What's your Vision for America?

[MsTryska]

Mine is a hybrid of Socialism and Capitalism - I feel that all people should be able to start at a bare minimum level, and how they progress from there is up to them.

In this vein, my initial starting point would be universal healthcare, and free public education - including free college at state schools. State Schools will have the freedom to provide any mix of higher education and vocational training that they feel best suits their citizens needs.

No welfare, but unemployment insurance is available, as well as social security for the orphaned, disabled and elderly. Rather than welfare, one can get housng assistance (partial rent payment if you are unable to pay your own) and food stamps. Working for your own welfare is a prized value tho.

Corporations will cease being considered an individual, and public financing of elections will be in place. All tax loopholes will be closed, and a progressive tax system, based on annual profit will be in place - minimum of 15%, maximum of 35%. The only way to pay less in taxes is by applying for certain tax incentives - ie: if you are within a 1/4 mile of public transit, or you either provide or subsidize childcare, you have a strong environmental policy, all of your domestic goods and services are provided by domestic labor, you have a strong record of equal opportunity, etc. The absolute minimum a company of any size can pay in taxes is 15%. If you want to make your bottom line seem smaller - the only way you are allowed to do that is by donation to charitable organizations, or doing pro bono work that enhances your community.

The Military will be voluntary during peacetime - but if we decide to declare war, then it automatically becomes compulsory for all men and women 18-35. Hopefully this will make people weigh the decision to go to war more heavily. So what's to be done with this peace time force?

Well first of all - let's get rid of all Defense Contractors getting rich off of our tax dollars. There was a time when the military was one big self-sustaining unit - it had it's own infrastructure provided by soldeirs who were trained to implement and maintain that infrastructure. In turn this also taught them trades.

I would like to go back to that, and turn our military from simply our defense wing to an elite public service organization. Let the Navy be on the cutting edge of medicine (even making naval Hospitals open tot he public), and let the Army be on the cutting edge of Civil Engineering (and tasked with doing Public works - designign roads, urban planning, etc) and let the Air Force be one the cutting edge of Mechanical Engineering. (not sure what to do with the marines just yet)

And let them sell the technologies they develop to Corporations, or work with various communities on a fee-for-service basis, which let's the Military, to an extent, be self-funding. In turn when these folks finish their voluntary hitches - they can really be well prepared to enter into all sorts of sectors and be the shining lights they get promised in exchange for their lives.


And that's about all I've got fleshed out right now. What's your vision?

[bennywhale]

1. No Welfare? Define Welfare if you excuse my

ignorance. I'm English and here 'Welfare' is all what you mentioned. Welfare is free housing, free education, free healthcare. Thats all Welfare to us. What is Welfare to Americans?

[sexybomber]

3. The government gives you a little money.

It's supposed to be supplementary income so you can maintain the minimum standard of living, even if your job doesn't pay enough for that to happen.

[MsTryska]

6. Welfare as in Public Assistance....

we've had some reforms here in the states, in the 90s, but before that - there was more of an incentive to not work, and have more children, as it got your more public assistance, along with public housing and medicaid.

[bennywhale]

8. That sounds very much like the argument the New Right was proposing

in this country under Thatcher, and is still venomously regurgitated in the right wing rags. State scroungers, workshy etc. Sounds quite nasty.

People in general WANT to work. Most people WANT the self respect that comes with work. I'm not sure about America but in Britain the amount of people who would actually CHOOSE not to have a job is tiny.

And the concept of people choosing to have children in order to get more benefits sounds quite condescending and offensive.

[MsTryska]

9. Well call it what you will.....

I wholeheartedly agree that the people who truly don't want to work is miniscule....


However that doesn't negate the fact that before Clinton's welfare reform, it did make more financial sense to have multiple children and live in subsidized housing as a single mother, than to work a minimum wage job. After the reforms were in place, making it easier for single mothers to go to work, employment rates rose, in some cases by 50% or more, and take-home pay for these women increased as well.

[GreenArrow]

11. "the people who truly don't want to work is miniscule"

I agree. Most of wouldn't work if we didn't have to. Or at least, we wouldn't do the kinds of jobs we do, working for someone else. Our standard defintion of "work" is appalingly narrow.

"Do not hire a man who does your work for money, but him who does it for love of it".
--Henry David Thoreau

[IrateCitizen]

13. Buying into the myths of Clinton's welfare "reform"...

Please tell me exactly how it was easier for single mothers to go to work under welfare reform. Last time I checked, there was no free child care available for those women -- so the choice ultimately came down between staying at home with your kids and starving, or going to work and leaving them home alone or with someone else.

Of course it makes financial sense for someone to stay at home on welfare vs. going to work for a minimum wage job! That's because the minimum wage is so goddamned low that there's no way in hell that anyone can reasonably support themselves on it. If I were in the position of having kids by myself and either going to work for 40 hrs a week leaving them home alone (probably in a neighborhood with less-than-desirable influences) or being able to stay at home with them -- and getting the same amount of money either way -- I'd certainly choose the latter.

The problem wasn't so much that people didn't want to go to work -- the problem was that the opportunities available to them were largely so low-paying and dead-end, that they just didn't see any point in it. In this sense, anyone with decent analytical skills should see the biggest failing of the Clinton-Republican welfare "reform" -- it pulled the rug out from under a great many folks without offering them a hand to help pull themselves up. Available jobs -- largely poverty level. Fully subsidized quality child care -- non existent. Job skill training -- virtually unavailable. The entire program was built around a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" kind of mentality which should be offensive to anyone who considers themselves to be a progressive.

Finally, any wage and job growth was the result of a boom of the services industry spurred on by the tech boom. As soon as the stock market boom ended, life suddenly got a helluva lot more difficult for these people who experienced such "great gains" as you claim.

Welfare was hardly perfect, and needed to be changed. However, you do little to advance the liberal and progressive causes by repeating many of the RW myths advanced in order to perpetuate its destruction.

[MsTryska]

16. wait a second.......

I totally agree with most of what you are saying.


it is much easier to stay home and collect a check than work a minimum wage job with no support.


it is also important to have well-funded childcare, job training, and access to transportation, in order to be able to get good work.


from what i understand - Clinton's programs went some ways to make that happen - not all the way, but progress was made. Bush has managed to dismantle alot of it tho.

[IrateCitizen]

17. Clinton's compromise with the RW took away more than it provided...

As I said before...
Jobs provided above poverty level -- next to none.
High-quality subsidized child care made available for single mothers -- none.
REAL job skills training made available to former welfare recipients -- virtually non-existent.

I would love to know how this plan was such a step forward. Because from everything I've ever read on it, it was almost a complete DISASTER for those on the receiving end of it. As soon as there was a downturn in the economy, millions were suddenly left with little or no employment options and the "ticking clock" of public assistance eligibility.

I'm not in favor of the old system, but it needed to be replaced with something BETTER, not simply ripped out from under the people who had become dependent upon it. Like many of Clinton's compromises with the RW, this program failed to take into account any of the very real HUMAN consequences for those subjected to it.

[GreenArrow]

18. you are correct

The entire scheme was largely punitive in nature, and simply trading one sort of bondage for another.

[MsTryska]

20. To be honest i haven't been paying close attention

in the last few years. I was under the impression it was fairly succesful - at least in the NYC area, in the late 90s.

[IrateCitizen]

23. Like I said, that was a result of the stock market boom

People -- especially those in the top 20% income bracket -- were finding themselves with more disposable income in the late 1990's. Therefore, they spent more -- and this spending created a massive growth in the services industry. But as soon as that economic boom for those at the top subsided, their spending dropped off -- and those in the service industry felt the pain.

[MsTryska]

25. That makes sense.

and this current admin doesn't make things much better all around.


i believe the reforms were on the right track tho, but the real thing is true skills training and educations, and child care. those are the sticking points, in my mind. that and transportation.

[IrateCitizen]

28. How can you still say that the reforms were on the right track???

the real thing is true skills training and educations, and child care. those are the sticking points, in my mind. that and transportation.

The welfare reform bill did not even approach addressing ANY of these adequately, and yet somehow you still portray it as being "on the right track"????

:wtf:

[MsTryska]

30. well the thought was there.....

in trying to at least give people some job training. It's a step forward, from the old plantation style system we had before.


you ahve to grant credit where credit is due - change takes time.

[bennywhale]

15. You're misrepresenting what you first said. you said "No Welfare"

you didn't nobly propose making it easier for people to get well paid secure jobs, your argument was along the lines of starve them into the labour market.

[MsTryska]

19. no. you didn't fully understand how i'm putting the pieces together......

Food, Shelter, and healthcare are guaranteed.

With post-secondary and higher education free through state schools, one can easily get the skills they need to do whatever their dream vocation might be.

Employers are given financial incentive through tax reduction to provide daycare on premises or subsidize daycare for employees, to be on public transportations routes, and to protect workers rights.

They all work together. I'm not willing to have the State give me a life, but I do expect the State to give me all the tools I need to succeed with my life, however I choose to live it.

[bennywhale]

2. If War is declared the military becomes compulsory? I see your

motivation but what if people didn't consider it carefully first. as i remember it a majority of Americans were in favour of Invading Iraq. So you would have in that instance forced people to go and die in Iraq?

Apart from these issues there is the moral issue of forced labour. Thats what it is.

You can't force people to go and kill and be killed. I don't find that very progressive

[MsTryska]

4. I think that people didn't think it thorugh carefully

precisely because there's no compulsry service. it's easy to send soemone else's kids off, but when it's your own - you weigh that decision heavily. you also provide exit strategies, and work towards a minimum expenditure of life.

[bennywhale]

7. Your still proposing forced labour however.

[MsTryska]

10. yes, and also forced taxation. nt

nt

[bennywhale]

12. Robert Nozick would be proud of your disinegenuous link between

forced labour and a system of taxation within which people are free to operate as they please. Forcibly making people serve in the armed forces is deeply immoral and does not compare with paying tax.

[MsTryska]

21. I don't see Compulsory Service as deeply immoral.

sorry.

[IrateCitizen]

24. Are you saying that as someone who served in the military?

Just curious.

[MsTryska]

26. Military Family, yes.

I tried to serve in the Naval Reserves after school, but had some funky bloodwork, so they wouldn't take me.

My brother's currently in the Air Force.

[IrateCitizen]

27. I served in the military, and I'd hate to see compulsory military service.

From my view, it does nothing but help perpetuate the spectre of militarism that hangs over and infects everything in our society.

I'd much rather see a vastly expanded Americorps, and people given the option of either serving in the military or Americorps for a 2 year minimum.

[MsTryska]

31. I'd be okay with that as an alternate.

I'd just also like people to think about what they lose when they start beligerant and false wars.

[IrateCitizen]

33. You will always have belligerent and false wars in a militarized society.

The key is eventually removing the permeating militarism that infects us. Of course, I agree that if the RW chickenhawks had to either sacrifice themselves or their kids, they might think twice about it too.

[bennywhale]

38. How can forced labour not be immoral. Its tantamount to slavery.

I'm sorry but i would hate to live ina society which forces its people on pain of violence and imprisonment to serve in the killing arm of the state. I'm sorry but for me that is against freedom, liberty, society, and everything i stand for.

I'm glad you have no power.

[MsTryska]

42. and i hate living in a society

where the elite make these life and death decisions for the least of us, with no repurcussions to themselves and their families.


The only way to equalize the class imbalance in the military is to make it compulsory for ALL.



And in fantasyland one doesn't need a military of some sort. as long as human beings are tribal, there will be conflict.

[bennywhale]

53. I'm assuming by your last comment you believe that i don't think there

is a need for an army. Well thats not my position. My position is being against forced labour. And to militarise a society in such a way is likely to lead to more conflict not less. Look at Europe 1914. Vast, standing armies across the continent facing eachother. Result 10s of millions dead. The military can influence foreign policy. If you have millions in the army constantly and you spend billions and billions on that army, the army becomes very powerful, politically.

A militarised society is not coternimous with a peaceful world. And maybe in fantasy-land forced labour in the armed forces may stop conflict but not in the real world. Just look at history.

[MsTryska]

54. where did you get the idea that i believe there should

constant forced armies?



in my vision, a draft only kicks in when one is at war.

[bryant69]

5. Pancakes for everybody

I just think we'd all be a lot more rational and happy if we had some pancakes.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[IrateCitizen]

14. As long as mine have chocolate chips!

If I don't get chocolate chips, then all bets are off!!!! :evilgrin:

[IrateCitizen]

22. Are you interested in my utopian vision, or reality as I see it?

First off, I would take serious steps toward curbing population growth and rolling it back to a negative. Families would be permitted no more than two children, with a premium one-time tax (say, $10,000 or more) to be paid for every child thereafter. Both women and men would be subjected to this program through active paternity testing, and if either the man or woman had a significant history of having children beyond the limit, they would be forcibly made unable to have any more children through either vascectomy (men) or having their tubes tied (women). Steps would be taken to actively encourage families to have no more than one child. Comprehensive sex education would become compulsory for all school students starting at 4th grade and going through 12th. Children would learn about basic male and female anatomy at first, and would then progress on to a combination of talking about the significant emotional aspects of having sex too young along with the importance of contraception and how to use it. I realize that all of this is harsh, but we cannot actively address many other problems until we bring our population down to a more sustainable level -- it's either this, or an eventual die-off.

Second, I would completely re-design our models of community organization and growth. Sprawl would be outlawed any further, and all communities would be designed with a focus on mixed-use zoning, public transit, walkability/bikability, and mixed-income. Money would be shifted away from highway and road funding, and pushed toward light and heavy rail projects.

Third, I would institute a national service plan in which all citizens (unless hampered by a severe disability) would have to participate in some form of national service, be it military or in an Americorps-type organization. Service would be for a minimum of 2 years. This would help bring people out of their insular communities and force them to work with others from different backgrounds -- and help revitalize our parks systems and the like at the same time.

Fourth, I would gut the military budget down to around $100 billion, with a target of $50 billion or less over ten years. Excess funds would be immediately re-directed to infrastructure and education.

Speaking of education, I would make it and job training free for all. Of course, people would be required to maintain some kind of performance level to remain in the programs -- those who dropped out could then be put to work in more menial tasks requiring no training.

Finally, with regards to energy usage, I would institute a massive "Apollo project" for renewables and de-centralized energy production. Solar panels on every house/building and wind towers in every community could have a significant impact. I'd also immediately raise CAFE standards with the goal of all vehicles getting 40mpg or more within 5 years in order to decrease fossil fuel usage.

But, in light of this, do I really believe any of this is possible? No, not really. We're simply too dim-witted as a society to see anything beyond tomorrow. We'll have to learn the lessons of our unsustainable growth models the hard way, and start all over again from scratch.

[MsTryska]

29. Hey thanks for playing!

of course i'm interested. I wouldn't have asked otherwise.

I really like your community models, and the Apollo Project, and the compulsory 2 years public service - either military or not.


the mandatory child caps scare me tho. I understand where you are coming from, and i like the idea of child sex ed, but the cap is a little too reminiscent of China's policy.

[IrateCitizen]

32. Desperate times call for desparate measures...

We currently have to expend 10 calories of oil for every 1 calorie of food. The planet is GROSSLY overpopulated, and as soon as we begin to experience an energy crash, we will go through a corresponding die-off. That is, unless measures are immediately taken to stop it.

I realize my proposal seems harsh. A die-off will be infinitely harsher. I'd prefer not to have to go through one -- and neither would many of those who would fight hardest AGAINST a population-control plan, I would bet.

[MsTryska]

34. True. My main concern with the cap

other than the curtailing of reproductive "freedom", is the issue of gender selection - which is one of China's big issues these days.

of course i suppose that would help with Population control too.


I wonder what Europe's trick is - apparently they are moving towards almost zero populationg rowth right now, altho i don't think that's on purpose.

[IrateCitizen]

36. Europe's trick...

Europe's trick seems to be a highly educated populace combined with comprehensive sex ed from a young age and a realistic (as opposed to puritan) attitude toward contraception.

It's a fact that as people become more educated, average birth rates go down.

[bennywhale]

40. Its also to do with immigration. Europe's birth rate is lower but not

significantly lower than the US. The difference is the US has traditionally expanded its population through immigration and still does. Europe also has immigration but not at the same rate.

However i agree with your comments concerning education. I also think the more secular nature of European citizens is a factor. They are more socially aware and community aware rather than religiously aware. This lead to a seeking of the 'good life' in a different manner.

[MsTryska]

43. You make good points.....

so then wouldn't making education the cornerstone eventually render having to restrict births moot?

[GreenArrow]

35. in re: childbirth limits/population growth

What do you do about immigrants?

Health care?

[IrateCitizen]

37. Reply

Immigration is a tough one. I would start by cracking down on the EMPLOYERS that willingly hire people who immigrate here illegally. I'd also offer an amnesty citizenship program for those already here illegally for a number of years and institute a visa program under which seasonal employees (such as farm labor) could come and work -- along with a path to citizenship for those who desire it. Finally, I'd beef up the funding and personnel of the border patrol, because as it is right now they do an extremely difficult job with paltry funding.

As for health care, I would make it a single-payer system on a STATE level, modeled after Canada's provincial plan, for medicine. I'd institute strict price controls on the out-of-control pharmaceutical industry, and outlaw direct-to-consumer marketing of drugs. I'd also crack down on the excesses of patent protection meant to boost profit unreasonably. WRT specialty doctors like plastic surgeons -- they would still be available, but not covered under the health plan except for necessary procedures (and a boob or nose job is NOT necessary).

[Taxloss]

39. Just another country.

Just another fucking country. Not some place we have to pay special deference to. No offence, but you unfairly dominate our foreign policy.

[MsTryska]

41. ?!

how do i dominate your foreign policy?

[Taxloss]

46. Well, YOU don't, personally.

But America does. For a start, our whole defence policy is based on America, and what America might do in certain circumstances. We base US troops and air units, and our radar facilities are critical to your proposed missile shield (but your missile shield doesn't protect us). We have a nuclear deterrent only dependent on you. And because of successive governments weakening our position in Europe, up until last Sunday we had no negotiating position in Europe thanks to our relationship with you. America is held up by our RWers as some sort of totem to frustrate our efforts in integrating with our European neighbours. Our relationship with America is the glittering centrepiece of UK foreign policy. America dominates our foreign policy.

[MsTryska]

48. ahh...you are speaking as soemone from the UK.....

i wasn't sure what you were gettign at with the missile sheild business because i mentioned no such thing in my original post.

i agree with you tho - it's time we got out of everyone's business unless asked to participate.

[Lannes]

44. It was far from perfect

Thats for sure but right now Id settle for something close to how we were on September 10th 2001 before the next day was used by our government to turn our country into something Im not proud of.

Some of you have admirably bigger dreams but personally I would settle for that right now and work our way up to something better from there.

[MsTryska]

49. hell....

let's jsut go back to 1999 and start all over again, knowing what we know now.

sadly i don't think things would change all that much, since so many people see Bush as their savior these days.

[sweetheart]

45. See> Dennis Kucinich

Dennis has the same vision as I... even better, as he's a pro, and I
just a writer.

His platform could use some framing, some explanation as to why
withdrawl from NAFTA and the WTO, but on hearing the reasons, he's
dead right.... needs some marketing work.

I don't have a unique "NEW" vision. Mine is as old as the nation's
framers. Freedom of religion, separation of church and state,
independent responsible media, no corporate personhood, a bank of the
united states that issues currency and is publically owned... little
basic things from the early days.

[MsTryska]

50. Yeah...the basics would definitely

be a nice starting place, wouldn't it?


My intent with this vision, is my way to at least bring us up to speed with other developed countries in the world, while retainign that independent frontier spirit that makes us America.

[maveric]

47. I see another "terra" attack and martial law. Lines will be drawn.

People will be rounded up and a civil war will ensue.
Sounds terrible but I can see this coming.

[NuttyFluffers]

51. a gay fantasia cross between Xanadu, Moulin Rouge, and the Wiz.

maybe a touch of Beat Street, Cop Rock, and the Sound of Music thrown in there as well for diversity.

oh, and the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test would be in full effect at every public water fountain.

need i say more?

[Nihil]

52. Sadly ...