First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply My SAY. If you could make your own political policies.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 26 days ago , edited 26 days ago
IF I had my say:

THIS is what I would do to close the wage gaps and encourage economic growth:

1 - Deregulate but offer tax breaks to companies with good environmental policies.
2 - Rather than a hard cap on salaries, require that minimum wage of companies fall within a certain percentage of the max.
3 - Require people of very high income brackets to create (or invest in already created) a certain amount of American jobs per certain number of excess funds. This is not forcing people to pay taxes, because if they choose to invest when creating these jobs, it could result in making even more money. If they were close to the line, and already owned companies, they could just raise wages, rather than being forced to create more jobs.
4 - Rather than breaking monopolies, which inevitably results in corporate collusion, and accomplishes nothing at all --- Streamline and facilitate the lending and investment to companies projecting selling at lower prices in an established market. To do this, offer tax incentives to the lenders and investors of these companies.
Now, while it may be hard to do this with break-in companies, many already established companies would use these tax breaks to jump markets (IE, DVD manufacturers begin producing cell-phones because they can). These companies and lenders would take advantage of these tax incentives.
5 - Raise taxes on business, but give tax breaks based on percentage of American employees. Boom. No tariffs. Actually, even better, because this would apply to foreign companies too, and may eventually encourage foreign investment.



Few social policies.

First trimester abortion would be legal. You would have to pay for it yourself OR the government would pay for it and your sterilization at the same time.

Marriage would not be recognized by the US Government. Instead, we'd have legally recognized 'life partnerships' that afforded all opportunities marriage currently does and apply to everyone equally. Marriage would be determined based on your religious preferences, and be in no way enforced, recognized, or supported by the US government. You could have both with the same person, but they would not be the same.

There would no longer be gender-based bathrooms. They'd be sex-based. Penises and Va-jay-jays, not boys and girls.

Saying racist, sexist, homophobic, etc shit would be a Misdemeanor C charge. It would be punishable with up to 6 hours of community service. Pressing charges on that person for that crime would face the same Misdemeanor C charge with up to 6 hours of community service with that same person, plus a $100 fee. Why? Because if you want the government to babysit you that damn bad you're going to pay the babysitter.

Unless a court of law convicted a police officer of wrongdoing, if you were caught protesting the death of a criminal who was killed while resisting arrest, you would be charged with accessory to resisting arrest, which would become a thing, because obviously you supported them in their efforts.



But, ya know, that's just a few.

Post your own.
5318 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 26 days ago
Deregulate business
Dismantle Common Core
Detract government involvement in any form of marriage.
And deport moe anime
SGZone 
81 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 26 days ago , edited 26 days ago
I like most of these ideas except for the last two. I don't like the idea of putting any kind of limitation of free speech except in the cases we have now. As for the last one, how would it be decided that he was resisting arrest, say a cop shoots a person for personal reasons and says he the suspect was resisting arrest but no concrete evidence that the victim resisted arrest so all we have is his word.

I'd post my own but I honestly don't know nearly enough about economics or politics to give any good examples. I'm more interested in what others have to say.

The only thing I would enact is that anyone who says jif instead of gif will be put to death. The gifstapo will be watching you.
22136 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 26 days ago

If you were caught protesting the death of a criminal who was killed while resisting arrest, you would be charged with accessory to resisting arrest, which would become a thing, because obviously you supported them in their efforts.


So... first amendment rights until you disagree with the police? Nice Orwellian nightmare you got there.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 26 days ago

ClothStatue wrote:


If you were caught protesting the death of a criminal who was killed while resisting arrest, you would be charged with accessory to resisting arrest, which would become a thing, because obviously you supported them in their efforts.


So... first amendment rights until you disagree with the police? Nice Orwellian nightmare you got there.


Not at all. You see, first it would be on the police to prove the person was resisting arrest and on the protesters to prove he was not.

The point isn't to limit free speech, but to limit outright support for criminal activity.


SGZone 
81 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 26 days ago
Alright, but what if it's still up in the air and no concrete evidence presents itself. What if the police can't prove he resisted arrest but the protesters can't prove he didn't resist arrest.
22136 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F
Online
Posted 26 days ago , edited 26 days ago

HolyDrumstick wrote:


ClothStatue wrote:


If you were caught protesting the death of a criminal who was killed while resisting arrest, you would be charged with accessory to resisting arrest, which would become a thing, because obviously you supported them in their efforts.


So... first amendment rights until you disagree with the police? Nice Orwellian nightmare you got there.


Not at all. You see, first it would be on the police to prove the person was resisting arrest and on the protesters to prove he was not.

The point isn't to limit free speech, but to limit outright support for criminal activity.




What you are saying is that if you disagree with the state authority on its judgement of a situation, they are free to lock you up for voicing that opinion. That is a blatant violation of not only the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, but also the freedom to peaceably assemble. It doesn't matter if the police have to "prove it' or not, it's the matter that you are literally locking someone up for having and sharing an opinion because the police do not agree. The police are not faultless, and they can easily be abusive and poorly trained for a situation and the court system can be unfairly biased, this excuses such things from even being discussed, let alone addressed.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 26 days ago , edited 26 days ago

SGZone wrote:

I like most of these ideas except for the last two. I don't like the idea of putting any kind of limitation of free speech except in the cases we have now. As for the last one, how would it be decided that he was resisting arrest, say a cop shoots a person for personal reasons and says he the suspect was resisting arrest but no concrete evidence that the victim resisted arrest so all we have is his word.

I'd post my own but I honestly don't know nearly enough about economics or politics to give any good examples. I'm more interested in what others have to say.

The only thing I would enact is that anyone who says jif instead of gif will be put to death. The gifstapo will be watching you.


The first of the last two is kind of an enforcement of free speech, rather than against it. If 6 hours of your life and $100 was worth wasting 6 hours of someone else's life over something they said, THEN you could press the issue.

The second one should be based on a ruling in a court of law. The point is not to remove freedom of speech, but to keep protesters from spinning a it into something it is not, making good officers' lives hell, and cut down on problems prior a court making a decision. It's meant to support decisions within court, instead of causing a bunch of bullshit over something that is in no way wrong or unjust.
5926 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / montana
Offline
Posted 26 days ago
create a Dept of Video Games and Anime. which would pour billions of dollars into these industries
7019 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Earth
Offline
Posted 26 days ago
I would have a Death Lottery among the baby boomers to reduce our population to 250 million max. This will help save social security, medicare and help the environment.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 26 days ago

ClothStatue wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:


ClothStatue wrote:


If you were caught protesting the death of a criminal who was killed while resisting arrest, you would be charged with accessory to resisting arrest, which would become a thing, because obviously you supported them in their efforts.


So... first amendment rights until you disagree with the police? Nice Orwellian nightmare you got there.


Not at all. You see, first it would be on the police to prove the person was resisting arrest and on the protesters to prove he was not.

The point isn't to limit free speech, but to limit outright support for criminal activity.




What you are saying is that if you disagree with the state authority on its judgement of a situation, they are free to lock you up for voicing that opinion. That is a blatant violation of not only the freedom of speech and the freedom of the press, but also the freedom to peaceably assemble. It doesn't matter if the police have to "prove it' or not, it's the matter that you are literally locking someone up for having and sharing an opinion because the police do not agree. The police are not faultless, and they can easily be abusive and poorly trained for a situation and the court system can be unfairly biased, this excuses such things from even being discussed, let alone addressed.


Hey, slow your roll. I'm not talking about locking people up. I'm talking about a small fine.

The point isn't to make shit stupid.... but to PREVENT stupid.

Now, other than that, you have your opinion and I have mine. BUT, if you're gunning for police that shot a man in a split second decision when he was resisting arrest.... and that can be proven by a court of law... you're openly supporting criminal activity and anarchy. So, a small fine isn't going to make that go away, but it WILL prevent people from using it to stir up bullshit.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 26 days ago

SGZone wrote:

Alright, but what if it's still up in the air and no concrete evidence presents itself. What if the police can't prove he resisted arrest but the protesters can't prove he didn't resist arrest.


What happens when you normally can't prove a crime?
5926 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / montana
Offline
Posted 26 days ago

Xxanthar wrote:

I would have a Death Lottery among the baby boomers to reduce our population to 250 million max. This will help save social security, medicare and help the environment.


kill peoples grammas? lol what kind of sick coward would have that idea. fail
Sogno- 
45726 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 26 days ago
sleep
7019 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Earth
Offline
Posted 26 days ago

trollbutter wrote:


Xxanthar wrote:

I would have a Death Lottery among the baby boomers to reduce our population to 250 million max. This will help save social security, medicare and help the environment.


kill peoples grammas? lol what kind of sick coward would have that idea. fail


Only the ones that lose.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.