The Pub Discussion Board

Get your favorite beverage, sit back, and join in the discussion

You are not logged in.

  • Index
  •  » Politics
  •  » Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

#1 2016-09-19 01:54:50

Jefferson
Completely Blotto
From: East Coast, USA
Registered: 2006-12-03
Posts: 449

Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

Hi,

For those who don't know me very well, or haven't been around for long, I very much enjoy discussing and debating politics. Numerous times over the last few years, I've started political discussions on this very board on a variety of topics.

Eric - who is the one who responds most often - and I, generally agree on the ultimate goal of a project, but not necessarily on how to get there.

Others disagree with me completely.

Now, As I said, I enjoy discussing politics. I do NOT enjoy being called names. If you're going to get mad at me, if you're going to get upset with me for telling you that I think you're wrong, or better, for proving that you're wrong, if you're going to call me a "a big, fat, stupid shit-filled bucket of goo", or some other fun little name, then I don't wish to discuss politics with you.

I wish to "debate," not "argue." It would be strictly a discussion of our beliefs and facts. There should be no hurt feelings. There should be no need to call each other names. In my opinion, whoever starts calling names first, is admitting they have lost the debate.

I have hesitated in beginning a political discussion here over the last year or so because, recently, I've had some very close calls at losing online friends because I ended up in, what I believed, was a political debate, and they saw it as a fight.

So, my question for everyone here is, do you wish to debate? If someone disagrees with you, can you continue to have a civil conversation with them? Or should I not even bother to start a debate here?

Thank you.

Last edited by Jefferson (2016-09-19 01:59:01)

Offline

 

#2 2016-09-19 18:21:39

Fenixreign
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2014-08-02
Posts: 255

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

Start a debate.  Hell, even arguing is fun as long as you never take it or make it personal.  Personal attacks in Politics have been around since Jefferson and Adams, but they have ALWAYS, in my opinion, been something that is underhanded.  Attack someone's record, fine.  Attack someone's family?  Die in a fucking FIRE.

I am pretty opinionated, but like I said, I like debates and arguments.  3dsmile

Offline

 

#3 2016-09-19 21:12:14

Wicked Storm
Completely Blotto
From: New Orleans
Registered: 2012-06-15
Posts: 367

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

I love a good debate, it's an art form that is lost in this day an age. I don't know if the topic of politics is the best place for me, as to be honest I am not that interested in debating the current candidates for office. However, if we are talking ideological politics, removed from the people who are currently running in office, that I would be up for discussing civilly without getting nasty as it were. ^_^


In the dark your lips taste like sweet nectar, and in the line they tease me endlessly.

Offline

 

#4 2016-09-21 14:05:19

Barbarian3165
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2015-02-11
Posts: 329

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

Inside a campaign, Attacking a candidate's family is a toss up for me.  If we are talking children too young to vote, then I say leave them alone.  However any family member out stumping for the candidate and old enough to vote can be fair game in my opinion, especially if they are throwing around personal attacks against the opposing candidate or the opposing candidate's family.  Photo ops with the family doesn't qualify as stumping in my opinion, they actually have to get up and promote their family member with words.  If the family member is not actively campaigning for their family member and isn't doing anything that could be considered treasonous, then I say leave that family member alone.

Personal discussions on politics, I have with friends, family, and a few associates on a semi-regular basis (i.e. it comes up every few weeks, but more often now that the U.S. is having a Presidential election).  So, I am used to political discussions.  I do have one question I ask before I am willing to listen to anyone's political opinion... 'If you were old enough in the last election to vote, did you?'  If they say they were old enough but didn't vote then I tell them I don't care about their political opinion because they gave up the one chance to make their opinion count.  If they weren't old enough to vote during the last election then I am willing to talk politics with them and maybe educate them a little. Anyway, I don't talk politics with those that don't vote.

I'd do my best to refrain from personal attacks on other forum members in a forum discussion and expect others to do the same, of course.  If you have to resort to name calling, I think you have a weak argument.

Last edited by Barbarian3165 (2016-09-21 14:07:48)

Offline

 

#5 2016-09-21 21:08:35

Wicked Storm
Completely Blotto
From: New Orleans
Registered: 2012-06-15
Posts: 367

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

I have voted, up until moving to this election time period. But that is only because I haven't had a chance to get my id renewed in this state and have run into some paper work issues with getting it done before the elections take place.

However, talking about people's family isn't talking politics in my opinion. I think that is where a lot of people lose sight of what is politics and what is opinions on how people run their campaigns.

Politics in my opinion, is talking about policy, about the different parties and what they should stand for and what they don't actually stand for. About laws, and reforms that should be done in the country. Things of that nature. Talking Candidates, especially in this election period, in my personal opinion is just a circle jerk. Get us all nowhere real fast. But that is just my opinion.


In the dark your lips taste like sweet nectar, and in the line they tease me endlessly.

Offline

 

#6 2016-09-22 05:45:50

Barbarian3165
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2015-02-11
Posts: 329

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

What if the family member stumping for the candidate is also a politician? 

Discussing politics on the forums, just between us, should be civil and about policy.  But politics in this country hasn't ever been civil, with the possible exception of George Washington's election.  Emotions can run high for some people when it comes to politics or any other deeply held belief.  Unfortunately, most of us rarely make our choices based on logic and reasoning.  If we did, the Libertarian party or some modified form of, might be the dominant party.

Policies I'd like to see enacted but probably never will be:

1.  Scrap the current tax code for something like 'the Fair Tax'.  I'd make some minor modifications (or possibly major depending on your point of view) to it and clarify that the IRS isn't going away but that private citizens won't have to deal with them if they don't want to.

2.  I'd like to see one of the following:

a.  Term limits for both the senate and the house of representative say two terms for senators and 3 or 4 terms for congressmen.  But those corrupt bastards won't go for that without the states forcing a constitutional amendment.

b.  scrap the election system all together.  If your a citizen old enough to hold the position with no felony convictions and no mental defect that would disqualify you for the job then your name goes in the tumbler for every district your part of.  If your name is pulled out of the tumbler, you have two choices.  First you accept the position and serve to the best of your ability with a nice paycheck and pension.  Second, you say you don't want to serve and you are given paperwork to give up your citizenship and all rights citizens are entitled to, becoming a legal resident.  If your name is pulled out of the tumbler for multiple positions, then you get to choose in which capacity you are going to serve and the other positions go to a second selection process.  Every political appointee must make himself or herself available to a day long public question and answer session once or twice each year (no long winded stalling on the answers either).  Answers must be truthful with the only exception to answering a question being National Security or Classified information which must be stated and backed up.  Lying to the citizenry on their question/answer day should be considered treason and if convicted of treason they should be executed.  Personal issues should be off limits on the question/answer day... no sex life questions, it must be questions about the job.

I think I'll stop here, at least for now.

Last edited by Barbarian3165 (2016-09-22 05:49:28)

Offline

 

#7 2016-09-22 10:02:58

Jefferson
Completely Blotto
From: East Coast, USA
Registered: 2006-12-03
Posts: 449

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

1) I agree with you that we need to scrap the tax code. I personally like the idea of a National Retail Sales Tax (NRST). Those states that have a state tax, would end the state taxes, most income taxes would go away and we would go to something like a 25% sales tax nationwide. You wouldn't actually be paying much more than you're paying now, probably less if you include those sales taxes that you already pay plus your state and federal taxes.

You go to a store and purchase something, pay 25% tax, the store collects it and takes a small percentage for itself (this is their fee for collecting the tax, doing the paperwork and sending it on) they send it to the state where the store is physically located and they take a small percentage (congrats, you just paid your state tax) and then the state sends it on to the Federal Treasury Department (you just paid your federal taxes). Social Security and a few other items might still be taken out of your paycheck. I don't know enough to be able do this one for sure.

You then don't charge taxes on businesses who are buying things for their business.

If a company that makes sweaters has to pay taxes on the buttons they buy to use on their sweaters, they're just going to add it to the final cost so the consumer just ends up paying those taxes anyway. This would drop the price of EVERYTHING, from the food on your table, to your car, to your house by somewhere between ten to fifteen percent. This would also lower the cost of doing business in this country and maybe attract some multi-nationals back to the US. (Jobs anyone?) An NRST would also collect taxes from the "underground economy." All those drug dealers and prostitutes who never declare their real income, they would pay their taxes every time they buy a Quarter Pounder, a pair of shoes or some bling to impress their friends. Also, all those tourists who come here, they would pay taxes to the US every time they bought a souvenir.

2) I'm all for term limits on our Congress critters and Senators. In my opinion, no elected official should be allowed to serve in any office for more than ten years. They get too comfortable. Make too many friends.

3) Randomly selecting the president wouldn't work. Although I do kind of like the idea. I personally think we should change the term of the presidency. Right now, a president can run for two four-year terms. I think we should limit them to ONE six-year term. If you think about it, they don't really gain much with this because their third year in office, is completely wasted because they are spending all of their time and effort trying to get re-elected. As for those missing two years, most second term presidents have expended all of their political capital by halfway through their second term, they become a lame duck president and usually get very little accomplished. Six years is long enough for them to carry out their agenda, there is no need for them to be worried about getting re-elected or making friends with those who will help them get re-elected.

I think the American Voter might learn a lot from the new show "Designated Survivor." I think the US could use a few more "hesitant" presidents. People who don't really Want the job but are pushed into it.

4) If I had my way, besides doing those things mentioned above, I would end all public sector unions. To be clear, I didn't say ALL Unions, I said all PUBLIC sector unions. These would be the unions that represent government workers. And yes, that would include teachers. The only exceptions I might make are police and firefighter unions. Why? Because these people are making deals at the local, state and federal level with elected government officials or appointed government officials. Either way, they are dealing with someone who has "No skin in the game.' With labor unions, they have to deal with corporate management. Corporate management is looking to get the best deal they can. They want to save as much money as possible. Government officials, they don't need to worry about saving money. It's not their money after all. They give the public sector unions whatever they want so that the unions will support them when they next run for office. No reason not to. By the time anyone realizes they made a bad deal, the politician is long gone, out of office, dead or moved on to higher office. No matter what, he's completely unaccountable. This is what nearly killed the city of Detroit a few years ago. Politicians have been making BAD DEALS for decades and it all finally came due. Chicago, New York, LA and others will eventually run into that same freight train.

Last edited by Jefferson (2016-09-22 10:10:18)

Offline

 

#8 2016-09-22 10:40:59

Barbarian3165
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2015-02-11
Posts: 329

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

1.  The Fair Tax is a national sales tax, you should google it and check it out since it is pretty close to what you stated.  Although I'm not sure what, if anything, it would do to State tax.

3.  my option b. wouldn't be for just the president but for all public offices at least above the city/county level.  State senators, congressmen, governors, federal congressmen, senators and the president.

4.  I don't know if I would end any of the unions... but I would make it federal law that the entire USA and its territories are Right to Work.  So they can't force you to join a union and they can't dock anything from your paycheck if you don't join.  Some states either force you to join a union or if you don't join, they still dock you for union dues but don't give you any of the benefits of being a union member.  Let the employees decide if they want to sacrifice some pay to be in a union or not.  That may sound the death knell for most unions, but not all.

5.  I would consider removing the Department of Justice from the Administrative branch.  All appointees to the Department of Justice should be nominated by the Supreme Court, and certified by congress.  If you want, you can give the president a veto of the nominee with congress having the power to override the veto.  The Supreme Court should also have the right to remove anyone in the DOJ by a 2/3 vote.

6.  Do away with the DHS, roll it into the US Military since they would do a better job anyway.  I'd definitely move the Secret Service out of DHS and into the military, maybe under their own branch of the military... Army, Navy, Marines, Air force, and Secret Service.

Last edited by Barbarian3165 (2016-09-22 10:42:18)

Offline

 

#9 2016-09-22 10:45:16

Barbarian3165
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2015-02-11
Posts: 329

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

an addition to my number 5... Let the president have his own small band of lawyers to advise him on legal matters, they just don't have anything to do with prosecuting the law.

Offline

 

#10 2016-09-22 14:04:33

Fenixreign
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2014-08-02
Posts: 255

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

1) Eliminating the Income Tax and instituting a GST (I live in Michigan so Canada's GST is something I know about), which is all an NRST or "The Fair Tax" is, would NOT produce enough capital for the government to run unless you are talking a minimum of 15%.  Now, when you consider that several Republicans (who claim to be fiscal conservatives as do MOST Libertarians) in the last election wanted Tax reform including a 9, 9, 9 Policy put forth by Herman Cain, you have to understand that it was in response to the idea that a GST is a "regressive tax," in other words it punishes the poor more than the rich because a greater percentage of their take home amount is taken every time you assess the tax and it is the main reason that the Income Tax is so difficult to manage now.

When the Income Tax laws were first passed, it was a FLAT 1% of gross income, no deductions, no writeoffs.  Flat taxes like that ARE regressive.  If you want to modify the tax code to be more fair across the board, I propose something like this: 1) Alter the Tax Rate for ALL citizens to a flat 13% (that is the approximate average amount ACTUALLY paid after all deductions and writeoffs); 2) Remove all writeoffs and deductions from the code except those that deal with recognized Charities and you cannot get writeoffs for donations to charities that you helped found or for which you serve at any level of management (this includes the Board); 3) The Poverty level is defined as 3 times the minimum amount to live on.  We find the national average and it becomes the ONLY deduction from Gross Income.  So if the National average for the Poverty Level is determined to be $45,000, then the first $45,000 of income is excluded from Income Taxation. 4) ALL forms of income will be taxed and at the same rate.  This means that inheritance tax that people can avoid and they currently exempt the first $5M of, yeah, that gets taxed.  The only exception to this are losses of the same type can offset gains.  So, if you have STCG (Short-Term Capital Gains) and you also have STCL, the Losses can offset your Gains, but Gambling Losses cannot.  This part is to reward private investors for actually taking risks because they can offset any gains.  Now, this only addresses Personal Income Taxes and alone won't change much, but then we get to Corporate taxation and THAT is a whole other ball of wax.

With Corporate Taxation, we have a need to get money from them, but we have to be sure not to drive them out of headquartering here in the U.S.  This is a difficult process and would need a separate check/balance system for them to stay here.  Thee first thing we do is remove corporate "personhood."  The idea that in terms of donating to political campaigns and other things a corporation is considered a person and is thereby allowed to donate is RIDICULOUS.  I have ideas for the modification to Coroporate Tax Structure and how to offset the desire to move away from the taxes here, but it is VERY long.

2a)  Term limits can be both good and bad, you have already pointed out the good things, but what happens when you get a politician that is BELOVED by his constituents like FDR and could, in theory, get elected like Strom Thurmond?  Not only does it give you a stabilizing influence, but it also gives the body a sense of tradition and a link to older values.  Again, Strom Thurmond isn't the best example because of his racist views, but that is what his constituents WANTED.  Sorry, you can't have a representative democracy without accepting the representative sent by the people he or she represents.

2b)  I realize this worked in Athens back in the time of the Greek dominance of Western Civilization, but it wouldn't work now.  The issue is that Athens, being a CITY-STATE, was so much smaller that there was a level of accountability just walking down the street.  Your President was what we would consider the Mayor now except he had a military at his command, and while that works on a small-scale, it jut wouldn't on a large scale because every so often things would come to a screeching halt because you have people trying to learn this new position that they may not have ANY aptitude for and the ability to get assistance in the short-term is difficult.

As for "Designated Survivor," I am familiar with the concept, but have not watched the show.  Now, I have always believed that the vast majority of people fall into two categories: 1) People that want NOTHING to do with power and 2) People that CRAVE power.  The people that want nothing to do with power make poor leaders because things that need doing may not get done.  The people that crave power want it for their own means and well-being as an offshoot of the survival instinct present in all living creatures and as such do things for themselves that might not benefit the people they lead.  There is a third group, though: People who WANT power but don't crave it.  I would say less than 5% of people fall into this category.  These are the people you WANT to lead but for the right reasons.  These are the people that recognize the other 2 groups need leadership and restraint respectively.  They recognize that some people just want to be left alone to live their life and be happy.  These people need to be lead to make sure that the society does not stagnate and the ones that want to lead recognize that this group needs a push to move forward, but also need to be protected from the ones that crave power est they be trampled.  The group that wants to lead also recognizes the potential for the ones that crave power.  That craving is a POWERFUL motivator.  It will allow people to run roughshod over the status quo and can force the entire society forward, but at such a speed or direction that the society implodes because they can't keep up.  The group that wants to lead can, like stagecoach drivers of the past, direct and moderate that speed.  They can rein in when necessary and let loose when the society can handle it safely.  This group of people that WANT to lead are the ones that we as a society need to find and promote to lead even when they don't necessarily agree with your politics.  Why you may ask?  Because these are the people that are HONESTLY trying to do the right thing.  They may vote for a tax increase or send troops to some nation you have never heard of, but hen they make that decision they will truly believe it is the right thing for their constituents.  They may be wrong, but at least their hearts will be in the right place and that is something that has been sorely lacking in Washington D.C. For a LONG time.

3)  I live in Michigan and we are a heavy Union state but we are allowed to not join the unions.  If we choose not to join we have a lessened Union due but there is a good reason, they still represent the workforce in salary negotiations and dispute resolutions.  So, if you want to make every state Right-To-Work, that is fine, but as a corporation, I would hire the non-Union guys in at the lowest possible rates with the cheapest benefits possible.  Why?  Because they have NO representation.  NONE.  The guy standing next to you has 3000 other guys ready to walkout with him if he gets fucked.  You have NO ONE.  Why should you get the benefits and pay of someone that pays for those privileges?

Now, of course, while he was a right bastard, Henry Ford did 1 thing right: he, on his own, doubled his workers wages and then watched his production go up and his applications go through the roof.  All of this without a union.  Of course, he tried to kill any Union rep that came anywhere near his plants (hence the "right bastard" comment), but he tried even without their influence.  So, perhaps the better way to do it is at a corporate level instead of giving individuals the right to choose give the workforce as a whole the right to choose.  Every time a new contract comes up you give the workers the option to eject the union and offer part ownership of the production.  You put in the contract for ownership that ALL ownership granted via that contract IMMEDIATELY reverts to the company if they bring in the union again.  This prevents the union from ever having any ownership of the company and gives the workers something to take pride in.  It has been effective in many places.

5) Making the entire DoJ appointment-based is impossible logistically.  The Attorney-General for the U.S. Is a Cabinet Member and as such is appointed and must be approved by Congress.  If you want to give the Supreme Court the ability to weigh in on the nomination, that is cool, but to remove the approved legal counsel from the President is a BAD move.

6) The DHS argument is fine.  I really couldn't care less (I tend to be a Darwinist).  Just a head's up though, the Secret Service is a part of the Treasury Department, not DHS.  Their original and still main job is to enforce and investigate counterfeiting of U.S. Currency.  The protection detail was added on in 1901 after the assassination of Wiliam McKinley.

Offline

 

#11 2016-09-22 16:49:53

Barbarian3165
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2015-02-11
Posts: 329

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

In my opinion, the DoJ head, being a political appointee, has become a problem.  They aren't necessarily seeking justice any more.  Certain branches have also become so heavily lopsided in their political view that the DoJ has become obscene in my opinion.  Removing the DoJ head, at the minimum, from being a political appointee answering to the president is a must in my opinion.  The only body I can see that is supposed to be concerned with constitutional rights and justice is the Supreme Court.  The DoJ as a whole should represent all the citizens and politics should not get in the way of law enforcement and justice.  Having the DoJ head be beholding to the president is just wrong, give the president his own legal team as his council separate from the justice system.  You could then have fair minded and beloved heads of the DoJ then survive the changing of the presidency.

I believe the head of the Secret Service was put under the DHS department under either Bush Jr. or Obama, I don't remember which one... Unless I'm thinking of some other branch.  Anyway, the U.S. Federal government is too big and a lot of the bureaucracy needs to go.

Offline

 

#12 2016-09-22 16:55:36

Barbarian3165
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2015-02-11
Posts: 329

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

taken from wikipedia

"Effective March 1, 2003, the Secret Service transferred from the Treasury to the newly established Department of Homeland Security."

Offline

 

#13 2016-09-22 18:47:29

Jefferson
Completely Blotto
From: East Coast, USA
Registered: 2006-12-03
Posts: 449

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

1) Fenixreign wrote: "The Fair Tax" is, would NOT produce enough capital for the government to run unless you are talking a minimum of 15%."

That's why I said to set it at 25%. It's not a hard and fast number. I've heard numbers ranging from ten or fifteen percent up to twenty-two or twenty-five percent.

A "Regressive" tax? How is it regressive? It would be based completely on SPENDING. Those who have more money, would naturally, spend more money. While millionaires and billionaires may not spend a lot of time, personally, shopping at the grocery store, they still have to eat food. They still have build or buy a house, they still have to buy cars and, the richer you are, the more "things" you need and/or want. Poor and middle class families don't go out and buy fifteen or twenty cars. They don't go out and buy super yachts or private aircraft. These would all be taxed just the same as anything else. The poor, having less money, would spend LESS money. It seems to me, a NRST is the least regressive tax around. Now yes, there are ways that we could help the poor but, if it was me, I wouldn't worry about this at the federal level. I would let each individual state figure out the issue with the poor.

For those who haven't figured it out yet, I am a big supporter of states rights. I believe the feds have grabbed way too much power over the last 100 years or so and I think we need to give that power back to the states, or the people. I think there are a number of federal agencies that could be shrunk, significantly, or done away with completely. I think we should go back to using the individual states as test laboratories and let them test various ideas about taxes and everything else. Once one finds something that works, I would imagine most of the rest would adopt it fairly quickly.

As for the income tax, we are wasting millions of dollars on the IRS and wasting millions of man hours filling out tax forms and going through audits.

I support ending the so-called Death Tax or Inheritance tax. How do we justify it? Mr. Jones, a 90 year old man on his death bed, has worked his entire life to support his family. He opened his own business and, thanks to some good ideas and hard work, his business thrived and, Mr. Jones was fortunate to become very rich off of his work. During his years working, Mr. Jones always paid his taxes. Now, Mr. Jones is about to die and he wants to leave his company, and his money, to his children so that they can live comfortably. But no, we aren't going to let that happen. Mr. Jones paid his taxes on the money he made, but now we're going to TAX IT AGAIN, apparently, simply because we don't like little rich boys.

We tax and double tax the same dollar all the time. You're gonna have to give me a REAL good reason why we should continue this one.

2A) If a politician is beloved by his/her constituents, but has been term limited out, I guess we will have to hope that someone else will step in and continue the elder politicians work. Some fresh blood, some new ideas would probably do wonders for Washington DC.

4) Maybe I misspoke. I wouldn't NEED to end any of the unions, not even the public sector ones. I would just make it illegal for the federal, state or local governments to deal with public sector unions. In other words, the members could keep their unions, but the unions wouldn't be able to negotiate for them so they may as well just ditch them.

And I agree, every state should be right to work but that has little or nothing to do with public sector unions. My main issue with public sector unions is that there is no "skin in the game," those who are negotiating with the unions have NOTHING to lose by giving the union everything they want. And since it takes so long for any "bad deal" to become public knowledge, there is no accountability.

5) The Supreme Court is supposed to be ABOVE politics. Giving them power to appoint the Attorney General or work with the DOJ would strip them of this idea. They would be dragged into politics. This is why our founding fathers made the Supreme court a lifetime appointment. That way, no sitting Justice had to worry about getting re-elected or upsetting the president and being yanked off of the bench. Now granted, there are a LOT of judges these days, including a few on the Supreme Court, who like to use the courtroom to make law. We should, absolutely, end this. One by one, these Judges should be recalled or impeached and removed from the bench but we can do this now. People are just too ignorant of what is possible, that removing a sitting judge is rare.

6) I think DHS is a good idea, but poorly named and poorly executed. "Homeland security" sounds like something right out of Nazi Germany. My vote, change the name of the Present Department of Defense back to the Department of War, which is, honestly, what it really is. Then change Homeland Security to the new Department of Defense. the new DOW would deal with threats outside the United States while the new DOD would secure our borders and deal with issues inside the United States. Put the Coast Guard and the National Guard under this command. (the individual states, of course, would continue to have the power to call out their own National Guard units in times of crisis, the new DOD would activate the National Guard, as a whole, in order to defend the United States if invaded as well as if there was national disaster; think Supervolcano eruption or meteor strike.)

We need to do something to fix the TSA. Personally, I'm leaning towards privatizing it. If the government screws something up, it can take years to fix it. If a private corporation screws something up, Congress can fire them in a minute flat and give someone else a chance. Then put whatever watchdog group we create to watch over the new TSA under the new DOD. Also add in border patrol and a few other commands. Place them all under the command of the Ranking Coast Guard admiral. I like the idea of making "Border Patrol" an MOS within the Coast Guard.

Last edited by Jefferson (2016-09-22 18:54:24)

Offline

 

#14 2016-09-22 20:49:51

Barbarian3165
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2015-02-11
Posts: 329

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

The Supreme Court is already political, perhaps now more then in the past.  The Supreme Court wasn't supposed to care what was said about them in the press and were to faithfully uphold and apply the constitution.  However, the chief justice cares so much about how the court will appear in the court of public opinion that he is willing to forego the limits placed on government by the constitution.  Making the Department of Justice head answer to the Supreme Court and not the president would reduce, if not remove politics from the Justice Department.  If you don't want to have the DoJ Head appointed by the Supreme Court, then have them nominated by majority vote of all Federal Judges and approved by the Supreme Court.

Privatizing the TSA would be fine by me.  Those few airports that already use privatized security do far better then the TSA ever has.

Changing DHS would only work, in my opinion, if its entire structure were dropped and replaced.  Bring in competent military leaders and run it just like the military.  The bureaucrats in most of the government jobs just can't seem to do the job, won't do the job, or just plain bungle the job, unlike the military. 

While your at it, fire all the bureaucrats in the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Put the Veterans Affairs under the military administered by retired veterans for disabled veterans.  I think they would do a much better job of taking care of their own.

Offline

 

#15 2016-09-23 03:11:31

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

Before I say anything on this topic, let me just say this:  I come from a position of being on government assistance my entire adult life, and resenting the fact that I've needed to do that.  I feel extremely guilty that others have had to support me, and I wish there had been a path, when I was younger, for me to get out of this position.  I regret having squandered some of the opportunities I did have, even though I believe now that they wouldn't have worked out in the end, anyway.

I fully understand the, "We cannot let the unfortunate and the weak fall through the safety net" mentality.  I make use of that mentality every month when I get my paycheck, and it bothers me.  It bothers me that I ask for donations on this website.  I do so because I have to, and thankfully, some of you are kind enough to help keep Keeshaba and I from falling through the safety net, as well. 

I mention these things because some of the things I say below may seem strange coming from someone living on a disability check, and so I hope this will help you understand.

I freely admit to being mostly a Libertarian.  If I had my best wishes, most government agencies would completely disappear, because there is no Constitutional authority for their existence.  I'm fully aware that will never happen, so the system has to be reformed in other ways.

That having been said, these are just some thoughts of my own:

1) The terms "progressive" and "regressive", as they relate to the tax code, are inherently biased.  They make the automatic assumption that one method of taxation is better than the other.  As such, using them in debate should be strongly discouraged, as they speak to emotion, not fact.  The two tax systems mentioned so far are a "flat" tax system, and a "tiered" or "bracketed" tax system.  Personally, I see nothing "advanced" or "moving forward" (ie, "Progressive") about a system that punishes someone for doing well by taking a proportionally larger chunk of what they earned.

2) There is nothing inherently "unfair" about asking everyone to pay an equal proportion of their income in taxes.  10% of a billion dollars is still 20,000 times more than 10% of $50,000.  Will the person making $50,000 have less "wiggle room" left in their income?  Yes, they will, and this is how it should be.  It will encourage them to work to better their life and their income.  It needs to be understood that being rich is the GOAL, not the PROBLEM.  Government needs to stop punishing people for doing well (by taking more of their money), and instead aid them in trying to succeed.

3) As to giving an income tax deduction for "3 times what you need to live on":  Okay, let's assume that by "minimum amount to live on", you're referring to what is currently called the "Federal Poverty Level".  That number is $11,880 for one person, or $16,020 for a couple.  Let's work on the notion of a married couple.  You want 3 times that poverty line, or $48,060.  The median household income in 2015 was $56,516.  You want to give a $48,060 deduction off that, so their taxable income is $8,456.  You asked for a 13% tax rate, so you want them to pay a grand total of $1,099.28, an effective tax rate of 1.95%. 

A person making $100,000, under this same system, is paying $6.752.20, an effective tax rate of 6.75%, nearly three and a half times as high, for making only twice as much money.  This is your idea of FAIR?  Where is the incentive to make ONE DIME more than $48,060 each year?  For every penny over that deduction you make, you are being hurt more and more by the tax code.  If you're lucky enough to make $250,000 a year, your effective tax rate is 10.5%, which is six times more than the median, while making less than five times as much income.  I'm sorry, but I can't wrap my mind around any definition of "fair" that this works for.  The notion that you take more money from someone just because "well, they can afford it," isn't fair.  There is nothing fair about taking money from someone who earned it to give it to someone who didn't.
   
4) Forcing a person to serve in public office is a clear invitation to, at best, disinterest, and at worst, intentional incompetence.  Force someone into a position of power, and you are all but telling them to abuse that power.

5) Political parties need to be abolished.  Each candidate needs to clearly state their own beliefs and positions.  They need to clearly tell us exactly what they're going to do, not fall back on the platform of the (Democratic|Libertarian|Republican|Socialist|Whackjob) Party.

6) Campaigning needs to be completely reworked.  Here is what I propose:
    a. Do away with campaign donations altogether.  All "certified candidates" for a position will receive a certain amount of money directly from the government the position is with (local, state, federal).  Candidates will become certified by having a verified number of signatures in support of their candidacy.  (This number should be high, but not prohibitively so.)  The signatures need to represent the entire area of the office sought after.  They are not allowed to use donations of any kind during the signature-collection phase.  The best way for them to collect these signatures would be through a website.  The government would provide a pre-built website template for the candidate to fill in to create their own website to collect these signatures.
    b. Do away with campaign commercials.  Instead, there will be a dedicated election network (CSPAN-6?), on which the candidates will be given airtime for talks that are much longer than commercials.  For state or local elections, various local "public access"-type channels can be used.
    c. All certified candidates will be required to record a "position statement":  A talk (aired on the aforementioned network) which will outline their positions on a selected group of topics.  These topics will be voted on by the people, as well as have a certain set of "standard" issues (the economy, the free market, foreign policy, social issues).  During this talk, they will not be allowed to voice reference to the position of ANYONE else.  They must stand on their own ideas.  (In other words, they can't say something like, "Unlike my competitor, who says blah blah blah, I say yadda yadda yadda...")
    d. Each month, the candidates will record a shorter position talk that will outline their opinions on events of the previous few weeks.  Once again, unless the issue is directly concerning another candidate (such as their dropping out of the race), no mention will be made of other candidates.  These speeches are about policies and ideas, not mudslinging.
    e. These talks will not only be available on the TV network.  They will also be available on a government-run website for each elected position.  The website will also contain more detailed biographical information about each candidate, including things such as their previous elected positions held, and their voting history in those positions.  Further, for those people who have neither Internet nor TV access, the information will be available in transcript form.
    f. The hardest bit:  Participation in the election system is MANDATORY.  Citizens are required to vote, AND are required to learn about the candidates.  (I'm not entirely certain how to verify this part.  Perhaps an exam of some sort.)  Those who fail to vote, or fail to educate themselves, will no longer be citizens, but only "US Residents", and they will lose certain privileges, such as the ability to obtain any form of license (driver's license, gun license, hunting license, etc.), the ability to get a passport, the ability to work for the federal government or receive any federal assistance, etc.  Choosing your government is neither a privilege or just a right.  It is a duty, and it needs to be taken far more seriously than it is.  (Obviously, there would have to be some exemptions here for things such as the mentally incompetent.)

7) Term limits: All elected officials need to be limited to ONE TERM in office, regardless of the office, and they must work a private-sector job in-between elected positions for at least one election cycle.  This way, lobbying would become less effective, as no one would be seeking re-election, and there would be no clear idea of whether or not any elected official would even make it into office again, as there would be no incumbency advantage.  As to those few politicians the people "really want"... one has to ask if that is because they are good GOVERNORS, or good POLITICIANS.  The likelihood is the latter, and that is NOT something to be rewarded.  The notion of the "learning curve" for governing has been mentioned.  That curve occurs because of politics, not because the notion of "pass good laws, reject bad laws" is so complicated.  In my opinion, it's best if our elected officials do NOT learn how to "work the system".

8) Laws should be about ONE topic, and one topic only.  Too many things pass into law because they were tacked on to some other bill that the "rider" has nothing to do with.  A good law should be a few pages long.  If it is something so complex that it requires a thousand pages to talk about, it should NOT be one law.  Further, every law should have a preface in "plain English" that explains the entire intent and purpose of the law without all the lawyer bullshit.  If you cannot explain to the average citizen what the law does in such a fashion that they will know whether or not they are breaking it, then it's a BAD LAW.  Some will say that this will cause even more gridlock in the system, and that even fewer laws will get passed.  In my opinion, this is a good thing.  To paraphrase John Stossel, gridlock in the system is not a bug, it's a feature.  Our government was not intended to pass laws willy-nilly.  Getting a law passed was supposed to be a real pain in the ass.

9) Congress should be required to vote on EVERY bill that is brought before it.  Too many things "die in committee"... there is no rationale for giving those few people that kind of power.  Congress wastes too much of its time on bullshit.  Give them a regulatory deadline for a yes/no vote on every bill. 

10) Executive orders should require approval by Congress within 90 days, and Congress should be legally required to vote on them.  Executive orders have the power of law, and only Congress is supposed to have the right to pass legislation.  Executive Branch agencies, likewise, should need Congressional approval for all but the most miniscule of regulations, as these are, in effect, laws, since violating them can get you sent to prison.  I realize that it would completely logjam Congress if they had to okay the number of regulations being put into effect by the current administration.  That's my point.

11) Supreme Court justices should serve a single term of ten years, not a lifetime appointment.  These appointments ARE political decisions, and it gives the president who made that decision way too much power to put these people in office for perhaps 30 years.

12) Lower-level (non-decision-making) public sector jobs should all be filled by people on government assistance.  If you cannot find a job, the government will give you welfare, but you are going to work for it, dammit.  You will be trained for and fill a position as a clerk or a road construction flag-man or custodian or other "little training needed" position.  This will save the government some money by not having to hire OTHER people to do these jobs, it will give the people on assistance some skills and references for finding a better job, and it will help them get OFF the government payroll more quickly.  (They will be given time explicitly in their day to go look for better work.  This should be possible so long as there are enough unemployed/welfare people in the country.  If there are no longer enough people to fill these positions... YAY!  We Did It!!!)

I realize that most, if not all, of these would require Constitutional amendments, and I know that they are not as simple as I make them out to be... but I think they are moving in a better direction than we are currently headed, which seems to be "down the drain".


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

#16 2016-09-23 05:23:40

Jefferson
Completely Blotto
From: East Coast, USA
Registered: 2006-12-03
Posts: 449

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

This is a response to certain parts of our noble leaders post: 3dsmile

6A) Not a fan of the government giving money but, under your system, it doesn't sound like they would need much anyway. I'm waiting for the first person to run a political campaign completely online. Set up a Facebook and Twitter account ten years before the election. Post opinion papers, arrange people in all the states who will get the guys name on the ballot. Never make a damn commercial. Do it all online.

6F) This one is nearly impossible. How do you get sixty million people to vote? Plus, they used to "Test" people to see if they were allowed to vote. They used it to stop black people from voting. I agree with the idea but making a test that everyone would consider fair and just and unbiased would be very nearly impossible.

7) Love the idea.

8) I think in order to put a bill up, you should have to be able to describe the law on a 5X8 card. Like you said, if you can't explain it clearly, and with no legalese, in a short paragraph, then it needs to be redone. I am a BIG FAN of small steps. We don't NEED to make massive changes right off the bat. Make small changes, see how they work, fix any problems, wait, see how they work. Once we have that part working right, THEN, we make another small change, wait, see how it works, fix it, wait, see how it works and so on and so forth. We do NOT need "Comprehensive Anything Laws!"

Offline

 

#17 2016-09-23 07:20:16

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

I believe there are a lot more than 60 million voting-age people in the United States...

But, as I said, you get them to vote by enacting penalties for not doing so.  As to the test, I freely admit it's the trickiest part.  However, unless you could somehow verify that the individual has actually viewed the position statements, I'm not sure what else to do.  I considered the notion of having "election centers" where people would view these things, but they would have to be massive... and what would you do with them the rest of the time, when we weren't in an election cycle?  I'm sure there are technological solutions to the problem, but they would be expensive.  The truth is that there should be a fully objective test to see if you're competent to vote, but that just harkens back to the earlier voting tests you mentioned.

And I'm more lenient than I used to be... my original position on laws was "If you can't say it in 3 pages, the bill is too complicated."  And that was for the legalese version.  But I agree with you: "Comprehensive", when talking about a law, is another word for "Screwed up".

And yeah, I know, having the government pay for things is usually not good, but in this case, this truly is a "government function", so really the government should pay for it.  (How can the continuation of government, NOT be a government function?)

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 

#18 2016-09-23 18:18:46

Barbarian3165
Completely Blotto
Registered: 2015-02-11
Posts: 329

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

CSPAN-6 is an interesting idea, although I'd add that over the air TV stations be required to use one of their sub-carriers to broadcast CSPAN-6.  Since the transition to digital TV, over the air stations have been able to split their channels.  Several over the air channels in my area have a -1, -2, or -3 after their channel number and I think one in my area goes up to -5... but I'd have to switch my TV from going through my DirecTV receiver over to the antenna to check.  Anyway, besides a transcript just have the FCC require one of those sub-channels be dedicated to CSPAN-6.  You can still do the transcript thing just make it available to anyone that requests it.

Not voting demotes you from Citizen to Resident, I can live with that.  But there are a few things I wouldn't force them to give up like the Passport and drivers license, now I may make them pay a larger fee and wait in longer lines then citizens in order to get these items.  I'd like to walk into a DMV and head over to a citizens line that was only 3 people deep instead of a residents line that was 60 people deep and where everyone in the citizens line was called before the next resident was called.  Besides the psychologically challenged not loosing their citizenship, I'd add in veterans that have served in an active conflict and were honorably discharged, shouldn't ever loose their citizenship.

I'm all for getting people off welfare, but I'm not for ending disability.  Welfare should have term limits, not disability in my opinion.  Now assistance through governments jobs for both those groups is perfectly acceptable to me.  I'm all for promoting self reliance as much as possible but there are a few groups that make it hard to do this, like those with a severe form of down syndrome, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy or the like.

I also agree with the way laws should be written, although I don't mind a law going through committee.  Making a law cover a single topic with no riders attached is something I'd like to see happen even though I don't think it would happen without a constitutional amendment.  To many favors for an elected officials constituency get passed in this way, in my opinion.

I'd end Executive orders all together, with the possible exception being during war time.  And then I'd limit the duration of those executive orders to while the conflict is still ongoing.  Otherwise, force the president to lobby the congress in order to get the things he wants.  If the congress agrees and can get it done then good for the president.  If not, then so be it... who says any of us get everything we want and the president should be no different.

Force the president and congress to live under the same laws we do.  If they take away certain guns from us, they get those same guns taken away from them and their bodyguards.  They should not be able to be protected by people with those same guns we can't own while inside the U.S. Borders.  If everyone is forced to buy healthcare through the exchanges, they should be on the same healthcare system.  No exceptions or carve outs for government officials should be part of any law.  No wavers just because your a union backing the current administration.

Offline

 

#19 2016-09-23 22:19:26

Eric Storm
Pub Owner
From: New Port Richey, FL
Registered: 2006-09-12
Posts: 5745
Website

Re: Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

The idea behind the transcripts was for those people who do not have access to TV or Internet, either by choice or by economy.  But yes, I'd forgotten about the digital broadcast channels, which would be another way to broadcast the election information.

The problem with not making them give up their driver's license is simply that it is, for many people, the only governmental license they ever receive.  I threw in the passport mainly as an afterthought, but it occurs to me that you shouldn't be allowed to take nice international trips if you can't be bothered to support your nation.

The whole thing about disability I tried to avoid mentioning, since I am ON disability, and didn't want to sound like I was saying, "This is great for everyone but me...", but yes, I do think that disability needs to remain much like it is... except that the fraud detection system needs to be reinforced.  Perhaps hire a private agency to monitor disability recipients, and get rewarded for catching fraud cases.  At the very least, there need to be people whose whole, dedicated, job is to find people committing disability fraud.

I don't mind laws going through a committee, but I don't think the committee should have the power to derail a vote on that law.  But the truth is, if you make the laws simple enough that they can be expressed in just a few pages, the committees probably won't be necessary anymore.

You can't end executive orders altogether, because then the President would have no way to direct his own branch of government.  But they certainly do need to be reined in.

I fully agree with the thing about government living under the laws they make.  There was one other thing I'd like to make them do:  Tie their income to the median household income.  They don't get a raise unless the rest of the country does.  Make it something like 200% of the median household income.  That would give them, right now, about a $110,000 a year paycheck.  Give them the BASIC perks of management: company car (but not a limousine), health coverage, retirement plan.  We should also have governmental passenger jets (not business jets, but the kind that us "normal folk" get to ride in to visit Grandma) for moving around Congress-critters in bulk.  You need a business jet to take just you and your staff somewhere?  You'd better have a damned good reason, and that reason would have to be approved by the guys running "HotAir - We're Full of Congress!"...  (This would most likely be cheaper than paying for their commercial plane tickets to travel.) 

Eric Storm


Please Remember:  The right to Freedom of Speech does not carry the proviso, "As long as it doesn't upset anyone."  The US Constitution does not grant you the right to not be offended.  If you don't like what someone's saying... IGNORE THEM.
----
Facebook page

Offline

 
  • Index
  •  » Politics
  •  » Does Anyone Really WANT to discuss politics?

Board footer

Powered by PunBB
© Copyright 2002–2005 Rickard Andersson