Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Fantasy Laws      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 1
view profile
History
Fantasy LawsPage 1 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
I have a short list of "fantasy laws" to offer, which I know will NEVER be passed, but which would make me feel better, even if they were only actually proposed and debated.
Examples: "skin in the game" laws.
Such as: Right now, the Congress is in control of how Washington D.C. schools are run. They created a small sub group of reps to handle it. My fantasy? No one who did not have THEIR OWN children IN the school system would be allowed to sit on that panel.
Another one: instead of trying to regulate Tobacco products away, instead, since it has LONG been proven that they are addictive, and are destructive of health, simply require ALL of the medical costs of tobacco product CUSTOMERS , to be paid for out of the profits of the tobacco corporations, and of their officers. I'd bet that would take a HUGE chunk out of heath care costs for the rest of us.
Again: Congressmen are NOT subject to most of the laws they pass for the rest of us. They should be. And we could go further: no one in the Senate should be allowed to have Health Care coverage that is any better than the AVERAGE available to their constituents.
During the 1980's and 1990's, many big corporations responded to foreign competition, by reducing the number of employees in the company, and by reducing existing employees wages. They always claimed that this was necessary for the company to compete, and I would not argue with that, since it's a matter of math. However, I WOULD like to have seen a rule that said that any corporate officers who claimed that they had to cut worker pay because of competition, could NOT simultaneously claim that they deserved to DOUBLE their own take from the situation as a reward for firing people and cutting pay and shrinking the company. If you don't actually GROW your company, how can you justify that you GROW your paycheck?
Just a start.
 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 2
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/18/2010 9:57:31 PM
My fantasy laws? Hmmm.
1. Balanced Budget Amendment. The government can spend no more than it brings in.
/
2. Fair tax. Congress sets ONE tax rate for every citizen annually. Everyone pays the same percentage of income in tax. There is no punishment for being rich, being single or being divorced. "Deductions" are not allowed. You make, you pay.
/
3. Social service. If you borrow from the government through student loans, you are not only required to pay back, but you must serve a set number of years in service to the taxpayers that helped you out. If you borrow for medical school, that means government clinics.

If you don't want to serve, don't borrow from the government.

Pure fantasy, I know.
 .dej
Joined: 11/6/2007
Msg: 3
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/19/2010 12:33:05 AM

Right now, the Congress is in control of how Washington D.C. schools are run. They created a small sub group of reps to handle it. My fantasy? No one who did not have THEIR OWN children IN the school system would be allowed to sit on that panel.

That's a terrible idea. There's a reason doctors don't treat their friends/family.

Conflict of interest is almost universally regarded as a bad thing. Why you would intentionally inject that into a system is way beyond me.


no one in the Senate should be allowed to have Health Care coverage that is any better than the AVERAGE available to their constituents.

Anyone should have access to just about anything they're willing to pay for.
 Ezzee
Joined: 7/26/2004
Msg: 4
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/20/2010 7:39:41 AM

3. Social service. If you borrow from the government through student loans, you are not only required to pay back, but you must serve a set number of years in service to the taxpayers that helped you out. If you borrow for medical school, that means government clinics.


No problem. Done.

Here is the thing, almost all student loans are not through the government. They are through private banks and institutions. Sorry, but that particular law would be pretty pointless.
 Super Ryan
Joined: 9/15/2007
Msg: 5
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/20/2010 8:54:44 PM
Here's a simple one.
Hit and run should come with the same punishment as drunk driving. It's a cruel joke that someone can get wasted, kill someone with their car, run until they're sober, then receiving a slap on the wrist, since it can't be proven that the driver was drunk.

And legalize weed.
 CallmeKen
Joined: 9/4/2009
Msg: 6
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/20/2010 9:56:02 PM

Here is the thing, almost all student loans are not through the government. They are through private banks and institutions.

The Affordable Care Act of March 2010 made the government the direct lender of student loans, and forbids the involvement of private banks in federal loan programs. About half of all undergraduates receive federal student aid, and 8.5 million receive Pell grants.

Source: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125347342
That makes it far from a pointless endeavor.


simply require ALL of the medical costs of tobacco product CUSTOMERS , to be paid for out of the profits of the tobacco corporations,

So a corporation should reward people who make poor lifestyle choices with free money, simply because corporations have it? Let me guess, you're a Democrat.

Education programs abound on the dangers of smoking. EVERY pack of cigarettes sold in the US has one of nine text warnings. In fact, the FDA is proposing putting graphic pictures of smokers' lungs on a pack. The only way the FDA could be more specific is if they stick an FDA official to slap customers across the face with a dead fish if you buy smokes. If the consumer CHOOSES to ignore the warnings and the education, spend his own money and light up, how is that the fault of any company?
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/20/2010 11:13:36 PM
Hey, that's why they are fantasy laws. They wouldn't pass, wouldn't be found Constitutional. No law aimed at a particular company can pass muster in the Supreme Court.
But since (according to SOME reports I've read) the largest part of long term health care costs are due to smoking and tobacco-related problems, having the people making the money from causing the problem would be appropriate, at least.
"Skin in the game" concepts, as with all such GENERAL concepts, have limitations. As for the comment about going back to the days when only male landowners could vote, that person had it backwards: everyone SUBJECT to laws, have "skin in the game." Not just the land owners. If the rule back then had been that only landowners could vote, but that the laws passed by the elected officials only APPLIED to the landowners, then the "skin in the game" concept would apply.
My fantasy law about schools is (knowingly)problematic, because it ignores the real expertise and genuine caring that SOME people without children in the system do actually have about education. But I put it in, because in D.C. in particular, Congress went out of their way to take local control away from the residents, and place it in the hands of a panel of congressmen from other states. That aint right either.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/20/2010 11:25:16 PM
"So a corporation should reward people who make poor lifestyle choices with free money, simply because corporations have it? Let me guess, you're a Democrat."
No, not because "corporations have money," but because these PARTICULAR ones are making their money from the victims of an addiction they seek to encourage, even today. It's closer to the same idea that requires mining companies to clean up after themselves, out of their profits, and THOSE laws exist NOW, and ARE Constitutional.
And no, I'm not a Democrat. I'm more of a "pox on both your parties" kind of person.
 MrLove45
Joined: 1/31/2010
Msg: 9
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/21/2010 11:25:03 AM
my fantasy law would be that corporations can only contribute $28,500 to a party and 2,300 per person in a primary and general elections....just saying since the republican members of the supreme court said they are people
 MrLove45
Joined: 1/31/2010
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/22/2010 12:36:08 PM
Dmotz you sure do know how to make a fella laugh....I really enjoy shooting the breeze with you
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 11
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/22/2010 2:04:12 PM

My fantasy law:

No member of Congress shall be paid more than the lowest paid soldier.

They both go to "serve" right?

And if they b!tch about having to have a house in Washington and one back home, we can solve that just like the military too - build them a barracks...


I would go along with that if you can guarantee us that the Republicans won't give Halliburton a no-bid contract to build the barracks.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 12
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/23/2010 5:12:15 AM
Any member of congress who proposes legislation must swear under oath, under penalty of perjury, that they believe all the facts, figures, and concepts of said legislation is completely true. That would prevent future wars, get rid of the ethanol boondoggle, stop plans to burn up forests for electricity and eliminate a whole lot of republicans from running, winning, or staying..quite a few dems too. This should apply to the Executive branch as well as all staff. Those convicted of perjury would be immediately sentenced to the front lines of whatever oil war du jour was the hottest. Survivors would then serve out their lives cleaning up oil spills.
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/25/2010 7:55:17 AM


No member of Congress shall be paid more than the lowest paid soldier.

They both go to "serve" right?

And if they b!tch about having to have a house in Washington and one back home, we can solve that just like the military too - build them a barracks...

I would go along with that if you can guarantee us that the Republicans won't give Halliburton a no-bid contract to build the barracks.
Yes ... let them all live in a barracks. Lots of them are millionaires.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/09/07/am-how-many-millionaires-are-in-congress/
How many millionaires are in Congress?

Of 535 members of the United States Congress, what's the share of millionaires? Is it less than 10 percent, close to half of all the members of Congress, or two-thirds? The Globalist's Stephan Richter quizzes Steve Chiotakis, and tells us how much lawmakers make compared to the rest of us.

TEXT OF INTERVIEW

STEVE CHIOTAKIS: We thought we'd test our knowledge of international affairs once again, as we do every so often. And we're glad to bring in Stephan Richter, with this morning's Marketplace Globalist Quiz. Good morning, Stephan.

STEPHAN RICHTER: Good morning Steve. Are you ready for today's quiz?

CHIOTAKIS: I am.

RICHTER: Of the 535 members of the U.S. Congress, what's the share of millionaires? Is it A) less than 10 percent, B) close to half of all the members of Congress, or C) even two-thirds of the members of Congress.

CHIOTAKIS: I know they call the Senate the "millionaire's club." Well there's 100 of them right there. I would say half.

BUZZ (Wrong Answer)

RICHTER: Half is a brilliant answer, but since you talked about the Senate, you should have gone for two-thirds are actually millionaires.

CHIOTAKIS: So Stephan, I'm curious about what's the comparison between how much the lawmakers make and the rest of us make in this country?

RICHTER: The median U.S. family has a net worth of about $120,000. For the average member of the U.S. House of Representatives, it's $666,000. So that goes to show that in terms of the representativeness of the U.S. Congress, there's a lot of rich people there and very few average folks.

CHIOTAKIS: Well I'm headed to Washington then. That's where the money is, Stephan.

RICHTER: That is probably truer than we all wish for.

CHIOTAKIS: And thanks for providing us with that insight, Stephan.

RICHTER: It was my pleasure, dollar for dollar.


OT ...
My fantasy law would be that no one in Congress or Government should be allowed to have health insurance until everyone has it. If that were the case ... I'm thinking it would be passed and in place by the end of this week.

I'm sure you all heard about that Andy Harris guy ... a newly-elected far-right congressman from Maryland who campaigned against Obamacare but now wants his "Obamacare"?

Glenn Thrush / The Politico:
GOP frosh: Where's my health care? — A conservative Maryland physician elected to Congress on an anti-Obamacare platform surprised fellow freshmen at a Monday orientation session by demanding to know why his government-subsidized health care plan from the government takes a month to kick in.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_11/026655.php
Political Animal


November 16, 2010

HOUSE REPUBLICAN WANTS HIS GOVERNMENT-SUBSIDIZED HEALTH CARE NOW.... It perfectly reasonable for Andy Harris, like all Americans, to want health care coverage. He's a husband and father of five, and I'm sure he worries about his family losing their health insurance, just like everyone else.

The difference, in this case, is that Andy Harris is a newly-elected far-right congressman from Maryland. Yesterday, at an orientation session, he and his colleagues were told that their health coverage would take effect on Feb. 1, and Harris, an anesthesiologist who railed against the Affordable Care Act to get elected, suggested that's not soon enough.

He wants his government-subsidized health care -- and he wants it now.

"He stood up and asked the two ladies who were answering questions why it had to take so long, what he would do without 28 days of health care," said a congressional staffer who saw the exchange. [...]

"Harris then asked if he could purchase insurance from the government to cover the gap," added the aide, who was struck by the similarity to Harris's request and the public option he denounced as a gateway to socialized medicine.

Harris, a Maryland state senator who works at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore and several hospitals on the Eastern Shore, also told the audience, "This is the only employer I've ever worked for where you don't get coverage the first day you are employed," his spokeswoman Anna Nix told POLITICO.

Harris spent months condemning the idea of Americans being entitled to taxpayer-subsidized health care coverage. Now that the election's over, Harris suddenly feels entitled to taxpayer-subsidized health care coverage -- and wants it immediately. (For the record, Harris and his family will probably rely on COBRA to stay insured until his coverage kicks in. COBRA, of course, is another government program that the right opposed.)

That Harris apparently sought a public option for him and his family just makes the whole story that much more hilarious.

Just to clarify, I don't actually blame the far-right congressman-elect. He wants coverage for him and his family, and doesn't want to have to worry about a 28-day gap in which he, his wife, and his kids would have no protections if they get sick.

I do, however, blame the far-right congressman-elect for failing to realize that millions of American families want the same peace of mind he's seeking.

Harris wants to know "what he would do without 28 days of health care"? I don't know, Andy, what have tens of millions of Americans, including millions of children, done without access to quality health care for years? Why are you entitled to government-subsidized health care, but they're not? What will those families do after you repeal the Affordable Care Act? Wait for tort reform to magically cover everyone?

What an embarrassment.
Yes indeed ... what an embarrassment.

I wonder if that Andy Harris guy is also one of the millionaires in Congress?
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 14
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/25/2010 8:23:25 AM
How about a law that says if a law is found to be unconstitutional then every congressman who voted for it, and the prsident if he signed it, get executed.

More seriously, let's repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, and the Federal Reserve Act.
 Metreau
Joined: 7/30/2004
Msg: 15
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/26/2010 2:19:17 AM
^^^^YEAH!! What the Count said (though I think the 17th Amendment should be kept)!!

But before that, I think that there should be a law that requires to review all current laws on the books at for at least one year during a President's term.

I'd also like to see a laws that:
1. Declassifies ALL government documents on EVERYTHING and prevents the classification of any future government documents.

2. Limits the terms of congressman (both federal and state) to no more than what the president holds office.
(If the president gets voted out of office, so does the congressmen/women that are in office at the time. Same would apply to the state and local levels.)
 cotter
Joined: 10/17/2005
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/27/2010 8:31:33 AM


... if a law is found to be unconstitutional then every congressman who voted for it, and the prsident if he signed it, get executed.

^^^^YEAH!! What the Count said ...
EXECUTED????

In what way? A bullet to their head? The gas chamber? Hung?

What about state government? Do you two also want the same? Execute any state congressmen and the governor for ridiculous laws? No chewing gum in public parks ... no walking on a city street with a short skirt or saggy pants? (Personally, I'd be thrilled if the "saggy pants" were outlawed nationwide.

Here's one that was later found to be unconstitutional ... at least in Florida. So should those state people also be executed? Stand them up in front of a firing squad?

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-07/justice/georgia.baggy.pants.law_1_saggy-pants-baggy-pants-face-fines?_s=PM:CRIME
Georgia mayor to sign baggy pants ban

September 07, 2010

Dublin Mayor Phil Best plans to sign the amendment to the indecent exposure ordinance this week.

The mayor of Dublin, Georgia, is expected to sign an ordinance Tuesday that prohibits the wearing of saggy pants. Violators face fines up to $200.

The amendment to the municipality's indecent exposure ordinance will be put into immediate effect at the city council meeting, Mayor Phil Best told CNN.

It bans the wearing of pants or skirts "more than three inches below the top of the hips exposing the skin or undergarments."

"We've gotten several complaints from citizens saying the folks with britches down below their buttocks was offensive, and wasn't there something we could do about it," Best said.
Advertisement

The mayor said after about a year of fielding complaints, he put the city attorney to work researching how other localities have dealt with the derriere dilemma. The result was that council members decided to put exposure due to baggy clothing in the same category as masturbation, fornication and urination in public places.

Patrolling for offenders will be left to local police in the town about 140 miles southeast of Atlanta. Violators could face fines ranging from $25 to $200, or court-mandated community service.

"That's not our intent. We'd [rather] not fine anybody, but we are prepared to," Best said.

Dublin residents are divided on the issue.

Lashika Haynes supports the push to force folks to pull up, "It's just disrespectful by showing your drawers to people," she said.

But there are those who feel that the ordinance singles out a specific group of citizens.

Jean Wolf, who volunteers with young black men in the community said, "They're the ones wearing the saggy, baggy pants."

Wolf said she believes the ordinance will lead to profiling by authorities.

Best said that accusation is "ridiculous."

"It's for white, black, man, woman. The ordinance is for everyone, and I've seen it violated by all races and sexes," Best said.

Dublin is not alone in its pull-up-the-pants campaign. Riviera Beach, Florida, and Flint, Michigan, passed bans against sagging pants in recent years, but the Riviera Beach legislation later was declared unconstitutional after a court challenge.

"It's time we all have a mutual respect for each other ... what a person does in the privacy of their home is fine," Best said. "But if I had an 8-year-old daughter, I don't think she needs to be subjected to looking at someone's rear end."
 MrLove45
Joined: 1/31/2010
Msg: 17
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/27/2010 11:03:24 AM
that's a real good one there Monigue
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 18
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/27/2010 3:39:29 PM


In what way? A bullet to their head? The gas chamber? Hung?


I'm thinking guillotine would be nice. Then stick their heads on a spike outside of the Capitol building as a reminder.



Here's one that was later found to be unconstitutional ... at least in Florida. So should those state people also be executed? Stand them up in front of a firing squad?


Yup. If we execute them for the small infractions of our civil liberties and basic freedoms then maybe they wouldn't create large infractions of our rights. Any government that wants to fine someone $200 for wearing baggy pants is a government run amok.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 19
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/27/2010 9:46:44 PM


Elections make those executions unnecessary.


Two words for you: Charlie Rangel.

The electoral system doesn't work when:

1) The two major parties have written the laws in such a way to make it almost impossible for third parties to get elected.
2) Campaigns are so expensive that only the rich and well-connected can successfully run.
3) The public is undereducated.
4) The public votes for whoever can bring home the most pork.
5) Even when people are voted out of office they get cushy pensions and become well-paid lobbyists, so it's no punishment at all.
6) The media manipulates public opinion.
7) Politicians are beholden to their corporate sponsors rather than the people.
8) People vote in electronic voting booths which are ripe for corruption.
9) The public has an attention span of about 15 seconds (just enough time to get a soundbite in).
 Metreau
Joined: 7/30/2004
Msg: 20
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/28/2010 8:06:02 AM
^^^YEAH! What the Count said (again)!
Those reasons alone basically render the election process useless.



What about state government? Do you two also want the same? Execute any state congressmen and the governor for ridiculous laws? No chewing gum in public parks ... no walking on a city street with a short skirt or saggy pants? (Personally, I'd be thrilled if the "saggy pants" were outlawed nationwide.


I'd like to see people learn to pull their pants up without the government involvement. Making a law to regulate how someone dresses should be considered ridiculous when all that is required is some basic common sense and home training.

Where's the rocket launcher? I need to blow up some congressmen/governors making ridiculous laws....Duke Nukem style!
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 21
view profile
History
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/28/2010 9:00:22 AM
I don't believe that anything a politician or other public servants does warrants execution, or death threats, with the exception of war crimes and child abuse. Most of these people support and help fill the facilities of the Prison Industrial Complex with their funding and arbitrary laws. It's only fitting that these ready made retirement homes will house them after trial and conviction.

Meanwhile the "people" who actually control the country's political system and write the laws can finally run for Congress.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHRKkXtxDRA
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 22
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/28/2010 10:25:38 AM

How positively silly.

Generally it would be worthwhile to point out that "the public" can choose to vote in any way an individual person sees fit. A vote does not have to meet anyone else's standards. But it hardly seems worth the breath when the notion of execution is on the table, "fantasy" or not. Once one tries to justify it in this realm, all the righteous rage you can muster is just hot air.


Robspierre had the right idea. "To punish the oppressors of humanity is clemency; to forgive them is barbarity."

These treasonous politicians have declared war against the American people through their repeated attempts (usually successful) to put arbitrary and unconstitutional laws into effect.

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. "--Thomas Jefferson

Politicians are out of control and it's past time for us to strike fear in their hearts. That, my friend, is change you can believe in.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 23
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/28/2010 11:26:10 AM
Hmm, you know, when you start quoting Robspierre to justify your position, you're on pretty thin ice.

I suspect you could find quotes from Pol Pot, Mao or Mugabe that would be in complete agreement with you.

The way to tell if a political system is working properly is if everyone is vaguely unhappy. If any one person or group is happy, then the process has failed. In the modern nation state, there will always be competing interests - what you consider to be arbitrary and unconstitutional laws are actually laws that address concerns of other people in your country. Just because you're not getting what you want doesn't mean it's time to kill the politicians - it's actually a reason to both rejoice and speak up.

Oh, and my fantasy laws would take the civil treatment of corporations as persons and apply that more broadly. Either that or redefine corporations as not persons - one or the other. If a mafioso bribes a judge, and it's proven he bribes a judge, he goes to jail. If a corporation does it, the judge goes to jail; the corporation skates. Lock down companies that break the law and seize their assets.
 Metreau
Joined: 7/30/2004
Msg: 24
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/28/2010 7:16:20 PM

Oh, and my fantasy laws would take the civil treatment of corporations as persons and apply that more broadly. Either that or redefine corporations as not persons - one or the other. If a mafioso bribes a judge, and it's proven he bribes a judge, he goes to jail. If a corporation does it, the judge goes to jail; the corporation skates. Lock down companies that break the law and seize their assets.


I believe you posted this idea in another thread, and I still stand behind that idea. Make the RICO statutes apply to corporations as it does to members of organized crime gangs.

THIS is one law that should have no problem passing constitutional muster. The only way I could see this not becoming law (if ever proposed) is if it is not supported INTENTIONALLY (due to corporate influence).
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 25
Fantasy Laws
Posted: 11/29/2010 4:13:08 AM

The way to tell if a political system is working properly is if everyone is vaguely unhappy.


I guess North Korea must be a ideal political system. Afterall no one there seems unhappy and they seem to have a deep love for their regime.
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Fantasy Laws