Poll - Total Votes: 5 See Poll Options
xKybax · 26-30, M
There's a lot of stuff I really like here but a few things that I don't. Namely the privatization of the police, flat income tax, and tax exemption of business.
GlassDog · 46-50, M
No. The withdrawal from the UN is what it is, but to imagine the UN would want to continue to have headquarters in a nation that has withdrawn shows diplomatic inexperience to an incredible degree and naivety of the the other 96% of the world that isn't your country.
You lost me on point two, but if you hadn't have done, you certainly would on point four. And for the same reason.
You lost me on point two, but if you hadn't have done, you certainly would on point four. And for the same reason.
Xuan12 · 36-40, M
There's a lot wrong here...I didn't read most the list because so many of the points are just asking for disaster.
@Xuan12: like what?
Xuan12 · 36-40, M
Firstly I think US participation in the UN is minimal enough. We actually have a lot of sway in it for rather little effort. A good deal I think. And there aren’t any European nations in NAFTA, so I’m really not sure…wait, you mean NATO. I do like NATO. While some nations do need to pick up the pace a little, I still think the alliance is worthwhile.
I also don’t think a flat tax is the most beneficial model of taxation.
I do think that federal minimum wage needs to be altered, it should be something more like Federal Flex-Wage, adjusting the minimum based on local economic profiles, but the ground work of this should be handled by states, and merely supervised by the federal government.
I’m not for drawing any borders in the middle east, let the people of the middle east figure it out. Even when they settle on something, I’m pretty sure there will be more fighting anyway, but in either case, there’s no reason to bother…unless we want to meddle for our own benefit, but that can have unintended consequences.
I don’t think weapon sales to allies should be too subsidized, unless there’s a direct need of it at the time, then something can be worked out, but otherwise try to be near market value.
I think the healthcare plan is awful. Medical care is just too expensive in this country, and if the government isn’t going to stop pharmaceutical price gouging, then it ought to provide subsidies to basically all citizens. And insurance competition across state lines isn’t going to help. insurance companies make deals and contracts with healthcare facilities, the facilities they contract with make up their network. These networks are localized based on where their clients live. An insurance plan offered in Alaska has a medical network in Alaska. If a customer in Florida wanted this policy, the company would have to extend their network contracts into Florida, or go through negotiation every time a bill came up. It’s actually very expensive, and not feasible. Besides, insurance companies are already allowed to operate in any state they like, all they need to do is meet the state’s requirements. Now we could use the federal government to override the states and offer standard packages everywhere…oh wait, that’s what the ACA did, and apparently everyone thinks that’s a bad idea. There’s not really anything to open, and it won’t help. Besides, from the last point, why should we subsidize weapons for other nations, if we wouldn’t subsidize healthcare for our own citizens?
I really disagree with privatizing social security, police, and education, ESPECIALLY the first two. For one, how is introducing a private profit motive into SS going to help? Maybe they’ll catch a little fraud, but they’ll also have to turn a profit. There probably wouldn’t be any benefit at all, and possibly a loss. And as for police, paying them by performance is difficult. How do you measure that? If the crime rate is low? But that’s not fair, it’s OTHER people who choose to commit crimes, why should the police get paid less for working in troubled, more stressful neighborhoods? Or is it by the number of iterations or arrests they make? Because if it is, you can expect to see a lot more of both, because now, the cop gets $$$ for slapping cuffs on you. Similar problem for education. Teachers can try very hard, but many ultimately end up working against a unfair conditions. How could we figure out what’s fair to pay who?
Those are my biggest issues. Everything else is okay enough.
I also don’t think a flat tax is the most beneficial model of taxation.
I do think that federal minimum wage needs to be altered, it should be something more like Federal Flex-Wage, adjusting the minimum based on local economic profiles, but the ground work of this should be handled by states, and merely supervised by the federal government.
I’m not for drawing any borders in the middle east, let the people of the middle east figure it out. Even when they settle on something, I’m pretty sure there will be more fighting anyway, but in either case, there’s no reason to bother…unless we want to meddle for our own benefit, but that can have unintended consequences.
I don’t think weapon sales to allies should be too subsidized, unless there’s a direct need of it at the time, then something can be worked out, but otherwise try to be near market value.
I think the healthcare plan is awful. Medical care is just too expensive in this country, and if the government isn’t going to stop pharmaceutical price gouging, then it ought to provide subsidies to basically all citizens. And insurance competition across state lines isn’t going to help. insurance companies make deals and contracts with healthcare facilities, the facilities they contract with make up their network. These networks are localized based on where their clients live. An insurance plan offered in Alaska has a medical network in Alaska. If a customer in Florida wanted this policy, the company would have to extend their network contracts into Florida, or go through negotiation every time a bill came up. It’s actually very expensive, and not feasible. Besides, insurance companies are already allowed to operate in any state they like, all they need to do is meet the state’s requirements. Now we could use the federal government to override the states and offer standard packages everywhere…oh wait, that’s what the ACA did, and apparently everyone thinks that’s a bad idea. There’s not really anything to open, and it won’t help. Besides, from the last point, why should we subsidize weapons for other nations, if we wouldn’t subsidize healthcare for our own citizens?
I really disagree with privatizing social security, police, and education, ESPECIALLY the first two. For one, how is introducing a private profit motive into SS going to help? Maybe they’ll catch a little fraud, but they’ll also have to turn a profit. There probably wouldn’t be any benefit at all, and possibly a loss. And as for police, paying them by performance is difficult. How do you measure that? If the crime rate is low? But that’s not fair, it’s OTHER people who choose to commit crimes, why should the police get paid less for working in troubled, more stressful neighborhoods? Or is it by the number of iterations or arrests they make? Because if it is, you can expect to see a lot more of both, because now, the cop gets $$$ for slapping cuffs on you. Similar problem for education. Teachers can try very hard, but many ultimately end up working against a unfair conditions. How could we figure out what’s fair to pay who?
Those are my biggest issues. Everything else is okay enough.
Youre right I meant NATO good catch!
Rewrote some parts of it. Does this change anything?
Rewrote some of it and reposted
dumpstermeow · 41-45, F
Healthcare killed it for me
