New Political Party Ideas From A 14 Year Old

[ThatGamingAirman]

This my first blog don't know what will become of it but I hope it's good. Back in December my Social Studies Teacher gave us an assignment to create a 3rd party poster mine being called the agreement party after that I started to come up with ideas and came up with these ideas.

1. Listen to both parties and find a happy medium ex.) Immigration : my mans Trump wants to build a wall whereas Pelosi and the rest don't. I say redo border protection with a strong and and durable material high enough to where immigrants aren't able to climb with an entrance with metal detectors and drug hounds to insure weapons and drugs aren't smuggled across.
2. Job payments to insure proper payments of jobs all businesses big or small should tell government how much there employees make and all money will go to secure government bank account only where government can ONLY withdraw money to employee bank accounts at end of business pay period with all money deposited automatically at the start of pay period by business.

That's all I have right now but the main purpose of the blog is to give you an Idea of not just an american political party but possibly a world round one that can possibly insure world peace there for the name Agreement Party gets its name by merging two parties into one and a world that agrees

Please feel free to post ideas and talk to me one on one through email ([email protected]) and Pm me whenever you feel with me possibly getting back to you around 3-8pm central

 

[Lacius]

Me everyone without a criminal record or severe mental disabilities should be able to use a firearm with proper training and proper mindset.

That largely sounds like the Democratic position.

 

[CallmeBerto]

"Listen to both parties and find a happy medium" Yeah that sounds like a great idea the main problem comes from neither side agreeing what this happy medium is. You list gun control as an example and on mental health, I don't agree due to the fact that those who suffer from mental health issues are 10x more likely to suffer at the hands of violence. Very few of the mentally ill committed the mass shootings. This is just an example but do you see what I mean?

2. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this? After all your work is normally tied to an SS and the government knows how much you make, that is how they take out taxes. Also why a secure government bank account? I mean it is my money I should be able to invest it with any bank I want. It's not like the interest from the government is going to be any better than the local banks.

 

[ThatGamingAirman]

"Listen to both parties and find a happy medium" Yeah that sounds like a great idea the main problem comes from neither side agreeing what this happy medium is. You list gun control as an example and on mental health, I don't agree due to the fact that those who suffer from mental health issues are 10x more likely to suffer at the hands of violence. Very few of the mentally ill committed the mass shootings. This is just an example but do you see what I mean?

2. I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this? After all your work is normally tied to an SS and the government knows how much you make, that is how they take out taxes. Also why a secure government bank account? I mean it is my money I should be able to invest it with any bank I want. It's not like the interest from the government is going to be any better than the local banks.

I do see you're point on 1 example was flawed which could be changed something else along the lines of agreement. 2 is an idea to prevent businesses from miss use of money there for the government will keep money protected with their job Only to protect the money from the businesses and redistributing them to the employees accounts. so the government bank account only keeps the reserved money of the employees until they get their payday I see this as a plus to prevent theft and potentiality of money being spent on other things

 

[FAST6191]

"how much there employees "
Wrong their.

Also what does that aim to achieve? As far as I am aware there is not typically a problem with employers holding back wages from people that earned them -- there is the last cheque thing if you are fired that quite a few will skip out on. Otherwise companies failing to pay people is minimal and courts are all about sorting this sort of thing out in the rare cases it happens. It might sort some taxes out (there are still use taxes, sales taxes, unearned income. inheritance...) but the people that typically skirt these are self employed types, or those being paid under the table (which this does not entirely sort).

There is also the liquid assets problem -- $4000 a month multiplied by 20 employees is a lot of money. Sometimes you don't get that until you have done the job (and you might also have 90-120 day terms for such things, where your employees might be weekly or monthly). Secondly that would be a huge pool of money

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money...4/average-american-household-income/93002252/
Reckons $73,298 mean household income in 2014.
126.22 million households.

770972.79 million per month in that case. Interest on that would be a very large sum, even at tens of a percent.


As for firearms. What goes for classification here? There are rather varying opinions on things here even within the US, outside it varies even more, amusingly there are things I could own in the UK (these days very tight controls) that people in the US (rather less tight controls) can only dream of. More generally there are people that would tell you there are no such things as assault rifles, and have reasonable arguments as far as designations used in the wild for it.

 

[ThatGamingAirman]

"how much there employees "
Wrong their.

Also what does that aim to achieve? As far as I am aware there is not typically a problem with employers holding back wages from people that earned them -- there is the last cheque thing if you are fired that quite a few will skip out on. Otherwise companies failing to pay people. It might sort some taxes out (there are still use taxes, sales taxes, unearned income. inheritance...) but the people that typically skirt these are self employed types, or those being paid under the table (which this does not entirely sort).

There is also the liquid assets problem -- $4000 a month multiplied by 20 employees is a lot of money. Sometimes you don't get that until you have done the job (and you might also have 90-120 day terms for such things, where your employees might be weekly or monthly). Secondly that would be a huge pool of money

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/money...4/average-american-household-income/93002252/
Reckons $73,298 mean household income in 2014.
126.22 million households.

770972.79 million per month in that case. Interest on that would be a very large sum, even at tens of a percent.


As for firearms. What goes for classification here? There are rather varying opinions on things here even within the US, outside it varies even more, amusingly there are things I could own in the UK (these days very tight controls) that people in the US (rather less tight controls) can only dream of. More generally there are people that would tell you there are no such things as assault rifles, and have reasonable arguments as far as designations used in the wild for it.

Think about idea like this a business has 50 employees each employee makes 500 a week each month being payed the last day of each month roughly 775000 which will be transferred to a government secure account (with a government official only giving it to the business employees at the end of the week) by the business, the rest of the businesses money being used for business needs. This way employees get all the money they earn and the potentiality of an employee not giving payed is zero and the business is able to let the government which employees aren't being payed for whatever reason and money will be rolled over to next week or month. hope that helps!

Edit: The government account is just a secure location in which employees money will be secure with no interest being added to it at the end of the week each employee is payed their 500 and once the money in secure account is zero or with what's left of unpayed employees money the process will start again adding back up to the 775000

 

[CallmeBerto]

FAST and I get what you are saying we just don't see this as a need for any reason. Again how many companies have actually screwed their employee's out of pay? How many times has the government screwed people out of their money?

I just don't see what you are trying to prevent/change as the current system in place works fine as is.

 

[ThatGamingAirman]

FAST and I get what you are saying we just don't see this as a need for any reason. Again how many companies have actually screwed their employee's out of pay? How many times has the government screwed people out of their money?

I just don't see what you are trying to prevent/change as the current system in place works fine as is.

ok makes since this is just an idea I thought that may possibliy improve businesses in countries with possible corrupt businesses not just america's businesses the idea's are made to improve not just are country (america) but other countries so if some ideas are for one set of countries like this one that's ok.

 

[Glyptofane]

That largely sounds like the Democratic position.

Is that really the position? On the other side we are taught that you want to ban everything. I'm just rambling a bit here, but transgenderism was a mental illness before and now it's not. They can just arbitrarily redefine mental illnesses in order to restrict guns as they please. I don't even own one, don't worry.

 

[ThatGamingAirman]

Is that really the position? On the other side we are taught that you want to ban everything. I'm just rambling a bit here, but transgenderism was a mental illness before and now it's not. They can just arbitrarily redefine mental illnesses in order to restrict guns as they please. I don't even own one, don't worry.

That was said for a flawed example Its now changed to something better

 

[The Catboy]

Is that really the position? On the other side we are taught that you want to ban everything. I'm just rambling a bit here, but transgenderism was a mental illness before and now it's not. They can just arbitrarily redefine mental illnesses in order to restrict guns as they please. I don't even own one, don't worry.

Not everyone is a Neo-Nazi like you

 

[FAST6191]

ok makes since this is just an idea I thought that may possibliy improve businesses in countries with possible corrupt businesses not just america's businesses the idea's are made to improve not just are country (america) but other countries so if some ideas are for one set of countries like this one that's ok.

Wouldn't that be a plaster on a shotgun blast type situation?

In most places if you don't pay your workers you find yourself without workers in fairly short order (give or take stuff like Qatar's kafala thing). Moreover any such place that such a thing exists in probably has atrocious legal systems and enforcement thereof -- rather than enacting a setup as proposed above it would probably be better to make sure your civil courts get whipped into shape. If you can't help enforce contracts and settle disputes between your own people then you are failing.

 

[Lacius]

Is that really the position? On the other side we are taught that you want to ban everything.

That's called a straw man argument. Democrats typically want what you described as a part of your Agreement Party.

I'm just rambling a bit here, but transgenderism was a mental illness before and now it's not. They can just arbitrarily redefine mental illnesses in order to restrict guns as they please.

This redfinition was not arbitrary. Being transgender is no longer considered to be a mental illness because of new data and facts.

Specifically, in order to be a mental illness, something has to be detrimental to one's life, and it was realized that there's nothing about being transgender that's detrimental to one's life aside from how others treat a person who is transgender.

 

[ThatGamingAirman]

That's called a straw man argument. Democrats typically want what you described as a part of your Agreement Party.


This redfinition was not arbitrary. Being transgender is no longer considered to be a mental illness because of new data and facts.

Specifically, in order to be a mental illness, something has to be detrimental to one's life, and it was realized that there's nothing about being transgender that's detrimental to one's life aside from how others treat a person who is transgender.

The idea of this party is where everyone agrees on a happy medium thats what "my agreement party" wants

 

[kuwanger]

I'm just rambling a bit here, but transgenderism was a mental illness before and now it's not.

"Mental illness" is a very slop catch-all for any not physically measurable condition that someone at some point considers an illness. So, things like fatigue or chronic pain could be consider mental illnesses. It's generally presumed that many mental illnesses cause depression and depression leads to suicidal thoughts which may be enacted upon said person and possibly other people. The problem is, as is often the case the cause of depression is not the mental illness but peoples treatment of a person because of said mental illness. Further, there's lots of people with depression who don't really manifest signs of "mental illness" so there's no really effective method to screen people out. So, if there's any standard that could be used, it only really makes sense to not limit gun ownership by "mental illness" but instead apparent signs of a desire to cause harm to oneself or others without legal justification. Of course, that gets into the point of whether someone who wants to commit suicide should have a right to a firearm, but that's sort of one of those core areas where "find a happy medium" just doesn't make any sense.

tl;dr - Sadly, it's an oversimplification when talking about gun ownership policy in just about every quarter, especially when it's reduced down to a few sentences.

 

[ThatGamingAirman]

"Mental illness" is a very slop catch-all for any not physically measurable condition that someone at some point considers an illness. So, things like fatigue or chronic pain could be consider mental illnesses. It's generally presumed that many mental illnesses cause depression and depression leads to suicidal thoughts which may be enacted upon said person and possibly other people. The problem is, as is often the case the cause of depression is not the mental illness but peoples treatment of a person because of said mental illness. Further, there's lots of people with depression who don't really manifest signs of "mental illness" so there's no really effective method to screen people out. So, if there's any standard that could be used, it only really makes sense to not limit gun ownership by "mental illness" but instead apparent signs of a desire to cause harm to oneself or others without legal justification. Of course, that gets into the point of whether someone who wants to commit suicide should have a right to a firearm, but that's sort of one of those core areas where "find a happy medium" just doesn't make any sense.

tl;dr - Sadly, it's an oversimplification when talking about gun ownership policy in just about every quarter, especially when it's reduced down to a few sentences.

That was a flawed example please look at my new example better suited to the idea

 

[Lacius]

The idea of this party is where everyone agrees on a happy medium thats what "my agreement party" wants

My point is that you've articulated the Democratic position, not a happy medium.

 

[ThatGamingAirman]

My point is that you've articulated the Democratic position, not a happy medium.

ok and now can I make the point that, that was a flawed example please feel free to read what I wrote to kuwanger on what to do next

 

[gman666]

1. most of the illegal substances and weapons travel by train, planes, and commercial vehicles.
2. You described a literal nightmare for accountants. And a lot of people actively invest their take-home to their own personal accounts. Also, this system doesn't sound speedy at all. You have to remember that the government doesn't function fast enough to accommodate the system you described.

 

[Lacius]

1. Listen to both parties and find a happy medium ex.) Immigration : my mans Trump wants to build a wall whereas Pelosi and the rest don't. I say redo border protection with a strong and and durable material high enough to where immigrants aren't able to climb with an entrance with metal detectors and drug hounds to insure weapons and drugs aren't smuggled across.

Many Democrats want border security without a wall that will do very little to increase border security. Most illegal immigrants enter the country legally and overstay, and most illegal items come through legal ports of entry as well. Aside from your high barrier, your description of border security is part of what Democrats want.

Of course, Democrats acknowledge that the larger issue is the broken legal immigration system.