ATS Members Political Platform?

With this thread, I would like to put together a platform that all of us can agree to.

This will be hard, I know, but I thought it would be a good exercise for me and others in the debate on politics.

Since ATS is a varied slice of the world, it would be impossible to do with our different countries varying governmental structures. So, we will use the US as the basis for discussion. Being it is my country and my thread.

As old GW said "If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier - so long as I'm the dictator."

Since I am the dictator on this thread-the ground rules.

1) Please list the items you would like to see on the platform.
2) Copy my number list of items and state your agreement to or disagreement with my items.
3) Give the reason behind disagreements and what you would replace it with.
4) Suggest any modifications to my platform also.

Think of this as we were setting up a new party and we wanted to set our platform for distribution.

endisnighe platform

1) Strict Constitutional Governance.

2) Term Limits-limits need to be hashed out.

3) Strict Economic equality in regards to International trade.

4) Strict Border control to stop any future illegal immigration.

5) Elimination of the Income Tax.

6) A federal flat sales tax on END product sales including stock purchases, not to include food, clothing, or domicile.

7) Non Interventionalism, Stop the policing of the world.

8) Strict sovereignty of all countries including the US.

9) Absolute freedom of the internet.

10) Any and ALL legislation to apply to ALL government elected officials. No special privileges like medical, housing, bank accounts, retirements or the thousand other perks and privileges the government gives itself. Government is not supposed to be a retirement package.

11) Pull back our military forces to a defensive posture and eliminate all bases that are not relevant to the US defense.

12) Return to an asset based monetary system.

13) Eliminate all treaties or organizations that abrogate our sovereignty as a nation.

14) Require that the federal government maintains a balanced budget. If not, the first reduction in spending will require a 50% across the board pay cut to ALL government officials.

15) Government pay will be maintained to a specific private sector pay scale and in no way will be raised above that at anytime.

16) All detriments to starting a third party will be removed. e.g. no politician will drop from a race and endorse the other head of the two headed snake.

I will stop here. Cuss and discuss civilly please.

List provided for copying and pasting. Please mark if agree or disagree and include arguments against if disagreeing. Also include any that you would like added.

1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
14)
15)
16)


[edit on 2/12/2010 by endisnighe]

I would like to see the following numbers on the platform:
1)
3)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
14)
15)
16)
2) Disagree: I believe that there should be no term limits for elected officials. As long as they are abiding by the constitution there should be no term limits. At least not in a democracy such as ours. We should have the right to choose whomever we want to represent us for however long we decide.
-I would replace this platform with nothing because as stated above I believe unrestricted term limits is democracy.
4) Disagree: We should not establish a ‘strict border control’, instead we should require businesses to check the citizenship of each potential employee and even that of current employees. It would deter illegal immigration if they know there is little chance of receiving a paying job.
- As stated above we should establish mandatory back citizenship checks of all current and potential employees.
5) Disagree: I believe we should not eliminate the income tax but instead replace it with a Negative Income Tax(NIT) with a flat rate of 20%. While at the same time I support other federal taxes such as VAT, GST, Sales, higher payroll ~20%, and higher corporate ~50%.
- Establish a ‘Flat’ Negative Income Tax, while raising other taxes.
13) Disagree: I do not support international organizations that strip us of our sovereignty, but I do support international organization that establish fair, free, comprehensive and transparent laws that would not affect us negatively. Such international organizations like; ICC, UN, Geneva Convention. These are solid international organization/Treaties that would actually strengthen our nation on the international stage while respecting our sovereignty.
-I do disagree with what you may interpret as invasive to our sovereignty but overall the description is good.

I believe you would receive more of a response if dealt with more than economic, international, and government reform and included Social Issues as well, such as; Public Religion, LGBT Rights, Capital Punishment, etc.

S+F
[edit on 2/12/10 by Misoir]

[edit on 2/12/10 by Misoir]

reply to post by Misoir


Term limits are now on the discussion. I can agree that if we had a good representative it would be a slight detriment to lose them but-

2) Long term representation causes many problems including the status quo. The inability for the rep to see the changes required to meet the growing changes in our world. Look at McCain as an example. I feel he has been a good rep, but he does not even know the importance of the internet in free speech of today. The back room maneuvers made by long term representation. The stagnancy of a government when long term representation is the norm. Several more reasons in this but that component will be put on the back burner.

4) Okay, you addressed it differently then I did for the immigration component. Yes, the way to stop the illegal immigration problem is through business requirements to ensure legal employment. What I was addressing was the border problems more. Have you heard or been involved in the problems of random checkpoints? I find them to be appalling. Where are your papers? I left Fresno in part because of them. I once was funneled through 3 of these in Fresno. It took me 4 hours to go home after work. That kind of draconian crap has to stop. I can see spending 4 hours to cross an international border. But to get stopped in these unConstitutional random check points is down right 1984esque.

5) You need to layout your tax system a little better. I do not want to misinterpret what you stated.

13) We agree on the treatise premises. I am referring more to the treaties that contradict our Constitution like gun controls. As for economic treaties, we still need to take into account our conditions that place our business requirements in such a way are a detriment to our economy. What I am saying is things like the Minimum Wage. Now, if we require it here, what stops a company from going elsewhere to take advantage of the lower wages but still be able to sell their products here. You have to admit that with these discrepancies, our economy is predetermined to fail.

As for the social components. I am a strict social liberal. Mandating anything about social issues is left to the individual, not the government. For things like death penalties I still believe that should be a state issue.

Will wait for response to make any adjustments.



[edit on 2/12/2010 by endisnighe]

reply to post by endisnighe


5) Elimination of the Income Tax. - Disagree. Without income tax, how can we possibly pay for the other things? I agree with the above poster, we need a flat tax.

11) Pull back our military forces to a defensive posture and eliminate all bases that are not relevant to the US defense. - Disagree. I agree to the extent that i think long-term wars with no achievable goal need to stop, but part of our defensive structure is to have bases here and have bases there, so if the need ever arises, we have a place to land and set up operations. In other words, i think the size of our military is just. But i don't want to pay them to set in their homes getting fat and lazy.


12) Return to an asset based monetary system. Now, this isn't an area i have studied in any great length, and quite frankly, you're the first person i've seen talk about it in a long time, but as i understand it, this would basically mean the elimination of credit cards, and cash loans, that only have a "contract" to back them? If that is correct, then i disagree with you. I believe this would cause our economy to dip to a level that it could never pass again. Yes, lots of people default on their credit cards, but even more people pay them on time, every time. It's a system that works for the majority, i say, why change it?


All of the other things you point out - i totally agree with and am saddened by the fact that we will never be allowed to obtain them in our life time.





1) Abolish government Welfare. Welfare - as it exists - is very anti-American in its nature. Welfare - as an idea - is a noble cause. See the movie "Cinderella Man" for a great reference of what i'm talking about.

A man is down and out - the government gives him some money - but he is embarrassed by it. So when he gets some money back, he pays it back. Welfare as it is today serves first & foremost as a supplement to get "nice things" I'm sick and tired of MY money going to others to buy themselves some nice new clothes, or things of that sort.

2) Very low limits on political campaign contributions. And i mean incredibly low. So low that it forces politicians to concentrate on the message, and not on the delivery. What i mean is - many politicians have won based soley on the number of TV appearances, and not the content of what they stand for.
This will force the politicians to go TALK TO THE PEOPLE to get more support in order to get more money for his or her campaign.

3) All bodies of government work on a salaried basis. They must all work a certain # of hours per week, and if they drop beneath that # of hours, they are docked pay. If they work above that number of hours, well, join the rest of us, you don't get over time!

4) Base raises off of the government index of inflation. A lot of people have their annual raises based on this. I believe it's only fair that elected officials follow the same.

5) Abolishing all "lobbyists" from our places of government. For obvious reasons - we simply can't have these people pouring billions of dollars into special interest.

6) Do not police the world, and do not become the global ATM either. Stop sending billions in "relief" to other countries. WE NEED THAT MONEY HERE. Until there is not one American that goes to bed hungry - don't send a god damned dime of mine to ANY other country on this planet.

7) I know this one is very fantasy like...but since we are indulging ourselves...create a way in which tax paying citizens decide what portion of their taxes go where. Don't want your money paying for a bridge to no where? Done! Don't want your money subsidizing E85 gasoline? Done! In my opinion, this would be the greatest form of representative government. If the people "will it" through their pocket books, you give them the greatest voice of all.

In regards to the tax issue...

Agreed a flat tax, but not just any old flat tax. I believe after researching the proposed FairTax, it is probably one of the most comprehensive tax reforms that would take the power out of Washington and place it back to the people.

reply to post by Snarf


Well wait a minute, you first disagree with me on removing the income tax and then agree with me on the flat tax. Give me a breakdown on what you mean by flat tax.

In regards to your disagreement with the military. Do you really think we need 700 bases in 130 countries? Do you really think we need that many? Are these not for imperial purposes than for defensive purposes.

What I meant by an asset based monetary system is the that are money is tied to a real world asset. In old days it was gold and silver. Nowadays we could tie it to a conglomerate of commodities. This to prevent the banks of the world from devaluing our money by inflation and other maneuvers.

Now for your additions-

1) I believe the central government should no way be involved in any type of welfare system. The individual states, if they want, can enact such things. One thing other countries do not realize is that the size of our states are in relation to other countries. We are really a group of 50 individual countries. Kind of like the EU is trying to do. But as for the whole problem of the central government(federal) once you try to maintain such a huge bureaucracy, things breakdown. Especially when you have the inherent corruption that coexists with such large bureaucracies.

2) and 5) I believe the 2nd of your proposals is kind of related to my (2)term limits and also the(16) detriments to third parties. I wanted to include the lobbying problem but that component would almost take another thread altogether. We need to stop the problem with lobbyists but we must be careful to not encroach on the free speech aspect of lobbying.

3) and 4) I have always heard of the outrageous crap governmental agencies have done with their overtime. e.g. in California the prison system guards on a base salary of 80k were getting in the vicinity of 230k in pay per year! That is why I included (15) and number (10)

6) I can whole heartedly agree with your not giving other countries OUR money. Frell them and frell that. I am also sick of our countries taxes providing for other countries.

7) Well that is kind of a fantasy. It does give the ideals that a smaller representative republic has to offer. If we eliminate the monstrosity of our federal government, just imagine how much money our states could have to implement all of these social programs. Of course in my eyes these type things never work but implemented in smaller components if they do fail it does not bring down the whole system.

Will wait for response to make any adjustments to my original list.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


OBE, I have read through the fair tax awhile back. I think it was you that sent me that way.

I agree that we need to revise our tax system and did not want to include a specific legislation replacement. More of an ideal.

This whole endeavor of mine is an attempt to show that no matter what side (left, right, down, up, Dem, Repub, Independ, Alien, Demon) we will come to the same conclusions. That we are not that different.

I am trying. Thanks for your participation.

reply to post by endisnighe

you first disagree with me on removing the income tax and then agree with me on the flat tax.

What im trying to say is that i don't like the way our "income tax" Is set up currently. I like the idea of a flat tax better.

Currently, the more you make, the higher % you get taxed. I don't like that. I think it needs to be a universal %...sorry for the confusion

FYI:

What Is a Flat Tax?

Unlike the current system, a flat tax is simple, fair, and good for growth. Instead of the 893 forms required by the current system,[4] a flat tax would use only two postcard-sized forms: one for labor income and the other for business and capital income. Unlike the current system, which discriminates based on the source, use, and level of income, a flat tax treats all taxpayers equally, fulfilling the “equal justice under law” principle etched above the main entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court building. And unlike the current system, which punishes people for contributing to the nation’s wealth, a flat tax would lower marginal tax rates and eliminate the tax bias against saving and investment, thus ensuring better economic performance in a competitive global economy.

www.heritage.org...

On one side, the simple form of taxation would make it much easier for every individual to file, while on the other, tax lawyers by the hundreds of thousands would find themselves out of a job.

reply to post by masqua

tax lawyers by the hundreds of thousands would find themselves out of a job.

Awww, shucks! Too bad for them.

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by masqua

 

tax lawyers by the hundreds of thousands would find themselves out of a job.

Awww, shucks! Too bad for them.

What I would say in regards to that Snarf would be more of this.

When one removes detriments to a smooth running machine, what do you get? A smooth running machine.

Should we create jobs for the very purpose of creating nothing?

Should we start a hole digging department in the government? And then therefore be required to create another dept that fills the holes.

The smaller and more precise a management component to any endeavor is the way to go. Should we create such a bureaucracy that there is no way in hell to sustain it?

That is where we are at now. How about keeping all the social systems and just eliminate ALL of the agencies that administer it? What would be more savings, the fraud or the elimination of the agencies? That right there is a HUGE question.

reply to post by masqua


Hey since you stopped in, can I get your views on the OP and any adjustments or additions.

I would continue to make comments tonight but booty just called. I will be back tomorrow morning to reply to anymore comments.

G'night folks and PEACE! I am a little happy right now so LATAIR!

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by Misoir

 

5) You need to layout your tax system a little better. I do not want to misinterpret what you stated.

Typically, this is proposed to be implemented as a flat tax combined with a fixed government payment. For example, if the flat tax rate is 25% and a government payment of $10,000, then:

A person earning $40,000 per year would be at the break-even point. They pay no taxes, because their tax payment equals their government payment.
A person earning $1,000,000 would pay close to the full 25% tax, as the government payment would be negligible compared to the $250,000 in tax payments.
A person earning only $4000 per year would pay $1000 in taxes but receive $10,000 in payment, for a net income of $13,000, or $9,000 in net government payments. The net payment is 25% of the difference between their income and the break-even income.

en.wikipedia.org...
It was touted by Milton Friedman as a way to abolish the minimum wage, unemployment compensation and all other forms of welfare.

13) We agree on the treatise premises. I am referring more to the treaties that contradict our Constitution like gun controls. As for economic treaties, we still need to take into account our conditions that place our business requirements in such a way are a detriment to our economy. What I am saying is things like the Minimum Wage. Now, if we require it here, what stops a company from going elsewhere to take advantage of the lower wages but still be able to sell their products here. You have to admit that with these discrepancies, our economy is predetermined to fail.

See my above post on taxation.

As for the social components. I am a strict social liberal. Mandating anything about social issues is left to the individual, not the government. For things like death penalties I still believe that should be a state issue.

I am a Social Progressive and I support the extreme of personal liberties, even things that libertarians see as TOO Libertarian I support.

Will wait for response to make any adjustments.

Other than the things I corrected I mostly agree with you which scares the hell out of me. Because I am a Democratic Socialist.




[edit on 2/12/2010 by endisnighe]

And now for the Socialist response I guess:

endisnighe platform:

1) Strict Constitutional Governance.

Jimmy: This would have to be better defined. The United States Constitution is a living document that is also very complex. Disagreement can easily arise between different sides on the interpretation

2) Term Limits-limits need to be hashed out.

Jimmy: Agreed.

3) Strict Economic equality in regards to International trade.

Jimmy: Free market equality or protectionism?

4) Strict Border control to stop any future illegal immigration.

Jimmy: Agreed, however the current immigration system should be overhauled in the process to make it easier for new workers without criminal backgrounds to attain citizenship.

5) Elimination of the Income Tax.

Jimmy: Nope, sorry, I for one thing that a good progressive income tax is the best way to generate revenue for governments. It should however be overhauled to be easier to understand and apply.

6) A federal flat sales tax on END product sales including stock purchases, not to include food, clothing, or domicile.

Jimmy: Absolutely not. The flat tax is the most regressive form of taxation I can imagine.

7) Non Interventionalism, Stop the policing of the world.

Jimmy: I disagree again, the ending of the Pax Americana would plunge the world largely into chaos, the implications of that would be horrific, even to the United States.

8) Strict sovereignty of all countries including the US.

Jimmy: Please explain a bit more about what constitutes "strict sovereignty."

9) Absolute freedom of the internet.

Jimmy: Agreed.

10) Any and ALL legislation to apply to ALL government elected officials. No special privileges like medical, housing, bank accounts, retirements or the thousand other perks and privileges the government gives itself. Government is not supposed to be a retirement package.

Jimmy: Agreed.

11) Pull back our military forces to a defensive posture and eliminate all bases that are not relevant to the US defense.

Jimmy: Agreed to a point, we'd have to hash out what is and is not a relevant base.

12) Return to an asset based monetary system.

Jimmy: I actually think the fiat system gives better direct control of market conditions to the currency and the economy of that nation. It keeps the expansion/recession cycle in check too.

13) Eliminate all treaties or organizations that abrogate our sovereignty as a nation.

Jimmy: I'd have to know more of what you're referring to here.

14) Require that the federal government maintains a balanced budget. If not, the first reduction in spending will require a 50% across the board pay cut to ALL government officials.

Jimmy: That's not realistic in the near-term future for the United States without massive changes that would decrease the standard of living for most of the country. The people would run you out of town on a rail if you tried it.

15) Government pay will be maintained to a specific private sector pay scale and in no way will be raised above that at anytime.

Jimmy: Depends on which private sector, but I could agree to that being a good idea I think.

16) All detriments to starting a third party will be removed. e.g. no politician will drop from a race and endorse the other head of the two headed snake.

Jimmy: Absolutely not, in your example you would be seriously breaching the freedom of speech of political candidates and robbing them of basic constitutional rights.

reply to post by Misoir


First off, I am enjoying the FACT that you pretty much agree with most of my points. This is why I started this thread. I have tried numerous other techniques but sooner or later I knew this would happen.


Alright, for adjustments, which I am TOTALLY acceptable to. Alright, break down your tax system into a table, plus formulas to describe it further.

I will ask you again to look at the idea of a sales based flat tax. Think of it, the more you own, or the more you spend, the more tax you pay.

Now, My idea is to exclude all the

tax havens

. You know what I mean, the foundations, charities, trusts, etc etc etc. The crap set up by the elite to serve the elite.

I am with the left completely on the corruption with the LAWYER maneuvers.

I am trying to keep the debates minimal so I will stop here on this convo. Will make adjustments on response.


Here is the thing, I have TRIED to show that people on the left can deal with people like me, but we are divided on purpose. As one of my favorite movies said " I have been and will always will be your friend"!


[edit on 2/12/2010 by endisnighe]

This is one I've thought of for a while.

No income shall be permitted which is not earned by work, including those incomes derived from interest-bearing loans or speculation in intangible values of publically-sold property.

Sorry. Forgot about this one.

Mass media will be taxed proportionate to its number of viewers such that expenses for large media outlets are identical to those for smaller.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


Alright Jimmy, you and I are "supposedly" on opposite ends of the spectrum. Let me prove the my theorem.

1) Constitutional governance-what I MEAN by this, is we keep the government from specifically dishonoring it. Remember, the states are allowed to do almost ANYTHING when it comes to state laws. Of course people will bring up places like Norway that have these GREAT health care benefits. Norway has 5 million people; how many people are in the US?

3) Protectionism is a bad word, what I am talking about is 3rd world countries using their cheap labor to undercut our production. Now, if we mandate that 3rd world countries or even 1st world compensate for the same things the US requires for our companies, that would even the base!

4) Immigration, if anyone noticed, I never included in my original list booting out people here already! I just think that we have to stop the inflood of illegal immigrants and things will stabilize.

5) You need to be specific on your idea of the progressive income tax. You do realize my idea on a flat sales tax is a type of progressive tax because it eliminates the tax completely of income and only applies to things you purchase that are not prerequisites to your life?

6) You need to explain why you disagree on the end sales flat tax. Especially since I suggested necessities are not taxed. Which means, if you do not buy any luxuries, you would NEVER pay ANY taxes.

7) You think we should police the world? Explain further. You think that the US should be the masters? You think WE have the RIGHT to tell OTHERS what to do?

8) What I mean by sovereignty is we allow other countries to decide THEIR own direction. We do NOT decide their government structure. We do not babysit the WORLD!

11) see previous points on sovereignty

12) What I mean by asset monetary system is that our money actually has value. Instead of a fiat money system that has a perceived value, the money actually has value.

13) Any treaty that is contradictory to our constitution is eliminated!

14) WHY do you think that not spending TRILLIONS would bankrupt us? How about eliminating WORTHLESS agencies? How about eliminating WORTHLESS systems?

YOU NEED TO U2U me on this one!

15) Thanks for agreeing on this one

16) JIMMY! We had a Republican candidate, losing no matter what, drop out and endorse the Democrat for the SOLE PURPOSE of keeping out the THIRD PARTY!

YOU FIND THIS OKAY?! Please explain?!

reply to post by concernedcitizan


cc, you are going to have to describe your two points more accurately please. Have you been drinking Captain and cokes this evening? LIKE ME?

Please explain a little better.

I am thinking you are talking about the ability of existing media centers to manipulate elections without ANY monetary involvement just by their existence!

Am I right?

Now for your other point? Please explain further?

Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

Alright Jimmy, you and I are "supposedly" on opposite ends of the spectrum. Let me prove the my theorem.

1) Constitutional governance-what I MEAN by this, is we keep the government from specifically dishonoring it. Remember, the states are allowed to do almost ANYTHING when it comes to state laws. Of course people will bring up places like Norway that have these GREAT health care benefits. Norway has 5 million people; how many people are in the US?

3) Protectionism is a bad word, what I am talking about is 3rd world countries using their cheap labor to undercut our production. Now, if we mandate that 3rd world countries or even 1st world compensate for the same things the US requires for our companies, that would even the base!

4) Immigration, if anyone noticed, I never included in my original list booting out people here already! I just think that we have to stop the inflood of illegal immigrants and things will stabilize.

5) You need to be specific on your idea of the progressive income tax. You do realize my idea on a flat sales tax is a type of progressive tax because it eliminates the tax completely of income and only applies to things you purchase that are not prerequisites to your life?

6) You need to explain why you disagree on the end sales flat tax. Especially since I suggested necessities are not taxed. Which means, if you do not buy any luxuries, you would NEVER pay ANY taxes.

7) You think we should police the world? Explain further. You think that the US should be the masters? You think WE have the RIGHT to tell OTHERS what to do?

8) What I mean by sovereignty is we allow other countries to decide THEIR own direction. We do NOT decide their government structure. We do not babysit the WORLD!

11) see previous points on sovereignty

12) What I mean by asset monetary system is that our money actually has value. Instead of a fiat money system that has a perceived value, the money actually has value.

13) Any treaty that is contradictory to our constitution is eliminated!

14) WHY do you think that not spending TRILLIONS would bankrupt us? How about eliminating WORTHLESS agencies? How about eliminating WORTHLESS systems?

YOU NEED TO U2U me on this one!

15) Thanks for agreeing on this one

16) JIMMY! We had a Republican candidate, losing no matter what, drop out and endorse the Democrat for the SOLE PURPOSE of keeping out the THIRD PARTY!

YOU FIND THIS OKAY?! Please explain?!

While we are supposedly on different sides of the spectrum, I do agree that we can find a lot of common ground, there are things that both you and I do think should be changed in the United States and there are common solutions that I do agree are "common sense" and need to be done! I'd back you 100% on term limits and ways to make politics a service to the people again instead of a career for starters.

For Constitutional Governance, I'll agree with you in principal, but I do think it would be more difficult to hash out the particulars.

For Trade, I can see your point, especially when it comes to lost jobs! I'd be for some system like the one you propose but I'll be honest that I am not the most knowledgeable on international trade treaties and laws.

Immigration, alright now that I have heard a bit more, agreed. There need to be limits and processes by which people come in to any country, a full open door policy is a bad idea, and not enforcing laws to their fullest extent is an even worse one because it sets a horrible platform!

For issues regarding taxation, I am referring to the economical definition of Progressive versus Regressive taxes, here's the explanation:
en.wikipedia.org...

As for international affairs, no I don't believe the United States has the right to push their views upon others, however I do believe that great military power requires great care in relations. The United States has the power to project force anywhere in the world, I believe it is the only nation to have such power. As such, there is a moral requirement to intervene, at America's will, in international affairs. Stopping genocides like the Holocaust come to mind. However this is at the United States will, I agree that getting involved in something like Darfur would be a bad idea for America and am glad they have not.

I'm a bit busy at the moment, any Olympics is a crazy time around here, but I will try to post more later!