Prosperous America

[asmom]

maat, I would like you to address my concerns about states being able to deny certain individuals various freedoms under the umbrella of states' rights as they have in the past. How does that fit in with your vision of a prosperous America?

[maat55]

I agree with you there, but it is also an issue that states should not control either.

You are going to have to explain this.

[maat55]

maat, I would like you to address my concerns about states being able to deny certain individuals various freedoms under the umbrella of states' rights as they have in the past. How does that fit in with your vision of a prosperous America?

Name the freedoms you are refering to.

[asmom]

Name the freedoms you are refering to.

sexual acts between consenting adults
alcohol use by adults
marriage between adults of different races or religions

[disneysteve]

You are going to have to explain this.

I don't believe politicians at any level should be able to regulate abortion any more than they should be able to say who can and can not have heart bypass or an appendectomy. It should be a decision made between a patient and her doctor. The government should play no part in the process.

[maat55]

sexual acts between consenting adults
alcohol use by adults
marriage between adults of different races or religions

Even where sodomy laws have been in place, I don't recall them being exercised.
Don't see any state introducing prohibition again.
I can't imagine states interfering in marriage between a man and a women in any case.

The constitution would remain in effect. Only admendments 16 and 27 would be repealed.

[maat55]

I don't believe politicians at any level should be able to regulate abortion any more than they should be able to say who can and can not have heart bypass or an appendectomy. It should be a decision made between a patient and her doctor. The government should play no part in the process.

This I would appose, but a vote of the people in the states would be fair.

[kork13]

Saw this article and figured you might have some thoughts.... But is there political will to make something so radical as a constitutional amendment (particularly one repealing/replacing income tax)? ...well, I kind of expect not. At least not right now. A couple states might possibly support it, but not enough to make it happen, I'd say....

[LivingAlmostLarge]

No way would some states ever have good healthcare. They wouldn't follow a working system. People still believe they are responsible for their own health and yet here we are fat and unhealthy, wait until we go towards a capitalistic healthcare. People will suddenly realize they can't afford any care.

I don't think states should control abortion or marriage either. But for marriage just make it a document that's a legal agreement instead of a religious institution.

Abortion leave it alone, don't ask, don't tell it's no one's business.

I favor a flat tax over a consumption tax because I think consumption unfairly burdens the lower income people.

[GREENBACK]

Would you be ok with the president being able to have unlimited terms? I personally like Jim Inholfe, but because longer terms, enable longtermers to hold powerful positions for long periods of time. Many of the positions in government need turnover as does the presidency.

I understand your position but I think in a true democratic republic(like we should be) the vote should decide who's in and for how long. If we one day get a really good presidential administration that knows what it is doing I would hate to see an 8 yr. limit on them. I know it is unpleasant when you have to bear the brunt from the other side being in charge but I think success should be the determining factor in how long they are in there.

Meant to mention in my last post that I think you should include debtor's prison for those who don't live up to their obligation's. Sound crazy? We do it to dead beat parents don't we? Some other countries have success doing it. You wouldn't have nearly the people walking away from loans as we do now. How carefully would you look at a loan before signing if the threat of imprisonment upon default was a possibility?...Food for thought.

[GREENBACK]

.
Term limits limited to two terms with no retirement compensations.
Campaign finance reformed to government provision, no special interest money.

If we have campaign finance reform(properly done) and eliminate special interests from influencing the outcome of elections we should have little need for term limits as we'll have a much more level playing field for candidates to win office based on what they've done vs. what they've spent.

[disneysteve]

Don't see any state introducing prohibition again.

I'm curious how you feel about smoking bans.

This I would appose, but a vote of the people in the states would be fair.

Fair to whom? The folks who happen to be part of the majority? Sure, they get to impose their moral and religious views on everyone else. Not so fair for the "everyone else" though.

[geojen]

Fair to whom? The folks who happen to be part of the majority? Sure, they get to impose their moral and religious views on everyone else. Not so fair for the "everyone else" though.[/QUOTE]


I have to agree with DS here. Having a majority vote to decide morality issues is not okay. The examples of this are too numerous to name, but the most recent include civil rights for minorities and interracial marriage. Not too long ago a majority of people thought it was okay to have "separate but equal". That didn't make it right. And it still doesn't. For some reason, it seems to be part of human's nature to want to hold other, less powerful groups down. Majority votes would make this the norm. Not good.

[maat55]

Saw this article and figured you might have some thoughts.... But is there political will to make something so radical as a constitutional amendment (particularly one repealing/replacing income tax)? ...well, I kind of expect not. At least not right now. A couple states might possibly support it, but not enough to make it happen, I'd say....

I'm adding this link to my favorites and will be sending it to everyone I know.

The tea parties could get much bigger and lead to real changes(not the Obama kind)

[maat55]

I understand your position but I think in a true democratic republic(like we should be) the vote should decide who's in and for how long. If we one day get a really good presidential administration that knows what it is doing I would hate to see an 8 yr. limit on them. I know it is unpleasant when you have to bear the brunt from the other side being in charge but I think success should be the determining factor in how long they are in there.

Meant to mention in my last post that I think you should include debtor's prison for those who don't live up to their obligation's. Sound crazy? We do it to dead beat parents don't we? Some other countries have success doing it. You wouldn't have nearly the people walking away from loans as we do now. How carefully would you look at a loan before signing if the threat of imprisonment upon default was a possibility?...Food for thought.

I can't tell much difference in the two parties any longer. I think the problem is that there are too many old incumbents locking up key committees and oversite positions. Term limits would break the ice, IMO.

You know, I like the debtors prison idea, I've always wondered how people could get away with multiple BK's.