<p>aka: “How America Saves Herself from the Fringe”.</p>
<p>Is it about time ?</p>
<p>Your comments ?</p>
<p>Huh? do you have a link or something that we can read?</p>
<p>No, yourworld’s either being facetious or delusional. This thread springs from the one about the suit against the Knicks executive, in which yourworld deplored how liberal America had become, and how the country needs to “turn back to the middle”.</p>
<p>That is, until I pointed out that America is currently less liberal than almost every other western society, and that the only more conservative countries are either dictatorships or Muslim theocracies.</p>
<p>He has yet to respond to that point.</p>
<p>Neither 1of42. I am hoping this leads to serious discussion that concerns the future of our republic.</p>
<p>Here’s one article in the “American Chronicle”:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=30423[/url]”>http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=30423</a></p>
<p>European nations are already making the shift. France just elected a conservative president. More to follow.</p>
<p>I have often thought of an America that would move further to the Right (more conversative) and mostly along the lines of money. </p>
<ol>
<li>No subsidy for student loans. </li>
<li>Student loans based on national need and ability to pay off.</li>
<li>Student loans based on merit only.</li>
<li>Incentives for top students.</li>
<li>Top students get their choice of colleges-purely competitive.</li>
<li>State colleges should be privatized.</li>
<li>Leadership should only go to the successfully wealthy (Romney, Bloomberg)</li>
<li>Leadership should go to the ruthless (survival of the fittest) </li>
<li>No tax breaks-flat tax or tax on consumption only.</li>
<li>Universal draft and national service. </li>
<li>Children to those most able to afford and raise child adequately.</li>
<li>Failure of criterias leads to removal of priviledges and child.</li>
</ol>
<p>more to follow.</p>
<p>I feel really safe and secure about the future of our republic with your suggestions above. Nothing like having someone so thoughtful to look after the interests of America.</p>
<p>^Thankyou.
As you will notice, the suggestions are also Constitutional.</p>
<ol>
<li>Leadership should paved for increased wealth.</li>
<li>Poll tax should replace all other forms of taxation.</li>
</ol>
<p>thisoldman, even if you disregard all the moral concerns with your suggestions, they are socially irresponsible and dangerous. </p>
<p>When you do things like privatize higher education and eliminate need-based loan programs, you restrict society’s important positions to people with hereditary wealth. Maybe this comports with your sense of social justice, but its economically inefficient to restrict your ‘talent pool’ to such a small percentage of the population. Society as a whole is much better off there is at least <em>some</em> equal access to education. </p>
<p>The flat tax isn’t viable with our current system of government. In pure dollars, the top tax bracket provides the overwhelming majority of the government’s revenue. If we instituted a flat tax, the government would either have to eliminate all but its most basic functions or raise the flat tax rate to an absurdly high level (which would cripple the economy). There’s a reason why no serious presidential candidate is seriously suggesting a flat tax.</p>
<p>“Children to those most able to afford and raise child adequately.”</p>
<p>This is not constitutional. And frankly, I’m scared that any rational adult would suggest it.</p>
<p>Ask a serious questions, and the liberals come busting out with sneers as usual. Never met a substantive topic where they can’t make fun of, especially those that concern our future.</p>
<p>fight fight fight!</p>
<p>But seriously though, the low blows have got to stop. children are reading.</p>
<p>Which fringe do you think we need saving from?</p>
<p>Are you saying we are in a state of perfect union ?</p>
<p>And enderkin, save your bravado for fighting crimes, dealing with terrorists.</p>
<p>edvest: I’m not a liberal, just not an idiot. I’m actually economically conservative, socially libertarian, and concerned with how most “conservatives” want to turn the country into a theocracy ruled by hereditary wealth, and ruin the country’s productivity in the future in the name of “the free market”, when in reality a free market in merit would actually include things like heavily taxing hereditary wealth.</p>
<p>yourworld: Yeah, France just elected a President who is conservative - by French standards. Look at him in comparison to almost any American politician, and he’s still a socialist. You still have yet to answer my previous point: which of the more conservative types of society do you want for America, Muslim theocracy or unstable, poor dictatorship?</p>
<p>“Ask a serious questions, and the liberals come busting out with sneers as usual. Never met a substantive topic where they can’t make fun of, especially those that concern our future.”</p>
<p>Sneers? What sneers? I thought Somonite presented a reasoned and well thought out response to the changes proposed by Thisoldman. Clearly they disagree, but the only sneering I’ve seen so far has been by you, Evest. I can almost see your lip curling…LOL!</p>
<p>Poet, my reply is directed toward the likes of “thisoldman”. Samonite provided many counter-points to thisoldman’s absurd outline. Some if not all were made in jest. Hence my point of sneering. I was not the one who sneered.</p>
<p>It’s extraordinarily difficult to discern who is serious and who is being sarcastic in this thread. I assumed that Thisoldman was being facetious by posting an example of the right wing agenda taken to its (illogical) extreme. Others apparently felt otherwise. Now they’re fighting over their (mis)interpretations of each other’s responses. </p>
<p>Gotta love the internet.</p>
<p>Yep. Also amuses me that I still have yet to receive a response from any of those advocating a “move to the middle” aka off further right as to which type of more conservative society they’d prefer - unstable dictatorship or Muslim theocracy.</p>
<p>It would be ok with me if our Federal Govt got out of the Education Business altogether. If you examine schools which accept no federal money, they generally cost far less than institutions which do accept such funds. Of course, that blanket statement does not apply to state funded institutions, but to private colleges. </p>
<p>I think that if the govt got out of education, the cost of it would drop dramatically, and undoubtedly, the quality would rise. The start of a meritocracy? maybe - but who wants their convenience store clerk as president?</p>
<p>I’m not convinced that the average convenience store clerk is greatly less qualified in terms of intelligence than George W.</p>