Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: The Warfish Party Official Platform 2012

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Warfish Party Official Platform 2012

    [B][U]Foreign Policy:[/U][/B]

    -End the Foreign Wars & Military actions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. Full withdrawal of troops and equipment by 2014.

    -Termination of all International Aid. Aid to be reviewed and possibly restored after a thorough review by an independent commission, to determine the actual value of that aid to the American People.

    -Phased withdrawal of U.S. Military forces from Foreign Bases. Selected bases may be retained if direct U.S. interest can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

    -Reduction of U.S. Military Budget, and reallocation of remaining funding from conventional arms and operations, to strategic deterrence arms (Space Based Weapon Platforms), Smaller, Safer more-effective strategic Nuclear Weapons, strategic direct/precision-strike platforms, and stand-off defensive/deterrent Conventional Weapons platforms. The ability to counter any conventional threat instantly, and with massive strength must be retained, as much our technological advantage over possible rivals, but at reduced cost and massively increased efficiency.

    -Added funding to Counter-Terrorism, Intelligence Gathering and Covert Assets, Operations and Training.

    -Top Down Review of International relations, who is and who is not actually our ally, both militarily AND economically. Shifts in some existing agreements and relations to suit the reality of current geopolitical alignments and interests.

    -An end to Free Trade Agreements with any Nation who does not offer full, unrestricted reciprocal Free Trade to US Businesses in return.

    -Immigration Reform, to change the numbers and methods of permitted immigration to the U.S., to better bring in the numbers and types of people that best serve the U.S. peoples interests. Coordinated with a massive crackdown on illegal immigrants and illegal immigration. All Social Services (Schools, Health, etc) to be removed for illegal’s. No "pathway to citizenship" for existing illegal’s, and a demand to Mexico to either better enforce their side of the border (as they do their own southern borders) or to face the consequences of that failure and breach of our Sovereignty (economic only at first). Immigration should, first are foremost, improve the United States and serve existing U.S. citizens interests and needs, and illegal immigration will absolutely not be permitted or tolerated. End result, expect many, many more legal immigrants to be allowed in, but a no-tolerance policy for those who entered or entered illegally.

    [B][U]Economic/Taxation/Domestic/Criminal:[/U][/B]

    -Implementation of a new taxation system:

    -All INDIVIDUAL income (from dollar #1 up as high as income can go) to be taxed at a flat rate of XX% (percentage to be determined by research commission, to be [U]as low[/U] as possible while ensuring appropriate revenue for mandatory Govt. service/responsibility). This includes all income, from all sources, no exceptions, no loopholes, no way out of paying it. There is no exception to this tax for anyone, above or below the poverty line, every person is responsible for paying their share to the maintenance of the State, even if that share is tiny and giving it hurts to give it. Such is the shared burden of democracy and freedom (and the truly needy will still get more than they pay in by a great sum), all must “buy in” to ownership of our Country.

    --All CORPORATE/BUSINESS taxes are ended. Business do not pay taxes, their customers do. All Corporate income will get taxed when it is distributed to its owners/shareholders/employees (as above), or will be taxed if re-invested into the company (see below, consumption tax).

    --A Consumption Tax (also a flat rate % to be determined) will be created on all non-food, non-clothing items. This flat rate applies to all items equally, the State has no role telling its citizens what is “good” or “bad” for them via tax policy.

    Under this new system, every individual person will pay two and only two taxes: Their flat rate income tax (or all income) and their consumption tax on all non-food, non-clothing purchases.

    --States and Local jurisdictions will be free (as now) to implement any additional state/local taxes they wish, to fund their own state and local programs, as determined by the duly elected representatives of those jurisdictions.

    --Reallocation of Federal Priorities: Federal Spending will be reviewed from a top-down perspective to focus more directly on Federally Supported infrastructure (Highways, Bridges, Airports, Railroads, Seaports, IT Infrastructures, etc.) The focus of infrastructure development should be the biggest bang for the buck, improvements that foster commerce and freedom of travel over any attempt to equalize spending on state by state basis, or based on political desires as opposed to real need (i.e. no highways to nowhere in Alaskan towns with 6 residents, etc.). Federal money must not be spent of pork projects without a clear National need or obvious general need for the people. Local Jurisdictions can choose to tax and spend for (for example) the notorious Cowboy Poetry Rodeo, that should never be paid for by the Federal Govt.

    --Reform of Federally Supported Science Research to vital and prioritized needs. Not a dollar will be spent on shrimp on treadmills or cowboy poetry rodeos until Cancer is cured and we have an engine that runs of water (for example). Science is absolutely vital to the future of our nation, but not all science is created equal, or equally worthy of public investment of taxpayer funds. Research funding must be prioritized to items that can provide the greatest return on investment to the public, primarily medical science and energy science, environmental science, space exploration and colonization, and other fields of similar importance. Along with funding must come accountabillity and review, to ensure both that the funding is being used appropriately and being tracked aggressively, and that the science itself does not fall prey to political or other influence driven by political, not scientific, motivations.

    --Total Reform of Entitlement (Social Welfare) Programs, with a focus on need (as opposed to convenience) and to bring an end to the Welfare Trap system we currently suffer under. Priorities of the system will be to provide the truly poor with basic needs of continued life, and basic training to be a functional member of society of said training is lacking in the individual, but nothing beyond that. Being on these programs should be exceedingly unpleasant, in order to motivate individuals to better themselves and get off the programs.

    -Reform of the Medicare/Medicaid System. A set portion of Federal tax revenue will be allocated permanently to support Basic Medical services for those under the poverty line and over the retirement age (see below for more on retirement). The system will operate (for those who qualify) much as the current UK System of Universal Care does, but only for those who qualify as "poor". This change will be phased in over a 20 year period.

    --Reform of Social Security. Means testing and an increase in the age of qualification. A strong change of focus from the view that Social Security is enough, to promote individual savings and personal responsibility, with Social Security only for those who truly need it, and only enough o provide basic support, not a full retirement. As above, this will be phased in over a 20 year period.

    The goal of Federal Support Programs should be on the truly needy, not "everyone", and to raise those needy people out of being needy as fast as humanly possible as cheaply as humanly possible. Focus will be on basic needs (housing in large Spartan dormitories), food (basic-level nutritional foodstuffs, NOT food stamps) and basic-type clothing being provided, along with educational/training/job finding focus. It is a goal of this administration to restore the idea of personal responsibility to the American Spirit, to lead people to raise themselves out of the discomfort of poverty, rather than expect the State to raise them out of it via redistribution and responsibility-free handout programs. TLDR: The State will keep you alive, it will NOT keep you comfortable in any way. That’s your own job.

    --A Review of Both Federal Dept's and Federal Regulations, with the purpose of removing all duplication of purpose and waste (for Depts.) and to remove any and all regulation that is either outdated, or counterproductive to economic development, while maintaining all regulation that legitimately ensures the safety and security of the public from corporate/business wrongdoing.

    As part of this review, a change from our current jumble of Security-Related Departments, to a more unified system. The Department of Domestic Security and the Dept. of International Security will take the place of all existing security depts. (ending the Dept. of Homeland (lol) Security, an independent CIA, the FBI, etc.), with each focusing on their own area of responsibility, but with an open highway of information exchange between them to ensure prompt and effective use of intelligence assets.

    --A Review and revision of Federal Law, to massively increase the criminal penalties for Corporate/Business Wrongdoing. With reduced red tape and regulation, comes a greater burden to follow that regulation tot he letter or pay dearly for not doing so.

    --A shift in Public Education priority from “touchy-feeling” to a strict adherence to teaching the vital knowledge and skills our children will need in the workplace and beyond. Reading, writing, mathematics, science heavy, with testing and grading early and often. Emphasis on grades, not the current trend of “make everyone feel good for trying, and be careful not to wound their self-pride ”. Education is vital, but not to make you feel good about yourself if you fail, but to ensure you are educated enough to be a functional member of our society, a producer, not a burden. The many “soft” or “politically correct” education items will be stricken completely from grades K-12. Parental Responsibility must be put first and foremost, parents will no longer be permitted a free ride on their children’s educations.

    --Legalization of Marijuana, decriminalization (but not legalization) of other drugs. And end to the view of Drug Possession and Use as crime, and a focus on treating addition as the medical issue it is. Amnesty to all current non-violent drug possession/use convicts in jail.

    With that said, commission of a crime (violent or otherwise) while on a restricted drug (illegal or prescription) will result in an increased penalty by a large degree.

    With the freedom to do drugs, comes the responsibility to do hard, hard time if you break the law to do them.

    --And end to Affirmative Action and Enforced Multiculturalism Laws. Equality means equality for all, and moving beyond the sins of the past, not a system designed to continue racial and ethnic vitriol by rewarding today’s minorities for crimes of generations past they did not suffer, at the expense of people today who did not commit those crimes. As a society we must strive every day to promote and bring forth TRUE equality, true color and gender blindness, for all in the eyes of the State, where no one person or ethnicity receives preferential treatment based on their skin tone, sexuality choice, or nation of origin.

    --Legalization (Federally) of Homosexual Marriage. Marriage, in the eyes of the State, is a CIVIL contract, not a religious one. Churches and Faith groups remain 100% permitted to deny faith-based ceremonies to anyone they wish for any reason, but the State is not permitted to discriminate what two individuals may enter the marriage contract based on gender. Federal Marriage is purely civil, and as such, any can choose to enter it (and gain the benefits/responsibilities) for any reason they wish.

    --Abortion......assign a panel of Scientists and Religious Scholars (preferably doctors) to work on the issue of Abortion, specifically to determine viability and consciousness timeframes, with the eventual aim of setting a set of goals/tests/deadlines, before which abortion would remain 100% legal, after which it would be 100% illegal. The end answer must be based on hard, demonstrable, repeatable, reliable science, with respect to both the liberty of the mother, and the sanctity of human life of the fetus once it passes certain stages of development. An answer no one will like, but the best answer possible.
    Last edited by Warfish; 08-17-2011 at 04:43 PM.

  2. #2
    All League
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    3,267
    Post Thanks / Like
    Reminds me of Ron Paul. Mostly

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    love it. i'd vote for you warfish.

  4. #4
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Last paragraph, sixth word, you spelled "scientists" wrong.

  5. #5
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=shakin318;4107674]Last paragraph, sixth word, you spelled "scientists" wrong.[/QUOTE]

    You've never heard of Scicnetists, a type of geneticist/biologist that deal in life sciences, and specificly with pre-natal biology?

    Seriously, you've never heard of them?

    Wow.

    [QUOTE=wikipedia]Scicnetists is a term referring to the merging of reproductive and genetic technologies expected to happen in the near future as techniques like germinal choice technology become more available and more powerful. The term was coined by Lee M. Silver, a professor of molecular biology at Princeton University, in his 1997 book Remaking Eden.[1][2][/QUOTE]





































    [SIZE="1"]Just kidding. Fixed. But in honour of you, I left the dozen or so other hasty edit-in spelling errors fro you to find. It's like a game.[/SIZE]
    Last edited by Warfish; 08-17-2011 at 04:46 PM.

  6. #6
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=frostlich;4107507]Reminds me of Ron Paul. Mostly[/QUOTE]

    I always found it amusing how much hatred Warfish has for Paul when he's clearly the candidate most aligned with his own beliefs.

    WF, I do so wish we had a candidate with this same list. Some day.

  7. #7
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=JetPotato;4107773]I always found it amusing how much hatred Warfish has for Paul when he's clearly the candidate most aligned with his own beliefs.

    WF, I do so wish we had a candidate with this same list. Some day.[/QUOTE]

    I don't hate Ron Paul.

    I hate Ron Paul cultists who think Ron Paul has any chance to win, or that Ron Paul is a good person to have leading teh political charge for this particular system of political beliefs. I hate the Ron Paul drones who ignore all reality, and drone on endlessly about...who else....Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul.

    First, his and my beleifs (platform, if you prefer) are similar, but quite different in many places, meangfully so. Second, Ron Paul sucks and couldn't get elected dog catcher outside his own district. He in a poor speaker, a poor speach giver, a poor policy drafter with no record of accomplishment, and is utterly unelectable by the general population, not for his policy views, but because he is as warm and support generating (outside the Cult) as a warm turd.

    I'm find with Ron Paul, I maintain we need someone else, someone who can actually win something, and get legislation passed, to face this movement.

  8. #8
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,032
    Post Thanks / Like
    Glaring omission -- no energy policy. Talk about fracking and extracting shale oil and drilling offshore and in ANWAR and such, and you might have something there.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,553
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4107795]I don't hate Ron Paul.

    I hate Ron Paul cultists who think Ron Paul has any chance to win, or that Ron Paul is a good person to have leading teh political charge for this particular system of political beliefs. I hate the Ron Paul drones who ignore all reality, and drone on endlessly about...who else....Ron Paul, Ron Paul, Ron Paul.

    First, his and my beleifs (platform, if you prefer) are similar, but quite different in many places, meangfully so. Second, Ron Paul sucks and couldn't get elected dog catcher outside his own district. He in a poor speaker, a poor speach giver, a poor policy drafter with no record of accomplishment, and is utterly unelectable by the general population, not for his policy views, but because he is as warm and support generating (outside the Cult) as a warm turd.

    I'm find with Ron Paul, I maintain we need someone else, someone who can actually win something, and get legislation passed, to face this movement.[/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure many people disagree. I've said over and over he's unelectable.

    But right now, he is all we have. You have to start somewhere. Any support he gets now forces people to listen and try to understand why.

    Imagine how that "cultist movement" will react and grow if and when we finally get a strong libertarian candidate.

    So, what are you waiting for? ;)

  10. #10
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Borgo's House
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Like a lot of it but to install a consumption tax over an income tax is a non-starter for me. Get rid of the income tax and then we are on to something.

    Also, you're going to need a new name for the party. Perhaps Anti-warfish... :D

  11. #11
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,183
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Traitor Jay & the Woodies;4108564]Like a lot of it but to install a consumption tax over an income tax is a non-starter for me. Get rid of the income tax and then we are on to something.

    Also, you're going to need a new name for the party. Perhaps Anti-warfish... :D[/QUOTE]

    Only way I can see both is if the income tax is extremely low (<10%) and somehow guaranteed to never go up.

  12. #12
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Borgo's House
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4107498]
    --Abortion......assign a panel of Scientists and Religious Scholars (preferably doctors) to work on the issue of Abortion, specifically to determine viability and consciousness timeframes, with the eventual aim of setting a set of goals/tests/deadlines, before which abortion would remain 100% legal, after which it would be 100% illegal. The end answer must be based on hard, demonstrable, repeatable, reliable science, with respect to both the liberty of the mother, and the sanctity of human life of the fetus once it passes certain stages of development. An answer no one will like, but the best answer possible.[/QUOTE]

    This is insane, btw.

    The best answer possible is the one we have now. The supreme court.

  13. #13
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Traitor Jay & the Woodies;4108572]This is insane, btw.

    The best answer possible is the one we have now. The supreme court.[/QUOTE]

    Because a Politically biased Judge is the best person to determine the scientific realities of life, consciousness and viabillity?

    Sorry, I trust science over Judicial fiat and bias.

    [QUOTE=Traitor Jay & the Woodies;4108564]Like a lot of it but to install a consumption tax over an income tax is a non-starter for me. Get rid of the income tax and then we are on to something.[/QUOTE]

    A truly fair system must include both, a tax on income and on consumption.

    Gieven the Minotaurian warren of tax law currently, I would think a two-flat-tax system would be both incredably user friendly, and as fair as humanly possible. For every dollar you make, the State gets some small amount. For every dollar you spend, the State get some small amount. No exclusions, no exceptions, no way out of it other than to make less (in which case making more always wins out) or to spend less (in which case savings and fiscal responsabillity is promoted).
    Last edited by Warfish; 08-18-2011 at 01:56 PM.

  14. #14
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Borgo's House
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4108569]Only way I can see both is if the income tax is extremely low (<10%) and somehow guaranteed to never go up.[/QUOTE]

    How about we start with a flat tax of say 33% and then see where we are after 5 years.

    The VAT sounds great in theory, but when you layer in the state or local sales tax, I feel it will be a total economy killer.

  15. #15
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Borgo's House
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4108577]Because a Politically biased Judge is the best person to determine the scientific realities of life, consciousness and viabillity?

    Sorry, I trust science over Judicial fiat and bias.[/QUOTE]


    First, scientists are just as politically biased as any federal judge. Look no further than the research around climate change to see evidence of that.

    Second, your panel consists of theological scholars, doesn't it? What possible solution do you really think these two camps are going to agree to? You have a better chance of the congressional supergroup reaching consensus on the next phase of the debt deal.

    There is no such thing as compromise when it comes to dogma.

  16. #16
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Traitor Jay & the Woodies;4108581]How about we start with a flat tax of say 33% and then see where we are after 5 years.

    The VAT sounds great in theory, but when you layer in the state or local sales tax, I feel it will be a total economy killer.[/QUOTE]

    A VAT Tax hits every level of production. A Consuption Tax is different, as it only hits the end consumer, not the manufacturer or retailer.

    And a claim that such a system would be an "economy killer" without having a percentage set is a bit of a reach. If the percentages were 1% and 1%, thats no killer, right? The challenge of this system is getting the two percentages right, and for that we have an entire Nation of economists, accountants and budgetign professionals to figure it out.

  17. #17
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Borgo's House
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4108577][B]A truly fair system [/B]must include both, a tax on income and on consumption.

    Gieven the Minotaurian warren of tax law currently, I would think a two-flat-tax system would be both incredably user friendly, and as fair as humanly possible. For every dollar you make, the State gets some small amount. For every dollar you spend, the State get some small amount. No exclusions, no exceptions, no way out of it other than to make less (in which case making more always wins out) or to spend less (in which case savings and fiscal responsabillity is promoted).[/QUOTE]

    You're using the F word. I fear those who use "fairness" as an argument.

    It doesn't explain why you need both.

  18. #18
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Traitor Jay & the Woodies;4108587]There is no such thing as compromise when it comes to dogma.[/QUOTE]

    BEcause currently there is no political interest in finding it. (R) and (D) gain and hold voters by being 100% one way or the other.

    Failure to find a reasonable compromise would be unacceptable for this commission, and the entire purpose of teh commission (stated well ina dvance of selection) would be to find that compromise point (or points, as the case may be).

    Again, a solution to a problem that no one will be pleased with, but will serve both interests as best as can under a compromise system that does not go 100% in one direction or the other.

  19. #19
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,752
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Traitor Jay & the Woodies;4108593]You're using the F word. I fear those who use "fairness" as an argument. [/QUOTE]

    Understandable in our current political environemnt.

    Ignorant when used in this context. If you are unable to see the inherant (and dictionary definition) fairness (substitute "equallity" if you prefer, all treated absolutely equally under the Law) in a dual-flat system, by all means, vote for another party. ;):D

    The purpose of two, as opposed to one, tax is to ensure revenue to fund vital constitutional Govt. responsabillities and services, while still offering some progressivism to the tax code so that those with the most pay the most, those with the least pay the least. The progressivism would be much less than today, but much less burdensome as well.

    With that said, I could be convinced, should teh duel system faikl to pass, to work towards a unified single-source flat tax system based sololy on income or solely on consumption.

  20. #20
    Hall of Fame
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Borgo's House
    Posts
    4,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4108594]BEcause currently there is no political interest in finding it. (R) and (D) gain and hold voters by being 100% one way or the other.

    Failure to find a reasonable compromise would be unacceptable for this commission, and the entire purpose of teh commission (stated well ina dvance of selection) would be to find that compromise point (or points, as the case may be).

    Again, a solution to a problem that no one will be pleased with, but will serve both interests as best as can under a compromise system that does not go 100% in one direction or the other.[/QUOTE]

    There is no political interest in finding a solution to the abortion issue? You really think that?

    As I said, we have a solution. It's called personal choice. You can have an abortion or have your child. Only Soviet Russia would enlist an appointed group of individuals to decide what is best. I can't believe I'm actually having this discussion.


    [QUOTE=Warfish;4108599]Understandable in our current political environemnt.

    Ignorant when used in this context. If you are unable to see the inherant (and dictionary definition) fairness (substitute "equallity" if you prefer, all treated absolutely equally under the Law) in a dual-flat system, by all means, vote for another party. ;):D

    The purpose of two, as opposed to one, tax is to ensure revenue to fund vital constitutional Govt. responsabillities and services, while still offering some progressivism to the tax code so that those with the most pay the most, those with the least pay the least. The progressivism would be much less than today, but much less burdensome as well.

    With that said, I could be convinced, should teh duel system faikl to pass, to work towards a unified single-source flat tax system based sololy on income or solely on consumption.[/QUOTE]

    Call me ignorant if you like, but you can't have it both ways. You're either for so-called progressive tax systems or you're not. If the flat tax works, there is no need for a consumption tax, and vice versa. By having TWO taxes established you only make it easier for government to raise taxes on both. No thanks.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us