Open Government Dialogue
« Back To OpenGov - Open Government Brainstorm

badhack

User Profile Image badhack
Member since : May-29-2009 (Verified)
2 Ideas, 16 Comments, 110 Votes

User Activity Stream

Ideas Posted

A web2.0 website people can log in to track bills they subscribe to. Being able to watch and monitor its progress as it goes through the process (e.g. the house, the senate, president's desk, etc) and being able to comment on it as it changes. Subscribing to bills and your local rep to see what they are up to, to make it easy to keep in touch with what is going on. This type of website could have a lot of value as features are added. Could be modelled after the facebook model. This would also have the benefit of bringing people and grassroots organizations together on similar issues.
I like the new website (whitehouse.gov) but I think if people want to get more involved it should include more information on how government works. Things like:

- include more material on the us constitution, bill of rights, etc. use web pages, movies and flash animations.
- basic function of the judicial, executive and legislative branches. give examples of how people in these branches get their job done (e.g. how the court systems work, how a bill gets passed, what happens if a bill gets vetoed, what is filibustering, etc.)
- educate us on how all the departments, military, and three branches interact and work together to form a functioning government
- list goes on and on (e.g. what happens in the event of a natural disaster, what happens if we get attacked, etc.)

Through the use of technology like Web 2.0, flash animations, movies, interviews it could be turned into a very educational and interesting enterprise. It would draw more people to whitehouse.gov and hopefully to being more participative in our government.
Displaying 1 - 25 of 4205 Ideas
12345678910….168169Next »

Comments Posted

badhack 9 months ago
I respect your right to your opinions phreedomphan, but you've gone right off the deep end here.

There is no "one way" to interpret any document. Like any philosophical doctrine things are subject to change including revelations about flaws or errors in said doctrine.
badhack 9 months ago
@jerehough: I wasn't arguing whether or not banks have too much power. Most of your quotes revolve around how evil banks can be. Being famous doesn't make you an authority, either.

@phreedomphan: I don't want to sound cynical, but do you think the Fed prints money, sets a reserve ratio and discovers an economy equal to (hard cash/reserve ratio) and says, 'oh my god i had no idea that would happen!' The Fed determines the amount of money in the system and they determine how much it is worth by setting the interest rate. (Although they don't have 100% control over its value.) Whether you call it lending money or creating (and regrettably I have used both words in this forum), the banks aren't pulling money out of thin air. The money they lend was allocated ahead of time by the Fed. Banks make money two ways: interest charged on loans and fees.

One thing: I agree that in the middle ages merchants that lent more than they had were in fact creating money. This is because they were NOT in a fractional reserve system!

And to be clear, I'm not arguing that banks aren't evil. I'm not saying they are, either. They might be :)
badhack 9 months ago
I think it would have been easier to say that, "a reserve rate of .10 creates a total money supply of 10x the amount of hard cash, or money supply=hard cash/reserve ratio."

But I think saying that, "banks create money by making loans," is the wrong way to think about it. I like to think of it like this: before banks even enter the process the Fed sets the total amount of money by setting the reserve ratio AND the amount of hard cash. These two acts creates the total amount of money, but that money isn't in circulation. The banks are merely agents that take the money out of the govts hands and puts it in circulation with loans. Whether or not banks are evil, I'm not going to argue. But I will argue that banks create money. It's a misnomer.
badhack 9 months ago
Thanks for the link. I think I'd prefer something that is sponsored or supported by the government. Something that is closer to the govt, specific reps, agencies, even lobbyists and allows for more direct democracy. congress.org didn't seem that comprehensive, no way to search for past legislation, etc.
badhack 9 months ago
I have enjoyed the good arguments against my original post!

However, we all must understand that this was a forum designed to brainstorm open government. The entire text of this particular debate about banks is completely off topic and will probably not be heard (regardless of which position you support).
badhack 9 months ago
I can think of better ways to spend my time improving my life, my country, etc.
badhack 9 months ago
aherodias is proposing that the banks are creating money and stuffing it in their pockets. This is, of course, wrong. With a reserve ratio of 10, the amount of money in the market place is 10x the amount actually printed. What this means is that each dollar gets spent 10 times. It's called money velocity. It's not called counterfeiting nor is it a good reason to go back to a gold standard (something that is proven not to work). It's a way to accelerate the growth of an economy and it's the best method to DISTRIBUTE wealth to those who receive the loans.

I'm not saying the Fed doesn't have its problems. It does. But removing the ability of banks to LOAN money would cripple this economy.
badhack 9 months ago
It has been shown over and over again that using a gold, silver or other commodity standard is doomed to failure. I invite you all to read Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations' for the most famous example (i.e. England).
badhack 9 months ago
This is already available:

http://recovery.gov
http://usaspending.gov
http://data.gov
badhack 9 months ago
I agree. Too many ideas about ending the war in iraq or national healthcare in a forum about government transparency.
badhack 9 months ago
I disagree completely. I think we should move to a multi-party system. There are lots of different folks in this country and it would be nice to have their belief systems represented in Congress without having to be bound by the label Democrat or Republican.
badhack 9 months ago
Unfortunately Texas has tried this and it seems that it only encourages corruption :(
badhack 9 months ago
I think most citizens have no problem with immigrants being here. We are after all a nation of immigrants. It's HOW they got here and the impact. We regulate the number of immigrants into this country so that they can be absorbed without having a negative impact on the economy. Taking on an extra 5-10million (1.5-3% of population) has had negative consequences on this country.
badhack 9 months ago
Read up on money velocity and how, if properly managed enables economies to grow. It is typically managed by the Fed with a reserve ratio, but if that number is set too low the market overheats. In the US example the ratio was set to zero, allowing unlimited loaning, or 'minting' if you will by banks.

There is a reserve ratio now and the money supply is being properly regulated again.
badhack 9 months ago
In fairness, this is already underway.
badhack 9 months ago
Without the ability for a bank to create money, you wouldn't have a job because there wouldn't be enough money. It's called money velocity. Money velocity is the idea that the same PRINTED dollar gets spent over and over.

What people are upset over, and I agree, is that the bankers made as much money as they felt like and it blew up the system. This is because the Fed removed the requirement for a reserve ratio, which requires a bank to have a certain amount of hard dollars for every dollar they create.

A reserve ratio is what is needed to stabilize the system (among other things) and the Fed has already reinstituted this requirement.