Presidential Politics

[marla]

I thought I'd start a thread on politics here since this is one of the friendliest sites I post on. While other places quickly turn into flame wars, most of the time, even when people disagree, the conversation is civil here and good opinions get put forth that make me think and consider my views.

I'm extremely fed up with this country's leaders. Bush has simply destroyed US credibility in the world and the democrats in congress are a bunch of weasels that won't even stand up to him so he continues to get away with everything. I really wish there was a choice to throw everyone out and start with a completely new set of people.

I'm an Independent - I've voted for both republicans and democrats in past elections. The only two candidates that I see that are willing to change the system in Washington are Dennis Kucinich (democrat) and Ron Paul (republican) I'm wondering what others thoughts are.

[ceejay74]

Amen to throwing out everyone and starting over!

I don't belong to a party either--but only because the Dems aren't liberal enough for my taste, and the Greens don't have enough power. :-) So I usually end up voting for Democrats. But I agree with you--the recent turnover of power in the Senate was the biggest disappointment, the most shameful squandering of an opportunity to help America, that I've ever seen.

Dennis would be great, from what I know of him. I checked out Ron Paul's site, but I sort of shut down once I saw he's for lowering taxes and actively trying to stop abortion. I did like that he wants to get rid of corporate welfare and reduce government spending, but I don't think we should lower taxes as well--too many valuable programs have been slashed of late. I do think there should be a strong governmental infrastructure to help those less fortunate. I don't know if I'm right to think this, but it's the choice I always come back to when I think about government and what it should do for a country. My husband is from England. Their taxes are very high, but there are virtually no slums, little homelessness, and health care for all. And their currency is kicking our currency's you-know-what, so it hasn't hurt them financially.

One change to our entire voting system I'd like to see is instant runoff voting or ranked-choice voting. Basically you could vote for whomever you wanted, but still have your vote go to a second choice who's a front-runner. So for instance, if you wanted to vote for Ron Paul but Fred Thompson was the main Republican candidate and you thought he was better than the main Democratic candidate, you could vote Ron Paul, registering your support in the numbers, giving him a boost politically, but still have a say in which of the two big candidates was going to become president.

I, too, avoid political discussion online because people feel free to get really insulting and vicious when they're not face-to-face. I'm hopeful your thread will stay civil, because I really do like hearing the different ways people see things--as long as they're not yelling at me. :-)

[PauletteGoddard]

I promise to be civil. I come from a place where we have more than two political parties and can accept a variety of opinion as part of normal healthy discourse without name-calling.

I have some questions.

I have repeatedly read and heard the topic of "immigration" this election cycle. Is this "immigration" issue a coded message? Some candidates are candid and open about wanting NAFTA to go away. Do they want the immigrants who came here under NAFTA to go away too? I would like to know. I would like a healthier America where voters are empowered and adequately, honestly represented by Congress, even if it means me leaving the US (I originally came here under a Trade NAFTA visa as a "professional with special abilities" and I am here legally now, as a worker, homeowner, spouse and parent).

Candidate A on "NAFTA must be canceled."

Candidate B on "NAFTA superhighway"

When candidates talk of a "border fence" do they mean one or both borders? Tom Tancredo wants a border fence for both. Joe Biden isn't clear.

I have not once in my eleven years here encountered, personally, a sincere "you people are taking our high-paying jobs away from us" comment from an American. So I wonder what, exactly, the candidates mean. Should I take their rhetoric seriously or personally? When my local friends speak glowingly of and support Rep. Dennis Kucinich, should I assume they support his immigration position and they want my maple-sugar-coated heinie kicked back to the Great White North? Is it fair for me to assume that when an American campaigns for and supports a candidate, they agree with all of that candidate's platform?

According to OnTheIssues.org:
Pres. Candidates who voted NO on granting visas to skilled workers.
Joseph Biden, May 1998
Duncan Hunter, May 1998
Dennis Kucinich, May 1998

Pres. Candidates who voted YES on granting visas to skilled workers.
Christopher Dodd, May 1998
John McCain, May 1998
Ron Paul, May 1998
Fred Thompson, May 1998

[Exile]

I wish Hillary would accept the responsibility of voting for Bush's war and admit that she made a mistake.

[gackle]

I too pledge to be civil. I like to think that I have always been in political discussions on this board and welcome the others who can discuss the issues and candidates in an intelligent, rational manner. It's ironic because I am right-leaning, yet agree with the previous posters that the whole bunch of professional politicians in D.C. should get the boot.

My biggest concern this election is the uneducated, "I'll vote for A because I recognize their name" voter. The State of Texas, before our recent constitutional amendment vote, certified an $8.5 billion budget surplus. Yet there were five propositions on the ballot for borrowing billions of dollars via bonds. WHY? Even worse yet, all five of the bond propositions were approved. WHY?

Originally Posted by PauletteGoddard

Is it fair for me to assume that when an American campaigns for and supports a candidate, they agree with all of that candidate's platform?

I don't think so. I think that I like Mike Huckabee the most, but I disagree with his position on amnesty. I love Ron Paul's libertarianism with regard to the size of government and spending, but just cannot vote for him because he wants to pull the troops out immediately. I believe doing that would be extremely dangerous with regard to the war on terror.

[sweeps]

I'm also slowly taking on a libertarian bent... I'm exhausted from the skyrocketing increases in taxes, regulations, bureaucracy, corruption, and complexity in our government. Both the GOP and the Dems perpetuate this nonsense, and I think there's going to be backlash in the next decade or so.

Washington Post article

[Rick01]

Ron Paul wants to do away with the IRS, because all of our income taxes go to pay the interest on the money that's printed by the private bank known as the "federal reserve", which is supposed to be printed by congress. Our personal income taxes simply go to the super rich to make them richer. If you want to know what's really going on in our Country, I recommend visiting WW3: How Will World War Three Affect You? Learn How To Prepare - Free Newsletter, or do a google search for "north american union".

Ron Paul is one of the very few constitutional candidates who would work for "we the people" instead of big business and the globalists.

[sweeps]

That is one of the things that turn people off from Ron Paul. When you start throwing out a lot of conspiracy theories, people start thinking, right or wrong, that you're a nut job.

The system is broken; it needs to be fixed. There's no need for scare tactics and conspiracy rhetoric, IMHO.

[Rick01]

Well conspiracies and conspiracy theories are two different things. If people would take the time to do a little research, read the constitution and bill of rights, and demand that our country be run the way our forefathers intended, we wouldn't be in this mess.

Take the federal reserve. Our money is supposed to be printed by congress not a private bank. The federal reserve act was never ratified, therefor it is not a law under the constitution. Our forefathers warned AGAINST central banks. Furthermore, President Woodrow Wilson expressed his regret at signing the federal reserve act into law. Finally, there is no good reason to have a group of private banker in total control of our monetary system.

These are not theories. They are facts. Call it what you will, but any patriotic Americans should trust the forefathers and demand that the federal reserve be abolished.

[LivingAlmostLarge]

I don't like Ron Paul, he's way to conservative. I think his stance on guns, abortion, taxes, social security is inappropriate. He wants younger workers to not pay SS taxes and manage on their own. This in a country with a 0% savings rate? Be realistic, people don't save for retirement, by doing away with SS it'd be terrible. Um, what young person is going to save?

Second I'm okay with people's right to bear arms. But do we really need to have automatic weapons? And what's wrong with putting in place background check?

Third, what's wrong with a national ID? Going from state to state and having some states not accept out of state driver's license is ridiculous. It's stupid. We need some sort of national ID.

Fourth, what's wrong with healthcare? Lots. But making everyone responsible for their own bills will drive BK up. People live paycheck to paycheck. Regular people can't afford care. They end up waiting unlike those with money and connections.

[sweeps]

Rick, I disagree with you on the forefathers argument. The forefathers created their vision in the 1700's. Some things they wrote can still be taken literally, but other things just don't apply today. Also keep in mind that the forefathers had to make a lot of compromises to get the Constitution ratified. Even they had to make some choices they didn't like to get complete approval. And finally, they themselves built in flexibility into the Constitution and Bill of Rights. They knew parts of the document would become obsolete over time and would require changes to meet the current day's demands.

To address your specific argument. Do you REALLY think Congress would do a better of job handling the money supply? If you handed over monetary policy to Congress, you're essentially handing it over to special interest groups. I don't think that will produce the results you're looking for.

[Rick01]

I don't claim to be an expert on the Constitution or Bill of Rights, because I'm not. Thankfully, the forefathers kept the principles of freedom and liberty fairly simple. You're correct that changes would have to be made over time, but they have to be ratified. The only reason that Congress would not do a better job is because Congress is now controlled by the same people who control the fed.

All this happened because "We The People" do not demand that the government remain within the bounds of the Constitution and that any changes be ratified by 2/3 of the states.

It almost sounds like you agree with bush that the Constitution is just a GD'd piece of paper. Just my interpretation. I could be wrong, but I am of the total opposite opinion. Changes should be made LEGALLY, the way they are supposed to be made, to fit current times, but it should still be followed to the letter and no law (or anything else) outside its bounds should exist.

[sweeps]

There are fallacies in your logic, but there are some interesting nuggets of truth in your comments.

No, the Constitutition isn't just a "GD'd piece of paper", but it is a document written by humans -- not by a Higher Being -- and is purposely vague. Therefore it requires interpretation. The forefathers didn't word the 2nd amendment to be "All men have a right to bear muskets." They said "arms"... which is vague. What exactly is an arm? A fist? A knife? A handgun? An assault rifle? A dirty bomb? A nuclear weapon? Your guess is as good as mine.

I have more to say, but it's lunchtime and I'm hungry.

(P.S. I would argue the Bible is written by humans and not by a Higher Being, so therefore cannot be taken literally... but that is a topic for another discussion.)

[Rick01]

Actually, they wrote the Constitution to protect our rights as human beings with the belief that all men are created equal under God. They believed freedom and liberty where gifts from God himself and sought to protect those gifts through the Constitution.

Also, the Forefathers knew that the forces of tyranny would seek to gain control, as they have and always will, and revolution would be absolutely necessary. Therefor, I believe the right to bare arms means weapons...period. There's nothing the facists would like more than for us to relinquish all our weapons.

It seems to me that it doesn't matter what one believes about the bible. Most people would love to live in the totally free and equal society the U.S. was meant to be.

[boefixepa]

I like many of Ron Paul's idea, but I don't think they would ever come around as a whole. If it were possible I would do anything possible to keep Hillary from getting elected. I just don't like her, she's into the 'big pockets' as bad as Chaney. I am non-affliated, so no party lines here, I vote on who I think will do the least worse job!!!

My bigest issues are health care.

I don't want a government health care system, it recks of socialism/communisum and can easily take responsibilities and choice away from us.
What I think would be the best way to insure america would be to gid rid of all the insurance companies (and they have enoug money and lobbiest to make sure that never happens) and have ONE company (overseen my the government, but not controlled by it!) that offers various levels of plan, the lowest of which is FREE to all WORKING, DISABLED, OR MINOR americans. (Oh, and if you are not a citizen and not here legally, then we will patch you up and send you to your country free of charge) Sorry if you are an adult and ablebodied and ableminded and not even willing to get a job at the local fast food or grocery...well live with your own choices.

Will this ever happen, of course not, but it's the fairest thing to all I can come up with and it's far from perfect.

2. Immigration - It's as big a mess as healthcare. We can't ship everyone here illegally out, trust me! As idealogical as it sounds, it's not only nearly impossible, but americans are too lazy and self-righteous to do many of the jobs they do. It's also not fair to just give them the okay to stay. I'm looking for someone who had a Fair, and reasonable approach to this. We need many of these workers, but they are also bleeding the assistence programs into bankrupcy.

3. International policy. Sorry, but we are a sovergien nation. I agree with working with other countries to solve some larger problems....but have to READ some of the UN stuff!!!! Taking away perental rights! Giving ownership of national monuments to the 'world' the list goes on and on. I was SHOCKED OUT OF MY MIND, when I read some of the 'laws' we had agreed to! Have to radiate ALL foods!! Um maybe I don't want to eat that food. We need to have a serious look into what is going on here. American rights should not just be handed away like they are!!

4. The War - It's a joke....we need a real solution to get out, but at the same time do it in a way that does not create havoc. We left Vietnam, and it took a while, but they did rebuild as a nation. Not as we had hoped, but we are not the God of the world. You can't MAKE another nation think and believe as we do. Sorry, not going to happen, no matter how long you stay there!

5. Education - It's deplorable the low level of expectations we set. However, I believe that is what happens when you allow a socialistic system to do it's thing. You teach to the lowest common denominator and you will dumb down a nation. Yes, everyone should be allowed to get a basic education, but we are not doing ourselves any favors with the system we have. Parents have been raised and taught to believe over generations (thanks to this socialistic/communist idea which is were it came from) that it is PRIMARILY the governments job to educate their children. Sorry, I think it's the parents job, even if it's done with the current system. The system was created to aid and help parents, who have more infuence and control over their children then anyone else. Somewhere along the line we have become complacent and lazy and trying to pass all personal responsibilty onto some faceless government. Parents need more choice, responsiblity and accountablity when it comes to the education of their children.

6. Welfare systems - I'm all for helping people who really need it. But I am not for supporting the lazy, umotivates, or druggies in their habits. If I have to pee in a cup to get a job, they have to in order to get assistence. If they never plan to better their situation, they have to learn to live within the means they are willing to make. If they are just lazy, well once their time is up it's up...end of assistence, we did all we could. We are creating generation after generation of welfare dependent people who grow up knowing no different, that needs to change! We need to get back to hard working and putting forth some effort to get something out of life. There will always be disparity because people are different. If you want a better situation, get a better job, save your money, sacrifice (what's that word!) to get an education, whatever you want. Just DO SOMETHING more then sit there and complain and say and believe someone should just give it to you!!!

I think I have listed enough...These are just my idea and I am fairly certain none of them will ever happen, so don't take it too seriously.

[PauletteGoddard]

Um, what young person is going to save?

A young person who knows she's going to miss out on Social Security, and who has observed excessive spending patterns from her elders and her government and wants to preserve some sustainability and hope for herself. That is the young person who saves. Or, imagine if you will, someone who doesn't have inheritances or stock options to feather her nest and has to rely on her income and skills. That person will save.

About the presidential politics: I picked up The Federalist Papers from the library. I haven't yet begun reading it. When I read it, am I going to have a better idea of what the United States should be now, or what it should have been or was at the time of the Federalist Papers writing?

I ask as I took an online "match the candidate to your stances and opinions" quiz and the result I got was not the result of the candidate to whom I gave money. The candidate to whom I gave money was actually in a three-way tie for bottom. I gave money to a candidate who I thought would be best for the United States, not necessarily my own personal ideals. There seems to be so much dependence on corporations, on processed food, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, national security and finance, that I imagined the Fathers of the Constitution would be gagging if they were alive to see it today. Would they be gagging, or would they be cheering and rooting and saying "YES! This is what we wanted all along!"? Yet I believe the people want to have that dependence, because aren't they conditioned to pursue their happiness and have the right to live the way they want to without harming others?

I thought perhaps the voters should have a crack earlier in the election campaign at who should represent them, rather than wait for corporations and Political Action Committees and lobbyists and the military-industrial complex to determine "acceptable" candidates and let the voters choose the least of two or three evils in November. Is my thought an incorrect thought to have?

Do voters discern between what they believe the country should be, and what would work in their personal best interests?

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by Rick01

Actually, they wrote the Constitution to protect our rights as human beings with the belief that all men are created equal under God. They believed freedom and liberty where gifts from God himself and sought to protect those gifts through the Constitution.

Sure, but the problem is where do your rights end and mine begin. Do you have a right to blow smoke in my face? Do you have a right to endanger children by carrying a loaded weapon into a school? Do you have a right to cause a panic in a movie theater by yelling "Fire!"?

[LivingAlmostLarge]

Originally Posted by PauletteGoddard

A young person who knows she's going to miss out on Social Security, and who has observed excessive spending patterns from her elders and her government and wants to preserve some sustainability and hope for herself. That is the young person who saves. Or, imagine if you will, someone who doesn't have inheritances or stock options to feather her nest and has to rely on her income and skills. That person will save.

Sorry Pauline, people right now know they aren't getting SS, right now know they aren't getting pensions, yet they still believe the opposite is true.

73% of people expect a pension, but 46% of them have no idea where it's coming from. See the disconnect? How can you expect society to save money when people have serious delusions?

Sure I save money, and most on here. BUT that is NOT the majority of US citizens. The majority have a savings rate of 0%. Why is there beginning to be automatic enrollment into 401ks? Because people don't save. The only reason people even have RETIRMENTS today is because they are forced to save 6.5% of their income in SS. If not they would have zero.

People relied too heavily on pensions and SS. So if we don't use and automatic/enforced plan then what will happen? No savings.

People like to do what's easy. And easy is spending what you earn and expecting the government to take care of you. Well if people want that attitude they should pay for it. And a higher than 6.5% SS savings needs to be instituted.

[PauletteGoddard]

73% of people expect a pension, but 46% of them have no idea where it's coming from. See the disconnect? How can you expect society to save money when people have serious delusions?

The question was asked "What young person is going to save." I answered. I didn't realize through the lack of nonverbal cues that it was a rhetorical question.
I did not know that by responding I would be making an expectation to be extrapolated for the mass of society, regardless of how ill-fitting my answer would be, or that you would be countering with statistics that may or may not include young people -- why would young people expect money from pensions, other than their grandparents' or parents' through inheritance, if pensions aren't available to most of them?

By "people have serious delusions" do you mean people who expect money to fall from the sky, or out of the beneficence of an external entity while somehow not expecting to pay for it via a higher tax rate?

BUT that is NOT the majority of US citizens. The majority have a savings rate of 0%. Why is there beginning to be automatic enrollment into 401ks?

I wish to see references for these claims and statistics. I do know of a savings rate chart put out by the Bureau of Economic Analysis that included years in which Americans saved 0% or a negative amount. That is for post-tax income. That graph does not show what people are saving in their pre-tax or tax-deferred accounts. I have that information from Henry K. "Bud" Hebeler, of analyzenow.com.

I have also seen a savings rate chart covering the US in the years of the Great Depression. The savings rate averaged 25%. In the four or five years leading to October 1929 Americans were saving next to nothing. What one reads is that the saving rate was low in the Great Depression but who had the income? People were living off savings if they could, and eating wallpaper paste or selling apples on streetcorners if they couldn't. Sure, the post-tax savings rate was higher prior to the mid 1980s, but were 401(k) plans in existence then?

This disconnect between our positions may be because when you write of entitlement and laziness and lack of discipline you are speaking of a people who have had things very easy for half a century and expected the good times to keep on comin', and I am one voice of newer Americans, younger and future generations who will not.

The America I know is one where the investment risk has shifted from employer to the employee, where passbook savings rates above 6% are a thing of the past. With a declining dollar, and low interest rates offered by financial institutions, and food/energy/education/health costs going up, post-tax savings are admittedly lethargic at best. However, some argue that the low or negative savings rate is misleading and mythical.



From louminatti.blogspot.com:

25 years ago the federal government encouraged us to save a large portion of our pre-tax income in separate retirement accounts. We responded as they hoped we would. Instead of saving for retirement out of our after-tax income, our savings comes from our pre-tax income. We are doing precisely what they wanted us to do, yet we are beaten over the head on a regular basis for being spendthrifts.

[Rick01]

Originally Posted by sweeps

Sure, but the problem is where do your rights end and mine begin. Do you have a right to blow smoke in my face? Do you have a right to endanger children by carrying a loaded weapon into a school? Do you have a right to cause a panic in a movie theater by yelling "Fire!"?

The answer to your questions is no. If we lived under the Constitution,
we would be free to do as we pleased as long as we did not harm others or violate their rights. As a matter of fact, punishment for harming others would be much more severe.

People are welcome to use local laws to create the kind of community they want to live in. The way it's supposed to work is the individual is sovereign and has the most power. Each state is sovereign but has less power and does the bidding of its "state" citizens. The federal government has the least power and does what the majority of the states want. At least that's the best way I can explain it with my limited smarts. :O

Of course, the gov. illegally stripped us of these rights.

Did you know that a jury can override any law created by Congress. This is the most powerful tool we have (in my opinion) to keep the gov. under control. If a jury feels that someone has been charged with breaking a law that is outside the bounds of the Constitution, they can declare the law null and void. Of course, most judges flat out lie to the jury and tell them they are to judge the person or evidence not the law.