Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Simple question here

Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 29, 2011, 1:56 p.m. EST by theCheat (85)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Do you want more or less government intrusion in your life? What I have read in this forum is that you want more government for the wealthy through taxation and any other means you feel is necessary. You want more government in businesses through regulation and taxation. You want more government in your lives by receiving the benefits of the extra regulation or taxation of the previous entities. But at the same time you want more freedom to do whatever it is you want to do. So, what is it that you want?



Read the Rules


[-] 1 points by theCheat (85) 12 years ago

does that mean you will scrap the idea of a "living wage", universal healthcare and other government programs?

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 12 years ago

not at all, it means we will scrap cheaters

[-] 0 points by ScrewyL (809) 12 years ago

Then you're a troll.

[-] 1 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 12 years ago

In order to realize my full potential in my life, I want to be able to hire 9 year old kids and make them work for 12 hours a day. I want to be able to pollute other people's air and water. I want to be able to take other people's resources. I am tired of other people thru government telling me what I can't do and therefore, denying me my ability to realize my full potential. I want the freedom to do anything I want to do.

[-] 1 points by tulcak (698) from Prague, Prague 12 years ago

I want MORE government. WE, the people ARE the government. I want corporations OUT of government. if you are a "states' rights" person, then, you want to rescind the constitution (which is a federal document) and you want to make government local and controlled by locals. what freedom is there?

[-] 1 points by ronimacarroni (1089) 12 years ago

I want the crooked corporations to get taxed into oblivion.

[-] 1 points by Peretyatkov (241) from город Пенза, Пензенская область 12 years ago

Equality in decision making. The that the government offers - this are not the most intelligent and effective solutions. In short, I want to declare, the highest priority of the word of Truth! In particular, and over the word of the government.

How? All ingenious - simple!

The final Peace on the Earth

Thanks to what? http://occupywallst.org/forum/four-questions/

Music: My Dying Bride - The Cry Of Mankind

[-] 1 points by jartjart (6) 12 years ago

I want- don't ask what you can do for your government- ask what your government can do FOR YOU!

fairly tax- "all the people"- and use that money to take care of ALL THE PEOPLE----- stop using our money to oppress the whole planet-

training web page http://url2it.com/jsne thrasymaque

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 12 years ago

We want less government. We want government and courts to deliver justice, which they don't.

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 12 years ago

I want more ethical people making important decisions based on evidence

[-] 1 points by lyn123 (123) 12 years ago

The freedom to elect and hold responsible government officials who will act on the behalf of the majority. More government for the people not for the corporations. This seems like more government but it is actually just effective government. Commander in Chief is a big job and the war effort alone can be reassessed to bring about economic stability. It is really basic math and not ideals. Our country can't afford the way government operates today. Reduce the war machine and use the money for the good of the people.

[-] 1 points by Keepitsimple (110) 12 years ago

I think it boils down to:

What's fair for one, is fair for all!

That goes for bailouts, handouts, regulations, legislation, races, and genders.

[-] 1 points by kingscrosssection (314) 12 years ago

I think the government should take a couple of large steps back. There are certain theories that say the system we have is self correcting over time. The problem with politics now is that they want to be known as the person that fixed to problem. It all relates back to greed. Not necessarily money driven but glory driven. However, it seems obvious that the more you try to fix the more you make it worse

[-] 1 points by beamerbikeclub (414) 12 years ago

It's really not even more OR less... it's better. I want our elected representatives to REPRESENT us (we the people/ the citizens). I think it is fairly obvious they do not. The represent the corporations and banks that finance their election campaigns and give them cushy jobs once they are out of office. What's former Senator Phil Gramm up to these days, for example?

But yes, I want More regulation of giant banks (the ones gambling with Our money). And I want more regulation for any industry that is polluting the environment (like BP spilling oil in OUR Gulf). And I also want a portion of my tax dollars to go providing health care for everyone. Then my employer could drop my private health insurance and either pay me more or just pocket it, I don't mind.

That's about it. I'd love for Congress & the President to work together on policies that will help jump start green energy, or put people to work on public works projects like building subways and high-speed commuter trains. but I ain't in the street about that.

And then I suppose I want the government to stop wasting time & money worrying about who is smoking pot or snorting cocaine. Tax it and relax it. Stop putting people in jail for petty, non-violent offenses (like possession of small amounts of weed!). Fine them and or put them to work on something useful. And I definitely want the government NEVER to arrest, detain or imprison ANYONE without bringing criminal charges in a court of law. In Extreme cases perhaps a detention of a few months, but only with judicial review.

Am I forgetting anything?

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 12 years ago

a very sane answer to a very bratty question

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 12 years ago

Intellectual and personal freedom. Strong government regulation on vital industries. When people say they want more government they are not talking about more police to kick down your door. They are talking about protecting public wealth from private power. A government that actually represents the people and follows the will of the people. Not a government that represents the tiny minority with big business influences.

[-] 1 points by economicsguy (16) 12 years ago

What is "public wealth"?

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 12 years ago

Public property. Unoccupied land, rivers, lakes, forests, bridges, roads, national parks and reservations, mineral deposits and other resources, etc.

It belongs to everyone equally and I don't want my corrupt government to sell it off to private corporations because they can't come up with a system other than perpetual debt/credit.

[-] 1 points by economicsguy (16) 12 years ago

Thanks for the clarification of "public wealth". I don't disagree here.

When libertarian types hear some in the OWS movement say they want more regulations, they take that as more government. For example, the FDA is lobbied heavily by rich pharmaceutical companies which has prevented better and cheaper cures hitting the market.

Another example of looking for more from government is the call for raising taxes, instituting a $20 minimum wage, and forgiving all student loan debt. These are "more government" solutions, which libertarians reject as solving the problem.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 12 years ago

I understand that the FDA is important for many things but you are right about the pharmaceutical companies having way too much power there. I am for raising taxes and minimum wage but probably not in the way you are imagining. I think the problems are much deeper than simply increasing revenue through taxes and raising minimum wage 300% would kill small businesses and job growth. I am more interested in regulating speculation and it's influence on the market. The cost of commodities should be a reflection of supply and demand and speculators have enjoyed too much influence over the last decade.

I understand that we can't just throw out all the debt from everyone's student loans but something needs to be done about it. It has crippled a whole generation. I'm not an economics major so I don't really understand how the interest works on these loans but I have been paying my loans back for the last 5 years and the interest is still accruing. I have spent many thousands of dollars that could have gone into important sectors of the economy that are hurting on interest and have barely made a dent in the principle amount of my loans.

[-] 1 points by economicsguy (16) 12 years ago

I agree the cost of commodities should reflect supply and demand. Where we may disagree is how to control speculators. Regulations at the federal level are often inefficient, and I believe they are better done at the state level where people have closer control of them. For things of national importance a Constitutional amendment is an option.

I agree with you the problems are much deeper. I'm convinced the Federal Reserve is key to the problem.

As for interest I really dislike it. I wouldn't mind seeing state level laws which prohibit interest over 5%. To me any interest rates exceeding 15% resemble loan sharking, which of course is criminal.

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 12 years ago

I'm not sure how I feel about state law vs federal law. I know that it is very important to a lot of people to have laws passed at state level because at the federal level corruption becomes to big. I think that in some ways the states aren't strong enough on their own when it comes to regulation. It is too easy for a corporation to just threaten to move to another state if they don't get their way. It is a complicated matter and I don't want to pretend to know what to do about it.

The interest on my private student loans is not very high. I think it is 4.5%. I do not understand how that adds up to me having to pay over twice what I borrowed but I think it has something to do with the fact that they are over a 20 year period. I used to think that eventually the payments would decrease but they have yet to do so. It would make more sense that the payments are lower in the beginning and would gradually increase over time. I don't get it.

[-] 1 points by economicsguy (16) 12 years ago

Businesses usually check the pros and cons of decisions, but I don't think many would pick up and leave for only one law or another. Besides, it wouldn't look good for public perception, but it depends on the business, state, and exact circumstances I guess. But at least with state level laws it's possible for experimentation. When mistakes are made at the national level it messes it up for everybody.

You are right about the length of the loan affecting how much you pay, and often it means paying double the principal (or more) when all is said and done. Student loans are usually below 5%. Auto loans are generally 5-15%, and I've seen some credit cards at interest rates as high as 23%! That should be criminal. It's all a shell game, and banks know how to win. They encourage people to send in the minimum payment (like $50-100) which often means the loan won't be paid off for decades because so little goes to the principal.


[-] 1 points by theCheat (85) 12 years ago

so you want more government, but by the "will of the people". that is MORE police power, but at the hands of the "people"

[-] 1 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 12 years ago

Are you equating regulation with police? If so, then yes. What I don't want is private police forces and paramilitaries that are not accountable to anybody.

[-] 1 points by HarryCrew07 (433) 12 years ago

Well, there is no "you," there are individual people with individual ideas at this point. A true democracy, unorganized opinion. All of the things you said are things that people want.