You are right, it would be a mistake to infer stupidity or maliciousness upon all who disagree.
Obama in for 2012? Where do you stand?
- Thread starter Danoz
- Start date
I don't think we need to get rid of the whole thing, but there are some items I think should be considered, mainly having to do with the fiscal process. Top concern is that we have to quit running up debt, and quit playing games with the federal budget. I think we should look to the states that have balanced-budget amendments to see how they've accomplished it. That may be a useful idea.
I also think the entire tax code as it stands needs to be scrapped and the amendment permitting the power of the federal government to levy an income tax repealed. Certain states are able to function without an income tax, and some of their sales-tax structures could provide a model to a new tax system that's a whole hell of a lot harder to evade. Before you say it's regressive, there are certain states that avoid that problem by not taxing certain categories of essential items, or taxing them at a lesser rate. This way, the fewer non-essentials you buy, the less tax you pay, proportionately. The more non-essentials you buy, the more tax you pay, proportionately. (Of course, what we cannot have is any more than two categories; otherwise we get into the same kind of tax-evading BS people and companies pull now, with our ridiculously complicated tax code, if they have good enough layers.) As it stands, the states currently have mechanisms already able to handle sales taxes; a good bit of the work on a federal sales tax should be delegated out to the states since they already know how to make it work with their populations.
We also need to clarify the "interstate commerce clause" and the "necessary and proper clause" to stop the federal government from defining it so loosely that any activity under the sun can come under the purview of the federal government, regardless of whether it was originally supposed to be under the purview of the states, or not subject to government interference at all. In other words, we need to make it impossible to keep using these clauses to circumvent the 10th Amendment.
This may require more than just one short amendment...it make take a supplementary document (but one that should be CONCISE, because how the hell can you debate something intelligently when it's thousands of pages long and full of obscurities and loopholes?).
Oh...and the electoral college is pretty sketchy, too. Something needs to replace that...not sure what.
Finally--immigration reform is very necessary, both to streamline the legal immigration process and stop encouraging illegal immigration. I am very happy to see people from many cultures here. I studied Spanish in school and got a degree in it because I have a true love for the language. But I think the system could better serve immigrants (from everywhere) AND us. Mis-application of the 14th Amendment regarding "anchor babies" may not be helping matters for anybody. There is a debate to be had on that subject, and something could be drafted that would guarantee the equal rights of all natural-born and naturalized citizens, as well as certain basic rights to all (you have a right not to be subject to brutality, whether you came here legally or not), but will not automatically grant citizenship just because someone snuck across the border. That's how most countries do it.
Oh, and two more amendments I forgot.
Term limits on Congress. PLEASE. There is a point where however good someone's intentions might've been, they become too much a part of "government culture" to represent the people and they have outlasted their usefulness. Either 1 term for Senator, 3 for Representative, or 2 terms for Senator, 6 for Representative. "Career" and "congressperson" should not be in the same sentence.
A "read the bill" amendment. All bills should have to be released in their entirety for public comment, criticism, and debate for a certain period of time proportionate to its length. No more passing the bill to find out what's in it. OK, so what if it's an emergency? Well, given the abuses that could happen if we allowed Congress to determine willy-nilly what's an emergency and what should be rammed down people's throats without the proper debate time, I would say don't provide an emergency power to go around that amendment. In fact--if it IS an emergency, that should be a clue that there isn't any time to go loading the bill with your loopholes and pet projects, then, shouldn't it?
Term limits on Congress. PLEASE. There is a point where however good someone's intentions might've been, they become too much a part of "government culture" to represent the people and they have outlasted their usefulness. Either 1 term for Senator, 3 for Representative, or 2 terms for Senator, 6 for Representative. "Career" and "congressperson" should not be in the same sentence.
A "read the bill" amendment. All bills should have to be released in their entirety for public comment, criticism, and debate for a certain period of time proportionate to its length. No more passing the bill to find out what's in it. OK, so what if it's an emergency? Well, given the abuses that could happen if we allowed Congress to determine willy-nilly what's an emergency and what should be rammed down people's throats without the proper debate time, I would say don't provide an emergency power to go around that amendment. In fact--if it IS an emergency, that should be a clue that there isn't any time to go loading the bill with your loopholes and pet projects, then, shouldn't it?
I'm curious. Is this a blanket statement regardless of who runs against him? And would you vote for his opponent regardless or would you simply abstain from voting, depending on the other candidate?
Yeah, that's the problem. This is the best he can do. IMO, a total loser, and I voted for him! But to be fair, the only reason I voted for him was to keep Sarah Palin out of the White House. Now THERE"S a nut job.
Hahaha, no I realize TrekBBS is not representative of the United States. Not only are we geographically distributed around the entire world, forum-going Star Trek fans would hardly be an accurate sample. This is just for fun
.And to your second point, I would never do that. I'm more of a moderate Democrat, I have voted Republican before, and I have a lot of respect for conservatives (just not for Fox News).
Well if anything, Obama's winning the crucial bellwether Trek vote.
Yup.I vote for the nominee of my fellow Democrats. If we run a yellow dog against the Republican, I vote for the yellow dog.
Barry Obama it is.
I am not ashamed to admit that I toe the party line when it comes to my Democrats.
A
Amaris
Guest
The crazier the GOP become, the more Democratic and Liberal I become.
You know, following the senate election in Nevada really worried me when Sharron Angle had a chance to beat Harry Reid. That scared the shit out of me.
A
Amaris
Guest
Yep. I'm not a fan of Harry Reid's at all, but Sharon Angle would have been a nightmare for everyone except wealthy white Christians.
I was very glad that Boxer won in California. She's a little firecracker of a senator and she makes me hot.
And how do you propose to get 2/3 of House and Senate to agree to such an insanely radical change to the constitution?
So why does everybody do it?
Barbara Boxer made me straight.
Now that's a campaign slogan!
A
Amaris
Guest
You know, the thing is, I'm actively working more in favor of Democrats and liberal politicians now, because the GOP and their lineup make me so concerned due to their efforts to destroy the middle class.
Unfortunately, your quoting took out the most important part, i.e. the emphasis.So why does everybody do it?
Let's put it back where it belongs.
Babs is great. I love voting for her. Every time I punch that ballot I can just hear the agonized gnashing of teeth and tearing of garments amongst California Republicans.
All 7 of them.
As Trekkies go, so goes the nation.Well if anything, Obama's winning the crucial bellwether Trek vote.