|
Post by the light works on Jan 6, 2014 15:29:57 GMT
Federal Romneycare is not an insurance policy. it is a rule that you must get an insurance policy which meets minimum coverage standards. their current policy far exceeds those standards. The insurance I have through work also exceeds the "standards", so Obamacare mandated the policy be lessened and employees pay higher premiums/deductables. I think if you did some severe investigation, you would find it was not the ACA that made the decision to try to reduce the benefit/cost ratio.
|
|
|
Post by alabastersandman on Jan 7, 2014 3:17:46 GMT
A law I would like to see? How about a law that prohibits any further passing of new law, until ALL of the stupid, useless, overreaching, special interest group generated, laws are removed from the books. In a "land of the free" there should not exist any excuse for ignorance of law, law should be simple, logical, and restricted to only actions that overstep others freedoms/rights.
I'm utterly tired of stupid laws. I got a notice a couple years back that I had a small utility trailer in my driveway too long. OOhh, what kind of a terrible person would leave a trailer in their own driveway? I could go on and on but I won't, much. Tired of people who think they can control what others can and can't do because they are offended by something. Christmas lights for example since there was a story recently about neighbors were offended by a house or houses, decorated with Christmas decorations/lights. So far there is no law against putting up Christmas decorations, but if these idiots get their way, there will be, it is not for lack of trying.
My decorations are still up and lit, just because I like them and I can. Personally, I have no use for a menorah, but I am certainly not offended by one. If people can't grasp what freedom should mean, they can get the hell out of this country. There are no shortages of overbearing governments around this planet to give them plenty of choice in which country to be miserable in. Leave this one as it should be, the land of the free, home of the "brave". The word "brave" should not be reduced to putting decorations on your house.
In my humble opinion, if all laws will not fit into a collection of books around the size of a set of encyclopedias, it is too much law. Or if a new law is more important than some other more questionable law, the old law is swapped out for a more useful, newer law. Something along those lines anyway. That would still give them what, in my opinion would me more paper to write law on than a country needs.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 7, 2014 7:35:11 GMT
A law I would like to see? How about a law that prohibits any further passing of new law, until ALL of the stupid, useless, overreaching, special interest group generated, laws are removed from the books. In a "land of the free" there should not exist any excuse for ignorance of law, law should be simple, logical, and restricted to only actions that overstep others freedoms/rights. I'm utterly tired of stupid laws. I got a notice a couple years back that I had a small utility trailer in my driveway too long. OOhh, what kind of a terrible person would leave a trailer in their own driveway? I could go on and on but I won't, much. Tired of people who think they can control what others can and can't do because they are offended by something. Christmas lights for example since there was a story recently about neighbors were offended by a house or houses, decorated with Christmas decorations/lights. So far there is no law against putting up Christmas decorations, but if these idiots get their way, there will be, it is not for lack of trying. My decorations are still up and lit, just because I like them and I can. Personally, I have no use for a menorah, but I am certainly not offended by one. If people can't grasp what freedom should mean, they can get the hell out of this country. There are no shortages of overbearing governments around this planet to give them plenty of choice in which country to be miserable in. Leave this one as it should be, the land of the free, home of the "brave". The word "brave" should not be reduced to putting decorations on your house. In my humble opinion, if all laws will not fit into a collection of books around the size of a set of encyclopedias, it is too much law. Or if a new law is more important than some other more questionable law, the old law is swapped out for a more useful, newer law. Something along those lines anyway. That would still give them what, in my opinion would me more paper to write law on than a country needs. I have heard of limitations on the number of laws - I think in a fiction story, but I understand the principle. my own version was requiring an audit by laymen every ten years. laws judged obsolete would be deleted, and laws judged unclear or ambiguous would be remanded for rewrite. on a similar vein, law pushers in Oregon have figured out that constitutional amendments are harder for the legislature to modify, so every penny-ante issue spawns constitutional amendments. I'd like to see a rule that any constitutional amendment must be re-ratified one year after it takes effect.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 7, 2014 13:36:02 GMT
I have heard of limitations on the number of laws - I think in a fiction story, but I understand the principle. my own version was requiring an audit by laymen every ten years. laws judged obsolete would be deleted, and laws judged unclear or ambiguous would be remanded for rewrite. on a similar vein, law pushers in Oregon have figured out that constitutional amendments are harder for the legislature to modify, so every penny-ante issue spawns constitutional amendments. I'd like to see a rule that any constitutional amendment must be re-ratified one year after it takes effect. Sounds like a good plan. But, if their not making laws to "protect and assist their constituents", politicians would actually have to do something useful. At the very least, there should be a three prong test for new laws: 1) Is this law necessary? (Does it have an application at this time?) 2) Is this law reasonable? (Does it have a logical reason and purpose?) 3) Is this law enforceable? (Does it have a basis for its use?) Then again, trying to find logic in government is like trying to Waldo in a candy cane factory...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 7, 2014 14:54:31 GMT
I have heard of limitations on the number of laws - I think in a fiction story, but I understand the principle. my own version was requiring an audit by laymen every ten years. laws judged obsolete would be deleted, and laws judged unclear or ambiguous would be remanded for rewrite. on a similar vein, law pushers in Oregon have figured out that constitutional amendments are harder for the legislature to modify, so every penny-ante issue spawns constitutional amendments. I'd like to see a rule that any constitutional amendment must be re-ratified one year after it takes effect. Sounds like a good plan. But, if their not making laws to "protect and assist their constituents", politicians would actually have to do something useful. At the very least, there should be a three prong test for new laws: 1) Is this law necessary? (Does it have an application at this time?) 2) Is this law reasonable? (Does it have a logical reason and purpose?) 3) Is this law enforceable? (Does it have a basis for its use?) Then again, trying to find logic in government is like trying to Waldo in a candy cane factory... a comparative study would be the National Electric Code. in my last live code class; the instructor pointed out that there are three reasons for changes to the code: New Technology; which means new rules have to be written to address it - for example, in the previous code cycle, it was illegal to have a light in a closet that was above where stuff was stored. someone developed a lighted clothes rod. the code had to be altered to recognize the clothes rod. A****** contractors; the guys who try to get away with stuff, so rules have to be made to close the loopholes they try to sneak through. this is why the code requires general receptacles to be no more than 12 feet apart or 6 feet from any interruption in the wall space; why the code requires bathroom receptacles to be on a 20 amp circuit, and why it specifies how far apart staples can be. A****** inspectors; yep, we get them. this is why the code specifies that it is OK to slide Romex through conduit to come down an open stud garage wall.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 8, 2014 8:12:27 GMT
I would also put all expenses occurred through campaign trails through the parliamentary standards commission....
Yes he needed a room for the night. £1,000 a nigh is taking the (deleted), and a further £150 a head for meals is downright disgusting.
Make a serious list of what is and isnt allowed. At the end of the campaign, wherever you have left of your initial budget is then Forfeit, and placed in the hands of carefully chosen charities.
If someone wishes to donate by say opening up their hotel and providing accommodation for free, That is allowed. suggested for comment, if this is by say a chain of hotels, then allowed as long as they also provide accommodation for any other party at discount rates ("cost", where they dont loose out on that deal, but do not profiteer by it)
I also suggest that all parties are closely monitored. Those that are campaigning to place their Cat as president, they are liable for ALL costs incurred, and do in fact loose their deposit, (A sizeable one to cover Gobmint expense of administration costs) if they do not attract a certain amount of votes.
This free speech thing.... If say that certain protesting church that pops up on here from time to time was to "run" for election, they should provide a statement of intent, if any part is considered illegal, racist, or hate crime, they loose deposit and are kicked out permanently from elections. This decision must be made democratically, in front of 12 good men and true, (Or Women etc..) as in, court case, at their expense.
I also ask for a law to prevent "Mud slinging".... The sight of two politicians having a handbag war live on stage trading insults..... You MUST have direct evidence that could stand in a court of law before you make allegations. Debate the party intent, not the person.
All this crap about Obama and Birth certificate.... I say again, if he was not eligible, do you really think his party would have let him run for president?...
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 8, 2014 12:32:12 GMT
It would be nice to see politicians actually among the masses. Let's see how many people run for office when you tell them that they have to stay at Holiday Inn and eat at McNopes...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 8, 2014 14:46:50 GMT
I would also put all expenses occurred through campaign trails through the parliamentary standards commission.... Yes he needed a room for the night. £1,000 a nigh is taking the (deleted), and a further £150 a head for meals is downright disgusting. Make a serious list of what is and isnt allowed. At the end of the campaign, wherever you have left of your initial budget is then Forfeit, and placed in the hands of carefully chosen charities. If someone wishes to donate by say opening up their hotel and providing accommodation for free, That is allowed. suggested for comment, if this is by say a chain of hotels, then allowed as long as they also provide accommodation for any other party at discount rates ("cost", where they dont loose out on that deal, but do not profiteer by it) I also suggest that all parties are closely monitored. Those that are campaigning to place their Cat as president, they are liable for ALL costs incurred, and do in fact loose their deposit, (A sizeable one to cover Gobmint expense of administration costs) if they do not attract a certain amount of votes. This free speech thing.... If say that certain protesting church that pops up on here from time to time was to "run" for election, they should provide a statement of intent, if any part is considered illegal, racist, or hate crime, they loose deposit and are kicked out permanently from elections. This decision must be made democratically, in front of 12 good men and true, (Or Women etc..) as in, court case, at their expense. I also ask for a law to prevent "Mud slinging".... The sight of two politicians having a handbag war live on stage trading insults..... You MUST have direct evidence that could stand in a court of law before you make allegations. Debate the party intent, not the person. All this crap about Obama and Birth certificate.... I say again, if he was not eligible, do you really think his party would have let him run for president?... more to the point: if he was not eligible, do you think the OTHER party would have let him run... as for the mud slinging, laws of libel and slander ought to apply. as to campaign donations - simply make a law that all donations must be made anonymously; and if anyone does anything to circumvent that; bring them up on charges of racketeering.
|
|