posted
The "Gore/Richardson in '08?" thread got me to thinking a little bit. We'll be hearing more and more rumors of who will be running.
I'm wondering what are the top three issues that Hatrackers care about going into the 2008 presidential election? Secondly, I'm curious about the import of those issues vs. the candidate to you.
For example, say a politician agreed with and strongly emphasized your three major issues. However, in other areas he was often involved in scandals, or perhaps he supported something you were morally opposed to (but was not one of your Big Three) such as being for or against abortion. Would you support him anyway, because his cause is your cause, or would you rather vote for a person of more character, even if they pushed issues that you saw as relatively unimportant or even contrary to yours?
My three issues aren't particularly insightful and probably smack on being a bit populist, but I'll start since it seems like it's kind of Hatrack etiquette to voice your own ideas upon asking a question like this.
In order: 1) Energy independence for the United States (or preferrable a net energy producer) 2) Comprehensive immigration reform 3) Approach to handling the so-called War on Terror (including but not limited to the present Iraq conflict as well as civil liberties here at home)
As for the second, I'm still thinking about whom I would support: the issues guy or the character guy. If I chose the issues guy, I would worry that he might get away with illegal or unethical activies and that he would lose political capital that could have been used in getting some problems solved in defending himself. On the other hand, the other guy's integrity would mean that he could have an easier time of pushing for things I'm against.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Energy independence, managing our trade deficit more aggressively, and I guess immigration reform.
The first will get some press, but I don't have much hope beyond some empty rhetoric, the second no one likes to talk about, because it requires changes not only to things like mMedicare and Social Security, it also requires a rethinking of the War on Terror, amongst other things.
The latter will come to some sort of solution that will have our kids revisiting it in 20 years.
Additionally, there are other things that energy independence in the United States would do that would be a benefit. The environment is one example. Using alternative forms of energy for both cars and power generation (as we'd be forced to do to become energy independent), would presumably drastically reduce greenhouse emissions and airborn pollutants.
Also, I would think that investing heavily in the energy market could potentially have very positive economic effects.
I put it number one not only because of its importance as a stand alone issue, but also because of the other important effects that it has.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be wonderful if we could get energy independence in anyone's top three priorities. But it seems like a lot of people can't get the notion of its importance through the haze of celebrity drunk driving, the war in Iraq, the death of Steve Irwin, and so on. It just isn't flashy enough. (Never mind how our energy dependence relates to our conflicts with petroleum exporting countries.) And if it isn't getting that much play with a heatwave and gas at $3/gallon at the pump...?
That said, I like your three, Bao. Nothing wrong with being populist, don't let anyone tell you differently.
I just wish we could alter the tone on #3 to something other than the current "You're with us, or you want American children to get slaughtered by terrorists" theme.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like Bao's three, but I also care a lot about equal marriage rights and reproductive rights. If a politician were in line with the first three but wanted to define marriage as strictly between a man and a woman (I have NO problem with religions saying this - I wouldn't join a religion with this viewpoint, but people can do whatever they want, it's religion - but I think the government has no bidness defining marriage) or opposed a woman's right to choose, not only would I not vote for them, I would vote against them.
But yeah - immigration, energy, and Iraq are all huge for me.
Care about education too, but the issue isn't ripe yet - has to get worse before it'll get better. Same for the penal system. That's the problem with a great big diverse democracy instead of a smaller more homegenous one (like Switzerland!) - it has to be REALLY broken before it gets fixed.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having lived overseas I've seen first hand that foreign policy DRASTICALLY effects those people in big and small ways. My list
1)Energy Independance 2) Effective direction of our people overseas 3)Immigration Reform (Specifically greater avenues for immigrants to be granted citizenships based on positive activity.
I agree James that our foreign policy would be greatly enhanced and easier if we had better energy dependance. Relying on the Middle East is a mistake right now. 1: Its just too unstable, 2:Oil unlike diamonds are not forever. I by no means think we are almost out of oil, I personally think there is TONS that we could either A: find, or B: develop affordable techniquest to mine it. But there ARE alternate fuels that are cleaner, safer, and most importantly more efficient.
I don't want to write about #2. It would just take a VERY long time, and I am not entirely sure where I want it, but I do know there are smart people who know we could be doing better and how to fix the situation.
I personally think we miss out on a HUGE resource when it comes to immigration. Immigrants bring unique skills to the table and MANY of them come here after college when their potential is at their peak. We let them get their higher education here and because its so hard for them to stay after they get their higher degrees they go back to their country where they at best help their country instead of us, or at worst have their abilities wasted.
The majority of immigrants within 1-2 generations become financial stable and positively effect the US's economy. We have SO much space here to spare, when we reach a population of about 750 million, THEN I would start to restrict immigration.
I think marriage reform would be in my top 10, but not my top 3. If there was a #4 on my list it would be
#4 Education Reform. And I mean BIG reform. Alot more money in the system, and much more economical assistance for students and parents who send their kids to college.
The value of effective education almost CANNOT be overestimated IMO. I think the US is starting to lag behind other countries, and its purely a matter of there just isnt enough money to get the facilities schools need to improve the situation.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm gonna have an outsider look at these to pass the time before my gym appointment this morning. Don't care if anyone reads my post of not.
(In no particular order)
1. Education: I don't believe in publicly funded college tuition. The public school system is pretty crappy, IMO, and by its very public status has to cater to the lowest common denominator to be fair. Any point in elementary or high school in the public system, all a student (with their hopefully supportive family)has to do is work hard, and get themselves a scholarship for a private education institution. Then they're out. And anyone can do this (or should be able to if the public school system worked like it can and should.)
Recently, however, the public school system has been demanding more and more money to get bigger and better service provision to rise above this lowest common denominator position. And what this does is put the public sector in competition with the private sector. But someone give me one good reason to justify the public sector having government-granted advantages to compete with the private sector?
College of course, is the very last level of primary schooling there is. If a person can't get themselves a scholarship, they havn't earnt the right to go to University, IMO. There are of course exceptions where the government should help people go to University, but what BlackBlade, and anyone in support of public Universities seem to be advocation, is that availability for this height of education should be a broadly available as possible.
Bottom line: Make it as competitive as practical.
2. Energy Independence: Shouldn't the rising cost and depleting resources of petroleum make this the perfect time for private companies to start investing in alternative energy sources???
Oh wait, they are. From the biggest Oil Companies, now labelling themselves "Energy Companies" and going as far as sponsoring Solar Car racing, to start up companies specialising in any alternative you can think of.
So how about, instead of complaining that the government isn't making energy isn't affordable enough, help speed along this change (which would be beneficial in so many ways) and turn to these alternatives. Sure, they're more expensive now, but with such a huge market shifting to them away from oil, it won't take long to fix this whole damn issue.
Then there's what I've seen countless times when petrol prices do come down. People go out and stock up on it. Funny complaining about a non-renewable resource being too expensive when the same complainers go and buy more the second it gets cheaper.
Bottom line: Stop expecting the government to fix energy problems.
3. War On Terror: And that's exactly what it is. It has nothing to do with oil prices or resources. I don't have much to say about this. I think the US is doing quite a good job in the Middle East.
4. Trade Deficit and Shrinking Government: The FairTax, as Presidential Candidate John Cox (and Australia by default) would implement it would fix both these problems.
The more popular version at the moment for the FairTax is a simple, flat 23% inclusive sales tax on all retail goods to replace all other Federal taxes except maybe excise taxes (though I, personally, would get rid of them too.) and a paid-in-advance payment for each registered household in the country to cover the tax cost of neccessities (as set by the already existing national poverty guidelines).
But what John Cox recently pointed out to me was that if the payroll tax were transferred to become a mandatory privatised personal superannuation contribution, the FairTax rate would be lower, the government would be smaller, more people would fund their own retirements, and that money would sit as investment in the private sector rather than government coffers.
Australia already has a mandatory superannuation contribution system in place, giving us the second lowest tax burden in the G-20 (Japan being 1st, USA being 3rd).
And what would the rest of the FairTax do? For a start, every shopper in the country would see just how much the governments only major tax cost them, and class warfare (or any other warfare for that matter) would no longer play a part in justifying the size of government. Everyone would just want it smaller.
Secondly, with all taxes formerly discouraging investment (including the income tax, a tax on human capital) gone, the gap would become significantly smaller. Also take into account the US Dollar is the most reliable, trabeable currency in the world, and the US has among the best business infrastructure and spendthrift consumers in the world, the trade deficit would become a surplus mighty quick, IMO.
5. Equal marriage rights: What is so wrong with basing society around the family? And no, male-male-child/ren and female-female-child/ren don't count. You need a male a female to create those kids. It's worked best for centuries to have a male a female be the preferential set to raise kids, what exactly has changed?
6. Immigration reform: What I think would help the US is letting in only skilled immigrants. Most Americans I've talked to seem to be under the impression that more people make a better economy. I'm assuming this assumption comes from two things.
Firstly, that America was created by generation after generation of immigrants. But those immigrants were the types that had lots and lots of kids. There was never an unreasonable amount of non-working seniors expecting to reply on too small a number of young, working Americans. But now, the majority of your immigrants don't have the birthrates they used to. And it certainly wouldn't be fair to put in place immigration quotas based on national birthrates.
Second is that consumption is always good. It's a consumer economy, so more consumers can only be a good thing. But too many dollars chasing too few goods and services causes inflation, so where is the logic here?
And one final thing. Who in this forum actually thinks the best way to deal with annoying neighbours is by putting up a giant fence and ignoring them?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, that's amazing, I can't believe I disagree with someone so much pretty much across the board.
quote: 1. Education: I don't believe in publicly funded college tuition. The public school system is pretty crappy, IMO, and by its very public status has to cater to the lowest common denominator to be fair.
Education would have made it onto my top 10 list, but it would be to improve it drastically rather than lower it to the point of least common denominator. All of society benefits from more educated members.
quote: 2. Energy Independence: Shouldn't the rising cost and depleting resources of petroleum make this the perfect time for private companies to start investing in alternative energy sources???
Bottom line: Stop expecting the government to fix energy problems.
Energy is a national concern, just like defense. To pretend it is just a corporate concern is simplistic. If we pumped the last drop of oil tomorrow, imagine the economic and social chaos that would result. How would crops be harvested or food delivered? How would people cool their homes in the summer heat waves? How would you get to work? How would where you work get supplies? Now tell me why that's not a concern that the government should be involved in?
quote: 3. War On Terror: And that's exactly what it is. It has nothing to do with oil prices or resources. I don't have much to say about this. I think the US is doing quite a good job in the Middle East.
I consider myself a fairly conservative fellow in a lot of ways, and I completely disagree that our conflict in Iraq has nothing to do with oil. This isn't the place to get into it, but I hate the terms War on Terror, War on Poverty, War on Crime, etc. You cannot make war against these abstract ideas. You make war against people. I'm not convinced at all that a long term solution to terrorism is being worked through Iraq.
quote: Immigration reform: What I think would help the US is letting in only skilled immigrants. Most Americans I've talked to seem to be under the impression that more people make a better economy. I'm assuming this assumption comes from two things.
And one final thing. Who in this forum actually thinks the best way to deal with annoying neighbours is by putting up a giant fence and ignoring them? [/QB]
Give us your rich and educated, eh? I think we still could provide opportunity for many more immigrants than we currently have and they in turn can play an important role in this country. My complaint is how the policies are currently implemented (or not implemented, depending on which portion of an immigration policy is being discussed). However, I completely agree with you about the fence.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Education would have made it onto my top 10 list, but it would be to improve it drastically rather than lower it to the point of least common denominator. All of society benefits from more educated members.
Just to be clear, "lowest common denominator" probably sounds more like "teach everyone what the kids in special education are learning", but I was thinking more along the lines of the basics: e.g. Reading, Writing and Arythmatic being the main focus in the earlier years... and stop trying to fit in everyones (incluidng the teachers) little pet projects.
Justify Sex Ed being taught by the government rather than parents. Justify students being taught to think of all literature as race, sex, class year after year after year. Justify the pointless tests in place. Justify the "no child left behind" policy".
Bring it back to basics. Leave it to the private sector to compete for the teaching of specialty education, as earned by scholarships.
quote:Energy is a national concern, just like defense. To pretend it is just a corporate concern is simplistic. If we pumped the last drop of oil tomorrow, imagine the economic and social chaos that would result. How would crops be harvested or food delivered? How would people cool their homes in the summer heat waves? How would you get to work? How would where you work get supplies? Now tell me why that's not a concern that the government should be involved in?
Did I say they should stop using oil altogether? No. I made the argument that the energy industry would become a hell of a lot healthier and more affordable if people would just lay off oil a bit, and give the other stuff a chance in spite of their present price disadvantages.
quote:I consider myself a fairly conservative fellow in a lot of ways, and I completely disagree that our conflict in Iraq has nothing to do with oil. This isn't the place to get into it, but I hate the terms War on Terror, War on Poverty, War on Crime, etc. You cannot make war against these abstract ideas. You make war against people. I'm not convinced at all that a long term solution to terrorism is being worked through Iraq.
From a political point of view, Iraq was the only chance in hell the US had of continuing to implement democracy and overthrow crazy Islamic extremist regimes. And I'm sure you'd have moved on a lot sooner if the majority of the international community hadn't been so selfish about helping out.
quote:Give us your rich and educated, eh? I think we still could provide opportunity for many more immigrants than we currently have and they in turn can play an important role in this country. My complaint is how the policies are currently implemented (or not implemented, depending on which portion of an immigration policy is being discussed).
Oh skills doesn't just have to be rich and educated. They just have to be capable of doing useful jobs, like working in simpler positions (like at a vineyard) where there's a domestic jobs shortage.
You should be giving job preference to citizens first, then skilled legal immigrants, and never to illegal immigrants simply because their cheaper. What exactly is the point of the rest? So they can live off your welfare system, primarily funded by the uber rich, or doing completely redundant work?
Most importantly, you need to make it easier to immigrate to America legally. And you should need to get serious with the Mexican government about their screwed up immigration laws if they expect to continue defending illegal Mexican immigrants to the US.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BaoQingTian: Sorry for double posting, but I did it to keep things simpler.
Irami-Criminal justice system is on the top 5 for me. What specifically did you have in mind for that, as well as education?
Blackblade-What do you mean by your #2, and why is it so important?
Sorry I meant to go back and reword that
#2 Foreign Policy, specifically our policies regarding most countries in the Middle East and China.
Edit: We are in a HUGE mess in the middle east, regardless of whether or not you agree with the reasons we ended up there. If I saw a stable Iraq (even if it rises out of the dust of civil war) a stable Afghanistan, I would be happy if we acheived that in the next 4 years.
If we brokered peace between Israel and Palestine, convinced Syria to stop sponsering Terrorism and become Pakistan the sequal (In that regard), AND persuaded Iran to stop seeking nuclear weapons (I personally think their talk of nuclear power is a bunch of crap) and accept European proposals for building nuclear plants for them, I would call the administration that accomplished it possibly the BEST one in American history (for sure the best in foreign policy).
Double Edit: I think its a double standard to refuse to accept Iran's oil because of the nature of the regime, but we do so much business in China. I accept that China is a wonderful country, full of wonderful people. I LOVE the Chinese people. But the government stiffles them far too much, and they are still a VERY viable threat to the international community if they are riled up the right way.
The current Chinese govt covets power far more than is healthy IMO. If it does not have empirical ambitions, it would be QUITE EASY for it to, once it consolidates its forces, start cultivating such ambitions.
China needs more of the international spot light on them. We have TONS of articles about its economical prosperity and the leadership basks in that, it keeps them in power. Keep exposing the human rights problems and it embarrasses them into changing.
posted
Blackblade, Ah, I see, thank you. I thought it was about our diplomats living abroad or something like that and was really scratching my head on how it was a major issue for you. Thanks for clearing it up.
Cheiros de ender, Thanks for clarifying. I think much of the disagreement could be attributed to miscommunication. For example, your use of skilled worker. Most agricultural (and similar) jobs that immigrants do here are usually called unskilled labor. I still don't agree with a lot of what you said, most strongly about energy, but I understand more.
On the subject of energy, the reason I proposed such a drastic thought experiment was that I'm a little tired of hearing the laissez-fair capitalist solution to the multitude of energy problems we face. I was just attempting to make the point that the consequences of a true energy crisis would be so great in magnitude and so far-reaching that it's in the best interest of this country and its citizens to come up with a plan. I will not put my faith in the CEO of Exxon to be thinking about the well being of humanity 25 years from now and doing serious long term and short term energy investments. What does he care, he'll have his multimillion dollar severance or retirement package in 5 years if he can keep his bottom line good for the next few quarters, and then it's scuba diving in the Bahamas for him. It's not only energy in particular we're disagreeing about here I'm just not a huge believer in Adam Smith's philosophies in many instances.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
1) The Budget - balance the damned thing and stop driving our country into debt. 2) Energy independence 3) National security/foreign policy 4) Education
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: 5. Equal marriage rights: What is so wrong with basing society around the family? And no, male-male-child/ren and female-female-child/ren don't count. You need a male a female to create those kids. It's worked best for centuries to have a male a female be the preferential set to raise kids, what exactly has changed?
So because technology hasn't advanced far enough (yet) that two men or two women can make a child together, any child being raised by two men or two women neither require or deserve the legal protections that come from having their parents married.
Neither do two women or two men who love eachother deserve the legal protections that heterosexual couples (childless or otherwise) get.
Ya know, that's really easy to say when it doesn't effect you.
In Illinois, upon release, prisoners are given 13 dollars and a bus ticket. To an alarming degree, their psychological problems haven't been address, and the only education they have attained is a lesson in survival. The more I work with ex-convicts and the families of convicts, the more I hear that prison makes people sneaky, as in, ex-cons survived in prison by cunning and chance, and that lower education in angles makes a lasting impression on how they conduct themselves on the outside.
Getting a job or getting ones record expunged to avoid checking that damning box takes connections, or at the very least, an educated loved one to guide one through the hoops.
So the convict gets home, can't get a job, at least as mentally unbalanced as he/she was when he/she went in, then, if a man, has to come home to family that who he can't feed. Now I have a hard time looking a girlfriend in the eye when I can't buy her dinner, these fragile guys have to try to go to look a whole family in the face. That eats at a man's dignity in a deep way, and I'd caution anyone against being casual with a person's dignity. Likely, the person didn't graduate from high school. So all of those jobs the person can apply and likely get are just a shade more better than prison. You are hungry, because 13 dollars only got you a handful of meals, and you need some cash <i>now</i>, so what do you do, you go back rolling with the same cats you knew before you got locked up, where at least you get three square meals and a cot.
1) Prisoners need to always be expected to behave like humans.
2) GED and high education programs need to pushed, and schools need to be established within the prison walls.
3) The large percentage of lifers need to start being taught to be community leaders. A lot of guys know that they aren't ever getting out, the key for these people is that they still feel like they can be productive while they are in.
4) Voting rights for ex-felons.
5) White collar job training, accounting, computer, even engineering, complete with partnerships in the private and public sector upon release, such that they can leave with marketable skills in non-degrading work. After ten years, these guys should be leaving with their GEDs and A+ certificates, at least.
6) Lastly, but this is my answer to everything, more liberal arts education.
Astonishingly, Americans, especially white Americans, are encouraged not to give a damn about the humanity of prisoners. Maybe part of respect for the law is a disrespect for those caught breaking it. Since I don't have that much respect for the law, I'm repulsed by how we treat those who break it. Maybe my plan is expensive, but I imagine that we'll save money through the lower rates of recidivism.
Prison community development is one of the most neglected areas of our penal system, and from that neglect springs a wealth of gang violence and criminal tendency to fill the void. If we can turn those richly-bred white politicians in Washington to consider lifers as potential community developers, then the penal system, and the whole world, will be the better for it.
quote:So because technology hasn't advanced far enough (yet) that two men or two women can make a child together
Dude. Are you talking about artificial insemination and the like (things that still require a male and a female)? Or are you talking about pregneant men and women with the biological ability to impregnate other women? In which case... no comment.
There was a third option, but I just forgot what it was. Hmph.
Anyway, I'm not really against same-sex couples raising children. I just don't think it should be publicly recognised. Do away with public marriage if you want to go in that direction.
Tell me what you think marriage is for.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cherios: There was a study recently where they used adult stem cells from a mouse to make sperm. They then impregnated a female mouse with it. The research is progressing slowly, there were a LOT of problems (including the fact the offspring weren't quite right.) but I would wager within 50-100 years, it will be possible for a woman to impregnate another woman using a technique derived from this method.
Marriage is for the protection of all involved ina family unit. Two men, two women, one of each, with or without kids.
It's so one person can't up and leave and leave the other person penniless. It's so if one person dies, their relatives don't have solid footing to contest the will if it leaves the house to a partner they never approved of. It's so a person who's raised a child for 10 years can't be cut off from ever seeing her again just because their same sex partner (the biological parent) moved out.
Which of these protections do you have a problem with extending to same sex couples?
quote:Astonishingly, Americans, especially white Americans, are encouraged not to give a damn about the humanity of prisoners.
Agreed. I can't count the number of times I've heard people getting upset because prisoners got to watch cable TV or get free dental care, etc.
It's sad, the secret CIA prisons get so much press in part because of suspected abuses and neglect- yet when those things are right under our noses in our current penal system, people don't seem to bat an eye. Dostoevsky put it well when he said, "The degree of civilization in a culture is reflected in the condition of its prisons." The overall sentiment I get from talking with people is that prisoners get what they deserve in prison, be it rape, assault, battery, abuse by guards, etc. This attitude just sickens me. I'm just a white American that doesn't know anybody in prison, but it's just not right.
I'm unfamiliar enough with the process to do any more than say that well-being of the prisoners should be the second concern of the penal system, with the third being a focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment. Your specific suggestions were interesting food for thought, thanks for sharing.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
cheiros, so if I got married, I still wouldn't have a family unless I have children? What I don't get married, but end up with a child anyhow?
Just because a certain type of family "has always" worked for you doesn't meant it has always worked.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: 1) War on Terror (We need to be more agressive) 2) Drastically shrinking the size of government 3) Equal marriage rights
In other words, no matter who I vote for, I'm screwed on all three.
I agree with you on all four of those (I'm including the getting screwed part).
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
1.) Maintaining a Senate that will confirm a pro-life SCOTUS justice.
2.) Financial structural reform: taxes, medical care, safety net. I'd like to see us define a minimal standard of living for everyone in the country - time worked, housing, medical care, education, child care, etc. Then I want to define a level above this - an aspired to standard of living that we think should be the fruit of full-time employment. I want us as a nation to agree on this, leaving room for individual flexibility, figure out how much it will cost and what kind of jobs are needed, and start honestly debating the best way to get there. My tendency now is to think that progressive taxation (based on consumption or income, I'm not sure) coupled with direct subsidies is likely the best way, but I don't know that. I do know that this arguing over means when we can't agree on the goal is ridiculous. This is an absolute pipe dream, of course.
3.) Energy independence, probably based on nuclear, renewable (bio, solar, wind, etc.), and fossil (coal, oil, oil shale) energy, coupled with massive overhaul of the electrical grid to prepare it for use of electricity in mobile machines.
4.) Prison reform. Number 1, stop making rape a part of punishment in America. We can go on from there.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, Dagonee. You're one of those people who get screwed by a party no matter how they vote.
My list, not in any particular order of importance:
1) Cheap higher education in some form.
2)Some kind of move to address the evils of gerrymandering, patronage, and entitlement in Washington. The fact that something like 70% plus of elected seats are 'safe' is ridiculous.
3)The FCC needs to be neutered.
4)A re-emphasis on getting, training, and retaining infantry.
5)A concurrent emphasis on the peace corp, expanding free markets around the world, and otherwise helping to bring the third world on par with the first.
6)Prison reform would be good, starting with alternatives to prison. I would also like to see more prison guards in the system.
On that note
7)Decriminalize recreational drugs.
8)A serious effort to enforce EPA regs, and also a serious effort not to make these regs idiotic and overburdening on business. Conservation of some kind would be good.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow, Dagonee. You're one of those people who get screwed by a party no matter how they vote.
quote:Dag, it looks like you may be just about as screwed as Pixiest. Sadly.
Throw in my support for equal civil marriage (which would be a higher priority if I feared the federal amendment passing congress, otherwise I don't consider it a federal issue) and I can't beg, borrow, or buy a vote from an activist on either end of the divide.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is interesting. I'm hoping to dredge this thread up in two years and see how much the issues of importance facing the country have changed as well as our individual rankings of them.
One unforseen side effect has also been interesting. Sometimes I think people (yes even on Hatrack) get politically categorized as conservative or liberal, Democrat or Republican, socialist or capitalist, etc. From one point of view, it's nice to see that assumption is probably unwarranted in most cases. On the other hand, it's kind of a sad realization that finding a candidate that would champion just our top three causes is probably not going to happen.
Just wanted to say thanks for everyone who's participating Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow, Dagonee. You're one of those people who get screwed by a party no matter how they vote.
quote:Dag, it looks like you may be just about as screwed as Pixiest. Sadly.
Throw in my support for equal civil marriage (which would be a higher priority if I feared the federal amendment passing congress, otherwise I don't consider it a federal issue) and I can't beg, borrow, or buy a vote from an activist on either end of the divide.
I think we have very similar platforms. The only real difference, is that I think that achieving something closer to your #2 will have a practical effect on #1. I do understand that the principle is key for you, I just disagree about its importance compared to the rest of your list.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
5) The Moderates of the country create a third party. Not really something that can be taken on in any meaningful way by a candidate, especially as they run for their seat on either the democratic or republican ticket, but I think this country needs more choices than just democrat or republican. I think it is ridiculous that someone must fit one of two molds, and if he or she doesn't, they have virtually zero chance of getting elected.
A man or woman with fresh new ideas and good, strong ideals should have an equal chance of getting elected with any other man or woman in the country with different ideas, it shouldn't matter if those views line up specifically with a party affiliation or not. It won't always be, and maybe never has been that electability can reach across economic divisions, but your ideas on what is and isn't right for the nation shouldn't be cut off. Someone who believes in tax cuts and abortion can't get elected. Someone who is pro-environment and pro-business can't get elected.
The only way I can see to fix that is for moderates to band together. Maybe there will be two, or three moderate parties, but band together and break the two party mold that has our country locked in a seeming neverending polarization.
Bring the country together by giving them the option to be different.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
As expensive as k-college education is, and as underpaid as teachers are, I really think that the root problem in education isn't the price, nearly as much as the problem is how we talk about it, and the disparate roles that education is envisioned to play in our varied lives.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm in. In my fantasy world these would be addressed. 1) Reform of Politicians. I'd like to see elected representative's wages tied to their performance. Give them a base salary. Each year, their district votes on how well they performed, and they can get a "bonus" if their constituants feel they deserve it. Make full dislocure of _all_ financial transactions the law. And, make it illegal to hold an office and campaign for another. If you want to run for president, you resign as senator.
2)National Service Requirement Set a uniform national age of "adulthood" at which you can drive, vote, drink, be elected to office, etc. Then make that age dependant on national service. You serve in the military, peace corps or americorps, that age is 18, you don't serve, that age is 21. Oh, and if you don't serve, you're not eligeble for welfare, gov't assistance for college, civil service jobs, etc. 3) Education/Prison reform. I think they're dependant on each other. People with a good education are less likely to go to prison. People in prison who don't get educated, come back. And education doesn't just include the 3 R's. Life skills like how to fill out a job application, how to write a cover letter, howt to write a resignation letter, how to balance a checkbook, how to _not_ screw up your credit, how to fill out a tax form, when to call 911, and when to call 311, how to tip. (I've got a BFA from a private, highly ranked liberal arts college and was never taught many of those things.) And then, make punishment be punishment, and rehab be rehab. Split sentences. For example, someone convicted of armed robbery, rather than 10 years in prison, get 6 years in a work camp, and 4 years of education and life-skills training before they're sent back out into society. Serve punishment, working, paying for your keep _then_ be phased back into society.
Will any of these happen? Not likely, but a boy can dream.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: As expensive as k-college education is, and as underpaid as teachers are, I really think that the root problem in education isn't the price, nearly as much as the problem is how we talk about it, and the disparate roles that education is envisioned to play in our varied lives.
I agree with that, but that isn't really anything the state can do anything about. Making education affordable and keeping the standards high, is.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Even a low interest loan at 40k+ for four years now and for Bob only knows how much in the future is too much, I think. If people are going to school to learn, I, as a tax paying citizen, am more than happy to pay for their first time through.
Cheap loans maybe for subsequent tries. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. An immediate reversal of national policy, internal and external, to become realigned with the principles of Liberalism and Humanism on which this country was theoretically founded. These reforms must include the immediate cessation of all discrimination again homosexuals and the equally immediate opening of our borders to all those who seek to work here.
2. As an extension of the above, and for the same reason, the immediate removal of all tariffs and other protectionist measures.
3. And immediate and final stop on all military aid to dictatorships or countries with records of persistent human rights abuses.
4. A comprehensive plan for the quick and fair trial of all prisoners held on suspicions of terrorism.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
1 - balanced budget & smaller more trustworthy government - go after cronyism, nepotism and post-career payoffs and current-career graft with a massive vengeance. In the meantime I wish this was headline news for weeks and months and years on end every day until they're forced to reform based on endless coverage of the depth of the corruption in our government local and national. There was literally nothing but Lebanon on the news for four weeks every time I turned on CNN, I wish that would happen for the bridge to nowhere etc for the pork in the budget. democrats and republicans are equally bad in my opinion, but then, power attracts the absolutely corruptible. I doubt we'll ever get anywhere.
2. Making the Horn of Africa campaign the model for a ten-twenty year committment in the middle east for all the fronts we're fighting the war on terror on. Committing to not backing down from our stance of not taking any shit from terrorists.
3. Comprehensive immigration reform to create a path to citizenship for positive behaviors. Basically, Bush's plan was the best thing about his presidency, imo.
-- Education is an important issue to me, but only if a candidate took a stand to eliminate all national tasting and dump the NCLB act into the garbage disposal.
Education reform needs a complete overhaul of how we approach education from the ground up. The schools do an excellent job of stratifying children, encouraging class divisions, numbing their ability to think independently in all but the leadership group and produce a steady supply of people whose will has been broken by seventeen years of redundant schooling that fails to actually educate.
I'd vote for Wesley Clarke over any other candidate. I'd vote for Rudy Giuliani over John McCain but McCain over Clinton and Clinton over Gore, Gore over Kerry and Kerry over Cheney.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:2. As an extension of the above, and for the same reason, the immediate removal of all tariffs and other protectionist measures.
3. And immediate and final stop on all military aid to dictatorships or countries with records of persistent human rights abuses.
The kind of blunt cosmopolitanism this entails is not attested to in Rawls, Plato, or Aristotle.
____
quote:Education reform needs a complete overhaul of how we approach education from the ground up. The schools do an excellent job of stratifying children, encouraging class divisions, numbing their ability to think independently in all but the leadership group and produce a steady supply of people whose will has been broken by seventeen years of redundant schooling that fails to actually educate.
Word. The problem is that the current system pumps out some pretty darn good engineers, bureaucrats, bankers, and businessmen, morally bereft, but fine technicians. So even as they lead us to perdition, we can do so while boasting of the number one economy and military.
Now I don't mind being number 2, 3, 4, 5, or 10, but some people get real persnickety about being number one.
posted
Except none of my ideas are particularly difficult to do. Most of them require us to cease doing something.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was specifically thinking of #4. If that were easy to do in a way that would protect US citizens AND the rights of innocents acused of being terrorists, it would already be done.
Basically, in #4 you're telling us how to play the flute by saying blow in one end and move your fingers up and down the outside. That's what made me think of "How To Do It."
posted
"If that were easy to do in a way that would protect US citizens AND the rights of innocents acused of being terrorists, it would already be done."
If the current administration were competent, many things would have been done. However, the current administration would be almost cherishably ludicrous were it not so gravely dangerous. The President's "moral advisors" are always being discredited his party's House majority leader has had to resign; his generals don't trust him, congressmen don't trust him, diplomats don't trust him and the people certainly don't trust him (how they ever did is a mystery to me.)
And, finaly, is this not the country that cried out "liberty or death!" in the eighteenth century, proclaimed "let us die to make men free!" in the nineteenth and, with calm rationality, stated "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home" in the twentieth? Are we the heirs of Locke or the heirs Hobbes? I assure you, we can not be both.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's just it though, Pel. Internationally we ARE in a state of nature. The UN is NOT the final arbiter of disputes and does NOT have a monopoly on the legal use of force no matter what some people think and want.
States DO war with eachother without the UNs approval. Sometimes the UN shakes their finger and says stop it, but rarely does that involve actual military force.
So yes, Internationally we ARE the heirs of Hobbes. At least in this one aspect.
But Domestically, we can and should be the heirs of Locke. With a final arbiter of disputes, the US government, we can secure the blessings of liberty, yadda yadda.
But that MUST be protected from the state of nature that exists beyond our borders.
quote:Are we the heirs of Locke or the heirs Hobbes?I assure you, we can not be both.
It seems we can be both. We'll take Locke's take on private property and Hobbes' take on the inevitability of violence. Flexible people, us.
If only we could chuck them both, as I find them both so interminably English, right to their utilitarian core.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
