If You Had A Chance To Create A Party, What Would Your Platform Be?

[CherryPanda]

We all are really great at criticizing the actions of our government, their policy and position on certain issues. Too bad we don’t have a chance to really change anything.
Let’s imagine, we created a party with a great chance to get a majority in the House of Representatives. What would its platform be? What changes would it bring?
In order not to be led away, let’s stick to the following issues:
1. International policy: general direction, dos and don’ts
2. Economy: possible ways out, taxation.
3. Education: what needs to be changed?
4. Immigration: any possible solutions to the crisis? Perfect immigration policy?
5. Health care system: how should it look like and function?
Discussion welcome! As well as some explanation of why you think this or that is a good stuff.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

I'll answer

1. Strong military - with a you don't fuck with us, we don't fuck with you, you fuck with us, we destroy you attitude. Close multiple bases around the world

2. Retail level national sales tax, no loop holes.

3. Give locals schools the authority to refuse to educate students who can't or won't take advantage of the system. AND break up teacher's unions.

4. Shut the borders down tighter than a tick's ass. Give those who are already here a chance to apply for citizenship, but if they are undesirables, remove them immediately

5. Simple fix here. let's cut all the welfare, I mean EVERY program there is, and just send every registered voter a check for $50K once a year. BUT, here's the kicker, that is ALL you are getting from the government. Buy your own food, your own healthcare insurance, pay your own bills. if you run out of money, get a job. MOST of us would still work and the $50K would simply be extra income.

Tear me apart.

 

[Rikurzhen]

We all are really great at criticizing the actions of our government, their policy and position on certain issues. Too bad we don’t have a chance to really change anything.
Let’s imagine, we created a party with a great chance to get a majority in the House of Representatives. What would its platform be? What changes would it bring?
In order not to be led away, let’s stick to the following issues:
1. International policy: general direction, dos and don’ts
2. Economy: possible ways out, taxation.
3. Education: what needs to be changed?
4. Immigration: any possible solutions to the crisis? Perfect immigration policy?
5. Health care system: how should it look like and function?
Discussion welcome! As well as some explanation of why you think this or that is a good stuff.

The flaw at the heart of your premise is the presumption that a party winning a majority is the path which leads to solutions. It's this very system which got us to these problems and which can't dig us out. People use their votes to enrich themselves. The solution involves breaking that cycle. People are not going to vote for that and they'll go down with the ship - they'll push it until we go over the edge.

Why can some nations, Canada, avert such a crisis but America can't? Because Canada in the 90s was a more unified nation than the US of 2014 - we are a nation divided by politics, by culture, by race, by religion and by ethnicity. No one can agree with anyone else on common goals and means to achieve those goals.

A King or Dictator can impose solutions for the good of the people but no elected body in the US can hope to do so because to do so would be politically unpopular and those who voted to implement the solution would soon be voted out of office. Politicians vote in order to keep themselves in office and that means responding to the will of the people rather than doing what is good for the nation. To do good for the nation will insure that they are voted out and replaced by someone who will vote to undo what had just been implemented.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We all are really great at criticizing the actions of our government, their policy and position on certain issues. Too bad we don’t have a chance to really change anything.
Let’s imagine, we created a party with a great chance to get a majority in the House of Representatives. What would its platform be? What changes would it bring?
In order not to be led away, let’s stick to the following issues:
1. International policy: general direction, dos and don’ts
2. Economy: possible ways out, taxation.
3. Education: what needs to be changed?
4. Immigration: any possible solutions to the crisis? Perfect immigration policy?
5. Health care system: how should it look like and function?
Discussion welcome! As well as some explanation of why you think this or that is a good stuff.

The flaw at the heart of your premise is the presumption that a party winning a majority is the path which leads to solutions. It's this very system which got us to these problems and which can't dig us out. People use their votes to enrich themselves. The solution involves breaking that cycle. People are not going to vote for that and they'll go down with the ship - they'll push it until we go over the edge.

Why can some nations, Canada, avert such a crisis but America can't? Because Canada in the 90s was a more unified nation than the US of 2014 - we are a nation divided by politics, by culture, by race, by religion and by ethnicity. No one can agree with anyone else on common goals and means to achieve those goals.

A King or Dictator can impose solutions for the good of the people but no elected body in the US can hope to do so because to do so would be politically unpopular and those who voted to implement the solution would soon be voted out of office. Politicians vote in order to keep themselves in office and that means responding to the will of the people rather than doing what is good for the nation. To do good for the nation will insure that they are voted out and replaced by someone who will vote to undo what had just been implemented.

Which brings me to my next point.

If you have been on welfare assistance for more than one year out of any 4 year election cycle, you don't get to vote.

 

[Rikurzhen]

We all are really great at criticizing the actions of our government, their policy and position on certain issues. Too bad we don’t have a chance to really change anything.
Let’s imagine, we created a party with a great chance to get a majority in the House of Representatives. What would its platform be? What changes would it bring?
In order not to be led away, let’s stick to the following issues:
1. International policy: general direction, dos and don’ts
2. Economy: possible ways out, taxation.
3. Education: what needs to be changed?
4. Immigration: any possible solutions to the crisis? Perfect immigration policy?
5. Health care system: how should it look like and function?
Discussion welcome! As well as some explanation of why you think this or that is a good stuff.

The flaw at the heart of your premise is the presumption that a party winning a majority is the path which leads to solutions. It's this very system which got us to these problems and which can't dig us out. People use their votes to enrich themselves. The solution involves breaking that cycle. People are not going to vote for that and they'll go down with the ship - they'll push it until we go over the edge.

Why can some nations, Canada, avert such a crisis but America can't? Because Canada in the 90s was a more unified nation than the US of 2014 - we are a nation divided by politics, by culture, by race, by religion and by ethnicity. No one can agree with anyone else on common goals and means to achieve those goals.

A King or Dictator can impose solutions for the good of the people but no elected body in the US can hope to do so because to do so would be politically unpopular and those who voted to implement the solution would soon be voted out of office. Politicians vote in order to keep themselves in office and that means responding to the will of the people rather than doing what is good for the nation. To do good for the nation will insure that they are voted out and replaced by someone who will vote to undo what had just been implemented.

Which brings me to my next point.

If you have been on welfare assistance for more than one year out of any 4 year election cycle, you don't get to vote.

How about if you're retired and collecting on Medicare?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We all are really great at criticizing the actions of our government, their policy and position on certain issues. Too bad we don’t have a chance to really change anything.
Let’s imagine, we created a party with a great chance to get a majority in the House of Representatives. What would its platform be? What changes would it bring?
In order not to be led away, let’s stick to the following issues:
1. International policy: general direction, dos and don’ts
2. Economy: possible ways out, taxation.
3. Education: what needs to be changed?
4. Immigration: any possible solutions to the crisis? Perfect immigration policy?
5. Health care system: how should it look like and function?
Discussion welcome! As well as some explanation of why you think this or that is a good stuff.

The flaw at the heart of your premise is the presumption that a party winning a majority is the path which leads to solutions. It's this very system which got us to these problems and which can't dig us out. People use their votes to enrich themselves. The solution involves breaking that cycle. People are not going to vote for that and they'll go down with the ship - they'll push it until we go over the edge.

Why can some nations, Canada, avert such a crisis but America can't? Because Canada in the 90s was a more unified nation than the US of 2014 - we are a nation divided by politics, by culture, by race, by religion and by ethnicity. No one can agree with anyone else on common goals and means to achieve those goals.

A King or Dictator can impose solutions for the good of the people but no elected body in the US can hope to do so because to do so would be politically unpopular and those who voted to implement the solution would soon be voted out of office. Politicians vote in order to keep themselves in office and that means responding to the will of the people rather than doing what is good for the nation. To do good for the nation will insure that they are voted out and replaced by someone who will vote to undo what had just been implemented.

Which brings me to my next point.

If you have been on welfare assistance for more than one year out of any 4 year election cycle, you don't get to vote.

How about if you're retired and collecting on Medicare?

Medicare is not welfare.

I would even exempt Medicaid , I mean not too many people gaming the system for free medical care.

I'm talking mainly about SNAP,TIA/SSI, those type of programs

 

[Rikurzhen]

We all are really great at criticizing the actions of our government, their policy and position on certain issues. Too bad we don’t have a chance to really change anything.
Let’s imagine, we created a party with a great chance to get a majority in the House of Representatives. What would its platform be? What changes would it bring?
In order not to be led away, let’s stick to the following issues:
1. International policy: general direction, dos and don’ts
2. Economy: possible ways out, taxation.
3. Education: what needs to be changed?
4. Immigration: any possible solutions to the crisis? Perfect immigration policy?
5. Health care system: how should it look like and function?
Discussion welcome! As well as some explanation of why you think this or that is a good stuff.

The flaw at the heart of your premise is the presumption that a party winning a majority is the path which leads to solutions. It's this very system which got us to these problems and which can't dig us out. People use their votes to enrich themselves. The solution involves breaking that cycle. People are not going to vote for that and they'll go down with the ship - they'll push it until we go over the edge.

Why can some nations, Canada, avert such a crisis but America can't? Because Canada in the 90s was a more unified nation than the US of 2014 - we are a nation divided by politics, by culture, by race, by religion and by ethnicity. No one can agree with anyone else on common goals and means to achieve those goals.

A King or Dictator can impose solutions for the good of the people but no elected body in the US can hope to do so because to do so would be politically unpopular and those who voted to implement the solution would soon be voted out of office. Politicians vote in order to keep themselves in office and that means responding to the will of the people rather than doing what is good for the nation. To do good for the nation will insure that they are voted out and replaced by someone who will vote to undo what had just been implemented.

Which brings me to my next point.

If you have been on welfare assistance for more than one year out of any 4 year election cycle, you don't get to vote.

How about if you're retired and collecting on Medicare?

Medicare is not welfare.

Like hell it ain't welfare.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

We all are really great at criticizing the actions of our government, their policy and position on certain issues. Too bad we don’t have a chance to really change anything.
Let’s imagine, we created a party with a great chance to get a majority in the House of Representatives. What would its platform be? What changes would it bring?
In order not to be led away, let’s stick to the following issues:
1. International policy: general direction, dos and don’ts
2. Economy: possible ways out, taxation.
3. Education: what needs to be changed?
4. Immigration: any possible solutions to the crisis? Perfect immigration policy?
5. Health care system: how should it look like and function?
Discussion welcome! As well as some explanation of why you think this or that is a good stuff.

The flaw at the heart of your premise is the presumption that a party winning a majority is the path which leads to solutions. It's this very system which got us to these problems and which can't dig us out. People use their votes to enrich themselves. The solution involves breaking that cycle. People are not going to vote for that and they'll go down with the ship - they'll push it until we go over the edge.

Why can some nations, Canada, avert such a crisis but America can't? Because Canada in the 90s was a more unified nation than the US of 2014 - we are a nation divided by politics, by culture, by race, by religion and by ethnicity. No one can agree with anyone else on common goals and means to achieve those goals.

A King or Dictator can impose solutions for the good of the people but no elected body in the US can hope to do so because to do so would be politically unpopular and those who voted to implement the solution would soon be voted out of office. Politicians vote in order to keep themselves in office and that means responding to the will of the people rather than doing what is good for the nation. To do good for the nation will insure that they are voted out and replaced by someone who will vote to undo what had just been implemented.

Which brings me to my next point.

If you have been on welfare assistance for more than one year out of any 4 year election cycle, you don't get to vote.

How about if you're retired and collecting on Medicare?

Medicare is not welfare.

Like hell it ain't welfare.

It's not classified as an "entitlement" though.

But, I would also have a voter exam that I doubt most old people probably couldn't pass. I mean if you don't even know who the current President is, I don't want your input on who the next one should be. As an example of the types of things I'd ask.

 

[Rikurzhen]

The flaw at the heart of your premise is the presumption that a party winning a majority is the path which leads to solutions. It's this very system which got us to these problems and which can't dig us out. People use their votes to enrich themselves. The solution involves breaking that cycle. People are not going to vote for that and they'll go down with the ship - they'll push it until we go over the edge.

Why can some nations, Canada, avert such a crisis but America can't? Because Canada in the 90s was a more unified nation than the US of 2014 - we are a nation divided by politics, by culture, by race, by religion and by ethnicity. No one can agree with anyone else on common goals and means to achieve those goals.

A King or Dictator can impose solutions for the good of the people but no elected body in the US can hope to do so because to do so would be politically unpopular and those who voted to implement the solution would soon be voted out of office. Politicians vote in order to keep themselves in office and that means responding to the will of the people rather than doing what is good for the nation. To do good for the nation will insure that they are voted out and replaced by someone who will vote to undo what had just been implemented.

Which brings me to my next point.

If you have been on welfare assistance for more than one year out of any 4 year election cycle, you don't get to vote.

How about if you're retired and collecting on Medicare?

Medicare is not welfare.

Like hell it ain't welfare.

It's not classified as an "entitlement" though.

I'm not understanding what you mean here. Medicare and Social Security are two bedrock examples of entitlement spending. You are entitled to these programs, they are beyond budgetary process/control.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Which brings me to my next point.

If you have been on welfare assistance for more than one year out of any 4 year election cycle, you don't get to vote.

How about if you're retired and collecting on Medicare?

Medicare is not welfare.

Like hell it ain't welfare.

It's not classified as an "entitlement" though.

I'm not understanding what you mean here. Medicare and Social Security are two bedrock examples of entitlement spending. You are entitled to these programs, they are beyond budgetary process/control.

yes, but when the lay person here's entitlement they think of SNAP and such.

THey aren't the same.

 

[Rikurzhen]

But, I would also have a voter exam that I doubt most old people probably couldn't pass. I mean if you don't even know who the current President is, I don't want your input on who the next one should be. As an example of the types of things I'd ask.

Here you seem to be creeping up towards my point - voter disenfranchisement. You may as well add women to the list because they are huge enablers of the welfare state and are far more prone than men to use their vote to garner benefits for themselves. It's no coincidence that after women got the vote the nation got a lot more socialist.

 

[ShackledNation]

We all are really great at criticizing the actions of our government, their policy and position on certain issues. Too bad we don’t have a chance to really change anything.
Let’s imagine, we created a party with a great chance to get a majority in the House of Representatives. What would its platform be? What changes would it bring?
In order not to be led away, let’s stick to the following issues:
1. International policy: general direction, dos and don’ts
2. Economy: possible ways out, taxation.
3. Education: what needs to be changed?
4. Immigration: any possible solutions to the crisis? Perfect immigration policy?
5. Health care system: how should it look like and function?
Discussion welcome! As well as some explanation of why you think this or that is a good stuff.

1. End the American Empire. Build diplomatic relations, expand free trade, and respond with force only in the most dire situations.
2. Free markets. End big-business subsidies. Outlaw fraudulent fractional reserve banking, allow for competing currencies, and abolish the archaic federal reserve system.
3. Stop trying to standardize education and stifle creativity. Let the free market provide education innovation, rather than trapping it in wasteful bureaucracy.
4. Allow for near open borders. Perform background checks on all who wish to enter. Criminals are not to be allowed. Do not grant immigrants instant citizenship. Rather, allow them to be permanent residents. Citizenship should require many years in the country and a job.
5. Get rid of the current system of government bureaucracy and pandering to the pharmaceutical companies. This will include IP reform. Replace our quasi-government quasi-corporatist system with a free market system. Insurance should cover uncertainties, not routine doctor visits or the common cold and the like.

 

[initforme]

1). Trim excesses in gov't including the military,
2). Increase proficient teachers pay by a whole bunch.
3). Increase the number of kids getting college or tech school education by lowering student loan interest rates.
4). End big business tax breaks and loop holes.
5). More stringent clean air and water regulation. You pollute a river you are shut down. Guilty as charged.
6). Protect SS and Medicare... needed by millions upon millions of people

 

[Rikurzhen]

Another example of the folly of giving women the vote, they will vote you into bondage:

The results show that the No campaign now has a 16 point lead among women who have decided which way to vote - up from 14 points on Sunday. Some 58 per cent of women say they will vote No on Thursday, with 42 per cent planning to vote Yes, among those who have reached a decision.

Men are more evenly split but more than half – 53 per cent – now back independence.​