Stand with me in 2008!!!
OK - here’s what I propose:
1) 10% flat tax to be paid by everyone except people making under $10,000/year. No exemptions!
For that money, we’ll provide national security and some legal protections: Dept. of Justice, federal courts but these will only have very broad powers. If there’s any left over we’ll use it for roads, etc. We also try to provide funds for you to fight big corporations becaus there won’t be any more EPA, Agriculture.
2) Every year at tax time, you’ll select extra money to go to programs of our choice, sort of like voting for bonds. If you don’t give any extra money, you do pay anthing (but you don’t get the services either). Whatever money is pledged will go towards those programs.
This will mean ALL entitlements will come from the extra money you elect: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
3) If you want legislators & Senators, you’ll have to pay for them state by state. If you can’t afford any, then too bad.
4) All Federal laws will be revoked. Every power will go back to the states.
If you can’t get the services you want from a state, then move to another state.
All Federal lands will be given back to the states they reside in.
Did I forget anything?
Mike
PS - I’ll work out the rest of the details after I’m elected.
toker, I gotta hand it to you…I never thought I would fear the ideas of a man anymore than I do the ones of James Carville, but I think you win now!!!
congrats!!! 
Clark - these views are maybe alittle more extreme than
Grover Norquist’s, an active member of today’s Republican Party (but not much more extreme).
But seriously, my platform is what you guys want isn’t it?
Come on right-wingers (and left-wingers) - I’m giving you want you want & I’m serious about this platform. Keep me some more feedback & I’ll encorporate your ideas into my campaign.
I don’t think you can get rid of agencies like the EPA, FAA and some others because of interstate interests. Take the airlines for example. If standards were different in every state it would be a nightmare (more so than it already is). Or what if one state said it was OK to dump certain things in rivers and streams that flowed into another state. I think (like it or not) the federal government is necessary in more cases than simply national defense.
Another argument is that if you let the people directly decide every issue, it would get to monotonous. I just couldn’t imagine not stop political commercials about various mundane topics that this would present.
I do believe the federal government could get rid of the IRS. It could simply collect the money from state governments and have a small revenue collection agency that monitored the states.
There are alot of ways to get smaller government but not the ways you suggest.
Sorry, I’m lost here.
What’s a federal law? State?
Oh! I see. We’re back to “Flavio’s Forum as a subset of the USA” thingy.
I thought he was Italian?
Ah well, such treacherous remarks will no doubt have the FBI knocking at my door too.
There again, I’m in the position where I can tell them to go and f**k themselves! LOL
Ali.
I don't think you can get rid of agencies like the EPA, FAA and some others because of interstate interests. Take the airlines for example.
OK - now we've made some exceptions. What about other exceptions? Isn't education a national objective. Aren't roads national infrastructure, i.e, they don't just stop at state borders. Isn't civil rights, a national issue? So we can't get rid of every federal law, now can we? What about unfair businesses that go across state lines.
Another argument is that if you let the people directly decide every issue, it would get to monotonous. I just couldn't imagine not stop political commercials about various mundane topics that this would present.[QUOTE]
You have a point but I'm not proposing that they decide every issue, I'm talking about entitlements, i.e., the things that we spend most of the federal money on. Also, the national health plan that Kerry proposed would be here also.
[QUOTE]I do believe the federal government could get rid of the IRS. It could simply collect the money from state governments and have a small revenue collection agency that monitored the states.
I like this idea! But with flat tax with no exemptions, the IRS wouldn't have much responsibility would it?
There are alot of ways to get smaller government but not the ways you suggest.
Please be more specific. I would argue with you that it's defense & entitlements that are the majority of our federal budget, so I disagree with you on this point.
Good start to a discussion though.
Ali - this discussion is centered around the US but you can comment it in the abstract, i.e., the level that the "federal" government should play. You have the same issues in your country, don't you?
OK - now we've made some exceptions. What about other exceptions? Isn't education a national objective. Aren't roads national infrastructure, i.e, they don't just stop at state borders. Isn't civil rights, a national issue? So we can't get rid of every federal law, now can we? What about unfair businesses that go across state lines.
Another argument is that if you let the people directly decide every issue, it would get to monotonous. I just couldn't imagine not stop political commercials about various mundane topics that this would present.[QUOTE]
You have a point but I'm not proposing that they decide every issue, I'm talking about entitlements, i.e., the things that we spend most of the federal money on. Also, the national health plan that Kerry proposed would be here also.
[QUOTE]I do believe the federal government could get rid of the IRS. It could simply collect the money from state governments and have a small revenue collection agency that monitored the states.
I like this idea! But with flat tax with no exemptions, the IRS wouldn't have much responsibility would it?
There are alot of ways to get smaller government but not the ways you suggest.
Please be more specific. I would argue with you that it's defense & entitlements that are the majority of our federal budget, so I disagree with you on this point.
Good start to a discussion though.
Ali - this discussion is centered around the US but you can comment it in the abstract, i.e., the level that the "federal" government should play. You have the same issues in your country, don't you?
Aren't roads national infrastructure, i.e, they don't just stop at state borders.
So you're going to have one organisation responsible for every little backroad in the country? How are they goign to manage that? State and local council branches?
So you're going to have one organisation responsible for every little backroad in the country? How are they goign to manage that? State and local council branches?
| Quote (CosmicCharlie @ Nov. 20 2004,20:39) |
What about unfair businesses that go across state lines.
The federal government should be responsible for creating standards. As far as interstate commerce, the feds should be coordinating with state and local law enforcement. The feds really do need enforcement ability though. Take the FBI. It's necessary to fight local corruption. The DEA is the same. It's necessary to keep drugs out of the country. Once they are in the country though, it should be a local problem with the DEA acting as consultants/coordinators.
You have a point but I'm not proposing that they decide every issue, I'm talking about entitlements, i.e., the things that we spend most of the federal money on. Also, the national health plan that Kerry proposed would be here also.
If your talking about social security for example. I think Bush has an interesting approach. Through private investment such as your current 401K or as in my case I have a TSP which averages abuot 9% over the long term, it sounds like a better return than social security. By privatizing it, that takes the fed out of to a certain extent. The fed still has to watch the folks watching the money. It would reduce the size of govt. without eliminating the agency altogether.
I like this idea! But with flat tax with no exemptions, the IRS wouldn't have much responsibility would it?
My point exactly. But I was thinking more along the lines of a national sales tax. I think the tax should be on everything but necessities like food/clothes. That way the people that buy things such as expensive cars, jewelry, etc... would pay more.
Please be more specific. I would argue with you that it's defense & entitlements that are the majority of our federal budget, so I disagree with you on this point.
The way the government is today, you are correct. Unless revolutionary steps are taken, government will continue to grow at an unsustainable rate. This is why I supported Bush. He is willing to take drastic steps. Though I don't think they will go far enough. There will be those sceptics that reject change.
If the fed’s make the rules, it would seem that they would need to enforce them. What’s to motivate a state to comply?
My plan keeps agencies like the FBI & DEA; however I think drugs should be legalized, as any good “libertarian” would.
I don’t like Bush’s plan. If you’re going to privatize it then abolize it & give people incentives to save the money for themselves.
I don’t like the idea of a national sales tax because it’s very regressive. A flat tax is also regressive but 10% is a small number so it’s OK.
For all the reasons to vote for Bush, reducing the size of govenment is not one of them. Bush et al will NOT do the things we are talking about here. Kerry wouldn’t have either but Kerry never said he would, whereas Bush gives you the impression he will. All Bush will do is better support corporate interests & big business.
I agree with the legalization of drugs. It would probably solve our prison problems as well.
A 10% income tax wouldn’t be bad. I’m not really 100% sold on the sales tax idea anyway. As long as we don’t have to file a tax return every year. That’s what pisses me off about the current system. It’s just too complicated and requires hours of unecessary work for everyone.
What I was saying was pretty much what you are saying with regard to FBI, DEA. They are federal enforcement agencies. The will still investigate corruption, compliance with fed regulations, etc.
I agree with you also about Bush. I don’t necessarily agree that he is only going to cater to big business. What I am hoping for is that he is opening the door for dialogue. He has asserted that there will be Social Security reform. He has also hinted at serious tax reform. As we saw with the Dept. of Homeland Security, things can be forced on him. If I’m not mistaken, Bush was initially against a cabinet level position. Congress pretty much rammed that down his throat. If there is enough political pressure, he will sign whatever the send him.
He has asserted that there will be Social Security reform. He has also hinted at serious tax reform. As we saw with the Dept. of Homeland Security, things can be forced on him.
We'll have to wait to see about this.
If I'm not mistaken, Bush was initially against a cabinet level position. Congress pretty much rammed that down his throat.
Yes, as he was against the 9/11 Commission & it's final recommendations. He caved under pressure on the commission's recommendations. Now it's a few other Republicans that are holding up the legislation now.
But I thought all of you voted for Bush because he didn't cave to political pressure
We'll have to wait to see about this.
If I'm not mistaken, Bush was initially against a cabinet level position. Congress pretty much rammed that down his throat.
Yes, as he was against the 9/11 Commission & it's final recommendations. He caved under pressure on the commission's recommendations. Now it's a few other Republicans that are holding up the legislation now.
But I thought all of you voted for Bush because he didn't cave to political pressure
| Quote (truth seeker @ Nov. 21 2004,18:49) |
| I agree with the legalization of drugs. It would probably solve our prison problems as well. A 10% income tax wouldn't be bad. I'm not really 100% sold on the sales tax idea anyway. As long as we don't have to file a tax return every year. That's what pisses me off about the current system. It's just too complicated and requires hours of unecessary work for everyone. What I was saying was pretty much what you are saying with regard to FBI, DEA. They are federal enforcement agencies. The will still investigate corruption, compliance with fed regulations, etc. I agree with you also about Bush. I don't necessarily agree that he is only going to cater to big business. What I am hoping for is that he is opening the door for dialogue. He has asserted that there will be Social Security reform. He has also hinted at serious tax reform. As we saw with the Dept. of Homeland Security, things can be forced on him. If I'm not mistaken, Bush was initially against a cabinet level position. Congress pretty much rammed that down his throat. If there is enough political pressure, he will sign whatever the send him. |
truth seeker, I will buy you a Pizza if Bush prove to be open to any realistic dialogue.
As to the "prison problem" - remember, it's not a problem for the huge prison industry, and they won't let this sort of change happen...
Although I’m not really a libertarian, I can see their point of view & I agree with it sometimes. My motivation for posting this thread, is that as soon as we decide to cut out/reduce the Federal govenment, we start wanting to make exceptions for this & that. That’s exactly what goes on today in the current fight in Congress, i.e., no legislator, Republican or Democrat, wants to lose anything, particularly if it affects this district.
I seriously doubt that we could, even in this group, come to some consensus about what the Fed. government should look like if we adopted my platform here (but I’d still be willing to discuss/debate it).
I agree with you Mike. As far as why I voted for Bush. It may well be the years of brainwashing from the conservative right. I really have a more liberal view of things and somehow stick with the repubs on alot of things. I think socially I’m a liberal. No really. I’m for a womans right to choose (but it’s not really a big issue for me cause it doesn’t really apply to me). I hate pollution (strictly). On the other hand, I don’t like high taxes or strict government control. Therein lies my username. Somewhere in the middle is the truth. I don’t really believe I’ll ever find it. There is always diverging opinions. And all usually have some good points.
Tom you are just too funny. I’ll hold you to that pizza. I do know where you post.
TS - right I agree with you. I could easily vote for a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican but you saw what they did to McCain in 2000. And there just aren’t many of either anymore.
Ali - this discussion is centered around the US but you can comment it in the abstract, i.e., the level that the "federal" government should play. You have the same issues in your country, don't you?
How very generous of you Toker.
And by "abstract" you mean; as opposed to other people's comments? Which are what?
Yes, I understand that this thread is about US politics, and fair enough. And it's an interesting disussion, so good luck with it.
But I find it a wee bitty disturbing that virtually every thread is about American politics. This is an international forum after all, hosted by a citizen of the EU.
But sadly, that is typical. I think that many of the US's problems in the international arena, stem from the fact that the average American is barely aware that the rest of the world exists.
And if he does acknowledge the existence of other nations and other cultures, his knowledge of them is minuscule; and he cares even less.
Don't believe me Toke?
I can name every American President since WWII, and make a reasonable guess at many of the ones prior to that, and I can name the leaders of Russia during the same period.
Our educational system emphasises world geography and history. Our news, TV and newspapers, is easily 50% international issues, and any British or European high school kid knows much of what is happening in the world.
So, how many British PM's can you name? What are our political parties? What do they stand for?
How about France, Germany, India, Japan? Who are their Premiers?
OK, how about your immediate neighbours, Mexico and Canada, what do you know about their political systems and politicians?
How about Iraq? (I know you've heard of that), what is your opinion of the US's stance on the Kurds, especially in relation to the Turkish aspect of the problem? Do they have a stance? What is it?
Afghanistan, I know that it's disappeared from the news in the US, but what's happening there? How does the history of the country impinge on what's happening now? What is the history of the country?
And it's not just politics. I can discuss intelligently the evolution of American pop music, how about you? Do you think that Skiffle or Chanson had the bigger influence on the Beatle's music?
If you're honest Toke, you'll admit that the average American knows virtually nothing about the rest of the world.
Well, that may have been OK once upon a time, but it's no longer true.
The rest of the world exists, and guess what, it's come knocking at your door.
The trend in recent times has been that "local" politics have become less and less important. I'm sure you're concerned with who your city mayor is, who your state governor is, but judging by what I've seen on here, the federal issue has been the one of prime concern.
Well, these days, in some ways the USA is a "local' issue.
But, it's true, you cannot vote for who will be next Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, and your main influence on what happens in the rest of the world is via your own government, but that's no excuse for being ignorant about the rest of us.
Anyway, sorry about the rant guys. As I've said before, I like Americans, and there's much that is admirable about the culture.
But there's a lot that isn't, and the myopic parochialism of the USA is worrying, to say the least.
Ali
How very generous of you Toker.
And by "abstract" you mean; as opposed to other people's comments? Which are what?
Yes, I understand that this thread is about US politics, and fair enough. And it's an interesting disussion, so good luck with it.
But I find it a wee bitty disturbing that virtually every thread is about American politics. This is an international forum after all, hosted by a citizen of the EU.
But sadly, that is typical. I think that many of the US's problems in the international arena, stem from the fact that the average American is barely aware that the rest of the world exists.
And if he does acknowledge the existence of other nations and other cultures, his knowledge of them is minuscule; and he cares even less.
Don't believe me Toke?
I can name every American President since WWII, and make a reasonable guess at many of the ones prior to that, and I can name the leaders of Russia during the same period.
Our educational system emphasises world geography and history. Our news, TV and newspapers, is easily 50% international issues, and any British or European high school kid knows much of what is happening in the world.
So, how many British PM's can you name? What are our political parties? What do they stand for?
How about France, Germany, India, Japan? Who are their Premiers?
OK, how about your immediate neighbours, Mexico and Canada, what do you know about their political systems and politicians?
How about Iraq? (I know you've heard of that), what is your opinion of the US's stance on the Kurds, especially in relation to the Turkish aspect of the problem? Do they have a stance? What is it?
Afghanistan, I know that it's disappeared from the news in the US, but what's happening there? How does the history of the country impinge on what's happening now? What is the history of the country?
And it's not just politics. I can discuss intelligently the evolution of American pop music, how about you? Do you think that Skiffle or Chanson had the bigger influence on the Beatle's music?
If you're honest Toke, you'll admit that the average American knows virtually nothing about the rest of the world.
Well, that may have been OK once upon a time, but it's no longer true.
The rest of the world exists, and guess what, it's come knocking at your door.
The trend in recent times has been that "local" politics have become less and less important. I'm sure you're concerned with who your city mayor is, who your state governor is, but judging by what I've seen on here, the federal issue has been the one of prime concern.
Well, these days, in some ways the USA is a "local' issue.
But, it's true, you cannot vote for who will be next Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, and your main influence on what happens in the rest of the world is via your own government, but that's no excuse for being ignorant about the rest of us.
Anyway, sorry about the rant guys. As I've said before, I like Americans, and there's much that is admirable about the culture.
But there's a lot that isn't, and the myopic parochialism of the USA is worrying, to say the least.
Ali
Ali - I was replying to your “Sorry, I’m lost here.”; however now I realize you may have been sarcastic.
You bet that USA policy is now the world policy & it should interest you 
Ali - I was replying to your "Sorry, I'm lost here."; however now I realize you may have been sarcastic.
Me? Sarcastic?
Ali
Me? Sarcastic?
Ali