Reduce our increasingly dangerous dependency on oil and natural gas by devoting part of the resultant savings from the budget cuts below to (a) the construction of wind power plants, solar power plants and public transit systems, and (b) the educational promotion of permaculture.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm
9. Require media networks to pay into the public treasury the bulk of the annual rental value of the publicly-owned airwaves to which they enjoy exclusive access, and thereby reverse the monopolistic control that a mere handful of corporations currently exerts over those airwaves. (Use the revenue thus generated to reduce the income tax burden for the bottom 50% of all taxpayers.)
If all of the current presidential candidates were required to state whether they (a) wholly agreed, (b) partly agreed or (c) wholly disagreed with the above proposals, which candidate do you think would be closest to my views? Which candidate do you think would be most opposed to them?
i concur with everything bar the repelation of federal Gun constrictions. perhaps i did not fully understand: do you wish to disband the regulations agaisnt purchasing semi-automatic weapons and other non-hunting firearms?
Education - not unlike the proverbial lunch - can never be free for everyone. Someone will always have to pick up the tab. Each year I write-out a fat check to the government in support of “free” primary education. Seen from my perspective, children’s education is anything but free.
I’d prefer that Kindegarten through 12th grade education should be absolutely “free” to every child, and every last penny of it paid for by the parents whose children receive this “free” education.
It’s a given that children must be educated. Any parent who thinks otherwise ought to be jailed. Why provide incentives for what could not possibly be otherwise? Giving parents incentives to educate their children is like giving them an incentives to feed their children.
On the other hand, I’d rather that college education were supported entirely from the general tax revenue. At no additional cost, people ought to be allowed to attend a college or the university from the time they graduate from highschool onwards. A college education is not mandatory, nor should it be. However, it’s useful for any modern society that it should have a substantial number of its citizens college or university educated. Incentives are useful in precisely these kinds of situations.
Lastly, I don’t support every item in Todd Altman’s platform. I can’t imagine anyone sees the solution to every problem exactly as I see it. But politics is all about compromise. It’s generally the package-deal offered by politicians that we must accept or reject. John Kerry was not my first choice for the Democratic party candidate, yet in his fight to return to Crawford, Texas, their wandering village idiot, he has my full support.
Those are certainly excellent stances on pivotal issues. However, it is generally advisable, as a political candidate, to give yourself at least a fraction of a chance of being elected. Unfortunately, with a platform like that I do not believe you would gain much of a following outside of liberal academia, and the educated minority of liberal communities scattered amidst the conservative wasteland. It is the marginalizing effect of a two-party political system supposing to represent a country of more than two-hundred-million people. I’d vote for you if I ever had the chance, though.
Well, do you believe in an equal society? As I see it, the only way to give everyone an equal chance in life is to provide an equal playing feild. That can never be done completely, but the best way to give someone a chance is to educate them. I know that education is not ‘free’, but it should be available to all children for free. That means that people who are better-off must pay into a general fund in order to provide education to all. And the only way that we can call our society ‘just’ is if we do this - and that includes university.
“I’d rather that college education were supported entirely from the general tax revenue. At no additional cost, people ought to be allowed to attend a college or the university from the time they graduate from highschool onwards. A college education is not mandatory, nor should it be. However, it’s useful for any modern society that it should have a substantial number of its citizens college or university educated. Incentives are useful in precisely these kinds of situations.”
I don’t know what you are saying here. Don’t you agree with me, then? What do you mean by ‘at no additional cost’ - do you mean that it should not cost those who go to school anything until they pay taxes later? If that’s what you mean, then we are in complete agreement - education should not cost students anything, but they should pay for it (and for anyone who wants to go to universtiy) later when they pay taxes.
I’d wouldn’t vote for Altman and I will tell you why. I agree with everything he said except perhaps immediately withdrawing our troops from the 100+ countries that we presently occupy or have military bases in. I don’t want to see a two nation world, like US and China - you think things are bad now?! He did say “end or curtail” so he recognizes this problem and would only end interventionism unless he thought the American people would be better off in such a world or if something comes up that makes our interventionsim wholly unnecessary. But that’s not the reason I would not vote for him.
I would not vote for Altman because I respect his life and he would be murdered before he even became inaugurated and I don’t think there is any power on Earth that would be able to prevent the powers that be from carrying out his prompt assassination no matter what the costs.
I can’t find any point of contention with you thus far. I’m merely saying that education isn’t just for kids; it ought to be a life-long pursuit. Societies must be careful in how they distribute their finite resources. I see no more wisdom in providing a public tuition subsidy to the parent for their child’s education, than I see subsidizing a parent for feeding their child. Tax subsidies are a means of influencing behavior; they represent incentives. We ought to reserve our finite public resources for situations where people have real options (there is no real option whether or not to educate one’s child; it’s a given), but where one option is more socially desireable. That’s why I’d like to see tuition-free university education available to everyone from highschool to the grave.
I would vastly expand the public funding of our university systems. My vision of a university differs from the current norm inasmuch as I’d have the profile of the student population more resemble the profile of the community.
“I believe that education…is a process of living and not a preparation for future living.” John Dewey
Agreed, however, upon graduation the “free” education is paid back in civil service, for as many number of years as it takes to get whatever degree is achieved. Win win situation…experience and giving back
If I were a presidential candidate for the country Canada, the following would be my campaign platform:
The first thing I would start to do is immediately start providing free one bedroom apartments to every citizen 18yrs or older. There would be no tax or price or rent involved. It would be FREE.
I would shut down every single casino in Canada right away and remove every single VLT machine from every lounge countrywide. As the govt. if I need to make money, I will EARN it not steal it under the guise of legality. I also happen to believe that VLT machines and slot machines are not programmed essentially, YOU the player is programmed to lose ultimately everything as soon as you enter a casino the camera’s eyes are on you. And the trick employed is frustration basically. Where there is big money involved, there will always be scams. I happen to believe that, so I would shut down every casino and all VLT’s.
I would let Quebec become independent if they desired so. However, Canada being a multicultural country, I cannot override the rights of minority, so, in the referendum for Quebec’s sovereignty, if say 60% vote for an independent Quebec then 60% of the land will become independent Quebec only and the adjacent rest would belong to Canada and the minority who voted for Canada will still have the full option to live in THEIR Part of QUEBEC Canada, but just move accordingly.
There would be no free medical anymore! So, if a doctor wanted to make money by recommending me to a specialist, that nonsense would stop immediately. Also, doctors would care about the patients’ welfare and would have to explain what might be wrong to the patient, if they want to keep that patient and not have him go to another doctor.
As to jobs and wages and salaries, that I would like to see as all getting nearly the same for the amount of work they put in be it physical or mental. There would be privileges according to the work you do which in no case would be monetary. This way all would be balanced. However, this would be very difficult to achieve but whatever.
Transport - There would be NO monetary fine for any wrong done as to driving only tickets that would accumulate to a certain no. of points and gradual suspension of the license accordingly for a certain period of time.
In your apartment, you will not pay for any utilities, and basic electricity and water consumption, all that payment will come from income tax only from the govt. It will be THE ONLY MONETARY PAYMENT TAKEN BY THE GOVT.FROM THE PUBLIC - income tax. The only stuff you will really need to pay for on your own is food, entertainment, medical, leisure (hobbies and interests) and transport.
Schooling will be free completely until grade 12. And you can change schools a few times a year.
There will be no Girl’s convent or Boy’s convent allowed because many grow up not knowing how to adjust with the other sex. And there will be no fixed uniform either. Clothes are like a second skin on us, the colours and styles we wear are because of the way we are, so it’s imperative that there be no fixed uniform.
Anyone can have there own gambling or lottery. It will not be a concern of the govt. It’s your life, your business.
There will be police but no social institution that can interfere with a family. Essentially the city CANNOT interfere in a family’s business. You have a problem in marriage or any other family problem, resolve it on your own, it’s your life!
There will of course be Shelters where you could always go to, with NO CONDITIONS ATTACHED, like, do you have pets? “Oh! We can’t have pets here.” Oh! Yeah? If my friend needs to go to a shelter, what the hell does she do with her pet who is like her baby, where does she leave it? That nonsense has to stop.
Once in the shelter you will be found a job to work at and become independent, then you must leave. If something happens, you can always return and get help.
I got helluva lot more points and ideas but it’s all I can remeber for now
The govt. would have to send a copy of how the income tax money was spent to every single individual in the country monthly.
Regarding war, I would NOT do what US does or has done. I WILL NOT BE AN UNWELCOME GUEST IN ANY COUNTRY AND WILL MIND MY OWN BUSINESS WITHOUT QUESTION. I believe that much of US’s problem with terrorism is because of their being an unwelcome guest in Saudi Arabia, Iraq - keeping sanctions on them in the face of so much upcoming adversity there because of that, etc.
If a country attacks me, I would defend myself like crazy but I would not attack any country but try to resolve it peacefully through negotiation etc. because I would need to consider other ideologies, philosophies and RIGHTS. However, in my personal life, if someone attacks me or my rights then I could prove to be a complete coward, I know that.
I would also have something like “paypal,” a donation, for the govt. to make more money but with an attached condition that all those who pay would be given a complete account of how the money was utilized.
As for guns and gun control, only those who like going hunting could keep guns and no others. When guns were invented, do you know what people said? They said, Oh! It’s for self defense only baby. Now, when is a gun really used for self defense might I ask? It is nearly always used to harm not defend oneself. So, I would outlaw guns because we have no use for them really and those who need them for hunting can have them. Now, if you have a license for hunting, in order to keep your license, there would be a very high fee yearly, I have to enforce that so people do not pretend to like hunting just to get guns. The money from the license would go for more public works and would be public knowledge as to the details.
I read in a quote that 90% of the world’s population works so 5% can be millionaires or billionaires out there, I believe this to be generally true from what I’ve seen in life and so I would definately question as to why a sports or a movie star is walking away with making more than a million a year when a diswasher perhaps with the very same qualification in education, is rotting behind dishes 8hrs a day, 5days a week, and cannot make a million dolloars even in his whole lifetime.
I think recently I heard but I may be wrong that the city will pass a by-law or has passed it already to charge a house $300.00 if it doesn’t keep it’s outside of the house neat and trim. What kind of nonsense is that? Do we as citizens have a life anymore or is it only the govt.'s life and that too, to extract more and more money?
i desperately hope that you are joking. If not, have you actually thought through any of your ideas? Ban casinos, but anyone can gamble or have a lottery?!! Charge a high fee for hunting liscences to discourage criminals?!!
Sure, anyone can have gamble or have a lottery, but in my jurisdiction you will be in control, not my govt. Because the way it is right now it is all a scam, if you walk away with money through gambling in a casino, then, the next time or the next, the surveillance will get you. Am I supposed to sit here like some stupid and believe that the slot machines and VLT’s are already programmed? Now, it is a reality of life that money is a VERY attractive commodity and so if you win once you will be likely to go and gamble again and the casinos will keep not only that, but more from your pocket, that’s the way they operate. Now, you tell me that I should live in some fake world and not write this here, why shouldn’t I when this is what I have perceived from my gambling of 4yrs. I don’t gamble anymore, there is no point in trying to get your money back. Even the jackpots there are only a lure to keep all that is in yours or another’s pocket. And if you tell me that I should not intuition out all this, then is the surveillance at the casinos going to put the truth out in front of the general public? You think so? There are societies who walk away with $50,000 to $75,000 with volunteering there for 2 or 3 days at a casino. And this money comes from the pockets of individual people who are already in need of it, that’s why they go there mainly. Why doesn’t the govt. ask these societies to move their BUTT like we do if they want to make that kind of money? It is the govt. that has the biggest addiction to innocent individual people’s money and then they advertise in casinos that help is available for gambling addiction. What kind of a bloody hell of a nonsense is that? Whether you believe this or not, shutting down every casino and VLT will be the first or second thing I will do if I am the govt. Now you can enjoy having your own place to gamble and have a lottery organized by you, it’s your business and not for me to interfere because if that’s what you like then I must not interfere. But the govt. of mine will not have ANYTHING to do with it. ALRIGHT?
So why not just say that your government will not take any taw cut from casinos? Then you would have no involement in it, but everyone would still have a place to go and gamble. And also, i think that people do realise that the odds are against them when they gamble. Therefore, if you gamble lots the chances are incredibly low that you will make a profit. I dont think that there is any big conspiracy.
Also, you have ignored my second point about the idea that charging lots of money will mean that criminals wont get hold of guns. This seems ludicrous to me, as surely they will be far more likely to be able to afford the large fee than anyone wo is genuinely interested in hunting.
But then if my govt. just doesn’t take profits from the casinos then the whole point will be lost! First, I must SHUT DOWN the casinos and the VLT’s, and THEN people can arrange their own lottery funds and gambling etc., because otherwise, these societies will still be walking away with that kind of money and even more so now and the scams will still be there and the people who are addicted will still be going there and losing money. Let me assure you that if the people who go and gamble KNOW, that there is virtually no way that they can ever get their money back but will only lose more, they WILL STOP GOING THERE! But they do not understand how a casino works. As for no conspiracy, take away all the cameras from the VLT lounges and the casinos, and yes I’ll agree with you that there is no conspiracy. And don’t give me some nonsense that the house always wins and stuff when you KNOW that everything is in the hands of the surveillance then what’s the point of bringing that up? As for the tables, as soon as you put the chips on the tables, the ball rolls the RIGHT numbers, baby! If you know what I mean. Whatever…
As for guns, yes you’re right, if someone has decided to kill someone then of course, they’ll find the money to get a gun. But the idea in having a high fee was that it will dissuade the general public in keeping a gun, period! As for crime, crime will always exist because all crime is emotion based and we are products of emotion and dependent on it. So yes guns will still be used to kill, but not to the extent they are used right now. That was the point. Whatever, this is what I feel.
Under my jurisdiction, spouses will have equal rights DURING a marriage and not at the end of it. So, half of every cheque earned by spouses will go to the other spouse directly from the company and if the spouse who earned it cashes it, it will be a criminal offence. After this, they decide how they will spend the money. Now this is what I call equality of rights, anything else is utter nonsense.
In the points where I mentioned about standeard housing, you can always have bigger housing but you can’t buy it only pay taxes accordingly on the extra land, and yes, it looks like there will be money taken by the govt., that is other than income tax. Whatever…
Seems like my views are very radical, I got way more points to jot down but I’m kinda scared, so I won’t!
My party platforms would require far more time to write than I can afford to take right now. However I do have a suggestion for Beenajain.
Since you seem to want gambling to exist but dissaprove of various aspects of it, why not go the other way. Repeal all private gambling liscences and institute government controlled casinoes. Why?
Firstly. All revenues would go directly to the government rather than a small tax share. This additional income would alleviate tax burdens or allow for increased public spending.
Secondly. With a single controlling force behind casinoes you’d be able to bring in stricter methods for preventing gambling abuse. People could be prevented by law from gambling more money than they can afford to spend (calculated from tax records).
Thirdly. Money laundering via casinoes would become far more difficult through governmental records of gambling transactions.
Fourthly. With less need to provide profit the machines can be programmed for a higher pay out.
Finally. This would grant the government the ability to slowly phase out gambling if this should be desired.
— Government. For a one-time scalable annual fee our organisation will provide security, roads, fire-services, health-care, administration, education and much more. As a non profit organisation our prices are competitive against other corporation. We’re not just another corporation, we’re you. —
I think people should be allowed to gamble as much as they like. There is no legislation against spending all of your money on other things, so why not allow people to waste it all in gambling.
