Your plan for America?

[De Quay]

Extermination and repopulation by more correct-thinking peoples currently in overcrowded nations.

It has been truly said that "World peace can only begin when the last American crawls bleeding and dying from the burning wreckage of the last American city"

[Patriqvinia]

Yeah, because the economy was absolutely booming while fighting in Iraq...

No, you missed the point. I meant war like WW2, which improved the economy. I mentioned false flag ops because that's what it wuld take to start a war.

It didn't improve the economy, it made people go to war. It looked sort of like it improved the economy because the labor force was truncated by combat. There wasn't much in the way of actual growth, considering most of our resources went directly to the war effort and not into capital investment or goods.

[Patriqvinia]

Extermination and repopulation by more correct-thinking peoples currently in overcrowded nations.

It has been truly said that "World peace can only begin when the last American crawls bleeding and dying from the burning wreckage of the last American city"

Hi Iosef Stalin's ghost.

[The Republic of Alaska]

Tax the rich more then the poor.
Put armed gunmen on the Mexican border.
Threaten North Korea & Iran to fuck off.
Try to establish greater relations with Russia.
Legalize Gay marriage, even though I am against it, it is freedom.
Have CIA agents watch for trouble in the Mexican government/military.
Try to convince Morocco to give the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic the Western Sahara.
Try to convince Serbia to recognize Kosovo as independent.
Break off relations with the PRC & establish relations with the ROC.
Cease purchase of poorly-made, cheap, Chinese crap and produce the stuff ourselves.
Crack down on Terrorism in the Middle East, via CIA.
Pressure the Burmese government to establish Human rights in the country.
Crack down on illegal immigration in the US.
Give Puerto Rico independence.

[Kakistopolis]

I get really worked up about this, because as an American born after 1965, I have absolutely nothing to do with the national debt and further had no hand whatsoever in creating that debt. I'm merely supposed to smile and pay off that debt while prior generations get to freeload off of social entitlement programs.

I'm not going to be happy with any solution that does not involve dragging people born before 1965 out of their homes and smashing their faces in with rifle butts. Quite frankly, it's absurd to talk about them in a manner that offers them a voice in the decision - after all, they gave people born after 1965 absolutely no voice at all in the debts they ran up for them to pay through a combination of low taxes and increased benefits.

Think about it. The overwhelming majority of the national debt is a promise to provide retirement security and health care to retirees, a cost that disappears completely if these people are lined up against the wall and shot to death. AND... the bullets are recyclable. It's win-win.

[Freiheit Reich]

Tax the rich more then the poor.
Put armed gunmen on the Mexican border.
Threaten North Korea & Iran to fuck off.
Try to establish greater relations with Russia.
Legalize Gay marriage, even though I am against it, it is freedom.
Have CIA agents watch for trouble in the Mexican government/military.
Try to convince Morocco to give the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic the Western Sahara.
Try to convince Serbia to recognize Kosovo as independent.
Break off relations with the PRC & establish relations with the ROC.
Cease purchase of poorly-made, cheap, Chinese crap and produce the stuff ourselves.
Crack down on Terrorism in the Middle East, via CIA.
Pressure the Burmese government to establish Human rights in the country.
Crack down on illegal immigration in the US.
Give Puerto Rico independence.

Your ideas would not solve the national debt crisis and make America more hated, we should not be police chief of the world.

I agree about Puerto Rico, either statehood or independence, they need to decide.
Illegal immigration-yes

Serbia had the right to defend their country against a rebel group, the USA did the same thing in 1861 and Serbia did not help the rebels then.

Russia-yes, we should gain some allies. We should also improve relations with Cuba.

Some ideas good but not the ones telling other countries what to do.

[Naughty Words]

First, clean out all of the bullshit social issues.
Gay Marriage? Give them the damn thing.
Abortion? Conditional.
Pot? Hand the damn shit out, fuck if I care.

Second, back OUT of NAFTA and WTO.
Get some damn jobs back in the US without getting screwed by the corporations.

Third, invest in Greener energy.
We had the tech to build bio-diesel cars before. We can do it again.

Fourth, wrangle dem corps to stop being such corrupt bastards.
Regulations that are sensible in multitude, unnecessary bullshit in the none.

Fifth, balance the damn budget.
Yeah, we're not going to fix that 15-trillion dollar price tag, but at least we can get started.

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

Illegal immigration-yes

Immigration restrictions of any sort are incompatible with liberty and run directly contrary to the principles upon which the United States was founded.

the USA did the same thing in 1861 and Serbia did not help the rebels then.

That's seriously your argument? Serbia was kind of consolidating its own independence from the Ottoman Empire while the American Civil War was going on and even for some years after.

I mean, I'm glad Serbia didn't aid the freedom-hating Confederacy, but that's just an asinine argument.

[The Black Forrest]

I get really worked up about this, because as an American born after 1965, I have absolutely nothing to do with the national debt and further had no hand whatsoever in creating that debt. I'm merely supposed to smile and pay off that debt while prior generations get to freeload off of social entitlement programs.

I'm not going to be happy with any solution that does not involve dragging people born before 1965 out of their homes and smashing their faces in with rifle butts. Quite frankly, it's absurd to talk about them in a manner that offers them a voice in the decision - after all, they gave people born after 1965 absolutely no voice at all in the debts they ran up for them to pay through a combination of low taxes and increased benefits.

Think about it. The overwhelming majority of the national debt is a promise to provide retirement security and health care to retirees, a cost that disappears completely if these people are lined up against the wall and shot to death. AND... the bullets are recyclable. It's win-win.

Interesting. Parents wouldn't give you the car keys?

[Freiheit Reich]

What may hurt Denmark in the future is that many companies are freely willing to move to places where wages and regulations are lower. China workers are less productive but you can hire 3 of them for much cheaper than 1 Dane. International trade is helping many of the poorer countries (that embrace some free market policies like China) but it hurts the wealthy places like the USA and western Europe.

Believe you me, as an advocate of a strong labor movement I'm more than familiar with the issue of outsourcing and am fully prepared to acknowledge the problems it can create (both for the country losing jobs and the country those jobs are going to).

The only way to compete in the future with China is to decrease certain regulations. I am unsure about Denmark but America has suffered massive job loss due to it being easier to outsource jobs overseas (look at IT jobs going to India). Mexico is right across the border and offers a very cheap source of production.

The regulations in the first world that you would have to cut in order to compete with the current environment in developing world labor pools (such as Vietnam and Mexico) would be environmental protections, worker protections, production safety regulations, things that it's a terrible idea to eliminate because they're directly responsible for the increased standard of living we enjoy. Unless you're prepared to tell the US labor pool that they should accept a decline in their pay, safety, and collective bargaining power, and that they should accept an indefinite increase in their hours alongside these things in order to burgeon competitiveness with labor pools such as China and Mexico, I suggest you seek an alternative plan.

Because I'm here to tell you, that proposal is probably not going to be very popular among your country's employees (though it may be wildly popular among your employers). We already know what employers will do in the absence of sensible economic regulations (or at least the power to enforce them) and an influential organized labor movement. We only have to look at the condition of workers in places like Mexico, China, and Vietnam to see that future, and it is not what we've been promised by the Laissez-Faire crowd. Those with greater resources and capital swoop in, take advantage of peoples' poverty and desperation to establish inequitable labor contracts, and laborers suffer while investors thrive. And rather than driving things upward, the introduction of additional firms with capital and resources seems to keep the landscape fairly flat since the people actually consuming the products (and therefore paying the bills) are too far removed from the abuses to be aware of them or to care about them. Competing firms certainly exist in the Chinese labor market, and yet somehow Apple keeps finding employees and racking up profits in spite of its labor abuses. That should tell you something about market forces' ability to sort out such things by themselves. Developing countries have been perfect laboratories in which to test the invisible hand's power, and we have found that the invisible hand's muscles aren't as strong as some may wish to believe. Betting on the invisible hand alone is foolish, and the record shows that.

My proposal would be to spread the influence of trade unionism into the areas where patent abuses are being committed (one need only look at Nike and Apple to understand that abuses are happening) and to provide countries that our firms are taking advantage of the tools and resources to implement and enforce regulations of their own. We should also invest in their domestic economy so that first world firms actually have viable domestic competitors. In other words, my proposal is to raise up the developing economies of the world rather than drag down the developed countries to more closely resemble the developing countries.

It seems most Danes accept the tradeoff of good social welfare for higher taxes. This will be a very tough sell for America though. The high crime rates in poor neighborhoods make people less likely to want to help the poor. The USA is divided more heavily divided on financial class than race. People usually flee their poor neighborhood when they can instead of helping it become better.

You've hit on some solid points here. The Danish system would indeed be a bit of a tough sell considering certain cultural and structural facts about the USA. Long response is long, but I'll analyze this issue fairly thoroughly for you and provide my objectives/solutions.

Cultural Elements of Interest
For example, the US has as part of its culture a strong sense of individualism and a near worship of total self-sufficiency as an individual. Having to rely on one's neighbors is perceived as a weakness, and therefore calls to expand neighbors' collective reliance upon one another are perceived by many as calls to weaken US citizens' aspirational drives. In a word, they're afraid that a networked system such as the Danish one will make people lazy. And the obsession with self-sufficiency is certainly problematic for calls to implement things such as universal healthcare and universal tertiary education. My job as a Social Democrat is to try to shift the USA's culture in a different direction, to combat this obsession with self-sufficiency and rugged individualism.

What Needs to be Done about the Cultural Elements of Interest
In order to change change the cultural landscape of the USA I must first make it plain to a majority of people that no individual exists in a vacuum and that no one may claim sole credit for their list of accomplishments. We exist as a society of people, and the networks between us are denser than the rugged individualist would ever wish to believe. The CEO is only as effective as the work of his secretaries, executives, middle-managers, and so forth. He does NOT get to claim sole responsibility for the company's success (which is the source of his great wealth), no matter how much he may have fooled himself into believing otherwise. He is wealthy, but he is not wealthy exclusively as a consequence of his own labor. Many hands went into making him rich, hands belonging to names he may not even know. Even the window washers and janitors played a role by keeping his building professional-looking enough for his firm to be taken seriously by consumers.

Life is much more like a game of baseball than a game of singles tennis. The illusion of the rugged, self-sufficient American has to be shattered if I am to meet my goals. That is my task. Once that is gone, it will be much easier to convince people that relying upon one another in times of need is hardly a mark of weakness and does not inherently entail laziness on the part of all. Countries such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland all show this to be true because they are all very productive societies in spite of (or perhaps as a consequence of) their dense interconnections.

Structural Elements of Interest
You made the claim that the people of the USA are more divided by social class than ethnicity. I would argue that the structural barrier to implementation of my plans has been at least somewhat influenced by the differences in crime rates and poverty between ethnic groups. If it is perceived that a particular ethnic group is receiving a disproportionate amount of the welfare and has a higher crime rate people of other ethnic groups begin to feel short-changed. This is largely a problem of attitude, because when one examines the picture more closely there are logical reasons that certain ethnic groups have disproportionate levels of crime and poverty.

What Needs to be Done about the Structural Elements of Interest, and One Institutional Element as a Bonus

My task therefore is to convince people to examine the picture more closely, find the reasons that certain ethnic groups are disproportionately poor and have higher rates of criminality, and to work toward rectifying the situation based on the findings rather than engaging in a knee-jerk reaction and opposing increased aid for the poor on account of its disproportionate delivery to certain ethnic groups.

We should also consider modifying our approach to former criminals, changing the objective of our justice system from delivery of punishment as a disincentive to commit crimes to an objective of rehabilitating criminals into productive members of society. Norway has a fascinating approach to just this issue, and it appears to be relatively successful. Of course, this is not a structural issue but rather an institutional one, but putting this comment here saves me the trouble of having to loop back around (saving you reading).

Another advantage is Denmark is surrounded by wealthy neighbors maimg it harder to outsource jobs.

Actually, it's Denmark's strong (but reasonable) labor movement and its competitive corporate tax rate that combats the forces of outsourcing. The US has a poor neighbor to the south, sure. But not all US jobs are being outsourced to that neighbor. In fact, a great deal of those jobs are being outsourced to the opposite planetary hemisphere. There are more reasons to outsource to places so far away than simply cutting production costs (seeking more favorable regulatory environments and avoiding locations which are hotbeds for bad PR are others).

You make a lot of great points and I can tell you really care about the issue of social equality. Denmark's model has worked very well.

One question I have (and the Danish People's Party also discusses it) is what about the situation regarding immigrants that do not want to assimilate with the Danish model and culture? They are a social group that is receiving a greater share of benefits. Do you believe in the long run they will assimilate to be equally productive? What happens if they keep draining the benefits or fail to assimilate?

The social model only works if people are willing to take part in society and still produce without relying too much on social welfare.

In the US there are a lot of people that would rather take welfare than to work. My solution would be to make them perform community service 2 days a week (16 hours). This will make them feel they are earning their welfare while discouraging people from abusing the system and also helping out their communities. How does Denmark discourage abuse of the welfare system? Do they have time limits for welfare?

The low corporate tax rate is important and Denmark seems to recognize this.

China work conditions will improve but then companies might race furthur to the bottom (Vietnam is gaining more jobs for this reason). It is hard to stop the race to the bottom. Tariffs are a popular idea but they also cause a lot of problems.

I agree with you to a degree about the prison system. Prisons in the USA just make bad criminals worse, they are far too dangerous and violent. I am against giving them access to cable TV though, they should be provided skill classes and plenty of educational books and magazines to read. TV distracts and is a reward they do not deserve.

Maybe some ideas can work but first the USA needs to pay off their debt first before affording many of the benefits you discuss.

Some safety regulations are probably a good idea but there is too much red tape in the USA. Instead of a few simple and easy to understand rules the regulation codes are written in complex languages that only lawyers can really navigate. There can be too much of a good thing.

[Freiheit Reich]

Illegal immigration-yes

Immigration restrictions of any sort are incompatible with liberty and run directly contrary to the principles upon which the United States was founded.

the USA did the same thing in 1861 and Serbia did not help the rebels then.

That's seriously your argument? Serbia was kind of consolidating its own independence from the Ottoman Empire while the American Civil War was going on and even for some years after.

I mean, I'm glad Serbia didn't aid the freedom-hating Confederacy, but that's just an asinine argument.

I was partially joking about our Civil War but the point is that Serbia does not boss the USA around and we had no right to invade Serbia. Their president was trying to hold his country together against the evil KLA terrorist group. His way was tough but on't forget General Sherman burned several towns to make a point that rebel supporting civilians will also be punished. Not saying it is right but it worked.

Many Serbians supported their leader trying to keep Kosovo together, they don't approve of losing Kosovo.

Many countries restrict American immigration into their countries as well, the world has tougher borders than in the past. You believe America should have unrestricted immigration. Imagine an extra 1 billion people in the USA (assuming half of Africa and half of Latin America comes to the USA) and these 1 billion have higher birth rates (especially Africans). Also many southern Africans and Haitians have AIDS. Do you favor letting them in if they have AIDS or are criminals? If we have open borders and nobody else does than we would become an overcrowded country with rampant crime and poverty. That growth would be way too fast. We could have immigration treaties with certain developed nations as a compromise, this would be what Europe has done.

[Socialdemokraterne]

I get really worked up about this, because as an American born after 1965, I have absolutely nothing to do with the national debt and further had no hand whatsoever in creating that debt. I'm merely supposed to smile and pay off that debt while prior generations get to freeload off of social entitlement programs.

I'm not going to be happy with any solution that does not involve dragging people born before 1965 out of their homes and smashing their faces in with rifle butts. Quite frankly, it's absurd to talk about them in a manner that offers them a voice in the decision - after all, they gave people born after 1965 absolutely no voice at all in the debts they ran up for them to pay through a combination of low taxes and increased benefits.

Think about it. The overwhelming majority of the national debt is a promise to provide retirement security and health care to retirees, a cost that disappears completely if these people are lined up against the wall and shot to death. AND... the bullets are recyclable. It's win-win.

The system was managed in a poor manner, that's true enough. I'm going to file this kind of talk under your being emotionally compromised and tell you to hone your frustration into something constructive. We can either learn from the mistakes of the past and work to do things right from now on while minimizing the damage, or we can throw a tantrum and watch the rafters fall in on us. I choose the former, and I expect that if you calm down for a moment you will too.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Illegal immigration-yes

Immigration restrictions of any sort are incompatible with liberty and run directly contrary to the principles upon which the United States was founded.

I don't see how. We don't have to let people come in and feed off the welfare system, paid for by legitimate, tax-paying citizens. If those people have such a disrespect for our laws as to come here illegally and be in consant violation of the law, then they don't deserve to be here.

the USA did the same thing in 1861 and Serbia did not help the rebels then.

...the freedom-hating Confederacy...

Because defending yourself against being conquered is freedom-hating?

If you are referring to slavery, Kentucky, Missouri, and Maryland had slavery, as well as D.C. I can't remember whether Delaware did or not, and am too lazy to look it up.
My point is, a slavey-neutral white supremacist had just been elected President. The Southern States had nothing to worry about, and wanted freedom, no matter what you say.

[Divair]

First, clean out all of the bullshit social issues.
Gay Marriage? Give them the damn thing.
Abortion? Conditional.
Pot? Hand the damn shit out, fuck if I care.

Second, back OUT of NAFTA and WTO.
Get some damn jobs back in the US without getting screwed by the corporations.

Third, invest in Greener energy.
We had the tech to build bio-diesel cars before. We can do it again.

Fourth, wrangle dem corps to stop being such corrupt bastards.
Regulations that are sensible in multitude, unnecessary bullshit in the none.

Fifth, balance the damn budget.
Yeah, we're not going to fix that 15-trillion dollar price tag, but at least we can get started.

I'd say this plan is a decent foundation.

[Socialist EU]

First, clean out all of the bullshit social issues.
Gay Marriage? Give them the damn thing.
Abortion? Conditional.
Pot? Hand the damn shit out, fuck if I care.

Second, back OUT of NAFTA and WTO.
Get some damn jobs back in the US without getting screwed by the corporations.

Third, invest in Greener energy.
We had the tech to build bio-diesel cars before. We can do it again.

Fourth, wrangle dem corps to stop being such corrupt bastards.
Regulations that are sensible in multitude, unnecessary bullshit in the none.

Fifth, balance the damn budget.



Yeah, we're not going to fix that 15-trillion dollar price tag, but at least we can get started.

I'd say this plan is a decent foundation.

Even twelve year old girls are getting more savvy as to what is going on. I think it is pretty good for twelve years of age.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155700/12 ... _and_debt/

[Kakistopolis]

I get really worked up about this, because as an American born after 1965, I have absolutely nothing to do with the national debt and further had no hand whatsoever in creating that debt. I'm merely supposed to smile and pay off that debt while prior generations get to freeload off of social entitlement programs.

I'm not going to be happy with any solution that does not involve dragging people born before 1965 out of their homes and smashing their faces in with rifle butts. Quite frankly, it's absurd to talk about them in a manner that offers them a voice in the decision - after all, they gave people born after 1965 absolutely no voice at all in the debts they ran up for them to pay through a combination of low taxes and increased benefits.

Think about it. The overwhelming majority of the national debt is a promise to provide retirement security and health care to retirees, a cost that disappears completely if these people are lined up against the wall and shot to death. AND... the bullets are recyclable. It's win-win.

Interesting. Parents wouldn't give you the car keys?

Worse. I bought your parents' car.

[Vulpae]

you know Kak... Mao tried somthing simmilar, he called it the Cultural Revoloution, he was also gabbing power after being ousted by doing this FYI.
in the end it caused untold misery and bloodshed, made things worse, what with children murdering their parents, burning temples, books, priests, and storehouses of knowlage.
it destroyed a lot of chinese culture and even the current chinese government (a group not known for letting reaity get in the way of their perceptions) agrees it was a black moment in their history, albiet one they put sugar coating on.

[Socialdemokraterne]

One question I have (and the Danish People's Party also discusses it) is what about the situation regarding immigrants that do not want to assimilate with the Danish model and culture? They are a social group that is receiving a greater share of benefits. Do you believe in the long run they will assimilate to be equally productive? What happens if they keep draining the benefits or fail to assimilate?

Immigrants' refusal to assimilate only becomes a concern regarding government benefits if the immigrants in question have as part of the cultural elements they're not surrendering a characteristic of laziness. As far as I'm aware, refusal to work isn't really a problem that immigrants in Denmark are bringing to the table. If this Dansk Folkeparti advertisement is any indication, the problem is that there is anxiety about radical Islam and civil unrest in the Middle East/Africa creating difficulty for immigrants from the Middle East and Africa in Danish society.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlA9Tj2yGb4

Considering how tight Danish immigration standards are with regard to obtaining permanent residence, I'd be pretty surprised to find that it is laziness that is the problem.

http://www.nyidanmark.dk/en-us/coming_t ... permit.htm

The social model only works if people are willing to take part in society and still produce without relying too much on social welfare. In the US there are a lot of people that would rather take welfare than to work.

Yep. That's true. But cases of welfare abuse in the USA, while certainly present, are not pervasive. And measures such as whistleblower protections have been absolutely instrumental to diminishing what welfare fraud does occur. Most of the people who are relying on welfare for a time are taking advantage of its promise in a legal manner, though the system could always use improvement.

My solution would be to make them perform community service 2 days a week (16 hours). This will make them feel they are earning their welfare while discouraging people from abusing the system and also helping out their communities.

I'd imagine that most people feel that they've earned their welfare checks by having paid to support the welfare system prior to their own entry into it. Unemployment benefits serve as my tangible example. But you're right, individuals who are in the system for an extensive period do become a rather large cost and that cost needs to be offset somehow. Having the individuals in question perform community service (such as infrastructural maintenance) is one option, and it's an option I'm not immediately hostile to (though it's obviously impossible to create a one-size-fits-all policy on this matter, especially considering the elderly and the infirm).

How does Denmark discourage abuse of the welfare system?

Mostly by doing this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexicurity

Principle number 4 of Flexicurity is of interest to your specific question:

Flexicurity should promote more open, responsive and inclusive labour markets overcoming segmentation. It concerns both those in work and those out of work. The inactive, the unemployed, those in undeclared work, in unstable employment, or at the margins of the labour market need to be provided with better opportunities, economic incentives and supportive measures for easier access to work or stepping-stones to assist progress into stable and legally secure employment. Support should be available to all those in employment to remain employable, progress and manage transitions both in work and between jobs.

Do they have time limits for welfare?

Yes they do. For example, in the case of unemployment that time limit is 4 years (though this has the potential to decrease to 2 years soon), a lengthy period indeed. But in order to gain access to unemployment benefits one must have been working for quite a while. How long that period is is currently an issue of hot contention, and I direct you here for an examination of the issue:

http://cphpost.dk/news/national/unions- ... t-benefits

China work conditions will improve but then companies might race furthur to the bottom (Vietnam is gaining more jobs for this reason). It is hard to stop the race to the bottom. Tariffs are a popular idea but they also cause a lot of problems.

Tariffs and protectionism have their places in a broadly reaching economic strategy, but a more productive element for resolving this particular issue is to negotiate for more equitable trade agreements. The principles of fair trade come to mind.

Maybe some ideas can work but first the USA needs to pay off their debt first before affording many of the benefits you discuss.

Some can be implemented immediately if we shuffle our budgetary priorities accordingly. The US already has enormous healthcare spending, I would simply recommend shifting the way it is spent to a manner more in line with that of Denmark (or possibly Finland). Emphasis on education must become a priority one, and institution of universal tertiary education and sweeping improvements in the quality of primary and secondary education can be made if policies less centered upon standardized testing and more upon overall performance are implemented.

Some safety regulations are probably a good idea but there is too much red tape in the USA. Instead of a few simple and easy to understand rules the regulation codes are written in complex languages that only lawyers can really navigate. There can be too much of a good thing.

All too true, all too true. I'm completely on board with such a notion. But we must be cautious not to cut regulations which are genuinely doing good. Cutting red tape should be a slow, deliberate process with plenty of participation on the part of both management and organized labor.

Now, regarding your telegram:

OK, I am interested in learning more. Denmark is a country I have been reading about ever since I read about the Danish People's Party and their goal of preserving Danish culture. I will agree that well run socialist countries can succeed and actually seem to do better than other systems. However, some socialist countries like USSR and China (under Mao) did horrible. It is interesting that some countries can pull it off and others fail.

It's important to bear in mind that Denmark, the PRC, and the Soviet Union were/are not socialist countries. Danish Social Democracy is (as the Heritage Foundation makes plain) a mixed-market system relying very heavily on private rather than collective/public ownership of the means of production, so it lacks one of the essential qualities of any sort of socialist system. There is strong trade unionism in Denmark, and there is an extensive welfare state, but socialists generally see social democrats' efforts as making concessions and failing to work toward a truly equitable system, instead retaining the alleged internal contradictions of capitalism.

I don't actually see advancement into a socialist system as necessary for bringing about equitable prosperity, and the Nordic countries are precisely why I've come to that conclusion. I would therefore be faster to call for social democracy in the USA than democratic socialism, hence my position that we should adopt a Danish-style system.

Also what do you think of Hong Kong and Singapore? They provide some welfare but not a lot but they manage to have well run countries with very low crime rates. Do you believe their models are also worth following?

I've a number of criticisms of the Hong Kong system, specifically their governmental system. I don't like that they've divided their legislature into a directly elected portion and a portion elected by corporate interests (the functional constituencies), that's just asking for trouble in my eyes and I would never support doing that in the USA. Also of concern is their use of a system (the Election Committee) which closely resembles the USA's electoral college (which I would sooner eliminate), and the reason why is that systems such as this often fail to be representative of the popular will (unlike the Danish system, which uses a proportionally elected legislature to select its chief executive). I'd much sooner see proportional election of the US legislature and (if we must maintain Presidentialism) preferential party-list voting in presidential races as our next steps rather than moving toward a Hong Kong type system.

Health care might have to be revamped. I have read positive aspects of Singapore, Taiwan, and Chile in regards to their private/public healthcare mix. They are having better success than America.

To be brutally honest, it depends on what you call "success", and anyone can claim to be more successful if they just use a definition that favors them. That's how people in the USA can say with a straight face that its healthcare system is the "best in the world", because it really is very good at certain things. The trouble is that the US system is outscored on a number of other measures, so it becomes a question of priorities. My priorities lay with emphasizing accessibility and affordability while maintaining reasonable quality of care, and that has been accomplished in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. I'm willing to take on the negative elements of an increased tax burden and slower delivery of regular care (emergency care, contrary to what the demagogues have shouted, is readily available in Nordic systems) in exchange for emphasizing these priorities. Others are not. That's really what the healthcare debate boils down to: priorities.

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Extermination and repopulation by more correct-thinking peoples currently in overcrowded nations.

It has been truly said that "World peace can only begin when the last American crawls bleeding and dying from the burning wreckage of the last American city"

It is really hard to tell which people are trolls, which people are trolls trolling the trolls, and which people are simply dumb.

[Rijanan]

1.ban ku klux klan groups (they killed my hispanic uncle)
2.execute justin bieber. (umad bieber fags?)
3.ban animal cruelty (i love animals and i hate humans who kill animals.)
4.keep porn legalize. (trust me, people who like porn are gonna go crazy)
5.ban cigars and alcohol (cirgars make attractive women ugly and alcohol kills people)
6.ban wmg umg viacom and other copyright companies (they ruined everything for me!)
7.allow internet users to make edits, ytps, and parodies (i wanna laugh!

[Astholm]

My plan for America would be:
1) Reduce "Big-Brother"-style surveillance, and only use CCTV when, and where necessary.
2) Bring in a Data Protection Act equivalent since there is none currently
3) If people want to eat fast food and eat unhealthily, it is their choice, not for government to dictate.
4) More emphasis on racism, and harsher punishments for it, but without suppressing free speech
5) Less censorship of the Internet - valid reasons being:
Blocking pornography would result in too many false positives - what counts exactly, does a local newspaper's "glamour model" feature count, or a website which has a listing of models/photographers (won't name names of sites here). After all, the UK opt-in system is a bit of an odd idea, and there's no universal concept of what counts.
Social unrest could result.
Also, censorship of the Internet should be the household/workplace/school's responsibility, not the government's. The only safe censor software is the discretion of the individual/workplace/school's.
6) Switch over to Vienna Convention of road signs, and Transport Heavy font like in the United Kingdom, and use mph not km/h (possibly). Besides, it would generate more work
for the companies who sell AutoCAD software that creates them, and the system is universally used.
7) Deal with the issue of vexatious litigation
Keep pornography legal, since again, despite the controversies, it would cause social unrest, and besides levels of it vary from tame (pictures of celebrities) to extreme (let's not go there)
9) Fine people for drug use, rather than jail them for it.
10) Allow immigration, since it's contrary to U.S. principles
11) Abortion should be, and is legal, in many places worldwide.
12) Mass investment in the motor industry - even if it means that a Chrysler Spirit is really little more than a rebadged, American-built, Lancia Delta sedan with a 2.5-litre engine.
13) Hawaiian independence - hold referendum, even though this is controversial issue
14) Gay marriage - leave it as legal gray area instead, since this is too controversial an issue.
15) Emphasis on automobile safety standards
16) NAHS - North American National Health Service, modelled on UK one, similar logo, hire UK doctors as consultants.
17) Make attacks on disability a hate crime, if it isn't already. After all, it is here in the UK.
18) Social networking sites - not the government's responsibility, nor should they be, except for hate speech and terrorism, but on a day-to-day level, not their responsibility.
19) Software piracy - a roundtable conference with manufacturers on best ways of dealing with the issue.
20) Copyright laws - review them?

These are just some of my thoughts on it, don't know if you'll agree with my ideas or not, but they're just what I came up with.

[Hossaim]

None of that.

There are several things you must know before I say my plan.
1. Almost all of the world's problems are caused by Human Nature being selfish. There are only 2 powers capable of overcoming human nature, and they are hate and fear.
2. There is nothing humans fear more than death.

America will be the sacrifice for the creation of a utopian world.

I shall create an army, in secret, making sure nobody ever knows this. This army shall be the most dangerous force the earth as ever seen. We shall attack America, completely destroying it. We will threaten to destroy more unless the world bides to our will. We will wipe out as many nations as we require until the world is under our control. We shall rule the world through fear for a few centuries. Soon, Human Nature will evolve from the fear and fear will soon become no longer necessary. The Utopian society created will rule the human race for billions of years to come.


This is unrealistic as I don't think it's possible to build an army of this size and strength.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

None of that.

There are several things you must know before I say my plan.
1. Almost all of the world's problems are caused by Human Nature being selfish. There are only 2 powers capable of overcoming human nature, and they are hate and fear.
2. There is nothing humans fear more than death.

America will be the sacrifice for the creation of a utopian world.

I shall create an army, in secret, making sure nobody ever knows this. This army shall be the most dangerous force the earth as ever seen. We shall attack America, completely destroying it. We will threaten to destroy more unless the world bides to our will. We will wipe out as many nations as we require until the world is under our control. We shall rule the world through fear for a few centuries. Soon, Human Nature will evolve from the fear and fear will soon become no longer necessary. The Utopian society created will rule the human race for billions of years to come.


This is unrealistic as I don't think it's possible to build an army of this size and strength.

...Interesting...

[Neo Miranda]

Blow it up? maybe... or just nationalizing the federal reserve

or both

[Tyler Schrakamp]

1. Replace the federal income tax with a requirement each state to pay the federal government 20% of GDP; the states can raise the money however they like.
2. Cut spending across the board by 10%.
3. Reinstitute universal conscription.
4. Establish a school voucher system.
5. Ban abortion, gay marriage, pornography, adultery and fornication.
6. Focus government resources on improving infrastructure.
7. Replace prisons with labor camps.
8. Allow oil/ natural gas drilling on federal lands; grant approval for keystone.
9. Pull out of Iraq, limit troop presence in Afghanistan.
10. Allow immigration under a guest worker system.
11. Bring back the gold standard.