What the "Others" Want

[carpedm9587]

Getting big money out of politics is a great idea. How would you accomplish this?
I would love to see some sort of ranked voting system. That would go a long way toward weakening the party system - eliminating the party system would be best.
No on compulsory voting.
Yes on paper ballots and double counting by unaligned counting groups - done publicly if possible.
Ending war is a pipe dream, everyone would like wars gone but . . .
The whole legal system needs reform but that is not a simple matter. Focus should be on "truth" rather than nit picking.

Yeah.

I am agreeing altogether too much with you Star. Surprise.

I'm not...

[mikewhitney]

2. End the wars

I have others, but I guess those are my top-10, in no particular order.

Ah. It was great of you to introduce Jesus, Prince of Peace, into the discussion.

[mikewhitney]

9. End private prisons, and reduce prison sentences so they aren't ridiculously excessive and so the US doesn't have ~10x the prison population per capita of other developed countries.

This is a good one to heed.

[Starlight]

So how do you see it as having been compromised?

A long, long list of problems, but since you agree to most of my proposed fixes, I don't see a need to list all the issues here.

Suffice it to say, I see 'consent of the governed' a key component legitimizing government and separating it from an oppressive dictatorship. So the voting of all people in a democracy is both a sacred right and necessary.

I would add that the current Senate system and the electoral-college Presidential elections in the US are also severe deviations from reasonable democracy and obviously need to be fixed, which I didn't mention in my previous post.

I have to admit I am dubious about the latter part.

I am so sick of seeing politicians deliberately disenfranchise certain voters through various schemes. It's pure evil IMO, because it removes consent of the governed and so turns government into enslavement. Making voting not simply a right but also compulsory puts a firm end to voter disenfranchisement and stops these evil politicians in their tracks.

Secondly, it's well-established by political scientists that certain groups of voters (e.g. those who work 2 jobs) get systemically under-represented when voting is optional, so the elected
outcomes as a result do not reflect the true will of the people.

Thirdly, we currently compel people to waste huge amounts of time on the ridiculous charade that is "jury trials" (which should obviously be abolished), yet a compulsory 5 minutes to vote is unreasonable? (I am 100% in favor of mail-in ballots etc to make voting easier. Also the compulsory part would merely be the casting a ballot in your name, you can leave the ballot blank, draw pictures on it, or write in Mickey Mouse if you feel the need)

I would advocate for electronic voting with a paper back-up. Indeed, if each voter was emailed their ballot as well as given a paper copy of how they voted, it might go a long way to curtailing hacking (or at least providing a means for verifying).

I don't trust the Republican CEOs who make the voting machines as far as I could kick them. What's to stop the machine recording the vote as republican and mailing it to you as Democrat?

Wouldn't that be nice. I'd like to end all crime too. I'm not sure how practical that is.

I guess you must be American to think it's somehow difficult to not be invading countries on the other side of the world.

I would advocate for giving the IRS the resources it needs to follow through on audits

Last figures I saw was that the IRS recouped $12 in unpaid taxes for every $1 it spent on enforcement. So it would be logical and self-funding to increase the amount being spent on enforcement. So, naturally, the Republicans were lowering it, because they love their White-collar-criminal donors. Robert Mercer ran the most profitable hedge fund on Wall St, and when the IRS said to him "putting the profits through a couple of shell companies doesn't mean you don't owe us billions of dollars in taxes", he promptly because the Republican Party's new biggest donor to get them to fight for his right to not pay taxes. It's sad that some gullible voters see the Republican party as "tough" on crime. Though given the current Tax Evader In Chief and his son-in-law Kushner have been revealed to have paid no taxes for years, that rips the mask off somewhat.

but I think the best favor we could do ourselves is a simple, flat tax systems with a high "cost of living" deduction that is the same for all (perhaps factoring in local cost-of-living values) and no exemptions.

While it's theoretically possible this could be okay if you made both numbers high enough, in practice the words "flat tax" in standard political dialog equate to the clinically insane libertarian plan to set taxes flat at 10%. Experience internationally shows that a strongly progressive income tax is the way to go.

Here too - I am in favor, but how we get there needs to be managed so as to not put businesses out of business - especially small employers.

I don't mind it being phased in slowly, but to those who think that the US somehow "can't afford" the basic worker rights that the entire rest of the Western world has I just roll my eyes.

I also think we need to stop criminalizing addiction.

Yes. Legalizing drugs should have been in my top-10. It would have huge implications not merely in the US where it would help address the opioid epidemic, but also throughout Central America where there is massive violence caused by drug cartels (the root cause of which is that drugs are illegal).

I (arrogantly?) think we could/should be leading the world in a lot of things.

This was true at points in the 20th century, but it's not been the case during my lifetime. Now the US is easily the most backward nation in the Western world on most measures.

[Starlight]

Ah. It was great of you to introduce Jesus, Prince of Peace, into the discussion.

So are you US religious conservatives who like Jesus thus in favor of:
1) Not invading other countries
2) Pulling out of the countries you've invaded
3) Reducing the absurd and ridiculously oversized military you have?

Or is your talk about Jesus and peace just hot air? Because what seems to happen is that you all vote Republican, which is the party of invade-everyone and insane over the top over-militarization (when its not trying to take healthcare away from veterans). Since the chances of Jesus voting Republican would be approximately negative infinity, your words don't seem to match your actions.

[mikewhitney]

So are you US religious conservatives who like Jesus thus in favor of:
1) Not invading other countries
2) Pulling out of the countries you've invaded
3) Reducing the absurd and ridiculously oversized military you have?

Or is your talk about Jesus and peace just hot air? Because what seems to happen is that you all vote Republican, which is the party of invade-everyone and insane over the top over-militarization (when its not trying to take healthcare away from veterans). Since the chances of Jesus voting Republican would be approximately negative infinity, your words don't seem to match your actions.

I'm for the three points that you list there.

Your discussion after listing those three points is incoherent, so I'm not sure how to respond to that.

[Jeff]

To be left alone and for government to legislate in such a way that those who do evil are punished and those who do good are allowed to excel and prosper. Safety nets should be private, or at the most, local endeavors. Men should be forced to reap what they sow and not be coddled by a national majority on my dime. Pretty much it...

[Sparko]

1. Restore democracy:
a) Money out of politics: Get rid of the corruption and lobbyists
b) Change to a Ranked Choice Voting or similar system that gets past the 2-party system and ends the 2-party deadlock
c) Restore the Voting Rights act, and guarantee to all the federal right to vote. Ideally voting should be compulsory.
d) Paper ballots, not dodgy voting machines
2. End the wars
3. End homelessness. Provide basic rent-free housing to the homeless.
4. Healthcare for all. Extending the popular medicare system to cover everyone seems the simplest way to go.
5. End tax evasion & dodging. Actually make the rich pay their taxes.
6. Give US workers the same basic rights workers in the rest of the Western world has: Paid vacation time, sick leave, childcare, family leave, decent minimum wage etc.
7. Stop dismantling unions, and instead strengthen them.
8. Common sense gun legislation
9. End private prisons, and reduce prison sentences so they aren't ridiculously excessive and so the US doesn't have ~10x the prison population per capita of other developed countries.
10. Lead the world in addressing climate change

I have others, but I guess those are my top-10, in no particular order.

See Carp? Free healthcare, free housing, basic income, and I am sure Starlight is for free college too.

So, why hasn't California implemented any of this? They have the numbers. They have the economy (lots of rich people and businesses). Yet they have overwhelming poverty with homeless people pooping in the streets, and street gangs living in ghettos doing crimes to survive.

[LeaC]

1. Restore democracy:
a) Money out of politics: Get rid of the corruption and lobbyists
b) Change to a Ranked Choice Voting or similar system that gets past the 2-party system and ends the 2-party deadlock
c) Restore the Voting Rights act, and guarantee to all the federal right to vote. Ideally voting should be compulsory.

Agreed.

d) Paper ballots, not dodgy voting machines

I know the voting machines have problems, but paper ballots have had their own share of issues. Don't think this is going to be practical anymore.

2. End the wars
3. End homelessness. Provide basic rent-free housing to the homeless.
4. Healthcare for all. Extending the popular medicare system to cover everyone seems the simplest way to go.
5. End tax evasion & dodging. Actually make the rich pay their taxes.
6. Give US workers the same basic rights workers in the rest of the Western world has: Paid vacation time, sick leave, childcare, family leave, decent minimum wage etc.
7. Stop dismantling unions, and instead strengthen them.
8. Common sense gun legislation
9. End private prisons, and reduce prison sentences so they aren't ridiculously excessive and so the US doesn't have ~10x the prison population per capita of other developed countries.
10. Lead the world in addressing climate change

I have others, but I guess those are my top-10, in no particular order.

Pretty much agree, to varying levels based on how realistic I think the solutions would be. I'd also want to end abortion, IVF, surrogacy, and follow the Nordic model to address prostitution.

[carpedm9587]

A long, long list of problems, but since you agree to most of my proposed fixes, I don't see a need to list all the issues here.

Suffice it to say, I see 'consent of the governed' a key component legitimizing government and separating it from an oppressive dictatorship. So the voting of all people in a democracy is both a sacred right and necessary.

I would add that the current Senate system and the electoral-college Presidential elections in the US are also severe deviations from reasonable democracy and obviously need to be fixed, which I didn't mention in my previous post.

On the electoral college, I have voiced my opinion before. I don't think the system is bad per se, but it is badly structured. If the intent is to balance citizen representation with state representation, having all of the electoral college votes in a state go to one party defeats that purpose. If two votes in each state went to the party winning the state, and the remaining were allocated at the district level (two states do this now), the result would be a bit more proportional. However, gerrymandering would have to end.

I am so sick of seeing politicians deliberately disenfranchise certain voters through various schemes. It's pure evil IMO, because it removes consent of the governed and so turns government into enslavement. Making voting not simply a right but also compulsory puts a firm end to voter disenfranchisement and stops these evil politicians in their tracks.

Secondly, it's well-established by political scientists that certain groups of voters (e.g. those who work 2 jobs) get systemically under-represented when voting is optional, so the elected
outcomes as a result do not reflect the true will of the people.

Thirdly, we currently compel people to waste huge amounts of time on the ridiculous charade that is "jury trials" (which should obviously be abolished), yet a compulsory 5 minutes to vote is unreasonable? (I am 100% in favor of mail-in ballots etc to make voting easier. Also the compulsory part would merely be the casting a ballot in your name, you can leave the ballot blank, draw pictures on it, or write in Mickey Mouse if you feel the need)

An interesting point of view. I'd have to think about it. Part of me thinks "voting by uninformed citizens doesn't appeal," but then I consider the number of people who are currently practicing "team" voting with little regard for policy and position - and I find myself wondering if you aren't possibly right. And the fact that it would end decisively the practice of voter disenfranchisement is appealing.

I don't trust the Republican CEOs who make the voting machines as far as I could kick them. What's to stop the machine recording the vote as republican and mailing it to you as Democrat?

If every voting machine produced two paper copies, one to be turned in and one retained by the citizen, the citizen could verify their vote. The machine would speed tabulation of votes and acquisition of results, but the law could mandate a manual count to back up the electronic one, minimizing the chance of fraud. The email is just a "nice to have."

I guess you must be American to think it's somehow difficult to not be invading countries on the other side of the world.

First, Star, is it possible you might consider posting here without the demeaning emojis? It would be appreciated. Second, there is a difference between "end all wars" and "end all U.S. foreign invasions." I don't think the first is going to happen, much as I would wish it. The second could happen, and I agree should happen, but people would need to stand together to say, "no more."

Last figures I saw was that the IRS recouped $12 in unpaid taxes for every $1 it spent on enforcement. So it would be logical and self-funding to increase the amount being spent on enforcement. So, naturally, the Republicans were lowering it, because they love their White-collar-criminal donors. Robert Mercer ran the most profitable hedge fund on Wall St, and when the IRS said to him "putting the profits through a couple of shell companies doesn't mean you don't owe us billions of dollars in taxes", he promptly because the Republican Party's new biggest donor to get them to fight for his right to not pay taxes. It's sad that some gullible voters see the Republican party as "tough" on crime. Though given the current Tax Evader In Chief and his son-in-law Kushner have been revealed to have paid no taxes for years, that rips the mask off somewhat.

While it's theoretically possible this could be okay if you made both numbers high enough, in practice the words "flat tax" in standard political dialog equate to the clinically insane libertarian plan to set taxes flat at 10%. Experience internationally shows that a strongly progressive income tax is the way to go.

If you create a standard deduction that provides for a living wage for individuals/families up to four (say something like $30K for one person, $45K for 2, $60K for 3, and $75K for four - but I am pulling numbers out of my butt, so I don't know what they would actually be), and then set a flat tax on ALL other income sources that is constitutionally mandated to be the %age required that year to cover the federal budget, you end up with a fairly steep progressive tax, a simple tax system that is easier to administer and can probably largely be automated, and no "loopholes" for people to dive through.

I don't mind it being phased in slowly, but to those who think that the US somehow "can't afford" the basic worker rights that the entire rest of the Western world has I just roll my eyes.

You are thinking of the U.S. as one large entity. I'm thinking of the fact that businesses have been working in the current system basically since the dawn of the republic. To immediately mandate such a drastic shift would hurt small businesses, who have less elbow-room in their cash flow and staffing to make the shift. Phasing in changes to achieve this end, say over 5-10 years, would allow the businesses and the economy to adjust to the new reality without going into fiscal (and staffing) shock. Knowing more about how other countries manage this, however, would help. To be honest, I know very little about the numbers or impact in other countries.

Yes. Legalizing drugs should have been in my top-10. It would have huge implications not merely in the US where it would help address the opioid epidemic, but also throughout Central America where there is massive violence caused by drug cartels (the root cause of which is that drugs are illegal).

Many (most? all?) drugs need to be legalized. I do think opioids should only be available via prescription. Making marijuana legal, however, is a no brainer. Largely kills the black market in the stuff, creates a new income vehicle for states and the fed, and aligns marijuana with alcohol, as I think it should be. However, the science on developing brain impact is pretty solid. I think I might advocate for a 25 year old age limit.

This was true at points in the 20th century, but it's not been the case during my lifetime. Now the US is easily the most backward nation in the Western world on most measures.

Should versus is, Star. I am aware that the U.S. has become pretty backwards, and Trump has taken us even further back. It will take time to recover from the fiasco of his presidency. But with the right leadership, and using the collective wealth and might of this nation, a lot of good could be done. Fighting disease - fighting climate change - enabling developing countries to achieve their potential (which would help with our illegal immigration problem as well) - are all things we could take a leadership role in. We might even one day take a leadership role in human rights - but first we have to stop harming our own population. But so long as we have a large segment of our population proclaiming "America First!" I doubt any of that can happen. The world does not want (nor should they want) self-serving leadership. So into that vacuum will step other countries. I suspect, by the time the U.S. gets its act together, China will have become the dominant world influence.

[carpedm9587]

So are you US religious conservatives who like Jesus thus in favor of:
1) Not invading other countries
2) Pulling out of the countries you've invaded
3) Reducing the absurd and ridiculously oversized military you have?

Or is your talk about Jesus and peace just hot air? Because what seems to happen is that you all vote Republican, which is the party of invade-everyone and insane over the top over-militarization (when its not trying to take healthcare away from veterans). Since the chances of Jesus voting Republican would be approximately negative infinity, your words don't seem to match your actions.

Star - I started this thread in the spirit of "ask and listen." Not just "same old same old." Common ground...not accusations... please?

[carpedm9587]

See Carp? Free healthcare, free housing, basic income, and I am sure Starlight is for free college too.

So, why hasn't California implemented any of this? They have the numbers. They have the economy (lots of rich people and businesses). Yet they have overwhelming poverty with homeless people pooping in the streets, and street gangs living in ghettos doing crimes to survive.

So, out of curiosity, Sparko, do you have an objections to a "free highway system?" A "free military?" A "free police force?" I'd be curious as to how/why you see a difference between these things that are paid for by our tax dollars, and healthcare.

[Sparko]

So, out of curiosity, Sparko, do you have an objections to a "free highway system?" A "free military?" A "free police force?" I'd be curious as to how/why you see a difference between these things that are paid for by our tax dollars, and healthcare.

Somethings are necessary some are not. I already said I would be for a single payer healthcare system if it were done correctly. We need police and military and roads. We don't need everyone to have a college degree. We don't need to punish those who do well by taking their gains and giving it to other people at such a rate that it discourages capitalism.

But my question was, since these ARE things that liberals all seem to agree on, why hasn't California implemented them? They have the votes and the demand and the need (the poor) and the means (Hollywood, Silicon Valley)

But they seem to like having poor people who can't afford a million dollar 3-bedroom basic ranch home. They seem to like having homeless people pooping in the streets. They seem to like having black gangs shooting each other. Why don't they fix it? If liberal strategies actually work to make life better, why aren't they implementing them? They could show the country the way it should be done, as a shining example of hope.

[Mountain Man]

I've said this elsewhere, but I would love see the US return to a strict Constitutional Republic with a Federal government no larger than absolutely necessary. National defense, a regulated free-market, and basic infrastructure for the purposes of commerce should be the primary concern of the Feds. Let everything else be the prerogative of state and local governments. That's the broad-strokes version. The particulars are open for debate.

[carpedm9587]

Somethings are necessary some are not. I already said I would be for a single payer healthcare system if it were done correctly. We need police and military and roads. We don't need everyone to have a college degree. We don't need to punish those who do well by taking their gains and giving it to other people at such a rate that it discourages capitalism.

Not everyone needs healthcare - and not everyone drives a car or uses the roads (though most do). Yet we administer roads on a socialized model. Likewise not everyone will want college. But that is not an argument for not using a socialized model. Indeed, it seems somewhat arbitrary to pay for 12 years of education and not the next 4, especially when studies clearly show that a college education increases the earning potential by an average of $1M. That also increases taxes. Indeed, some numbers out there suggest that the taxes paid on the increased income over a lifetime will more than pay for the college cost. So we end up with more people having access to colleges, an overall better educated citizenry, maintain (or restore) or leadership in technology and innovation, and make college possible for a whole host of people who have the gifts and may not have the money.

And I don't think it should be structured as a hand-out. Frankly, I'd like to see something that works similar to how I am "paying" for my children's education. Since they were born, we set aside $40/week and invested it. That's "our pot." We also put every monetary gift the kids got when they were <5 years old aside for college, and then required them to budget everything they got (allowances, gifts, etc.) after they were 5, with half of it going to the college fund. That's "their pot." The college deal is simple: pay for a semester out of "your pot." Then bring me your report card. I will reimburse 100% for an A, 75% for a B, 50% for a C, and nothing for anything below that. So if they get straight A's, they get all their money back, which is enough to pay for the next semester. If they graduate summa cum laude, at the end of their last semester, they will get their original money back and start life with a small pot of money instead of crushing debt.

So I'd like the college funding to be, at least to some degree, linked to outcomes. I'd rather not see my tax dollars go to someone's party. The problem is that the poor probably can't do what my wife and I did, so that original pot to kick everything off is missing. Somehow, that would need to be factored into the plan.

But my question was, since these ARE things that liberals all seem to agree on, why hasn't California implemented them? They have the votes and the demand and the need (the poor) and the means (Hollywood, Silicon Valley)

But they seem to like having poor people who can't afford a million dollar 3-bedroom basic ranch home. They seem to like having homeless people pooping in the streets. They seem to like having black gangs shooting each other. Why don't they fix it? If liberal strategies actually work to make life better, why aren't they implementing them? They could show the country the way it should be done, as a shining example of hope.

First - I have answered this already. You apparently have not seen it, or are ignoring it. No state, including Vermont, is without opposition. Second - I have emphasized your incorrect assumption. There are many liberals who reject some/all of these ideas. So when you get a large body of people, like a legislature, getting enough people to implement these sweeping changes and have them accepted by the executive is going to be difficult.

The rest of your post is simply an attempt, apparently, to be insulting, so I'll leave it unresponded to (well, except for this... ).