Donny, the business of America is business. The only manufacturing base we have left for all practical purposes is ... weaponry. We are very good at it, which is why we are the #1 arms dealer to the world. We also feed the world, so it's time to put shoot food prices up to oil level prices. There. Your cartoons are great so now top your military squirrel.
Not a bad list. I agree with most of it. I appreciate your solutions based comment. I'll rep you for it.
Although I don't agree with about 3 or 4 of those, I would sign off on ALL of them on the condition of adding the following.... 11) No public office holder can be re-elected back to back. - Main goal here is to prevent politicians to come into office on the first day and start planning on who and how many do to bribe, trick, lie to, and screw over to get re-elected. They should come in, do what's best for the country as a whole, and move on.
There are a number of people who share your concern. However, career politicians will be with us always. That is why I put in strict campaign finance rules to prevent pro pols from accumulating huge war chests which make them almost unbeatable within a few years. Full, strict annual financial disclosure of office holder finances would be critical. Also, restricting lobbyist access to pols except under the rules expressed is a key to lessening the opportunties for graft. Actually, a constant influx of new legislators would make legislation really difficult. There would be only a few who understood the legislative process, and, by the time they did, they would be gone. There would be no time to build alliances based on trust. So, pro pols probably are a good thing. Keeping them honest and responsible to the people would be the difficult part.
Thumbs, I'm shocked how many liberal-leaning compromises you have in this list. Single payer health care? Taxing everything above $5mil at 50% with no loopholes? Official charter declaring top-paid/lowest paid ratio? That's a liberals' wet dream, and many conservatives would declare such a list an express train to Marxism. Or am I wrong? How much do these compromises rankle you, and (in your opinion) the average Tea Partier? I personally think single payer and the progressive tax system you listed would be great, but I also think the Tea Party would organized an armed revolt against such a thing. Am I wrong?
You are not entirely wrong, but not entirely correct. A number of tea partiers contributed to the list with concessions and demands. As I have stated, in a perfect world I would not support several of the enumerated points. I don't think anybody would, although they would object to different points for different reasons. That said, the nation IMO is at a point where foreward action is required. I believe the national debt will sink us all, so we must act even if it means raising taxes and consolidating tasks. Just as some get upset at Point 6, there has to be a solution to illegal immigration. Just as I caved on single payer health care to consolidate Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare, others must cave on this and/or other issues. Again, everybody tosses in something they want but also gives up something. I like the x-plan because each company decides what their x-plan will be, but it also closes the gap in management and labor but without stifling promotion. Over the long term the plan would reign in corporate greed far more effectively than more regulations with corresponding loopholes. Unions are curbed because they will be forced to be more attentive to the rank and file lest the rank and file not pay dues. A union member has to believe he or she is getting something worthwhile when they choose to send $100 monthly to the union for to pay a bill. So, it's like the kid in "Pay It Forward." An idea has to start somewhere, and, if it's a good idea ... a worthwhile idea ... it will take root and grow.
The bolded is an assumption. I think the quite opposite would happen. Without the "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" concept, stuff would actually get done. Nobody should owe anyone anything. You come in, create proposals and vote, then move on. None of this "hmmm I've been around for 20 years, I know all the loopholes that can be used to prevent progress" or "bob owes me for voting for his proposal even though I knew my constituents would hate it". I am against the alliances you mention. That's one of the reasons for partisanship. I know my idea and explanation is simplistic, but I think that's where the beauty is....it's simple. This one rule sweeps out a lot of the regulations and oversight in your post above.
For those of you who want to play the compromise game, do what I asked the people who helped formulate the 10 ideas, but honesty is required -- no trying to skew the results. List three major goals which you absolutely must have, three that you fiercely oppose but would accept en toto, and three that you feel would be acceptable to both liberals and conservatives. Try to keep the statements fairly general.
We are seeing a very good example of this point in the Texas legislative session right now. There is a hoard of newly elected reps who know less about government functioning and the legislative process than my 4th grade son. It is simply embarassing listening to committee hearings and half the time is spent on "Legislation 101" for these dolts. It is counter-productive and leads to frivolous and bad legislation. I never thought I would be glad that Ogden is around to be the sane legislator.
I've waited for the compromise offerings, but I see there is no response to my Post #51. This tells me one of two things: either the challenge is too difficult or (and probably more correctly) people don't want to compromise. If they can't win 90 to 100% of what they want, they don't want negotiate. Politics is not sports, ladies and gentlemen. Winning only comes with a tie -- everybody gets some of the pie but not all.
