Are we moving from a world of winning to a world of survival? Or will opportunity win out? Do better laws make a country stronger and a better place to live and bring up a family?
Who gets to define better?
Did our founders give us a foot in the door to freedom and justice, and are we the ones who should take freedom and justice home and give our foot a rest? Would stopping the trend toward having rich overlords as in olden times who owned enough stuff to keep almost everyone else poor, work?
Is the answer a matter of setting it up so folks will to do what’s right whether it’s their idea or not. This is what well written laws are for. If so, where to start? Maybe a good start would be to take the money out of the lives of the politicians. Literally.
Pay an amount for their expenses and send a stipend to his or her family’s bank account. Have for all qualified candidates a reasonable amount of government funding to use for vote-getting, TV time for speeches and debates, and travel. This at a minimum should (with some adjustments and better ideas) allow candidates to travel around and have outlets for their ideas without having to spend very much of their own money.
When growing up I remember hearing about scandals and politicians going to jail for their crooked deeds. Somewhere along the way the politicians changed the laws (I guess because they could) and made it legal to receive money from grateful admirers.
Should we begin by voting in laws which prohibit politicians from receiving money from anyone or any organization accept a paycheck from the government for their work as servants of the citizens and not be able to raise their own salary. And really important, all of their rules of procedure must pass the muster a civilian oversight committee. (No vetoes by a single person allowed, etc.)
Will getting the money out of politics change what happens here? Will everyone still be free yet the rules and laws will begin to be fairer? Would change begin to depend on the quality of an idea instead of the will of a person or group who has a lot of money?
Aren’t there a lot of better places to put the billions we pour into politics for campaigns and political pull? Should such an obvious question have to be asked? Isn’t it one for all and all for one? If so, wouldn’t it take care of everybody?
From what I’ve seen on film and TV and heard and read of the Scandinavian countries, the Danish, Norwegian and Swedish folks have figured it out. And they have their problems like all countries do, yet their educational systems are among the very best systems on earth, and they have happy, creative and prosperous societies, and they do their best to see that everyone gets a fair shake and basic needs are met.
There are higher taxes in Scandinavia which pay for all of the education and health care costs and many other needed social services as well as retirement benefits.
Somewhere I got the idea the folks there pay about fifty percent of their income to the government and get a very long list of benefits. I haven’t researched the income tax rates in Scandinavia, so the rates may be different than what I’m presenting here.
Health is the most important human concern but little attention is given to it until it turns bad or there’s an accident or health problems are inherited.
Why would anyone keep another person’s family from getting the health care they need? Healthcare shouldn’t be a cash cow for investors. Why profit from one’s fear of large medical bills? We can get on the road to becoming an enlightened people by instituting a one-payer healthcare system similar to Canada’s.
Does the average person in Scandinavia have a much better chance to be happy and fulfilled than the average person here in the USA? Is it that once healthcare and education are assured, the rest of life is pure adventure and any worries will be created by the worrier and not by the rich wanting to keep their loopholes in place and their tax bracket low.
The really good thing about the Scandinavian countries is that the citizens don’t have to give up their lust for riches. Riches are still available as they are here, but riches there don’t get to obscene levels. The excess is poured back into the country for the benefit of all, even for the richer folks.
And when one needs assistance (for example, better schools) the better schools are there for everyone in Scandinavia, but Scandinavia’s full coverage assistance doesn’t exist here. Why? Is it that folks have to demand it? How do you demand? Vote and encourage others to vote.
questionsnow 