The response has been big and astounding. Keep it coming. We have just begun to fight to change American politics.
One concern raised by some needs to be addressed head on: Some experienced bloggers expect/want Unity08 to arrive with a specific platform position on every issue.
We repeat what we said in our statement of purpose: We will have an agenda, not a platform. Our agenda is the list of issues that the public feels are crucial that Washington is not addressing – energy independence, quality education, affordable health care, rising national debt and many more.
But we don’t come to this with a platform. We invite you to debate and offer solutions – and ultimately we invite candidates to run for President on the Unity08 banner with their own platform on the crucial issues.
We would stifle the debate if the web site has pre-determined answers. And most American voters know that the crucial issues are very complex, don’t have simple answers, and progress will require debate, discussion and maybe even consensus or compromise.
What’s sad and interesting is that in Washington none of those things are happening on any of the crucial issues. No debate, no discussion, no consensus and no compromise. Washington is polarized and paralyzed.
So to all who expect Unity08 to have all the answers and to be certain of everything, we may disappoint you. To those who relish debate, serious discussion, and finding candidates for leadership ready to discuss crucial issues seriously, we hope to excite you.
Spending a lot of time in Washington is dangerous for your mental health, apparently. But spending a lot of time watching Washington causes you to be very wary of two types: Those who need to read the polls before they know what they think – and those who seem certain of every answer even before the questions are asked.
At Unity08 our forum and our minds are open. Blog on!
Subscribe
I think that this is a good idea, a blog style website could easily become powerful enough to reach out to the Technology generation. It could stand a chance against the Dems and Repubs.
What it really needs is a charismatic person to be a presumtive canidate. Atleast some sort of focal point.
What good is this excersize if we are going to take a series of polls so that a politiician can turn around come 08 and pander to the top 2-3 concerns of this group.
If there were a strong leader driving this it could certainly change some ideas in Washington.
This silly idea seems to have come straight out of Karl Rove's head in order to compensate for the President's low poll numbers. This is not the road to reform, which must happen before 'Unity' can be real.
In 08 this country will need(demand), a strong shift to the left to compensate for the previous decade of carnage this group of relgious neocons have leveled against this country and its constitution. To try to balance it at this unbalanced time would be giving these people a temporary reprieve. They wont stop. The right uses religion as an excuse to be ignorant. As long as long as this country promotes religion over education,we will be ruled by corupt religous idiots.We are a dumbed down nation. Before Carl Rove,It was Napolean who said that religious countries were the easiest to conquer.
But he walked away saying politics was a hopelessly corrupt pit filled with self serving vipors. How do those two words inspire us
I am wondering what you are planning on doing for local and national offices other than President. It's not enough to take the Presidency for the middle, I think we would also need to put a dent in the number of votes each of the parties has in congress, and the number of governerships. I realize Unity is not a political party, but grassroots campaigns to get centrist politicians into other races easier would help.
"I don't really think is what we should be focusing on, but since it keeps coming up.... What's wrong with everyone (gay or straight) being part of a civil union according to the government, and leaving the word marriage to chuches?"
I've been advocating this exact position for years. The term marriage should only be used in the context of the church; the civil union would be the governmental definition of a committed couple (of any gender combination or number!) that would in turn entitle the participants to all the benefits normally associated with "marriage" (such as health benefits).
And yes, I did say "of any number" -- I see no reason why more than two consenting adults cannot be considered a civil union, with consentual being the key requirement. If we are to truly live in a free society then we need to be truly free and unhampered by the morals of others, as long as our actions affect only ourselves and those who consent to be involved.
"Nearly 70 percent of medical liability cases are deemed frivolous and closed without any award of damages. However, the cost of defending even those cases typically exceeds $40,000. That cost more than doubles if the case ends up going to trial. In 2024, medical liability insurers' payouts soared to more than $8 billion – insurers paid out $1.42 for every $1 they received in premiums."
--Congressman Scott Garret (NJ)
You can construct wierd conspiracy theories about the evil market forces and greed of the "rich" to justify your arguments, but you cannot argue with cold hard facts Carl...
Doctors all over this country are starting to face the prospect of not practicing anymore because the cost of malpractice insurance is sky high...
while I agree for the most part with the comment below by anonymous that all people should be allowed to join in a legal union sanctioned by the government, I differ in my view on multiple (more than two) partners joining together. The reason is only a legal one, namely that laws currently exist regarding the legal status of a two person union; most importantly how to deal with the breakup of such a union. Adding additional people into the mix would require a whole new set of laws dealing with each unique situation. Not a moral argument, just a realistic one.
Did any of you ever consider that if a moderate third party takes 20% of the vote, that it will hurt the more moderate candidate of the major parties, giving the plurality to the more extremist candidate?
Also, having a president and vice-president of different ideologies didn't work for John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. As a matter of fact, it created problems in cabinet meetings. Now the office of the vice-presidency isn't an especially important one, with the only policy making power the ability to break a vote in the senate. So we would really just be electing someone from one party, with the other just for show.
It is amazing at how fear of change dominates the voters of our country. Change(viable Third Party) is what we need and we need it as soon as possible if we are to ever break free of the governments domination by the Democrats and Republicans. Change may hurt, but, to free ourselves from the thought that these two parties will ever let go of the powerful corporate lobby is a reality shaker. The people must regain control of these "barbers and saloon keepers" in Congress.
My friends, I don't fear change. I just think that this organization is going through this in a very wrong way.
We are not on a parlamentary system for electing political offices. We don't even have run offs here. A candidate wins by getting the most votes.
Since my last post apparently made me "afraid of change" (something that can't be further from the truth), I will demonstrate.
Let us say that this organization really gets going and gets someone reasonable to run. Then one of the other parties with a cunning and insightful campaign stratagist sees this and leaks it to their party. That party then puts up a candidate to match the voting base of their extremist ideology.
The moderate and opposing voting base becomes split between the Unity ticket, and the opposing party, hence the extremist candidate picks up a PLURALITY of the votes, gaining victory.
I agree that we need to improve our educational system at every level. I don't agree that that requires a 'move to the left'. Many conservatives agree with the need for a better educational system. But they are inclined to thing that merely throwing money at the problem won't solve it. The 'No Child Left Behind' program is a start, but it has some signficant short falls. I believe the underlying goal of increasing the effectiveness of teacher is admirable, but testing kids alone isn't a sufficient measure.
In short, we need to drop the L and C words and discuss possible solutions.
If a primary source of our dissatisfaction with the Democratic and Republican parties is that they play to their respective extreme 'bases' (or at least not to offend them) why don't we make both parties fear the moderates, more?
If Unity 08 identified, funded, and endorsed Democratic, Republican, or, when neither is acceptable, minority party candidates in the 2024 Mid-Term Elections who were: individuals that most closely reflect the values of Unity 08 -- once we determine what those values are?
If Unity 08 endorsed candidates won enough seats in 2024 this would:
1) Establish that moderate, main-stream voters will vote for moderates and against the extremists, regardless of party affiliation.
2) Establish Unity 08's power to affect the presidential election in 2024.
3) Get something done now...I can't put up with the status quo for 2 more years!
Without a serious third party in 2024, I will be left with only one choice and that is a write-in vote for Bullwinkle and Rocky. The stock politicians are terrified of a strong third party and will label the third guys as “spoilers” which, of course, they are. If this outfit can get its act together, the country will be deprived of another political hack bragging about the all-important “mandate”. There won’t be a mandate and that will be the clearest message that the voters can send.
If Unity08 goes West (that’s the real term…not South), we should all stick together and decide whether Bullwinkle runs for Prez and Rocky VP, or visa-versa. Compared to Hillary and whatsizname from Arizona, they’re looking better every day.
Please add some information regarding policy positions. It is simply not enough to say that you are moderate.
Recently, the First lady was asked about a proposed amendment that would limit marriage to one man and one woman. Her response was that this was an important issue and should be discussed by the country with sensitivity. I submit this in pursuit of her request for a discussion.
Marriage is a complex issue. There is the civil aspect and the religious aspect. I would like to look at the religious aspect first.
In the Christian tradition, church weddings were a late addition to church liturgy. Quoting from The Oxford History of Christian Worship on page 123 it states ”Although we have no extant wedding rituals as such until the Byzantine Barberini Euchologion (eighth century), we know that from the fourth century at least some weddings were celebrated in church.” On page 124 it states “It should be noted that it is a long time before Christians are required to marry in church.” The Christian Church did not make marriage a sacrament until late in the first millennium. I believe that other religions were also late in defining a religious aspect to marriage.
Clearly the religious reasons for marriage are different from the civil. For example, divorce was once very difficult to obtain for a Christian couple unless they were willing to run afoul of their religion. At the same time, Muslim males could divorce their wives by just repeating three times that they divorced them. Muslim males could have more then one wife but Christians could not. At one time very young children could be married by the church. It is clear that the church’s marriage rules may be in conflict with the civil marriage rules.
Religions have their own objectives in setting up their rules for marriage. The state has a separate and not necessarily identical set of objectives. When there is a conflict the state’s objectives must be met.
The civil objectives of marriage are easier to define. First, society must have children to continue. While you can have children without marriage, you then have to assure that they are provided for. If the couples are not married, the state may end up supporting the children. It is in society’s best interest that people who have children be married so that if the marriage dissolves, the state can assure that the children are cared for by establishing custody and child support. To encourage couples to marry, the state offers tax benefits and other incentives. The state also gives tax breaks for having children in order to reduce the financial burden. Recently Russia has begun offering cash bonuses to women having children. This helps reduce Russia’s population decline.
Once you have a marriage you create the second area of concern for the state. How do you deal with the shared assets of a couple if they sever their relationship? If they are married, the divorce courts are empowered to establish a split of the assets and alimony if needed. Without marriage, the state may end up supporting the less advantaged partner.
The state would like couples to marry if they plan to have children or if one partner is to be the primary support for the other. That way the state can protect its interest by assuring that any children or dependent spouses do not become a burden on the state.
Now let us look at same sex unions. They have children even though not in the traditional way. One partner is sometimes dependent on the other. They do dissolve their relationships. If they were allowed to marry the state would be able to protect its interest if their relationship dissolved. If they are not married the state may end up supporting the children and the dependent spouse.
If society bans same sex marriages it hurts itself and the only people it makes happy are those who find same sex relationships repugnant. Banning same sex marriages will not stop same sex couples from having relationships. It will not stop them from having children. It will not deter same sex couples from dissolving their relationships. It will not change behavior.
I can think of no advantage to society in banning same sex marriage but the damages to society are clear. Society would be best served if all couples who have children or a dependent partner were married.
I just last night found this group. I had to smile as I read through some of the site. Always amazing how an idea spreads almost intrinsically as a reaction to unacceptable discord in leadership. I believe the growth of something like Unity 08 is so desperately needed at this point in time. Unity 08 will be most powerful if it allows the common thread or glue to be in the purpose of action rather than the formulation of any sort of ideology or political plank.
The formation of an agenda, yes as it seems to me that it would simply be the election of true independents. Independents who from a populous stand point as defined by those who will elect them. Independents, who will run on, then act on, the desires of the citizens that selected them for representation.
It will be interesting if all involved can migrate or evolve their personal political persona in effect letting go of some dearly held R or D ideologies that while important, have a blinding effect to more insidious problems and realities that have infested our democracy.
Before I pass along the box for anther to have their say, I do feel that if nothing else is done, candidates and their campaign machines must be identified, built and supported. Nothing will be accomplished if hard political science is not employed to ensure that while independents will play spoilers, they will play to win. Challenge where you have a chance and an ability to win. If not, best intentions, actions and expenditure of time and funds will eventually become just so many people playing in politics for a season.
IF this new party can refuse big money from PAC$, Corporation$, Union$ and other$, I think everything else will take care of itself and fall into place. Big business won't be able to push congress for more military weapons sytems w/o which it will be more difficult for us initiate war-we've got more than enough for self defense-all else is overkill; the gov't will need less money (lower taxes and less waste); this would leave more money for healthcare and human(e) endeavors.
Someone suggested that if a credible but moderate third party gets involved in an election it will take votes away from at least one of the other candidates, which makes sense, but then there is a part about the more radical of the other two candidates having a better chance because of this. I don't necessarily understand that part.
But lets look at the options. With no third party many voters are left with only two choices. 1. Vote for someone they don't want to be elected. 2. Don't vote.
Frankly, I don't think we can find anyone less competent and more dishonest than the people who are in office now, so I would prefer to vote for ANYONE ELSE. The problem right now is that there isn't anyone else who has a reasonable chance of winning in any of the elections that I can vote in.
Probably 50% of all malpractice cases are really lawyers trying to make sure they can retire in comfort, but the other half aren't.
The reason why malpractice insurance is so high is because our doctors are not all competent, but they have spent the necessary amount of time in school, and passed an internship somewhere.
Look at it this way. I could take voice lessons for the next 20 years and there is still no gaurantee that I would be competent as an opera singer.
I would move Global Terror and education from crucial to important. Terror because a few acts of terror will not destroy our country, and, education because it should have remained a discussion held at the local level. However, I would consider the size and use of our military worthy of national debate. Finally, I agree, while abortion, choice, religion, the flag, guns, gay marriage, ect, are all worthy of discussion, they are the wedge issues and that are in many cases issues that should and can be resolved by compromise at the state level. Sad to see that some have already been posting their positions on this non-crucial issues.
I'm just very happy I kept my
Ross Perot T-shirts!!
The summer I graduated High School (1980) had an interesting third party candidate, a Liberal Republican named John Anderson.
Early that summer I got a temp job doing a phone poll for a Democratic pollster. While what we were truly interested in was name recognition for a State Senate Seat in rural Upstate NY, we did ask for opinions on Carter-Reagan, then Carter-Reagan-Anderson. What got me was the amount of people who said that they would support Anderson, except he could never get elected so why bother?
BTW, I took a Greyhound home 90 miles from Syracuse to Rochester to vote for Anderson. I wanted to make sure that he got enough votes for federal financing. Since then I have voted only once for the winner. (Clinton in 96)
I voted for getting out of Iraq as No. 1. Of near equal importance is the Ethics of our elected officials with Congress No. 1, Executive Branch No. 2 and appointed officials No. 3. Also very important is National Debt.
Thanks. I am very interested in what you are doing. Keep it clean, keep it simple and try to get along with all.
Lots of good comments on the blog. I have been thinking about a third party for months - I hope this is the right one. It has to be a party of the people and it should be an "independent, centrist, party". I don't care for the idea of having a "one Republican, one Democrat ticket". We need a truly independent third party, e.g., the People's Party. It will be difficult, but not impossible, to focus on the priority issues and not let those who have an overriding personal agenda to try and take control.
The main issues are:
1. Public financing of political campaigns. As others have said, if we take the money from PACS and corporations and wealthy people out of the equation, a lot of problems will be solved.
2. Taxes are far too high and spending is out of control. Maybe a flat tax is in order.
3. Education policy needs reform.
4. Line Item Veto to stop the pork barrel spending.
5. Term Limits for federal and state elected offices. The longer they stay, the more lobbyist payrolls they get on.
6. Immigration policy that is fair to those who are doing it within the law. Secure the borders and ports FIRST.
7. Homeland Security - a lot of people don't like us because of our wealth.
8. Begin sincere discussions with other countries to stop the killing. It is insane.
My two cents for now. Thanks.
The two political parties have claimed a monopoly and control propoganda in this nation with the help of campaign contributions from foreign corporations and special interest groups. Making fools of the American people by twisted words like "Free Trade" "Insurgents" "World Economy" and worst of all "bipartisanship"... which in reality mean "steal your jobs" "sons born in Iraq" "steal your money" and "legislative gridlock to prevent reform and continue the fleecing of America".... for more on how to fight visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Aren't most third party successes and near-successes for president when the candidate is a 'populist'? I am thinking of Teddy Roosevelt. But losers like Huey Long and George Wallace also seemed kind of, well, best put your own word in for them, but similar in some ways that are a little unsettling. I am not sure if this is the same as a moderate. Can anybody think of when a third party was successful on the basis of being a moderate voice. Wasn't the republican party founded sort of as an abolitionist choice? Not exactly moderate for the times.
It is not like the country had the Republican and Democratic parties when it was founded. It is not impossible to imagine that one of these could be replaced by a new party.
Where I live, the Republicans seem solidly in control, and the nomination seems to be controlled by the Christian right. I have thought that the only way I could make anything better, well change anyway, who knows about better?, would be to join the Republican party so maybe I could stop them from nominating candidates that I see as extreme. Because whoever they nominate, that's who wins where I live. By a wide margin. I guess I just don't have the stomach for sitting through meetings with people who have very rigid views about the social order, to get them to stop thinking about protecting (imposing) their religious convictions and focus on things like spiraling trade and federal deficits, social security and any other kind of pension disappearing with the flick of a bankruptcy court's pen (while the bankers and lawyers get rich), school education which, well, let's face it, is just not keeping up with the rest of the world, who definitely want those good jobs and that good lifestyle as much as we do, if not more, and the insurance, geez, it seems like the copays and the premiums are going up so much it is just better to try an herbal remedy and say to heck with all of it. One of my neighbors went to the Phillipines to get some medical and dental work done. It was cheaper to fly there than to do it here, a lot cheaper, including the ticket. So watch out doc, your paycheck is on the choppin block too.
I do remember that Ross Perot was blamed for Bush senior losing, because it was believed that he drew away more independet votes that would have gone to Bush than to Clinton. It seemed to me that in that election that the presence of Perot drew the other candidates to moderate their views in order to compete for the center. Ross seemed kind of eccentric to me, but boy he was sure right about the "giant sucking sound" of lobbyists and NAFTA.
Because nearly a third of those registered to vote describe themselves as 'independent', there is fertile ground for starting a new party. But the independent vote is, well independent, not agreeing on anything. Maybe just agreeing on what issues are important could be enough, but that seems kinda weak compared to getting everybody worked up on some emotional issue like burning a flag or seeing Mexicans parading down the street waving Mexican flags and maybe singing the national anthem in Spanish. Upsetting yes. When I retire I might have to go live in their country because I cannot afford to live in this one, so I say treat them at least ok, they live nearby, and chickens sometimes do come home to roost. And being fair is what this country should be about. Honest and fair, not selfish or arrogant or greedy or filled with panic or hate. Just my opinion.
I don't classify myself as a true moderate but I very much respect others views and opinions. There is truth in every side of the discussion. Hatred spawns hatred. What's sad is that even some moderates have felt the need to push farther to the left or right due to the polarization of political agendas. Good luck to you!
best wishes marie
In the beginning the two parties did debate and come to a center for the good of the nation. It was a wonderful thing. Then technology came and big money became important for election propoganda. Evil men took advantage of this weakness the founding fathers had no concept of? Technology? Radio and Television? Never heard of it! Thus the founding fathers did not account for it and warn us or protect us from it.
Sadly today foreign interests have infultrated both parties with campaign contributions to support the exodus of our jobs, money and resources for profit at our own demise. For more visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
It really is not that bad! In fact reform can come at no cost or risk to the nation. We all know the two parties have been influenced heavily and improperly by foreign interests to support trade and national security policy that is dangerous for America. Simply changing your political affiliation for a year or so from democrat or republican to independent sends a clear message to both parties that they need to get their priorities straight. At the same time you help many good politicians make the break and proclaim themselves and independents and lead this revolution! For more information visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
Different views are not to be respected. They are to be analyzed and debated. All opinions are not equal, but differ in truth content and rationality. We got to learn to be more discriminating and less tolerent of idiots and those with personal agendas.
America is living in the twilight zone - and that's no joke. Thinking things can stay the same - that we can enjoy freedoms, ignoring the high tech war being waged around us, at the same time being foolded by false economic indicators, telling us everything is AOK. I hate to break the news but things are gonna change. The enemy is attacking us from our weakest point - our economy. Now weak and vulnurable (unlike before 911) they will strike again - this time much worse. Then the police state will intensify, your rights will be violated even further - using the fear of attack to constrict the freedoms we enjoy today. Or we can move forward with an open mind while the technology is new and adaptable in a comfortable way to protect our way of life and save our economy. A delay in hitech reforms will enable implemention by force as required by the hostile police state just around the corner. For more info visit www.appyp.com/fix_main.html
I must say I'm a little disappointed to see the bickering here that we are fighting in Washington.
Maybe they are just a representation of the general population?
I hope not, or we're f*d.
Open your minds more and Open your mouths less.
I have personally written every Senator in the last week, and the one thing i've realized is they do not give a Sh_t. The immigration bill passed by the Senate enfuriated me. America is headed for failure but lets all get what we can while the ship is sinking. They say every vote counts well who are they kidding. Our votes mean nothing with an electoral college in charge. And who drew up my district it goes all over the map, and leaves minorities in the drivers seat. Give us an Independent candidate and i'll carry him/her door to door on my back if need be!
I am so pleased to see that the movement is gaining ground. We are running a Fusion Candidate for U.S. Senate in Maryland in 2024. We could sure use your help, energy and support. Find out more at www.ZeeseForSenate.org and the wiki site www.Zeese.US We are looking for volunteers to phone bank, leaflet and fundraise across the country. Join us!
Amend the Constitution to Guarantee Everyone a Job at a Living Wage
Corporate America is systematically destroying millions of decent paying jobs for working people. At the same time, the rich and the powerful are leading an assault on the public sector and demanding cutbacks in government jobs that provide services for us all. As a result, there are not enough good jobs to go around and our public services are crumbling. Nearly one in four workers are either unemployed, involuntarily working part-time, or are working full-time at poverty-level wages. Since World War II, the government has been committed on paper to a full employment economy. But Corporate America and its army of pliable politicians have made a mockery of that idea. In the name of creating jobs they give the rich and powerful more tax breaks, more subsidies, and less government regulation. But trickle-down economics doesn't work for us. It only works for them. The more subsidies and tax breaks for corporations the politicians give away, the more jobs that are destroyed through mergers, runaway investments, automation, and subcontracting. These give-aways and concessions must stop. First and foremost everyone, both in the private and public sectors, needs a guarantee of a right to a job at a living wage — one that pays above poverty-level wages and is indexed to inflation. And in today's world that comes to a minimum of about $10 an hour. We want this right written directly into the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration of Independence affirmed our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Preamble to the Constitution promised "to establish Justice,... promote the General Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity." But for working people all this means nothing if we don't have the right to a job.
Agenda 5
A. Create a North American free trade zone and travel zone from Panama to the artic ocean.
1. Standard ID for all people in the region.
2. No birthright citizenship- regadless of place of birth, child receives citizenship of mother only.
3. Joint Naval force (Coast Guard) to suppress smuggling, illegal fishing, and illegal immigration.
4. Joint border patrol force at the Panama canal zone.
Thanks to comments by my new supporter Anonymous here is my 06 annual savings analysis based on googled budgets from INS and Border Patrol!!
The above result in substantial cost savings (defending a border as long as the Panama canal instead of the Canadian and Mexican borders combined). It would be reasonable to assume that the cost now is a function of the border length so 51 miles/10,000 miles (you have to include the Alaskan border with Canada) or .5% of the present costs of 1.4 BILLION or a savings of $1.393 Billion dollars. Also the same idea (given that Mexican and Canadian illegals are eliminated entirely) cuts the INS budget by more then half (6.3 Billion to 3 Billion). Total Savings almost 5 Billion Dollars!!
Universal health care for all American citizens must be at the top of our list of priorities. As insurance rates continue to escalate astronomically, coverage is decreasing rapidly. Allowing insurance and pharmaceutical companies to determine public policy regarding health care approaches criminality.
DOES ANYONE EVER FEEL LIKE THE RED AND BLUE THAT RUNS OUR COUNTRY IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE GANG WAR GOING ON DOWNTOWN? FIGHTING OVER THE ONE CITY BLOCK THAT MAKES THE MOST MONEY? IN THIS CASE IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE PENN. AVENUE
I must say I was quite excited by the idea of Unity08. However, my enthusiasm has been quenched in recent days...
I am not interested in investing my vote in a "movement" or an "idea". I want to win, because I want to enact my beliefs. Isn't that what democracy is about? Realization of the majority's beliefs? And if I'm not in the majority, then at least I tried.
I think the problem with American democracy is that the majority beliefs are split between the two parties. If one party, Dem, Rep, or Ind, could seize the moment and adopt a winning platform, the results would be momentous. The Dems and the Reps have the burden of history, and cannot turn on a dime and change platforms. A third party, however, starts tabula rasa and can design itself to be anything it wants to be.
Apparently, Unity08 believes democracy is about social solidarity, or national lovefests, or somesuch. And in this regard, it belies that Washington insiders are running the show here. For them, democracy is about the process. For most people, democracy is about results. Most people don't care how things get done, as long as NIMBY is respected; they just want them done. Unity08 is sounding all too heady and intellectual, too process-oriented.
I will vote for Unity08 if it has a solid platform that conforms with my beliefs and I believe it has a chance to win. I will not vote for Unity08 if it is an "experiment in the democratic process". I spent enough time and money in college on theory and process to know that results are all that really matters.
Best of luck, and have fun reading more Federalist Letters. They didn't want political parties, either. That worked out great.
Last night I watched NOW. Listening to the Librarian brought to the fore many of my fears concerning this Administration. How long are we going to sit back and watch our privacy rights disintigrate? Libraries, Telephones, the Internet-what else?
As to Unity 08, as the old saying goes-"Rome wasn't built in a day".
Computers and the Internet are acessible to a good percentage of the population (home, work, libraries, schools,etc). It is going to take awhile to make people aware that the new technology is finally kicking in!
i want to know precisely what this party stands for. i know the national debt is high on the important list, but i feel that the constitution is the highest priority. the constitution says what the govt can and cannot do. this govt. does not abide by the constitution and for years the politicians have been chipping away at the constitution, especially with activist judges. i feel that if the govt goes back to the constitution that all citizens will be better off. i have a feeling about social programs which the govt. has and some people want to push forward with new social programs, socialism is the forerunner of communism. when the govt. takes care of all of the wants nd needs of its citizens, that is socialism. one example is universal health care. a simple solution would be to limit law suits. i would like to hear from you on these issues.
I have noticed in the news that the Democrats and Republicans are beginning to discuss wedge issues, such as abortion, and gay marriage. It is my hope that these won't be included in our agenda, because they have been very successful in dividing rather than unifying. After reading many of the comments, and contributing comments that the issues that we are concerned about deal with National Security, terrorism, education, health care, jobs for Americans, immigration, and securing the borders. Let's not fall into that trap.
The current income tax-based government revenue system is an incomprehensibly complex tangle. It provides limitless opportunity for the rich to avoid tax, both by exploiting current loopholes and supporting the creation of new ones. As a result, a system conceived of as a progressive one has become very regressive.
I propose the abandonment of income tax. A similar amount of revenue could be raised instead by a 10% per annum national property tax, a system which would naturally fall proportionately on those who own the most.
I suggest that each living person (not corporations) be entitled to a $75,000 exemption, so that for instance a family of four with $300,000 in assets would pay no tax at all. Bill Gates, on the other hand, would have to cough up $6 billion per year. Even for well-off middle-class families, the elimination of income tax should balance off the effect of the replacing property tax. In addition, the very poor should be allowed to sell their exemptions (presumably for 10% of $75,000, or $7,500) as an encouragement to assemble a stake for a move into the economic mainstream.
I believe this tax should apply uniformly to for-profit and non-profit corporations, churches, and the like, as well as living persons, as those distinctions have demonstrated that they can be successfully subverted. A simple plan is the only one that can, in the long run, provide a fair and level playing field.
Only a severely convoluted mind could propose such a degenerate thought. If only the property of the rich was taxed (and at a high rate) .. who would ever want to own anything of value? Because scott just killed the wealth generation base, unemployment would exceed 50% .. no one would be buying .. and businesses would evaporate. The rich would just leave and maintain their wealth off shore.. No impediment because, if one is rich .. they dont need america.. other geographic area are more inticing.
Someone suggested that we have the same protection over the whole country that Washington DC has.
Let's try to be realistic. We don't have enough military assets, or enough money for things like that, and never will have.
A desire for change is great, but let's concentrate on changes that are possible.
Besides, if we stop doing stupid things that make people mad at us, and we won't have to give up anything in the way of security freedom or the American way to do that, the need for tht kind of defense should disappear pretty quickly.
Agenda 5
A. Create a North American free trade zone and travel zone from Panama to the artic ocean.
1. Standard ID for all people in the region.
2. No birthright citizenship- regadless of place of birth, child receives citizenship of mother only.
3. Joint Naval force (Coast Guard) to suppress smuggling, illegal fishing, and illegal immigration.
4. Joint border patrol force at the Panama canal zone.
Thanks to comments by my new supporter Anonymous here is my 06 annual savings analysis based on googled budgets from INS and Border Patrol!!
The above result in substantial cost savings (defending a border as long as the Panama canal instead of the Canadian and Mexican borders combined). It would be reasonable to assume that the cost now is a function of the border length so 51 miles/10,000 miles (you have to include the Alaskan border with Canada) or .5% of the present costs of 1.4 BILLION or a savings of $1.393 Billion dollars. Also the same idea (given that Mexican and Canadian illegals are eliminated entirely) cuts the INS budget by more then half (6.3 Billion to 3 Billion). Total Savings almost 5 Billion Dollars!!
Vic, you posted this yesterday and it hasnt got any better since. Give it up.
Chris, If you think health care is expensive now.. wait to see the costs escalate when its free.
I did indeed post it yesterday and I did indeed incorporate some changes reflecting comments.
I will continue to post it and the other Agend Items until, by rational argument, I am convinced that substantial change or omission is appropriate.
I am focused on the day, many months hence, when a full agenda is adopted by Unity08.