[nucklepunche]

So here is yet another basic ideological evolutionary update from me. I know I do these quite frequently. This is sort of my pragmatic plan from a mostly America-centric perspective.

ECONOMIC ISSUES

I support a more simplified tax code. I don't favor a "true flat tax" per se but I believe in having an exemption up to the poverty line with a separate tax credit for each dependent but beyond that no other writeoffs other than basic deductions for the cost of doing business (to tax profits only). For instance poverty line for a single person is 11,670 so the tax bracket up to that point would be say 0% for a single person, although that would be extended up to 23,850 for a family of four. So a family of four making 50k per year would pay 0% on the first 23,850 and then whatever the tax rate would be on the remainder, say 20%.

I support ending capital gains taxes and estate taxes as this simply re-taxes already earned income.

Introduce a voucher program so everybody can purchase a basic health insurance policy.

Allow people the option to either remain in the pay as you go social security system or invest their payroll tax in a government approved mutual fund similar to the system in Chile.

Support free trade via the lowering of tariffs and abolition of protectionist legislation as opposed to faux free trade "managed trade" policies like NAFTA and the WTO.

In contrast to libertarians I oppose a gold or metallic standard for currency. In the end the value we attach to anything is something created over time by society, besides having government control of the supply of money makes it more flexible in times of emergency.

I believe the maintanence of welfare programs for the poor and indigent should be a state, not federal responsibility. Some states would undoubtedly be generous whereas others would be stingy but in the end states should be allowed to be laboratories for what works best.

I support charter schools and private school vouchers as an alternative to teachers' union dominated public schools.

I generally believe immigration is a net positive for society although it needs to have some controls to make sure dangerous people do not get in. While I favor a fairly liberal immigration policy I do believe immigrants should have to follow a certain set of uniform rules. Non-citizens who commit felonies should face immediate and permanent deportation (a total ban on future immigration) after serving their sentence. Additionally non-citizens will not be able to accept welfare payments although they will be required to "pay their way" via taxes.

I believe that some basic environmental and labor regulations are needed in order to protect public safety.

SOCIAL ISSUES

To me the whole "national debate" about social issues is absolutely absurd. The Tenth Amendment more or less takes care of social issues in my humble opinion, it pretty much limits the government's role entirely to that of an abitrator of when these issues cross state lines. Both left and right in their attempt to federalize social policy have moved it out of its rightful domain in the states.

The framers recognized different local cultures would be more prominent in other areas. Thus gays have long flocked to progressive cities on the coasts and have legalized gay marriage there. By the same token somebody who wants to "toke up" can move to Colorado and somebody who does not want pot shops on their corner can live in nearby Kansas. The sole Federal role in the issue would be (if we truly upheld the Tenth Amendment) in prohibiting drug trafficking across state lines and penalizing lawbreakers, however it has usurped this power and raided medical marijuana programs in other states.

The trend of both social conservatives and social liberals to attempt to federalize social policy on one hand and to legislate from the bench and truncate democratic debate on social issues has led to these absurd "culture wars" issues playing a major role in presidential politics when constitutitionally and historically they should play NO role.


FOREIGN POLICY

It is really a case by case basis for me which foreign policy stance I support.

For the record I supported us military intervention into Afghanistan because I believed it was necessary to break bin Laden's organization and bring him to justice.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq because I believe Saddam was sufficiently contained within his own country by the First Gulf War and previous sanctions and there was no credible link between Hussein's regime (as deplorable as it was) and 9/11.

I support Israel's right to exist while supporting a two state solution.

I am currently opposed to any sort of western military intervention into Ukraine.


POLITICAL REFORM

I support introducing term limits for the Congress of 12 years (6 terms for the House, 2 for the Senate).

[slybaldguy]

All sounds a bit shit to me. What happened to the land value tax?

[nucklepunche]

I still think the LVT is a good idea although I believe it should be implimented at the local level as an alternative to other local taxes like regressive property taxes and other local fees and taxes. I don't think an LVT would work implimented at a national level in a nation of 300 million.

Also I must add that in addition to the above I also support a minimum wage even in recognition that at some level it contributes to unemployment and would do so if it were raised too much, but in recognition of the fact that people do need to earn enough to survive and businessmen simply have to be asked to accept that at some point. Some whiny businessmen act as if it is put in place solely to "punish" their success when it isn't the purpose at all.

Also minimum wages have the added effect of burdening the welfare state less, although I am not opposed to supplementing it partially with income guarantees or some other state level program but I believe the individual states need to decide whats best. I don't think a "one size fits all" approach to the welfare state works. I think what qualifies as an adequate living wage in California is much different than what qualifies in Kansas for instance, but such is the price of having a nation of 300 million people.

[slybaldguy]

Would you maintain existing military spending?

[nucklepunche]

Would you maintain existing military spending?

No I would not. I would keep military spending to a level at which I felt was necessary to offer both a deterrent and sufficiently secure our interests. At the current time I believe we are well beyond the first part of that as we spend significantly more than any other nation and on the second point I believe we have gone above and beyond merely securing our interests and have involved ourselves in other foreign debacles that have no such bearing.

I am neither an isolationist nor an interventionist, I am a realist who believes the main goal of the nation state realistically should be to defend its own interests and the security of its own people. The minute you attach too much ideological baggage to foreign policy is when you complicate things way too much.