Back in November, my husband and I had someone poll us about which issues were of greatest concern to us in voting. They gave us a multiple choice list to choose from, which I thought was ridiculous because, essentially, they were telling us what to care about. So I won't do it to you, but I'm curious: What federal issues are most important to you and why?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Equal Marriage Rights Smaller Gov't/Lower Taxes
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
Full voting representation for Washington, DC.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Really Miro? That's what you want more than anything else????
What about Puerto Rico or Guam or our other territories?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Abortion.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Really Miro? That's what you want more than anything else????
Yes. Once I am actually allowed to participate in our 'great democracy', I will turn my attentions to other areas of need. And then, I might actually be able to make a difference.
quote:What about Puerto Rico or Guam or our other territories?
I don't know a whole lot about their situations, though I'd tend to say they should either have voting representation or independence. I do know that Puerto Rico has in the past voted to not become a state (and therefore receive all the associated rights and benefits). That's more than we ever got.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Gay marriage or civil unions Equal Rights/Non-Discrimination laws Environmental Policies Foreign Relations
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The only federal aspects of the gay marriage issue are 1) whether the FDMA is repealed, 2) whether the DMA is passed by Congress, and 3) whether the federal government recognizes and equalizes the treatment of state-recognized same sex marriages or unions.
Which isn't to say that it shouldn't be anyone's most important issue, but if people want to aim their efforts efficiently, it's good to know these things.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Equal Marriage rights Alternative resources Guest Worker Program or weaning companies off using illegal immigrants.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: those are actually pretty damn huge elements to the gay marriage fight. Taxes are a federal issue as well as the ability to move to a different state and remain married.
Not to mention that states usually have to be forced by the feds to give minorities equal rights. We just passed the 50th anniversary of the Central High incident, for instance.
Miro: So fight to rejoin Maryland or VA. Eliminate all of DC's special considerations in one swell foop.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Iraq Civil Rights/Liberties (including SSM) The increasing ability of the wealthy (people or corporations) to "buy" government - I supposed this practically translates to Campaign Finance Reform?
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
I'd be more than happy if DC (or most of it) was retroceded to Maryland, allowing us to participate both in state and national elections. That's one of several solutions acceptable to me.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
1. Care for the poor. This includes food, housing, and health care.
2. Funding for education.
3. Equal marriage benefits for same-sex couples.
4. Legal access to abortion for those 18+. Abortions "safe, legal, and rare." I believe that is a Clinton quote.
These are all extremely important to me.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
health care; poverty; education; immigration; environment; foreign relations; the war.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Good question.
1) Abortion (limiting it or eliminating it) 2) SSM (legalizing it) 3) Rolling back the Patriot Act After that it starts to get hard to place one above the others.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Iraq, Iran, and foreign relations.
I hate to say it, but, IMHO, SSM and abortion and all those issues aren't as important in the long run as the war on terrorism is.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
*nod* I disagree. From the perspective of someone who views fetuses as human beings, how many deaths does abortion cause a year? Does Iraq even come close?
Oh wait, you're in favor of the Iraq war. Okay, then, same question: does terrorism cause anywhere near as many deaths?
-o-
I was trying to think of where the Iraq war comes in on my list, and, once you separate the Patriot Act, the rest of it just isn't that high on my list.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I don't think I have one issue that is sort of make or break for me. In the past, I've just voted for the candidate whose views were closest to mine (i.e. I agreed with them more than I agreed with the other candidate). Maybe I have some kind of unconscious list of importance in my head, but thinking about it just now I can't think of what ranks highest.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
1) Education Reform 2) Prison Reform 3) Alternative energy
A few others, but if you agree with me about the shape of our educational and penal system, coming to a consensus about same-sex adoptions, labor unions, and the thorny of problems of immigration will be markedly easier.
[ March 09, 2007, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Liz, why are three of the things on your list? Currently, they are all, with the exception of #3, abundantly available and/or already legal.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
At the national level:
the war, health care, poverty, environment, energy, national debt, criminal justice reform
At the state level:
education, transportation, poverty, health care, urban planning, environment, criminal justice reform
The most facinating thing my list is that someone could concievably produce the exact same list and yet have political opinions that are polar opposites.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
1. Abortion rights 2. Civil rights (Equal marriage rights for same sex couples) 3. Funding for education, health care, etc for the poor
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
The OP question: What federal issues are most important to you and why?
1. Universal access to necessary medical care: because I see a breakdown coming, in part secondary to bankruptcies triggered by unpayable medical bills. Diabetes on the rise + a lot of people without needed access --> mushroom cloud
2. Better funding for and support of teachers: because I don't think we can expect people to keep doing hard work for minimal compensation and still not be respected. Again, something's going to blow. Or, rather, fizzle out in a slow and agonizing death due to burnout.
3. Environment reform: long term investment, has to be done
---
Edited to add: [small voice]have no idea what to do about Iraq[/small voice]
[ March 09, 2007, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: Liz, why are three of the things on your list? Currently, they are all, with the exception of #3, abundantly available and/or already legal.
I don't know about Liz, but in my experience 1 and 2 on her list are not adequately available in the US.
As for #4 on her list (abortion), although its currently legal there are an awful lot of people who are trying to make it illegal. As long as there are people who consider making abortion illegal their number one political priority, there will also be people for whom keeping abortion legal will be a top political priority.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Health care reform
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
1. Environment 1b. Alternative energy source development 2. Space exploration (including asteroid defense, colonization of either other planets or of long term artificial habitats, and resource acquisition all three under this umbrella) 3. Health care reform.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Edited to add: [small voice]have no idea what to do about Iraq[/small voice]
Unfortunately, I'm with you on that one.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Miro:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Edited to add: [small voice]have no idea what to do about Iraq[/small voice]
Unfortunately, I'm with you on that one.
Yep, me too, I'm afraid.
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
That's hard to decide, and I'll probably change my mind later but (not in a particular order)...
1. Foreign Relations (including but not only war) 2. Alternative/Efficient Energy- especially transportation and building 3. Immigration 4. Health Care 5. The national debt
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
It's fascinating how many different answers people have put up for their most important.
My biggest issue is government spending and government waste. I feel like the decisions being made now regarding the budget are foolish and increasing the wealth gap between the supperrich and everyone else.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Ah, yes. As far as Iraq-
I was hoping that being gone for 18 months they'd have it all sorted out when I got back.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm in Canada, so for *my* federal government:
A) Environment B) Different (or even reversing) tax cuts (current conservative government starting to follow the US model of giving tax cuts that benefit the rich while screwing the middle class) C) Equalization and regionalism (government is playing/proposing a dangerous game of granting greater regional autonomy to Quebec to gain votes, also natural resources are exempt from the equalization program)
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Gay rights. Federal deficit. The terroist war. Survival of the middle class.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have no single issue. I can only put it broadly, and I've only got one.
1. Long-term, rational, problem-solving ideas from federal politicians.
I'm afraid there's just not much of that coming from people whose stances I like even on more specific issues.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
quote:Liz, why are three of the things on your list? Currently, they are all, with the exception of #3, abundantly available and/or already legal.
quote:I don't know about Liz, but in my experience 1 and 2 on her list are not adequately available in the US.
As for #4 on her list (abortion), although its currently legal there are an awful lot of people who are trying to make it illegal. As long as there are people who consider making abortion illegal their number one political priority, there will also be people for whom keeping abortion legal will be a top political priority.
Yes. What The Rabbit said. I agree that care for the poor is available in our country, but I think we should do a LOT more. (And I care about helping the undeserving, adult poor, too.)
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
1) Universal affordable health insurance/health care 1) Poverty Assistance (food, housing, jobs training) 1) Increase funding for Substance Abuse treatment 1) Setting stricter limits on the power to wage war (pre-conditions, 1) Establishing a process by which Congress cannot recess until the budget job is done each year 1) Eliminating all set-asides/ear marks 1) Requiring all meetings with lobbyists to be open to the public with time and location published in advance.
Okay, those are my top priorities.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
It strikes me that Iraq isn't on most of your lists. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it is interesting given that it tends to be the top story on the news most nights. It was also one of my choices in the poll.
Let's see here...health care, gay rights, abortion (pro or con), and education seem to be top priorities for many people.
My issues:
1. Downsizing the federal government. I think it's too powerful. I think that states should pick up the slack in many cases, especially education, where the federal government has failed miserably.
2. Repeal of the patriot act and other violations of basic constitutional rights.
3. Putting an end to an ill-defined war on terror. (This does not necessarily mean pulling out of Iraq by a week from Tuesday.)
4. A foreign policy that includes diplomacy
5. Tax equality -- I want to see the rich pay their fair share
I could keep going...I have a lot of issues.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In no particular order:
SSM (against) Abortion (against) Immigration (for immigration, and against acting like dorks to them) Big Government (against, especially federal)
[ March 10, 2007, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
--Improved oversight and accountability for government at all levels (aka, "No one is above the law.") This incorporates lobbying reform, campaign finance reform, and a whole bunch of other stuff. --Health care reform. The system is broken and needs serious help. --Protection of civil liberties (in this, I include rolling back the patriot act and SSM [for]). --Foreign policy that involves diplomacy and a willingness to admit that we might not always be in the right.
And, on that final note, I'd absolutely love for our next president to be able to admit he or she made mistakes if they happened, rather than giving us a 1984-ish, "No, we never did make mistakes; our policies have always been right," even when the actual policies in effect have changed.
If I thought that education was a federal issue, it would be included on this list, but I believe education reform is something that needs to happen at the state and local levels, rather than the federal level.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: *nod* I disagree. From the perspective of someone who views fetuses as human beings, how many deaths does abortion cause a year? Does Iraq even come close?
Oh wait, you're in favor of the Iraq war. Okay, then, same question: does terrorism cause anywhere near as many deaths?
Maybe not, but I still think terrorism causes alot more destruction to society than abortion does. Terrorism not only kills people but causes fear and affects people's ability to live their life normally, such as in Israel. Terrorism also hurts the friends and family of a victim of a terrorist attack, while an abortion is a voluntary "killing" from the fetus' parents. It doesn't cause as much suffering to the family because it was their choice. I know it sounds horrible to rank the importance of the death of a human life, but I think from a completely rational standpoint, an abortion isn't as bad as someone dying from a terrorist act.
Also, abortion is an issue with two sides to it, so it's something people will probably be fighting about forever. Terrorism is something that I think everyone agrees needs to be eliminated for us to advance as a society.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, abortion is an issue with two sides to it, so it's something people will probably be fighting about forever. Terrorism is something that I think everyone agrees needs to be eliminated for us to advance as a society.
Which means my vote has much less impact on terrorism - after all, no one wants it to stick around. Even if politicians disagree on the means, they agree on the goal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:but I think from a completely rational standpoint, an abortion isn't as bad as someone dying from a terrorist act.
How convenient for you that those who are "completely rational" agree with you. [/sarcasm]
Note that I would have agreed with your statement if you had said you had said that abortion isn't as bad as terrorism "from a certain standpoint" or "in some ways".
But saying that those who disagree with you are not completely rational is just bad form.
[ March 10, 2007, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I was thinking the other day... how much more traction the pro-life movement would get if it emphasised adoption more. Encouraging people to adopt and encouraging those seeking abortions to put their child up for adoption. I know some pro-lifers do that, but you don't hear of them. It's always Keep vs Kill. Very little emphasis is given to the third option.. Giving your child to someone who would love him or her. (for the record, I'm pro-choice but want women to chose life. Or "Choose Adoption" if I were to make a bumper sticker.)
MPH: At the risk of you getting dogpiled yet again =(... I understand that you don't like SSM for religious reasons... But there's a whole slew of things your faith is against that are legal. Why is SSM one of your top issues? Why not turn a blind eye to it like drinking, caffeine, gambling, etc, etc... I mean, drinking and gambling definately destroys families. SSM builds families, even if you don't consider them ideal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was thinking the other day... how much more traction the pro-life movement would get if it emphasised adoption more.
"Choose Life" and "Adoption is an Option" stickers get pulled off cars all the time, so I'm skeptical if this would work. Those who counsel pregnant mothers considering abortion pretty much always mention adoption.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: Dunno, The abortion debate has been raging my whole life and I very rarely hear adoption brought up.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:Originally posted by Liz B:
quote:Liz, why are three of the things on your list? Currently, they are all, with the exception of #3, abundantly available and/or already legal.
quote:I don't know about Liz, but in my experience 1 and 2 on her list are not adequately available in the US.
As for #4 on her list (abortion), although its currently legal there are an awful lot of people who are trying to make it illegal. As long as there are people who consider making abortion illegal their number one political priority, there will also be people for whom keeping abortion legal will be a top political priority.
Yes. What The Rabbit said. I agree that care for the poor is available in our country, but I think we should do a LOT more. (And I care about helping the undeserving, adult poor, too.)
I think it's unfortunate that we think the federal government should take care of our poor, when it's clear that they do such a bad job at it. I'd love to see a ratio study of the dollar efficiency of our federal services to the poor, as exist for most charities. As I type, my husband and son are serving breakfast to the homeless, something they do often. Every dollar donated to make this happen have gone directly to the food. No one is paid for service, and the equipment used was all donated. While I am the first to admit that charities are not perfect and people do fall through the cracks, it is obvious to me that they are generally far more efficient than the government at making the dollars they have go the farthest.
Given that our tax dollars are what make the government services possible, it makes me less desirous than ever to expand federal services to the poor -- every dollar they get, they waste far more of it than every dollar I donate to charity. I would rather give my money to where it will go the farthest.
As for abortion rights, there is a great deal more money behind abortion than there is in pro-life lobbies. As long as that remains true, abortion will continue to be legal, IMO.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
jeniwren: To be fair, many public charities are highly inefficient as well. Not saying the federal government could do it better, but I'm not sure they're doing it worse. Of course, with public charities we have the option of choosing the good ones (and they do exist), but many of the most prominent and largest charities (The United Way comes to mine) are highly inefficient.
Pixie: I've always heard adoption and pro-life in the same breath. This is usually one of their foundational arguments.
As for SSM: I understand why this is a hugely important issue for those whose lives are effected by it (ie gay people), but I've never really understood why it is so important to other people. Maybe someone could help me with the "why" part of the question there. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: As for SSM: I understand why this is a hugely important issue for those whose lives are effected by it (ie gay people), but I've never really understood why it is so important to other people. Maybe someone could help me with the "why" part of the question there.
For me, it's because I love and care for people for whom this is an immediate problem, as well as being concerned about participating in an unjust society. Societies will never be perfect, of course, but I feel strongly about continuing to make the one I am a part of better (in the sense of true to good principles).
So, both for concrete and abstract reasons, at least in my case.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
To be fair, our domestic adoption programs aren't in particularly good shape.
*
Federally: energy policy, foreign policy, Iraq, Afghanistan, and terror. I suspect finding a solution to the first will greatly help the others. Government waste is atrocious, and immigration is a mess.
On a local level: Education (K12) education (higher-ed) education (jobs training), poverty, crime.
--j_k
Posted by Libbie (Member # 9529) on :
Equal marriage rights.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Christine: What CT said. Also, it's a case in which I honestly don't find any solid argument against it other than religious ones. I believe that U.S. law shouldn't be made based solely on religious tenets, and so I really have a problem with that aspect of attempts to ban SSM.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
In my opinion terrorism is a symptom. We can't eliminate terrorism without addressing the root causes.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Christine: What CT said. Also, it's a case in which I honestly don't find any solid argument against it other than religious ones. I believe that U.S. law shouldn't be made based solely on religious tenets, and so I really have a problem with that aspect of attempts to ban SSM.
Yeah, I'm with you two. I was really hoping to get an explanation from those on the other side. Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ah. Carry on, then.
(I've just been quite enamoured with listening to my own voice lately.)
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
quote: But saying that those who disagree with you are not completely rational is just bad form.
Even if it is bad form, I still stand by it. If I thought eliminating abortion is more important than eliminating terrorism it would be probably be for religious or moral reasons. Not for logical reasons. Rationally, I think eliminating terrorism is more important.
quote: In my opinion terrorism is a symptom. We can't eliminate terrorism without addressing the root causes.
If terrorism is a symptom, then terrorists are the cause.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
I'd be very interested in hearing what programs people think would be effective in eliminating terrorism -- that is, if anyone actually believes that eliminating terrorism is possible.
I lean toward the "deal with the root causes" idea, but I realize that there isn't a lot of data to back up my belief that it's a long-term more effective strategy than the more reactive mode of attempting to kill every person who joins a terror organization.
Ultimately, maybe a mixture of strategies is the way to go? One in which we relentlessly track down the people who actively engage in terrorist actions, while at the same time trying to reduce the incentives for people to take that route in the first place.
And at that, I'd expect what we're really going to achieve is something along the lines of a diminished frequency of attacks and, maybe, a partial shift away from targeting Americans directly.
I don't actually see us eliminating terrorism unless we solve things like religious bigotry, the human tendency toward violent solutions to problems, and a host of other things that stem from our in-built tribalism.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
quote:As for SSM: I understand why this is a hugely important issue for those whose lives are effected by it (ie gay people), but I've never really understood why it is so important to other people. Maybe someone could help me with the "why" part of the question there. [Smile]
For me, it's about equal rights. I just think that if two men, or two women live together and are faithful sexually and emotionally to the other then we should grant them the same rights as a married couple.
Also, I feel the whole SSM ban argument seems to follow the logic of "Good laws make good people." I don't think this is the case with SSM, I don't personally see how making a law against SSM will suddenly stop gays and lesbians from living together and devoting themselves to each other.
So, there's my two cents, for what it's worth Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:If I thought eliminating abortion is more important than eliminating terrorism it would be probably be for religious or moral reasons. Not for logical reasons. Rationally, I think eliminating terrorism is more important.
I think this thread is best used for people to list their issues, and not debate them. But I want to clear this up. Rationality is used once the goals are set. The reason we say monkeys are rational is that once they set the goal of retrieving ants, they use tools to do so.
If your goal is to get the cheapest car possible, rationality tells you to go to a Honda dealer over a BMW dealer. Rationality informs the means you use to achieve your goals, not your goals themselves. That's the whole of rational theory, right there.
If your goal is to preserve human life, and you believe that an unborn child is a human life, ending abortion can be considered a more rational goal than staving terrorism.
If a higher priority goal is ensuring your safety as a born person, than staving terrorism may be more rational than preventing abortion.
How we pick our ultimate goals isn't a matter of rationality because rationality is only introduced after the goals are set forth. What determines the ultimate goal for each person is controversial, whether it's animal instinct, religion, faith, or intuition, it's not a matter of rationality and to say that stopping terrorism is a rational goal whereas ending abortion is not degrades the entire argument. Both policies are rational within the context of their goal.
Edit: Focusing on banning abortion may be irrational if the person finds out that more babies would be carried to term if other social programs were instituted to support the mother. In such a case, the decision to focus on an outright ban could be considered irrational because the latter solution would better serve the same goal.
[ March 10, 2007, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
And if our goal is to make the world a safer and happier place? Is it not an argument to say that it's more rational to first focus on staving terrorism than eliminating abortion?
Edit: I skipped over your 3rd and 4th paragraph before I wrote this. I understand what you mean.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I am heterosexual, but I am in favor of equal marriage rights. I view it as a civil rights issue, and denying homosexual couples the right to marry is no less disgusting and appalling than denying marriage to interracial couples, which I believe the government has done. Homosexual couples, in asking for marriage rights, are not asking for more rights that are given to heterosexuals or special treatment. They are seeking exactly the same rights, and to deny them equal rights seems just as bad as denying black people or women the right to vote. Somehow, opponents to same sex marriage seem to think that homosexuals are not entitled that they enjoy, as if to imply if you are heterosexual, you should have more rights.
If two people love each other and are committed to spending the rest of their lives together, then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to marry and enjoy the same recognition from the government and the rest of society as heterosexual couples. I think it can only make our society stronger than we allow two people who obviously care for each other to be allowed to marry in demonstrating their commitment, regardless of sexual orientation, instead of eroding it as I have seen people claim.
Much of the opposition I have seen to gay marriage is based on religious beliefs that marriage should be able the raising of children, but those beliefs have no place in dictating policy when this country has instituted separation of religion and state. To me, marriage is not about raising children; it's more about commitment to be together through all the joys and perils that life brings.
It also surprises me that many of the conservatives who are in favor of limited government regulation because everyone should be allowed free choice actually want the government to stand in the way of two people who love each other and committed to each other from getting married, or keeping a woman from making a personal choice regarding her own body. It seems very contradictory to me.
[ March 12, 2007, 12:27 PM: Message edited by: jh ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
1) Governmental reform: eliminate the corruption, special interests - lobbyists need less control, bring it back to the people. Again, I suppose this translates mostly to campaign finance reform.
2) Space. We should be there, there's a new frontier out there and we need to open it. All these other issues aren't going to be solved any time soon but if we have colonies on multiple planets then if the Earth implodes due to one or more of the issues it won't be the end of the human race.
3) Abortion (for) - Civil Rights (including SSM) - Iraq War (end it) - Foreign Relations (improve/get the hell out of other folks business). These are all about equal for me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: In my opinion terrorism is a symptom. We can't eliminate terrorism without addressing the root causes.
Thank god someone said it.
My own list:
1) Budget - Trim the fat/raise taxes in the near term. Cut the Department of Defense budget big time.
2) Tax Reform - Simplify the tax code, for the love of god. Change the way we tax people in general, some sort of Fair/Flat Tax, National Sales Tax, thing. Make America more business friendly by fixing our taxes.
3) Energy Crisis - Federal dollars for a massive renewable energy push. Make homes more energy efficient, new regulations for new home construction and energy efficiency. We can fix the environment, and make money at the same time.
4) National Healthcare - Get it. Digitize health data and cut down on mistakes and save billions from administrative overhead. Focus on preventative medicine that will get people healthy and keep them that way, so we aren't treating illnesses caused by negligence and desperation.
5) Education Reform - College needs to be affordable for everyone in some way shape or form. It might not be a BA or BS you're getting, but a trade school, or some form of higher education needs to be made available. We need to fix K-12 education. It's outdated, wasteful, ineffective, and is going to kill us in 30 years when we realize the US isn't at the top of the educational pyramid anymore. I think we should follow the recommendations of the latest education panel and totally revamp education. Pay educators a fair wage for a college graduate and hard working individual. This will increase the quality of educators by attracting the best and brightest.
6) International Relations - Let's mend some fences. Open a dialogue with Iran at least. Take a more hardline approach with Saudi Arabia. Neither country is a friend, it's time we stopped supporting Saudi Arabia, especially when by many reports, Iranian citizens like us more than Saudi Arabians. Support a free Kurdish state, and protect them from Turkey. Take another serious stab at fixing Israel/Palestine.
Start a new relief effort in Africa. It will pay long term dividends by creating more consumers for our products, if you want that argument, but more importantly it's the right thing to do.
Get us out of Iraq. ASAP. ..... Somewhat less important but still on my radar:
7) Abortion - Work on reducing it. I'm against abortion with conditions, I think it's okay when rape, incest, or the life of the mother are issues, but I don't think it should be used as a form of birth control. More emphasis should be put in high school on the dangers of not using contraceptives, and educated them about safe sex and being responsible. We're not Puritans, hell, the Puritans weren't Puritans in the sense most people think. It's time to deal with sex and teens openly and honestly and give them the information they need to make their choices.
8) SSM - Legalize it.
9) Immigration - Work on a guest worker program. After everything I've listed above is fixed, I have no problem with increasing the number of people we legally allow to immigrate to this country.
10) The Electoral College - Kill it. Direct presidential elections should be how we elect our leaders.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
Now that I see people mentioning space stuff, I think that does rank higher for me than some other things, although I doubt it's number one. I do believe we should be doing more in regards to space, in terms of further exploration and even beginning colonization. I doubt that'll be a big campaign issue for this next election though. There are too many other things to focus on.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
To all those answering my poorly phrased question about why those who are not directly involved would care about SSM: I was not talking to those in FAVOR of SSM and civil liberties. I was talking to those OPPOSED to this. Basically, my question really boils down to this: Why would you want to stop someone else from living their life as they choose? How does their choice affect you?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Briefly:
quote:How does their choice affect you?
1) Not everyone believes that government should only make laws that affect other people. Reframing your original question in this manner injects assumptions not shared by many who disagree with you.
2) Many people see marriage as the foundational relationship of society and see attempts to redefine it as a foundational change to society.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I'm definitely on board with all of your points, Lyr.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by jh: It also surprises me that many of the conservatives who are in favor of limited government regulation because everyone should be allowed free choice actually want the government to stand in the way of . . . a woman from making a personal choice regarding her own body. It seems very contradictory to me.
Either you have never ever spoken to (listened to) an opponent of abortion, or you are being dishonest in your argument. My hypothesis is the latter.
It's not remotely contradictory.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Christine -- I don't want to be rude, but I am going to decline to answer your question. Every time I've tried to do that here, I have expended a lot of time and effort was rewarded with horrible experience. It's not something I'm willing to do again at this time.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
The abolition of Daylight Savings Crap.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You know, I've railed against daylight savings for years, but it's finally starting to grow on me.
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
Well, shoot. So if I ever do find a candidate willing to make this his issue too, we can no longer count on your vote?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Much of the opposition I have seen to gay marriage is based on religious beliefs that marriage should be able the raising of children, but those beliefs have no place in dictating policy when this country has instituted separation of religion and state. To me, marriage is not about raising children; it's more about commitment to be together through all the joys and perils that life brings.
Actually, I think public policy shouldn't be defined by anyone saying "This is what marriage means to me." Religious or not, liberal or not.
We need to try, in a nonpartisan way, to understand the valuable function marriage serves in society, and make sure our policy encourages that function to continue unhindered.
We ought to view marriage the way a biologist views the features that evolve in living things. When you look at a giraffe's long neck, do you ask, "What is the intent of that neck?" or "Why does that giraffe like his long neck?" No, you ask, "Why did that long neck persist, while other forms died out? What survival value does it have?"
Similarly, we need to ask ourselves why societies that promote marriage have persisted on such a massive scale, compared to societies that eschew marriage. What survival value, if any, does marriage have for a society, and how can we ensure that we do not incur an unacceptable risk to our society's future by making the wrong changes to it?
While achieving true nonpartisanship on an issue like this is virtually impossible, still, pursuing a course like this is way more productive than "Your opinion doesn't count because you're religious! This is what marriage means to me: [insert an opinion as unfounded as anyone's religion]."
[ March 10, 2007, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Puppy ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amilia: Well, shoot. So if I ever do find a candidate willing to make this his issue too, we can no longer count on your vote?
I'm afraid not.
For me, the difference came when I realized that it makes a lot of sense to base the start of the day on sunrise rather than on midnight.
If we didn't have clocks, we'd probably base our on sunrise (or sunset), not on the midpoint between the two. It would make more sense as the days shorten and lengthen to get up at approximately the same time according to sunrise than to get up at the same time according to midnight.
That doesn't work so well with a standardized time system, though, where a day needs to equal 24 hours every day.
Daylight savings brings us closer to a sunrise-based time system than it would be without daylight savings time. That's a reason that I can get behind.
Now, if you had a candidate that wanted to switch us over to the metric system, that I could get behind.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Puppy, I can appreciate your concern, but there was a time in which the same argument could have been (and was) made for government by royalty. Surely there was a reason why societies that ruled by monarchy had persisted on just a massive scale, compared to societies that eschewed them.
And yet the US broke with that tradition on grounds of principle.
It's not the same, of course -- it's only an analogy, an application of the reasoning in a different context leading to a different conclusion. I don't mean to contradict you, just to point out that the reasoning has problems. (But I know you probably know this. We just reason as best we can.)
Posted by Amilia (Member # 8912) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
For me, the difference came when I realized that it makes a lot of sense to base the start of the day on sunrise rather than on midnight.
If we didn't have clocks, we'd probably base our on sunrise (or sunset), not on the midpoint between the two. It would make more sense as the days shorten and lengthen to get up at approximately the same time according to sunrise than to get up at the same time according to midnight.
That doesn't work so well with a standardized time system, though, where a day needs to equal 24 hours every day.
Daylight savings brings us closer to a sunrise-based time system than it would be without daylight savings time. That's a reason that I can get behind.
Now, if you had a candidate that wanted to switch us over to the metric system, that I could get behind.
I admit that much of my beef with Daylight Savings comes from working early mornings for years. By the time I finally start getting up with the sun, the clocks switch and I'm getting up in the middle of the night again.
And does it not seem hard to you, When all the sky is clear and blue, And I should like so much to play, To have to go to bed by day? [R. L. Stevenson, "Bed in Summer"]
But what really makes this "my issue" is the way it messes with sleep patterns. After the government screws with our clocks, I'm tired for months. By the time I finally get adjusted to the new schedule, the govt. is ready to screw with the clocks again. If some politician decided to make Daylight Savings a year round thing, I'd grouse for a bit (because I really do think the sun should rise in the morning and set in the evening), but I'd get over it.
As to the metric thing . . . sorry, but I've got to abandon you there. I just can't think in metric. All the zeros get very confusing. Do I add a zero or take one away for deci. Is mili a thousand or a million. Or a thousandth or a millionth. With standard, the conversions are much easier to remember as they are all different. 3 teaspoons to a tablespoon, 16 tablespoons to a cup, 2 cups to a pint, 2 pints to a quart, 4 quarts to a gallon.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Now, if you had a candidate that wanted to switch us over to the metric system, that I could get behind.
I'm with you.
My youngest (7) just learned about thermometers. I bit my tongue when she was talking about it being 20 degrees in the freezer and 80 degrees outside. She'll learn that there is more than one system in a few years -- it's asking a bit much that first-graders deal with two temperature scales. But that means yet another generation of Americans who will never naturally think in metric. I know I don't, and I've been teaching in and using metric for years.
(When she told me about the "red mercury" I did correct her, and explained that some thermometers had mercury (which is silver), but that ones with red liquid had alcohol.)
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Briefly:
quote:How does their choice affect you?
1) Not everyone believes that government should only make laws that affect other people. Reframing your original question in this manner injects assumptions not shared by many who disagree with you.
2) Many people see marriage as the foundational relationship of society and see attempts to redefine it as a foundational change to society.
I'm having trouble parcing your first point here. What assumption was I making? I was actually assuming that people who are against SSM (legally) believe that it affects them or society in some way and I'm trying to figure out how.
As for #2, well, that really doesn't explain anything for me. First, taken at face value, it assumes that change itself is bad. If I read between the lines, I could assume that people think this potential change to society is a bad change, but in that case I'm still back to why? How does it affect your life (our lives)?
quote:Christine -- I don't want to be rude, but I am going to decline to answer your question. Every time I've tried to do that here, I have expended a lot of time and effort was rewarded with horrible experience. It's not something I'm willing to do again at this time.
There is never a reason to engag ein a debate you don't want to become involved in. As I'm relatively new here and haven't seen what you've posted (or gone through) before, I will simply have to be disappointed. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm having trouble parcing your first point here. What assumption was I making? I was actually assuming that people who are against SSM (legally) believe that it affects them or society in some way and I'm trying to figure out how.
The assumption you've made is that, for someone to think government should regulate a particular action, that action must effect that someone.
quote:As for #2, well, that really doesn't explain anything for me. First, taken at face value, it assumes that change itself is bad. If I read between the lines, I could assume that people think this potential change to society is a bad change, but in that case I'm still back to why? How does it affect your life (our lives)?
I've attempted to (as I said, briefly) point you in the direction of reasons cited by many SSM opponents. Your questions are impose what you consider the proper decisional criteria to be (does it affect YOU) and then demand people explain their opinion only in the context of that criteria.
Though I think you truly want to understand why others oppose SSM, I don't think you've approached that attempt to understand at the right place in the chain of reasoning. To someone who leans heavily libertarian, as you seem to do, "how does this affect others" seems the logical place to start. To someone who doesn't share those leanings, it's not.
I'm not going to give a detailed explanation of a view I don't share. I was simply trying to get you to step back from the assumptions that framed your question.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I think I see where you're going now, Dag. In fact, I would normally ask about how something affects society (where crimes against individuals can be a valid subset), but the reason I asked it this way in this particular thread is that the initial post asked what everyone's biggest issue is. People are often most interested in things that most directly affect them. I suppose, alternately, they could care most about those issues which most impact society, although I'm having real trouble seeing SSM as the biggest threat to America today. Perhaps that is where I should have looked for inspiration for my question. Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
In Canada, we've already got the metric system.
Let's see. My issues are:
1)Abortion. Complete ban except when the mother's life is at stake. No abortions done in clinics, only in hospitals.
2)Environmentalism: Reach and surpass the goals given in the Kyoto Accord. Reach an agreement with the USA regulating emissions in border cities.
3)Africa. Increase aid and government-sponsored research for AIDS, and commital of more stabilizing forces in Darfur.
4)Severely decreasing the power of lobbies. Set a strict limit on all forms of public sponsorship, and increase government accountability.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:1)Abortion. Complete ban except when the mother's life is at stake. No abortions done in clinics, only in hospitals
Not even for rape?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not even for rape.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If abortion is considered wrong because it is the killing of a human being, I don't see how the circumstances of conception would change that.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I can respect that in terms of the consistency (though my general conclusion differs); what Poteiro said makes sense as an ethical stance to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Worded like that, I can understand it.
Just don't agree with it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If abortion is considered wrong because it is the killing of a human being, I don't see how the circumstances of conception would change that.
I can conceive of such an argument, based on a form of assumption of risk being part of the justification of the ban (which would not be present in the case of rape), although I don't think the argument is correct.
To me, the default position is against killing a human being. In my view, to (legally) justify intentional killing requires either a comparable threat to the one on whose behalf the killing is done or culpability on the part of the one being killed. Since I think it's impossible for the unborn child to be culpable for anything, only the first justification matters to me.
Some people view the second factor not as culpability of the one being killed but as lack of responsibility of the one on whose behalf the killing is done. Rape would then remove an element of responsibility not present even with protected sex - no choice was ever made to engage in activity that might result in pregnancy.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What's my issue? The good judgement of the politicians I am voting for.
It is impossible for me to be as well informed on all the important issues the country faces. That is the job of our leaders. My job, in this representative democracy, is merely to pick the leaders who will become well-informed about those issues and who will then have to make decisions. So, for that reason, I think it is most important to pick leaders with good judgement - who can look at the information available and come to a smart, rational, wise decision afterward. Then I could trust our leaders to make decisions for me on issues I don't have the time to examine fully.
I would rather be ruled by a wise man who disagrees with me than a foolish man who agrees with my stance on the issues.
Having said that, I think there is a shortage of politicians with good judgement in this country. Or, perhaps more accurately, there is an excess of politicians with bad judgement, who try their hardest to look like they are wise.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think there is a shortage of voters qualified to judge the wisdom of others, mainly because there's a shortage of people who are so qualified.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm not sure it is possible to be "qualified" or "unqualified" for that. But I do think the average voter is much more capable of judging a candidate's judgement than they are capable of judging which issues are most important and how we can best go about resolving each of those issues.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't. The way the candidate comes out on issues one has formed an opinion on is probably the best guide anyone who does not know the politician personally has on that person's judgment.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
My top priority is environmental, because none of the other things matter if we can't breathe the air or drink the water. After that are foreign policy and gay marriage rights.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Threats to our system of government, specifically:
* Gerrymandering. The SC has ruled that all grounds for restricting gerrymandering are unconstitutional. * Censorship of political speech. McCain and others have expressed intent to close the loophole in McCain-Feingold that allows ordinary citizens to exercise political speech in mass communications during election season. * Judicial activism. Important decisions on social issues and even tax policy (sometimes) are now made by the courts, not the people.
Other issues are important, but if these go wrong, we won't have a voice, so it won't matter what we think.
[ March 12, 2007, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't get the judicial activism thing. They make decisions based on laws created by the people. Courts uphold the law. If you don't like their decisions, change the law, but don't blame them for doing their jobs.
And how are anti-gerrymandering laws unconstitutional?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The SC has ruled that *all* laws restricting gerrymandering are unconstitutional.
Can you cite this case, please?
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
I can't be sure yet but I think I should have said that all *grounds,* not all *laws*, are unconstitutional. My bad. The reason it's called unconstitutional is that the grounds are too vague. If so, maybe that's legitimate -- but we still need a restriction on it. Note that Kennedy said he would change his view under some circumstances.
Judicial activism: judges don't always make decisions based on laws created by the people. Sometimes they base them on what they want; on what they consider right, apart from the law; even on foreign law, or an extra-Constitutional view of what law is for. Courts do not always uphold the law (sometimes they strike it down). Sometimes changing the law doesn't work, as when Congress kept passing laws in the 1860's and 1870's to stop Southern states from disenfranchising blacks, and the SC kept interpreting the laws to not apply to blacks. I think it is reasonable to blame people for doing their jobs improperly, but I wasn't really talking about blame, just about democracy.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That case does not say that "*all* grounds restricting gerrymandering are unconstitutional." In fact, counting Kennedy, a majority of justices held that there was a judicial remedy to at least some constitutional actions concerning gerrymandering. Two of the justices who said there could never be a judicial remedy are no longer on the court.
Further, the lack of judicial remedy does NOT mean that there can be no remedy. It would be perfectly permissible for states to create anti-Gerrymandering causes of actions for their citizens. It's conceivable, too, that Congress could use its enforcement powers under the 14th amendment to provide a federal cause of action, although it's not clear this would be constitutional. For such a law to be constitutional, Congress would have to have findings of fact that (in a simplified form) 1) the equal protection right to non-gerrymandered districts has been routinely violated by the states and 2) congressional action that protects the right to a greater extent than its constitutional boundary is necessary to protect from future violations.
If the court finds that there is such an equal protection right and that those findings of fact were adequatly founded, the court could uphold a federal cause of action against gerrymandering.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I am curious about the people who would allow abortion in cases of "rape or incest". What's the deal with incest? Are we talking about (for example) two adult siblings and you would allow abortion if the sister got pregnant, or are you refering to underage girls impregnated by fathers, grandfathers, or uncles -- in which case, would't that also be rape?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
To the OP:
1) Foreign Policy Correction
2) Educational Correction (mainly lots more funding, and progressive policies)
3) Less governmental interference, more governmental assistance. (Government subsidized health/auto insurance, less governmental mandate that I MUST have auto insurance.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Government subsidized auto insurance? What for?
I tend to agree with mandated insurance. I've heard of too many cases of people getting totally screwed over by uninsured drivers. Even crappily insured drivers can do the same.
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Worded like that, I can understand it.
Just don't agree with it.
That's fine.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I don't. The way the candidate comes out on issues one has formed an opinion on is probably the best guide anyone who does not know the politician personally has on that person's judgment.
I think the reasons they give for their conclusions about political issues are a much better indicator of good or bad judgement than the conclusions themselves.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Less governmental interference, more governmental assistance
And I want to be able to eat more fattening foods yet lose weight. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Less governmental interference, more governmental assistance
And I want to be able to eat more fattening foods yet lose weight.
Ah yes, the new American Dream.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Government subsidized auto insurance? What for?
I tend to agree with mandated insurance. I've heard of too many cases of people getting totally screwed over by uninsured drivers. Even crappily insured drivers can do the same.
The best solution I've heard proposed for the uninsured driver problem is that liability insurance should be paid for with a user fee paid when you buy gasoline. That way everyone who had gasoline in their cars would have liability coverage, there would be no escaping it. All other attempts to force people to have liability insurance fail. Insurance is so expensive for high risk drivers that there is an enormous incentive for them to cheat the system and plenty of ways for them to do it. Forcing people to buy their insurance at a fix rate per gallon of gasoline would guarantee that every driver on the road had liability insurance.
People would still have to buy collision and comprehensive coverage on their own if they desired it, but there would be no way for them to escape having liability coverage.
As a side advantage, this would make the expensive of insurance proportional to how much you drive. If you have a vehicle you only drive a few times a year, you would pay very little for insurance. Those people who drive a huge number of miles, would pay more.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I like it.
It would hit the poor rather hard, but it sounds extremely logical and reasonable on the surface.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The best solution I've heard proposed for the uninsured driver problem is that liability insurance should be paid for with a user fee paid when you buy gasoline.
What, you're going to force me to buy auto liability insurance to run my weedeater?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Less governmental interference, more governmental assistance
And I want to be able to eat more fattening foods yet lose weight.
Its certainly not that mutually exclusive.
I want government subsidized auto insurance so that there is more regulation. When the government requires you to have insurance they are basically giving auto insurance companies alot of elbow room for screwing people. Does the government require people to have health insurance? No they do not, and many people still use emergency rooms and then just don't pay the bill. The problem is almost at epidemic proportions in California where trauma centers are closing left and right because illegal immigrants use them.
Right now my parents pay my insurance because I could never afford it on my own right now, I have been in two fender benders in the 9 years I have been driving, and two speeding tickets. I am not amazing, but I am certainly not a bad driver.
The government can provide services for its citizenry without dictating what they MUST do within that system. Yes to making health care available to everyone, no to saying I must immunize my daughters against cervical cancer.
I took a semester of school at BYU and the price of health insurance was included in the tuition. At first I was annoyed but $90 for 3 months of coverage is REALLY nice TBH.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The best solution I've heard proposed for the uninsured driver problem is that liability insurance should be paid for with a user fee paid when you buy gasoline.
What, you're going to force me to buy auto liability insurance to run my weedeater?
Buy an electric one. It's easier to use, and cheaper to run.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
An electric weedeater works fine when you're living on a 1/4 acre plot, and that's what I owned and used when that's what I had.
But an electric weedeater is almost useless for my needs now.
I also need to use petrochemicals for my lawn mower, tiller, and chain saw.
Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
I go to college while working as a delivery driver, and I put anywhere from 60-90 miles on my car during work alone (whatever, I know some people drive more than that every day, but in the summer when I work full-time, I drive a ton, and gas is expensive enough as it is). I've never been in an accident and have a degree from a driving school (not that either of those really matter in the eyes of an insurance company), being 21, unmarried and all that other crap, my insurance cost is pretty high.
I wonder which method would be cheaper for me. In my mind, anything that's going to hit the poor or the working class seems bad; we have it hard enough as it is.
I think your idea is novel and fair from a perspective that the people who drive more are statistically more likely to be involved in an accident, but if it does hurt the poor or cut into my ability to make ends meet on an already tight budget, I will be decidedly against it.
Let's not forget that some people simply can't afford a car that gets good gas mileage. For example, I have a '92 Dodge Caravan (things durable as all hell) and gets about 22 mpg going 60 on the freeway. Sure, your plan might promote the use of hybrids, but not everyone has that kind of luxury. There is no way I can afford another car, and it is unlikely I will be able to any time soon. And I know there are lot of other people out there, especially in the lower income bracket, that have one maybe two old automobiles that get poor gas mileage, so your plan will hit them extra hard.
Ah yes, issues (no particular order):
1. Equal marriage rights. 2. Decreasing deficit spending (breaking the Iron Triangle might be a good place to start). 3. Pork Barrel Spending/ Earmarks (I'm glad to see there's an effort being made in congress to address this problem, and I hope it helps). 4. Education (as this directly impacts my life now and the career I may be going into, plus the lives of my potential children). 5. Pro Stem cell research.
Like many others, I do not know what to do about the war on terror. I have come to accept it as something we will be dealing with for a long time to come, and I hope we have the patience and will to do the right thing, whatever that happens to be. Stay or leave, I'm not sure. How to stay or leave? not sure.
[ March 13, 2007, 05:07 AM: Message edited by: DevilDreamt ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The best solution I've heard proposed for the uninsured driver problem is that liability insurance should be paid for with a user fee paid when you buy gasoline.
What, you're going to force me to buy auto liability insurance to run my weedeater?
If Rabbit is talking about the proposal I read about a few years back (which I cannot find because I don't recall what the proposal was called or whose it was), there was a suggestion for dealing with gas usage for mowers, etc. IIRC, the idea was to have you keep the receipts and claim the difference back come tax time.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Why in the world would a married, 28 year old man who drives a compact sedan want to pay the same premium for auto insurance as a 16 year old kid with an old Camero Z28?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If Rabbit is talking about the proposal I read about a few years back (which I cannot find because I don't recall what the proposal was called or whose it was), there was a suggestion for dealing with gas usage for mowers, etc. IIRC, the idea was to have you keep the receipts and claim the difference back come tax time.
That's a pretty clever way of taxing people while pretending you're not, since most people won't bother to keep and file those receipts.
Brilliant! Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let me just say that I think it makes a lot of sense to tack on extra costs onto the price of gasoline. The amount of commercial gasoline that goes into such things as weedeaters and chainsaws dwindles into insignificance in comparison to that used for automobiles.
I thing that more of the taxes that go to maintaining roadways, highways, and interstates should come directly from gasoline taxes.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
On the surface, a gas tax (or "user fee for driving") to pay for liability insurance doesn't seem like that bad of an idea. We already use just such a user fee to pay for the roads (in theory anyway) and it lives up to the purpose of government, protecting us from force and fraud (even if it's accidental force)
Those who skip out on paying for their liability insurance already would be forced to pay. That includes illegals, kids who don't know better, adults who don't know better, people who know better but don't care, and even people driving on a suspended license. There would be no more tickets for driving without insurance cuz, you'd have it. There would be no more Uninsured Motorist insurance, because everyone who buys gas would be insured. And if you're too poor to carry Uninsured Motorist Insurance, you'd never again have to worry about getting hit by someone who doesn't have insurance and can't or won't pay.
I really hate the idea that we have to have liability insurance by law but I think we're stuck with it. One's car is just too expensive (and that's assuming no injuries!) to let someone smash it up and get away without fixing it.
I DO have some concerns, though.
It's yet another government program. And the government sucks at pretty much anything it does. I'm afraid it will be full of fraud and waste even more so than our current corrupt and bloated auto insurance system is. Further it violates the "Phone book" rule of government. That is, if you can find someone in the phone book who does it, the government shouldn't be involved.
Also, it's yet another hidden fee. The more you spread out and hide taxes and fees the easier it is to raise them and the easier it is to nickle and dime people to death. Take Witholding for example. People tend to proudly proclaim "I got $500 back this year!" instead of "Holy *#%@! I paid $30K in taxes this year! And Social Security on top of that!"
Pix
PS: How much gas does your weedwhacker REALLY use??
(edit: I took a long time typing this because of work interruptions. MPH beat me to a couple of points)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There would be no more Uninsured Motorist insurance, because everyone who buys gas would be insured.
Except for those crazy freaks who drive electric or biodiesel. *eyes Joe*
quote:How much gas does your weedwhacker REALLY use??
Compared to how much gas I use in my van? Almost zero.
quote: MPH beat me to a couple of points
*tries to be a gracious winner* Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
MPH: Winner? I sorta got the impression we were on the same side on this one. =)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
No, Pixiest, the correct response is "It's not a race. "
(note the position of the smiley and the quotation mark)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I stand corrected =)
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Can someone answer my question? It's probably so obvious that I'm not seeing it, but it appears to me as though under the gas tax/insurance system suggested, the only thing that affects how much you pay is how much gas you use. This seems as silly as mandating national health care and rolling the taxes into your groceries.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Actually, that makes sense. If you use more gas, you're generally driving move, which means there's a greater chance that you'll get involved in an accident.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Why in the world would a married, 28 year old man who drives a compact sedan want to pay the same premium for auto insurance as a 16 year old kid with an old Camero Z28?
Why would he want to, or why should he? Most likely he would not want to. And in point of fact he wouldn't -- the compact is probably far more fuel-efficient than the old Camaro. Quite likely his driving habits are more fuel-efficient as well.
As someone who studied for the actuarial tests, I hear your point. However, the simple fact is that one of the most important questions insurance companies take into account now when calculating your rate for liability insurance is the number of miles you drive per year. This proposal simply makes it the only thing -- but just for liability insurance. You would still get a different rate than our theoretical teenager on the remaining types of car insurance (should you choose to buy them).
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Let me just say that I think it makes a lot of sense to tack on extra costs onto the price of gasoline. The amount of commercial gasoline that goes into such things as weedeaters and chainsaws dwindles into insignificance in comparison to that used for automobiles.
Precisely, and I neglected to make this point earlier, in my hurry to get out the door.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:There would be no more Uninsured Motorist insurance, because everyone who buys gas would be insured.
Except for those crazy freaks who drive electric or biodiesel. *eyes Joe*
Good question. Is my insurance free then?
(To be honest, it's so cheap it might as well be, compared to the car.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I like it.
It would hit the poor rather hard, but it sounds extremely logical and reasonable on the surface.
Since the poor are currently required to carry liability insurance if they drive, I don't see why it would hit them hard. Unless poor people are currently paying less than average for liability insurance (and I sincerely doubt that is the case) or the poor use more gas than average, they ought to come out about even.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm all about healthcare reform.
I'd have 'iraq' as an issue too, but it's not like anything I could vote on would fix it. alas.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I like it.
It would hit the poor rather hard, but it sounds extremely logical and reasonable on the surface.
Since the poor are currently required to carry liability insurance if they drive, I don't see why it would hit them hard. Unless poor people are currently paying less than average for liability insurance (and I sincerely doubt that is the case) or the poor use more gas than average, they ought to come out about even.
Do all states currently require liability insurance for drivers?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
One thing that I'm in favor of that I don't recall seeing mentioned in this thread is election reform. Right before the midterm elections, there was a ton of controversy about flaws in the voting system, especially the closed source and seemingly insecure voting machines. Unfortunately, this seems to have very much died down since then.
The problem is, this is the time that we need to be making those changes. We can't just bring up these issues a month or so before an election and expect anything to be done about it. Any sort of real change has to take place during this gap between elections, and it would be a shame if we waited until the next election to start caring again.
Posted by Rotar Mode (Member # 9898) on :
Better government accountability, and less censorship and government control in the media.
Posted by PrometheusBound (Member # 10020) on :
I don't have one issue, but my big ones are:
*Equal marriage rights *Easier immigration, along the lines of recent Argentine reforms *A total abolition of Capital punishment *An end to tariffs *A more equitable policy for the Middle East
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I like it.
It would hit the poor rather hard, but it sounds extremely logical and reasonable on the surface.
Since the poor are currently required to carry liability insurance if they drive, I don't see why it would hit them hard. Unless poor people are currently paying less than average for liability insurance (and I sincerely doubt that is the case) or the poor use more gas than average, they ought to come out about even.
Do all states currently require liability insurance for drivers?
Good question. I thought that was something that the federal government had forced on all states by threatening to withhold federal highway funds. I did a search and couldn't find any states that don't require liability insurance but also couldn't find any definitive answer to the question.
I sort of figured that liability insurance attached as a user fee to gasoline prices should be handled by states rather than the feds anyway. This would work fine in the western states which are all large enough that few people buy their gas in a neighboring state. It could be much more problematic in some of the smaller east coast where people commonly commute across state lines. I suspect that there would have to be some sort of reciprocity agreement in those states which would work out fine if the user fee was set at nearly the same value in neighboring states.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
My statement about hitting the poor, was that if this was instituted nationwide, especially in states that have no mandated liability insurnace, then it would be a sudden, new, jolt to the budgets of the poor.
In Michigan it's the LAW that you have to have coverage. You can get a ticket for not presenting it whenever you're pulled over. You can have the crappiest coverage in the world, but you have to have something. It wouldn't be so bad here. As a new cost to other states, I think it would come as a dramatic shock to the poor.
But, I don't know what states do and don't have coverage mandated. I'm positive that it isn't federally mandated, nor do I think it should be. That's a state issue, and I hate it when the Fed blackmails the states into doing things they don't have the legal right to do.
I wonder how many people really cross state lines THAT much. I live maybe 25 minutes north of the state line from Ohio. If, (arbitrarily I say this), a new liability gas tax were to be an extra 40 cents on top of what we spend now, that'd be 4 dollars extra for me to fill my tank, and 8 for my parents each, whose cars have bigger tanks. Driving the 25 minutes down and back would almost be worth it for their cars, but not for mine. I don't know how it works in the eastern states, I imagine their governments would work to create a single liability rate so none of them could cheat the others.
What really sucks is out of state visitors. I'd think this would harm tourism. Why should visitors from Ohio or anywhere else have to pay into Michigan's liability fund? The only way I could think of to solve that would be to make it so people have to swipe their driver's license through the card reader thing, and if you're from out of state, you get the out of state rate. But that sounds complicated. I know I'd think twice before visiting a state with a major gas price bump, if I could avoid it I would.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
1. Abortion I personally do not believe in abortion. I would not condone it, but I don't think it is my right to tell anyone else not to. My mom nearly aborted me and I am glad she didn't. My wife had an abortion before we met. I do not hold it against her, but I know she still hurts emotionally from that.
2. Gay Marriage I am a straight, married guy. This also does not pertain to me. I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman, but I have no problem with a civil untion. A "unioned" couple should get many of the same benifits as a "married" couple (insurance coverage, next of kin rights, etc.).
3. Stem-Cell Research I don't like the idea of taking aborted babies stem cells. But I am a healthy person with four healthy kids and a healthy spouse. I do not need (at least yet) the possible benifits of stem cell research. A good friend of mine has Osteogenisis Imperfecta (brittle bone disease). There could be huge benifits for him. How can I tell him "no, you may not use science to better your life". My concern is, if it is allowed, there will undoubtedly be people who "farm" fetuses. That is scary to me.
4. Large Government I HATE taxes, but we have to have them. I have a sister who received government assistance. I hate how the system is designed to keep people repressed. When she received a $0.25 raise, her benifits went down $100/month. She was actually worse off after the raise. How do you fix that?
5. Immegration (Legal and Illegal) Allow everyone who wants to come her, come. The only catch... do it legally. I am not an American Indian, therefore, I am an immagrant too. I have a better life here than I would of in Ireland, Switzerland, Germany (I'm a mut). I do not want anyone here illegally. Everyone else has to follow the rules. Why should we allow someones first act in our country be an illegal act. No amnesty either.
6. War in Iraq However we got there, we are there. The troops deserve our support and we cannot show the enemy we are so divided. This really makes me mad.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
brojack: regarding, your number four, economists tend to like approaches where every increase in income decreases benefits by somewhere in the range of 25 to 50 percent.
As for your number six, you might consider two things: one, most of our terrorist enemies hate us in general, and view us all in much the same way. Why should they care if we're debating issues? Two, most of the people who aren't directly our enemies, but are potential enemies, have problems with us precisely because they view us as much the same (godless, greedy, consumerist, et cetera); wouldn't emphasizing how we are not all of the same mind undermine their conception of us? On the first sentence, I agree. We have a responsibility to the citizens of Iraq to rebuild their country to a reasonable state before departing.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I would not condone it, but I don't think it is my right to tell anyone else not to [have an abortion]. [...] I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman, but I have no problem with a civil untion.
I don't quite understand this. You say you don't think you have the right to tell anyone they can't have an abortion, but the same logic doesn't apply to your view on gay marriage (in that gay couples should have separate-but-equal civil unions). Can you please explain this to me? I see this as rather contradictory thinking, but I'd rather hear your thoughts than leap to conclusions. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
"Marriage" as a religious institution shouldn't be legislatd, I believe. Giving all of the secular LEGAL benefits to a couple of any gender should be equal, and I think that's what brojack is saying. He's not telling anyone they can't have all the benefits of marriage.
So far as naming, I wouldn't even have a problem calling it marriage, so long as the state doesn't try (I don't see how they could) to make priests, pastors, etc perform ceremonies for same sex couples.
To too many people the word marriage is religious, and I can't say I blame them given the history of the institution.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: "Marriage" as a religious institution shouldn't be legislatd, I believe. Giving all of the secular LEGAL benefits to a couple of any gender should be equal, and I think that's what brojack is saying. He's not telling anyone they can't have all the benefits of marriage.
Ah, see, that makes sense to me, and I agree. I'm totally for gay marriage, but I am completely against any federal intervention in religious marriage matters, including forcing churches to perform ceremonies or things of that nature if they do not wish to.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Kleenex. The off-brands are sometimes too dusty.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If "marriage" is a religious term (and I agree that it could be) then the government shouldn't be marrying people.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: brojack: regarding, your number four, economists tend to like approaches where every increase in income decreases benefits by somewhere in the range of 25 to 50 percent.
As for your number six, you might consider two things: one, most of our terrorist enemies hate us in general, and view us all in much the same way. Why should they care if we're debating issues? Two, most of the people who aren't directly our enemies, but are potential enemies, have problems with us precisely because they view us as much the same (godless, greedy, consumerist, et cetera); wouldn't emphasizing how we are not all of the same mind undermine their conception of us? On the first sentence, I agree. We have a responsibility to the citizens of Iraq to rebuild their country to a reasonable state before departing.
It is frustrating for her to work hard (really for the first time in her life) and end up with less than she had before. I tend to agree. The system does not seem to be setup to get people off of assistance.
Iraq: I don't know what the right answer is. I just hate that our troops and enemies see and hear so much negativity coming from the US. My brother-in-law is in the military and I hate to think of what he is going to go through when he is deployed next year. Then to hear news from back home about how the country is so divided on what he is doing. This troubles me.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I would not condone it, but I don't think it is my right to tell anyone else not to [have an abortion]. [...] I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman, but I have no problem with a civil untion.
I don't quite understand this. You say you don't think you have the right to tell anyone they can't have an abortion, but the same logic doesn't apply to your view on gay marriage (in that gay couples should have separate-but-equal civil unions). Can you please explain this to me? I see this as rather contradictory thinking, but I'd rather hear your thoughts than leap to conclusions.
I think it is the old school part of me that just will not let go. I hate the phrase "seperate-but-equal" (because it never is), but yes I have no issue with gay couples having a legal union that gives them every right that my wife and I have. I think it's because I had such an ultra-conservative upbringing that I can't let go and call it a marriage.
Anyway, that's my thought.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I think the country is very divided on when to end the war, but that the whole of the country supports the troops, wants them to have adequate funding so they can remain protected, and also wants them to return home safely. But I agree that it must be very difficult for morale to know that half the country is against having them there in Iraq.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
jh, I think that most of the country does support the troops (I think we learned our lesson from Vietnam), but the news sounds so negative. Also, I don't think the Democrats are showing much support. *wince* here comes the storm.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: If "marriage" is a religious term (and I agree that it could be) then the government shouldn't be marrying people.
Agreed. I think there should be a single secular entity, call it whatever you want, that everyone should be able to partake in, and if people choose to take the next step and have a religious ceremony and union, then they may do so.
The legal benefits of marriage weren't conferred by the bible (or whichever religious tome you choose), they are all given by the state, thus it seems ridiculous to protect them from same sex couple on religious grounds.
That would be equal for all in the eyes of the law.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I think strong crypto that can be privately owned is pretty important. I don't think it's the most important thing, but it's in my top ten, for sure.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Crypto? Are you talking about computer safety?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I would not condone it, but I don't think it is my right to tell anyone else not to [have an abortion]. [...] I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman, but I have no problem with a civil untion.
I don't quite understand this. You say you don't think you have the right to tell anyone they can't have an abortion, but the same logic doesn't apply to your view on gay marriage (in that gay couples should have separate-but-equal civil unions). Can you please explain this to me? I see this as rather contradictory thinking, but I'd rather hear your thoughts than leap to conclusions.
I think it is the old school part of me that just will not let go. I hate the phrase "seperate-but-equal" (because it never is), but yes I have no issue with gay couples having a legal union that gives them every right that my wife and I have. I think it's because I had such an ultra-conservative upbringing that I can't let go and call it a marriage.
Anyway, that's my thought.
That's what I thought you meant, but I was curious to hear you say it.
The truth is, while I am in favor of gay marriage, I think this is a reasonable compromise. If what conservatives are hung up on is semantics, then maybe this "civil union" bit would work. The trouble is that conservatives are definitely not looking for a compromise as long as they can pass constitutional amendments like the one in kansas that did not just ban gay marriage, it banned all civil unions.
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I would not condone it, but I don't think it is my right to tell anyone else not to [have an abortion]. [...] I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman, but I have no problem with a civil untion.
I don't quite understand this. You say you don't think you have the right to tell anyone they can't have an abortion, but the same logic doesn't apply to your view on gay marriage (in that gay couples should have separate-but-equal civil unions). Can you please explain this to me? I see this as rather contradictory thinking, but I'd rather hear your thoughts than leap to conclusions.
I think it is the old school part of me that just will not let go. I hate the phrase "seperate-but-equal" (because it never is), but yes I have no issue with gay couples having a legal union that gives them every right that my wife and I have. I think it's because I had such an ultra-conservative upbringing that I can't let go and call it a marriage.
Anyway, that's my thought.
That's what I thought you meant, but I was curious to hear you say it.
The truth is, while I am in favor of gay marriage, I think this is a reasonable compromise. If what conservatives are hung up on is semantics, then maybe this "civil union" bit would work. The trouble is that conservatives are definitely not looking for a compromise as long as they can pass constitutional amendments like the one in kansas that did not just ban gay marriage, it banned all civil unions.
Yeah, I have a problem with that. My parents, and church, believe homosexuality is an illness and all homosexuals are pedophiles, etc. (I'm sure you have heard it all before). I just chose not to believe that way. That is one thing that bothers me most about organized religion. People just believe the person that is behind the pulpit. I prefer to listen, research, then formulate my own opinion.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Crypto? Are you talking about computer safety?
Privacy, baby.
Posted by Fed Law (Member # 10319) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: 5. Tax equality -- I want to see the rich pay their fair share
I'm curious, who do you think pays taxes in the U.S. now?
The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 30-35% of the total income taxes each year.
The top 5% of taxpayers pay about 50% of the total income taxes each year.
The top 50% of taxpayers pay about 95% of the total income taxes each year.
The bottom 50% of tax payers pay the remaining 5%. Many taxpayers in the bottom 50% pay no taxes at all; some "pay" negative taxes, getting a refund even though they pay no income tax.
Trust fund taxes are also paid on a progressive basis. Property taxes are paid mostly by those in the higher income brackets (because they are more likely to own taxable property, and their property is likely to be worth more).
The only truly regressive tax in the U.S. are the sales taxes imposed in most states. You could make an argument that things like the federal gasoline tax or "sin" taxes are also regressive in effect. Are you saying that you want to repeal sales taxes and the gasoline tax?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The only truly regressive tax in the U.S. are the sales taxes imposed in most states.
Not true. The payroll taxes for social security and medicare are regressive - especially social security, which is only assessed on the first 90k or so of wages. They're not assessed at all on many other forms of income, most of which go dispoportionately to those earning more.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
SS: so long as you don't mind crypto that will "only" take a few dozen to a hundred years to crack, strong crypto is perfectly available to US citizens. Heck, you might well use it nearly every day, depending on what sites you surf and if you use (Open)PGP. AES is publically available as well as being acceptable for encrypting TOP SECRET material (provided the key length is either 192 or 256).
It is exporting strong crypto that's illegal.
Posted by Fed Law (Member # 10319) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The only truly regressive tax in the U.S. are the sales taxes imposed in most states.
Not true. The payroll taxes for social security and medicare are regressive - especially social security, which is only assessed on the first 90k or so of wages. They're not assessed at all on many other forms of income, most of which go dispoportionately to those earning more.
Those would be trust fund taxes, and they are not regressive. They are not as progressive as the basic income tax system, but they still are taxed using a progressive system - those with high incomes pay a higher percentage of their income than those with lower incomes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Those would be trust fund taxes,
You said "only truly regressive tax in the U.S." Besides, lacking any kind of legal guarantee, they are not trust fund taxes. The trust fund is a legal fiction.
quote:and they are not regressive. They are not as progressive as the basic income tax system, but they still are taxed using a progressive system - those with high incomes pay a higher percentage of their income than those with lower incomes.
Social security taxes are collected at a 6.2% rate for all wages and self-employment income up to 97,500. The rate after 97,500 is 0%. Medicare taxes are collected at a rate of 1.45% for all wages and self-employment income.
The only way these taxes are progressive is if one factors the entire EITC into the calculation, and there's no particular reason to be applying anything beyond the maximum $412 credit to payroll taxes.
If one does that, then the effective payroll tax rate at 10,000 is 3.53%. It increases to 7.23% at 97,500, then plummets above that.
The effective rate is higher for 80,000 than 100,000 (7.14% v. 7.09%). The effective rate is higher for 60,000 than 110,000 (6.96% v. 6.59%). The effective rate is higher for 20,000 than 140,000 (5.59% v. 5.53%).
For all wages above $290,000, the rate is lower than for wages below $10,000.
How is that progressive?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: You forgot employer matching (which you have to pay both sides if you're self employed) which makes SS even more oppressive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Employer matching is much harder to calculate - the $97,500 limit applies per employer and there's no EITC offset. It doesn't change the final outcome, though it does change the actual numbers.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fed Law: . . . some "pay" negative taxes, getting a refund even though they pay no income tax.
For whom is this true? (I mean, what are the circumstances behind this?) I have not heard of this. My father lives off of Social Security and pays no taxes, but he does not get a refund either.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are some permutations of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) that result in negative income tax paid. Check out the wiki article on it for more detail. The intent was to provide assistance to those in poverty while not reducing incentive to work.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The thing about the Earned INcome Tax Credit is that you can only get it if you did have an income that and are not living with anyone else who is supporting you.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: SS: so long as you don't mind crypto that will "only" take a few dozen to a hundred years to crack, strong crypto is perfectly available to US citizens. Heck, you might well use it nearly every day, depending on what sites you surf and if you use (Open)PGP. AES is publically available as well as being acceptable for encrypting TOP SECRET material (provided the key length is either 192 or 256).
It is exporting strong crypto that's illegal.
I wasn't speaking of how things exist now.
There have been any number of proposals to weaken the ability of the general public's access to strong cryptography and/or to give law enforcement back doors.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by brojack17:
quote:Originally posted by Hitoshi:
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: I would not condone it, but I don't think it is my right to tell anyone else not to [have an abortion]. [...] I believe "marriage" should be between a man and woman, but I have no problem with a civil untion.
I don't quite understand this. You say you don't think you have the right to tell anyone they can't have an abortion, but the same logic doesn't apply to your view on gay marriage (in that gay couples should have separate-but-equal civil unions). Can you please explain this to me? I see this as rather contradictory thinking, but I'd rather hear your thoughts than leap to conclusions.
I think it is the old school part of me that just will not let go. I hate the phrase "seperate-but-equal" (because it never is), but yes I have no issue with gay couples having a legal union that gives them every right that my wife and I have. I think it's because I had such an ultra-conservative upbringing that I can't let go and call it a marriage.
Anyway, that's my thought.
I thought so, gotchya. I still don't understand what the big deal is about calling it a marriage since that's just a name (one which I'll use, because if I'm a couple with another guy, I'm not going around saying I'm 'unionized,' that just sounds silly. I'll be married in my eyes and that's that.) Oh well, thanks for clarifying. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Fed Law:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: 5. Tax equality -- I want to see the rich pay their fair share
I'm curious, who do you think pays taxes in the U.S. now?
The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 30-35% of the total income taxes each year.
The top 5% of taxpayers pay about 50% of the total income taxes each year.
The top 50% of taxpayers pay about 95% of the total income taxes each year.
The bottom 50% of tax payers pay the remaining 5%. Many taxpayers in the bottom 50% pay no taxes at all; some "pay" negative taxes, getting a refund even though they pay no income tax.
Trust fund taxes are also paid on a progressive basis. Property taxes are paid mostly by those in the higher income brackets (because they are more likely to own taxable property, and their property is likely to be worth more).
The only truly regressive tax in the U.S. are the sales taxes imposed in most states. You could make an argument that things like the federal gasoline tax or "sin" taxes are also regressive in effect. Are you saying that you want to repeal sales taxes and the gasoline tax?
Add to that
The Top 1% of Americans own 38.1% of the wealth The Top 5% of Americans own 59.4 % of the wealth The top 60% of American own 99.7% of the wealth.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I support a FairTax. I'm fairly convinced it would work very well for the country, and I'd like to see it tried out. Perhaps they could start out by cutting payroll taxes by 25%, and institute 25% of the final tax they think would have to be created. Wait for things to stablize for a year, then go another 25%. I think doing it all at once would be a shock to the consumers.
It's not my biggest issue, but I think it deserves national attention.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
If some politician decided to make Daylight Savings a year round thing, I'd grouse for a bit (because I really do think the sun should rise in the morning and set in the evening), but I'd get over it.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
"![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)