event of biological children during the marriage, then each partner is equally responsible for the child unless otherwise agreed to prior to the divorce or as agreed to between themselves after the divorce. No divorce attorney is needed. In the event of no agreement, then each parent is entitled to equal time and is equally responsible for financial support of the children for shared items (medical care, education, etc.) regardless of their respective incomes after the divorce. Whatever one partner contributes in money, the other is obligated to contribute an equal amount up to half the required amount needed. For example, each is required to pay half the medical cost or half the medical coverage for the child. But regardless, neither party has the authority to garner the other’s wages or demand settlement for child support, regardless of their respective incomes. Since the children spend equal time with both parents, each parent has equal care costs, and thus no child support is demanded from one to be given to the other. If they cannot agree to split other costs (such as medical coverage) then, and only then, are they entitled to bring judgment against the other party. If for some reason one parent cannot be responsible for the children an equal amount of time, then and only then, may he/she elect to offer financial assistance to the other parent as compensation for the additional expense, if any, for the off-spring. If the other parent does not feel that the compensation offered was sufficient to cover the additional expense, then the child’s extra time is offered to family members, friends, foster homes, and even orphanages who apparently have more concern for the care of the off-spring than their own parents. The goal is to do what is best for the off-spring, eliminate nasty and wasteful divorce proceedings and provide a simple solution to a complex problem.
Alimony
Likewise, neither party can compel alimony from the other for any reason. If in a relationship, one person elects to stay home to take care of the children, while the other advances their career or one elects to work while the other pursues their education when once separated causes an inequality in their future income – those decisions and actions during the relationship are simply treated as gifts during their relationship and thus are not recoverable; that is, there are no grounds for alimony. Therefore, it is always wise that each partner in a relationship maintain equality during their relationship, sharing child rearing, advancing their respective careers, or pursuing education equally, always in anticipation that someday they may no longer be a couple.
Obviously, the people most opposed to this simple solution to a complex problem are those you benefit from it the most, namely divorce attorneys and gold diggers. Eliminate alimony, and treat all actions of sacrifice by one party to another as gifts would create a simple solution to a complex problem.
Unemployment Compensation
Occasionally, through no fault of their own actions, individuals lose their job and must seek temporary unemployment compensation for financial assistant. If so, then that assistance should be made available to them by the government through a relatively low or no interest loan. Once re-employed, the individual must begin paying back that loan. This should cause most people to avoid seeking unemployment compensation except as a last resort. And it definitely would stop the abuses of those who seem to be chronically unemployed and forever collecting unemployment.
More proactive individuals may wish to set up a reserve, that could also administered by the government, of funds (drawing interest) which can be used to provide them income in times of lack of employment. If that individual never draws upon their unemployment in his/her lifetime, then that money becomes available to him/her as part of their retirement; again, a good reason to maintain being gainfully employed.
In the any event, should the extent of unemployment claims reach a critical point which the government determines that the individual is unlikely to be able to make full repayment in a reasonable amount of time; then the government has the right to end unemployment payments, declare the individual bankrupt, take their remaining assets, and if necessary place the individual in a government run living and work environment where the individual can begin to start stabilizing their life and begin repaying their indebtedness since they obviously have demonstrated that they are unable to do so on their own. Once the indebtedness has been repaid, the individual is returned back into the regular society and workforce. This solution is similar to the “debtor’s prison” but administered so that there is a reasonable chance of the person to work off their debt.
It sounds harsh, but we as a society simply cannot afford to have chronic unemployment and generations of families simply existing off of unemployment and welfare without contributing and equivalent amount back to society. Chronic unemployment is just not sustainable and in time will make conditions far worse for far more people. Obviously, those ones most opposed against this simpler system are those who do not really want to work to earn a living and those who profit the most for defunct system.
Individuals physically or mentally unable to earn a living are to be considered wards of the state and thus lose most of their privileges such as the right to private ownership of property and other similar privileges unless others, such as family members, are willing to absorb the responsibility.
Immigration
This country was built by immigrants. It is not only foolish and impractical to curb immigration to this country; it is actually contrary to its founding principles. We should welcome all who wish to come to America and are willing to work and support this country. However, the government does have the right to regulate immigration in order to ensure healthy growth. The country has the right to enforce its borders.
It is obvious that the current system to curtailing illegal immigration is not working well, similar to our failure to curb the flow of illegal drugs into this country. We can blame this problem on our predecessors for not creating secure borders; but that does not resolve the current problem of illegal immigrants. Ideally, those who are currently in this country illegally should be deported and required to apply for immigration like all other immigrants; however, that too would be impractical. Therefore, allow all who are here presently here illegally to stay if they wish, but they must start a legal path toward legal status (but not citizenship) and do so with an added financial burden, in effect a penalty for breaking the law. The illegal immigrant has a choice of either paying a penalty for his crime or being deported. Income from that penalty placed on all of the illegal immigrants wishing to stay will be used to strengthen the country’s borders and pay for the deportation of the others who do not want or cannot pay the penalty. If they are unable or unwilling to pay, then they are deported.
In addition, this Country does have the right to make stipulations of those who do join this Country and hold them equal to all who are currently residents. Those who do legally immigrate to this country should in a reasonable time have the same rights and responsibilities as those who are current citizens. They should be registered and become citizens; if not swearing allegiance to the country at least swear they will not be against the country. They should pay taxes, they should serve in the armed forces or national service, they should be familiar with the history of the country, subject to the same laws, and in a reasonable time be able to speak, read and write the national language, and they should be willing to work if so able. Otherwise, they should be either denied access or permitted only limited access.
Voting Rights
Not surprisingly, the United States has found itself in the position where now more than half the population is either directly or indirectly relying on the support the very government to which they elect representatives to protect their interests. For example, the government now either directly or indirectly employs millions of citizens through the armed forces, government agencies, quasi-government agencies, government funded research and development programs, education or to our largest sector: companies dependent upon government contracts. Another large segment is dependent upon the government for most if not all
of its income to live, such as the elderly, disabled, unemployed and the poor. Many are needed services and noteworthy causes but now it has reached a tipping point where these government-dependent people are the majority of the people in this country, and the majority is often the group that controls the elections of the individuals who make the laws which regulate and fund those very services and causes. The system is now an unchecked and unbalanced influence on the proper use of tax funds. Unfortunately, this creates a vicious downward cycle that hurts everyone and will eventually destroy the country.
Whenever someone who is on a committee where they have right to vote on an issue and the outcome of that vote could materially affect that individual, the proper action is for that person to abstain from casting their vote – since it is self serving. Everyone recognizes that it is a conflict of interest. Well, we have a similar situation here in the United States when individuals electing representatives who vote on their behalf vote on items which materially
You Can't Fix Stupid. Page 9