Let's hear it - what do you want the President to do when elected? No name calling, just issues - be specific. (Ignore the politics of it, and the restrictions imposed by Congress - let's just assume the Pres is King and can make it happen.)
Withdraw from Iraq?
Cap and trade regs?
Open up the US for drilling?
Nationalize the oil business?
Make the tax rates permanent?
Soc Sec, health care, education, immigration, roads and bridges,...
Let me throw out some things from my list:
On of the areas that I think is most important when considering a president is the Supreme Court. What kind of judges will this person appoint to the highest court, and the lower federal courts? Indeed, we can now see that while many of Bush's major failures will be repaired with time and intelligence on the part of the electorate, his nominations to SCOTUS are going to ill serve this country for many, many years to come.
Obama has said the following about the kind of nominees he will put forward:
I am a big fan of this approach, as a "federalist society" court would undoubtedly have refused to overturn Plessy, for example, in 1954. Our country would, no doubt, be much worse off on the issue of civil rights with a conservative-dominated court over the last fifty years. And we have already seen how Bush's appointees handle cases involving the "powerless over the powerful". They side with the powerful every time.
Enough! Obama '08.
And we have already seen how Bush's appointees handle cases involving the "powerless over the powerful". They side with the powerful every time.
I thought lady justice had a blindfold on? A good justice should side with whomever has the law on their side, regardless of where sympathy might lie.
And, you should recall the Kelo decision before saying that conservative judges always side with the powerful.
You're right - I take it back. Conservative judges sides with the powerful
everymost of the time.thank you :-)
Call it naivete if you like, but the more I think about it, more unhappy I become with the inherent biases of these so-called judges. We are taught " It is not good to accept the person of the wicked, to overthrow the righteous in judgment." The notion that we Republicans ought to hold our collective noses and go vote for John McCain because we want to get partisan (NEO-)conservative judges appointed is one of the most odious aspects of nonsense. We are Not electing judges but an Executive. I am frankly appalled that we Republicans feel the need to appoint judges that support some imagined agenda. It would seem that an honest judge would not pervert judgment. There is only one right answer to any judicial question. I am also sincerely sorry that our friend Boon has been forced to get such an ugly look at what is taken as conservativism these days. However, I dont think that Obama is one whit more trustworthy than McCain.
Here's my plan, if I was President-as-King:
1. The "Bush tax cuts" would be made permament, but for similar reasons as RSW: stability and lack of ambiguity are important. I'd also resist, as strong as possible, any talk of cutting taxes any further, for a long time.
2. Cut spending, as far as possible, right to the bone; and keep it there, for as long as possible.
3. Implement IP's education plan: gut the Department of Education, save for block grants to states and civil-rights monitoring/enforcement (maybe, if possible, focus some of those grants on technical education for folks not going to college). let's get the Federal government out of education.
4. Open up previously restricted areas for oil drilling; increase as safely and as quickly as possible new nuclear power plants; increase fuel efficiency for vehicles sold here in the US; fund scientific research and private sector development of more efficient or alternate sources of energy.
5. Convince North Korea to get back to President Clinton's nuclear non-proliferation agreement (can't remember the name now, but was it "limited framework" or "limited agreement"?).
6. My birthday now becomes a national holiday :-)
How about a year into the term go on TV and explain WHY your NOT doing what you said your going to do??? As your BS spots run in the background.
Quit acting like your "One of US" I don't make a hundred million dollars a year.
Quit sending trillions of dollars all over the world, When you have disabled veteran's living in a park across from the White House.
Quit begging the Arabs to drill more oil when you won't drill in your own country, AND allow the oil companies to build more refineries.
Quit borrowing from the ChiComs to give us a "TaxRefund"
Tell the truth, even if it hurts!!!!
1) Withdraw from Iraq. Give up on the idea of maintaining the Hummer lifestyle by military force.
2) Impose a heavy tax on oil and gas usage. And a heavier one on coal.
3) Use the proceeds from 2) to a) lighten the burden and transition costs for the poor b) invest heavily in mass transit and electrified rail, and c) provide subsidies to lessen the physical transition as people must redistribute themselves across the landscape.
4) Cap and trade carbon emmissions, including overseas activities of 'domestic' corporations. Pass out initial carbon permits by auction. Use some of the proceeds to compensate patent owners of selected technologies that need immediate worldwide application.
5) Outlaw genomic patents. Monsanto should not be allowed to 'license' living organisms. Specifically allow farmers to save seeds and replant them.
6) Further limit domestic oil drilling. Eliminate all subsidies for oil, oil shale, coal and other fossil fuel extraction. There are some uses for which fossils simply cannot be readily substituted. Lets save some of that oil in the ground for those uses.
7) Eliminate laws which further the myth of the 'rights' of corporations. Take the same tack with corporate entities as buyout types do with corporatiosn. Let them all reapply for their corporate status. Severely limit corporate executive compensation. Perhaps to the range of 20-100 times the 'average' employees wage.
8) Make the income tax significantly more regressive. Tax investment and other 'non-productive' forms of income in favor of encouraging actual work. Use the proceeds to embark on major infrastructure projects.
9) Pick your national healthcare system from all of the examples in the rest of the first world and institute it immediately. (This fixes the Medicare 'crisis' almost overnight.)
10) Adjust Social Security slightly if necessary to guarantee that its current solvency contiues well beyond the current 2040+ horizon. The tweaks would be minor.
11) Restore the constitional protections to individual privacy and freedom of speech eliminated by the 'Patriot' Act and other actions of the current administration.
12) Prosecute all current administration officlals who encouraged and sanctioned torture as war criminals.
13) End the 'voter fraud' fraud.
14) Make Steady State Economics by Herman Daly required reading for all persons in political office. Have tests. If they flunk they are out. (Doesn't mean they have to act on it. They just have to demonstrate they understand it.)
15) Repeal the individual bankruptcy legislation passed in the last few years.
16) Stop large corporate ownership of major media outlets and restore the equal access protections abolished under Reagan.
17) Increase the estate tax on estates in the top 1% nationally. Say to around 75%.
18) Lots more but why bother....... :)
(Just one little comment. Why do you think oil companies aren't even that interested in building new refineries. Because they know the oil supply is peaking. Why build what you won't use.)
Free pop-tarts for everyone!
I'd like to see the deficit reduced.
Regardless of whether the next President is McCain or Obama, I think it's vital to de-politicize the government. I know that sounds a bit contradictory, but after seeing things like the DOJ selectively prosecute for political reasons and political ties trump experience in the Iraq reconstruction, it's important to remember that in some places your ability to do the job are more important than who you voted for.
Wow, Anon 10:47 - that is quite a platform. I assume you want the income tax to be more progressive, not regressive.
Is Obama a good candidate to you? (Serious question)
Impose a federal use tax on oil products to 1) reduce unnecessary usage, 2) stabilize all fuel costs above $5.00 a gallon, 2) fund public infrastructure improvements in the country, 3) allow the market demands to control the development of all alternate energy sources.
Balance the Federal budget through reduction of expenditures.
Revise the current individual income tax to a flat % tax on all income regardless of source above 30k/year eliminating all deductions.
Eliminate the CIA & consolidate the FBI and Homeland Security into one agency mandated to establish communications and working relationships will all state & local law enforcement.
Eliminate the Electoral College and outlaw "Gerrymandering of politcial districts".
Repeal the "Patriot" Act which cut the individual freedoms fought so hard for in the past and increased the size of the government.
Eliminate the income cap on SS tax.
Eliminate all subsidies to non-government entities within all legislation.
Withdraw all USA military and their contractors from Iraq and focus military, economic and infrastructure improvement activity in Afganistan.
Impose a federal use tax on oil products to 1) reduce unnecessary usage, 2) stabilize all fuel costs above $5.00 a gallon, 2) fund public infrastructure improvements in the country, 3) allow the market demands to control the development of all alternate energy sources.
That is a very interesting proposal, and one I think a lot of people favor in theory. And yet even the most liberal candidate fear to even propose it. Instead we get CAFE standards and ethanol mandates.
I will take a little issue with your terminology - I don't think there is such a thing as "unneccessary" fuel usage in our auto-centric American society. The car is a symbol of personal freedom, going to the very heart of our national identity.
I will take a little issue with your terminology - I don't think there is such a thing as "unneccessary" fuel usage in our auto-centric American society. The car is a symbol of personal freedom, going to the very heart of our national identity.
While I agree the car is a symbol of our personal freedom, I think that many people are not aware of the "true cost" of having said freedom. Freedom isn't free is something that usually applies to military actions, but in this case it applies to what the cost of having that symbol entails. You have the freedom to drive and consume fuel as much as you want, but you had better be prepared to pay for that freedom at the pump, which most people aren't because they believe they are entitled to it without making any sacrifice.
I think it is quite reasonable that all road work be paid with gas tax revenues (and even tolls), at the local, state, and fed level. That is not exactly what Oil Man's policy statement was however.
The fuel costs are cheaper in Europe than in the USA yet the consumer costs have always been higher. The same is true for Brazil and most South American countries as well as Japan. Their citizens pay higher fuel costs than we do now. We would have to get way above $5.00 a gallon to even come close to what fuel costs in most citizens of the world face outside of the middle east. In these countries, the governments chose to use a much higher tax designed to; pay for transportation infrastructure, require auto manufacturers to provide greater gas economy and fuel flexibility. Yet these countries provide some of the finest automobiles in the world and reliable extensive public transportation. The citizens complain very little because the extra money stays in their country as opposed to subsidizing of third world countries.
"The car is a symbol of personal freedom, going to the very heart of our national identity." With this statement RSW, check your wallet as your NRA membership card appears to be a little too close to your driver's license. Hopefully you smile at that. Yes, RSW, you are correct, NO CANIDATE, liberal/conservative, Democrat/Republican would dare to even think this far into the future with such a proposal. Our political system thinks in electable terms of 2, 4 or 6 years not what is good for the country.
The President should: 1. Place enough resources to clean out Iraq once and for all, quit stalling. 2. Implement Flat Tax. If you have am employer, the employer takes withholding and you file no return. The only returns would be for self employed & businesses. Absolutely NO loop holes or writeoffs! 3. Eliminate all government subsisies at the federal level. 4 Eliminate all government departments that are not spelled out in the U.S. Constitution. If necessary keep a small regulatory board. Everything else should be shifted to the states. 5. If you want help for college, sign up for the military. 6. Clear our country of all illegal immigrants. Set up quotas for number of entries per year and stick by it. 7. Energy: drill more domestically (ie off-shore & in Alaska), build more nuclear plants, stop price gouging. 8. All pork spending must be in stand alone legislation and announced to the public. 9. Keep our military strong, but stop the wasteful spending in defense contracts. 10. Make sure English is spoken in the USA as primary language.
Thanks for the catch. Yes, progressive. Are the solutions so obvious or do my biases show? :)
What I think of him doesn't seem to matter much. One of the parties will likely select him so I'm stuck. If he's simply disguising a populist, progressive agenda I wish he'd just come out with it since every poll shows that (absent a barrage of swiftboating) Americans are overwhelmingly populist and progressive on the issues. My fear is that he's just another DLC Democrat in the Clinton mold. Obviously he'd be a massive upgrade from the current administration or their chosen successor but nowhere near what the country needs. My guess is that I'll hold my nose, hope for the best, and trust that a valid US passport might manage to get me past the voter ID gauntlet. (Probably not though since I've moved since it was issued. And I'm sure that Missouri is not allowed to vote in national elections this cycle or the terrorists win. Or is it Iowa? I forget.)
If you need help for college, sign up for the military
Not if McCain wins.....support our troops my ass
I am not going to make a comment on the "issues" raised in this thread, but would like to comment on the process we need to use to impliment the policy change . The process involves the "real world". It goes to the heart of the argument of where one is between the communism of the left and libertarianism on the right. Before I comment, let me state that I will not respond to any "Anon M. Muss" out there. If you can't say what you are saying in front of your mother and father, you probably are not old enough to post. I will also not respond to those folks in love with form over substance. I probably would misspell ('potatoe") myself, but that certainly doesn't make President Quayle any better, or worse, than President Clinton. If you were about to respond to this, read the previous sentence.
We can agree on many things . The public policy about education of our children is one where we have a very high agreement. Another is the need for a system of governance. Basically we all agree on the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Basically our disagreement comes from our view of what government can or should regulate, and what it cannot. I think that 99% of us are all in agreement so far. If you start on the far left and draw a line to the right, with government in complete control on the left, and draw it over to a point where there is is no law that can be made to interfere with life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness as you define it, then you are on the right. I think that 99% of us would conclude that whether people look at us as liberal or conservative would depend on your view of where we were on that line.
If you notice, all we have done is the rather unintellectual exercise of trying to define something by placing a label on it, in this case, liberal or conservative. We might just as correctly have used the term racist and non racist. The problem here is that you cannot take a whole range of issues and fit them into your personal definition. It would be unfair to label Obama a racist because he reported that his white grandmother saw black folks and became fearful. This is taking what he thought his grandmother was thinking and relating it to what you were thinking (your definition).
This having been said, however, 99% of us, would also agree that it is fair to "label" a person that has gone to daily mass nearly every day religious, while someone that has 17 felony convictions, criminal. It does not follow, however, the policy that you want to enact to move the conduct from criminal to religious, or from racist to non-racist, will change anything. You are not going to change peoples minds and hearts by busing kids from one end of town to another because you cannot change thinking in this fashion.
You have to look at the underlying conduct that the policy is direct towards, not the label in your own mind. Once you reach that fundamental common denominator (the policy you are directed toward) there is a further step called the implementation of the policy. Here too there are grave philosophical differences. An example. Recent bankrutpcy legislation was interpreted by a Peoria Bankrutpcy Judge as allowing a debtor who had taken out a 23% loan to buy a car three weeks before he filed. The Judge rewrote the loan to about 8%. If all free market decisions could be changed by judicial fiat like this, no one would lend to debtors with low credit scores.
No matter what you think of the decision, it is an example of consequences in an economy that a judge cannot control. It is no different than the State of Illinos telling its hospitals that it will pay them the usual and customary and reasonable charges that a hospital in other parts of this country will pay them, and then does not. See the Champaign County Nursing Home threads. The problem is always in the implementation. If we enacted Hillary's former Universal Health Care for everyone tommorrow, the entire insurance industry would be put out of business. We need to think about not only the policy, but the transition plan to get to our ideal.
One thing is certain, govenrment has never been able to control wage and prices. (See the attempt at wage and price controls by Richard Nixon.) The world economy is like a large river. It essentially is going to go where it is going to go. We have controlled the river by a system of dams that we have developed over the years. Before we start opening and closing those dams, we ought to consider our actions in a larger contrext and plan how to get to our long term goal without making it worse. I appreciate the thoughts of what you would do, but please tell me how you would propose to get there. (See my posts on Universal Health Care for Children-which I am in favor of)
I agreed up to here:
You are not going to change peoples minds and hearts by busing kids from one end of town to another because you cannot change thinking in this fashion.
My understanding is that 1970s studies on school integration showed that you could do exactly this. Kids would learn more and in the end have a positive reflection on enforced integration. Parents were the only difficulty--they would insist that the practice had hurt their children despite all evidence to the contrary.
If we enacted Hillary's former Universal Health Care for everyone tommorrow, the entire insurance industry would be put out of business. We need to think about not only the policy, but the transition plan to get to our ideal.
As long as those in the industry were aided in finding new jobs, I can't imagine a better policy. We need to get some of the fat out of this economy. Encouraging people to make money through taking money from people to save them in a crisis situation and then defaulting when that situation arises is exactly what you are complaining (correctly) about in the above paragraph about the nursing home situation.
To answer your later question, I would complete revamp the health care system. I would model it after Taiwan's which went through the exact process you describe: Study, quick, efficient and effective implementation and ultimately a working policy that addresses the need. I would even work to transition those in the insurance industry to new professions, perhaps in the new nationalized infrastructure. I sometimes get the impression that people attacking nationalized health care as infeasible in capitalist societies must have failed their world studies classes as there is ample evidence to its feasibility in the world today.
I would implement service learning curriculum nationally with a focus on funding underprivileged areas. I would increase title I funding to accomplish this. I would pay for this by diverting federal funds from overfunded school districts. It is ridiculous to tell kids in violence ridden communities to learn math from a text specifically written for other populations of students when it is easy to teach them math through hands-on programs that would improve their communities. Simply put, no matter how much you think they need to crack their geometry textbooks, most kids are not going to be interested when they have no food at home and are ducking violence on their daily commute. Have them build shelters and create anti-violence campaigns with self-management where they will be using the same skills of math but in an applied fashion.
I would stop these ridiculous programs of disaster relief where private citizens invest in insurance and then ultimately have to be bailed out by the taxpayer.
These kinds of double paying to subsidize both the individual and the corporation must stop. If airline companies or insurance companies cannot fulfill their obligations, then capitalist thought would allow them to collapse until more efficient models are developed.
Instead, it appears that we will always want to provide governmental disaster relief--this is a good thing--we are a good-hearted people who want to help our fellow citzens in need. We acknowledge that such disaster is not based on merit and if we allow a massive "shit-happens" element into our meritocracy, that will result in a disincentive to work and advance. Therefore, we should provide support and make it known that people will be protected in such instances. Obviously, there will be limits--we cannot insure the rebuilding of sandcastles that are washed away every high tide. However, we can also acknowledge that sometimes productive communities can be formed in dangerous ecological environments.
I am sick and tired of two major parties with ZERO grasp of economics. In general, Democrats do not understand the production of short-term economic success. In general, Republicans are worse as they do not understand the interconnectedness of long-term economic success and are easily exploited by reactionaries who preach free-market economics, but have built an extremely restrictive market that self-perpetuates the giant companies with market destroying handouts at the expense of free competition.
If we enacted Hillary's former Universal Health Care for everyone tommorrow, the entire insurance industry would be put out of business.
As if that would be a BAD thing. Maloney, you have a way of making Hillary's Universal Health Care sound pretty good after all.
I am sick and tired of two major parties with ZERO grasp of economics. In general, Democrats do not understand the production of short-term economic success. In general, Republicans are worse as they do not understand the interconnectedness of long-term economic success and are easily exploited by reactionaries who preach free-market economics, but have built an extremely restrictive market that self-perpetuates the giant companies with market destroying handouts at the expense of free competition.
If you are looking for scholarship in economics you have to look to the Libertarians. Of course there is a strong surge toward a return to libertarian philosophy in the GOP, as I am sure you have noticed.
Bureaucratizing health care is not likely to improve quality of life. I would suggest that a steady and progressive dismantling of the present insurance, regulation, avarice, and tort/liability driven system is in order.
Bureaucratizing health care is not likely to improve quality of life. I would suggest that a steady and progressive dismantling of the present insurance, regulation, avarice, and tort/liability driven system is in order.
What is your support for this belief? It has improved the quality of life in every society than has competently done so.