|
PDD Election -> The Primaries (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Magnetonium |
How come noone is lobbying for my vote? :stongue: I am still holding on, otherwise if I place the vote too early I might not want to check the thread again. :p
I like two contenders here, and both are doing pretty well ;-) we'll see how this goes. :thepirate |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
How come noone is lobbying for my vote? :stongue: I am still holding on, otherwise if I place the vote too early I might not want to check the thread again. :p
I like two contenders here, and both are doing pretty well ;-) we'll see how this goes. :thepirate |
Vote for me! I would dismantle the missile defense battery in Poland and Czech Republic. |
|
|
| tathi |
| in the spirit of democracy i voted for george smiley without reading the thread because he has the best avatar ;) |
|
|
| Dervish |
Aww if you'd asked I would have posted boobies. :p
Magnetonium a vote for anyone else in this election is a vote for big government, lack of responsibility and a place at the alter of political correctness. A vote for me is a vote for real life practical solutions to real live practical problem.... and boobie pics.
:p |
|
|
| Dervish |
Another promise delivered:
Some Boobys
Should get Sushi's vote anyway. :p |
|
|
| Krypton |
| How is my policy "big government"? All instances of government intervention in my policy are justified and most importantly are few and far between. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by tathi
in the spirit of democracy i voted for george smiley without reading the thread because he has the best avatar ;) |
Lol
I actually voted for Jorge too, he actually has made me see the error of my view points on some matters :) |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
How is my policy "big government"? All instances of government intervention in my policy are justified and most importantly are few and far between. |
Education policy
I give all freedom of school choice to the parent. That means the parent would decide what school to send the child, and not the school district. Each parent would be given a voucher for the amount of money assigned for each student's education, and that parent would give the voucher to the school of their choice. Schools which don't perform would lose money by virtue of losing students. Schools which perform well would gain money by virtue of higher student enrollment. I would make part of the core curriculum personal finance because most of the country doesn't know jack squat about balancing their checkbook.
Try and administer that! What happens when everyone goes to the best school in the area....and that is built for say 1/10th that student population? You can't magically make the best school suddenly able to take 500% more pupils because it happened to top a league table one year.
Economic Policy
Any company which required a bail out because of a systemic risk of collapse on their part would be taken over by the government, and sold off to the highest bidder. Those companies which survive the bailout period could still be allowed to operate, but the capital coming from the government would be repaid as an equity stake in the company. I would eliminate all taxes except for a consumption sales tax. I would drastically reduce the amount of military bases around the world, withdraw from Iraq, and thus save this country trillions of dollars. This money could then be used to pay down the national debt and improve the federal balance sheet.
This is big government, who gets the liability and who gets the profit?
Environmental Policy
I'de set the stage for the trading of carbon credits, and give an entire tax-free year to any company, person, or family whose buildings or homes were completely modified to run on alternative energy.
How can you run on "alternative energy" electrical power from a national grid? Only buy from an electricity supplier who is 100% "alternative energy"? So effectively the public would be subsidizing companies just because they choose to buy their electricity from a certain supplier? Would individuals get to do this too? 100% take up = no tax? Sounds like fantasy land.
Foreign Policy
The Taliban did not attack us on September 11th nor played any part in planning the terrorist operation. I'de close down military bases in Qatar, Kuwait, and Dubai. I'de substantially curtail military and economic aid to Israel, and treat the Israelis just like any other country with which we are friendly too.
They trained everyone who took part though. Becoming so isolationist is crazy. If you withdrew support from Israel that would be a grren light for war and since they have nukes the posibility of them being used would be fairly high.
Health Policy
I would set up a state health insurance company with which any person unable to afford private health insurance could be covered. A certain percentage of each enrolled person's income would be charged as a premium for their coverage. 49% of the company's equity would be traded on the open market. Drastic measures would be taken to lower the cost of health care. The principle behind this policy is that health is a basic human right and is represented in the ideal of a right to life.
This is big government compared to what the US is used to and involves the formation of an entirely new government area. Who will pay for it at this time? In the UK we have this already.
Public Policy in Law
I would end the "War on Drugs" and decriminalize all forms of drug use. Marijuana would be legalized on both the buy and sell side of the market but with heavy regulations. All other narcotics such as prescription drugs, cocaine, methamphetamine would remain illegal to sell, but not use. Gay marriage would be recognized by the state. Prostitution would be legalized and heavily regulated. All incarcerated non-violent drug offenders would be released, and their offenses expunged from the public record.
The regulations would lead to massive initial expenditure. The new "NHS-esq" national health fund would have to pay for the unknown costs of the explosion in drug use. Even with taxes placed on these items since the only drug you would allow is marijuana this is only one you could get tax from.
Hence you'd see greater drug use of all forms, minimal tax return, and huge cost in terms of damage to heath and government covering these.
Urban Policy
Suburban sprawl would be drastically curtailed and urban development drastically revamped. Increased investment in mass transit, urban redevelopment, and encouragement of people living in downtown areas of the city.
So this would lead to higher population density? Does the actual central government have control over town planning to this level?
Social Policy
I would make it very expensive for companies to ship jobs overseas.
And what of international companies? Or is this only US listed ones? Hence giving the non-US companies an advantage?
Tax Policy
I would institute the Fair Tax Act abolishing all income, corporate, property, death, capital gains, and estate taxes. The only tax would be a national sales tax. Every citizen would get a monthly prebate check amounting up to 23% of the poverty level income for that particular household. So if I make $10,000/1year I will receive $2,392/1year from the government paid out monthly. This policy would stimulate the economy greatly by curtailing all taxes on investments and income while also returning a portion of taxes paid by consumption. This would also greatly help the middle class and lower class.
So people who buy things abroad and take them back in would effectively pay no tax? Or would there also be a import duty? Would this cover companies in the US? So if they employ the services of someone do they have to pay this "consumption tax" then these employees have to pay for everything they buy hence be hit with a double whammy?
Currently companies (here at least) don't pay Value Added Tax on things they buy would this change? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
Education policy
I give all freedom of school choice to the parent. That means the parent would decide what school to send the child, and not the school district. Each parent would be given a voucher for the amount of money assigned for each student's education, and that parent would give the voucher to the school of their choice. Schools which don't perform would lose money by virtue of losing students. Schools which perform well would gain money by virtue of higher student enrollment. I would make part of the core curriculum personal finance because most of the country doesn't know jack squat about balancing their checkbook.
Try and administer that! What happens when everyone goes to the best school in the area....and that is built for say 1/10th that student population? You can't magically make the best school suddenly able to take 500% more pupils because it happened to top a league table one year. |
Actually, it will lower administration costs. We have a system with school vouchers in Sweden, and what it has done is that that the "school boards" are useless, since parents/students will do their work. So hence you can make cuts and save money and make the government smaller.
And yes, some schools will be more popular than others, that's the point (since then the market will make the bad schools go out of business). So you just have to have some kind of admission process, in Sweden we have either that the schools have a "best grades get in", "longest wait get in" or the school simply expand their capacity. |
|
|
| Dervish |
What happens to the poor less able kids who have to travel miles to get to their school just because the nearest one is taken up with more able kids?
Is that really fair? What about disabled kids?
And new schools and school development? Talking as the son of a school rector they are good at year on year running of schools but longer term it has to be the government who builds new schools and institutes redevelopment of current ones.
It always has be a needs based assessment, not wholly merit based. Sometimes in rural areas you need more money because of smaller pupil numbers but still requiring the same resources. How would this be handled?
Even now schools (here) get money based on pupil numbers but this isn't the whole budget. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
Education policy
I give all freedom of school choice to the parent. That means the parent would decide what school to send the child, and not the school district. Each parent would be given a voucher for the amount of money assigned for each student's education, and that parent would give the voucher to the school of their choice. Schools which don't perform would lose money by virtue of losing students. Schools which perform well would gain money by virtue of higher student enrollment. I would make part of the core curriculum personal finance because most of the country doesn't know jack squat about balancing their checkbook.
Try and administer that! What happens when everyone goes to the best school in the area....and that is built for say 1/10th that student population? You can't magically make the best school suddenly able to take 500% more pupils because it happened to top a league table one year. |
The schools obviously will have a first come, first serve thing going with a maximum capacity. So parents are obliged to register their student at the earliest possible date. Easy.
| quote: | Economic Policy
Any company which required a bail out because of a systemic risk of collapse on their part would be taken over by the government, and sold off to the highest bidder. Those companies which survive the bailout period could still be allowed to operate, but the capital coming from the government would be repaid as an equity stake in the company. I would eliminate all taxes except for a consumption sales tax. I would drastically reduce the amount of military bases around the world, withdraw from Iraq, and thus save this country trillions of dollars. This money could then be used to pay down the national debt and improve the federal balance sheet.
This is big government, who gets the liability and who gets the profit? |
It's government intervention, but not big government. If a company integral to the financial system is about to go bust, do you expect the government sit around and watch it happen? Additionally, the company in question would be sold off to repay the government's bailout, so no losses to taxpayers. Also, I said I would eliminate all taxes except for 1 sales tax. That's a drastic reduction in tax loop holes and IRS bureaucracy. Also, I'de end the militarism which is now rampant in this country. Why do we need to spend more than all country's combined in military expenditures. So bombs are more important than a college education? This isn't big government, it's smaller government.
| quote: |
Environmental Policy
I'de set the stage for the trading of carbon credits, and give an entire tax-free year to any company, person, or family whose buildings or homes were completely modified to run on alternative energy.
How can you run on "alternative energy" electrical power from a national grid? Only buy from an electricity supplier who is 100% "alternative energy"? So effectively the public would be subsidizing companies just because they choose to buy their electricity from a certain supplier? Would individuals get to do this too? 100% take up = no tax? Sounds like fantasy land. |
Who said you need a national grid? All you have to do is install solar panels on one's house. Easy. In addition that, huge investments would be made to modify the national power grid to transport energy generated by alternative means through to customers. As for the tax thing, I would probably give them a tax break up to the amount they spent on installing the alternative energy generator. If this amount if more than their income tax, then they pay no taxes. But also, I'm trying to get rid of income taxes, so if I got rid of income taxes, then the sale of alternative energy components would be tax free.
| quote: |
Foreign Policy
The Taliban did not attack us on September 11th nor played any part in planning the terrorist operation. I'de close down military bases in Qatar, Kuwait, and Dubai. I'de substantially curtail military and economic aid to Israel, and treat the Israelis just like any other country with which we are friendly too.
They trained everyone who took part though. Becoming so isolationist is crazy. If you withdrew support from Israel that would be a grren light for war and since they have nukes the posibility of them being used would be fairly high. |
The Taliban trained nobody for 9/11. You're misinformed on that. AL-QAIDA gave them the support, AMERICAN FLIGHT SCHOOLS trained them. More importantly, you explain to me why America needs 702 foreign bases in 130 countries. Please tell me how wanting to reduce this empire of bases is isolationist. What other country has that many foreign bases? No, tell me what country has bases on ALL 6 INHABITED CONTINENTS!
| quote: |
Health Policy
I would set up a state health insurance company with which any person unable to afford private health insurance could be covered. A certain percentage of each enrolled person's income would be charged as a premium for their coverage. 49% of the company's equity would be traded on the open market. Drastic measures would be taken to lower the cost of health care. The principle behind this policy is that health is a basic human right and is represented in the ideal of a right to life.
This is big government compared to what the US is used to and involves the formation of an entirely new government area. Who will pay for it at this time? In the UK we have this already. |
There would still be the option to buy private health insurance. So freedom of choice is still present. But for those who can't afford health insurance, well, they have an option too. Almost half the company would be publicly owned too. And why should America have the most expensive health system in the world when it doesn't have to? Hell, I had a skin biopsy done several months ago. It cost me several hundred dollars for the simplest procedure which took only 5 minutes. The local anesthetic, instruments, pathology, and doctor "labor" should cost no more than $100, but instead was more in the range of $500. I'm sorry, but health services are unnecessarily expensive.
| quote: |
Public Policy in Law
I would end the "War on Drugs" and decriminalize all forms of drug use. Marijuana would be legalized on both the buy and sell side of the market but with heavy regulations. All other narcotics such as prescription drugs, cocaine, methamphetamine would remain illegal to sell, but not use. Gay marriage would be recognized by the state. Prostitution would be legalized and heavily regulated. All incarcerated non-violent drug offenders would be released, and their offenses expunged from the public record.
The regulations would lead to massive initial expenditure. The new "NHS-esq" national health fund would have to pay for the unknown costs of the explosion in drug use. Even with taxes placed on these items since the only drug you would allow is marijuana this is only one you could get tax from.
Hence you'd see greater drug use of all forms, minimal tax return, and huge cost in terms of damage to heath and government covering these. |
The US has spent tens of billions of dollars on a "War on Drugs". And to what effect? Drugs are still here and all you have to do is find the right people, and boom, you can buy cocaine, ecstasy, whatever drugs you want. What's the point in spending still more billions? Anyways, marijuana is by far, the most used illegal substance, so legalizing that would free up law enforcement to focus on the production and sale of hard drugs. With the money spent now to criminalize drug users, this money would be much better spent on drug rehabilitation. No, there would be no massive initial expenditure. The expenditures ARE ALREADY MASSIVE.
Your assumption drug use will rise is not a wise one. Marijuana use of course MAY rise, but hard drugs, no. The people using hard drugs almost always never sought out to use them. They were introduced to it through say a guy they know who sells weed, but also had a little coke on side. My policy would take weed away from the criminal elements and dramatically decrease instances of weed being associative with hard drugs.
| quote: |
Urban Policy
Suburban sprawl would be drastically curtailed and urban development drastically revamped. Increased investment in mass transit, urban redevelopment, and encouragement of people living in downtown areas of the city.
So this would lead to higher population density? Does the actual central government have control over town planning to this level? |
I would have the federal government encourage downtown development. And of course, public transit development would get federal funds too.
| quote: |
Social Policy
I would make it very expensive for companies to ship jobs overseas.
And what of international companies? Or is this only US listed ones? Hence giving the non-US companies an advantage? |
Just US headquartered companies. And the jobs in question would be manufacturing jobs. If a manufacturing job is moved overseas, then the product produced must be sold overseas.
| quote: |
Tax Policy
I would institute the Fair Tax Act abolishing all income, corporate, property, death, capital gains, and estate taxes. The only tax would be a national sales tax. Every citizen would get a monthly prebate check amounting up to 23% of the poverty level income for that particular household. So if I make $10,000/1year I will receive $2,392/1year from the government paid out monthly. This policy would stimulate the economy greatly by curtailing all taxes on investments and income while also returning a portion of taxes paid by consumption. This would also greatly help the middle class and lower class.
So people who buy things abroad and take them back in would effectively pay no tax? Or would there also be a import duty? Would this cover companies in the US? So if they employ the services of someone do they have to pay this "consumption tax" then these employees have to pay for everything they buy hence be hit with a double whammy?
Currently companies (here at least) don't pay Value Added Tax on things they buy would this change? |
1. Foreign-bought goods would require no tax. Who do you know buys gas, food, clothes, etc. all outside of the country?
2. No import duty.
3. This covers all business transactions within the USA.
4. The employment of a service is a business transaction, and so would require a sales tax, because something is being sold. There is no "double whammy". Every business already charges their customers taxes and pays taxes themselves. That's not "double taxation". |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
I thought we were gonna discuss if it was bigger or smaller government, but oh well this is an interesting discussion as well :p
| quote: | Originally posted by Dervish
What happens to the poor less able kids who have to travel miles to get to their school just because the nearest one is taken up with more able kids?
Is that really fair? |
Well, that might happen sometimes in secondary education. But I think there's some kind of guarantee that you will have a spot at a school close by in pre secondary.
And really, I don't think this has been an issue at all, at least I haven't really heard this argument before (except that some kids in Stockholm has to travel to other side of town sometimes because they don't *want* to go to their local school, but it's nothing you can't survive). Generally there would be an over capacity at rural/schools with no other school close by, since yeah, there's not a lot of people living there.
Also there are rural schools which would be closed if the politicians could decide, but now parents have taken over and continue to run them with the help of the voucher system.
| quote: | | What about disabled kids? |
Well, the voucher is obviously greater for them. Actually a great part of this voucher system has been that a lot of special needs schools has popped up, like schools for death people and so on.
| quote: | | And new schools and school development? Talking as the son of a school rector they are good at year on year running of schools but longer term it has to be the government who builds new schools and institutes redevelopment of current ones. |
The demand for education is actually a lot easier to project than a lot of other stuff. You know pretty much exactly what the total demand in an area will be (demographics data). It's only stupid politicians who can't figure that out :p No but really, it has worked well, and the schools are getting a lot more flexible too. So it's just a different way of thinking, or actually a way of thinking as opposed to not thinking at all :p
| quote: | | It always has be a needs based assessment, not wholly merit based. Sometimes in rural areas you need more money because of smaller pupil numbers but still requiring the same resources. How would this be handled? |
You can always customize the vouchers. Tbh I'm not sure if you get extra money if you live far away in Sweden, but for example if a student had bad grades in middle school, the secondary school will receive more money (= needs based). I think that is different for every municipality though how they make such system and who get the most from the vouchers. |
|
|
|
|
