Politics for the 21st Century

jankynoname's picture
Rank: Neanderthal | 2,857

Does it bother anyone that the two controlling parties here in the U.S. don't seem to fit the needs and beliefs of most Americans? The Republicans are probably empirically better on most economic policies - we all know taxes are massively distortive and bad for the proper functioning of markets, trade barriers are another problem, and minimum wage laws are just stupid. But the Republicans have their own spate of hardline issues that seem completely illogical, bigoted, and just anachronism. I personally don't give a shit if gay people want to get married, be my guest. I certainly don't think the government should have any role in women's health issues. And if the stoners want to buy legal pot at a store instead of their buddy's dorm room, that seems reasonable/strictly better from a crime mitigation standpoint. On the other hand, having some common sense laws around things like selling sub-machine guns to teenagers who grew up in social media/video game universe with a distorted sense of self image and reality seems logical.

I guess I just wonder why the two parties are so entrenched into their respective positions, and why a common sense compromise can't be found in the middle ground? Millennials, as a general rule are not particularly concerned with the Republicans social agenda. If they continue to rely on this, they are going to die out in the next 10-15 years. Democrats are going to bankrupt the country with ridiculous entitlement programs for all, and could turn this place into a real shitter if they screw up immigration policy. So I wonder, what common sense policy issues do you think sit squarely in the middle, where there's room for a third party to move in and "take market share" from the old established political dynasties.

Here's where I'd probably start:
- Legalize pot / end war on drugs
- Explicitly support gay marriage at Federal level
- End federal minimum wage laws
- End three strikes laws / explicitly move to reduce prison population / ban death penalty
- Lower corporate tax rates to competitive levels
- Repeal capital gain/ dividend tax rates / apply "income" tax rates to everything
- Raise tax rates on incomes >$1mm
- 75-80% incremental tax rates on incomes >$10mm, pegged to some escalator
- End social security coverage for those under 40
- Redo funding for public schools so best districts do not get entrenched with highest funding
- Serious gun reform - I'd personally be in favor of a minimum age to purchase weapons around 28-30 (very few mass shootings from ppl over this age). Of course I guess you'd get some black market issues...
- Do some monopoly busting - Visa/MC, big banks, cable/satellite, Google, pharma etc.
- Reduce defense budgets ~50%
- Repeal TSA (airport security) funding, ROI is just not there
- End the Postal Service

I think it's a winning slate! I guess it's probably closest to libertarian view of things, but not sure that Ron/Rand Paul would even be onboard with all of it. Anyways, I'd welcome your thoughts and monkey shits.

/end rant

Comments (16)

Dec 9, 2014

If you think a libertarian would support an 80% tax rate, you're delusional. I don't care if they're making 5 bil a year, it's just wrong to say "they have enough". Pretty much agree with all else.

Dec 9, 2014

Wait, a libertarian would increase taxes through the roof on high incomes, break up a bunch of monopolies that actually aren't monopolies, and impose an arbitrary age limit for the purchase of firearms?

Ha, libertarian. I do not think that word means what you think that it means...

    • 1
Dec 9, 2014

I have never come across a more mixed platform. You were pretty spot on with a few things until you hit a wall with all the gun control,taxes and corporate regulations. Those polices sound more like something Hugo Chavez would have said rather than Ron or Rand.

Dec 9, 2014

Libertarians would like to eat their Cheerios with an AK-47 so that part of your platform in addition to the higher taxes for anyone, and the redistribution of school funding wouldn't be part of their platform either (half of them don't want public schools at all, and if they do they want them funded only at the local level with the DofEd abolished).

Dec 9, 2014

You must be joking, Cheerios are a scourge of capitalism forcing out and bankrupting sovereign local cereal producers. The only cereal any self-respecting libertarian would eat are Wheaties, the hallmark cereal of a better time.

Dec 9, 2014

disagree on some, but agree on others. the burning question in my mind is why do you care? I mean seriously, why do you spend time caring about politics?

Dec 9, 2014

I thought my vote mattered?

Dec 9, 2014
thebrofessor:

disagree on some, but agree on others. the burning question in my mind is why do you care? I mean seriously, why do you spend time caring about politics?

I second this. I think it's important to know what's going on politically but I'd rather not waste energy on getting worked up about it. It's never going to go your way completely and when you get a little higher in the business world, if you become high profile enough for one side or the other, you're more likely to alienate one side (who will be in some office you need/want at some point, and I'm not talking about Congress or the Pres-I'm nowhere near that cool) or the other and not be able to get something when you want it. I'd rather be able to interpret how what's happening politically is going to affect the businesses that I'm in or if there's an opportunity to be taken advantage of in the future. And bet on both ponies as often as possible. That doesn't mean I'd give money to someone I absolutely detest (Santorum in PA comes to mind when he was a Senator) but they're all such a group of detestable people and I think of both parties as ranking somewhere between chlamydia and horseshit.

If that sounds apathetic, opportunistic or too cynical, it probably is.

Dec 9, 2014

I 100% love our current political system. Nothing gets done, shit is combative, just as it was planned to be.

Dec 9, 2014

And that's precisely what the Founders wanted right? (rhetorical) Separation of powers in action. Although it doesn't need to be quite as acerbic as it currently is, and I realize it's been quite worse in the past because we're not quite at the pre-Civil War stage were a Congressman almost beat another one to death with a cane.

Dec 10, 2014

ha you think nothing gets done in the US? you should see argentina...

WSO's COO (Chief Operating Orangutan) | My Linkedin

Best Response
Dec 9, 2014

I'd make sterilization mandatory at age 14 for anyone who scores less than 90 on an IQ test.

And I would make shorts or skirts a jail-able offense for fat people. Long pants only. Also, for anyone with cankles, regardless of overall weight.

    • 3
Dec 10, 2014

I think Singapore did something like this, though it was encouraged and subsidized by the gummint, not required though

Dec 10, 2014
thebrofessor:

I think Singapore did something like this, though it was encouraged and subsidized by the gummint, not required though

They banned shorts for fat people? That sounds like paradise.

    • 1
Dec 10, 2014
Comment