Re: If I were in charge ...
 

Krsqk: I partly agree with you about not giving govt more tax dollars. So I'd use the fuel tax exclusively to fund the research, development, and early adoption of conservation measures and alternative energy systems. Or else I'd use it to offset lowering of other taxes.

At present, federal gasoline taxes are put into a "transportation trust fund" which is supposed to keep the highways and bridges in pristine shape, but instead is used to build new highways (often unnecessary ones in the districts of powerful legislators), and to hide the size of the budget deficit. Those things wouldn't happen, if I were in charge. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon6.gif

Re: If I were in charge ...
 

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by PvK:
If I want to risk my own life, that's my own business, it seems to me.PvK<hr></blockquote>

Yea, it is. But at least in Germany the Government is bound by our Constitution to protect the live of its citizen (to a certain degree that is). Not all people have the insights to why they should use a safety belt so there is a very small fee if you are caught not wearing one while driving. IMHO it is a good think as it protects the live of thousands of people each year. Many of us have taken much more serious reductions of our freedom for a whole lot less of a gain...

Re: If I were in charge ...
 

Well, that's one part of why I'm glad there are different countries with different laws (and in the USA, different states with different laws). Some people might like getting observed, stopped, and fined for forgetting their seat belts. Some people might not mind having to report where they live to the government, and state their official religion, etc (I hear these are also required in Germany). Personally, I don't want my police doing these things to me. This is also why I said I'd call for a public referrendum - that means asking for a vote to make sure that the people really want to be policed in these ways, and that it's not just something being imposed upon them.

PvK

Re: If I were in charge ...
 

Keep in mind that there are costs to society when a person is seriously injured in a car accident. Nobody pays those kind of medical bills on his own; we all collectively pay. And if a person is permanently disabled, again, we all collectively pay. Unless you are the kind of libertarian who advocates leaving injured poor people to die in the street like roadkill, you can't complain about stuff like seatbelt laws while maintaining logical consistency.

Same with stuff like "no smoking for minors," "no drinking for minors," "no cocaine for anyone," "babies must be in carseats," etc. Either we're all in this together, or we're not.

Having said all that, I must admit that I don't like the seatbelt law. I was once struck from behind by someone doing 50 mph who didn't see the red light. A hard-shell suitcase in the rear seat was shoved into my back. I think that if I HAD been wearing my seatbelt, my spine would have been crushed and I would be dead or crippled.

Re: If I were in charge ...
 

The use of SUV is a mixed blessing.
As I live in Calgary Canada, there is a lot of emphasis on Getting out and Living it up, and with the weather conditions here changing dramatically (ie. Sunny day to thunderstorm) within at least 5 minutes, SUVs are very useful here, as their power makes the tough weather just a bump in the road, unless it's at the seasonal extremities.

But SUVs do guzzle lots of gallons of Oil, they do clog up the road with unnecessary power, and they do take to much darn space.

That's why I think that SUV should be only limited to Law enforcement, Emergency services, and Social Services in Urban areas, but remote areas such as Eastern BC, Alberta, and Montana, SUVs should be allowed as a family vehicle.

Of course, there might be some people who need to traverse these places, or already own a SUV and doesnt have enough resources to get a new car, they could purchase a Special Vehicle Permit for 5% the price of the car.

The Automotive Industry, even though right now going under extreme pressure from foreign powers, Such as Honda, Kia, Toyota, Volkswagon, still should be issued 50% tax for every SUV sold, but while give 25% of those collected taxe to the factories for every Compact, Planet loving Car produced.

On the Airlines, I wouldn't have bailed them out unless they show signs of refitting old planes and installing new security measures. This way, they will actually invest some money into making their planes safer or face bankruptcy.

This will probably cause a domino effect that will cause the major Aerospace companies to also uprate their products in order to actually make the Companies buy them.

In order to do that, They will probably need to hire more jobs in order to meet the production of the new planes.

Road spending are fine the way it is now.

The foreign policy is unstable as it is now.
Your changes to the policies would probably Put it to death.

DMM: Those Crappy little dictatorships are thorn in the world bush. The USA can't attack them for the fear of:

Islamic ties: 9/11 has already put the country on edge, and many countries are putting their civilian targets at extreme risk by invading Afghanistan and Helping Israel. Also, Even though the USA controls the World's largest Oil reserves, Other countries are not so fortunate and buy their oil from OPEC largely, and if they cut oil to the rest of the world, and USA refuses to budge, they will lose support as USA can crawl into a hole and die if they can't get energy.

Fear of the Unknown: The CIA isn't what it used to be. The Intelligence agencies of the world doesn't know and they have only scratched the bare surface of the Al Qaeda. They still don't know their Maximum capabilities, they have no idea where their beloved leader(s) are and most branches that have been uncovered are through very hostile interrogations that your Foreign policy would have to get rid of.

Chinese Problems: History has shown that coins flip, trees wither and grass grows.

The dictatorship in China will get overthrown, and since China is right now not doing anything to endanger US targets and letting them do business in Chinese soil, It's fine to the bureacrats.

But Lets say China does Turn sides against USA.

All US and Allied Targets within Asia is under extreme danger, the North Koreans will get extra boost in their agendas, and forget about Taiwan.

So far it's a win win strategy. Let International Agencies worry about Falun Gong and others; so far, it's your *** that you should be worried about.

Stopping aid to nation may seem the solution to many problems but it really isnt.

Many states within the Middle east are indifferent to strike Israel because of the foreign aid. Especially Egypt and Jordan. Both nations would get their forces absolutley (?) destroyed by Israeli forces and without foreign aid, there would be widespread lawlessness and corruption. Also, without foreign support, the public see no reason to consider the US side anymore; and that means more fervor to the Intifadeh, the Hamas and Hizballah. Also it dramatically increases the chances of worse dictatorships being installed that won't care about OPEC or UN.

And Foreign Aid ( I really don't know if you just meant $ but here goes ) isn't just Money, as it is military bases around the world. That means no more anti-US feeling in Japan and Korea, Europe and maybe some places on South America, but Let me remind you, Korea and Japan are 11th and 2nd largest economies in the world, that just loves to buy American Goods. Europe has european union, but it's international strength is only in words. And Narco-Terrorism is the only thing that helps to keep Terrorists in the air and if US military spending in South America falls, no more Narcotic limits and more money to Terrorists.

Heh. Heh. Heh. Nuclear arsenal helps to keep down wars...

In Korean war and the Gulf war, the use of nuclear weapons were very widely mentioned among the top cabinets of the US. Both wars ended quickly enough that those talks turned into Heresy. If nuclear military arsenals increase, it widens the chance of Nuclear buildup of rogue nations, who view that nuclear development is the only thing they have in order to beat the Monopolizing USA.

A Bar of Uranium was found in Spain I believe, that had the potential to be a dirty bomb, a conventional detonation device that has uranium on it. It doesn't create a Nuclear Explosion, but a wide area will be contaminated. To terrorists: Preferrebably in Urban Areas.

But I do Believe that some Nuclear arsenal should be kept; just for the sake that responsible scientists can actually develop fusion power.

100% agreement on the Education system that Cyrien wants to pull off; although you do have to know that some civil problems will occur as not everybody has the potential to be world citizens.

The National debt of the USA should be paid. It's really hypocritic as Foreign aid is trying to help others pay debt and be better but in small increments. Large sums should not be considered except in some Large Supluses as cuts will have to be made http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif

WEAR A SEATBELT!
Yeesh!
You should see some of the things they show in Austrailia in order to increase seat belt wearers.
It is not pretty.

The Unpronouncable Krsqk: Fossil Fuels are becoming Too cheap. Coal Mines around the Appalachian are becoming abandoned and Oil prices, although rising again, is still cheap. That is one great insight.

... I think that's one rant I would have done without. Thank you for listening, and Please Flame, for it stirs knowledge.

And I wish I could have legions of supermodels at my disposal http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

Re: If I were in charge ...
 

Again, seatbelts are a very good idea, usually, and people should be encouraged to wear them in reasonable ways. That does not mean that there should be fines and laws against not wearing a seatbelt. Just because something is a really good idea does not mean there should be a law against not doing it. It seems to me the correct solution is to impress upon people that they should through information, and not through legal threats. I wear a seatbelt because I was impressed by information given me at school about it, not because I'm afraid some officer will harrass my *** about it.

Also, if some communities are lame enough (IMO) to actually themselves vote to live under such laws, then OK. However, I'd like such laws to be decided by public vote rather than by the insurance-lobbied legislature. This can be done in the current US system, but it takes a lot of effort to work up a referrendum.

PvK

Edit/PS: If there has to be a seatbelt law to protect those poor insurance companies that have to pay for extra medical care for someone not wearing a seat belt, then it seems pretty clear to me that the correct law to address this should say, essentially: "Those shunning seatbelts get to pay for their own treatment, and void insurance that doesn't specifically cover extra injury from foolishly not using safety equipment." The law for this should not, it seems to me, be "The police get to pull people over and fine them for not wearing seat belts."


<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dmm:
Keep in mind that there are costs to society when a person is seriously injured in a car accident. Nobody pays those kind of medical bills on his own; we all collectively pay. And if a person is permanently disabled, again, we all collectively pay. Unless you are the kind of libertarian who advocates leaving injured poor people to die in the street like roadkill, you can't complain about stuff like seatbelt laws while maintaining logical consistency.

Same with stuff like "no smoking for minors," "no drinking for minors," "no cocaine for anyone," "babies must be in carseats," etc. Either we're all in this together, or we're not.

Having said all that, I must admit that I don't like the seatbelt law. I was once struck from behind by someone doing 50 mph who didn't see the red light. A hard-shell suitcase in the rear seat was shoved into my back. I think that if I HAD been wearing my seatbelt, my spine would have been crushed and I would be dead or crippled.<hr></blockquote>

[ 10 April 2002: Message edited by: PvK ]</p>

Re: If I were in charge ...
 

"But I do Believe that some Nuclear arsenal should be kept; just for the sake that responsible scientists can actually develop fusion power."
Huh? Just a point, but generally you dont need nuclear weapons to build fusion power.
On that point, I would rather have nuclear arms than not. The unholy triad of megadeath weapons is too widespread. Fear of retaliation prevents attack. Biochemical attack must therefore equal nuclear retaliation.
As for the armed forces, I would maintain them, if not slightly augment them. SpecFor is good, but they're only good in certain situations. China, for example, has an army of millions (literally), so we need to at least maintain a decent armored, cavalry, infantry, air, and other forces, even though a war with China is not very likely.
And on China, they're becoming a little more democratic, but Mao's word is still too much stridently adhered to.

Re: If I were in charge ...
 

The clusmy 'push buttons and see what happens' approach in which I live my own life precludes any thoughts of 'making the world a better place because I'm in charge' for myself. (I certainly hope other can do better, since they're going to have to anyway...) I just live my own life, and vote.

In other news, lay off Muammar al-Qaddafi. He's funny, has some maturity and growth in his changing-with-years, and is my Favorites fruit-cake-world-leader.

[ 10 April 2002: Message edited by: Loser ]</p>

Re: If I were in charge ...
 

Re: Seatbelts

The only problem with saying "Stick it to the insurance companies" is that we all pay for the insurance companies. There is no business which will not pass its costs along to its customers. That's how business works.

If insurance no longer has to pay for seatbelt-abstainers (which is not in their best interest), then it seems to me that current culture would support a vast array of lawsuits against the car manufacturers to collect damages. Those who are irresponsible enough not to wear seatbelts usually aren't prepared to fork out major amounts of cash to pay for their medical bills. Then what do you do? Let them die on the road, or treat them and never get the money? Insurance is the industry responsible for financially backing the medical "industry." Maybe it's not the best setup, but I'd rather have insurance companies doing it than the government (which we also fund).

@dmm: Yes, and for every example for not wearing seatbelts, there are hundreds (thousands?) for wearing them. I, for one, would rather err on the 99.9% side of caution. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: If I were in charge ...
 

"Those who are irresponsible enough not to wear seatbelts usually aren't prepared to fork out major amounts of cash to pay for their medical bills. Then what do you do? Let them die on the road, or treat them and never get the money?"

Let their family deal with the bills, the immediate ones anyway. The ones after that too, if they go there.

I'm not a big fan of protecting people from their own bad choices by laws.

Phoenix-D