Honest invitation to the Leftist Liberals -- please, tell us on the Right what you REALLY want!

You sound like me and most every other one who responded per the rules the OP set up.
You figure out if that is RW or LW. I call it center.

 

Sure he is, and the twist is that he pretends to care, shows OFF Republican flat tax rate as a GOOD THING for all. It is and has been a scam since Reagan. The RICH must be taxed and the poor not taxed at all, that is how far out of whack we are. This Stockmarket decline we have now is just the 2nd part of 2008 kick the can. You think we had problems then, watch this time.
Only difference now is the Banks are Free, they along with the politicians have transfered the liability to the people thru law changes, Banks are no longer responsible if they fail, they just take depositors money, your money, and pay the debt. They now have that right.

And the BS FDIC Guarantee everybody pulls out of their pocket like it really matters, We are FDIC insured up to blah blah... Well, they have 2 cents on every dollar covered. So, if they do fail, and taking your money covers it, and they only have .02 cents for every dollar, who is getting paid ? Nobody !!!!!

We moved all of our money out of the bank, have vault, safe, in ground, tangible assets, real estate bought cheap and so on. Only a fool would trust their 401K rep who will be long gone, so will wall street titans, hauling ass. What happened to the 401K reps who butchered funds in 2008 that worked at JP morgan ? They go to wells fargo, or citibank, or IPfreely, it doesnt matter where they go, they are all one big bunch doing the same thing with your money, making money for themselves.

Gullible people, trusting people, will never ever learn. They just keep trusting... Lose half their money and still go to another investment bank who makes the same promise, but republicans removed what was going to be a law. Fiduciary law, no way do THEY want to be responsible for their actions. It sounded good for a while, suckers, all suckers out there...

 

Likely stay and die as illegals. As has been happening for the last 30+ yrs.
Or our country will wake up and address the issue. But I'll go with die as illegals for now.

 

In many ways, Dairy, I still have some deeply-entrenched 'liberal' views myself, and, yes, I smoked 'the bud' back in the day.... We used to love to smoke a couple of joints and then dive into a big pizza with LOTS of stuff on it. We used to laugh, we used to really love our music, and we used to dream. Yes, those were 'the days'.... Ah, but after a while, it was finish college, get a good job, and work your butt off -- and make something of yourself. I ain't a multi-millionaire now that I've retired, but, I did all right....

You and I most definitely agree that, as you said, "We should all be free to live how we choose." To that eloquent statement I would only add that a person should be free to live life as he/she wishes -- so long as it does not infringe on the rights, well-being, earned income of other people.

 

I want clean air to breath and and clean water to drink. When I was young - that made you a good citizen. Now it makes me a friggin' commie liberal.
THAT'S what's wrong with the system.

 

The fact that we agree upon nothing simply provides more evidence that the OP's fears are correct. It's a very deeply divided nation, and we will eventually have to start killing each other. War is an unfortunate inevitability because we share no common values.

 

I’m not what you guys call a righty but if I’m still allowed I’ll bite. I do disagree with many of your points so maybe that qualifies me.

By the numbers I could work with you on these:

1-6
Parts of 8
9
15-17
25
26
27

You put a lot of thought/work into your posts. Thanks.

 

Thank you, Kode, for the great effort you have made, and all the thought that went into preparing this very well thought-out list. You would be surprised at how many of your items I agree with, either partially, or completely, even though I'm a Conservative!

You could not possibly be more frustrated with the U. S. Tax Code, and, separately, the way that CPI factors are assessed for the computation of the TRUE cost of living than I am. The Tax Code especially should be completely overhauled so that ALL shelters, loopholes, deductions, exceptions, exemptions, and "carried interest" are permanently and totally removed forever!

 

Hmmm. We could discuss that! That might be useful.

So you wanted feedback on what the left wants and I gave you my thoughts. Where do you see this subject going from here? Maybe, first, we need more lefties and righties to get involved with a genuine participation that honors your original intent.

 

WOW! That's a GREAT start if you are a conservative or stand to the right of center!

You're welcome! That's a hell of a start!!!

But tell me, what's your disagreement with #11?

 

I agree, you an exhaustive list of what you want.

The problem is that I'm not seeing any universal principles there. It's basically a shopping list of certain things you want, rather than a reason for why you want those things.

For example, a true small government type would have a principle for why small is necessary at all, like how we might need a federal government just in case we end up in a war. I know that government is an unfortunate necessity, and the reason for that is due to national security.

Simply because of that one thing, I can agree with absolutely NOTHING on your list. Not a one. You can read right down the list and it's no, no, and hell no!

 

We would like government policies that slow or even reverse the trend towards more and more wealth accumulating at the top.

We would like decent universal healthcare for all Americans.

We would like an education system that provides an equal opportunity for all.

We would like a government by and for the people.

We would like a justice system where all Americans are treated equally

We would like a system in which where you end up is determined by your effort and not by the accident of your birth.

And there are more!

 

Two problems. I don’t think we need to be adding any more costly bureaucracies. And I’m not a fan of government telling a business owner what to do with a business. Private property rights are important to me.

 

No, I lean left on social issues, but I am for fiscal responsibility which is something neither party for 20 years has shown.

Please show me one republican platform that called for government universal healthcare for all citizens.

Repubs have been in the fore front of the war on drugs. The closest things the repubs ever did to leagelize drugs was to all the cia to import coke in the 80s to finance the contras.

Eliminating SS in favor of a guaranteed retirement income is not a republican idea. they want to end SS and replace it with a 401, wonderful if you make say 60,000 or more a year, but how many people how have a family will set aside enough before age 50 when the kids start to leave and you can seriously save.

I don't want many corporate deductions eliminated, I want them all eliminated. No longer will income from investments be taxed at the 15% capital gains rate but at the higher personal tax rate. I want to free up US corporations from paying 8% SS and medicare matching, and corporate contributions to healthcare to free them up to compete internationally. The profits that the corp makes is only taxed at 15% but the dividends that the corp pays is at the higher rate. Trum and the repubs want investment income treated as a diff kind of income. to me income is income and I want it taxed the same.

Term limits is an idea that is 100 years old.

Balanced budgets have been ignored by both dem and repubs for 30 years don't tell me it is one party or the other. The dems want to raise taxes on the rich to pay for the social programs that they wanted and the repubs refuse to raise taxes on the rich even when they controlled the presidency and congress. Both parties are equally at fault.

Please show me the raids on businesses, Trump says there are millions working here illegally, how come he can't find them? He can find them because he chooses not to and to expend political capital on a 5 bill wall.

Tariffs - I agree with you here. The dems are just trying to make hay being anti trump when Sanders wanted the same thing. This is a great example of obstructed politic. Sanders got a big portion of the dem vote with this same issue. Shame on the dem leadership.

The schools don't make the standard, the federal government has mandated. Also per my election financing unions can not longer contribute to campaigns. Corporations neither. that is why I want no deductions no chance for politicians to curry favor with the corps.. The idea of vouchers is not school choice but to insure that you don't have to go to a failing school. Let the nation adopt the Mass standard which is the toughest in the nation.

 

Those bills don't tell business owners what to do with businesses. Where did you get such an idea?

 

First there is practically no limit on H2-A visa to work in agriculture. our workplace safety and welfare should be expanded in that area to insure that these migrant immigrants that work 6 months a year here are treated much better. If you spent your entire life here you are a US citizen. i don't care how long you been here there is no statue of limitations on crossing the border. I want every Illegal alien to be looking over the shoulder. Now, there are productive illegals in this country- hard working and honest except for that one crime. Now I can see them staying here, but no citizenship as a punishment for coming here illegally. Now there income must have been derived in an legal manner that they paid all taxes that anyone else would have. If they were found to be a say a Gardner and a household domestic for 30 years and were paid under the table- bye bye.

 

Holy Smoke, Kode. Nice effort. Like I said, this is a good idea for a thread.

I am conservative, but my conservatism is my own definition, and it is often at odds with the views of other conservatives. I say that as sort of a disclaimer ... I know that I don't represent anyone but myself.

No, and I'm sorry, but I cannot compromise with you on this, and I am also speaking of #33 as well. Think about our state. 4 Democratic representatives to the House and 1 Republican. If our whole state was allowed to elect all 5 of its representatives to the House, you know and I know that they would ALL be Democrats, and that area of our state that always elects a Republican would go unrepresented. A while back I looked at the state of New York's composition of House members. More Dems than R's, but still, quite a few R's. If we did what you're suggesting ALL of those R's would be out of job because all of those more conservative areas of New York state would be overwhelmed by the voters of New York City.

If this were in reverse, if large cities were overwhelmingly Republican, you would not support this idea because it would cause you to lose a huge number of Democrats in the House, and Republicans would have an absolute lock on it forever.

Now the other thing I think you're referring to is the Electoral College and electing a President by a straight majority vote. I don't care for this for two reasons. One, again, it would put too much power into large population centers and a few states, leaving out the rest of the country. But the other reason is that I believe that if you look at the powers vested in the presidency granted by the Constitution, they are supposed to rather few and, really, very limited. The real power to govern our nation is supposed to be vested in Congress, not the presidency. The President in many ways is supposed to be almost a figurehead. His primary job is supposed to be to run the bureaucracy which only exists to carry out the will of Congress. The reason why we place so much importance in the presidency and the Supreme Court picks is that Congress has voluntarily abdicated its powers. Congress does not want to make hard decisions. Congress does not want to take political risk. And so they abdicate their powers to the President and the Supreme Court. Sen. Ben Sasse really lays it out well right here. This is well worth the time to listen to him ...



We are not supposed to have an imperial presidency! If Congress was actually doing its job, we wouldn't.

There are two things we should do to get Congress to do what it is supposed to do, take back its power, and actually govern, and I'd like to hear your feedback on these.

(1) Enact term limits on members of the House. I would suggest 2 terms for a total of 4 years. Not only would this minimize the influence of campaign donors (corporate and private), but it would take away the disincentive to act, to govern, and to make decisions.

(2) Repeal the 17th Amendment which allows members of the Senate to be elected by a popular vote. Let's return that job back to the state legislatures. The reason for that is to take campaign finance out of the Senate and to once again make senators answerable and accountable solely to their own state. As it is, a senator from Oregon may be beholden to an interest in Florida because of the campaign donations that Floridian concern can make. I think that's absurd, but that is the case.

I don't think I want to start limiting the freedom of speech, but I do want to limit the power of campaign donors and lobbyists. Hence, the suggestions I made above. Here is an example where our goals converge, but our methods differ.

We have agreement here. I would extend that $500 limitation to PACs as well.

I don't care for this. I think it would serve to keep third parties down. Again, I think the $500 limit by individuals and PACs would put all candidates on a pretty level playing field.

We could probably negotiate some agreement here. I don't believe income taxes should apply to low-middle income people. If income could be rated on a scale of 1-10, I would say that income taxes should begin when you reach 6.

I understand the goal you're after. I wouldn't mind making some changes incrementally and see how it goes. For example, we could begin by fully funding Medicare for seniors, Parts A, B, and D and eliminating the need for supplemental medicare insurance. There really wouldn't be a need for A, B, and D anymore. It would all be one program of total health care. At first, this would be for seniors only, 65+. And this is important - taxpayers would pay for it fully. This would require an increase in the Medicare tax. This would leave wage earners with less money in their pockets, but Medicare would no longer be adding to the annual budget deficit (It does now), and, once you reached 65, your health insurance would be virtually free to you. That money you paid during your years as a wage earner would be simply "paying it forward".

Now if this worked out well, we could go to the taxpayers/voters and see if they'd be willing to pony up for the cost of this total insurance for the 55-64 crowd ... fully paid for, no deficit spending allowed. As part of the tax law, I would stipulate that the Medicare tax would go up, down, or remain the same, according to the needs of the program to stay completely self-supporting. This adjustment would happen once a year, automatically.

The next group for consideration, at additional cost of course, would be the 45-54 crowd, and so forth.

Not sure. Haven't researched this one.

Well if the parents are paying for a superior education, I see nothing wrong with that. The question we should be asking is how do we make public schools as good as the private schools.

Agree.

Continued in next post ...

 

Agree. Our kids are fat, fat, FAT. Require daily P.E. all the way through the 12th grade.

Sorry, no. I want a limited federal government, like it was intended to be. I don't want it telling businesses how to do business. If individual states want to pass laws like these, I'm less opposed to it. Let's see CA, OR, and WA pass and implement these laws and see how it goes ... if they want to.

Kode, I think any high school graduate who wants to go to college should be able to go, regardless of their economic status, and without incurring massive debt. However, I don't want a program like this implemented by the federal government. I would prefer that it be implemented by the states and fully paid for. I could see where nearby states could even collaborate with each other. States are much more accountable and efficient. We share the same goal here, however.

Some agreement here. Not in favor of disincentivizing fossil fuel production or banning nuclear energy, but in favor of incentivizing alternatives.

Agree

I'm sure we could negotiate an agreement on immigration policy. There are lots of facets to that issue, but I think we could do it. As long as you believe that we should have secure borders and laws like E-verify, other things - like the status of illegals already here - could be compromised on. We must not have sanctuary states and cities, however. When illegals commit crimes, they should be deported.

I didn't know they didn't have all of our rights. I assumed they were citizens with full rights. Aren't they?

What is "militarization"? And the police may only enforce the laws that we, the people, pass. If we don't want them enforcing certain laws, repeal them.

Agree, and I would go a step further. I would bring the age of "full retirement" under S.S. back to 65.

Or label the products and let the public decide what they'll buy. There's a compromise.

I would like to see the Supreme Court vacate Roe v Wade, but assert that cities and counties may pass their own laws, and have the issue settled by individual cities and counties. For example, in Marion County, the citizens of Salem may decide that abortions shall be allowed in their city, but the City of Silverton may not. In that case, residents of Silverton who want an abortion would simply drive to Salem and have their abortion. Let communities decide according to their own community standards. This would represent a compromise on both sides of the argument.

No, but I agree with preemptive seizures of firearms, such as we have now in this state, subject to due process.

Agree.

I agree that there is a problem here, but we have to find a solution outside of the federal government regulating speech. That is a slippery slope we must not get on. There is far too much room for mischief if we start letting the government regulate speech.

No, because then we open the door to politicians deciding what the "public good" is. Another slippery slope with a great potential for mischief. I would be open to the idea of corporations donating money to charities in lieu of taxes, however.

Agree.

I think we already have the agencies in place to do this. They need to collaborate with each other and perhaps receive more funding so they can concentrate on the problem effectively without sacrificing other priorities. So I agree.

Agree

I can't stand white supremacists, but I would not agree to limitations on speech. Frankly, I think those guys do a good enough job of making themselves look like the asses that they are.

I agree with the ski masks, disagree with the hijabs. Ski masks in stores, banks, and public demonstrations are a matter of public safety and have nothing to do with religion or culture. Hijabs are a religious/cultural thing, and, although I don't like them, I don't want to restrict them either.

I can see compromise here. I don't want to tax a person who inherits the family farm or business and continues to work it. Tax the inheritor if they sell the farm they inherited. If a person sells the family farm in their dying days and gives the money to their children, tax that. See what I mean?

No opinion. Haven't researched it.

Already covered in #1.

I would need more specifics to comment on this.

Agreed that we should find ways to address this problem.

Agree that we should take measures to reduce credit card fraud. Exactly how we do that is what we'd have to figure out. If I were in a decision-making position, I would want input from experts in the field.

No opinion on this. Haven't researched it.

In favor of this in principle. My preference would be that states pass these laws.

We agreed on some things outright. On other things we agreed on the goal in principle. Some things I could not agree on, but I offered a compromise.

We are better than our representatives. Smarter too, IMHO, lol.

Cheers, my friend.

Seth

 

Where on earth do you get that from my quoted point 1??? I think it is obvious that I mean "one citizen; one vote per candidate". It does not mean any change to who elects whom. That 5th Representative who is a Republican in our state House is Greg Walden, and his district is the whole of Eastern Oregon. "One person; one vote" wouldn't change anything in that. Can you explain your concern? All I was saying is an advocacy for ending all the worries and BS about "voter fraud" and multiple votes per person.

I'm not following your logic. I suspect you're misunderstanding me.

Each American is equally represented by the president and his passage or vetos of bills. Hence, each voter should have a vote that is equal to the vote of every other voter. And regarding different states and their differing needs, that is the reason the Constitution provided for states' rights to exceed the minimum federal legislation and to pass state laws that were not addressed at all by the federal government.

The electoral college (which I don't recall mentioning in my post) has screwed up two consecutive presidential elections by appointing or selecting a candidate that the people didn't elect. I'm sure the right will argue that, but this is all a side argument and not germane to the discussion.

True.

I would want to hear a debate in congress on this first. But I also proposed a ban on corporate campaign contributions.

I covered that with a much preferred ban on such campaign contributions. We could add to that a law that all contributions to senators and representatives must only originate with registered voters in that state. I'd be fine with that.

How does any of this impact the freedom of speech?

Good point. I would ban PACs as well. NO published political influences other than those of the candidates themselves, and any public meetings and speeches that anyone may wish to organize and hold. But no publications other than those of the candidates.

Legislation could accommodate third parties. It's done now regarding ballot measures. Something similar could allow for new parties.

The greatest part of the healthcare problem is in fraud by providers, waste, and greed. Funding would not be a problem if these were corrected. So starting with funding would ignore the real problems and doom it all to failure, not to mention resistance.

You're starting with the most expensive section of the population and working backward, and still haven't addressed the excessive costs of fraud, waste, and greed.

Don't you see that that would eliminate the motivation to run private schools?! Their whole claim to fame is "superior education". But there should be no room for some schools to be ineffective and some schools, private or otherwise, to be exceptionally good. Dooming any able students to inferior education for some political reason is wrong.

 

I read the bills.

 

Can you explain how these bills "tell business how to do business"? And also tell me where you got that idea. Tell the truth now. Where did you get it? This is the second time I've seen this come up and I suspect some right wing source did some propaganda on it. The bills DO NOT tell businesses how to do business!

I suggest you go back and check the OP. There is no limitation that I found there to FEDERAL government. It just asked what the left would like to see happen. And in this reply, I didn't specify either federal or state. However, rational tax law is the purview of the federal government. And this federal tax change is needed.

Most certainly we need border security. I suggest that your concern that I or others on the left might want open borders is a false idea spread by unconscionable propaganda from the right. There is no substantial interest in any such thing on the left.

If we had border security, rational immigration laws, and enforcement of existing laws relating to illegals, sanctuary cites would not be seen as "necessary" by any city. And of course not only should there be no illegals in the country, but when found, new arrivals should be deported. But we need "rational" laws, which also means that those who have been here for 20 years from when they were small children due to the refusal of government to enforce existing laws, should get special consideration.

They are citizens, but there are complications due to the existence of tribal lands and the laws that apply. Also, in North Dakota during the last election there was an attempt by republicans to exclude Native Americans form the polls in an underhanded way that was in fact aimed at them. It said that a voter must have a street address and a P.O. box wouldn't do. Many or most N.A.s on reservations get their mail via P.O. boxes and all their mail has such an address. So there are still various attempts to deprive them of rights.

The federal government has distributed "surplus" military gear to police around the nation. Notice how police look today when responding to events versus how they appeared 30 years ago. Vehicles, weapons, personal gear, etc. are looking more and more "military" because of this. They are utilizing more militaristic techniques and practices. They are too often shooting first and asking questions later. You of all people should be familiar with the militarization of the police around the country.

One of the fundamental functions of government is to protect the people. There is now no question as to whether GMO, HFCS, and hydrogenated oil like Crisco is harmful. The whole point of GMO crops is to permit them to be sprayed with Roundup or other herbicide without harm, and those herbicides have been proven to be present in the marketed produce. And they are very harmful. So give me one good reason to leave this up to any individual decision.

Bad idea. We already have, notably Southern states, in which abortion of any kind at any time is not available but is in fact banned by law. The poor in those states cannot afford to travel to other states for abortions considering all costs involved. So we end up with different treatment and opportunities for different people based on their income or other such factors. Such discrimination is not American!

These WERE laws and were more recently repealed, but they WORKED. They were "inconvenient" to those who wanted to manipulate public opinion for political gain. And those corrupt forces won. We need to bring them back because they worked for a long, long time.

Yes, but estate taxes rarely harmed anyone inheriting a farm, because in most cases life insurance policies have traditionally been in place to pay the taxes. So this has not been a problem, although the right wing think tanks have invented this "lose the family farm" mantra to bamboozle the uninformed.

Cheers. And thanks.

 

Care to quote the troubling text?

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/1082

 

I will gladly help out since we are both on the same page as far as trying to make America a better place for all of us. In turn I would appreciate your suggestions in my thread if you can spare a little time.

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...f-america-and-the-need-for-compromise.548323/

I do have real world experience when it comes to finding compromise solutions and there can hardly be a more worthwhile cause than doing so for We the People.

 

Do you mind if I include your suggestions in my thread?

http://politicalforum.com/index.php...f-america-and-the-need-for-compromise.548323/