Where do we agree?

There are a lot of issues that have significant bipartisan agreement.

Many here accuse me of being "liberal," but I'm curious if we can find some common ground in some of these issues? (I will probably end up posting several, but one at a time.)

I can also provide a source that shows how Americans voted on these according to a poll, if anyone is interest.

How about "None of the above"? It is the government itself -- THE BLOATED AND IRRESONSIBLE GOVERNMENT -- that is the root cause of poverty in every country.

So do you want a genuine solution to poverty in the USA?

1. Reduce the numbers of Congressmen and Senators to just 100. Fifty for each house, and just one per state. They basically do nothing in Washington, D.C. other than waste taxpayers dollars.

2. Shut down all government departments and programs that are not directly connected with (1) national security, (2) infrastructure, (3) law and order, and (3) justice.

3. Set up an independent Government Waste Management Commission to slash waste by 100%. It is estimated that about 80% of government expenditures are sheer waste. Which means that billions of dollars from taxpayers would remain to pay down and pay off government debts.

4. Abolish the Tax Code and impose a flat tax of 10% on personal and business income, with absolutely no deductions and no exemptions, and with a one-page document. This will automatically increase disposable income in all households.

5. Reform the Welfare System so that only those with serious disabilities are on Welfare.

6. Impose huge tariffs on all imports so that most goods are manufactured in the USA. This will create jobs as never before. Poverty is related to lack of gainful employment and here is the root of the problem.

7. Every able-bodied unemployed person must be required to accept a job in order to collect Welfare payments. And there must be no welfare to illegal immigrants.

8. Shut down the border with Mexico altogether until Mexico takes full responsibility for illegal immigrants and drugs coming into the USA. Then build a proper wall to stop the illegal entry of drugs, criminals, and illegals. At present the cartels control the border.

9. Make it illegal to have deficit spending in the states and in the federal government. All budgets must be balanced and no government should be allowed to borrow, simply to waste that money.

10. Return to the Gold Standard so that the federal government cannot simply print money and keep on increasing the national debt.

Pretty soon, there would be no poverty, and people would not be looking for handouts instead of working and earning.

I vote for limited government. Let the church help the poverty. Free up private none profit organizations. Do not force them out of business for example the attacks on the little sisters of the poor or abused women shelters who are forced to take biological men in. Or pro life women's health clinics. Poverty is often greatly connected to morality. Who best to help morality? Jesus. The church. Nonprofit organizations. Not government.

I have a little different idea for item 6 on your list. Rather than impose tariffs ban importing anything from a country where the employees don't live equivalent life styles to the average working class American.

I have a few other ideas too.

Like a tiered education system. Where children who are just not academic will enter corporate sponsored trade schools, so they are qualified to have a job when they leave school. Cut the bloated public school nonsense, sports and arts can be sponsored by local and state businesses, via advertising. Like it was when I played baseball, our te was sponsored by a local furniture store.
Then rather than minimum wage, have a wage disparity gap limit. Count all benefits in the wages, from cars to flights, and insurance.

Completely dismantle the prison system.

Correct. Ship all hardened criminals to GITMO. Release those who are there for 5 grams of coke.

I am fine with the prison system based on my limited knowledge, but improve the prison conditions including living/safety conditions. It shouldn't be assumed that when someone goes to prison he/she will be raped.

I'm fine with providing welfare but obviously more should be done to reduce fraud and encourage people to enter the workforce quickly, etc. People who don't have any backup when trouble comes almost definitely turn to selling drugs (boys), prostitution (girls), suicide, etc. so I believe welfare reduces these figures. People get really desperate when they have no money. The requirements on kids getting benefits should be less stringent (free school meals, health care, etc.) since it is not their fault if their parents are unemployed. Small and medium size churches don't have enough money to support unemployed families, maybe megachurches. The only way small and medium churches can help is if a church member/family opens up their spare bedroom for six plus months to the unemployed family and offers free food, but most people do not want to make this type of commitment. It takes months to find a new job.

All prison does is immerse a first time criminal in crime culture with hard core criminals, and then dump them back on society, with no resource to do better but worse handicapped because they can't even get a reasonable job.
Our prison system is a corrupt boondoggle that leaves people worse than they were to start with.

Where do you think they should go, instead of prison? I do think the worst criminals should be separated from the rest. Maybe we should take the Western European model which seem to be better (but also cost more), rather than the Alcatraz types here.

That is a valid choice.

[/QUOTE]It is the government itself -- THE BLOATED AND IRRESONSIBLE GOVERNMENT -- that is the root cause of poverty in every country.[/QUOTE]
This is demonstrably false. There are countries with far more government than the U.S. that have lower rates of poverty, and countries with less government tend to have more poverty. It's not a one-to-one correspondence, so it's just as wrong to say that "government cures poverty," which some socialists argue, but your argument is also wrong.

Yes, I'm interested in hearing your ideas too.

First of all, this would require more than a bill or a constitutional amendment. You would need to rewrite the constitution, as it states the house must be representative of the population for each state.

If you don't like democracy, I would recommend you move out of the U.S. to a country that does not have any representative government rather than trying to change the US into something it is not, and never was intended to be.

Secondly, it is demonstrably false that members of congress "do nothing in Washington, D.C. other than waste taxpayers [sic] dollars." I agree that some members of congress -- on both sides of the aisle -- do little to help, but there are congressmen and women who do a great deal to help this country, on both sides of the aisle. I'm happy to provide names if you like.

Okay, aside from the fact that you listed #3 twice, let's just accept that you meant (4) justice. Fair enough?

And that's a good standard I could get behind.

That said, please name a government department or program that is not directly related to one of those four things.

I would actually get behind this. I'm not sure it would be as effective as you think it would, but I'm willing to give it a try.

Although, which of your 4 categories -- national security, infrastructure, law and order, or justice -- would this fit under? You said the only government programs should be one of these. So which of those 4 categories would this government program be?

This would not increase the disposable income in all households. It would decrease the income in many households who currently pay significantly less than 10%.

Also, if there's a flat tax of 10%, there's still a tax code. You haven't abolished it, just amended it. A lot. But it's still a tax code.

Also, the tax act of 2018 already eliminated exemptions on the federal level, and removed many, deductions on the personal return, so you're already 3 years out of date with this one.

I have some ideas on this, but my post is too long and I have to cut some stuff.

First of all "welfare" is not designed for people with disabilities. "Welfare" is made up of several programs:
- Medicaid (about 55%)
- Housing and food assistance programs (about 40%)
- Unemployment and workers compensation (the remaining 5%)

Medicaid is indeed for people with disabilities and/or elderly persons, and yes, it is the biggest portion of the federal welfare programs. It is pretty well audited to remove people who are taking advantage of it.

Housing and food assistance is not intended for people who are injured, but for people who would go homeless and/or without food. Most of the people who receive benefits in these programs are children under 16. They are not old enough to work. What other options are there for children of parents who are poor? Should the government remove children from parents who cannot care for them, and put them in homes? That would undoubtedly cost more. Or you're saying we should just let them starve?

The final category is quite limited, short-term, and designed to supplement state unemployment programs. This is the one that it sounds like you'd be willing to toss.

Congrats! You just saved the American taxpayer 0.0025% of their tax bill.

Also, you seem to agree that there SHOULD be some government aid for people who are severely disabled. Which of your 4 categories -- national security, infrastructure, law and order, or justice -- does this fit under?

I actually agree with this to a point. However, bear in mind that, while there will be many jobs that are created, there will also be jobs that are lost. People in the import/export industry will be hit. And also, many goods that are manufactured in the US require parts that come from other countries, and you know those will increase in cost. We've already seen this happen when Trump started his trade war with China. Prices went up, not down, because of the tariffs. Not saying it isn't a good idea. Just pointing out the consequences.

Wait ... before you said no welfare should be given to people who are disabled. So now you're saying if you're able-bodied you should have to work to collect welfare. Is this instead of #5 above? And same question, which of the 4 categories is this?

And we have the same problem. The 5-year-old has to get a job to keep her SNAP benefits? What exactly is this 5-year-old supposed to do? Sell flowers on the street corner?

Also, illegal immigrants do not receive welfare, period. That one is already law.

So many problems with this.

1. Mexico is not responsible for illegal immigrants coming into this country. US Employers are responsible for hiring them. Let's start fining US companies who hire illegal immigrants and see how quickly things change.
2. Mexico isn't responsible for drugs coming into this country. Most drugs, both legal and illegal, in the US are made in the US.
3. Very few illegal immigrants are crossing borders. A vast majority of illegal immigrants in the U.S. came into this country legally and then over-stayed their visas. Closing the border is almost literally closing the barn doors after the proverbial horse has gotten out. Or in, in this case. They're already here.

Your ONLY options are to crack down on visa violations or change the laws so that people can become citizens more easily. That's it.

There is not an economist, conservative or liberal, who will agree that this makes sense. I appreciate your desires here, but it just isn't valid, economical reasoning. A government is not a business, and cannot be run like one.

Also, just an FYI, the biggest budget deficits have happened under Republican administrations, and the biggest budget surpluses have happened under Democratic rules. While I disagree with the Democrats on many, many, many issues, they are spot-on when it comes to economics.

If your idea had any validity, this nation would have seen less debt when we were under the gold standard.

That didn't happen.

There is no correlation between how money is backed and debt. It has been proved mathematically. I can link you to hundreds of sources, but your best bet is to take a course in Economics 101.

Some of your ideas hold some merit, but most have been tried and just don't work.

And yet, I appreciate your zeal and idealism, and I do appreciate that you took the time to spell out 10 ideas. Thank you.

I wouldn't go that far.

I say the following:

If they are a DANGER to society, then they need to be REMOVED from society. Keep a prison system for people like that, but run it more like a state hospital than a prison. Patients have fewer rights than prisoners.

Those who are not a DANGER to society should not be removed from society. Instead, they should receive:

1. A fine, commensurate with the crime they committed, to be paid to the injured party(ies) and to the government units to offset costs, and/or
2. Community service, including reparations made to the injured party(ies).

The judge would decide which would be most beneficial to all parties involved. Community service would be with the aim of making the injured party whole, as much as possible. For example, if someone robs a store, they must work for the store owner for 200 hours without pay, in addition to repaying the value of what they stole.

Stuff like that.

Do you know anyone who has been in prison for any length of time?

No, but I unknowingly signed up for a English class that focused on prisons during college. Plus, I watch a lot of crime shows and movies.

If the system is not promoting and producing, restitution, rehabilitation, and restoration then its not serving a purpose. As for those who can not be restored there is exile, and the death penalty. Caging people for years upon years isn't working.

I won't respond to every point you have raised in response to my post, since you are unable to take a totally fresh look at this issue. You still believe in BIG GOVERNMENT.
We are not discussing other governments. It was the government of the USA which led the world in going off the Gold Standard. Which resulted in currencies fluctuating daily, inflation, hyperinflation, deflation, etc. And that is what has destroyed economies. Also the tons of unnecessary legislation that works against small businesses and individuals is all caused by these people, and that is part of the reason. When a government undermines free enterprise and wastes money at the same time, it results in poverty.
The Constitution has many amendments so another amendment is not an issue. If there was a national referendum to amend the Constitution in order to reduce the number of politicians to just 100, chances are that 80-90% of voters would agree. It is the irresponsible legislation and spending of politicians which has created that astronomical national debt. For example only about 10% or less of that 1.9 trillion spending bill is for COVID relief. The rest is all for Democratic pork.
It is the politicians and bureaucrats in the federal government who have destroyed democracy. It is election fraud by Democrats that had destroyed democracy. So it is no longer a representative government. The politicians work for their own self-interest and throw away billions upon billions of dollars.
Government waste management would be under infrastructure.
There are about 70,000 pages in the Tax Code. I am suggesting a ONE PAGE law which abolishes the tax code and establishes a 10% flat tax. Just one page!
That's exactly why welfare legislation should be totally ditched, and welfare limited only those with disabilities. There are hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of able-bodied people living off government handout and keeping up a cycle of poverty.

It is the government itself -- THE BLOATED AND IRRESONSIBLE GOVERNMENT -- that is the root cause of poverty in every country.[/QUOTE]
This is demonstrably false. There are countries with far more government than the U.S. that have lower rates of poverty, and countries with less government tend to have more poverty. It's not a one-to-one correspondence, so it's just as wrong to say that "government cures poverty," which some socialists argue, but your argument is also wrong.


Yes, I'm interested in hearing your ideas too.


First of all, this would require more than a bill or a constitutional amendment. You would need to rewrite the constitution, as it states the house must be representative of the population for each state.

If you don't like democracy, I would recommend you move out of the U.S. to a country that does not have any representative government rather than trying to change the US into something it is not, and never was intended to be.

Secondly, it is demonstrably false that members of congress "do nothing in Washington, D.C. other than waste taxpayers [sic] dollars." I agree that some members of congress -- on both sides of the aisle -- do little to help, but there are congressmen and women who do a great deal to help this country, on both sides of the aisle. I'm happy to provide names if you like.


Okay, aside from the fact that you listed #3 twice, let's just accept that you meant (4) justice. Fair enough?

And that's a good standard I could get behind.

That said, please name a government department or program that is not directly related to one of those four things.


I would actually get behind this. I'm not sure it would be as effective as you think it would, but I'm willing to give it a try.

Although, which of your 4 categories -- national security, infrastructure, law and order, or justice -- would this fit under? You said the only government programs should be one of these. So which of those 4 categories would this government program be?


This would not increase the disposable income in all households. It would decrease the income in many households who currently pay significantly less than 10%.

Also, if there's a flat tax of 10%, there's still a tax code. You haven't abolished it, just amended it. A lot. But it's still a tax code.

Also, the tax act of 2018 already eliminated exemptions on the federal level, and removed many, deductions on the personal return, so you're already 3 years out of date with this one.

I have some ideas on this, but my post is too long and I have to cut some stuff.


First of all "welfare" is not designed for people with disabilities. "Welfare" is made up of several programs:
- Medicaid (about 55%)
- Housing and food assistance programs (about 40%)
- Unemployment and workers compensation (the remaining 5%)

Medicaid is indeed for people with disabilities and/or elderly persons, and yes, it is the biggest portion of the federal welfare programs. It is pretty well audited to remove people who are taking advantage of it.

Housing and food assistance is not intended for people who are injured, but for people who would go homeless and/or without food. Most of the people who receive benefits in these programs are children under 16. They are not old enough to work. What other options are there for children of parents who are poor? Should the government remove children from parents who cannot care for them, and put them in homes? That would undoubtedly cost more. Or you're saying we should just let them starve?

The final category is quite limited, short-term, and designed to supplement state unemployment programs. This is the one that it sounds like you'd be willing to toss.

Congrats! You just saved the American taxpayer 0.0025% of their tax bill.

Also, you seem to agree that there SHOULD be some government aid for people who are severely disabled. Which of your 4 categories -- national security, infrastructure, law and order, or justice -- does this fit under?


I actually agree with this to a point. However, bear in mind that, while there will be many jobs that are created, there will also be jobs that are lost. People in the import/export industry will be hit. And also, many goods that are manufactured in the US require parts that come from other countries, and you know those will increase in cost. We've already seen this happen when Trump started his trade war with China. Prices went up, not down, because of the tariffs. Not saying it isn't a good idea. Just pointing out the consequences.


Wait ... before you said no welfare should be given to people who are disabled. So now you're saying if you're able-bodied you should have to work to collect welfare. Is this instead of #5 above? And same question, which of the 4 categories is this?

And we have the same problem. The 5-year-old has to get a job to keep her SNAP benefits? What exactly is this 5-year-old supposed to do? Sell flowers on the street corner?

Also, illegal immigrants do not receive welfare, period. That one is already law.


So many problems with this.

1. Mexico is not responsible for illegal immigrants coming into this country. US Employers are responsible for hiring them. Let's start fining US companies who hire illegal immigrants and see how quickly things change.
2. Mexico isn't responsible for drugs coming into this country. Most drugs, both legal and illegal, in the US are made in the US.
3. Very few illegal immigrants are crossing borders. A vast majority of illegal immigrants in the U.S. came into this country legally and then over-stayed their visas. Closing the border is almost literally closing the barn doors after the proverbial horse has gotten out. Or in, in this case. They're already here.

Your ONLY options are to crack down on visa violations or change the laws so that people can become citizens more easily. That's it.


There is not an economist, conservative or liberal, who will agree that this makes sense. I appreciate your desires here, but it just isn't valid, economical reasoning. A government is not a business, and cannot be run like one.

Also, just an FYI, the biggest budget deficits have happened under Republican administrations, and the biggest budget surpluses have happened under Democratic rules. While I disagree with the Democrats on many, many, many issues, they are spot-on when it comes to economics.


If your idea had any validity, this nation would have seen less debt when we were under the gold standard.

That didn't happen.

There is no correlation between how money is backed and debt. It has been proved mathematically. I can link you to hundreds of sources, but your best bet is to take a course in Economics 101.


Some of your ideas hold some merit, but most have been tried and just don't work.

And yet, I appreciate your zeal and idealism, and I do appreciate that you took the time to spell out 10 ideas. Thank you.[/QUOTE]

I believe it would benefit to examine these countries. Which countries are you referring to for having Big Government with lower rates of poverty. Do they also have the same laws to protects liberty or God given rights? There is a study out there that shows America's lower class is considered to be one of the richest groups compared to the world. Our poverty has so many routes for support, it is almost by choice if you want to remain poor. Of course, it may take hard work.

Crime shows and movies aren't realistic at all. The English class might have been, I don't know.

I have had 3 family members in prison. The current prison system is NOT fine as it is.

You forgot the 4th R. Removal from society.

Restitution and Restoration, yes. And prison is NEVER that. (How does locking someone up provide any justice to the victim?)

Rehabilitation for those who can be rehabilitated. And prison is NEVER that. (As several have said, locking someone up just makes them a better criminal.)

But there are people who are just violent, and no amount of rehabilitation will ever make them safe to live in a society. Those people need to be locked up as a protection for the rest of society.

Exile, or death penalty.. I think cages are cruel