[nucklepunche]

This is my platform if I were to run for president of the USA. Some of this may contradict what I wrote in a post a few months earlier but this is sort of my updated ideology. I am wondering how everybody would describe it. I call it moderate by US standards.

ECONOMIC ISSUES


TAXES

I am in favor of a flat tax with a 100% exemption for people below the poverty line. Enact a corporate flat tax with no exemptions.


WELFARE

I believe welfare ought to be limited to those who cannot work (children, disabled, and elderly) with the exception of short term help only. The government ought to create a job placement service to help people without jobs find them. It would be sort of a government run temp service and all able bodied adults on public assistance would be required to find a job this way. We ought to go back to the days when government spam and cheese was handed to people instead of luxury food stamps (now food credit cards) that people use to pay for lobster. There needs to be an incentive to get off welfare. Government makes it too easy. I bust my ass at the store to make ends meet and pay for college and see 300 pound people buying lobster and steak off welfare. I've seen it with my own two eyes so no liberal can tell me it doesn't happen.


HEALTH CARE

I favor a health care system similar to Singapores. Everybody ought to have mandatory health savings accounts. Like in Singapore everybody is eligible for health care and companies cannot discriminate like in the USA (so it is universal) but there is also personal responsibility. Some poorer people get subsidies for medical care but these are means tested. Nothing is free. Everybody pays some fee so that the system is not overutilized like it is here. To me this combines the best of left wing and right wing ideals, namely combining universal coverage with personal responsibility. Unlike here in Stupid States of America where we have the opposite, no universal coverage and no personal responsibility for people who have insurance. People who don't have it get thrown under the bus and people who do eat giant tubs of lard and smoke cartons of cigarettes and then have their medical bills paid for without seeing a single out of pocket cost. Screw that.


SOCIAL SECURITY

I have a simple solution to the Social Security problem it goes in three steps.

1. Raise the retirement age to 70 over time. Starting next year. None of this raising it slowly over time nonsense.

2. Means test Social Security. The more you earn over your lifetime the less you get. Some rich people will gripe that this is "unfair" but I simply don't care if they don't get their extra couple thousand a month if it means this nation won't go bankrupt. Now somebody may have high earnings and go on an MC Hammer spending binge and be impoverished in old age but that is something they need to think of.

3. Bring in more immigrants so there are more workers supporting every retiree. More immigrants also = more consumers so no immigrants do not "take our jerbs." Which brings me to...


IMMIGRATION

Immigration is good for the economy. If you bring in immigrants they will do some jobs but guess what? They also buy things. Our nation is becoming fiscally insolvent because there are too many old people on the dole and not enough young people supporting them. That being said we also need some controls or everybody will come too fast and overload our infrastructure and social services. I propose the following.

1. Immigration is good, however we need the right immigrants. Adopt a points based system similar to Canada that favors people for job skills, English speaking skills, etc.

2. We just need to accept that we can't deport 12 million illegal immigrants. Those who have committed a felony should be deported but let those who have been here more than ten years become legal residents. If they came before they were 18 there should be a pathway to citizenship but if they came afterward they should remain forever legal permanent residents and never be eligible for citizenship. This will be their punishment. You just have to be realistic and realize you can't round up 12 million people like Hitler. Include a clause saying this applies only to those currently here and any future people who come in breaking the law will be deported on the spot.

3. Secure the fucking border already.

4. Nobody who is not a US citizen should be allowed to receive welfare.


EDUCATION

I think education is a state issue. As for what goes on at the state level I would favor setting strict curriculum standards at the state level and provide school vouchers for alternatives to public schools. Schools will be funded according to attendance. Teachers unions can rot in hell.

Higher education at the public level needs to focus on technical education that PREPARES PEOPLE FOR JOBS. Liberal arts are nice but the sad and simple and harsh reality is that MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT SUITED FOR A LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION. Those who are found to have the intellect for it should be given it. We need a class of such people in society but even Plato recognized that it has to be limited and isn't for most people. He never expected everybody to be a philosopher king like many public university instructors do.


ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

I view these two things as related. I am generally a fiscal conservative as you can see but on the flip side I believe global warming is a real problem and so is energy being unavailable.

1. Tax carbon emissions above a certain level.

2. Build nuclear power plants. Hippies just need to grow up already and accept nuclear power is good. Japan is not turning into a zombie wasteland. Even then don't build them on top of active fault lines.

3. Enact a ten year plan to slowly increase taxes on gasoline (to give people time to adjust) and use the proceeds to invest into research into more efficient and cheaper electric cars and building of public transportation.


TRADE

I support free trade agreements for the most part. It is important to compete in the global economy and to resist calls for protectionism. Protectionism will not beef up our nation's economy, it would fail like it did with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in the 1930s.


MONETARY POLICY

I believe (contrary to libertarians) that the Federal Reserve is a necessary evil and that the historical record creates a very good case for why it was put in place. It may be hard to argue now that all the people from that time are dead but my case for the Federal Reserve is as followed.

1. Political independence. It is important that the Fed have political flexibility. In a day and age where an economic crisis can pop up in a second we can't afford a lengthy debate in Congress.

2. In the days of the gold standard if you don't recall, there was always the risk that somebody could try to capture the gold market (as happened in the 1890s and in 1907 when J.P. Morgan later personally saved the American economy) which could lead to a sudden increase or decrease in the price of gold which could result in either sudden inflation or a deflationary spiral.

3. There is not enough gold in the whole earth to equal the amount of money currently in circulation. If we went back to the gold standard there would be a sudden and abrupt deflationary spiral which would lead to lower prices but also lower wages and lower demand, crippling the economy.


SOCIAL ISSUES


I don't care too much about social issues but here are my stances.

- Pro-life.

- I support gun control. I do not favor banning guns but I believe those who want them should be licensed and regulated. I see no need for a private citizen to own assault weapons like machine guns or rocket launchers other than to kill people so they should be kept out of private hands.

- I favor equal rights for gay people.

- I oppose affirmative action.

- I oppose the death penalty.

- I favor legalizing marijuana and sentencing users of harder drugs to treatment instead of jail.

- I favor free speech and oppose censorship and political correctness.


FOREIGN POLICY


MILITARY

I believe we need to continue to have a strong, all volunteer military. There needs to be more of a focus on beefing up military technology. We need a smaller, smarter, more efficient military. I do believe we need to phase down the number of personnel by increasing enlistment requirements but also by increasing benefits and making it a higher paying professional job.


TERRORISM

The way I believe you deal with terrorism is not by waging wars with huge armies but by targeting the terrorists with highly trained special forces.


GUANTANAMO BAY

I favor keeping Guantanamo open. This is one thing I've changed on. I view terrorists as enemy combatants who are actively waging war on the USA and I don't think they should be given jury trials in New York City.


ISRAEL

My views on Israel are mixed. It makes a useful ally for the USA. It is a democratic, secular, capitalist country in a region of hostiles. There are some real wacky people in the Middle East and Israel is a bulwark against that. On the other hand I feel like the concerns about Israel often trump America in US politics thanks to AIPAC and I think it has a long ways to go on the human rights front but the irony is that Israel has a poor human rights record in comparison to other secular democracies, whereas its human rights are superior to all other Middle Eastern countries. I also think that Israel must accept that it is unrealistic to keep the Golan Heights, Gaza, and West Bank.


UNITED NATIONS

I believe the UN provides a valuable diplomatic platform for nations to gather and discuss issues but I do not believe the UN's wishes should trump national law. I do believe America should remain a part of the UN though.


NUCLEAR and BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

We must work to eliminate nuclear and biological weapons from the face of the Earth. We need to cooperate with other nations and not hold up a double standard (demanding other nations give them up while keeping our own).


REALISM

Overall my foreign policy is one of realism. The aim of the USA in my view should be to use its great economic power which naturally leads to great military power to maintain global stability overall while defending its borders and promoting its economic interests. This is opposed to an isolationist agenda which says America should have no role on the world stage but also to a more idealistic neocon agenda that says America ought to crusade on behalf of specific goals.


POLITICAL REFORM


MONEY AND POLITICS

Get money out of politics. We need to ban lobbyists and have public funding of political campaigns. Get corporations and unions out of politics! I will propose a constitutional amendment to these ends as president.


ELECTORAL COLLEGE

End the electoral college and enact a national popular vote. The electoral college only panders to narrow sectional interests.


PRESIDENCY

Enact a single term, six year presidency.


CONGRESSIONAL REFORM

I would favor extending the congressional terms from two years to four years (so it will be less of an endless campaign) and abolishing the Senate, adopting a unicameral system. Congress will consist of 500 members. 100 members will be elected at large (each state will get two) and the remaining 400 will be divided into districts based on population. The 100 at large members are present to keep two benefits to the senate which are 1) giving small states a voice and 2) at large districts tend to represent larger more diverse groups and are less prone to sectarianism and radicalism. On the flip side having a single body has its benefits and leads to more effective law making. There will be a term limit of twelve years (three terms).

So there it is.

[anticlimacus]

So you won't talk about jobs and job creation?

[Rei Murasame]

There's a lot I could say about this platform and a lot to criticise in it. However, what I'll do is actually first make a criticism based on what's not in it, and then tackle some of the other things.

I read through the whole thing and thought to myself, "hold on, did I see anything about unions, or wages, or a narrative about the economic crisis? I feel like I didn't see anything at all on that!"

So I used CTRL+G on those and lo and behold my feeling was correct, they really were not mentioned at all. Except here:

Get money out of politics. We need to ban lobbyists and have public funding of political campaigns. Get corporations and unions out of politics! I will propose a constitutional amendment to these ends as president.

I'm assuming that's an amendment that neither you nor the congress you are presiding over would ever actually pass in full, because politics is fundamentally about socio-economics and therefore it must be about money. Companies who own congress - which you will not dislodge because there is no mention of you electing people on the back of anything other than company money anyway - will call in a favour on all their congresspeople, asking them to:

• 1. Criticise the bill and bring in various amendments so that it will only actually ban labour unions from the institutional political process, while leaving companies with as much latitude to act as can possibly be got.
  2. Then vote 'nay' anyway on whatever Swiss-cheese version of the bill comes through at the end of that drawn-out process, as a final gambit.

How do I know this will happen? I've watched many hours of BBC Parliament and CSPAN.

If you think you can address the issue of funding after you get into office on the back of company money, you are either hoping to elect only clones of Buddha, or you know already that these guys are fat for some other reasons and will work for whoever has fed them thus far.

Now, the rest:

I am in favor of a flat tax with a 100% exemption for people below the poverty line. Enact a corporate flat tax with no exemptions.

This would cause either a revenue-starved government that has to borrow perpetually, or it'd cause the tax burden on the middle class to be so high that you'd have to make entire bureaucracies to manage the social programmes to give middle class people back the money you've taken from them.

All of that could be avoided with a progressive tax, where people who can pay a higher percentage, do pay it.

We ought to go back to the days when government spam and cheese was handed to people

You will run into trouble because you don't know what a welfare recipient's diet is, and you don't know what they need to buy. They should be paid actual real money, like how it's done everywhere in the world except the USA.

The whole concept of a 'food stamp' is demeaning to the citizen, and handing them government spam full of nitrosamines and low-quality meat, is even worse.

I favor a health care system similar to Singapores.

That's actually acceptable.

Raise the retirement age to 70 over time.

You are going to have to coat that in buckets of sugar.

Immigration is good for the economy. If you bring in immigrants they will do some jobs but guess what? They also buy things. Our nation is becoming fiscally insolvent because there are too many old people on the dole and not enough young people supporting them.

This is horrendous. I'm sorry, it's just bad. Warm bodies do not automatically lead to productive growth and do not have to be the ones that bear the tax burden. This would only be a sensible stance in the flat tax system that you are advocating, which I guess means that you are literally reinforcing the tax problem and then 'solving' it with mass immigration.

This dis-incentivises R&D, since with lots of warm bodies, no one will care to research more efficient management regimes, or invest in smarter and faster capital equipment.

In other words you lose in the long term since rival countries will smash your mass migrant labour businesses out of the stadium in global efficiency competition and then you'll have lots of immigrants on unemployment benefits and still no productive growth.

It's patronising to say that all they need is an antiracism course. The Rowntree study underlined the severe consequences for housing and planning which follow from the present pattern of people moving into and out of London. (If the green belt is under pressure, this is largely why.) David Coleman, a respected population expert at Oxford University, points to the downside of increasing the supply of cheaper labour. The NHS couldn't be run without overseas-born staff - but does this, he wonders, push it towards being a Lada, rather than a Rolls-Royce, service?

I was brought up just over the hills from Burnley, and it's true that in South Lancashire and West Yorkshire the short term drafting-in of immigrants to keep clapped-out textile mills going - rather than spend money on new capital equipment - was a social disaster. Before long, the mills closed anyway. Thousands of Asians were dumped onto the unemployment register. So were thousands of whites. All were victims of an ill thought through policy.

Attempting to improve designs, having better merchandising, finding more efficient ways to get more done with less hands, or even devoting time and research to how to get more done with less hands, is the way to get productive growth. Not importing masses of people.

If one of the central economic problems is low productivity and malinvestment, the key to fixing that is to cause rising labour productivity at good wages so that normal people can pay down debts and prudently spend more of what they earn so that the economy can recover.

Deliberate attempts to increase the supply of labour and smash wages, will only have a disastrous opposite effect with along with all the attendant social problems that mass immigration brings with it.

Secure the fucking border already.

Which congress is going to pass that bill when you have no rival economic group to pressure them to do that? You can't ask unions to do it since you just banned them from the process and refused to be their friend.

Higher education at the public level needs to focus on technical education that PREPARES PEOPLE FOR JOBS.

Doesn't it already do that?

Tax carbon emissions above a certain level.

Who decides what that level is? Companies will over-declare their historic levels of emissions, which is to say they'll set the bar high, so that when you set the tax it will be at a level that they can easily operate within already.

Thus, all of these companies will essentially be taking a tax break as soon as the scheme comes into effect, and woe betide if you let them trade carbon credits on that basis, it would only become a more epic scam than ever.

The energy companies in your congress that elected your party members, will guarantee it through lobbying, and will be unopposed.

Build nuclear power plants.

Agreed.

invest into research into more efficient and cheaper electric cars and building of public transportation.

Which congress will pass that? Surely not yours?

- Pro-life.

Why?!

----------------------

I'll end there, for now.

[anticlimacus]

I read through the whole thing and thought to myself, "hold on, did I see anything about unions, or wages, or a narrative about the economic crisis? I feel like I didn't see anything at all on that!"

That was my reaction too, which is why I was surprised there was nothing in there about jobs.

If the narrative presented here is "moderate" according to US standards it shows what state the US is currently in--which is mostly top-down, business class oriented. There is very little in here that actually does much to help those effected by the crisis and to strengthen labor--and absolutely nothing said about financial reform of the banks with teeth, nothing about housing either. Having said that, I would probably vote for anybody who would seriously consider the public funding of elections.

[Decky]

I believe welfare ought to be limited to those who cannot work (children, disabled, and elderly) with the exception of short term help only. The government ought to create a job placement service to help people without jobs find them. It would be sort of a government run temp service and all able bodied adults on public assistance would be required to find a job this way.

People are unemployed because there isn't enough work. Just telling them they have to find one of these non existent jobs will not meant they will find one.

Until we have full employment (socialism) welfare must exist unless you want a huge crime wave caused by people starving on the streets.

[Rei Murasame]

If the narrative presented here is "moderate" according to US standards it shows what state the US is currently in--which is mostly top-down, business class oriented. There is very little in here that actually does much to help those effected by the crisis and to strengthen labor--and absolutely nothing said about financial reform of the banks with teeth, nothing about housing either.

Pretty much. But it's what 'moderate' would always mean. By definition, to be politically radical is to address the root of a problem. Being politically moderate is basically a refusal to do that.

[nucklepunche]

The whole concept of a 'food stamp' is demeaning to the citizen, and handing them government spam full of nitrosamines and low-quality meat, is even worse.

Good. We need it to be demeaning. Otherwise they will just go and buy crack. Have you ever been to America and seen the types of morons we have in this country?

[Arkady2009]

I actually agree with around 95% of the OP's opinions. He has some great ideas. The only thing I disagree with him on is the abortion issue - I am pro choice. Other than that, it looks like a well formed political platform.

[nucklepunche]

I do believe it should be decided by the states though.

[Rei Murasame]

Good. We need it to be demeaning. Otherwise they will just go and buy crack. Have you ever been to America and seen the types of morons we have in this country?

I've never been to the USA, but I'm pretty sure that most of the recipients are just normal people who've lost their jobs and don't want the Unemployment or Employment Protection bureau to treat them like some sort of criminal who has to be laughed at and derided in the shopping line. It creates really a sort of visible division in society that doesn't need to exist.

This may be something that a woman would notice more due to a larger volume of time spend standing in supermarkets, but seriously, if food stamps existed in the EU or in East Asia, there is no way that those would be seen as anything other than a badge of shame at every checkout counter. It would also incentivise graft, because I assume food stamps can only be used on certain items, and lobbyists will make sure they push their items as candidates and they will not even bother to make them cheap because then they'll know that the government will be guaranteed to be paying it.

To take it to another level of handing out 'government cheese' or whatever, also creates further corruption since you will have people being given $30.00 blocks of cheese guaranteed by the treasury, and you'd have endless problems with the myriad of diets that people have, and the fact that there would be no way for the state to actually plan 2000kcal per day for every single welfare recipient.

You'd essentially be having to make a government-run supermarket without any of the ability to actually shop. Imagine diabetic-friendly hummus. Imagine kosher hot-dogs. Imagine companies shafting you on the price and the quantities because they know it's treasury-backed 100% and because there would be no economy of scale on those 'rare' items. Imagine having to transform every benefit delivery centre into mini-supermarket where people line up and collect pre-allocated amounts of food because you won't let them patronise their neighbourhood shop. Imagine all the money of those potential customers taken out of the high-street economy. Imagine how that wouldn't work out in Arab Town or Jew Town or Hispanic Town or Asian Town. The inefficiencies in that would be so large that you might as well be imagining going to the treasury and setting money on fire, while imagining 'welfare bread-lines'.

It seems like a whole lot of disaster to me.

[Panda]

I do believe it should be decided by the states though.

I would beat you. My platform would be simple. I would campaign and tell the American people this: "If you're a woman, a minority, a homosexual or even in this nation illegally, please understand this. I will take more from the heterosexual white guys in order to give to you than my opponet! Just vote for me!"

I win.

[nucklepunche]

I've never been to the USA,

My point exactly.

but I'm pretty sure that most of the recipients are just normal people who've lost their jobs and don't want the Unemployment or Employment Protection bureau to treat them like some sort of criminal who has to be laughed at and derided in the shopping line. It creates really a sort of visible division in society that doesn't need to exist.

People on unemployment get cash but need to have been previously employed and searching for a job. People on food stamps do not need to do this. There are a lot of college students who sit on ass and collect food stamps benefits. Meanwhile I had to work for my own food because I had too much honor.

This may be something that a woman would notice more due to a larger volume of time spend standing in supermarkets, but seriously, if food stamps existed in the EU or in East Asia, there is no way that those would be seen as anything other than a badge of shame at every checkout counter. It would also incentivise graft, because I assume food stamps can only be used on certain items, and lobbyists will make sure they push their items as candidates and they will not even bother to make them cheap because then they'll know that the government will be guaranteed to be paying it.

Incorrect. WIC is a good program for children and women that requires them to purchase a certain amount of food from every category. They get X amount to spend on fresh produce. WIC is different. Food stamps is a state program. In my state it gives 200 dollars per person per household and you can spend it on anything except liquor or tobacco. I have a background in the industry so I know. A friend of mine told me of a guy who bought cheap soda which was on sale at his store and then dumped it in the river and brought back the bottle caps and got beer.

To take it to another level of handing out 'government cheese' or whatever, also creates further corruption since you will have people being given $30.00 blocks of cheese guaranteed by the treasury, and you'd have endless problems with the myriad of diets that people have, and the fact that there would be no way for the state to actually plan 2000kcal per day for every single welfare recipient.

Nonetheless this is how it used to be in the 50s when government helped out the destitute. Ever since the Great Society things changed though.

You'd essentially be having to make a government-run supermarket without any of the ability to actually shop. Imagine diabetic-friendly hummus. Imagine kosher hot-dogs. Imagine companies shafting you on the price and the quantities because they know it's treasury-backed 100% and because there would be no economy of scale on those 'rare' items. Imagine having to transform every benefit delivery centre into mini-supermarket where people line up and collect pre-allocated amounts of food because you won't let them patronise their neighbourhood shop. Imagine all the money of those potential customers taken out of the high-street economy. Imagine how that wouldn't work out in Arab Town or Jew Town or Hispanic Town or Asian Town. The inefficiencies in that would be so large that you might as well be imagining going to the treasury and setting money on fire, while imagining 'welfare bread-lines'.

It seems like a whole lot of disaster to me.

For a fascist you seem like a bleeding heart liberal.

If there is any food stamp program at all it ought to be structure like WIC. X dollars for certain items. But I know for a fact you can buy lobster on food stamps.

[Rei Murasame]

Well, maybe my stance on this is just boring, since what you seem to associate with 'bleeding heart liberals' looks to me like how social services have always been. I think it may be that you are being pressured by the centre-right in your country to make a show of 'cracking down' on benefit recipients.

I'm just thinking that if you take that strategy, it will make it look like you are holding all recipients as suspects.

Regarding fascism, as far as I know fascists did not make speeches on welfare crackdowns in that light, but seemed to restrict themselves to criticising those who were born with terribly debilitating defects on the basis that they cost too much money to bring into the world. So that's a totally different type of crackdown.

I don't have anything particularly against people using the benefit if they are entitled to it.

[KlassWar]

For a fascist you seem like a bleeding heart liberal.

Rei is waaay to the Left of the average Fascist: Troglodytes like Dave, Varg or Preston Cole are much more common.

Still, considering how much she hates Liberalism (and the Walls Of Text she deploys against it), I wouldn't call'er a bleeding heart liberal.

[Rei Murasame]

Yes, there's a sort of split presently between the two wings of fascism, where a lot of people have taken on certain centre-right affectations and ways of looking at the world, either because they are actually right-liberals (like say, Dave), or because they want to present a tough-sounding doctrine of self-reliance (like Varg). And then on the other wing there are basically those that didn't do any of that (people like me).

So the sorts of ways that the two would pressurise people would turn out to be different and for different reasons. Of course I hope the wing I'm on becomes the popular choice in the end, because otherwise there will be problems.

Also, on a purely practical level of priorities, in my view there isn't much to gain from scouring over the benefits programmes attempting to claw back one or two pennies from them, when massive lorryloads of economic productivity and prosperity are being lost in so many ways in other areas such as labour-industrial relations that require strenuous structural reform to be carried out on them. The priority really should be to get a system in place where it's possible to protect employment in the first place, but that is often overlooked.

[Daktoria]

The priority really should be to get a system in place where it's possible to protect employment in the first place, but that is often overlooked.

What better system is there to protect unemployment than creative thinking where people figure out for themselves what to do?

Maybe the real issue is society lets the unprepared have children, refusing to assimilate them into culture where they can find an organic niche.

Instead, we have public education dedicated to meritocracy which merely treats children as tools, needing skills to enter the workforce.

Supply is meaningless without demand. When children are made self-conscious to fit in, their demand extinguishes, so they depend on others'.

[orcmaster23]

I agree with you almost completly
I am pro-choice,
The Six year presidency sounds good, but some things could be changed.

As for Jobs, clean energy, or cleaner energy, must be imposed. This could create an explosion of jobs.

I think your ideas might be one the parties in the future.

[Rickey]

Taxes:

An embedded retail consumption tax similar to the gas tax. You don't even realize you're paying it. Huge benefits on attracting job creating businesses to the US as businesses operating in the US are tax free. Everybody gets their whole check. In order to keep the poor from being taxed, every America will get a tax prebate debit card in the amount of the taxes one will pay for the basic living expenses sent out every December 1.

Social Security:

A gradual phasing out of the current system that protects current recipients and those who have paid into it all of their working lives while allowing younger workers to start squiring away investments into a market indexed portfolio at increasing levels as time goes on.

Education:

School choice for kindergarten through 12th grade, accredited schools or student must pass an annual state administered proficiency exam to progress to the next level. Free college in high demand majors such as science, technology, medical and teaching.

National Security:

Get the heck off of oil ASAP! Get behind alternatives energy that reduces our need for petroleum ala man on the moon NASA urgency.

Energy:

Find about 2 dozen towns in America who are ballot initiative willing to mandate solar electric roofing for test case purposes on all newly constructed homes. In areas where it makes sense: Socal, Az, South Tx, NM, NV, Hi, FL, PR, USVI, etc. Then monitor the outcomes for the next 10 years. If positive, duplicate where feasible.


Immigration:


Require English. In countries that show high numbers of immigrants to the US, reach deals with countries of origin to simulcast English language American TV and Radio stations in their cities in order to acculturate the population to American culture/language in consideration of the economic benefit of its citizens sending money back home once they relocate.

In countries that have long waiting lists to come in, strike deals with host countries to trade American criminals for immigrants in consideration of the economic benefit of families back home sending money and tourism to visit their wayward loved one. A voluntary problem where the criminal gets their citizenship revoked in exchange for freedom in a new third world country never to set foot in American again. If they continue their criminal ways and second chance, the third world country will be in all likelihood far more harsh than the American justice system. The third worlder gets US residency. The host country agrees or disagrees on who they accept. Hey, its how Australia sort of got started and today they're a strong western ally.

[Someone5]

I am in favor of a flat tax with a 100% exemption for people below the poverty line. Enact a corporate flat tax with no exemptions.

Or, in other words, "suck it you middle-class scumbags, rich people need more money!"

I believe welfare ought to be limited to those who cannot work (children, disabled, and elderly) with the exception of short term help only. The government ought to create a job placement service to help people without jobs find them. It would be sort of a government run temp service and all able bodied adults on public assistance would be required to find a job this way. We ought to go back to the days when government spam and cheese was handed to people instead of luxury food stamps (now food credit cards) that people use to pay for lobster. There needs to be an incentive to get off welfare. Government makes it too easy. I bust my ass at the store to make ends meet and pay for college and see 300 pound people buying lobster and steak off welfare. I've seen it with my own two eyes so no liberal can tell me it doesn't happen.

You know, food stamp benefits aren't really that generous. Why do you care how people spend them? If they want to eat lobster and starve half the month rather than being more frugal and eating the whole month, how is that any of your business? The government went away from handing people food because that was costing more than just using EBT cards at regular stores. EBT is easy to administer, handing out actual food is not.

Also, why the hell don't you apply for food stamp benefits? Plenty of college students do, and you can usually get something if you're working part time between classes. Maybe it's only fifty or a hundred bucks a month, but that's better than nothing.

But again, it's not like people who buy lobster and steak with their food stamp benefits get more money for doing so. It's the same amount of money, no matter how they spend it. If they run out in the middle of the month, they don't get more.

But let me say that what you describe is broadly true of welfare programs in the US. That's how they usually operate--though, of course, it does depend on the state you live in. Some states are more generous than others.

I favor a health care system similar to Singapores. Everybody ought to have mandatory health savings accounts. Like in Singapore everybody is eligible for health care and companies cannot discriminate like in the USA (so it is universal) but there is also personal responsibility. Some poorer people get subsidies for medical care but these are means tested. Nothing is free. Everybody pays some fee so that the system is not overutilized like it is here. To me this combines the best of left wing and right wing ideals,

This sounds like an absolutely horrible proposal. HSAs? Why the fuck would anyone want a mandatory HSA? HSAs suck out loud. Their only reasonable purpose is for saving enough money to cover high deductibles for catastrophic insurance plans.

namely combining universal coverage with personal responsibility. Unlike here in Stupid States of America where we have the opposite, no universal coverage and no personal responsibility for people who have insurance. People who don't have it get thrown under the bus and people who do eat giant tubs of lard and smoke cartons of cigarettes and then have their medical bills paid for without seeing a single out of pocket cost. Screw that.

What? You've never had to carry your own insurance, have you? How the hell is a 30% co-pay and $5000 deductible "no out of pocket cost"? You have to pay out of pocket just to visit the damned doctor. In fact, this very type of insane health care plan is the only reason why you might actually want an HSA. There's no way you would be able to actually save enough money in an HSA to cover a serious medical bill. The only way that even kind of works is if you combine an HSA with a high-deductible insurance plan. You can save enough to cover a few thousand dollars in medical bills. There's no way you're going to be able to save up six or seven hundred thousand dollars in an HSA in a reasonable working time frame.

1. Raise the retirement age to 70 over time. Starting next year. None of this raising it slowly over time nonsense.

Or, in other words, "fuck you, elderly voter!"

2. Means test Social Security. The more you earn over your lifetime the less you get. Some rich people will gripe that this is "unfair" but I simply don't care if they don't get their extra couple thousand a month if it means this nation won't go bankrupt. Now somebody may have high earnings and go on an MC Hammer spending binge and be impoverished in old age but that is something they need to think of.

That's just about the only sensible proposal I've read so far.

3. Bring in more immigrants so there are more workers supporting every retiree. More immigrants also = more consumers so no immigrants do not "take our jerbs." Which brings me to...

Or, in other words, "let's kick the can a little further down the road!"

Immigration is good for the economy. If you bring in immigrants they will do some jobs but guess what? They also buy things. Our nation is becoming fiscally insolvent because there are too many old people on the dole and not enough young people supporting them.

Our government is becoming insolvent because it has intentionally and irresponsibly slashed revenue by cutting effective tax rates for the wealthiest while at the same time doing nothing to promote domestic investment. The economy has grown, but revenues really haven't grown nearly as much as required over the last ten years. Especially considering the inflation that inevitably results from that sort of economic growth.

1. Immigration is good, however we need the right immigrants. Adopt a points based system similar to Canada that favors people for job skills, English speaking skills, etc.

Unnecessary.

2. We just need to accept that we can't deport 12 million illegal immigrants. Those who have committed a felony should be deported but let those who have been here more than ten years become legal residents. If they came before they were 18 there should be a pathway to citizenship but if they came afterward they should remain forever legal permanent residents and never be eligible for citizenship. This will be their punishment. You just have to be realistic and realize you can't round up 12 million people like Hitler. Include a clause saying this applies only to those currently here and any future people who come in breaking the law will be deported on the spot.

These sorts of periodic batches of amnesty don't really solve the basic problem. You do realize the government has done precisely that before, right? Including that promise that no future immigrants will be granted amnesty in such a way again.

If we actually want to solve the "immigration problem," we need to adopt a free immigration policy--meaning that anyone who wants to come can do so, they merely need to apply in advance (or after getting a temporary visa while they're in the country). No fees, no quotas, no points calculation. Anyone who wants to come ought to be welcome to do so. The only condition would be that they ought to be required to enroll in a job training program to receive training in necessary skill areas. A program that would include English training and require proficiency to pass.

3. Secure the fucking border already.

Why bother?

4. Nobody who is not a US citizen should be allowed to receive welfare.

That seems like a state matter, considering that the states administer (and mostly fund) the welfare programs.

I think education is a state issue. As for what goes on at the state level I would favor setting strict curriculum standards at the state level and provide school vouchers for alternatives to public schools. Schools will be funded according to attendance. Teachers unions can rot in hell.

Yeah, you can forget about winning an election.

Higher education at the public level needs to focus on technical education that PREPARES PEOPLE FOR JOBS. Liberal arts are nice but the sad and simple and harsh reality is that MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT SUITED FOR A LIBERAL ARTS EDUCATION.

College education ought to include both technical education and liberal arts education; a basic 4-year degree ought to consist of both aspects. We need people with job skills, yes. We also need people who can actually live their lives and make rational decisions. Teach both. If it means we need to put people through five year programs rather than four year programs, so be it.

Those who are found to have the intellect for it should be given it. We need a class of such people in society but even Plato recognized that it has to be limited and isn't for most people. He never expected everybody to be a philosopher king like many public university instructors do.

Plato is not the be all end all of philosophy. It has moved on from Plato; he was wrong about quite a lot of things, and The Republic is no exception to that. We don't need philosopher-kings at all--and the liberal arts aren't meant to create them even if we did. The function of the liberal arts is to teach people to think broadly--to teach them a wide range of skills so that they might better perform the more specific jobs they find themselves in later. Technical education prepares a person to do work; the liberal arts gives a person the context necessary to succeed at it.

A liberal arts education is best achieved at the same time as a technical education; a well-rounded person needs both. We really ought to recognize that and start putting people through programs that develop both sides of human intellect.

1. Tax carbon emissions above a certain level.

Easy to say, difficult to structure, impossible to pass. It's really quite simple to say that "carbon ought to be taxed above a certain level", but nearly impossible to lay out an actual framework by which that might be accomplished.

2. Build nuclear power plants. Hippies just need to grow up already and accept nuclear power is good. Japan is not turning into a zombie wasteland. Even then don't build them on top of active fault lines.

Nuclear power is not pursued mainly because of the extreme costs. It's just not economically viable without government-subsidized life support. The industry likes to use environmentalists as an excuse, but it's really just pure economics that holds nuclear power back. Safe nuclear power is not cheap; and unsafe nuclear power is even worse in the long-term.

3. Enact a ten year plan to slowly increase taxes on gasoline (to give people time to adjust) and use the proceeds to invest into research into more efficient and cheaper electric cars and building of public transportation.

So what do you do if no economically viable alternatives are forthcoming, despite the investment? Keep the higher taxes on gasoline? What else do you plan to do to mitigate the economic impact of higher gasoline taxes? Do you plan to offer federal subsidies to promote new urbanization? Do you plan to enact policies to diminish suburbs?

I support free trade agreements for the most part. It is important to compete in the global economy and to resist calls for protectionism. Protectionism will not beef up our nation's economy, it would fail like it did with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in the 1930s.

Free trade works... as long as it is limited to countries who adhere to our own labor and agricultural policies. I.E. within a unified political bloc like the EU. If labor cannot move freely, goods should not either.

I don't care too much about social issues but here are my stances.

You're going to have a hard time getting votes if you don't care about social issues.

MILITARY

I believe we need to continue to have a strong, all volunteer military. There needs to be more of a focus on beefing up military technology. We need a smaller, smarter, more efficient military. I do believe we need to phase down the number of personnel by increasing enlistment requirements but also by increasing benefits and making it a higher paying professional job.

Or, in other words, do exactly what the military is doing already. "I want to have my guns and my butter!"

I favor keeping Guantanamo open. This is one thing I've changed on. I view terrorists as enemy combatants who are actively waging war on the USA and I don't think they should be given jury trials in New York City.

If you don't intend to put them on trial... how can you know if they're enemy combatants waging war on the US? If they've not had a fair trial, you have no defensible justification for holding them accountable for a crime.

My views on Israel are mixed. It makes a useful ally for the USA. It is a democratic, secular, capitalist country in a region of hostiles. There are some real wacky people in the Middle East and Israel is a bulwark against that.

The Israelis are among said real wacky people in the Middle East. They're just as crazy as the rest of the ideological governments in the region--the only difference is that they're our ally, not our enemy, so their craziness doesn't trigger the same feelings that folks shouting "death to America!" do.

On the other hand I feel like the concerns about Israel often trump America in US politics thanks to AIPAC and I think it has a long ways to go on the human rights front but the irony is that Israel has a poor human rights record in comparison to other secular democracies, whereas its human rights are superior to all other Middle Eastern countries. I also think that Israel must accept that it is unrealistic to keep the Golan Heights, Gaza, and West Bank.

That is an unsupportable claim. A more accurate depiction is that its human rights record is superior to some other Middle Eastern countries. That's not really very meaningful though--it's setting the bar rather low. If the argument for supporting Israel is that they're a modern, secular, democratic, progressive ally in the region... one probably ought to hold them to the same standards that one holds other modern, secular, democratic, progressive countries. Giving them a pass on their abysmal human rights record because there are some even more despicable folks nearby isn't really very honest.

I believe the UN provides a valuable diplomatic platform for nations to gather and discuss issues but I do not believe the UN's wishes should trump national law. I do believe America should remain a part of the UN though.

In what way is anyone arguing that the UN's wishes ought to trump national law? The UN certainly doesn't suggest as much. The UN has made attempts to codify international laws by advocating that countries sign treaties establishing such conventions... but that is certainly a far cry from the UN passing a resolution and having it trump national laws.

We must work to eliminate nuclear and biological weapons from the face of the Earth. We need to cooperate with other nations and not hold up a double standard (demanding other nations give them up while keeping our own).

The only way to do so is to begin the process of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

Overall my foreign policy is one of realism. The aim of the USA in my view should be to use its great economic power which naturally leads to great military power to maintain global stability overall while defending its borders and promoting its economic interests.

Economic power does not naturally lead to military power; for example, the EU, or Japan. Both of which have immense economic power, but relatively little military power.

Get money out of politics. We need to ban lobbyists and have public funding of political campaigns. Get corporations and unions out of politics! I will propose a constitutional amendment to these ends as president.

How, exactly, do you ban lobbying? Do you sequester representatives during their terms, so that they cannot visit or speak with anyone? Do you prevent them from speaking with constituents? Do you prevent issue organizations from existing, or merely prevent them from paying staff? Because there is no obvious dividing line between an advocate and a lobbyist. Moreover, this would be an unprecedented imposition on what is customarily considered an absolute right to free political expression--while we could pass an amendment to provide such an exception to free speech, it would stand as a very dangerous precedent. If we can ban generalized issue advocacy in politics, we can certainly ban far more controversial forms of speech.

End the electoral college and enact a national popular vote. The electoral college only panders to narrow sectional interests.

The electoral college has its problems as a voting method, but it doesn't really "pander to narrow sectional interests." Unless you consider it a "narrow sectional interest" to give sparsely populated states some meaningful level of political importance in the presidential race.

Enact a single term, six year presidency.

The president has a four year term precisely so that it is not the same as a term in the Senate.

I would favor extending the congressional terms from two years to four years (so it will be less of an endless campaign) and abolishing the Senate, adopting a unicameral system.

This seems like a very bad idea.

Congress will consist of 500 members. 100 members will be elected at large (each state will get two) and the remaining 400 will be divided into districts based on population.

This sounds even worse. States with low populations go from having reduced political power to having no meaningful political power whatsoever. Especially once you ban private funding of campaigns and eliminate lobbying, leaving them with literally no options by which to make their voice meaningfully heard.

The 100 at large members are present to keep two benefits to the senate which are 1) giving small states a voice

That only works in the Senate for two reasons;

1) Because the Senate has equal representation for all states.
2) Because the Senate as a deliberative body has built up a body of rules precisely to grant each Senator a lot of individual power.

The rules on cloture, the seniority system, the rules on debate time, all of this is a consequence of attempting to give small states a voice. All of this is necessary to do so--because if they simply got a guaranteed minimum of seats in a unicameral, population-proportioned legislature, they would have almost no say whatsoever.

So there it is.

We seem to disagree quite fundamentally.

[nucklepunche]

Or, in other words, "suck it you middle-class scumbags, rich people need more money!"

In the long run I believe taxes ought to be flat. In the short run I'd favor tax increases on the wealthy until we pay down our debt.

You know, food stamp benefits aren't really that generous. Why do you care how people spend them? If they want to eat lobster and starve half the month rather than being more frugal and eating the whole month, how is that any of your business? The government went away from handing people food because that was costing more than just using EBT cards at regular stores. EBT is easy to administer, handing out actual food is not.

Also, why the hell don't you apply for food stamp benefits? Plenty of college students do, and you can usually get something if you're working part time between classes. Maybe it's only fifty or a hundred bucks a month, but that's better than nothing.

But again, it's not like people who buy lobster and steak with their food stamp benefits get more money for doing so. It's the same amount of money, no matter how they spend it. If they run out in the middle of the month, they don't get more.

But let me say that what you describe is broadly true of welfare programs in the US. That's how they usually operate--though, of course, it does depend on the state you live in. Some states are more generous than others.

I've sort of backtracked on this one. I have seen from cogent arguments and digestion of them that I am wrong.

This sounds like an absolutely horrible proposal. HSAs? Why the fuck would anyone want a mandatory HSA? HSAs suck out loud. Their only reasonable purpose is for saving enough money to cover high deductibles for catastrophic insurance plans.

What? You've never had to carry your own insurance, have you? How the hell is a 30% co-pay and $5000 deductible "no out of pocket cost"? You have to pay out of pocket just to visit the damned doctor. In fact, this very type of insane health care plan is the only reason why you might actually want an HSA. There's no way you would be able to actually save enough money in an HSA to cover a serious medical bill. The only way that even kind of works is if you combine an HSA with a high-deductible insurance plan. You can save enough to cover a few thousand dollars in medical bills. There's no way you're going to be able to save up six or seven hundred thousand dollars in an HSA in a reasonable working time frame.

Essentially Singapore has mandatory HSAs combined with guaranteed major medical coverage and subsidies for the poor. This is what I favor. Actually part of the problem with why health care costs so much is that people don't shop around and look for good deals. Those with good insurance are a privileged class whereas those who do not have it are underprivileged. The thing is since the majority of medical costs go to the well insured, particularly those over 65, there is no incentive. People never see their medical bills. It's kind of like how you go to the grocery store and everybody looks for deals and it drives down prices overall because if they charged too high of prices they would jack all prices up. There's a reason whole foods can tack on astronomical markups, yes their stuff is more expensive but they also make bigger profit margins than the pennies on the dollar most stores make. It's because cost isn't as much of an object for their clientele. It's just the psychological effect. In France for instance the government subsidizes all care 100% but you have to pay because the government feels like if you do you will not overconsume. It works beautifully. Granted the French government is profligate in many other areas, such as its ridiculously low retirement age, but in this area it hits the nail on the head.

Or, in other words, "fuck you, elderly voter!"

Realistically this would never pass. However the elderly voters are incredibly selfish. Most of the greatest generation is dead but those coming of age now suck. They demand their socialism tooth and claw but fight against any tax increase on them or any program that helps anybody but them. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that those 65-80 right now actually came of age during the 1950s so they didn't have the shared struggles of the Depression-WWII generation the members of which are left in their 80s and 90s. If you look at the Tea Party it is mostly, how to put it, younger older people. In other words born between 1930 and 1955. Worried about their own benefits but also griping of socialism.

That's just about the only sensible proposal I've read so far.

Thanks for the compliment. I was listening to Michael Savage and he was shitting bricks in anger over this. A lot of conservatives oppose it. This makes no sense. They are always saying poor people need to get off the state teat because they don't really have it that bad etc. but then when it affects the wealthy they cry and moan. It simply shows conservatism is not so much pro-market as it is pro-wealthy. Look at how many proposed raising taxes on the poor.

Or, in other words, "let's kick the can a little further down the road!"

What do you propose to solve our current demographic problems?

Our government is becoming insolvent because it has intentionally and irresponsibly slashed revenue by cutting effective tax rates for the wealthiest while at the same time doing nothing to promote domestic investment. The economy has grown, but revenues really haven't grown nearly as much as required over the last ten years. Especially considering the inflation that inevitably results from that sort of economic growth.

I said at the start that in the short run I favor increasing the wealthy taxes until we get the deficit paid down.

These sorts of periodic batches of amnesty don't really solve the basic problem. You do realize the government has done precisely that before, right? Including that promise that no future immigrants will be granted amnesty in such a way again.

If we actually want to solve the "immigration problem," we need to adopt a free immigration policy--meaning that anyone who wants to come can do so, they merely need to apply in advance (or after getting a temporary visa while they're in the country). No fees, no quotas, no points calculation. Anyone who wants to come ought to be welcome to do so. The only condition would be that they ought to be required to enroll in a job training program to receive training in necessary skill areas. A program that would include English training and require proficiency to pass.

I am in favor of a liberal immigration policy (as are most economist) but you can't just pull the door off the hinges automatically. It would be chaos. Every third world immigrant would rush for America immediately overwhelming our infrastructure.

College education ought to include both technical education and liberal arts education; a basic 4-year degree ought to consist of both aspects. We need people with job skills, yes. We also need people who can actually live their lives and make rational decisions. Teach both. If it means we need to put people through five year programs rather than four year programs, so be it.

Sorry but all that liberal arts hippie shit still isn't for everybody no matter how much you want to fantasize that we can all be Aristotle we cannot.

Technical education prepares a person to do work; the liberal arts gives a person the context necessary to succeed at it.

A liberal arts education is best achieved at the same time as a technical education; a well-rounded person needs both. We really ought to recognize that and start putting people through programs that develop both sides of human intellect.

Sorry, but you have your head up your ass on this one.

Nuclear power is not pursued mainly because of the extreme costs. It's just not economically viable without government-subsidized life support. The industry likes to use environmentalists as an excuse, but it's really just pure economics that holds nuclear power back. Safe nuclear power is not cheap; and unsafe nuclear power is even worse in the long-term.

A lot of things are not economically viable without government life support. Our government opened up the west with the Erie Canal. They helped the railroads. They build the interstate highway. This is what government is for imho. It's negative function is to keep public order. It's positive function is to do things individuals and corporations cannot or will not do on their own, the big things in other words.

So what do you do if no economically viable alternatives are forthcoming, despite the investment? Keep the higher taxes on gasoline? What else do you plan to do to mitigate the economic impact of higher gasoline taxes? Do you plan to offer federal subsidies to promote new urbanization? Do you plan to enact policies to diminish suburbs?

Federal policy created suburbs in the first place. Think the interstate. At the time it was a smart idea but in retrospect it might have caused some problems. Still the suburbanization of society could not happen absent government.

Free trade works... as long as it is limited to countries who adhere to our own labor and agricultural policies. I.E. within a unified political bloc like the EU. If labor cannot move freely, goods should not either.

Ever hear of the comparative advantage? At first China may have hurt American manufacturing but in twenty years it will be cheaper to manufacture in Alabama and Mississippi than China.

You're going to have a hard time getting votes if you don't care about social issues.

Actually I think the great American middle is actually sick of social issues. It's only the Religious Reich and the Lifestyle Left. Ultimately I think these social issues are best left up to states.

If you don't intend to put them on trial... how can you know if they're enemy combatants waging war on the US? If they've not had a fair trial, you have no defensible justification for holding them accountable for a crime.

We never charged the German POWs because war is different than a civil infraction. The point is you do not need a state to be in a state of war.

The Israelis are among said real wacky people in the Middle East. They're just as crazy as the rest of the ideological governments in the region--the only difference is that they're our ally, not our enemy, so their craziness doesn't trigger the same feelings that folks shouting "death to America!" do.

That is an unsupportable claim. A more accurate depiction is that its human rights record is superior to some other Middle Eastern countries. That's not really very meaningful though--it's setting the bar rather low. If the argument for supporting Israel is that they're a modern, secular, democratic, progressive ally in the region... one probably ought to hold them to the same standards that one holds other modern, secular, democratic, progressive countries. Giving them a pass on their abysmal human rights record because there are some even more despicable folks nearby isn't really very honest.

Do Israelis force women to wear burkas? Do they stone homosexuals? Do they execute people for apostasy from Judaism? No they do not. Case closed. I am not an unapologetic Israel supporter but please, for all Israel's flaws it is the ACLU compared to other Middle Eastern governments.

The only way to do so is to begin the process of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

The electoral college has its problems as a voting method, but it doesn't really "pander to narrow sectional interests." Unless you consider it a "narrow sectional interest" to give sparsely populated states some meaningful level of political importance in the presidential race.

We don't live in the 1800s anymore. Please tell me how Wyoming competes with New York at the national level. Also why shouldn't New York Republicans and Wyoming Democrats get their votes to count because as of right now they do not.

We seem to disagree quite fundamentally.

Something tells me that you are the sort of person who will simply disagree to disagree. I had quite the ideological stew. It's hard to imagine that with as diverse of views as I have there is somebody who holds the exact opposite viewpoints except for the sake of disagreeing.