They're Here

[shock]

How about the 1st and 4th Amendment? All wiretapping of American citizens by the National Security Agency should require a warrant from a three-judge court set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, yet the powers granted to the Executive office by the Patriot Act allow the NSA to bypass the FISA. This has been widely recognized as a violation of the 4th amendment, a warrantless search. I can provide many foreign and national examples as well of specific laws used to either prevent speech against the government, allow warrantless surveillance of citizens and foreign nationals alike, allow for indefinite detainment of perceived threats without an arrest, etc.



I identify mostly as a left-libertarian. In 2012 I voted for Gary Johnson, and in 2016 I probably would have decided between either a moderate Republican, or a libertarian like Rand Paul. I think Bernie Sanders is the most trust-worthy candidate left in the race, with the most detailed plan and the strongest record behind his believes. Agree or disagree on policies, he correctly predicted the rise of ISIS before the Iraq invasion and he's had the same views for 30 years. That doesn't mean I'll vote for him, but I will consider him.

I highly disagree with the Bush doctrine of preemptive war. It is the single biggest change in US foreign policy in a hundred years, and it has proven to be either ineffectual or downright destructive. Everyone in this race except Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders endorse the Bush Doctrine. Likewise, I disagree with the Republican party's stance on immigration, not because I particularly care for immigrants or want illegal immigrants to become citizens but because the Republican solution is impractical, immoral, and in many ways unlikely to be effective. I will never support a policy on ideology, and I feel the conservative wing of the Republican party is the opposite.

So what is your view on economics? No whos plan you endorse, but what you think the plan should be.

[CBB_Fan]

So what is your view on economics? No whos plan you endorse, but what you think the plan should be.

My view on economics are largely separate from the establishment wings of both parties. I think a progressive tax system is largely wasteful and unnecessary and actually contributes to inequality, but I also believe that the mainstream Republican view that the government is always wrong is harmful and disingenuous, a true-ism that can be used both to remove their own responsibilities and attack the Democrats without merit.

Of the candidates, the best tax plan is the one proposed by Ted Cruz. I would support a flat or fair tax with high sales taxes, not because I intellectually believe it is right but because such a system has been shown to work well even in some of the most liberal countries on Earth (the Scandinavian countries have highly regressive tax codes).

I do support socialized medicine, as I believe medical care is in an absolutely abysmal state in this country and the Republicans haven't pushed for a free market solution (other than wait and hope the market works it out). Note, I actually heavily disagree with Obamacare but not likely for the reasons Republicans do. Obamacare had good points (extending parents' plans to 18-26 year olds, pre-existing conditions) but ultimately it was a plan designed by and for insurance companies and the end result was just more money going to middlemen and higher costs with no fixes to the underlying parties. I would also support a Swiss style healthcare system, which is an entirely free-market solution; the important thing is that our financing system is wrong in almost every way (the healthcare itself is among the world's best).

I think having a million forms of welfare is unnecessary and wasteful. If I had control of the government, I would eliminate the minimum wage and reduce major government programs into 4 categories. Number one would be a socialized healthcare system. Number two would be military and law enforcement. Number three would be legacy programs that would be phased out over time (IE, if you qualified for Tricare you keep it till you die or decide to switch). And number four would be a basic guaranteed income, replacing all current welfare (including most tax loopholes). The total cost of a basic income plan would be lower than that of a means-tested welfare program, and it would provide the best possible rectification with the least government control.

Overall, the total cost of government would likely be higher under such a government, but I believe the total cost of living would be much lower and the standard of living much higher. I generally am not against government, I'm against inefficiency and bureaucracy but pro-economies of scale. Properly run governments can do things that private industry cannot and maintain the general welfare in such a way that an entire population has a higher standard of living. However, I am willing settle for a minimalist non-intrusive government that is limited in scope instead if the alternative is an inefficient mess (such as what I see from the establishment wings of both parties).

[jdshock]

I think a progressive tax system is largely wasteful and unnecessary and actually contributes to inequality

I agree with the vast majority of your post, and I would support a very similar policy to what you propose (assuming by sales tax you mean a VAT tax. They're very similar with only a couple of differences. But, in my understanding, most Scandinavian countries are using a VAT tax, not a sales tax.)

But why do you believe a progressive tax system can contribute to inequality?

The problem I have with your proposal is how all of them have to happen together. You can't just say Scandinavian countries have a regressive system to support a regressive system here because the US doesn't have the social services available in other countries. (same with socialized medicine, etc.) If a flat tax increases inequality, supporting a flat tax without the basic income component you propose, you only have more inequality. Same with decreasing welfare: if you get rid of welfare without basic income, you only have more income inequality. It's a full system overhaul that is needed. At least in my opinion. But I also believe flat taxes are inherently regressive and promote inequality. Why do you believe a progressive system might increase inequality?

[CBB_Fan]

Progressive taxes are accompanied by tax breaks that tend to disproportionately benefit the rich over the middle class, and also have the problem of taxing income much higher than capital gains. It means that the system is inherently biased towards those that can exploit it the most.

[jdshock]

Progressive taxes are accompanied by tax breaks that tend to disproportionately benefit the rich over the middle class, and also have the problem of taxing income much higher than capital gains. It means that the system is inherently biased towards those that can exploit it the most.

So that's where we disagree. The US tax system tends to include tax breaks that benefit the rich and the US tax system includes a provision that longterm capital gains be taxed at roughly half of income. Those are regressive components inside of the US tax system, not inherent components of a progressive tax system.

[Kung Wu]

I think Bernie Sanders is the most trust-worthy candidate left in the race, with the most detailed plan and the strongest record behind his believes. Agree or disagree on policies, he correctly predicted the rise of ISIS before the Iraq invasion and he's had the same views for 30 years. That doesn't mean I'll vote for him, but I will consider him.

Hitler was honest and actually implemented a strategy based on his beliefs, which he held for many, many years.

Do I get the Godwin's Law award??

[shoxilla]

Coincidence?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/peteraldhous/spies-in-the-skies

[SB Shock]

taken from italian newspaper - translated by google

http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/politica/jihad-trova-alleato-messico-i-narcos-1249792.html

"The border that separates Mexico from the United States is so full of free zones that I could come in with a group of men in a few hours and kill thousands of people in Texas or Arizona." To speak with bravado is Sheikh Omar Mahmood 52 year old Khabir, chased out of Kuwait a decade ago for his extremist positions and today the pay Isis. Khabir is actually a kind of "mercenary" of jihad: Before you make a pact with al-Baghdadi, and arrive in Mexico, he coached hundreds of young guerrillas alqaedisti in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen on behalf of Al-Zawahiri (of which he is state councilor in Egypt). For over a year would be in the State of Chihuahua, a few kilometers from the border with the United States. The jihadists valicherebbero the border with the help of drug traffickers to explore targets of future attacks. One of the bases of the Islamic State would be about eight kilometers from the border, in an area known as Anapra, west of Ciudad Juarez. For Anapra Khabir indoctrinate militiamen claiming to have formed a cell of 200 thousand men ready for martyrdom and partly introduced in the social fabric of the South of the US. They are mostly Syrians and Yemenis, but there would also be US citizens left for Syria to fight in the ranks of the Caliphate and then returned illegally.

[shock]

Obviously they have not seen rednecks hunt pigs and coyotes. If they saw people chasing down coyotes in RAZRs with ARs and hunting pigs with spears from helicopters just to make it sporting, I doubt they would be so eager to bum rush the south.