as that does not always coincide with what dollars are available; do it by budget percentages instead, and each year, each funded area will learn what their dollar amount is based on revenue of the preceding year. If they find themselves with a surplus, that area would do wise for saving to meet shortfalls in the future. For instance, defense spending gets 44.31% of the budget, infrastructure gets 3.1% of the budget, federal administration gets 2.55%, debt payment gets 12.3% ect. When 100% is reached, there is no more funding available, period. US postal service, social security, and other services would be discontinued and private sector businesses would meet that need. If a congress fails to meet a fiscal budget, all members of the congress should receive no pay, until such time as a budget is agreed upon.

Just some food for thought. Any ideas?

I am interested in doing the right thing. I came to this site looking for truth.

This country is going down the tubes.
We both have ideas as to why.

I assume one reason. You another.

I state that if the country is to be saved it has to come from those of us who at least feel we are in the middle.

It is not wrong to want things to be better. It is not wrong to have more than others.

But each of us has to at some point say I have enough.

I don't see that spending 53 Million for a car is a good thing.
Any system that produces that while 47% of the people are just takers has a serious problem.

Come on now wouldn't you say that, that person has more than enough?

Do you really believe that the system will ever reward you so well? Do you ever want to be able to buy a 53 million dollar car? If you could would you?

I say let the $53,000,000 car be the symbol that capitalism. stands for.

I'm middle too, Floyd, so let me just say kudos for being willing to argue both sides, as it is not always easy to do. Now regarding greed. Greed is, unfortunately, the fuel for the free market economy. It is greed that motivates people to risk their money to try and make a profit. Without it, there would be no businesses. To you and I, 53 million is far too much to spend on a car. But I want this person to make as much money as possible and can you guess why? Because in order to make himself money, he has to employ people, buy raw materials, and provide the public with a good or service. I will not stop this man from making money, unless his doing so has directly conflicted with the right of another individual and cheated him through force or fraud. At that point, the hammer needs to come down hard. So aside from monitoring his activities, the government should leave that guy to be greedy, and fuel our economy. You and I can stand to live in a better place as a result. ;)

I'm middle too, Floyd, so let me just say kudos for being willing to argue both sides, as it is not always easy to do. Now regarding greed. Greed is, unfortunately, the fuel for the free market economy. It is greed that motivates people to risk their money to try and make a profit. Without it, there would be no businesses. To you and I, 53 million is far too much to spend on a car. But I want this person to make as much money as possible and can you guess why? Because in order to make himself money, he has to employ people, buy raw materials, and provide the public with a good or service. I will not stop this man from making money, unless his doing so has directly conflicted with the right of another individual and cheated him through force or fraud. At that point, the hammer needs to come down hard. So aside from monitoring his activities, the government should leave that guy to be greedy, and fuel our economy. You and I can stand to live in a better place as a result. ;)

I'm middle too, Floyd, so let me just say kudos for being willing to argue both sides, as it is not always easy to do. Now regarding greed. Greed is, unfortunately, the fuel for the free market economy. It is greed that motivates people to risk their money to try and make a profit. Without it, there would be no businesses. To you and I, 53 million is far too much to spend on a car. But I want this person to make as much money as possible and can you guess why? Because in order to make himself money, he has to employ people, buy raw materials, and provide the public with a good or service. I will not stop this man from making money, unless his doing so has directly conflicted with the right of another individual and cheated him through force or fraud. At that point, the hammer needs to come down hard. So aside from monitoring his activities, the government should leave that guy to be greedy, and fuel our economy. You and I can stand to live in a better place as a result. ;)

Interaction between people was sharing with members of the same family. The men hunted & the women gathered.
families grew in to tribes. Some were better at some things & others where better at other things. So they would barter or trade with each other.

Some one found out that you could help grow plants.
This made gathering easier freeing others to find other things to do. so tribes grew bigger. Soon there were villages. More people became good at doing other things. Bartering be came a good way to exchange goods. All in all people kept doing better.

I am leaving out the fighting between tribes because they were for the most part strong tribes taking from weaker tribes. I won't go into this much more because there are those on this forum that thing that is how they wish life to be.

Things kept growing & making more improvements.

Along came a person who didn't like hard work & couldn't make any thing so perhaps some how got a hold of some goods that he traded for some other goods. This was a great man because he had great greed, & he made sure that he could get more in every trade.

Not long after Another person though if I could just get people to take my junk & give me good stuff I could have it much easier.

Soon these merchants had most of the goods going through their hands & grew very wealthy. Now in those times life proved to be vary harsh at times The merchants having extra
food & things got the poor people to make things for them.

Now if the poor people didn't work hard enough, The merchants would cut off the pay & kick them out into the woods & let them eat roots.

You ask about the people making the goods. Well as you see on this forum there are those that feel they were just takers & really not adding any thing.

And that is how greed made the world great like it is today.

Nice little 3rd grade story, Floyd. Did you make that up all by yourself? Is that what you got from reading what runzwsissors wrote. I don't think you are as stupid, as you pretend to be. Indeed, I think you are just another libtard troll, screwing with the adults in the room. FYI the money changers in this country are the Federal Reserve, who are about as federal as FedEx and started by the Progressives, under President Woodrow Wilson in 1921 and the reason for the Great Depression in 1929 and we are witnessing a repeat performance, now. I would not call them Capitalist. I would call them robber barons, that use whatever system is available to exploit. Free markets are what made this country great and raised the standard of living for all of us.

What do all past government systems have in common? They have failed. What do all existing governments have in common? They too will fail. The very nature of man is to corrupt for personal gain, and this corruption, radiating from people in positions of power, takes its toll on the systems of government. This is a cumulative effect, and when it reaches a critical point, the system fails. The result is usually revolution, secession, or occupation, but regardless, it is a failed system. From the vacuum comes a replacement; dictatorship, republic, democracy or something else new and shiny. During this transition, war and other hardships are commonplace. So when a person comes into power who is progressive, and can motivate the rest of the government to “move forward”, where then are they moving towards? Would it not be better for a politician to leave the government system in the same condition that he entered it, if longevity is our goal? This is hard to do when there are unforeseen issues that must be addressed, but every post it note and splash of whiteout on a system’s law compromises said system.

Do not think that the United States of America is immune to this. Although we are one of the oldest living governments, we are still heading in the natural direction of ruin. People are too divided to stop it from happening, and it takes a wake up moment after it fails when we put aside our differences and pick ourselves up. Don’t get me wrong, the US has had a great run. So if prevention is not possible, the question we need to ask ourselves is what do we want to put in its place?

What should the government be responsible for and what are the government’s limits? How should we structure the government? What has failed in our current system that should be addressed and how can we prevent it from happening in the new system? Security and liberty are mutually exclusive, so which do we value more? Can a system be created that will endure, or are we doomed to continuously repeat this cycle every two to three hundred years, suffering the fallout of yet another failed system?

I want to hear a few responses before I respond to the same questions. Let’s keep partisan politics out of the discussion and approach this objectively, mindful that this is what we will be handing to our children, and to their children after them.