Biggest issues you have for the American government and what you would do to change it?

HRE wrote:

It sounds like your usual nonsense and not worth bothering with.

HRE silenced once again.

I really don't think you're aware of this, but you're just parroting a very conscious talking point of the super rich. The idea that we should stop trying to create social justice because not every attempt goes smoothly is just dumb. It's like quitting running because you realize you can never run a 0:00.0. Rich people would love to spread that sentiment, because less government and less regulation always leads to more concentration of wealth and power. It's already concentrated enough for my tastes: the top 1% of the population have as much wealth as the lowest 90%! And 40% of campaign contributions are made by 0.01% of the population! Your personal dislike for liberals is making you do legwork for the wrong people.

There are still some things that low-income people can't get for free or at least dirt cheap. This creates an unfair situation where I find myself having to work up to 15 hours a week just to afford 72 inch flat screen TVs in every room of my house.

No one needs that many TVs in one room, no matter how small they are!

[quote]I

I got in trouble because every time my mom washes my underwear they break the machine.

geetar wrote:

divide up the congressional seats in a grid, no more gerrymandering (that's for both parties).

Safe seats make for bad policies because the politicians don't even have to consider any arguments for the other side. They have a zero reason to even consider a reasonable compromise and meet somewhere in the middle.

fyi there is some convincing research that suggests the effect you are citing is not real - that gerrymandering has no real effect on the polarization in congress.

Not sure if this is the best link but if you are interested you can poke around for others

Also, there's no "rampant liberalism" in the US. Eisenhower was to the left of the Democrats today. The top marginal tax rate is less than half what it was 40 years ago. The capital gains tax rate has gone down. Research and higher education funding has gone down. A much smaller fraction of the population works in the public sector. Union membership is way down.Here's what liberalism could do for you: more progressive tax code means you pay less and keep more. Universal healthcare means substantial savings every month. If you work for an employer, strong unions mean higher wages and more leverage in determining hours. If you have kids, no worrying about how much college will cost.

geetar wrote:

divide up the congressional seats in a grid, no more gerrymandering (that's for both parties).

Safe seats make for bad policies because the politicians don't even have to consider any arguments for the other side. They have a zero reason to even consider a reasonable compromise and meet somewhere in the middle.

that's a more readable story, with links to more

the main point is that democrats live in cities, repubs live in the suburbs/rural - gerrymandering can't change that. even without a gerrymander you would have the same effect.

agip wrote:

geetar wrote:

divide up the congressional seats in a grid, no more gerrymandering (that's for both parties).

Safe seats make for bad policies because the politicians don't even have to consider any arguments for the other side. They have a zero reason to even consider a reasonable compromise and meet somewhere in the middle.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/03/gerrymandering-polarise-congress

that's a more readable story, with links to more

the main point is that democrats live in cities, repubs live in the suburbs/rural - gerrymandering can't change that. even without a gerrymander you would have the same effect.

Gerrymandering can and has made a demonstrable difference in the house though.

Xjdjxjxjxjxj wrote:

So when all the people get robbed for dope money, and people can't work, and we get crack babies, and people use emergency rooms like check ups nobody will have a problem with that? Who will pay for that?

Current system ain't perfect, but it's better than selling crack at Walmart.

I'm not so sure that legalization would really increase the number of addicts. You're assuming that there are hoards of people who would love to do meth, but choose not to simply because it is currently illegal.

Anyone who wants drugs can already get them pretty easily. If you don't do drugs, you've probably made that decision because you don't want to do drugs, not because the law says you aren't allowed. If Wal-Mart suddenly starts selling meth, I'm not going to run out and buy some just because I can. I'm still not going to do meth for all the same reasons that I don't currently do meth.

I'm guessing 99% of these white entitled conservative complainers have never spend 1hr outside the US (spring break in Mexico doesn't count)

I think people that say legalize everything cause of free market and all don't realize how complex this issue actually is.

I prefer there to be classes of drugs based on addictive potential, social utility, physical harm, ability to function, etc. For example:

Legal & restricted...

Tobacco: entrenched in our history and long-term health effects.

Alcohol: entrenched in our history and can be addicted, but can be used in MODERATION easily and is a social lubricant.

Pot: not much different than tobacco, and can help those with pain.

Borderline...

Hallucinogenics & MDMA: not very addictive, cannot function in society but lasts short periods

Illegal...

Methamphetamine, crack cocaine, PCP, GHB, heroin, etc.: can be extremely addictive in short period of time, several physical and mental deterioation, cannot work in society and thus more likely to lead to crime to obtain more drugs, start caring about personal health can health of dependents, not entrenched in society, cannot be used easily in moderation, promotes isolation rather than being a social lubricant.

I used to be addicted to meth. I stopped caring about myself and everybody around me. Good thing I didn't have children. My wife and family was crushed. I spent all of our money on drugs. I was constantly sick. It made me paranoid and I barely slept, also putting others in danger when driving. What was the benefit? At first I had more energy but that was it.

So, why should we legalize EVERYTHING? Our current policies attack the supply, not the demand. Why not fix that? The system is not perfect, but do you really think people will just "experiment" with hard drugs? No. They aren't like smoking a joint. If there is easy access to these highly addictive substances, the chances of people getting hooked are much much higher than other drugs and/or they have no social utility.

Means testing of SS benefit payments. Raise the retirement age. Eliminate the SS tax cap. #saveSS

He's not even talking about the same thing as me and you want me to argue with him? If he, or you, cannot distinguish between being able to vote for a candidate and giving money to that candidate silence is probably better.

Under citizens untied money is free speech... Lame

Gggggggg wrote:

Under citizens untied money is free speech... Lame

So much for "talk is cheap."

I think that adults should be making decisions for themselves.

I fail to see how the fact that you made poor decisions in your own life implies that you (through the power of the government) should be making decisions for me.

krispy kremlin_ wrote:

I'd say these people are more bought and sold than any amount of campaign contributions could ever influence.

Yes, you probably would say that. I will leave it at that.

All I was going was providing context. I know what the realities of drug abuse are. I am sure you are confident in your experiences as well. But I am not the only person that was a contributing member of society who got addicted to hard drugs by being prescribed something by a doctor.

I appreciate that you want to have options. I am also want options, but also believe in some sort of gradient in what should and shouldn't readily be made available to all members of the public, just in case people like me are not as in control or not as smart as you are.

I do want to ask why people would put any constraints on the age of majority in being able to make these decisions. Is it because young people are not as informed as they think they are? Or is it just a common practice to prevent minors from using substances?

Also, would this policy also do away with the whole prescription process? Or other chemicals and biological agents? What are the limits of this policy? I don't see why people shouldn't have easy access to all substances just because they are potentially dangerous, eg ricin.