Prosperous America

[maat55]

I'm curious how you feel about smoking bans.

I don't smoke, and don't really have an opinion on smoking. I do agree with the restrictions in place to separate smokers from the non-smokers in public places.

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.

Society has the right to set standards that reflect the majority. If we lowered our standards to that of the lowest petitioner, it would degrade the whole of society, IMO.

I wish I had not introduce the morality aspect in this forum. I really was more interested in the financial element of limiting the fed.

[maat55]

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.

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.

[/QUOTE]

I would be ok with the state legislatures deciding these issues. My state would probably not allow abortions because that would reflect the wishes of the people, remember, this is a country and government of the people.

[disneysteve]

I wish I had not introduce the morality aspect in this forum. I really was more interested in the financial element of limiting the fed.

Forget about abortion. Let's say that under your new world order, your state government was trying to reduce healthcare costs and voters approved a measure to limit/ration other medical procedures. Perhaps they decide that folks over 65 can no longer have heart bypass surgery or that people with incurable cancer can no longer get chemotherapy. Would that be okay with you if a majority of voters were in favor?

I, for one, do not want my fellow citizens or our politicians determining what medical treatment my family and I can and can not have.

[maat55]

Forget about abortion. Let's say that under your new world order, your state government was trying to reduce healthcare costs and voters approved a measure to limit/ration other medical procedures. Perhaps they decide that folks over 65 can no longer have heart bypass surgery or that people with incurable cancer can no longer get chemotherapy. Would that be okay with you if a majority of voters were in favor?

I, for one, do not want my fellow citizens or our politicians determining what medical treatment my family and I can and can not have.

I am not in favor of government healthcare in any form. I want to see the states deregulate the industry and allow the patient/doctor free market system to flourish.

IMO, the fed is a barrier to productive solutions. I want the people to be able to address their government on a local level.

[disneysteve]

I am not in favor of government healthcare in any form.

That doesn't mesh with your abortion argument. Termination of a pregnancy is a surgical procedure, performed by a physician in a medical facility. If you oppose government healthcare, you should oppose government interference in medical decision making including abortion. You can't have it both ways. You can't want government to stay out of medical care but also give them the right to ban certain medical care that you don't happen to agree with.

[GREENBACK]

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.

I agree about the two majority party difference which is why I no longer associate myself with either. It's like choosing between an apple that is full of ants or one that's full of worms....yeah, yuck! As I indicated in my previous post, the "old incumbents" maintain their positions because of their connections to special interests groups inside the beltway. If we eliminate these influences we'll see less of a stranglehold on these positions.

As you stated, the majority parties have become very similar and terms limits only exchange one bad party for another bad party. As for breaking the ice; all we do in the current system is exchange one connected, well funded, individual for another and he is a puppet for (name your group). It's the same result in a different package. We'll never see a different result until the influence of special interests is eliminated and I'm not sure that that's really conceivable to any degree.

If I thought term limits could actually bring on a desirable result I would be all for them but all you seem to get is more of the same old tired thing. It would be nice to see a good and meaningful change that we could hang on to. Perhaps I'm fantasizing.

[disneysteve]

the "old incumbents" maintain their positions because of their connections to special interests groups inside the beltway.

I think there is some truth to that, but I also think simple name recognition plays a part. Lots of people vote for the guy (or gal) whose name they know. They don't study the issues or the positions. If 2 guys are running and they recognize one name and don't recognize the other, they'll vote for the familiar one. So I think an incumbent has an automatic advantage when re-election time rolls around.

[GREENBACK]

I think there is some truth to that, but I also think simple name recognition plays a part. Lots of people vote for the guy (or gal) whose name they know. They don't study the issues or the positions. If 2 guys are running and they recognize one name and don't recognize the other, they'll vote for the familiar one. So I think an incumbent has an automatic advantage when re-election time rolls around.

You're right DS but the reason they recognize the name is because they've been able to stay in office and the reason they stay in office is because of the special interests groups and the money/influence provided by them. It's a continual vicious cycle thats hard to break. Term limits may be best given this process. I'm looking towards the day when this influential factor isn't so much a part of the process.

The flip side of the coin is the genuinely good politician that is on his way out in a couple of years because he's "timed out". I feel the people need to make that call in an ideal situation where outside influences don't determine or influence the outcome.

I think of politicians as employees of the people. That's getting harder to believe but we pay them nonetheless. If you get a really good employee should they have to resign in a couple years cause of a law that say's they have too? Shouldn't the employer(we the people) ultimately decide this. My whole argument about term limits is that they shouldn't be neccessary in MAAT 55's "PROSPEROUS AMERICA". In our current reality it's a bitter pill we have to all swallow.

[maat55]

That doesn't mesh with your abortion argument. Termination of a pregnancy is a surgical procedure, performed by a physician in a medical facility. If you oppose government healthcare, you should oppose government interference in medical decision making including abortion. You can't have it both ways. You can't want government to stay out of medical care but also give them the right to ban certain medical care that you don't happen to agree with.

Come on Steve, you know abortion has a moral and social aspect. IMO, abortion is murder. I have the right to my opinion and the right to a vote to abolish it. If states decided the issue, there would be states that had it and others that did not, but my tax money would not support those who do.

[maat55]

I agree about the two majority party difference which is why I no longer associate myself with either. It's like choosing between an apple that is full of ants or one that's full of worms....yeah, yuck! As I indicated in my previous post, the "old incumbents" maintain their positions because of their connections to special interests groups inside the beltway. If we eliminate these influences we'll see less of a stranglehold on these positions.

That is only the money aspect, many retain voters with no knowledge of the system. Their voters expect that the politicians seniority will benefit them, as it does, which should not happen.

As you stated, the majority parties have become very similar and terms limits only exchange one bad party for another bad party. As for breaking the ice; all we do in the current system is exchange one connected, well funded, individual for another and he is a puppet for (name your group). It's the same result in a different package. We'll never see a different result until the influence of special interests is eliminated and I'm not sure that that's really conceivable to any degree.

IMO, the longer they are there, the worse they will get. I fully agree that funding is a major player, but it alone will not eliminate the weeds.

If I thought term limits could actually bring on a desirable result I would be all for them but all you seem to get is more of the same old tired thing. It would be nice to see a good and meaningful change that we could hang on to. Perhaps I'm fantasizing.

We will never know until we try. The reason we limit the president is so that we do not have a monarchy, same can apply for legislators in key positions.

[disneysteve]

Come on Steve, you know abortion has a moral and social aspect.

Of course it does.

Let's step down to a slightly less emotionally charged medical issue that still has moral and religious aspects associated with it: birth control. Would you be okay with your state (and others) voting to ban contraception? Should the government be allowed to ban doctors from prescribing birth control pills? Should stores have to stop selling condoms?

[maat55]

Here is one reason why I think the states should have more power and the fed be extremely downsized.

I believe each state should be able to regulate its natural resources. States and industries should not have to jump through the hoops of the fed to engage in the free market.

Example: Every state should be able to regulate drilling for oil, building nuclear plants(with minimal fed regulation), coal plants, refineries etc. The idea that the fed thinks it is its place to impose a cap and trade tax is beyond absurd. We are increasingly at risk due to a growing reliance on foreign oil.

We spend 1 trillion a year on foreign oil, much of this deficit could remain in our economy if states were not chained by the fed. This would provide many good jobs and lower the trade deficit greatly. We need viable industry solutions that building a bridge cannot achieve.

Another solution would be that states decide the union/corporation contractual limits. This would give more power for states to compete for industries.

[maat55]

Of course it does.

Let's step down to a slightly less emotionally charged medical issue that still has moral and religious aspects associated with it: birth control. Would you be okay with your state (and others) voting to ban contraception? Should the government be allowed to ban doctors from prescribing birth control pills? Should stores have to stop selling condoms?

I'm confident that these type of issues will be handled effectively in the state legislatures. Even the majority of religious people will not be in favor of outlawed contraceptives, even states with large members of Catholics.

[GREENBACK]

We will never know until we try. The reason we limit the president is so that we do not have a monarchy, same can apply for legislators in key positions.

Your points are good and do make sense. I do however remain on the fence on this issue. In the current system I agreee with term limits but under a revamped system I think we could eliminate them or at least modify the way they're applied. One place I would like to see a term limit applied is with federal justices. I may be missing something but I don't get the there for life position they enjoy. This is something I would think would be a part of a monarchy.

[disneysteve]

I'm confident that these type of issues will be handled effectively in the state legislatures. Even the majority of religious people will not be in favor of outlawed contraceptives, even states with large members of Catholics.

Whether or not they would make the "right" decision isn't the issue here. The debate is whether or not they should even have the right to be involved in the decision.

I'm happy to agree to disagree on this. As I said earlier, I don't want the government making moral decisions for me and my family. We can take care of our own morality just fine. Morality shouldn't be legislated.