Issues and an Ideal Candidate

R

RomaVicta

5,000+ Posts
What would you like to be the key issues discussed by the voting public this year heading into the national election?

After you name the issue, please say what your ideal candidate would promise to address that issue.

I find myself most concerned with our system as a whole. I would like to see a real reform movement aimed at completely overhauling our election financing system.

My ideal candidate would promise to pass reform legislation that would severely restrain campaign contributions from powerful entities (companies or organizations comprised of x number of persons or possessed of x amount of wealth/assets).

To accompany the decrease in funding, my ideal candidate would promote legislation where campaigns are conducted with public funds and use equitable access to public media.

I don't know exactly how all of that would work, but that's why I want an ideal candidate. I am only a humble voter.

I voted for Jerry Brown years ago in the primaries when he was running as a reform candidate. I knew he wouldn't be elected and I wasn't sure of his plans, but I've thought the system is the greater problem than just about all of our problems, many of which stem from the defects in our system.

I think such reform could break the advantages of incumbency without having to impose term limits. The equal playing field should create something more akin to a meritocracy.

So that's my idealistic position. Anybody else?
 
One issue? Where to start!

I'm torn between spending, social security, taxes and "too big to fail" I have a feeling that my ideal candidate would need a whole lot more power to do what I'd like to see him do, but as long as we're being hypothetical...

Scrap the current tax system and start from scratch. I'm not 100 percent sold on a flat tax, but I'm leaning more and more that way with provisions for a reasonable graduation down below a specific income level. Subsidies phased out over a four-year period, corporate tax rate at 15 percent or so, same as capital gains tax.

The reason I picked this one is that more and more, I find myself thinking that paying taxes is a fundamental requirement of all U.S. citizens, but it has become so complicated that unless I have specific education or training, I am required to either hire a consultant, buy software that automatically does my calculations for me or fill out a form so basic that I miss out on opportunities available to me. Once performing a civic obligation becomes beyond the ability of the average citizen, something needs to change.

Plenty of other pressing issues but to me this one is the most fundamental to our rights as U.S. citizens.
 
The number one issue is my list is good jobs. Fixing it, though, requires education, training and government that can encourage business expansion and regulate with TLC. Actually, Mitt Romney has the business expertise -- but I'd like to see him close to and advised by economists who know about matching human skills to lucrative jobs. He also needs somebody to jawboning for change in the educational system that uses technology to teach, necessarily bypassing and putting pressure on our bloated university education system and making training more convenient, cost effective and marketable. That will require a modern system of granting marketable certification for students who've obtained skills needed in the workplace.
 
I'm looking for a government that does few things but aims to do them very well. We seem to only have nanny staters and people that want to cut everything to the bone. We somehow ended up with a government that tries to do everything but does most things poorly.

I would love to vote for somebody that wants to have an honest discussion about what government should provide and how we can make those services top notch. Ideally, this would lead to a balanced budget as well as fully funded government services in the areas that are needed.
 
Maybe we could even take the topic of this post as a subset of a larger question regarding our form of government. I don't know what a better approach would be, but if we are serious about reform let's put everything on the table.

Is it even a representative democracy we live in anymore? I guess technically it is, but money has corrupted the representation to the point where it seems that we don't really have the will of the people at the forefront of policy anymore.

I don't know. I've become a bit numb to the whole process which is disappointing, but maybe that's my personal failure to engage more.
 
Good thoughts on the thread, RV. My ideal candidate would be a genuine conservative who believes that government should do only what's specifically designated in the Constitution. I would want a candidate who would support doing away with myriads of giveaway programs, and who would support a balanced budget. This candidate would believe that individual responsibility for outcomes is far more important than governmental safety nets.

I also realize that such a candidate would have little chance of being elected, since those who are currently on the receiving end of the giveaways would never vote to cut themselves off from the handouts.

My candidate would also be pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.

HHD
hookem.gif
texasflag.gif
coolnana.gif
ousucksnana.gif
 
Frankly I'm sick of all social issues. I am, personally, with HornHusker on that, but anyone who gives serious time to that stuff - their words on the matter should be ignored.

Biggest issue is tax reform. There'd be so much benefit to that it wouldn't be fair to list anything else as the priority. To that end, some Steve Forbes disciple would be ideal.

Second issue is phasing out existing terms / re-elections for Congressmen, Senators & Presidents. There may need to be some tweaking of terms for each category of servant, especially with respect to extending Reps and possibly POTUSes and possibly reducing Senators. No ability to run for re-election unless your seeking a higher federal office, ultimately (after phase-outs). Then you'd start to see true servants, and less attention/power whores. And, servants would have more time to do positive instead of focusing half their time campaigning.

Third, and this can't be done without #2, there needs to be a complete overhaul of spending. Starting with the DOD. I'm talking spending billions on hiring PROFESSIONAL auditors for a short time (out of work tax accts, overseeing former IRS minions, due to #1) getting **** under control. There is far too much waste in all federal areas, and most don't know the extent.

Fourth, and this can't occur without #2, a complete overhaul of education, nationwide, grade school up through undergrad. I'm tired. More tomorrow. If y'all are lucky.
 
My ideal candidate would:

1. Truly fix the long-term fiscal problem of the United States, and that means cutting non-discretionary spending through big overhauls of Social Security and Medicare. People can talk about DoD, Dept. of Education, etc., and there is waste in those agencies that should be dealt with, but the serious money is in non-discretionary spending. You could close the Pentagon entirely, and we'd still have a colossal budget deficit.

2. Eliminate FICA and the tax loopholes (preferential rate on capital gains, narrow deductions, etc.) and impose a very low flat tax that has one standard deduction that applies to everybody. Nobody, rich or poor, should have zero tax liability.

3. Improve our national transportation infrastructure. Our transportation system is an embarrassment. The fact that so many Americans have to sit in traffic for hours every day is a joke. That should become a thing of the past.

4. Would move overseas military installations. We need fewer in Western Europe (though wouldn't get rid of all of them - very shortsighted to do so) but more in Eastern Europe and the Far East.

5. Allow the free market to fix the tuition disaster. That means scaling back or eliminating the student loan program. It's nothing more than corporate welfare.

6. Would be pro-states' rights on abortion (wouldn't matter if he was personally pro-life or not) and the vast majority of issues and would appoint strict constructionists to the federal bench but who also wouldn't abandon strict constructionism to protect business interests.

7. Would withdraw from the United Nations and international trade organizations have direct negotiations with foreign powers.

8. Would do the opposite of what RV advocates on campaign finance. We have limits on campaign contributions, and all it does is help hide where candidates' money comes from. I'd eliminate all limits on campaign contributions but have strict, mandatory reporting guidelines. If you're owned by unions, that's fine, but we should know. If you're owned by oil & gas and pharmaceutical companies, that's fine too, but we should know.

9. Would end bailouts of all kinds.
 
Constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Further the government should shut down if there is not a budget in place and published so all the people can see it.

End the ridiculous tax "refunds" for people that didn't pay any taxes to begin with.

Get the government out of the charity business 100%. I know your intentions are wonderful but you do more harm than good. Stop it already.
 
My ideal candidate would be someone who has government experience (ideally in the military) and someone who has successfully run a business in the private sector. I'd also like my ideal candidate to have made a significant contribution to society in one way or another (charity or generally helping others) out of their own pocket and not someone else's.
 
Mr. Deez:

Where can I place my vote for your platform?

My main beef is with the judicial system and its power grab. How many of the things listed above - on both sides - would be tied up in court for years and years even if we all got on the same side of something beneficial and it got through Congress and the President? The fact that a state can hold a referendum in which a super majority settles a matter only to have it go immediately to court pisses me off.
 
I agree that the current group of characters in office has led to a general disgust/malaise regarding politics in general. And I actually think that is part of the problem.

I think RV is on the right track but going about it in the wrong manner. It is simply impossible to get money out of campains. If a wealthy group wants to buy air time (TV or radio or print) then they can push their message and there is nothing to be done to stop it. All regulation does is force the money to get more creative (which it always will) and harm the little guy thereby making it an even bigger advantage for the incumbent/wealthy candidate. The opposite of the intention.

I have been a strict proponent of term limits for years. If you eliminate the ability for someone to run for reelection, then you take away the ability for money to influence the politicians once they are elcted. Therefore, they will make decisions based on the good of the people of their district or the country as opposed to what is in their personal best interest to get reelected.

Our system has become corrupted for the very reason that idals like socialism or communism fail- it goes against basic human nature and human nature is going to win in the long run everytime. We elect someone to office and then expect them to do the right thing for the people but we create a system where they can only keep their job by doing what is in their own interest. It just doesn't work. The fundamentals of a democracy are as strong as ever and democracy is the very best system that has ever existed. When the system was created, there were not any "professional" politicians and very few did the job for long periods. And all had other occupations. Money has simply corrupted the system today.

The problems we have as a country today are fixable. They are complex but fixable. But no one really wants to fix them. They just want to secure as much political capital as possible ti ensure they will keep getting reelected.

Like Deez said, non-discretionary spending is the biggest financial problem the country faces. There isn't even a close second. Yet, our leaders have not put forth a single measure to deal with the problem!! Think about that. Dems and repubs alike should certainly agree that the non-discretionary spending is drowning us. So why arent there any workable plans to deal with the problem? The answer is not differences of opinion. The group that was put together by BO was comprised of smart, effective people from all sides of govt. They came out with a fairly sensible plan that involved revenue increases and cuts. It was rejected for one reason- following through with it might mean making everybody a little mad and they might not get reelected.

I would be willing to bet a lot of money that the plan they came up with would have been implemented if the members of the congress and senate were not running for relection. There is no other plausible explanation.

So after a too long rant, I would like a candidate that called for strict term limits. Make them long terms 6-8 years. Pay them better. But dont let them be influenced by personal greed when making decisions.
 
There is only one issue and that is spending and that is why, if we continue to vote for the Democrats and Republicans who have conspired to put us into this place, we're doomed.
 
Horn89,

I agree with your analysis. It pretty much is as you describe. However, the phenomenon of the special interests writing legislation is nothing new. What's new is that politicians are no longer tempering their legislation with consumer protections.

Let's be honest. Corporate interests that lobby legislatures and Congress are usually looking for some kind of handout. Sometimes they want a government subsidy - an actual cash payment from the taxpayer. Sometimes they want a special tax break that other interests don't get. Sometimes they want liability protection so they can cheat people and other businesses and leave them with no recourse. Sometimes they want a monopoly or the ability to engage anti-competitive activity without having to deal with antitrust laws.

Fifty years ago, if you wanted a handout you could get it, but there was a price to pay. The price was usually having to submit to a strict regulatory framework. You could be the only utility company (since you brought up cable) in the area, but regulators dictated what you could and could not sell and how much you could charge for it. If you wanted to raise your prices, you had to get permission and justify it to a regulatory agency that was not your ally. If you didn't like getting sued, you'd have to pay into a compensation fund of some type to pay people you screw over at least something and usually under laxer standards than the court system would require. (That's basically what workers compensation is. You can't sue your employer if you get hurt, but your employer must carry a policy that will pay you a defined benefit regardless of fault.)

Nowadays business interests get their handout and usually don't have to give up anything to get it (or if they do, they're giving up something illusory or nominal when compared to the benefit they get). Why does that happen? Because the public simply doesn't demand the protections anymore. In fact, a lot of conservatives are so warped that they see the handout as a free market principle but the regulation as socialism (when in fact both are socialism). Furthermore, those that would demand it now don't even know it's going on.

The problem with what RV and others suggest is that imposing limits on what someone can donate to a campaign won't actually stop the contributions. It simply spreads it out to more people, which makes the contribution harder for people to follow. Keep in mind that we're in the campaign finance reform era. Limits do exist.

If the cable industry wants to give your congressman $200K for his reelection campaign, you won't see a $200K contribution from a cable industry PAC on his campaign finance report. You'd see a small contribution from the PAC and may even see one from a consumer advocacy group. However, you'll also see hundreds of other small ones from a bunch of individuals connected to the industry that you've never heard of. How do you know if this guy is owned by the cable industry? There's no way for you to really know.

I'd much rather see the $250K check from the cable industry PAC. That way I know this guy is going to have the cable industry's balls in his mouth and will let them cheat me every chance they get. This crappy phenomenon needs to be combated with information, not with more rules. We need fewer rules, and they need to be simpler.
 
Horn 89 makes some great points. Although unelectable (as in getting no funding from groups), we need a leader who will make taxes uncomplicated and fair, create equal opportunity by eliminating unfair advantages to corporations through BS laws, and stop long-term dependence on our government unless truly needy (unable to work at all).

I think that election finance is only a part of the problem with the election process. Networks, blogs and news feeds with clear bias, no civility and poor reporting are also to blame.

This goes against the corrupted soul of both parties and when Americans get selfish (greed or laziness) they blindly push the lever like a lab rat getting the pellet.
 
The whole process is so disconnected from reality. I was just watching an ad for Wentworth claiming that he restored the pledge and prayer in school. We have always said the pledge and we don't have prayer in school unless you count the daily moment of silence.

1. You would have to come up with some pretty good twists for this statement to be considered true.

2. With all of the issues facing us today, these are the two that you bring up (along with the voter I'd bill)?

3. Even if the ad was truthful, these issues wouldn't crack the top 10 most important issues in education.

Sometimes I think I would be happier if I gave up on politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top