Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 12, 2019, 12:56:34 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (Primary) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Individual Politics (Moderators: TG, Torie, Associate Justice PiT)
  Summary of political beliefs (search mode)
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: Summary of political beliefs  (Read 402370 times)
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
« on: May 14, 2009, 09:30:24 pm »
« edited: January 09, 2010, 01:37:26 pm by Ebenezer Scrooge »

Social Issues

Abortion: Personally pro-life, but at the same time I don't believe it is the government's right or responsibility to legislate morality.

Gay Marriage: Support fully. However, I believe it will be quicker, easier, and more in line with the constitution to leave it up to the states. Look at the wave of gay marriage legalization.

Flag Burning: Why is this even an issues? Should be legal.

Illegal Drugs: Legalize and regulate marijuana, keep rest illegal but focus more on rehabilitation than punishment.

Stem Cell Research: Again, don't legislate morality. It should be legal and receive some government funds.

Patriot Act: Unconstitutional, repeal it.

State's Rights: State's Rights have been violated. The federal government should respect them and know it's place. Don't bribe or blackmail states or their Senators

Gun Control: Background checks are fine as are assault weapons bans. Respect the 2nd amendment however.

Prayer in Public Schools: Oppose.

Affirmative Action: Oppose, prosecute discrimination by corporations.

Electoral College: Support.

Draft: Oppose except in the most dire of circumstances.

Death Penalty: Oppose.

Three Strikes Laws: Oppose.

Foreign Policy


Iraq: Oppose. Occupying another country is a bad idea.

Afghanistan: Would have opposed had I been old enough to care about politics at the time. That said, we have no choice but to follow through on our current course.

War on Terror: Focus on intelligence and targeted strikes against terrorist leaders instead of the occupation of foreign nations.

Diplomacy: Always preferable to war.

Israel: US should remain neutral in the Israeli-Palistinian Conflict, but protect Israel if attack by a foreign country.

Torture: Stop immediately. Don't prosecute people or release photos however.

Interventionism: Oppose, unless we're certain we will be attacked unless we intervene in another countries affairs.


Fiscal/Economic Policy

Health Care: Reform and modernization is needed. Oppose all forms of government sponsored health care including medicare and medicaid. First of all, it is a states responsibility, and second, they simply cost too much money. Deregulate, but be careful about said deregulation.

Social Security: Repeal. Replace with 401k's and possibly retirement savings accounts.

Taxes: Ideally there would be a flat tax, but the poor and middle class deserve preference when taxes are lowered if a flat tax cannot be legislated at the time. When raised, responsibility should be evenly shared.

Education: I believe that our education system is fine in terms of quality. The so called "failing public schools" don't exist outside of the inner city and very rural areas. Studies done by groups not affiliated with the US show that we are usually in the top 5 (would cite but too lazy). It's simply government propaganda. Another thing to consider is most countries have high stakes tests in middle school to determine whether you go on to high school or a trade school. If only the top 1/3 of students in Germany (don't know the real statistic, this is just for argument's sake) are compared against all US students, who do you think will do better? Why do we have one of the highest per capita college graduation rate in the world if our k-12 schools are so bad? That said, charter schools, merit based pay, and taking on the teachers union would all help.

Department of Education: Keep states accountable, but other than that remove it.

Infrastructure: Must be kept well funded and maintained. Outsource to the private sector when appropriate. State responsibility for the most part.

Environment: Support protections

Cap-and-Trade: Support, but must be more market friendly than current proposals are. More of a state responsibility, though federal government can have a role.

Public Finance: Support to an extent, but don't limit free speech in the process.

General Business Regulation: I go case by case, though I usually oppose. Deregulation in some areas.

Ballot Access: Remove stupid ballot access laws that hinder independent and third party candidates.

Debate Access: Allow any candidate in a presidential election in debate if they consistently poll over 5% nationally.

Trade: Free trade to an extent, remove tax breaks to corporations who send jobs over seas.

Illegal Immigration: Didn't know where to put this. Anyway, support guest worker program, oppose amnesty.

Deficit: Support balanced budget amendment.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2009, 05:27:20 pm »


Abortion: Personally pro-life, but at the same time I don't believe it is the states right or responsibility to legislate morality.

Gay Marriage: Support fully. However, I believe it will be quicker, easier, and more in line with the constitution to leave it up to the states. Look at the wave of gay marriage legalization.

Am I the only one here that notices the obvious contradiction there?

Individual rights are, in my opinion, a federal issue. Now, I believe that ideally gay marriage would be legalized at the federal level, but I just don't see that happening in the current political climate. When I said "...state's right or responsibility to legislate morality," I used state in referencing individual states as well as the country as a whole. Remember, state and country are synonymous in certain contexts.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Leaving it to the states is a terrible idea. We've done things like that with certain expenditures in the past and Canada also dumps alot of it's healthcare spending onto the provinces. It always turns out bad because states (or provinces) don't have the ability to bring in revenue like the federal government, and a lot of states are constrained by balanced budget amendments. This either forces states to go into debt or cut other useful services that ends up having negative consequences.
[/quote]

Well, I'm not saying that the federal government doesn't have a role in (hopefully minimal) regulation, but that if a safety net must exist it should be a state responsibility. By the way, the federal government should have a balanced budget amendment like states do (obviously if enough members of congress vote to have a deficit for justifiable reasons, then they should be able to). Also, the federal government shouldn't force states to pay for certain programs (if that's what Canada does, I don't have much knowledge of their politics), that is a direct violation (at least in my opinion) of state's rights.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2010, 01:34:53 pm »

As I've done a lot of rethinking of my views the past few days, I figured I'd update this.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Crossed out means I no longer believe that, bold things are new.
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2010, 01:43:14 pm »

This is internally contradictory on so many levels. How can you support a massive stimulus but oppose progressive income tax, for example?

It was a necessary evil. I think it should have been far smaller and spent far quicker. Plus it was bloated with pet projects Sad
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2010, 02:55:33 pm »
« Edited: January 09, 2010, 02:58:29 pm by Ebenezer Scrooge »

Besides the obvious revenue issues supporting government stimulus implies some underlying belief in keynesian economics working... None of which supports the general economic structure you otherwise want. I think.

Keynesian economics are useful in times of extraordinary crisis. Generally, the only two instances I would have supported stimulus are the 1929 and 2008 crashes, respectively. I would not have supported stimulus in, say, 2003 or 1982 (though Reagan's tax cuts were in and of themselves a good thing).

Of course, Bush's use of Keynesian economics contributed to the crisis. However, an infusion of capital into the economy was, ironically, necessary to prevent a complete collapse. Now, though, reform is needed or else we'll fall into the same pattern.

As I've done a lot of rethinking of my views the past few days, I figured I'd update this.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Crossed out means I no longer believe that, bold things are new.

So you are done claiming to be a libertarian, right?

I've finally fit into the perfect spot where both libertarians and non-libertarians hate me Grin
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2010, 02:59:25 pm »

Vepres can't claim he doesn't hate the poor yet support amnesty at the same time. One of the claims he made must be a lie.

I can't have compassion for non-American poor too?
Logged
Vepres
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,033
United States
« Reply #6 on: September 15, 2010, 05:41:03 pm »

Here I'll take a different approach, explaining my core philosophy (no, this was not inspired by Fezzy's post above).

Economic

Core Philosophy: An economy grows best when individuals are as free as possible to flesh out their ideas and be creative. Still, this must be balanced with the basic needs of society. A limited welfare state is good, but the key word is limited, for too much welfare is like a drug, one becomes dependent on it and they lose the ability to function without it. Welfare programs should be few, limited, targeted and effective. Despite some posts I made when I was frustrated with other posters, I really do care about the economically disadvantaged.

Some industries need somewhat heavier regulation (k-12 schooling, healthcare, water, electricity, etc) as a totally free market would be counterproductive to the ultimate goals a society would have for these industries. Ideally, these "regulated" (I put it in quotes because I don't think many existing regulations on these industries should be there) industries would take the best of both the public sector and the private sector. Still, many of these industries have unnecessary regulations that don't really help achieve the goals of a society. Hopefully many government programs can be replaced by this.

Other industries need less regulation, and even in "heavily regulated" industries, the regulations should be relatively simple, consolidated, and without redundancies. Take a laissez-faire approach whenever it is reasonable.

Taxes should be as low as possible. Progressive taxation is okay (though not ideal, I am realistic about the math and such), but only to a point. Taxes should be simple and consolidated.

Social

Core philosophy: As long as you don't harm another, government should stay out of it. Maybe banning or regulation of certain victimless things, such as the really hard drugs like meth, and background checks for firearms.

Foreign Policy

Core Philosophy: I am dovish to the core. The US must be humble and friendly. Over seas bases should be reduced if not eliminated, and the military budget cut significantly and its budgetary priorities shifted to intelligence and counter terrorism.

Environment

Core Philosophy: The Environment is very important to me. The government should be aggressive here, but not excessive either.

Size of Government

Core Philosophy: For the most part, government should be small and limited, and when it needs to exert its power, it should be as decentralized as possible.
Logged
Pages: [1] Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC