Our Platform for Outlining Colorado&#8217;s Future

Citizens of Ohio and Florida shouldn't have to pay health insurance for people from Texas.

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Welcome to the Future of Collaborative Decision-Making This platform isn’t just a space to share ideas—it’s a step toward a better Colorado. Here, we discuss, refine, and prioritize what truly matters for our state’s future. Your voice matters, and together, we can build a comprehensive and actionable plan that reflects our collective wisdom. But this isn’t just about Colorado. It’s part of a larger movement to revolutionize how debates and decisions happen. Transforming Debate for Inclusive and Impactful Participation Imagine a world where thousands—even millions—contribute meaningfully to critical decisions. By leveraging structured organization, evidence-backed evaluation, and transparent processes, we can transform debates into tools for progress. Join the conversation. Leave your thoughts, share your arguments, and let’s shape a smarter, brighter future together.

Nov 12, 2011

The federal government should not spend money to fix housing

Government should not try to fix prices. Government should not try and say people's houses are not expensive enough. Government should let those who want to buy a house determine how much a house should be worth. Government can try spur innovation as far as smart grown, but it can't buy all the foreclosed homes.

Government created a housing bubble when they made laws that forced banks to lend money to people who couldn't afford them.

Some efforts by states my be justifiable in promoting affordable housing, but the Federal States are best at trying to promote affordable housing.

Government should try to promote affordable housing, not try to raise.

State Governments can do precise actions to offset infrastructure and education expenses, but should not do clumsy nationwide expensive approaches.

State Government should free up unused public property at times to free up housing property, to support affordable housing, but Government shouldn't try to make homes more expensive just to keep people from loosing money, because after Government burns the money, the home will eventually reach market value, no matter how much money we burn.

If sprawl causes government to spend more money per person, Government can use the estimated money they would by stopping sprawl, to promote smart growth.

State governments could use money they use for the homeless to try and create long term housing solutions. Some local governments put homeless people in hotels. If state governments want to be nice, they should also be smart. Perhaps government could build a home for the same price they spend putting homeless people in hotels.

One of the few things state governments should do to promote affordable housing, is make it easier to build houses in places that have no affordable housing.

States that have no affordable housing, can try to promote mixed income housing, so poor people don't have to drive hours and hours just to get to rich places where jobs are.

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Nov 10, 2011

We should allow "Italy to fail" if not letting them fail means giving them bail outs

The concept of Italy failing is ridiculous. This isn't a game with winners and looser. Italy may be less successful, or more successful but it probably be more successful than 1/2 of this planet's countries. They are more successful than most countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. If we are supposed to rescue Italy, we should probably rescue the rest of the world first.

Italy isn't helping us in Afghanistan, why should we help them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

Greece isn't helping us much in Afghanistan. Why should we help them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force

They have the capacity to deal with that themselves.

We shouldn't try to do impossible things. It is impossible for the United States Government to make another large economy successful.

Italy is a very large economy.

We should bail out California before we bail out Italy. And there is no reason for farmers in North Dakota to pay for healthcare benefits of people living in San Fransico, let alone a country that looks down on us from the otherside of the planet.

Europe is able to take care of their own problems.

Those who would be hurt most if Italy fails, should give the most.

Europe is able to help Europe.

We would help if we could, but we got our own problems.

If we stay on the course we're on, with the level of borrowing this administration is carrying out, if we don't get serious about cutting and capping our spending and balancing our budget, you're going to find America in the same position Italy is in four or five years from now, and that is unacceptable. We got to fix our deficit here.

We with WWI, and WWII. They will have to do this alone.

Some Europeans resented our help in the past.

We should avoid foreign entanglements.

Those who say we shouldn't let them fail, are implying that we should bail out their banks or government.

Efficient capitalism requires fair competition. When people are competing with money, those who fail should not be given more money. If those who don't deserve to be given money, keep getting more money, then those those who should be trusted with money will have less. If no one can fail: bad behavior is rewarded until more people fail.

It feels good to give people things! Maybe they will like us! :) :)

It's not like we don't have money?!

Government is the perfect way to feel good about giving people stuff! You get all the self righteousness of saying we should be nice, and don't ever have to realize that you have to pay for it in taxes. And if your one of the lucky 55% of people in this country, you might never have to pay taxes! So why not give money to Italy! You won't have to pay for it! As long as you make slightly less than average, you won't have to pay a penny!

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 8

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Nov 8, 2011

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity.

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them; and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Nov 7, 2011

We are broke

Probable interest of those who agree:

Probable interest of those who disagree:

Common Interest

Opposing Interest

Videos That agree

Videos That disagree

Website that agree

Websites that disagree

Related arguments:

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

We should enact far stiffer penalties for those who steal from taxpayers

Cutting improper payments in half could save more than $60 billion a year.

We are broke.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

(+2) We should Attack rampant fraud in government programs

Another big category is overcharging state Medicaid programs. That accounts for the most settlements, 43 percent of all violations. Most of these violations took the form of companies publishing inflated benchmark prices that set the base for Medicaid drug payments. "In some cases, state Medicaid programs were paying providers as much as 12 times the actual cost of a drug," the new report says.

We are broke.

Website that agree

http://www.taf.org/whyfca.htm

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/the-government-fraud-racket/

http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/12/17/132134328/when-it-comes-to-government-fraud-health-care-now-tops-defense

http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2011/11/watchdog-agency-finds-fraud-mismanagement-few-shovel-ready-stimulus-jobs/1320694281.column

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 2

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 2

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change

Nov 6, 2011

We should repeal the Davis-Bacon Act

Website that agree

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/02/repealing-the-davis-bacon-act-would-save-taxpayers-$10-9-billion

We are broke.

Suspending the DBA means hiring five workers at market rates instead of hiring four workers at a 22 percent premium.

If we have a limited amount of money, it is better to employ more construction workers than to pay a lot to the few that kiss up to their union bosses. We do have a limited amount of money. We can no longer pretend that we have an unlimited amount of money. We may want to give really high wages to give to everyone, but we shouldn't make rules that require the federal government to overpay their workers.

If Congress is not willing to reduce construction spending, suspending the DBA would make each public construction dollar go 9.9 percent further. This would create more bridges and buildings at the same cost to taxpayers. It would also employ 155,000 more construction workers.

The Davis–Bacon Act (DBA) requires the government to pay construction wages that average 22 percent above market rates.

The Department of Labor (DOL) estimates DBA rates using a highly flawed methodology. Under the DBA, contractors on all federally funded construction projects must pay their workers at least prevailing market wages. However, the Department of Labor (DOL) estimates DBA rates using a highly flawed methodology. The Inspector General has criticized the DOL for:

Using a self-selected sample instead of a scientific random sample to estimate DBA rates;

Allowing 100 percent error rates in audited samples of returned DBA surveys; and

Permitting long delays in updating DBA surveys.[3]

We are broke.

The Davis-Bacon Act was a union giveaway.

The Davis Bacon Act artificially raises costs for government projects.

Removing the Davis-Bacon act would save taxpayers more than $10 billion a year in the process

The Davis-Bacon Act was a Jim Crow law.

The Davis-Bacon Act was passed to prevent African Americans from working on government projects.

Congressional representative John Cochran of Missouri said that he supported the Davis–Bacon Act because he had "received numerous complaints in recent months about Southern contractors' employing low-paid colored mechanics getting work and bringing the employees from the South." (Williams, Walter Congress' insidious discrimination. Jewish World Review March 12, 2003 / 8 Adar II, 5763).

Congressional representative Clayton Allgood of Alabama said that he supported Davis-Bacon because "Reference has been made to a contractor from Alabama who went to New York with bootleg labor. This is a fact. That contractor has cheap colored labor that he transports, and he puts them in cabins, and it is labor of that sort that is in competition with white labor throughout the country." (Williams, Walter Congress' insidious discrimination. Jewish World Review March 12, 2003 / 8 Adar II, 5763).

The free market can not work, when the market is not free.

The Davis-Bacon Act was a big government solution that harms the tax payer, by forcing government projects to cost more. We could have never built the rail roads without cheap labor. If they could unions would run every productive activity out of the country, as long as they could be paid 6 figures to do nothing. If American citizens want to work for less on Government projects, then that is good for the tax payer. All jobs can't be high paying. Unfortunately low skilled jobs are going to have to be low skilled. When government steps in and tries to force low skilled jobs to pay well, then they remove the insensitive to gain skills. It is better to live under the strong arm of efficiency, than be stabbed in the back by professional do-gooders that turn the world upside down.

Score:

# of reasons to agree: 1

# of reasons to disagree: -0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to agree: 0

# of reasons to agree with reasons to disagree: -0

Total Idea Score: 1

Don't like the score? It is easy to change the score. Just post a reason to agree or disagree with the overall idea, or any of the reasons and the score will change