Sportsmen's Presidential Platform

[ksp965]

I, like most people, am not satisfied with the little that is said about what the presidential candidates' position are on the issues that will become policy and law whomever the new president will be. That I am stongly in favor of our Second Amendment rights and the maximum utilization of our natural resoures for responsible hunter access is a given. What about the other issues, such as, taxes, education, military, health care, social security, the enviroment, program to reduce dependancy on foreign fuel sources, the outsourcing of jobs to third countries, and whatever else interest you? If you were writing the platform planks for the perfect candidate, what would you include and what programs or ideas would you advocate? For example, I believe we should do away with the present tax system in favor of a combination flat rate tax and national sales tax. Everbody pays the same except the poor could be excused and they could get a frfund on the sales tax they paid during the year by saving their receipts. On energy independncy, I think we should strongly back research and development on alternate fuel sources such as alcohol fuel, wind and water, and other renewable fuel sources at individual levels. I will chip in other thoughts as this thread is developed. But what about your thoughts, what are they for our perfect candidate?

[GSP]

Good question KSP.
I would like seeing less goverment. We have grown into a large system that is eating it's own. We have a redundant program to support every program out there.
I like your tax plan, pay on what you consume.

[grouseguy]

Excellent topic Mike, and I agree with your thoughts for a National Sales Tax rather than an income tax....philosophically, I just prefer the idea of taxation based on how much someone consumes rather than on how much they earn.

I guess its the banker in me, but my hot button is the economy. As a country, we can't do much of anything without the $$$ to make it happen. We absolutely have to get out of debt...the interest charges alone are just eating up too much of the budget that could be much better spent on other programs.

With that said, I think its imperative to roll back the ill conceived Bush tax cuts. "Supply side" or "Trickle Down" economics is quite simply a proven failure. It is just not fiscally prudent to reduce taxes with an already unbalanced budget and mounting national debt now well in excess of $5 trillion, that's $5,000,000,000,000+.

I have other issues that I feel are very important, such as affordable health care, the environment, education (especially higher education), stem cell research (especially alzheimers research) and protecting jobs in this country for our citizens, but none of this can occur without the proper funding...so at this point, I want to see which candidate has a better plan for getting us out of debt.

[Rob]

It is my opinion that a sales tax is the most "fair" of all taxes in that everyone pays equally. A flat rate tax works much the same way. However, for this type of tax to work well, there can be NO, and I mean ABSOLUTELY NO, exemptions. Unfortunately, government doesn't work this way. Someone will propose we exempt the poor, another the widows & orphans, then the afflicted, next the learning disabled, & on to those who can't sit still, the unhappy, those who are unattractive, & folks with dogs who won't hunt. Before you know it, you'd be right back with the same people paying taxes who are paying the taxes now, plus you'd have another layer of beuracracy to deal with.

And speaking of energy, there are millions of folks, and behind them companies making billions of bucks, whose livelyhood depend on your & my dependency on fossil fuels. And don't think they don't have an army of lobbyests & more than a few Senators & Representatives in their pockets. A presidential candidate might just as well cut his own throat as take on Big Oil.

As far as Health Care, you need look no further than our own state of KY to see what a complex issue that is. I have read that 70% of the health care problems in KY are smoking & weight related, yet we lead the nation in percent of adults who puff & have one of the nations highest obestiy rates. The millions of dollars spent on anti-smoking education might have well been thrown up a wild boar's butt. People smoke because they want to & they don't exercise because they don't want to, end of story. The majority who live an unhealthy lifestyle know that doing so is bad for them. It's just that that Winston is so nice with that cold beer or after a big meal & those donuts go so well with that cup of morning coffee.

You are right, each of us should try to understand the issues & vote for those candidates who espouse our personal convictions. Unfortunately, most of us will end up supporting the folks we perceive as most like us, and, I'm afraid, most of us will vote with our pocketbook. But, it does all make for some interesting & sometimes thought provoking reading...



It's hard to dance with the devil on your back...

[Feedman]

GG,
How #### long was the Democrats in control of the house and senate?? How many years??? Way too many. The surpluses you mention under Clinton were on paper only. We had a national debt when he came into office and we had one when he left. Trickle down economics works. You are letting people keep more of their own money to spend on goods and services. Democrats are noted for the programs that make people dependant on them and not personable responsible for them selves.
Clinton had NAFTA under his rule. How many jobs did we lose because of that???

I can't wait to vote for George.

It ain't braggin, if you can back it up.

[grouseguy]

Feedman,

I will agree with you on NAFTA. That was Clinton's biggest substantive mistake while in office. NAFTA was originally proposed under the Bush I administration, but there were never enough votes in congress to make it happen. However, when Clinton embraced the concept it got passed, over the vehement objections of organized labor among others. HUGE mistake!!!

However, you are going to have a tough time convincing me or others about the benefits of Reaganomics. IMHO, there is NOTHING positive about the concept of "supply side" or "trickle down" economics and it is actually irresponsible in a debt situation. You simply can't borrow your way out of debt. Recent history should be evidence enough of its complete failure, and I'll be happy to allow the facts to speak for themselves on this issue.

[schuyler olt]

Interesting topic. I amazed that Mark and I agree on a couple of things, particularly taxes based upon consumption, rather than earnings. Certain states which depend heavily upon them, such as Florida, have demonstrated that even with certain exemptions they can succeed. The downside to them, however, is that they tend to chill spending, and our economy is driven largely by consumption, so the transition to them will need to be carefully managed if it ever happens.

The healthcare issues faced by our nation are paramount, and there must be several things done together to begin to cure the problem. Tort reform is one piece. Initiatives to reduce prescription costs is another. Governmental assumption of catastrophic losses is something that merits great thought in order to reduce healthcare premiums. Wellness programs have more long-term potential to reduce health costs than just about anything else. Managed care programs should be examined from a standpoint of refining them to increase medical competition in the marketplace.

From a foreign policy standpoint, I support strongly what we are doing. We need to remember that the post WWII years were tumultuous with many American lives lost in the late forties--more than we are seeing in Iraq. The beheadings are disturbing, but not so much as the pictures of the Kurds and the pictures of the warehouses filled with coffins and skeletal remains. And did he have WMDs? Of course--why else did he not openly cooperate with UN inspections. Something killed those Kurds, and I sure don't believe he used everything he had on them. We just didn't find them before he got them the heck out of there. More importantly, I'd rather tell the world that we will fight for democracy. Fighting for democracy is more important--much more important--than doing the work of the UN to enforce one of its mandates as we did in 1990.

Stem cell research is low on my list of priorities. Alzheimers is a terrible disease, no doubt. So is AIDs. But where a President stands on that issue is pretty meaningless.

The bottom line? I can't think of a President who has had more to overcome during the first three years of his term that was not of his making. Bush hasn't been perfect--no President ever is. But I think he has earned the respect of the people, the contempt of the French, and has demonstrated his ability to lead the people in times of crisis. Bush has earned a second term, in my book.

And what he did in the AANG or what Kerry did in Viet Nam is absolutely no factor in my evaluation of either man. I'm looking much more at the last three, and what I see there is heavily influencing my opinion.

[Rob]

The above interaction between grouse & Multi is a perfect example of why I never discuss politics, religion, or any other subject likely to be emotionally charged on the hand full of hunting forums I visit. That being said, it has always amazed me how two intellegent & thoughtful people, as I consider both Multi & grouseguy to be, can look at the exact same situation & see things so differently. I was pondering this yesterday while trying to attach my climbing stand to a crooked tree as hoardes of misquitos were biting the living crap right out of me. And I think I understand it now: Have you ever seen those pictures that can look like two different objects but, once you have see one, it's almost impossible to see the other? That's how I think these kind of topics are. Folks have a hard time seeing issues from any point of view other than that which they strongly hold. Sort of an "I'm okay, you're a moron" kind of way of thinking which we all engage in. I'm sure there is probably a name for this phenomenon, but I have no clue what it would be.

Wow, ksp, do you fequently start arguments like this? Just kidding, man, I thought the topic was good food for thought.



It's hard to dance with the devil on your back...

[ksp965]

Yes, I guess I do. Not for bad reasons but because I want to know what different people think about issues that effect us all. I look at it as an opportunity to learn and to see things from different perspectives. I agree that Multi and GrouseGuy are very intelligent caring people. I also agree that their passion for their views have led them astray from the intent of this topic and may have kept others from commenting with their own very interesting planks and platform proposals. Which, I am sure that neither Multi or GG would want to happen.

[KYCatBirdHunter]

My main issue is size and involvement of government. I feel that the government has gotten entirely too controlling, and that's not just at home, it's abroad. Personally I feel that we as a country need to understand that we aren't the world police. Other countries' business is their business, to a point of willing world co-operation. The world political region should be a "people helping people" thing.

This doesn't mean the U.S. helping people as it is now. It stretches our resources entirely too much. In other words, if you piss us off, or if you aren't gracious hosts to our political, humanitarian, financial, military aid, then forget about you, we'll pack up and leave. For example, if a country does not attempt to help itself, it is not our job to help them. (can someone say somalia)? We as a nation are too babied, and we assume we can fix all the world's problems. It can't happen.

Also personal freedoms are huge. I take the Constitution very very seriously. If we start "interpreting" this document, then we are in some very muddy and dangerous water. We must crack down on all forms of civil rights infringement that right now run rampant in this country. The Patriot Act is agenda one. You cannot detain United States citizens just because they are on your terrorist list. This is very reminiscent of the McCarthy era, and I personally do not want to see that repeated.

There are the economic and health-care issues that have already been hit, but I have to say that education is huge. If we want to be a world competitor in the future with technology fields, we have to have educated professionals. I am fresh out of our government education system, and let me tell you, it needs reformed.

Each of us has to find the best way to balance the candidates' stands on <B> all </B> of their issues, and weigh the pros and cons, because just as our country and our lifestyle is not dominated by one issue, there is no good reason for any of us to vote based on one issue, especially if that reason is party lines.

The land belongs to no one, and is therefore borrowed by all.

[Clint Daniels]

I find it amazing that the ones talking about the government being to big are the dems. My opinion is you guys want a big central government controlling everything. Seems to me that would be a huge tax cut for the rich if we all payed the same, which is exactly the thing you accuss the rep. of.

Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA)
Program. He promised:




1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary,



2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400
of their annual incomes into the Program,




3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program
would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year,



4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust
Fund" rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would
only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no
other Government program, and,



5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as
income.



Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a
Social Security check every month -- and then finding that we are
getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to
"put away," you may be interested in the following:





Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from the independent
"Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could
spend it?



A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and
Senate.





Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social
Security (FICA) withholding?



A: The Democratic Party.





Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?



A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking"
deciding vote as President of the Senate, while he was Vice President of
the U.S.





Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving annuity payments to
immigrants?



A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants
moved into this country, and at age 65, began to receive SSI Social
Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them,
even though they never paid a dime into it!



Then, after doing all this violation of the original contract (FICA),
the Democrats turn around and tell you that the Republicans want to take
your Social Security away!



And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens believe it!



Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during this 2004 election
year!





To hunt, provide for my family, and serve my Lord and savoir Jesus Christ.