Get your conservative and liberal ideas approved or shot down here

[TheGreatGatsby]

OP will reflect approved and shot down ideas.

Approved

* A law that requires the federal govt. to pass a balanced budget.
* Repeal the 17th amendment (Allow states to decide appointment/election procedures of Senators).

Shot Down

* Doing away with the Libertarian Party.
* Public Campaign Financing.
* Same sex marriage in all 50 states.

 

[SniperFire]

Libertarianism, as an actual political party, is an exercise in mental masturbation.

We will never return to the Deadwood, and it really didn't work out that well to begin with.


Approve or disapprove?

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Libertarianism, as an actual political party, is an exercise in mental masturbation.

We will never return to the Deadwood, and it really didn't work out that well to begin with.


Approve or disapprove?

If anything, economic minded Republicans, Constitutionalists, and anti state control independents and democrats need to flock to the Libertarian Party to send a real message that they are not pawns of a political party.

Economically and Constitutionally speaking, the Tea Party movement was much akin to libertarianism.

You may say, wouldn't less Republicans give the Dems too much power if we split? The answer is a sad probably. The Dems would initially have more power. But out of the ashes, the libertarians would prevail.

The problem is that the GOP loves to talk a good libertarian game to the base, but few of them are anything but Republicrats. My Congressman Ed Royce is the perfect example of that. When he does speaking lectures around town, you'd think he was a Ron Paul clone. But then he goes out and puts his yay vote for Obama's bloated budget. WTF is that all about? Most of the Republicans do that too.

Thank you for submission

 

[SniperFire]

We are an entire communist revolution and subsequent totalitarian regime collapse away from an ash-heap from which Libertarianism could actually be born, with millions dead in the process.

Me, I would rather see Romney and the Ryan budget.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

We are an entire communist revolution and subsequent totalitarian regime collapse away from an ash-heap from which Libertarianism could actually be born, with millions dead in the process.

Me, I would rather see Romney and the Ryan budget.

LOL. I share your sense of pragmatism.

Honestly, I can't speak to the Ryan budget b/c I haven't studied it. But I do agree with Newt that his Medicare plan was social right wing engineering. It was not made to lower health cost; but rather to pander to his corporate interests. Based on that, he has lost my faith.

As for Romney; I'm pretty excited. I wanted Paul but when I think that it could've been Newt or Santorum, I am thankful. Santorum especially would have really tested my anybody but Obama philosophy.

 

[konradv]

Public financing of elections

A. Stops the legal bribery of our representitives.

B. Saves money in the long run, because our representitives will have fewer expensive promises to keep.

C. Saves time spent begging for campaign cash, so our representitives can actually read a few bills.

D. Improves citizen participation as open mike nights, debates and sub-primaries are instituted to determine who gets campaign funding.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Public financing of elections

A. Stops the legal bribery of our representitives.

B. Saves money in the long run, because our representitives will have fewer expensive promises to keep.

C. Saves time spent begging for campaign cash, so our representitives can actually read a few bills.

D. Improves citizen participation as open mike nights, debates and sub-primaries are instituted to determine who gets campaign funding.

Public campaign financing sounds great on paper (if you disregard the Constitution that is; like so many libs and presumably a few Rinos have done).

It sounds like, level the playing field and let the best ideas win right? You run into a few problems though.

Even if we were to pretend for a moment that the Constitution were not a factor; let's look at the practical reality. Will it stop politicians from playing politics? Look at Obama in 2008. To that point, he had championed public financing. But when he saw that he would get one or two billion dollars then he declined and grand standed about how the system was broke. He then had cart blanch to spend all he wanted while McCain who did accept the public financing, was subject to spending restrictions. Hardly seems fair right?

You could argue, close the loopholes. Don't allow for private financing. Okay, well that's what the government was supposedly doing before and they did not really do it. We heard whining all day long from Dems about money creating an unfair advantage for the GOP but the second it was in their advantage they threw that talk into the garbage can.

And here's a practical question. Who would be eligible for the public money? Do you want your hard earned money going to just anyone? And would the government make it practical that anybody could attain financing? And if anybody could attain financing then there would likely be all manners of abuses.

Practically, it'd be best to eliminate campaign financing all together and have a cheap low cost network that touted ideas. But if you did that and it was literature driven, would people rail that it only benefited intellectuals? Would they argue that it was a new age lit test?

And to get to practical Constitutional matters. Does public financing not infringe upon your first amendment rights. Do you want the government to tell you that you have no right to financially support the candidate of your choice?

As I alluded, do you want the government being compelled to give away your money to anybody with an idea? Such compulsory means seems to infringe upon liberty and possibly even the pursuit of happiness.

Thank you for your submission. If you were to submit whether or not corporations should be allowed to donate to political happenings or campaigns then that would be something worth considering in my estitmation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have the gayest avatar on USMB.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

You have the gayest avatar on USMB.

Jesus loves you.

 

[konradv]

Public financing of elections

A. Stops the legal bribery of our representitives.

B. Saves money in the long run, because our representitives will have fewer expensive promises to keep.

C. Saves time spent begging for campaign cash, so our representitives can actually read a few bills.

D. Improves citizen participation as open mike nights, debates and sub-primaries are instituted to determine who gets campaign funding.

Public campaign financing sounds great on paper (if you disregard the Constitution that is; like so many libs and presumably a few Rinos have done).

It sounds like, level the playing field and let the best ideas win right? You run into a few problems though.

Even if we were to pretend for a moment that the Constitution were not a factor; let's look at the practical reality. Will it stop politicians from playing politics? Look at Obama in 2008. To that point, he had championed public financing. But when he saw that he would get one or two billion dollars then he declined and grand standed about how the system was broke. He then had cart blanch to spend all he wanted while McCain who did accept the public financing, was subject to spending restrictions. Hardly seems fair right?

You could argue, close the loopholes. Don't allow for private financing. Okay, well that's what the government was supposedly doing before and they did not really do it. We heard whining all day long from Dems about money creating an unfair advantage for the GOP but the second it was in their advantage they threw that talk into the garbage can.

And here's a practical question. Who would be eligible for the public money? Do you want your hard earned money going to just anyone? And would the government make it practical that anybody could attain financing? And if anybody could attain financing then there would likely be all manners of abuses.

Practically, it'd be best to eliminate campaign financing all together and have a cheap low cost network that touted ideas. But if you did that and it was literature driven, would people rail that it only benefited intellectuals? Would they argue that it was a new age lit test?

And to get to practical Constitutional matters. Does public financing not infringe upon your first amendment rights. Do you want the government to tell you that you have no right to financially support the candidate of your choice?

As I alluded, do you want the government being compelled to give away your money to anybody with an idea? Such compulsory means seems to infringe upon liberty and possibly even the pursuit of happiness.

Thank you for your submission. If you were to submit whether or not corporations should be allowed to donate to political happenings or campaigns then that would be something worth considering in my estitmation.

Of course there would have to be a Constitutional amendment. If money isn't speech, there would be no First Amendment problem. Giving money isn't Constitutionally protected, so that argument would require an amendment in itself, since we already have laws about donating to campaigns. That being said, NO, being able to give money is nowhere near as important as making sure more people have a voice and the budgetary savings we'd realize by reductions in favors to supporters. Giving money to people you don't like is specious as an argument, since that happens everyday with all sorts of things government does. You may not like it, but it's a fact regardless of whether public financing became law.

Thank you for your response, but it doesn't seem well thought out.

 

[Listening]

Repeal the 17th amendment.

Return the appointement of senators to the states. This would remove them as players in Washington vieing for re-election based on populist issues and would focus them on maintaining states powers.

Of course, some states might not like the idea.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Public financing of elections

A. Stops the legal bribery of our representitives.

B. Saves money in the long run, because our representitives will have fewer expensive promises to keep.

C. Saves time spent begging for campaign cash, so our representitives can actually read a few bills.

D. Improves citizen participation as open mike nights, debates and sub-primaries are instituted to determine who gets campaign funding.

Public campaign financing sounds great on paper (if you disregard the Constitution that is; like so many libs and presumably a few Rinos have done).

It sounds like, level the playing field and let the best ideas win right? You run into a few problems though.

Even if we were to pretend for a moment that the Constitution were not a factor; let's look at the practical reality. Will it stop politicians from playing politics? Look at Obama in 2008. To that point, he had championed public financing. But when he saw that he would get one or two billion dollars then he declined and grand standed about how the system was broke. He then had cart blanch to spend all he wanted while McCain who did accept the public financing, was subject to spending restrictions. Hardly seems fair right?

You could argue, close the loopholes. Don't allow for private financing. Okay, well that's what the government was supposedly doing before and they did not really do it. We heard whining all day long from Dems about money creating an unfair advantage for the GOP but the second it was in their advantage they threw that talk into the garbage can.

And here's a practical question. Who would be eligible for the public money? Do you want your hard earned money going to just anyone? And would the government make it practical that anybody could attain financing? And if anybody could attain financing then there would likely be all manners of abuses.

Practically, it'd be best to eliminate campaign financing all together and have a cheap low cost network that touted ideas. But if you did that and it was literature driven, would people rail that it only benefited intellectuals? Would they argue that it was a new age lit test?

And to get to practical Constitutional matters. Does public financing not infringe upon your first amendment rights. Do you want the government to tell you that you have no right to financially support the candidate of your choice?

As I alluded, do you want the government being compelled to give away your money to anybody with an idea? Such compulsory means seems to infringe upon liberty and possibly even the pursuit of happiness.

Thank you for your submission. If you were to submit whether or not corporations should be allowed to donate to political happenings or campaigns then that would be something worth considering in my estitmation.

Of course there would have to be a Constitutional amendment. If money isn't speech, there would be no First Amendment problem. Giving money isn't Constitutionally protected, so that argument would require an amendment in itself, since we already have laws about donating to campaigns. That being said, NO, being able to give money is nowhere near as important as making sure more people have a voice and the budgetary savings we'd realize by reductions in favors to supporters. Giving money to people you don't like is specious as an argument, since that happens everyday with all sorts of things government does. You may not like it, but it's a fact regardless of whether public financing became law.

Thank you for your response, but it doesn't seem well thought out.

Okay: Imagine that the government was engaging in all manners of corrupt actions (like they are now). Now imagine that to the tenth power. Do you want to not be able to use your money on candidates to be your mouthpiece? Equal money gives equal credence to any and all ideas.

The argument is not whether ideas are more valuable than money. I probably don't agree with that b/c the proof is that a guy with $10 Million and crappy ideas does beat the guy with good ideas and one thousand dollars. But again, that is not the argument. The argument is do you want to restrict speech?

Say a group of supporters wanted to throw a rally for a candidate. Would they be allowed to do it? No, because any money they spent would not be in line with public financing. You effectively want to silence citizens even if you have good intentions.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Liberal:

Fair and simple taxes, a budget that's balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and then build an economy that your kids can drive to the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.

 

[Peach]

Same gender marriage should be legal in all fifty states. Along with all martial benefits derived therefrom.

 

[konradv]

Public campaign financing sounds great on paper (if you disregard the Constitution that is; like so many libs and presumably a few Rinos have done).

It sounds like, level the playing field and let the best ideas win right? You run into a few problems though.

Even if we were to pretend for a moment that the Constitution were not a factor; let's look at the practical reality. Will it stop politicians from playing politics? Look at Obama in 2008. To that point, he had championed public financing. But when he saw that he would get one or two billion dollars then he declined and grand standed about how the system was broke. He then had cart blanch to spend all he wanted while McCain who did accept the public financing, was subject to spending restrictions. Hardly seems fair right?

You could argue, close the loopholes. Don't allow for private financing. Okay, well that's what the government was supposedly doing before and they did not really do it. We heard whining all day long from Dems about money creating an unfair advantage for the GOP but the second it was in their advantage they threw that talk into the garbage can.

And here's a practical question. Who would be eligible for the public money? Do you want your hard earned money going to just anyone? And would the government make it practical that anybody could attain financing? And if anybody could attain financing then there would likely be all manners of abuses.

Practically, it'd be best to eliminate campaign financing all together and have a cheap low cost network that touted ideas. But if you did that and it was literature driven, would people rail that it only benefited intellectuals? Would they argue that it was a new age lit test?

And to get to practical Constitutional matters. Does public financing not infringe upon your first amendment rights. Do you want the government to tell you that you have no right to financially support the candidate of your choice?

As I alluded, do you want the government being compelled to give away your money to anybody with an idea? Such compulsory means seems to infringe upon liberty and possibly even the pursuit of happiness.

Thank you for your submission. If you were to submit whether or not corporations should be allowed to donate to political happenings or campaigns then that would be something worth considering in my estitmation.

Of course there would have to be a Constitutional amendment. If money isn't speech, there would be no First Amendment problem. Giving money isn't Constitutionally protected, so that argument would require an amendment in itself, since we already have laws about donating to campaigns. That being said, NO, being able to give money is nowhere near as important as making sure more people have a voice and the budgetary savings we'd realize by reductions in favors to supporters. Giving money to people you don't like is specious as an argument, since that happens everyday with all sorts of things government does. You may not like it, but it's a fact regardless of whether public financing became law.

Thank you for your response, but it doesn't seem well thought out.

Okay: Imagine that the government was engaging in all manners of corrupt actions (like they are now). Now imagine that to the tenth power. Do you want to not be able to use your money on candidates to be your mouthpiece? Equal money gives equal credence to any and all ideas.

The argument is not whether ideas are more valuable than money. I probably don't agree with that b/c the proof is that a guy with $10 Million and crappy ideas does beat the guy with good ideas and one thousand dollars. But again, that is not the argument. The argument is do you want to restrict speech?

Say a group of supporters wanted to throw a rally for a candidate. Would they be allowed to do it? No, because any money they spent would not be in line with public financing. You effectively want to silence citizens even if you have good intentions.

Not everyone would be able to run. I mentioned open mikes, debates and sub-primaries, didn't I. They would weed out those without much support. You're looking at all of this as "the other", when the reforms I suggest would make it about "us".

I deny that there would be any restriction of speech. The candidates would be able to say whatever they wanted and they'd all have the same money. I really don't see where the problem lies, unless one is intent on buying an election. Rallies would be a common campaign item. I don't see where the problem lies. People who want to volunteer for a campaign could do so. That's not money.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Repeal the 17th amendment.

Return the appointement of senators to the states. This would remove them as players in Washington vieing for re-election based on populist issues and would focus them on maintaining states powers.

Of course, some states might not like the idea.

I was considering accepting this on the basis that states would actually be able to hold their representatives more accountable. But the problem is Article I, section 3, clause 1 of the Constitution states: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years.

Therefore, repealing the 17th amendment would not grant states more real power. It would just take the average citizen's vote and put an assignment in the hands of a governor or legislative body. I think Blagovich has shown us that we do not want that.

If you suggested concepts like creating a lay government or shortening terms, that'd likely be worthy of consideration.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Liberal:

Fair and simple taxes, a budget that's balanced by law, transparency in all things politics and then build an economy that your kids can drive to the stars.

It ain't rocket science, y'all.

Fair and simple taxes is too broad of a concept for me to make a ruling. You'll have to propose a more precise plan.

A budget that is balanced by law.

It is a misnomer that a national debt is bad. Businesses and persons often go into debt for the sake of long term progression. Therefore I am at least somewhat opposed to a law that requires a balanced budget, at least in theory.

However, it is clear that we have irresponsible public stewards. It is clear that government thinks that they have a blank check. We are not spending for the sake of improving the nation. We are spending to buy votes and as political payouts.

This idea is approved. And I approve it at the Federal level, which is what I presume is your idea.

 

[Douger]

Challenge accepted.
Get someone to read this to you and argue a bit.
http://www.venezuelaemb.or.kr/english/ConstitutionoftheBolivarianingles.pdf

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Same gender marriage should be legal in all fifty states. Along with all martial benefits derived therefrom.

Proponents of gay marriage claim that it is an inherent Constitutional right. I completely disagree. Such an issue was not even on the Founding Fathers radar. Nor was it on Lincoln's radar when he signed the 14th Amendment.

Proponents of traditional marriage are correct when they state that the nuclear family is the fabric of America and it has been for the history of mankind. Heterosexual marriage is an inherent right and an honored institution. And it was never created in an attempt to denigrate any sort of behavior or competing lifestyle. It literally was in effect as the most efficient and natural institution.People that are for gay marriage, conveniently want to ignore that reality.

If gay marriage were reality and govt. gave a heterosexual married couple an advantage that is in society's best interest then govt. would be required to give a homosexual couple the same advantage that may not be in society's best interest.

And we should not pretend that gay marriage is not about government officially sanctioning the morality of the homosexual lifestyle. I do not want the government sanctioning or condemning sexual lifestyles.

And, gay marriage would lead to discrimination suits against individuals that dare to challenge the morality of homosexual behavior.

 

[Listening]

Repeal the 17th amendment.

Return the appointement of senators to the states. This would remove them as players in Washington vieing for re-election based on populist issues and would focus them on maintaining states powers.

Of course, some states might not like the idea.

I was considering accepting this on the basis that states would actually be able to hold their representatives more accountable.

Which it would. More closely, the idea is that the senate would counter the house so the house does not run wild with federal ideas.

[But the problem is Article I, section 3, clause 1 of the Constitution states: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years.

While the term is a bit lengthy, the state would have some pull on the senator in between. There would be a form of leash.

[Therefore, repealing the 17th amendment would not grant states more real power. It would just take the average citizen's vote and put an assignment in the hands of a governor or legislative body. I think Blagovich has shown us that we do not want that.

If we put this structural component back in place, power would flow back to the swtates and the average citizen would exercise a more powerful vote at the local level.

As to Blagovich, there is no reason to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

[If you suggested concepts like creating a lay government or shortening terms, that'd likely be worthy of consideration.

Certainly needs to be considered.

As well as a cap on how much money the federal governemt can spend (in terms of GDP and it won't be near 16%).