Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

dudemanfellabra

User Profile Image dudemanfellabra
Member since : May-22-2009 (Verified)
2 Ideas, 25 Comments, 144 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

For far too long in this country, politics (and debates in general) has been run by the two major parties – Democrats and Republicans. While both of these parties are close to the center of the political spectrum and represent a lot of people, there are others out there with other ideas. Yes, we have third parties, but they haven't won an election (or even been competitive) in decades. Part of the reason they aren't more competitive is that no one knows about them. People in this country have grown up know Republicans and Democrats.. and if you're not one of those two, you don't really matter. If you want to vote, you pretty much have to choose the lesser of two evils.

Also, third parties are very hard to get started. The third party laws in many states are so insane they are nearly impossible (but that's a different issue). If third parties were allowed to contribute to televised national debates, awareness would drastically increase. Instead of being forced to choose the lesser of two evils, people would actually have a broadly publicized candidate for whom to vote.

In the end, the issue comes down to equality. We say we're ALL equal, but then we turn around and say if you're not a Democrat or Republican, you're screwed. Open up the process and make it easier for third parties to participate!
We need to form an alliance/treaty with several other developed nations (UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, etc.) and produce a list of foreign countries determined to have "acceptable" labour laws (minimum wage, safe working conditions, etc.). If a country doesn't meet the necessary requirements, all the countries under the treaty should put a heavy tax on imports from that country, making their products cost more than domestic products or products from treaty members. Since businesses in countries with poor labour laws won't be able to profit much from the treaty members (where most of the global capital is), those countries will be pressured to enact better labour laws, promoting safe and humane working conditions globally. Also, since Americans would buy domestic or treaty member products (which would have little to no import tax on them compared to non-treaty members), American businesses would be forced to finally do some R&D and try to find better methods of reducing cost to make their products, so they can compete against the treaty members.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas

Comments Posted

dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
Yea? Well you don't have the right to steal from this green Earth in any way, shape, or form. End of story. Taxes are an unfortunate necessity to our society. While no one likes them, they need to be focused on incentivizing sustainable practices instead of penalizing people's hard work.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
I already did that haha.. I set it to disable and clicked save changes. When I go back to that menu, disable is still selected..... yet I still get these emails.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
How do I do that?
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
Does anyone know how to disable emails for comments on specific items? I get 98390480832 emails a day from comments on this topic, and I'd like it to stop.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
Does anyone know how to disable emails for comments on individual items? I get 9793487539487 emails a day from this item, and I'd like it to stop.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
This tax is MEANT to deincentivize consumption; that's its purpose. We have molded our entire economy around consuming, consuming, consuming and not worrying about the consequences. We have a finite amount of natural resources, so we should use them sparingly. If you read the proposal, it talks about incentivizing post-consumer products, recycling, and reusing materials to close the loop on our endless consumption.

We haven't realized it yet, but the economy as we knew it before this "recession" will never come back; we simply can't sustain that. Whether we like it or not, we MUST move to a less consumption-based economy and move to a more sustainable one. This tax code helps to move in that direction.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
Well, you make a good point, but I, personally, think that adding varying taxes according to environmental impacts would just leave an opening for more corruption. Keeping the tax code as simple as possible is key to make it work. Like you said, the company energy tax will factor in to the cost; that, in my opinion, is enough.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
The wealthy do pay taxes under this system. Anyone, regardless of income level, is taxed the same rate on items they buy. Wealthy people buy stuff the same way poor people do. In fact, wealthy people buy MORE stuff, so they'll pay MORE taxes. If a person works for a living and saves up a fortune in a savings account and doesn't spend any of it, the government shouldn't come in and take 35%. That person worked for his money, so the money should be his. If, however, a person spends money uncontrollably, devouring resources at barbaric rates, the government should tax the hell out of him. Tax bad things like consumption, not good things like income.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
Popular vote is a much more workable (and equality-based) system.. especially if we move to a fully standardized digital voting system that removes as much error as possible.

Rural residents whine about how popular vote takes away their power because most people live in cities. I believe this is just an expression of selfish favoritism. If there are 90 affirmatives (city people) and 10 negatives (rural people) in a vote, should the 10 negatives collectively have just as much influence as the 90 affirmatives? No! One person, one vote. We try to quote that "all men are created equal," but we turn around and set minorities on a pedestal. That, in my opinion is NOT equality; it is favoritism.

Rural people aren't going to "secede" from the nation.. they'll have their representatives in Congress to do their bidding. They'll still be represented.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
I liked the idea of proportional electoral college votes instead of winner-take-all (so if a person got 45% popular vote of a state, he would get 45% of the electoral college instead of none). Unfortunately the constitution doesn't give this power to the federal government; it reserves it to the states. In order for a law like this to be passed, it requires a constitutional amendment.... which I would support.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
Isn't that the point of this website? To encourage public support? You could have sent around a link for your ideas to all your friends.

Besides, there are only 178 Republican congressmen.. and currently 563 votes for the idea.. meaning 385 other people voted it up. Which still puts it in first even if the entire Republican party voted for it.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
He had a really really good idea (even though Obama has already had the same idea) and got it on here early. In fact, it was one of the first ones on the entire site, only a few hours after it started. It's the first thing everyone sees now when they get on, so it gets more votes because it gets more publicity.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
I think this should not only apply to spending bills, but to all legislation passed. The bills should be posted online for the public to read and comment (and possibly vote positive/negative as on this site). The main thing is, though, that the President should be obligated to address the public's concerns. If a majority of the public has major concerns about the bill, he shouldn't sign it just yet. There should be more debate until the majority of the public agrees.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
Honestly the images on that site make so sense to me. They're all a jumbled mess. I like the idea of graphically presenting things like this, though, so I will vote it up. I personally think there are to many curves and disproportional figures in these drawings. I would rather see something with lifelike people (not cartoon drawings) and straight, defined lines (not wavy colored spastic ones) connecting material. Flow charts, tree/branch charts, and other organizational methods work better in my opinion.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
Why don't we just keep the lobbyists at home? :P
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
.....muny288 was talking about you. You're AGAINST legalization of marijuana; I'm FOR it. I do believe he said "anybody AGAINST legalization obviously sells it." Good job on that one. You definitely just said YOU have the same value as a pig.

And who are you to tell me my boundaries? As long as I'm not infringing upon your rights, I'm not doing anything wrong. Don't infringe on my rights. You can't tell me not to smoke pot in the privacy of my own home; I'm not causing harm to a single other person. It's my body; let me do with it as I please. Religion has nothing to do with this issue.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
I agree. Congress should have this power.. the President, not so much.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
Obama claimed "National Security" on this issue; if the pictures were released, he believes it would endanger our troops and cause outrage. Well, I believe this is true, but what does waiting do? if we release them now, we're still over there, and we can handle any uprisings. If we wait until months or years later after we've left, we'll just undo what we did and have to go back. The uprisings will still come even if we've accomplished our goals. We need to release the photos now so we can deal with it while we're still there.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
Ahmad: So you know that thing called the first amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".... well If you want to pull out the God card, this is what you get slapped with. What if I don't believe in God? I don't care what he says; I'll harm myself if I want to. Congress can't do a damn thing about anything God says.. this is a secular country; wake up.

About the tourism thing, Spain's tourism sector is booming.. Do you know how many people go to Barcelona/Madrid every year? Pot is legal there. Look at the Netherlands.. pot's legal there, and Amsterdam is one of the most visited cities in Europe. If anything, marijuana has IMPROVED their tourism. Wake up, dude.. this isn't 1920; society has changed. We wear bikinis and listen to loud music about having sex with a stranger. We smoke pot. Get used to it.

Nothing good about alcohol, pot, and smoking? Then why is it suggested in the daily food pyramid that a moderate amount of alcohol (wine, champagne, etc.) per day is good for you??? Why is medical marijuana used all over the country to treat tumors, cance, glaucoma, and many other chronic diseases?? Why was there a study released just weeks ago saying that smoking can actually help you lose weight?? There are pros and cons of every substance; I should be the one that weighs both sides and decides if I want to use one – not the government.
dudemanfellabra 9 months ago
I have a widget on my MacBook's Dashboard that tells me all this.. it's called "Vote Watch." You should look into it.
dudemanfellabra 10 months ago
I would support this if the citizen vote came before the President signed it. This is kind of what the 72-hour mandatory waiting period for public review would accomplish.
dudemanfellabra 10 months ago
Ahmad, so what if marijuana can harm a person? So can alcohol.. so can tobacco.. so can guns.. so can cars.. heck, so can sober people. Just because it harms people doesn't mean it should be outlawed. If I choose to harm myself, should I not be able to? I personally think that it's none of the government's business whether or not I smoke pot. If I grow it to smoke it, so be it. If I buy it from someone else who grows it, tax that purchase. I'll spend a few extra dollars to keep my freedom.
dudemanfellabra 10 months ago
I know about the WTO, but it's not strict enough. Pretty much every single country in the world is in it. This treaty would require a lot more from participating countries.
dudemanfellabra 10 months ago
Well, if the majority of people in your state vote democrat, then yes, you will have a majority of democratic representatives.. that's the point of this system. In order for what you said to actually happen, millions of people in Indianapolis (is it that big?) would have to all vote for the same 9 people. While I guess it could be done, there's like a .000001% chance that's going to happen. More than likely, Indianapolis's votes will be split up among many democrats, allowing all the republicans, independents, etc. to vote for their person. Republicans will by no means get a majority (because they aren't a majority in the state), but they won't be completely unrepresented.

About the California thing, they don't have to know where all 53(+) candidates stand. They don't have to vote for all of them; they can just vote for a few that they like and know about.
dudemanfellabra 10 months ago
....Isn't this CSPAN?