Modified
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 6,985
Another policy on policies/laws: all fiscal laws and rules - minimum wage, legal fines and limits, tax brackets, etc - must be indexed to inflation and adjusted once per year.
Let's start the Pragmatist Party
- Thread starter Emily's Cat
- Start date
Another policy on policies/laws: all fiscal laws and rules - minimum wage, legal fines and limits, tax brackets, etc - must be indexed to inflation and adjusted once per year.
Noztradamus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2010
- Messages
- 4,680
Sure be as pro as you like. Just don't subsidise it.
xjx388
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2010
- Messages
- 11,392
I assume we are talking about a platform of solutions that work for the greatest amount of citizens...
A few planks right off the bat:
Legalization of drugs that have about the same or better effect on health as currently legal drugs
A simplified and automated tax system where income over X% of FPL is automatically sent to the government at progressive rates
Infrastructure improvement to create jobs and strengthen the systems we all use
Those three are pretty uncontroversial and can save/redirect a lot of money.
A few planks right off the bat:
Legalization of drugs that have about the same or better effect on health as currently legal drugs
A simplified and automated tax system where income over X% of FPL is automatically sent to the government at progressive rates
Infrastructure improvement to create jobs and strengthen the systems we all use
Those three are pretty uncontroversial and can save/redirect a lot of money.
I find people with that view to always be religious. I've never heard a good secular argument for giving a fetus the same rights as a person.
I would disagree with that one. There are certain things that benefit societies and certain circumstances people find themselves in where their tax burden should be lessened. The tax code is one way to incentivize people to do those things.
Last edited:
They're also almost impossible to implement - taking each one in turn....
According to whom ?
The issue of the health impact of currently illegal drugs is already intensely politicised with, for example, some groups who support the legalisation of cannabis providing evidence to show that it is positively beneficial and those on the other side of the debate providing counter evidence showing that it causes all kinds of physical and psychological damage.
Then there's the issue of use vs. abuse. Some substances may be less bad than alcohol or tobacco when all are used in moderation but may be worse when used to excess. It will be a minefield.
I personally agree that legalisation of many currently illegal drugs would likely be beneficial but I cannot necessarily justify that on medical grounds alone.
Again, a laudable aim and one which many people could sign up to but this hides a complex real-world problem. As I understand it, the U.S. tax system has a comprehensive and complex set of deductions which allow people to offset income against tax. Presumably these deductions are here for a reason and serve a specific purpose. One solution would be to sweep away these deductions but wouldn't that leave a lot of low and middle income earners a lot worse off ?
Of course there are a lot of very wealthy people who are very good at not having "income" and instead find other ways to pay themselves. This system seems to work in their favour.
Another laudable aim but one which will IMO end up being mired in controversy. The first question which will cause uproar is what constitutes infrastructure. There are those who would, for example, say that roads are an important part of national infrastructure requiring investment. Others would say that this is a very regressive view, tying us to the technologies of the past and instead the investment should go into high speed rail or renewables-based transportation solutions.
Then there's the whole issue of pork and/or graft. Which districts get the infrastructure investment and which companies get to deliver it. On one hand it would be nice if small local companies shared in the bounty but they are likely more expensive and/or more risky than huge corporations who, with their lobbyists, will be chasing this lucrative work.
Finally there are those who would say that government (especially the federal government) should have no place in interfering with something as important as the national infrastrucuture.
The_Animus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2006
- Messages
- 3,582
Really? Many of the arguments against abortion don't require religious belief.
http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/
I've long been on the fence about abortion and none of the reasons are religious. My own waffling caused me to look into interesting stats, one of which is the number of states that have fetal homicide laws (yes, I'm an attorney), which, I would have thought, naturally convey some sort of religious tendency. IOW, I thought the amount of states that had these particular laws would be relatively correlated to the amount of "more religious" states.
Upon reviewing the list, I was moderately surprised. Many of the states on the list are left-leaning states.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx
I find the arguments to be weird. You can choose to kill a fetus anytime you want, but at the same time, if it is killed by someone else, you have strict criminal repercussions? These are clearly not just "property rights" as would be seen in someone deciding to put down a family pet for no reason (although I'm not sure animal cruelty laws don't prohibit this is some states), so looking at the issue from this perspective left me even more confused at what appears to be, at first blush, hypocrisy.
Venom
Philosopher
$16 dollar minimum wage
single payer healthcare
stop teh War on Drugs
get money out of politics
reform the democratic party
gun neutral
Enough of the politically correct BS and incrementalism
single payer healthcare
stop teh War on Drugs
get money out of politics
reform the democratic party
gun neutral
Enough of the politically correct BS and incrementalism
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
I agree. there are plenty of people who are disgusted with both parties,but think the small parties are too extreme.
trustbutverify
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,541
Then they have to sink billions into a federal bureau charged with investigating every conception not carried to term.
Toontown
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 6,595
From the point of view of people who know the difference between "who's" and "whose". And that is a steadily dwindling number of people.
Don't you worry none about that pragmacy stuff. This isn't even the right century for that. And that right century may never come.
Been a long time coming already.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Every solution has some losers. Pragmatism isn't utopia. It isn't ideal. It's a reasonable trade-off in the interest of overall progress.
So... "No abortions". Well I personally think that's stupid. But let's be reasonable. What's the effect of no abortions? More unwanted babies. But we don't want more unwanted babies. So let's counter with ways to reduce the number of unwanted babies. Gay and lesbian people want babies - so if no abortions makes more babies, let gay and lesbian people adopt those babies. Contraception makes fewer unwanted babies too.
It's about the trade-offs. They can't have no abortions AND no contraception AND no gay adoptions. That's ridiculous. By being willing to negotiate, we can shut down at least one of those arguments. And once it's shut down, there's really no turning back. Progress doesn't generally unwind.
It also places the other party in a position where they need to prioritize. We're going to lose something, but so are they. It's a question of which is most important. Are they anti-gay more than they're anti-abortion? If they are, then yes, gay people lose... but women win. If they aren't, then yes, women lose, but gay people win.
Each side insisting that their side gets everything they want and the other side gets nothing they want is part of why we're in this current mess.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Sure. Make your case. What are the counter arguments, what's the proposed tradeoff, what's the impact, and who ends up most disrupted?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,585
Yes, unfortunately it does. People don't always recognize when it does because it generally unwinds along a different path than it wound up, but it absolutely can and does unwind.
Emily's Cat
Rarely prone to hissy-fits
Proposal:
Each stage of political campaigns have stiff limits on the amount of money spent. Each contender gets the same amount. States have the option to allot endowments for local and congressional seats, or may opt to allow candidates to raise funds through contributions, or a combination of the two. Contributions must be from individuals, not from corporations or lobbying coalitions, or anything of that sort. Candidates may NOT use personal funds for their campaigns.
Presidential campaigns would use an allotment of federal funds, with very small amounts prior to the primaries, and then a moderate amount afterward. No private contributions allowed in any form, and no use of personal funds.
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
If someone chops your arm off are there no strict criminal repercussions, or is it just another case of "property rights"?