Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

Riddle me this?



January 31, 2010 – Comments (11)

Republicans claim to be conservative, and have espused personal responsibility for decades, yet have enacted policies for three decades that resulted in massive outsourcing of jobs and small business being crushed. How was that conservative??? 30 years of Ike's conservatism being hijacked by republicans.

Liberals claim to be democrat, yet have done nothing, nor suggested anything, to grow the pie they so much want shared more equally.  How is that effective?

It's time for a third party of pragmatic centrist Americans.  Let the extremists have the democrat and republican parties.  Blue Dogs, RINOs and Moderates of all shapes, shades and sizes unite.

The platform:

If you are down on your luck, we will help you get education and/or job skills.  We will also keep you from starving, becoming overly sick, keep a roof over your head and clothes on your back, but only so long as you are in an accredited job, skill or education program, and not longer than eight years (that's long, but sometimes, with kids, that's how long it takes, and it sure beats the 15,20,25 years plus some people are on the public trough).

We will build 50 new nuclear power plants and replace the 104 we have today with 104 bigger, better ones over the next two decades, resulting in the equivanent of 300 of today's nuclear power plants.  This will give us the backbone of electric power we need to fuel industry.  This will create about 750,000 to a million skilled jobs for construction and about that many to run the plants forever.

We will put solar on every roof as we come closer to grid parity later this decade, so that our homes and offices are their own safe electical generation plants.  This too will create jobs, estimates are in excess of a million, the maintenance jobs will last forever.

We will double the water infrastructure so that we can reclaim over 90% of used water and recharge our water systems.  This will create over a million jobs that last decades for construction and maintenance.

We will maintain a private healthcare system, with loss ratios that must exceed 85%, and no underwriting discrimination.  The poor, working and non, may enroll in Medicaid or receive an equivelant premium voucher for private coverage.  People may enroll for Medicare at 62, same as social security, this simple move will save business billions and allow them to keep experienced people without incurring large later in life healthcare costs- this is a subsidy to business, and it's a good one.

We will stop fighting wars, except when imminently threatened or attacked, and when nations refuse to honor the nuclear proliferation understanding of the world.

Term limits of 20 years as a Congress person, Senate and House time aggregate.

Campaign funds are turned over to the national election fund upon retirement, those funds are not the pol's retirement fund.

We will not tell people how to live their lives, so long as how they live their lives do not impact how I live mine or raise my family.

11 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On January 31, 2010 at 3:58 PM, topsecret10 (< 20) wrote:

 In a nutshell....  Scrap the Federal Reserve, scrap the Two-Party system, make It a crime to "lobby" the Federal Government through special Interests to Influence decisions of Congress. Observe the "seperation of powers" and follow the "Constitution" with regard to It's Implementation. Require that before a bill can be voted on,that you must be able to cite where In the "Constitution" are the words that back up It's legality with regard to the bills Implementation. Term limits of 8 years maximum for any member of Congress. Abolish the electoral college......    This would be a start In my opinion.....      TS

Report this comment
#2) On January 31, 2010 at 5:51 PM, Option1307 (30.50) wrote:


As much as I'd love to see this, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for any of it to occur.

Report this comment
#3) On January 31, 2010 at 8:28 PM, wildheartfarm (20.76) wrote:

more sane and sustainable  ideas for getting this country back from the thieves and idiots who have taken it over  think any of them would entertain any of this? they would defend themselves with the army if it came to that 

Report this comment
#4) On January 31, 2010 at 9:53 PM, SolarisKing (< 20) wrote:

The answer is simple. Vote for dog catcher every time you get the chance.

Folks who vote every 4 years, except when they're busy and don't make it, get what they pay for. 

The President is chosen (mostley) from Governers and Senators, Senators and Governers are chosen from Representatives and mayors. Mayors and State Congressmen are chosen from Tax Assessor and Dog Cathers. 

The Tax Assessor is already crooked. Your only chance is to vote for Dog Catcher every single time it comes up.

An irony is that Dog Catchers (or Mosquito Board or School Superwhatever) are some of the easiest elected offices to acquire. So we could take over a lot of the end result, simply by rigging the smallest elections; therefore gaining access to the bigger ones.

If you don't know the pleasure of helping get some small town folk to office, and then later having him become the Secretary of the Interior twenty years later, then you'll have to assume how that feels, but it's great.

Folks try to change politics on the national level with third parties. It can't work, because even if a third party DID get elected to President, without a real political infratstructure they would just get handled.
   The thing is to get green politics, and other smart moves, in at the smallest level, thereby gaining access to the next level, and so on.

That's what the Tea Party should do. Forget about Washinton DC for a few years, and take over the cities

Report this comment
#5) On January 31, 2010 at 10:27 PM, danteps (28.81) wrote:

I agree with the sentiment that both parties have failed us and an alternative party that speaks to the socially liberal, fiscally conservative independent would be a breath of fresh air.

The totalitarian planned economy that is suggested is a very poor idea.  Solar and nuclear power may be good ideas, but they may be bad ones as well (both have significant downsides and currently are far more expensive than carbon fuels).  The free market should decide.  No subsidies for energy of any kind.  The energy that balances cost with environmental desireabilty will eventually win out.  We shouldn't let a select few decide what is the best use of the taxpayers' money.  Leave it to the entrepreneurs.  Remember ethanol?

Each state / communtiy should deal with their own water issues.  This is not a federal problem that should be handled by government planning in Washington.  Many states have plenty of water and we shouldn't have to subsidize those that live in arid places or have poor access to water.  When it snows where I live I don't ask Arizona to pay for the snowplows and salt.  When the federal government takes my tax money for water in California that hurts my state and its not fair or financially moral.

The use of totalitarian planning for the health care insurance industry is also a poor idea.  Why 85%?  Why not 75% or 95%?  Is this per year, 3 years, 5 years?  What a mess.  Let's start with striving to create a competitve free market for health care with similar rules to car or home insurance.  Competing across state lines, portability, transparency in what hospitals charge, etc.  Get the government out of health care as much as possible.

Let's reduce the federal government, cut taxes, reduce the number of employees on the federal payroll and let the great people of this country have the money and opportunity to live a life of liberty. 

In liberty to all. 

Report this comment
#6) On January 31, 2010 at 11:34 PM, kirkydu (89.47) wrote:

I wasn't going to reply, however, Dan prodded me. 

Dan, I in general agree with you, however, on specifics I disagree.  What I am proposing, as a base platform, is hardly totalitarian, it's liberating. 

For energy, if clean up cost was included in coal electric generation, it would already be more expensive than wind and solar, and is more expensive than nuclear even omitting pollution as an externality.

You don't really understand water reclamation, so I'll give it to you in a nutshell.  When we take water from an aquifer, without returning it, we kill the aquifer.  Throughout the great plains from the Dakotas down to Texas we have been draining the aquifers and sending that water to the ocean.  We need to treat that water and send it back into the aquifers.  Rivers need the same protection as we are draining and killing most of them too.  Lakes are somewhat protected (speaking as somebody who can get to Lake Michigan in par), but also need a greater number of reclamation plants.  We have used over 1/3 of the fresh water in this country the past fifty years.  At this pace, we'll be out of fresh water in the next century.

I have a background in health insurance, 85% jives with historical norms pre-1980s when we actually had almost everybody covered when companies made their profits almost exclusively on float.  It wouldn't be a bad idea to go to 90%, but if we can accomplish near universal coverage and cost containment at 85% then fine.  3 to 5 year averages would be fine by me.

Slightly less government yes.  Far more efficient government better.

In general, we need to follow the Buddha toward the middle way.

(I just like other short fat guys.)

Report this comment
#7) On February 01, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Tastylunch (28.71) wrote:

Got to be honest Kirk

I don't think it's enough. As long as there is uncontrolled lobbying any party is eventually going to be bought. That has to be addressed first before anything else.

I think the party systems itself is flawed model, gerrymandering and all that makes it a joke.

It doesn't help eveiter that our legislative process tends to be accretionary overtime, there is an insane amount of laws on the books and it's growing rapidly.

 anyway I propose the "pragmatic party" if you are looking for a name.

Report this comment
#8) On February 01, 2010 at 12:26 AM, ozzfan1317 (68.56) wrote:

I like this Idea when do we start the campaign? +1

Report this comment
#9) On February 01, 2010 at 12:56 AM, kirkydu (89.47) wrote:

I hear ya Tasty, thing is, there has to be some freedom to talk to your pols.  We're all special interests.  Not letting them keep their campaign funds when they retire was my way of curbing corruption.  We could start sending them to jail for lying, cheating and stealing, I heard that's been done before, even for while collar crooks.

Report this comment
#10) On February 01, 2010 at 1:20 AM, Tastylunch (28.71) wrote:

 Not letting them keep their campaign funds when they retire was my way of curbing corruption.

Yeah that's a  good start, (I wasn't aware they even could. That's disgusting)

but I think the main source of the problem is how much they have to raise to even run in the first place. especially for the Presidency.

I don't know if it's the best or most ethical solution but it is remarkable to see what happened to Austrailian politics when they banned  TV ads for Pols.

It dramatically reduced the amount of funds they had to raise and consequently reduced demand for lobbyist money...

If it's possible to reduce the need for lobbyist money somehow, I think that would be more effective then bans or other punitive measures...

Report this comment
#11) On February 01, 2010 at 1:51 PM, kirkydu (89.47) wrote:

you had me at "tasty" lunch

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners