Cliff Jumper wrote:To answer each question. Here is what I fight for and do.
Expanding welfare? (poor people with kiddos need to be fed)
Federally no. The poor can more effectively served at the local level. Some federal funding should be available as a safety net,but the majority of care should start at the lowest level. First family (immediate and extended) direct community (neighborhood) church, local charities, national charities, town, city, state, and then federal government.
So, in states that are already extremely poor or communities that are extremely poor get absolutely nothing. Gotcha. Good stance.
Paid maternity/paternity leave? (the first 6 months to a year are key time in a childs development)
I would say women should not be forced to work as they are now. If they want to work great! Maternity leave should be provided.
Both progressive and sexist! No mention of fathers, but I guess it's the womans role to take 100% care of the babies they're only 50% responsible for the creation of.
End wage slavery. Eliminate the income tax and property tax. Allow people to sell food they've grown, items they produced, and services they can provide without needless regulations and government interference.
You start off strong, then devolve into dumbshyte. We had a time when there were no "needless" regulations on food selling. It's the reason people still think you need to over cook pork to kill parasite eggs.
Outlaw corporate entity status and institute co-op in which the workers share in the ownership and profit of the company, rather than mere resources of a corporate entity. In the current system most employees share in the management (that is do assigned work) but their rights are neglected by the company.
Wow, surprisingly communist. Not a bad idea, but to do so, you would have to abolish wall street and several other capitalist structures. Do you have the stomach for it?
Begin a monetary standard like the gold standard. This stems inflation and currency devaluation which has contributed to the need for two and three salaries.
The problem with a gold standard is material used in every day products is worth a lot more than gold due to it's rarity and would cause things like cellphones and computers to become affordable to only the top 1% at best. Gold is currently valued around 1700$, while Lithium is valued at 45k$. That's pretty much why the gold standard was dropped.
Eliminate usury.
We have for the wealthy. How about ending predatory loans, which isn't quite the same. While usury is lending money at unreasonably high interest rates, which I personally picture as loan sharking, predatory loans lend more money is reasonable to people who have no real way to pay all that back and often end up defaulting and getting their property taken over by the bank. If you loan someone 150k with a 10 year period to pay it back and they only make 15k a year, there's literally no way to pay it back, even at 0% interest.
Free Healthcare? (someone's gotta help mama pop all them babies out)
Not possible as someone is paying for it.
You're already paying for it. Why do you think your medical bills are so high?
How about we eliminate the laws severely restricting medical co-ops, which provide good healthcare at low costs. This is done by the principle of subsidiary. In short, the smaller and more localized a group the better assistance they can provide as they know the people best.
Subsidiaries are still paid for by the public.
Assistance can be given if needed, but again starting at the lowest level first.
Again, this only works in the affluent areas, where they don't need it. It doesn't work in the poor areas where it's needed.
Eliminate the law preventing buying insurance across state lines. This encourages greater competition and lower prices.
Have you ever looked on the website for buying insurance? It's not like there's not competition. It's just they all sell the same garbage, almost like there's a trust or something...
Eliminate prescription drug advertising.
I can get behind this, but it doesn't go far enough to curb the real problems with drug companies.
Overhaul drug copyright law.
This might solve some of the problems, and I can also get behind this.
Allow buying prescription drugs from other countries.
This not so much. Again, works great for affluent people, but when poor people end up getting import drugs from china laced with lead and other ****, it just causes more problems and raises the price on everyone. It's really more of a short term idea without examining or even thinking about long term costs.
Require pricing for any medical procedure so we can be informed of what we are buying.
We should do this with education too.
Pass 2 simple laws. 1 no insurance company and deny any one insurance do to a pre-existing condition do to no fault of their own. 2 those suffering from a pre-existing condition through their own fault cannot be denied coverage, but they must pay a higher (bust still just) rate.
This sounds remarkably like Obamacare...
LGBTQ adoption? (Unwanted kids need love too)
No as this is deliberately setting them up in sub-optimal environment. Yes, it is better then no parents or one parent, but nothing beats a mother and a father married.
Lots of things beat a hetero married couple. Lots of hetero married couples are absolutely toxic and abusive. Why to let your prejudice fly there.
Big Brother/Big Sister volunteering? (If you got time to argue on the internet, you got time to support a kid)
As a teacher I do a lot of that. I donate my time to helping out kids with school and aftercare. I donate to pregnancy centers, toys for tots, and etc.
Donating to pregnancy centers and toys for tots is not the same. Helping out after school and all is cool, but just because you're a teacher, doesn't mean you "do it a lot" as a lot of teachers are just there to get a pay check.
Sex Education in schools? (People would have less if they didn't think they came from storks and a sky god)
Depends on what is meant by sex education. The pure mechanics and biology of it,sure.
That would be sex education.
Safe sex, contraception, no it's delivered more abortion, divorces, and broken families.
Statistics don't back that claim up, and actually point towards abstinence only as being the cause of that list.
Free State University Education? (Those kids are going to need jobs when they get older)
This is not neccessary or even desired by many. Many children may not want to go to college. Instead many may want to be in a skilled trade. In this case there are and we should allow more apprenticeships and internships.
Funny how I went to a trade school and still had several of my admittedly small graduating class go to college... It's also strange that a lot of specialized trade schools want you to have a high school education or GED...
College education can be made far less expensive by getting the government out of loans and subsidies.
Federal college loans have probably the lowest interest rates around. The problem with student debt isn't government getting into the loans, it's how ridiculously schools have increased their rates and sell junk diplomas.
Expanding current k-12 education? (Getting them kids to school and helping them be smarter than us, no matter if they're in the city or come from a 10m$ mansion)
This can easily be done by allowing school choice and eliminating the almost near public school monopoly.
What you just said is called school shopping, and it absolutely does not help at all. What happens is those with money to do it, send their kids to better more affluent schools and the schools in poor areas still get screwed over. Private schools and charter schools are the absolute worst for diversity and serving the poor.
Expanding mental health care in schools? (Moar counselors)
Sure. Also a home with a mother and a father married should be the standard as this does the most for good mental health for anyone.
Because no one with a mom and a dad ever did anything bad, right? Only people with a single mom do bad things, right? So god damn ignorant. Go duck yourself you ignorant duck. *replace the d with f and put the d up your arse
Better pay for teachers? (Teachers get paid less and then have to use their own money for school supplies for their classes)
School choice would solve a lot of these problems. More schools means more competition and better wages.
No it doesn't.
Better funding for k-12 schools? (Teachers should not have to use their own money to pay for supplies for their classes)
We fund public education by the 100s of millions and it increases steadily. This has not accomplished improvement in education standards. Administration salaries have increased though, and poor children are forced into poor schools based entirely on condition.
We fund the military in the 100s of billions and it increases steadily. This has not accomplished improvement in safety or combat standards.
Cities fund police forces with a majority of their budget, leaving every other thing the city has to do to face budget shortfalls. While when you look at the money being pumped into schools at a federal level, it looks high, that doesn't take into account that the money is not being distributed evenly or even fairly. Administration pay has gone up, but so has federal funding to private and charter schools. When a city spends 2/3rds of their budget on police, it doesn't leave a lot for education, even with the federal funds coming in.
School choice would solve the problem. Home schooling, private schools, charter schools, and etc would go a long way to improving education
Constantly saying it doesn't make it true. School shopping is a big reason why inner city schools are under funded. The other problem being the importance placed on police budgets.
Gun control (#1 cause of death from suicide, if you honestly cared about all lives, you would be for this)
No. This would not solve anything just render people defenseless. Rather than punish those who are responsible again at the lowest level help those who are suicidal.
Defenseless from what? Street muggings? No, can't be. As someone who's stared down the barrel of a gun while being robbed, I can assure you being armed doesn't stop it.
Stop someone from breaking into your house and shooting them? That more often than not just leaves innocents being shot between the two shooters. Most people I know who have guns either live out in the woods, have them incase someone breaks in and won't go engage, but will defend their bedroom, or have them because the police are shyte.
Though if you feel like you need to defend yourself, perhaps if you applied your school shopping idea to house shopping... You know, just go live in a better area.
Higher federal minimum wages? (We could help people on welfare if jobs paid better)
Co-ops bring higher wages and benefits not to mention better profits, quality, and happier workers.
That actually doesn't really address anything. It's cool that co-ops are great on small scale, but they haven't really been proven on a large scale to do anything.
Capping executive pay to 25% company profits, with 65% going to workers? (Again, better pay to help take care of people and the children they're popping out)
This would occur with co-op businesses.
No it wouldn't. Co-ops wouldn't have executives. Everyone would be equal and rainbows.
Expanding and enhancing social programs, such as AA? (Have you dealt with kids, sometimes mamma just needs to knock back a few fifths with some zantacs, wait, that's not the point of this one... shyte... uh... Drugs are bad, m'kay, and this will help people kick habits and keep them out of prisons and keep families together)
At the federal level no. Start at the most localized level. Family, church, charities, and etc. Drug abusing parents should receive psychological and spiritual help but through the lowest levels first.
While it would be great if everything could be handled by the local level, it ignores the fact that there are great swaths of the country where the local level and even state level governments can't fund themselves and need hand outs from the federal government, so it takes money from the wealthy states to fund the poor ones, and the elected officials do nothing to change it. By your idea, the wealthiest states (majority blue) wouldn't do anything to help the poorist states (majority red) and things would just get worse and worse.
Capping rent? (Nothing like having a pay raise, then having your rent go up and swallow that up)
We wouldn't need to cap rent. Allowing for easier property ownership and easier ability to build houses and apartments without unreasonable zoning laws, property taxes, and the myriad of regulations which get in the way.
There was a guy who built his own house in this city. It had to be torn down because he was an idiot and it was unsafe and leaned like the Leaning Tower of Pisa. Also, making it easier to build things doesn't actually change the problem of American Greed Culture that has permeated the country for the last 40 years at the least. Probably longer.
If then people still need help with housing again start at the lowest level.
In short Distributism.
You know what would be absolutely great, Anarchism. Do you know what the belief of Anarchism is? It's actually not "Might is Right" that most people associate with Anarchism. It's a belief that humans are inherently good and even without laws, will do the right thing. Do you know why Anarchism doesn't work? The same reason that Socialism, Communism, and anything but Capitalism doesn't work. Humans are not inherently good. Without a strong central control that's only goal is taking care of everyone, greed starts seeping in. The reason Capitalism works is because the greed is built in. "I gotta get mine, and screw everyone else" is the basis of Capitalism. Even Democracy faulters compared to Capitalism. Look at Georgia the other day when they had their election. During a pandemic, people were forced to stand in long lines, and rather than open more polling places, they actually had less. Higher density population areas suffering the most cuts. Because of the need for social spacing, there was actually less voting stations. Why? Because the idea of Capitalism, "I gotta get mine, screw everyone else." The government, afraid of having more population vote and losing power, cut back on the rights of others.
I'm done with you. Reply if you want, but I'm done giving space to proven ignorant racists and bigots and wasting breath responding. You're not worth my time.
)
.
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
/t-DSC16796.jpg)
/t-DSC00272.jpg)
/t-DSC00713.jpg)
/t-DSC06114.jpg)
