On Politics

[daddio914]

I don't mean to infect anyone else with my boundless well of pessimism about politics in the US, but the way I look at it, "the system" is broken and in need of major fixing.  I don't just bitch and moan about it -- I actually have suggestions.  Unfortunately, I know I don't always stop with the 'broken' where someone might see what I see and keep

Comments

[lilies_and_pan]

There are some pretty good ideas here. I don't know that I agree with #4 yet b/c I do think some drugs should be decriminalized, but not I'm not sure that all should... which isn't to say I disagree with you, but rather I'm undecided about it. Would you keep income tax? Move to the Fair Tax system? Other?

[daddio914]

I think a flat tax on income would be best. Regular income and capital gains at one rate, (non-retirement)interest/dividends at a higher rate. The KISS method

[lilies_and_pan]

I'm pretty supportive of flat taxes also

[daddio914]

Well, actually... people make meth, coke, and even LSD. The amount of complexity isn't what prevents people from making prescription drugs -- it's the lack of market and availability of raw materials (such as opium poppies, for instance). Drug manufacturers, the legitimate ones, routinely make dangerous products. Sure, some of them have a benefit that outweighs the risk, but how many drugs (even after they've been approved by the FDA) have been pulled lately because of some greater risk to the patient

[psylent1]

Thanks for expanding on #4.

Regarding #5, just to be thorough/nitpicky: what about people being sworn into public offices - should they be able to request a Bible or other religious text if they so choose?

Re #9 and transparency: Sen. Ron Paul's got a good idea about changing the way the Federal Reserve operates. I wish someone other than Paul would challenge this institution. (Anyone interested in hearing this, watch this (only 5 mins of your time):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q&feature=related .)

Re #10, which affects me directly on both groups, I think that an apology to the Native American community would be very tricky given the history. As for the Black community, I wish certain people would stop insisting on reparations; it's making issuing an apology more complicated, IMO.

[daddio914]

On #5, since government is supposed to be a secular institution, shouldn't a secular oath be good enough for everyone

[psylent1]

The secular oath should be good enough. Stating the obvious: some people are religious or superstitious enough to bristle at the thought of breaking with the traditional Bible oath. I think they should have the choice.

Just for the record, I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. He's just the first person I thought of who's shopped his message of revamping the Fed in multiple places with any success. And yeah, there's some BIG thing he's holding in. There's a link to an article somewhere...I can find it if you ask me.

While it could be argued that the descendants of slaves and all Native Americans are entitled to reparations for what was done to their ancestors, then where does it stop?

That's my fear. Bad, bad fallout from people focused only on the money aspect. I've never expected anything, ever, but a formal apologetic statement would be a nice gesture.

[daddio914]

"are entitled to" = "deserve"

Minor distinction that I probably should have made the first time. The sense of entitlement is where the problem is. If you go with the first definition I gave for reparations, the US is in no way obligated to give them to either group. That should have killed the word "entitled" from the above... they certainly do deserve it because of the past conduct of the government, but entitled to? Not at all.

Stating the obvious: some people are religious or superstitious enough to bristle at the thought of breaking with the traditional Bible oath. I think they should have the choice.

Well, that's their problem, IMO. They can bristle all they want -- that doesn't change the fact that government is supposed to be a secular institution. If they start keeping Bibles around to swear on, then they need to have the holy books from every recognized religion around to swear on, too. Especially those religions that frown on using holy documents for such mundane purposes, and including a giant Gaia tree for all the

[dgtlghost]

If marriage is being formaly relagated to its religeous posstion, seperating the "institution" from the legal partnership, then why should ministers still be authorized to affirm them? Shouldn't you have to have them filed with a secular authority, like any other incorporation documents? I mean, I suppose a reverend could apply for the credentials, but shouldn't that be seperate from their ecumenical office?

[daddio914]

Well, the idea would be to give those involved the choice of either a secular ceremony or a religious one to affirm their legal contract -- note the use of "affirm". I see that function as more of a "witness" function which could, technically, be handled by anyone...