Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Borders should be enforced. People that don't have visas should be treated as they are in every other country...sent home once they're apprehended. I'm very much a hawk on immigration. If you choose to immigrate illegally you've made a choice to commit a crime. Now, the children are different. They are legally negligent free parties...they should be granted citizenship if born here but the families should be subject to the enforcement of our immigration laws.
All of that being said....our LEGAL immigration process needs to be simplified and streamlined significantly. My buddy's going through the process with his wife (she is Austrian) and it is absurdly time consuming and absurdly expensive.
I've had a bit of a political epiphany as of late and I'm not sure if I know how to accurately label myself anymore. I feel like I've always sort of been a moderate Republican or a centrist...but I've been told from random people that I'm more to the right than a centrist but more left than a moderate Republican.
So here is what I think...lable what I am.
Taxes: I think we should have a flat tax at 25% with limited deductions. The capital gains taxes should remain at 15% to incentivize investment and capital risks. Corporate taxes at 25% as well...limit deductions and work to create regulatoins to manage off shore tax evasion.
Banking Regulation: Create stronger regulations to manage the shadow banking sector...CDS, CDO, Etc.
Ways to address recessions: Rebate checks to citizens. Put the money in the hands of the people. This is particularly useful when aimed at the poor because they are less-inclined to save these tax refunds...they will spend them which will stimulate growth. The Bush Admin issued tax vouchers which had a moderating effect on the early 2000's recession and made it much more acute than it would have been otherwise.
Military: Scale it WAY back. Do we really need to outspend practically every other nation thrice over? We need to scrutinize the military as hard as we scrutinize domestic programs for spending cuts.
Foreign Policy: Close as many overseas bases as possible, safely. Stay out of foreign affairs. Let the UN address these issues.
Healthcare: I've vascilated on this one a lot. I've read a lot lately on healthcare and based on my
experience with our healthcare system and the system I used while studying abroad in Austria (single-payer)....I prefer the Austrian system. Their taxation isn't remarkably higher than ours and their Ministry of Health is their central negotiation body and it is remarkably efficient with handling their costs. The healthcare system in Austria is remarkably efficient and succeeds at holding costs down far better than ours. So...based purely on my experience with these two systems only...I choose the Austrian one.
Social Issues: Pro drug legalization/taxation, pro gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-legalizatoin of prostitution. My basic premise is...if you ain't hurtin' anyone and each party is a willing and legal consentor...go for it.
Education: Tax vouchers for parents...empower parents to pick better schools than our failing public system. We've tried forcing money into this system for years...It isn't getting better and more money just isn't the answer. Parents should be able to opt out and use their "share" of the tax dollars for vouchers so that they can send their kids to the school of their choice.
Social Security: It should be means tested and serve as a true social insurance. There is no reason that wealthy people should pull from social security. If you don't need it...you don't get it. The eligibility age needs to be raised as well. We live longer these days.
Well, those are all the issues I can think about off hand. If you need more to accurately label me...ask and I'll try to address it.
You seem to hold generally center-left philosophies, but have been influenced enough by Republicans to think that holding center-left views is wrong. So you pick and choose a few "right-wing" ideas (flat tax, that our public schools are failing, being tough on social security) to make you appear center-right.
Or you could be a moderate libertarian who believes in some regulation for the common good.
I notice that you're unable to summarize the principles that drive your policy statements.
The government should provide for it's citizens and enterprises as wholly as it can, so long as it can do so in a cost effective manner that balances positive and negative liberty for all governed.
Nothing I've suggested is remarkably different than what currently goes on...all of which has had its constitutionality challenged at one point or another and all of which was upheld.
When the Supreme Court was asked to rule on the Obamacare mandate, they wrote:
"Congress addressed the insurance problem by ordering everyone to buy insurance. Under the Government’s theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.
"People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures—joined with the similar failures of others—can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.
"That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned."
Roberts went on to rule that every excuse the Obamanites had made to justify socializing the medical industry and force people to buy their versions of "insurance", was unconstitutional.
He wound up by saying that only if they took out the Penalty provision of the Mandate, could they possibly have any argument of constitutionality. Roberts then proceeded to rewrite the law himself, taking out that penalty, and substituting "tax" wherever it occurred. He then declared the mandate "constitutional", as though he had any authority to legislate from the bench that way.
IOW, the Supremes found it completely unconstitutional as written, and even stated that it violated the basic purposes of the architects of the country. Only by rewriting it did they get it to barely squeak under the bar.
When the Supreme Court was asked to rule on the Obamacare mandate, they wrote:
"Congress addressed the insurance problem by ordering everyone to buy insurance. Under the Government’s theory, Congress could address the diet problem by ordering everyone to buy vegetables.
"People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures—joined with the similar failures of others—can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.
"That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned."
Roberts went on to rule that every excuse the Obamanites had made to justify socializing the medical industry and force people to buy their versions of "insurance", was unconstitutional.
He wound up by saying that only if they took out the Penalty provision of the Mandate, could they possibly have any argument of constitutionality. Roberts then proceeded to rewrite the law himself, taking out that penalty, and substituting "tax" wherever it occurred. He then declared the mandate "constitutional", as though he had any authority to legislate from the bench that way.
IOW, the Supremes found it completely unconstitutional as written, and even stated that it violated the basic purposes of the architects of the country. Only by rewriting it did they get it to barely squeak under the bar.
The government should provide for it's citizens and enterprises as wholly as it can, so long as it can do so in a cost effective manner that balances positive and negative liberty for all governed.
That's my mission statement.
Pretty good summary, kudoes.
Why not try this one on for size:
Government is necessary for some things, but should do as little as possible, and should confine itself to important functions that private persons or groups CANNOT DO AT ALL. Examples include National Defense, smoothing the course of interstate commerce with minimal interference in that commerce, conducting foreign relations, setting national standards for money, weights, and measures, dispassionately pursuing and prosecuting criminal behavior, etc.
The idea that government should do something that private people or groups can do but you feel govt can do better, is insufficient reason to grant govt authority to do it, and must be denied to govt unequivocally.
The reason for these restrictions, is that:
(a) government cannot do anything well, due in part to the fact that no one can compete with it, and will always be rife with sloth and inefficiency;
(b) government's only ability is to restrict and punish its citizens. This is activity extremely vulnerable to abuse, and capable of damaging and destroying lives by the millions if not carefully watched and restrained. For this reason, the powers given to government must be carefull spelled out and restricted, with those it restricts retaining full power to change or abolish it.
That's my mission statement. Lacks some detail, but you get the idea, I hope.
The idea that government can "help" us, is somewhere between naive and laughable. The best government can do, is to prevent people who would unjustly restrict or hurt us, from doing so.
Nothing I've suggested is remarkably different than what currently goes on...all of which has had its constitutionality challenged at one point or another and all of which was upheld.
I think glitch is a pretty appropriate nickname for you.
Your massive ignorance demonstrates your leftist nature. Nothing you listed is within the scope of the federal government as defined by the US Constitution. A common liberal freak trait is to manufacture BS out of thin air when they have no idea what they are talking about, which is the overwhelming vast majority of the time. Just the fact that you consider the US Constitution to be complete trash makes you an extremist leftist. A Pelosi/Reid/Obama wannabe, and a serious threat to the nation.
The government should provide for it's citizens and enterprises as wholly as it can, so long as it can do so in a cost effective manner that balances positive and negative liberty for all governed.
That's my mission statement.
Like I said, you have no principled basis for your policy statements.
I don't see how. Since the administration has completely ignored it and just done whatever it wanted, it seems to be just a wish list of things the administration picks and chooses from in order to survive politically.
The government should provide for it's citizens and enterprises as wholly as it can, so long as it can do so in a cost effective manner that balances positive and negative liberty for all governed.
That's my mission statement.
Here:
The sole purpose of governance is to defend the rights and freedoms and liberties of the individual. Any government action which reduces those rights is wrong.
That's what we call "principle".
What you wrote is expedient noise to sound good, hoping to attract the non-critical-thinking voter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
