Here's your Democratic alternative...

[rraley]

Here since y'all believe we stand for nothing...here's my Democratic alternative to the current Republican administration of public policy...

Social Security: Social Security is a long-term problem that should be prepared for today. Privatization leads to greater benefit reductions than necessary, hastens insolvency of the program, disproportionately benefits higher wage earners, and removes the social welfare net concept that is the basis for the program. Rather than privatization, other actions should be taken to increase the solvency of the SS Trust Fund. Among these, increase the retirement age to 67 immediately (the current plan is to incrementally increase it until 2017; I say do it now), end early withdrawal of payments, increase the income cap from $89,500 to $125,000 and incrementally increase it to $150,000, tie benefits to inflation increases rather than wage increases (which Bush also supports), and enact the Trust Fund "lockbox" (all extra revenues that SS taxes bring in should be set aside for later benefit payments rather than used for current spending on other programs).

Tax code simplification: The personal tax code should be structured with a $30,000 rebate for all taxpayers. No income under that level will be taxed by the federal government. From $30,000 to $200,000, all income will be taxed at 30% and all income over $200,000 will be taxed at 35%. The only other deductions will be provided for children, college education, and charitable donations.

Health Care: Take catastrophic cases, which account for 64% of increased Helath Care premiums, out of the private sector and have the government cover the cases. Current law mandates that Medicaid finance the Health Care of all pregnant women and children under the age of 6 whose family income is 133% of the federal poverty level. That should be expanded to include all children under 18 of families with income levels within 133% of the federal poverty level (9 million of the 40 million people in this nation without Health Care are children). Furthermore, allow more private health insurance companies to compete in markets and allow reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada. Competition is a great aid in helping to drive down medical costs.

Crime: No more national gun control laws...only thing that could be acceptable is an assault rifle ban. Absolutely no gun registration, which is a blatant violation of personal privacy and provides no great benefit to society. Change the execution of drug policy to emphasis on rehabilitation rather than punishment. More funding to place more police officers on the streets.

Foreign policy: Tie foreign aid to the human rights and democratic records of nations. If China doesn't allow greater political freedom, then we stop trading with them. Only trade with nations who adopt minimum wage laws as well as other labor and environmental standards (which would also help to make American goods more competitive internationally). Maintain troop committment in Iraq until the mission is fully accomplished; shy away from time tables for withdrawal of troops (and get over the fact that we're there and we haven't found a smoking gun). Decrease foreign dependence on oil by requiring higher fuel efficiency standards for all cars sold in the United States, promoting conservation through tax incentives, and funding scientific research into new forms of energy. Get tougher with the Saudi government, which has a terrible record regarding funding terrorist groups and democracy.

Ethics: Take congressional redistricting out of the hands of legislators in each state and provide it to a nonpartisan panel of judges. No more foreign travel for legislators unless it is funded by the legislator himself or by the federal government. Ban lobbyist contributions to candidates or parties. Enact full public financing and free air time for candidates.

There...those are my ideas.

 

[neener]

I have an idea too! We should take all the money everybody earns and put it in a big pot and let the government hand it out to people. Then if someone gets sick, they can just come up to the government and say, "Hey, I'm sick. Give me some money," and the government will give them some money. And also someone who didn't feel like working any more can just go up to the government and say, "Hey, I don't feel like working anymore. Give me some money," and the government will do it.

I thought of that all by myself and I'm not even a Democrat.

 

[vraiblonde]

Raley, if you ever run for President, I won't vote for you. If I wanted to live in a Socialist country, I would.

 

[Bruzilla]

"Hey, I'm sick. Give me some money"

 

[ylexot]

Social Security: Social Security is a long-term problem that should be prepared for today. Privatization leads to greater benefit reductions than necessary, hastens insolvency of the program, disproportionately benefits higher wage earners, and removes the social welfare net concept that is the basis for the program. Rather than privatization, other actions should be taken to increase the solvency of the SS Trust Fund. Among these, increase the retirement age to 67 immediately (the current plan is to incrementally increase it until 2017; I say do it now), end early withdrawal of payments, increase the income cap from $89,500 to $125,000 and incrementally increase it to $150,000, tie benefits to inflation increases rather than wage increases (which Bush also supports), and enact the Trust Fund "lockbox" (all extra revenues that SS taxes bring in should be set aside for later benefit payments rather than used for current spending on other programs).

I like privitization better...works out better for me. How about this...your plan plus optional privitization.

Tax code simplification: The personal tax code should be structured with a $30,000 rebate for all taxpayers. No income under that level will be taxed by the federal government. From $30,000 to $200,000, all income will be taxed at 30% and all income over $200,000 will be taxed at 35%. The only other deductions will be provided for children, college education, and charitable donations.

Pretty close to a flat tax plan...Democrats would never go for it. You do realize that "the rich" would benefit from that plan, don't you?

Health Care: Take catastrophic cases, which account for 64% of increased Helath Care premiums, out of the private sector and have the government cover the cases. Current law mandates that Medicaid finance the Health Care of all pregnant women and children under the age of 6 whose family income is 133% of the federal poverty level. That should be expanded to include all children under 18 of families with income levels within 133% of the federal poverty level (9 million of the 40 million people in this nation without Health Care are children). Furthermore, allow more private health insurance companies to compete in markets and allow reimportation of prescription drugs from Canada. Competition is a great aid in helping to drive down medical costs.

Competition is great. Putting the gov't in charge (your first statements) is bad because it removes competition.

Crime: No more national gun control laws...only thing that could be acceptable is an assault rifle ban. Absolutely no gun registration, which is a blatant violation of personal privacy and provides no great benefit to society.

Other than the AWB comment (which is BTW), that's the Republican plan.

Change the execution of drug policy to emphasis on rehabilitation rather than punishment. More funding to place more police officers on the streets.

I'm all for rehab efforts. Do you know who has the best success with rehab? The churches...Democrats hate that and Bush is for it.

Foreign policy: Tie foreign aid to the human rights and democratic records of nations. If China doesn't allow greater political freedom, then we stop trading with them. Only trade with nations who adopt minimum wage laws as well as other labor and environmental standards (which would also help to make American goods more competitive internationally). Maintain troop committment in Iraq until the mission is fully accomplished; shy away from time tables for withdrawal of troops (and get over the fact that we're there and we haven't found a smoking gun). Decrease foreign dependence on oil by requiring higher fuel efficiency standards for all cars sold in the United States, promoting conservation through tax incentives, and funding scientific research into new forms of energy. Get tougher with the Saudi government, which has a terrible record regarding funding terrorist groups and democracy.

Some good, some bad. I agree with most, but the result is higher prices for all.

Ethics: Take congressional redistricting out of the hands of legislators in each state and provide it to a nonpartisan panel of judges. No more foreign travel for legislators unless it is funded by the legislator himself or by the federal government. Ban lobbyist contributions to candidates or parties. Enact full public financing and free air time for candidates.

Districting is a state issue, but I agree that it has gotten out of hand. It's bad on both sides. I also agree with the travel and lobbyists stuff, but try to find a politician willing to go along with it...can you hear the crickets?

 

[SamSpade]

Some of this, I agree with; the no gerrymandering idea, which is getting boos for Schwarzenegger out in California. I've always thought the idea was bad. We have a lousy case here in Maryland, where Southern Maryland is tied to the rear end of PG, with which we have almost nothing in common - yet they are part of the same district.

But your lock box idea and immediate raise to 67 - goooooood luck! You will NEVER be able to pass that in a million years - I don't care how good it sounds. If you raise the age right now, you'll be voted out of office as some draconian Republican.

The lock box thing will NEVER pass, because depsite decades of promises, they never keep their mitts off the money. Here's some food for thought - what happened to that "surplus" we had. In actuality, we did have a 'surplus' in the non-unified budget ONE year, and it was pitifully small. But where did that surplus money go?

It got spent. The surplus was a joke. It's like claiming there's money left over in the household budget at the end of the month, and then immediately penciling INTO the budget something *ELSE* you want - so that in mere minutes, you're broke again! They didn't pay down the debt, they just spent the damned thing. There WAS a surplus, but the old rule is, you can't leave money in Washington.

For the same reason, *raising* the Social Security tax ALSO won't work - because it just means the "lock-box" will have MORE money in it to waste *today*. It won't stop anything.

The failure of Social Security is not so much the ridiculous pay as you go funding - it's the demographics. There are far too many people drawing from it than are putting INTO it. No matter who you tax, you can't survive on a system that has 1 to 2 workers for each retiree - I don't care how high you go. You can change the demographics by raising the age to, say, somewhere in the 70's - roughly comparable to the attainability that 65 was when it was enacted - except that people WON'T work that long, and depsite improvements in health, people do not work quite as productively all that late into their 70's and 80's. They live and get by ok - but employers don't want to hire people that old, and they're always looking to can people that old.

The other ideas - some of them are actually a mix of ideas I've heard Republicans have. If even ONE Democrat could propose something besides just blocking Republican ones.

 

[Bruzilla]

Here since y'all believe we stand for nothing...here's my Democratic alternative to the current Republican administration of public policy...

Nice ideas RR, but as usual, they're typical simple answers to complex problems. For example:

You're never going to get a lockbox on SS. The Democrats couldn't keep their fingers out of the bank, neither can the Republicans. If you increase the SS taxes going to Washington, all that's going to happen is that they're going to spend that money too. What's really going to happen is that when SS starts going down the tubes, they're going to cut benefits. Period. Anything else you're hearing is a load of SS BS. When that happens, the question will be will you have any non-government controlled resources to offset the cuts? That's why Bush wants to privatize a portion of the tax. No, it won't make SS more stable, and yes, it will mean less revenues for the fund. But the private accounts will make living with cuts to the regular SS payout easier to live with. Any politician who says cuts aren't going to be the answer in the future is a damned liar or idiot.

Tax Code simplification should not include wiping out the tax obligations of a major block of Americans... especially when many of that block are double-dipping in the till by getting earned income credits in addition to not paying any taxes. If I were czar I would simplify the tax code by making everyone pay 5% of their income, with no deducations for Jack Shitz allowed. I would also make the corporate income tax a flat 20%. Right now individuals are paying 80% of the taxes, and that's just not right. Here's another option: a variable tax rate based on the federal budget. Once the federal budget gets approved each year, the cost of doing business is divided up with 60% being paid by corporations and 40% by personal income tax, so your tax would be your share of the 40%. I would bet you would start seeing a WHOLE lot of pork and needless spending dropping out of the budget then!

The problem with healthcare is not with the funding, it's with the cost. If you add federal dollars to pay for healthcare, healthcare costs will just get worse. It's like trying to fill a bucket with a huge hole in the bottom of it. You need to get control of the costs, which will cause the doctors and nurses to scream. Let them scream, because you're also going to get control of needless lawsuits... which will make the lawyers scream. The problem is that we're the patients and we're the only ones who should be screaming. Another issue is that a large portion of the uninsured in the US are not uninsured because they have no money, it's because they feel that the cost of insurance is too high and they would rather live with the risk than with the payments. The cost of my health insurance dropped 50% after the new rules about lawsuits and bad doctors came into effect down here in Florida. Lowering the cost of coverage will do a lot more to get people insured than opening the Federal funding stream.

And for the last time, drugs from Canada are only cheap because US drug makers sell them to the Canadians and other countries for a lower price because higher prices paid by Americans offset the cost. If you start allowing widespread import of drugs from Canada, all you're doing is taking drugs that were made in America and shipped to Canada back into the US. There would be no competition because the drug companies would be competing with their own sales and distribution networks, not some mythical low-cost drug makers in Canada. The result will be US companies raising the costs of drugs going to Canada, which will screw the Canadians while our prices will still be high thanks to insurance covering the costs.

You've offered nothing that really does anything to effect crime. You want to reduce crime? Make the price of crime too high to pay. Liberalize the use of the death penalty, allow DNA testing to be used to validate past convictions AND to reverse past acquittals, and allow the use of mental fingerprinting in court cases. That will do more to lower crime than any number of new cops, drug laws, or Assault Weapon bans. Speaking of AWB, since the AWB resulted in more assault weapons being available than ever before, while crime levels decreased, what makes you think that one is needed? What good do you see coming from it?

What are you going to tell all of the people who lose their jobs because you quit doing business with countries like China? What are you going to tell parents who just saw their cost of clothes for the kids quadruple because you'll only allow clothes made by foreigners making minimum wage? What are you going to tell people when the cost of their produce like coffee, sugar, rice, etc., quadruple? And what are you going to tell the people when the costs of all their goods skyrocket due to rampant inflation? What are you going to tell the people in foreign countries, who aren't in business with the US, and aren't making minimum wage, and who are now thrown into poverty by your policy? This is why do-gooders like you and Jimmy Carter should never set foreign policy.

How do you benefit from a decrease in foreign oil by going the efficiency or new fuels route? If we dropped our requirements by 50% today, OPEC would only double the cost of a barrel of oil. Where's the benefit, especially to all the people who can't afford a new hydrogne car or pay $10 a gallon for gas to get to work? How can they pay that much for gas when they're having to pay through the nose for milk and other truck-transported goods? How about all the airline workers you put on the streets? The problem is that it's a sellers market for oil right now, and we need to produce more domestically. That'll lower the price and reduce our import needs. And why get tougher on the Saudis? There are lots of countries that have severe issues with terrorists and human rights... Why just Saudi Arabia... "Because Michael Moore tells me so!" no doubt. Speaking of the Saudis, I just read that they are begining to build refineries in the kingdom so they can export gasoline and other refined petroleum products rather than just oil. Why are they doing this? Because we won't build any new refineries in the US. Does that make them evil, coniving, opportunists, or just smarter than we are?

Why do you need judges to determine voting districts? It used to be by county/counties. Why wouldn't that work today? And I would be worried about taking away commercial airtime for political ads. With all of the people your other policies are going to put out of work, you might want to keep them occupied watching Jerry Springer or Judge Judy rather than rioting in the streets.

 

[rraley]

Raley, if you ever run for President, I won't vote for you. If I wanted to live in a Socialist country, I would.

That's fine...thankfully I am not. But I think that the whole "socialist" label you throw around here is uncalled for. Dennis Kucinich's plan to remove the right of health care corporations to run profits is more socialistic than this plan. I find it hard to accept that a plan to increase eligibility for government programs for uninsured children and to remove catastrophic cases so that the prices for everyone else do not increase so dramatically is socialist. Plus, I am sick of the labeling. I'm sick of liberals v. conservatives, Democrats v. Republicans...that's what creates polarization and it's why very little happens in government.

 

[vraiblonde]

But I think that the whole "socialist" label you throw around here is uncalled for.

I disagree. I'm a believer in calling things what they are. Government ownership of all goods and services is called Socialism. Most of your above proposals are simply government control of private industry - your Social Security idea, your healthcare idea, your tax code plan AND your foreign trade plan.

You say "the government should pay for this", "Medicaid should pay for that", completely forgetting that that's not the government's money - that's MY money. The government HAS no money, other than what it siphons out of tax-paying citizens like myself. And I have worked hard my whole entire life to have nice things and I have zero desire to give those nice things up so that money can go toward some teenage crack whore's pregnancy costs.

 

[rraley]

Raley, if you ever run for President, I won't vote for you. If I wanted to live in a Socialist country, I would.

That's fine...thankfully I am not. But I think that the whole "socialist" label you throw around here is uncalled for. Dennis Kucinich's plan to remove the right of health care corporations to run profits is more socialistic than this plan. I find it hard to accept that a plan to increase eligibility for government programs for uninsured children and to remove catastrophic cases so that the prices for everyone else do not increase so dramatically is socialist. Plus, I am sick of the labeling. I'm sick of liberals v. conservatives, Democrats v. Republicans...that's what creates polarization and it's why very little happens in government.

To SamSpade...a clarification of the lockbox concept. This year over $800 billion was brought in through Social Security taxes, but only $545 billion was paid out through the system. I am saying that that $225 billion be set aside in the Trust Fund, rather than spent on other programs. This is the surplus that I was referring to, not an overall budgetary surplus. Therefore that added money from increasing the cap will not be wasted on current spending; it will be saved in the Trust Fund. As for the retirement age increase...definitely unpopular, but it's a tough choice that must be made. Like you said the problem lies in demographics and this change seeks to realize that demographic problem. Americans are living longer and are drawing SS benefits longer; increasing the retirement age seeks to rectify that situation.

To ylexot...my tax code simplification plan was touted by a Harvard economics professor who leans to the left. It is revenue neutral and actually increases the tax burden of higher income earners because there are less tax loopholes by which to avoid taxes. So I am not one to see this flatter tax structure as biased towards the rich like some proposals are (others do not provide the $30,000 deduction, which is meant to help lower income earners).

To Bru...first on Social Security, see above. Plus, tying benefits to inflation rather than wages is a benefit cut...I realize we need them.

As for earned income credits, that would be undone in my tax code simplification, so they are not double dipping. You're plan doesn't sound too bad and I share your rage that most of the nation's tax revenue comes from individuals rather than corporations. But, as you know, higher business taxes will only drive more and more companies away from our nation, so I am not a fan of them.

As for Health Care, I understand your concern that the problem is cost and I understand the concern that the health care industry will increase costs if the federal government expands its role. For instance there is some evidence right now that drug companies are increasing their prices because of the new Prescription Drug Benefit. If this is the case, then a full congressional investigation should occur and the government should consider passing price controls on medical services if necessary.

As for your crime positions...deterrence has never been proven to work. The best thing to do is to create sound economic conditions and provide greater opportunity for those who are at the greatest risk of leading a life of crime. That is a much better solution than killing criminals, which, in my opinion, violates the spirit of this nation and only perpetuates a terrible cycle of violence.

As for the AWB, I am not a big fan...almost all Democrats are though and I think that an issue like that is nonnegotiable. On these other issues I have stated a pretty moderate, Democratic message blended with some Republican components that could be acceptable to most Democrats. On the AWB, however, I don't think that Democrats are willing to bend. Furthermore, I don't think that the public is too supportive of having assault rifles on the street (according to polls). If it were just me, however, I would oppose the AWB because I don't see the benefit and I believe it violates the civil liberties of the people.

Oh and Bru you gave me the greatest insult a person could ever give: do-gooder. Man, if only more people thought of me that way. Look, unabridged free trade as advocated by Presidents Bush and Clinton forces jobs overseas and enables corporations and average Americans to benefit from awful abuses of foreign peoples. Free trade, the theory states, will help foreign nations to increase their standards of living. This is false; poverty in Africa and Asia is just as dehabilitating as in years past. Mexico is still embroiled in terrible economic collapse for its poorest citizens. These people go to work for inhumane wages and in terrible conditions just so you can have a shirt for $2 less. I think that it is immoral to accept that and US policy should be changed to help free trade truly bring along stronger human rights records and higher standards of living. The WTO should set an international minimum wage and enforce it so that the world's working class is not oppressed for the sake of lower prices.

As for the other foreign nations we should get tough on...I mentioned the Saudis because they are America's closet business partner but they are also one of our greatest enemies in terms of pumping out terrorists. But we need to be tougher on them, Syria, North Korea, and Egypt as well. Also Bru, I support building more refineries in America (though too many Democrats do not).

As for the redistricting, I am not discussing voting districts. I am merely stating congressional districts. I am suggesting judges because that is the process used in several states currently including Iowa and Colorado. The result: increased competition in all of the state's districts.

 

[rraley]

I disagree. I'm a believer in calling things what they are. Government ownership of all goods and services is called Socialism. Most of your above proposals are simply government control of private industry - your Social Security idea, your healthcare idea, your tax code plan AND your foreign trade plan.

Where in my plan do I say that the government should own something? Any industries? How is a reduced tax burden for the middle class socialist? How is it government control to allow more competition among health insurance companies? How is it government control to remove only 1% of all medical cases from the private system? How is it socialist to ask that foreign nations we trade with treat workers fairly?

 

[vraiblonde]

Where in my plan do I say that the government should own something? Any industries? How is a reduced tax burden for the middle class socialist? How is it government control to allow more competition among health insurance companies? How is it government control to remove only 1% of all medical cases from the private system? How is it socialist to ask that foreign nations we trade with treat workers fairly?

Social Security: The government takes your money and you do not get it back until you are 67 - if then.

Tax Code: The government takes your money if you make over $30,000 a year and uses it to support those who make under $30,000 a year, who will contribute nothing.

Health Care: The government takes your money and uses it to pay for the health needs of others.

Foreign policy: The government gets to control who a privately owned business can and cannot do business with.

I don't know what else you would call it.

 

[rraley]

Social Security: The government takes your money and you do not get it back until you are 67 - if then.

Tax Code: The government takes your money if you make over $30,000 a year and uses it to support those who make under $30,000 a year, who will contribute nothing.

Health Care: The government takes your money and uses it to pay for the health needs of others.

Foreign policy: The government gets to control who a privately owned business can and cannot do business with.

I don't know what else you would call it.

Social Security is an insurance program...it is not a welfare system. Everyone pays in, everyone receives equal benefits based on their income.

The government takes money from people who earn over $30,000 a year and provides services to everyone, not just those dreaded poor people. Remember, most government services are paid out in the form of military spending and entitlement spending, which everyone gets.

Health Care: the government helps to pay for your case if it is ever catastrophic regardless of income. Damn, I am such a socialist!!

Foreign policy: we dictate who you can do business with. Well, I suppose you are right...and it is a truly radical idea. I mean no trade with Hussein's Iraq or the Ayatollah's Iran or Soviet Russia was a really, really socialistic idea. Hell, I suppose that I am a communist.

Vrai...history lesson. What I believe in, as well as every presidential administration since FDR, is Keynesian economics in which the government is a force that is used to stabilize economic activity. It's a mixed system, not purely capitalist. Hell if you wanna go back to a purely capitalist state, damn Teddy Roosevelt and go back to the 1890s...that may be the decade for your economic policy preference.

 

[vraiblonde]

Social Security is an insurance program...it is not a welfare system. Everyone pays in, everyone receives equal benefits based on their income. But not until the governmetn says they can.

The government takes money from people who earn over $30,000 a year and provides services to everyone, not just those dreaded poor people. Remember, most government services are paid out in the form of military spending and entitlement spending, which everyone gets. But only some actually pay for.

Health Care: the government helps to pay for your case if it is ever catastrophic regardless of income. Damn, I am such a socialist!! But, again, I will be paying for my catastrophic illness - and I will be paying for someone else's catastrophic illness as well.

Foreign policy: we dictate who you can do business with. Well, I suppose you are right...and it is a truly radical idea. I mean no trade with Hussein's Iraq or the Ayatollah's Iran or Soviet Russia was a really, really socialistic idea. Hell, I suppose that I am a communist. Government should not be able to tell me who I can and cannot sell my product to. That is Socialism.

Vrai...history lesson. What I believe in, as well as every presidential administration since FDR, is Keynesian economics in which the government is a force that is used to stabilize economic activity. It's a mixed system, not purely capitalist. Hell if you wanna go back to a purely capitalist state, damn Teddy Roosevelt and go back to the 1890s...that may be the decade for your economic policy preference.

And pre-1991 Soviet Union might be the timeframe for YOUR economic policy preference.

When government controls the money and industry, they control the populace. And you might want that, but I do not.

 

[Larry Gude]

I applaud RR offering his thoughts...

1. Social Seucrity.

The program is OVER. It is DEAD and it is a simple matter of time before it reaches a catastrophic state. Why? Demographics. The plan relied entirely on numbers and the numbers are no longer there. We have a replacement birthrate and that's the only number that matters. You can NOT have a system where 2 people are paying for one persons retirement which is a ratio right around the corner and you certainly can not have a 1:1 ratio which is simply, a matter of fact with a replacement birthrate, where we WILL be in a generation.

2. Tax code.

By definition of your plan, the 17% of GDP currently consumed by the federal governemnt with an annual budget of just over $2.2 trillion, will nearly double to about 30% of GDP and an annual federal budget of about $3.3 trillion. That is a conservative number as you have a rather large segment of people, those earning $30 and under, contributing NOTHING. That's even worse than now when people under $20,000 efffectively contribute no net dollars.

Great.

3. Health care.

You said:

Take catastrophic cases, which account for 64% of increased Helath Care premiums, out of the private sector and have the government cover the cases

...and

Competition is a great aid in helping to drive down medical costs.

Take your own advice. Every single person the federal government is responsible for makes the problem worse with the exception of military personel.

4. Crime.

You go boy! Define what an 'assault weapon' is and we may have a deal.

5. Foreign policy.

Way to complex to discuss in a few paragraphs. Suffice it to say we have basis for conversation here.

6. Ethics.

You can NOT burden the judiciary with a Congressional responsibility; you would politizise the judiciary over night. If I read you correctly, you're also federalizing a state right. I'm sorry but redistricting is not an ethics issue; either a states populace (and judges) approve redistricting plans or they vote new people in. You can't make the most inherently political issue there is non political.

I'm with you on banning group contributions to parties and candidates.

We already having public financing of campaigns; some people do better at it than others. I totally opposse government financing if that is what you mean.

I totally opposse confiscation of private property, including dictating what broadcasters charge for their service.

I think if we eliminate a corporation and a union and the Sierra club and the NRS's ability to give a dime to a party and to candidates we'll see the power of the people, and their interest, grow to a more involved level which will eliminate your desire give the government more control over our elections than it already does.

Do you realize you have just offered, in a few hundred words, more to the public debate arena than a certain group of people who, in deference to your sensitivities over labels, I will not name?

Good for you!

 

[rraley]

3. Health care.
Take your own advice. Every single person the federal government is responsible for makes the problem worse with the exception of military personel.

Can you explain to me why we should value our soldiers more than the people they protect? Why is it not communist or wasteful to provide them coverage but it is if it is a person down on their luck, or as vrai put it, a crack whore?

I think that those who absolutely cannot afford health insurance and those individual cases, not people, who reach catastrophic levels need to be taken out of the system.

Way to complex to discuss in a few paragraphs. Suffice it to say we have basis for conversation here.

I agree; foreign policy is more of a case by case analysis. Broad policy outlines are tough to provide and what not. I still think that the biggest thing to push is tying foreign aid to human rights records - such a move advances the Bush Doctrine in my estimation.

As for the ethical matters...the congressional redistricting matter specifically. From what I recall in Iowa and Colorado, where a similar system is in place, the panel is not completely composed of judges, but nonpartisan statisticians, former judges and legislators as well as others. The system is very, very nonpartisan and is much preferrable to the whims of whoever controls a state's legislature every ten years. I see your point about the free air time, it's just that the airwaves are actually the government's property (which is absolute socialism in practice, Miss vrai). It seems to me that we could offer the candidates some free time to offer their views. But I can see where this creates some problems such as perhaps offering the free air time to third party candidates and the right of the media to broadcast what it sees fit.

And thank you for recognizing that I am offering some ideas here when others within the party either do not or broadcast them loudly enough. Also, I appreciate the lack of labeling...very classy Uncle Larry.

 

[FromTexas]

So, the guy who makes $30,000 will effectively make $21,000 while the guy who makes $29,000 will make $29,000. There is no incentive to make $30-$42,000, hardly incentive to make $43,000-65,000... and your party wants to accuse republicans of punishing the middle class!! Ouch!

 

[Larry Gude]

Jr...

Can you explain to me why we should value our soldiers more than the people they protect? Why is it not communist or wasteful to provide them coverage but it is if it is a person down on their luck, or as vrai put it, a crack whore?

Yes, I can and what's more, I will.

We do not value a soldier more than a citizen. We physically value him less; his job is to fight and possibly die to protect the nation and by extension the citizens because the citizens ARE the nation.

Now, the soldiers position requires of him, for his own success and by extension the nations, extra commitment. He belongs to the US military 24/7, 365. He will do what he is told, when he is told for as long as he is told. He is in Iraq for 12 months at a time. She is in Korea for a year. They are on a carrier for six months. They will be trained for this, supported in this and lead in this.

When deployed, a soldier can't just go to Walmart after work or drop the car off at the service station at lunch or go to the doctors in the afternoon. He is not an employee; he is a soldier. He must be provided for and along with food and shelter, medical care is one of the unique services that simply make sense to provide them.

It's one of the things we do, as the protected, to assist them, as our defenders.

Everyone else has more day to day freedom and opportunity and thus the ability to choose healthcare. I would ban healthcare as a perk tomorrow. Give people their healthcare dollars and let them decide. THAT will control health costs...overnight.

Soldiers have bigger fish to fry. We gotta provide healthcare for them.

 

[Tonio]

So, the guy who makes $30,000 will effectively make $21,000 while the guy who makes $29,000 will make $29,000. There is no incentive to make $30-$42,000, hardly incentive to make $43,000-65,000... and your party wants to accuse republicans of punishing the middle class!! Ouch!

That's one reason I favor a national sales tax instead of an income tax. Or at least a flat income tax with no deductions, no corporate tax breaks and no Earned Income Tax Credit.

 

[vraiblonde]

Can you explain to me why we should value our soldiers more than the people they protect? Why is it not communist or wasteful to provide them coverage but it is if it is a person down on their luck, or as vrai put it, a crack whore?

The short answer is "because healthcare is one of the bennies they get with their job".

J-O-B

To be employed. To perform a service for which you get paid.

My ex-employer offered health insurance to me and my co-workers, but not the bum down the street. Why do you suppose that might be?

I wonder about you sometimes, Raley.