POLL What is YOUR Leftist priority?

What is YOUR Leftist priority for the new Congress?


  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .

atlkvb

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2004
79,542
1,330
113
Right back at ya.

No doubt we win. This is a rebuilding year for TCU & we're hitting our stride.


Just imagine if we don't lose any more games this year you know where we'll end up?
 

Bulya

New member
May 29, 2001
10,579
471
0
With Democrats now set to control the House and the upcoming Legislative agenda, what do you Leftists want to see as their major legislative accomplishment? What did YOU vote for on the Leftist agenda?

You forgot to have an "All of the Above" choice. I'd start with repealing the tax cuts for those OVER not UNDER $400K. Military budget would get cut slightly mostly unwanted or unneeded weapons programs. As long as we have a "voluntary" military the Top 10% should pay a tax surcharge to help fund the military since they benefit the most from that protection. With that said I do believe in Mandatory Military Service for All it would help a lot of societal problems like crime and drug abuse. Same for infrastructure the Top 10% own most of the business's or stocks of businesses and improved infrastructure would increase productivity which would make their stocks more valuable.

I do believe in a National Healthcare Plan however the government's track record with handling money is not good under EITHER party. Some combo of public-private may work. That is the ONLY "Socialist" program I would add to the current "Socialist" programs we have the US Military, Police and Fire Depts, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

I don't have time to address each item but add in term limits for the US Congress and campaign finance reform HAVE to happen for real change. Bill Nelson and Rick Scott just spent over $100 Million for the Florida Senate Seat a job that pays $270K. That math does not compute it says that Senate seat is worth more than $270K and someone is benefiting from that investment and I can assure you it is rarely you or me.
 

atlkvb

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2004
79,542
1,330
113
You forgot to have an "All of the Above" choice. I'd start with repealing the tax cuts for those OVER not UNDER $400K

Those making over 400K didn't get a tax cut Bulya! Besides, the highest income earners already pay in excess of 50% of the total tax bill.

Military budget would get cut slightly mostly unwanted or unneeded weapons programs. As long as we have a "voluntary" military the Top 10% should pay a tax surcharge to help fund the military since they benefit the most from that protection.

I agree we need to streamline military procurements, but NOT at the expense of readiness and modernization. As I mentioned, the top 10% of taxpayers pay almost 80% of the total tax bill. The top 1% pay almost all of that! We ALL benefit from the protection of our Military. How much more should the top earners pay?

With that said I do believe in Mandatory Military Service for All it would help a lot of societal problems like crime and drug abuse.

100% agreement with you here.

Same for infrastructure the Top 10% own most of the business's or stocks of businesses and improved infrastructure would increase productivity which would make their stocks more valuable.

You fail to recognize the value investors already add by offering their money for business expansions, consumer finance loans, mergers and acquisitions, as well as research and development of new products & services that expand productivity or increase manufacturing capacities or operational efficiencies which make better products at overall lower costs for consumers. Look at flat screen T-V's, smart phones, and computer processors. Where did the money to develop those technologies come from? Investors.

I do believe in a National Healthcare Plan however the government's track record with handling money is not good under EITHER party. Some combo of public-private may work.

Agree again on government's poor handling of public treasury. Best solution is market based consumer driven health care choice using the same principles that govern what we pay for almost anything else we buy. Supply and demand fed by true competition and market forces. Get Government and insurers out of the driver's seat, and replace them with consumers and health care delivery service providers offering desired services at market prices consumers can both afford and are willing to pay.

That is the ONLY "Socialist" program I would add to the current "Socialist" programs we have the US Military, Police and Fire Depts, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Pay-as-you-go services like police, fire, and our Military are funded out of general revenues. Entitlements like Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are boondoggles funded by borrowing against our Children's future. they are inefficient, incomplete, in debt, and incredibly expensive bureaucratic solutions to essentially a private market need. Private retirement accounts like pensions and 401Ks, IRAs, Annuities, and Whole Life insurance policies pay better and cost less than Social Security. Private consumer-driven health insurance left unregulated and allowed to compete freely across State lines, would deliver better health care services than either Medicare, or medicaid more efficiently and at lower costs.

add in term limits for the US Congress and campaign finance reform HAVE to happen for real change.

I favor citizen-legislatures. Unpaid volunteer positions. Meet early in each year, consider small pieces of legislation, then go back home to your real jobs and live under the same Laws you pass for everyone else. Eliminates both term limits, and campaign finance reform because the job doesn't pay.

Bill Nelson and Rick Scott just spent over $100 Million for the Florida Senate Seat a job that pays $270K. That math does not compute it says that Senate seat is worth more than $270K and someone is benefiting from that investment and I can assure you it is rarely you or me.

And Beto O'Rourke had 70 million dollars shipped into Texas for his race. Stacy Abrams here in Georgia spent millions, same with Gilliam in Florida...and local election officials in both states managed to loose a large percentage of the votes cast for either candidate until the races were over, then they suddenly found all the missing votes to make up the difference each candidate lost by!

Our elections system is rife with fraud, abuse, and sloppy record keeping. The money spent buying T-V ads to smear opponents should be spent on cleaning up voter registration roles, improving election day operations so thousands of votes don't suddenly "disappear" only to "re-appear" later to win closely lost races, and making sure all election laws are properly followed so legitimate votes from certified ballots can be sent in timely and legally, accurately counted and quickly tabulated to avoid the three ring circus of re-counts, provisional ballots, lost ballots, and fraudulent ballots.
 
Last edited:

atlkvb

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2004
79,542
1,330
113
I don't think early term fetuses have achieved personhood, so if "alive" and "not alive" are my only two choices, I fall into the latter group.

Just real quick @popmurtha on "personhood". That is scientifically determined by our DNA...the unique unmistakable marker that identifies each of us as unique "persons"....not animals, not Fish, not fowl. DNA is present at conception, as it is the one unique qualifier of our humanity and present in in fact exists in all living things... yet no one else (person) has YOUR DNA, that's why no one else can be YOU! That is your personhood!

On "viability" even a fully grown fetus cannot live successfully outside the Mother's womb without the proper care & attention required to feed it, cloth it, shelter it, and tend to it's human needs. That's no different than a 12 week old "preemie" or a child born pre-maturely in need of respiratory aid or blood transfusions! None of them are "viable" on their own either, yet we strive as a civilized society to keep them alive and in fact save their lives... not kill them simply because they are unwanted or a burden to those tasked to care for their lives.