what issues are most important to you?

mine

1. America first policies when it comes to the economy.
2. Breaking up the political establishment. Basically showing them that a populist WILL win if they screw people too much.
3. Making it very hard to get into war. No more executive priveleges. However if war is authorized then I want there to be no rules.
4. State-wide minimum wage and protectionist tariffs to encourage wealth and investment to flow from the coast inland instead of the coast to other countries.
5. Price cap on drugs. We pay max what Britain does. Let the drug companies recover their research costs elsewhere.
 
sear said:
"Guarantee"? You mean like "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and ...". That kind of "guarantee"? Imagine how confident your "guarantee" is to descendants of slaves.

Are you aware the Supreme Court has already ruled that your Social Security "benefit" can be whatever congress decides?

There are better investments.

Again, if it's such a good deal, why must it be administered at gunpoint?

"Very" important?
To whom?
If it's so "important", then why for most of human history, why for most of American history was there no such thing? I don't recall any of the U.S. founders complaining about its absence.

Social Security promotes dependency and incompetence, instead of promoting independence & self-reliance.
Click to expand...

Conservatard claptrap.
Tell me, would SS have been created if the dustbowl had not coincided with the great depression?
At that time we were a much more agarian society, with many homesteads being close to self sufficiency at least in terms of nutrition
Now the majority of our citizens couldn't feed themselves even if they wanted to or knew how.
Sorry but there is a cost for living in a society.
 
anatta said:
I'm with you on interventionism, but not military cuts.. we've gotten to the point pilots are scrounging for parts.
We do need a robust presence in the world -the key is not getting sucked into wars.

Don't we spend more money then anyone on education? What would more money do?
Click to expand...

Shut the fuck up warmonger. No one cares what you say
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No we spend more money on defense and defense related items and with that being the case that by not adhering to the clear and present danger standard we have over extended our military even though we spend more on defense than the rest of the world ombined?

I'm not advocating cuts in defense spending. I'm pointing out that our future standing, including our military, depends on our investments in education and infrastructure.

What would more money do? It would lower the cost of post secondary education for a college, vocational, trade or technical skills education. Just as importantly it would enhance our ability to prepare our youth for post secondary education. It is critical that in the new 21st century free trade economy that we provide the educational means for people to be able to participate without straddling them with massive amounts of debt.

Yes it will cost vast sums of money on those two investments but let's not forget that these investments have large measurable returns on investment that will create prosperity and reduce economic inequality which is politically destabilizing.

We need to have the political courage to make these decisions then have an adult conversation on how we shall pay for them.
Click to expand...

Why can't we just apply price controls on colleges? It would save taxpayer money. No college (private or public) can charge more than $10,000/year including books and room/board. Problem solved
 
"Now the majority of our citizens couldn't feed themselves even if they wanted to or knew how.
Sorry but there is a cost for living in a society." #63
Click to expand...
3rd world economies tend to rely on agriculture, and exploiting natural resources; mining, forestry, etc.

Third Millennium Western capitalist success tend more toward service, or value add; turning sand into computer chips for example.

It doesn't mean we're inadequate. But for a slash & burn jungle subsistence aboriginal, one acre is about enough to support one human.
But with modern agribidness techniques, one acre can feed an order of magnitude more. We're much more efficient now; and thus we don't need everyone to be a farmer. That's not a bad thing. It's excellent!
"Sorry but there is a cost for living in a society." #63
Click to expand...
I've never denied it. But surrendering our Liberty should not be a part of that formulation.
I'd have been DELIGHTED to invest as much in an IRA or 401k than Social Security was confiscated from me. Why must we be forced into an inferior system?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
See post #16.
Click to expand...

I saw her reply to my list but the only response that I saw that I guess could be considered unkind was the issue that she said I would starve people by reducing social programs. It's making the assumption that without a federal social program that people would starve to death and that's just not true. There are thousands of charities, non profit organizations, and private citizens that provide food, clothes, and shelter to those in need. It's not unkind to break a part a one size fits all approach and instead go towards a more local system where people living in communities help those in need in their communities.

I'm not sure which other issues listed would be considered unkind though.
 
Cowgirl Up said:
I saw her reply to my list but the only response that I saw that I guess could be considered unkind was the issue that she said I would starve people by reducing social programs. It's making the assumption that without a federal social program that people would starve to death and that's just not true. There are thousands of charities, non profit organizations, and private citizens that provide food, clothes, and shelter to those in need. It's not unkind to break a part a one size fits all approach and instead go towards a more local system where people living in communities help those in need in their communities.

I'm not sure which other issues Listed would be considered unkind though.
Click to expand...



that is a lie



never in mans history has private charity met the need
 
Originally Posted by Cowgirl Up
My top issues would probably be

1. Reduce the size of the federal government whyand a return to truly following the constitutional we already do
2. Empowering and supporting more local farmers and enhancing the agricultural community across the country
3. Term limits within the federal and state government why limit the peoples choice
4. Education, so getting rid of common core, lowering the cost of state tuitions by reducing wasteful spending and ending corruption, and giving more statewide advocacy for degrees in agricultural sciences and trade schools how does this help education
5. Reducing the debt and spending less tax dollars on federal social programs and unnecessary or inefficient government agencies starve the poor

There are a lot of other important issues but that's what comes to mind right now.









your responses
 
sear said:
3rd world economies tend to rely on agriculture, and exploiting natural resources; mining, forestry, etc.

Third Millennium Western capitalist success tend more toward service, or value add; turning sand into computer chips for example.

It doesn't mean we're inadequate. But for a slash & burn jungle subsistence aboriginal, one acre is about enough to support one human.
But with modern agribidness techniques, one acre can feed an order of magnitude more. We're much more efficient now; and thus we don't need everyone to be a farmer. That's not a bad thing. It's excellent!

I've never denied it. But surrendering our Liberty should not be a part of that formulation.
I'd have been DELIGHTED to invest as much in an IRA or 401k than Social Security was confiscated from me. Why must we be forced into an inferior system?
Click to expand...

Answer my initial question first.
Second, your theory of derived dependency via SS is bogus since since payout is after retirement.
Third your reference to third world is irrelevant.


Service as an industry is bullshit.
Service is parasitic of wealth, it doesn't create wealth. I know you can do better than this.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Isn't that what the government did by signing free trade agreements? Didn't they pick winners and losers and grossly underestimate how many Americans would end up being losers?

I understand agriculture is important to you but I'm asking you is it that important nationally that it should be subsidized by the government and doesn't that contradict you small government views?
Click to expand...

But I already said that i'm not really seeking federal government subsidies for nationwide agriculture. Now if a state wants to subsidize segments of agriculture within their borders then i'd be ok with that since they are most knowledgable as to what is being produced in their state and its value, but my basic point is that less competition will ultimately lead to higher crop and livestock prices, lower quality, and if something goes wrong decreased supply. I'm good with companies growing and expanding their business and their reach across the country but at the same time I think its been shown time and time again in history that a lack of competition is not a good thing and also when the federal government gets involved it often means more and more red tape, regulation, and favoritism. We cant have a central government decide which companies feed the nation and we cant let the companies become a monopoly where it can then control the market for its own gain. We have to somehow find a balance.

When it comes to free trade i'm admittedly not very knowledgable of what all goes into that yet so I cant really give you a good answer to that.
 
Billy Batts said:
Hey follow the bouncing ball, that was a reply that you took out of context. NO ONE is getting a free ride. That was an answer posed to "how to lower the Medicare age to 62".
Click to expand...

Medicare has trillions in unfunded liabilities yet you can lower the age of access by doing nothing?
 
evince said:
Originally Posted by Cowgirl Up
My top issues would probably be

1. Reduce the size of the federal government whyand a return to truly following the constitutional we already do
2. Empowering and supporting more local farmers and enhancing the agricultural community across the country
3. Term limits within the federal and state government why limit the peoples choice
4. Education, so getting rid of common core, lowering the cost of state tuitions by reducing wasteful spending and ending corruption, and giving more statewide advocacy for degrees in agricultural sciences and trade schools how does this help education
5. Reducing the debt and spending less tax dollars on federal social programs and unnecessary or inefficient government agencies starve the poor

There are a lot of other important issues but that's what comes to mind right now.









your responses
Click to expand...

you refuse to defend these silly ideas
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top