Progressive/Libertarian 2016 Hail Mary Idea

[A-Wing_Slash]

So with the caveat that I generally hate 2016 speculation, heresy pipe dream Hail Mary ticket idea:

Elizabeth Warren/Rand Paul 2016

Run it as an explicit progressive/libertarian (Bull Moose!) coalition to just get basic consensus stuff done. The platform they put out'd be something like this:

A) Repeal the patriot act, close gitmo, end drone strikes, reform the NSA/homeland security/CIA

B) Some general rollback of the modern imperial presidency in exchange for a strengthening of congressional oversight

C) Audit the fed, stop printing money just to lend it to rich bankers at sweetheart rates

D) the best consensus possible on climate change, campaign finance reform, and immigration

E) an agree to disagree, states rights codification for weed, gay marriage, and obamacare (ie if the south wants a waiver for the individual mandate, the northeast gets waivers for single payer)

It could be Warren/Rubio if you want immigration tackled first, or even Warren/Olympia snow if the idea of two New England grandmothers cleaning up all the boys mistakes just melts your heart.

I just really don't want Hillary. Our body politic is diseased at present, and Hillary much as I kind of like some of her will only make things worse. But that's why Warren needs to get top billing. I trust that Rand can pull off an endearingly non patronizing formulation of "I'm man enough to let the lady go first, but we're in this together."

Can the libertarians be cajoled into getting behind this? The idea being either a term or two works, Rand Paul wins the internal battle for the Republican Party and gets to run on his own with straight tax cuts and austerity. He should be able to get some solid concessions in the agreement. If it doesn't we're all fucked but also it breaks the two party system and his family can the run as honest to Ayn Rand lolbertarians afterwards.

[Zaune]

You might get the party rank and file onboard with it, excepting the wing-nut fundamentalist faction, but the major campaign donors would be less enthusiastic. Your hypothetical platform also appears to be dealing with the ongoing cost of living versus wages question by ignoring it and hoping it will go away.

[A-Wing_Slash]

There's enough time left to get a good small donor list, and enough rich people and "let's just fix this" moderate super pacs that should get onboard, but yeah finance is always a struggle. With cost of living stuff, ideally this ticket could prevent the cuts the right wants for a few years, but to make a compromise this big some issues have to lose out if you want republican votes. Unfortunately, the easiest group to sell out in the American system is the poor, though I'd also expect a half decent band aid step might also be possible.

And some fed policy reform should also help inflation/tamp down global asset price growth a little.

If Rand Paul really wants to invoke Teddy Roosevelt's brand of republicanism, he could even be persuaded to sign off on a CCC/WPA style let's build some national parks jobs program.

[Gandalf]

This seems ridiculous.

Could you elaborate on E?

[Metahive]

Rand Paul is a sellout and the current Republican party is completely enthralled by the Teapotties. Unless they change this for the better they don't even deserve to command an army of Legos.

[A-Wing_Slash]

This seems ridiculous.

Could you elaborate on E?

Ridiculous sure, but when was the last time a major party American platform wasn't even a little idiotic?

E is basically my idea for a federal truce on social issues that everyone can live with. Short of a huge liberal wave, we need a certain amount of republicans onboard to address climate change, the post-9/11 national security state, the ineffectiveness of governments self-oversight and to repeal citizens united. If the left and right agree to a) reschedule weed so that states can decide if it's illegal, legal medically, or legal recreationally a la Colorado and Washington, b) let gay marriage be decided by state legislatures and the Supreme Court, while honoring everything that's already legal, and c) defang the obamacare vitriol by building on the waiver path already in place. I think ultimately allowing New England to hash out a single payer system for itself is worth selling out a few of the working poor in the south, especially if it's success can convince the rest of the us to get onboard with public health care a few years down the road.

Weed in particular seems a good common ground. If Colorado doesn't implode in the next couple years, legalization becomes a viable method for bumping state revenue, defunding the cartels/prison system, and displacing a little bit of the present alcohol induced violence and unhealthiness.

As much as I dislike Rand Paul, he should be smart enough to realize that he needs to address the bush legacy if he doesn't want to lose a generation of voters for the Republican Party.

[Mr Bean]

It is a pretty pie in the sky wish AWS considering who you picked as you two chosen runners.

So with the caveat that I generally hate 2016 speculation, heresy pipe dream Hail Mary ticket idea:
Elizabeth Warren/Rand Paul 2016

Warren has literally said 97 times on national TV she does not want to be President. To much exposure to Obama has convinced her the power is not worth the stress of the job. So that's the second biggest mark against your pie.

A) Repeal the patriot act, close gitmo, end drone strikes, reform the NSA/homeland security/CIA

This would be supported by Rand but not necessarily by Warren. Her national security signals are mixed with regards to HLS

C) Audit the fed, stop printing money just to lend it to rich bankers at sweetheart rates

Rand Paul will never go along with this in practice. He may want the Fed Audited but he's to much of a Corporatist to stop the money presses.

D) the best consensus possible on climate change, campaign finance reform, and immigration

They both stand on opposite sides on the first two issues. These would be non starters

E) an agree to disagree, states rights codification for weed, gay marriage, and obamacare (ie if the south wants a waiver for the individual mandate, the northeast gets waivers for single payer)

Paul will never be satisfied until Obamacare is eliminated everywhere and he's pro-pot money not pro pot.

[Knife]

I don't understand the thread. Put a liberal and libertarian together and propose a bunch of libertarian ideas?

[Zaune]

In fairness, most of them are broadly left-libertarian ideas.

[A-Wing_Slash]

Well, seems there's more than enough specifics to get in the way of this idea, just seems that both parties being in the room is the most politically viable way to demand an accounting for the mistakes of the Bush and Obama years. I guess my brainstorming led to more focus on the libertarian angle made me tilt the hypothetical platform away from the left. The gulfs between the republican base, the Democratic Party's consensus, and what we as a country might actually need is just too fucking huge I guess. I'll admit it's more than a little self-indulgent, but I'm still young enough that I'd prefer another choice than just resigning myself to the corporate inequality, surveillance, third world drone bombing and nominally pro gay pinkwashed Neoliberal fascist trajectory I feel America is on.

So yeah, I'm willing to make a lot of sacrifices if it gets republican support for a modern post 9-11 church committee, and some real climate action. By 2016 we should be able to must enough sanity for a republican case for a carbon tax, even if it needs to be offset by cutting something else to stay revenue neutral.

Duplicate post deleted - SCRawl

[Maraxus]

This is one of the dumber proposals I've heard in a while, and I visit Daily Kos a lot. Rand Paul and Elizabeth Warren don't just have opposite views on most domestic policy issues; they have irreconcilable views. Rand Paul issomewhat ambivalent towards the Civil Rights Act, while Elizabeth Warren is strongly in favor of it (like all Dems, btw). Elizabeth Warren believes in a strong social safety net and intervention in the economy. Rand Paul believes literally the opposite. Per Open Congress, the two vote together about 25% of the time, or roughly the same amount as Warren and Ted Cruz.

There are so many questions about how this pipedream of a campaign would work that it staggers the imagination.

Which party would they run in? How would you convince Rand Paul to abandon his family's party since time immemorial and run as a Dem? How would you convince Elizabeth Warren to run in the party that blocked her from the CFPB?

Rand Paul clearly wants to be president and Elizabeth Warren clearly doesn't. How would you convince him to play second fiddle?

How would Rand Paul get the Dems support in light of all the crazy shit that he says? Just because he's vaguely anti-war doesn't mean that Dem voters will love him. I certainly don't.

More importantly, how would they get the votes in Congress to do any of the things on your bucket list?

It's all well and good to have wishful thinking about SERIOUS PEOPLE FIXING SERIOUS PROBLEMS. SERIOUSLY. But the world isn't a fucking Aaron Sorkin TV show. This will not work, it could not work, and frankly it should not work either.

[Simon_Jester]

Also, the fundamental issue in any libertarian political movement is that libertarianism is inherently a radical ideology. [Explanation below as footnote, in case anyone cares] The basic idea is that if we follow the right ideals, everything works out in the end, even if we're a bit hazy on the details.

Experiments with radical social models usually result in trouble. The same can be said of almost every political movement that's ever existed, so that's not so bad in and of itself. Thing is, because of the need to insist "it'll all be OK in the end," radical political activists either ignore the failures and claim their ideas are totally untried, or try and call the failure a success.

So it's very hard to find a radical political activist who is prepared to think intelligently about what might go wrong with their own plan, and how to fix it. They may be very clever about overcoming rivals or enemies that threaten the implementation of the plan... but it's hard for them to grasp the idea that even if nobody else stops them, they might screw up and become victims of their own success. Because, again, "it will all come out right in the end."

But almost by definition, anyone incapable of admitting error, or thinking rationally about how to fix it, is NOT a serious problem-solver.

So if you really want SERIOUS PEOPLE FIXING SERIOUS PROBLEMS, don't go looking among the ranks of the libertarians. You might find someone prepared to admit that seriously implementing libertarianism will result in some serious growing pains that need to be addressed for the plan to work. But that's not the way to bet.

---

Conservative movements, in the poli-sci sense, are "this is how we've always done it, let's keep doing it" things. The idea is that society is basically functional and OK, and while it might be necessary to fine-tune a few details in a new situation, nobody should do anything upset the balance of power or disturb the existing social forces.

Then there are what we might more loosely call reform movements, which are "this is how we're going to organize our response to a new problem" things. They involve a planned, structured response to a specific issue, but basically work within the existing social framework. They rewrite the rules but don't throw out the rulebook.

So in this sense, you have a political spectrum between those who want to keep the system as-is, and those who want to tinker with it by introducing specific, limited modifications.

But then there's a whole third category of movements, which want unlimited, fully general changes to every aspect of the social order, who aren't so much rewriting the rulebook as throwing it in the fireplace and starting over. These I call radical because they want to change the roots of the social order, not the leaves or branches. In general, radicals believe that if we adopt the correct set of ideals and adhere to them, "it'll all work out in the end" even if they cannot explain specifically how or why.

The specific name of the thing that makes "it all work out in the end" varies; it can be historical inevitability, it can be the efficient market hypothesis, it can be literal divine intervention. But there's always something.

The reason I call libertarianism "radical" is that basically all societies that have ever existed had some kind of sharp state restraint on what you can and cannot do. Even societies that were very devoted to individual freedom for the time were perfectly prepared to slap down anyone who got 'too far' out of line in ways that imperiled the viability of the nation and the state.

Libertarianism proposes to change that, which is a pretty radical idea to me.

[Broomstick]

Unfortunately, the easiest group to sell out in the American system is the poor, though I'd also expect a half decent band aid step might also be possible.

Apparently you are unaware that by “the poor” you mean approximately 1/6 of the current population (possibly more, depending on how you count things). I find people that are willing to throw one person in six under the bus to be morally suspect if not downright unethical.

Clearly, you do not consider yourself part of the group that will be left in the cold.

If Rand Paul really wants to invoke Teddy Roosevelt's brand of republicanism, he could even be persuaded to sign off on a CCC/WPA style let's build some national parks jobs program.

Please go back to history class. While Teddy did start the national park program it was his cousin Frank who did the CCC and WPA. I'd take your views a whole lot more seriously if you'd get the historical facts correct.

E is basically my idea for a federal truce on social issues that everyone can live with.

It's impossible to come up with such a compromise that everyone can live with. You will ALWAYS have the stubborn and uncompromising to deal with. Failure to recognize that fact has been part of the reason this country is so fucked up, the Dems kept caving to the Repubs in hopes of “compromise” when the other party had no desire to compromise, and Tea Party would rather the world burned than budge a millimeter.

If the left and right agree to a) reschedule weed so that states can decide if it's illegal, legal medically, or legal recreationally a la Colorado and Washington,

That I can get on board with.

b) let gay marriage be decided by state legislatures and the Supreme Court, while honoring everything that's already legal,

Unacceptable. I want universal same sex marriage everywhere in the US.

c) defang the obamacare vitriol by building on the waiver path already in place. I think ultimately allowing New England to hash out a single payer system for itself is worth selling out a few of the working poor in the south, especially if it's success can convince the rest of the us to get onboard with public health care a few years down the road.

Holy fuck, man – do you understand at all what the consequences of “selling out a few of the working poor” is? It means people fucking die for lack of access, it means people suffer without adequate care. Do you have ANY empathy whatsoever, or do you simply consider the poor sub-human vermin?

If we can't have universal single-payer then I'd rather keep the flawed hot mess called “Obamacare” rather than go back to a few years ago or sell out my fellow citizens.

As much as I dislike Rand Paul, he should be smart enough to realize that he needs to address the bush legacy if he doesn't want to lose a generation of voters for the Republican Party.

I don't think Paul gives a goddamn fuck about any generation of voters, I think that, like most politicians, he only gives a damn about himself and his circle.

So yeah, I'm willing to make a lot of sacrifices if it gets republican support for a modern post 9-11 church committee, and some real climate action.

Just so long as YOU don't have to make any sacrifices, hmm? You seem quite eager to toss other people aside, what sacrifices are YOU willing to make to build a better world?

By 2016 we should be able to must enough sanity for a republican case for a carbon tax, even if it needs to be offset by cutting something else to stay revenue neutral.

The big money in the Republicans are quite sane, and that's precisely why they're opposed to a carbon tax. It would cut into their profits from carbon-intensive energy sources. It's not ignorance nor stupidity, it's greed that leads the big backers to oppose it.

Now, to top it off, here is why I, personally, am opposed to Rand Paul being on the big ticket (and if you think he'll settle for VP you're off your rocker):

- He wants a balanced budget amendment. I want the Federal government to have the flexibility to borrow in a crisis. That doesn't mean I'm happy with the way money is printed now, I just don't want to cut off the options of the government in dealing with a big problem

- Rand Paul opposes abortion except, MAYBE, just maybe, to save the life of the mother. I'm pro-choice.

- He is opposed to same sex marriage. I am for it.

- He belongs to the goddamned Tea Party. It should be obvious from my phrasing how I view that steaming pile of fucking assholes.

[Zaune]

Holy fuck, man – do you understand at all what the consequences of “selling out a few of the working poor” is? It means people fucking die for lack of access, it means people suffer without adequate care.

That raises a pretty important question, actually. Do we liberal and forward-thinking people carry on fighting to improve the lot of everyone, even if it increases the risk of getting nothing at all achieved, or do we reluctantly accept that some people are beyond saving and concentrate on the problems we can solve?

Because those working poor in the South he advocates throwing under the bus? They're probably dead anyway. At best it might be possible to give their descendants something better when the current generation of leaders dies off.

[Broomstick]

As a member of the working poor I reject the notion that we're all unsalvageable slime. And remember, we're talking about 1 in 6 in the US, that's 50 million people. Are we really in such desperate straits we have to throw away 50 million human beings?

Sorry, if we can fight for marriage equality for the much smaller percent of people who are homosexuals who want to marry then we can damn well fight to get healthcare for 1/6 of our population.

[Mr Bean]

As a member of the working poor I reject the notion that we're all unsalvageable slime. And remember, we're talking about 1 in 6 in the US, that's 50 million people. Are we really in such desperate straits we have to throw away 50 million human beings?

Relax Broomstick I'm sure some of those 50 million will be fine. All we have to do is look at other countries that have tried what Zaune is purposing and see that at most your going to lose oh lets say twenty million of the fifty million.

The other thirty million will be just fine once they lose their money and turn to criminal enterprises. Because if Americans are known for one things it's going off in a corner and dieing quietly when they lose all hope and not turning to alternative income sources when things get very tight.

[A-Wing_Slash]

Apparently you are unaware that by “the poor” you mean approximately 1/6 of the current population (possibly more, depending on how you count things). I find people that are willing to throw one person in six under the bus to be morally suspect if not downright unethical.

Yeah, I know, it's just unfortunate that I felt the need to ignore the least politically powerful demographic in America. But if a single payer system is the goal, it'll be a long time before that's possible without incremental steps. Ultimately I argue that if MA or NY can knock a few years of an example out of the park, imposing single payer on the red states becomes a lot more viable, and long term than saves more lives than just letting them keep a sabotaged implementation of Obamacare.

Please go back to history class. While Teddy did start the national park program it was his cousin Frank who did the CCC and WPA. I'd take your views a whole lot more seriously if you'd get the historical facts correct.

Yeah, both presidents Roosevelt were good to the parks system. A republican says they're copying TR, a dem says they're copying FDR, either way the park gets built.

It's impossible to come up with such a compromise that everyone can live with. You will ALWAYS have the stubborn and uncompromising to deal with. Failure to recognize that fact has been part of the reason this country is so fucked up, the Dems kept caving to the Repubs in hopes of “compromise” when the other party had no desire to compromise, and Tea Party would rather the world burned than budge a millimeter.

I agree. My original impetus for this was basically the thought that the only way to get a modern republican to compromise on something important is to get him to publicly sign a political contract to that effect in advance. And I hope you understand that while I should not have framed it as selling out the poor, a compromise that helps in some areas while not ultimately fixing the huge complicated tragedy of modern American poverty could still be ethically defensible.

b) let gay marriage be decided by state legislatures and the Supreme Court, while honoring everything that's already legal,
Unacceptable. I want universal same sex marriage everywhere in the US.

So do I, but enough low hanging states are now ok with it that the most likely route left for the rest is through the judiciary (or the state level) and not the executive. But that might be a wrong impression.

Holy fuck, man – do you understand at all what the consequences of “selling out a few of the working poor” is? It means people fucking die for lack of access, it means people suffer without adequate care. Do you have ANY empathy whatsoever, or do you simply consider the poor sub-human vermin?

If I were king we'd have a generous safety net yeah, and I do apologize for being flippant about a very real problem in your life. But unless the Democratic Party really decides to grow a spine and push through something better (which I don't really see happening unfortunately), we might as well find a way. I don't think the poor are vermin just because I don't expect to see a democratic president/supermajority combo getting elected again in the near future, sorry for seeming a huge asshole.

As much as I dislike Rand Paul, he should be smart enough to realize that he needs to address the bush legacy if he doesn't want to lose a generation of voters for the Republican Party.

So yeah, I certainly concede this idea doesn't work, but just to be clear, Warren/Paul could just as easily be Warren/Rubio and do immigration before the NSA. Or even Warren/Olympia Snow if you want matronly New England senator tag team. That pair might be the most plausible, though obviously still not going to happen.

So yeah, I'm willing to make a lot of sacrifices if it gets republican support for a modern post 9-11 church committee, and some real climate action.

Just so long as YOU don't have to make any sacrifices, hmm? You seem quite eager to toss other people aside, what sacrifices are YOU willing to make?

I do make sacrifices and should do more, but while it help individual behavior changes are nothing next to systemic or institutional reforms. But if you have a concise most effective morally-induced average American sacrifice list I'm all ears. I just don't think that can solve things by itself.

[Zaune]

As a member of the working poor I reject the notion that we're all unsalvageable slime. And remember, we're talking about 1 in 6 in the US, that's 50 million people. Are we really in such desperate straits we have to throw away 50 million human beings?

I hope not. I truly and sincerely do. But with the best will in the world, there are some people who really can't be helped. Some of them don't even want to be helped courtesy of generations of media propaganda and under-investment in education.

Just what the fuck are we supposed to do with people like that?

Sorry, if we can fight for marriage equality for the much smaller percent of people who are homosexuals who want to marry then we can damn well fight to get healthcare for 1/6 of our population.

Yeah, but allowing gay marriage doesn't cost anyone any money, does it? The only people really objecting to it are afraid God will send them to hell for not being as much of an intolerant, bigoted cunt as they apparently believe He is.

But state-funded healthcare? That means price controls, and maybe eminent-domain seizure of private property. Wealthy and powerful interests would be seriously inconvenienced by that, and getting Congress to stand up to them for the greater good isn't very likely these days.

[Broomstick]

Yeah, I know, it's just unfortunate that I felt the need to ignore the least politically powerful demographic in America. But if a single payer system is the goal, it'll be a long time before that's possible without incremental steps.

I've heard that before about a lot of other things:

“It will be a long time before same sex marriage”
“It will be a long time before we have a black president”
“It will be a long time before we can get equal rights for black people”

Significant social change doesn't always come in small steps, for many things you reach a tipping point and suddenly you a leap forward. It happened in the 1960's with civil rights and right now with same sex marriage. I'm all for incremental change if that's the best that's available right now but don't close your mind/options to tipping points.

Ultimately I argue that if MA or NY can knock a few years of an example out of the park, imposing single payer on the red states becomes a lot more viable, and long term than saves more lives than just letting them keep a sabotaged implementation of Obamacare.

Could you PLEASE do a little more research on these things?

In addition to Massachusetts and New York, Hawaii has had coverage requirements since 1974 that, while not perfect, does show that mandating coverage doesn't crash the economy and bring about the apocalypse. Indiana has had a heavily government subsidized program, as in up to 98% subsidized for the poorest participants, that provides basic coverage and I believe is superior to the ACA (because that's its real name, not “Obamacare”) both in cost the participant and in coverage... of course, I might be biased because I've been a beneficiary. I'll note that the Indiana system was developed by a Republican and the current Republican governor is fighting to be allowed to continue it and expand it rather than being forced to dump it in favor of the ACA system. Now neither the Hawaiian nor the Indiana system is single payer (the Indiana one is actually dual payer) but they are, again, possibly incremental steps in getting the American public to accept government involvement in providing health coverage.

In other words, we don't have to yank the rug out from under everybody else to observe MA and NY as petri dishes.

I agree. My original impetus for this was basically the thought that the only way to get a modern republican to compromise on something important is to get him to publicly sign a political contract to that effect in advance. And I hope you understand that while I should not have framed it as selling out the poor, a compromise that helps in some areas while not ultimately fixing the huge complicated tragedy of modern American poverty could still be ethically defensible.

Yes, I do understand all that but how you present something can be just as important as actual content.

The other thing we need to ditch is this notion that poverty is inherently a tragedy. Poverty can suck, it's definitely not a preferable as wealth, but it doesn't have to be a cesspit of despair. I am, unquestionably, a poor American at this point but I wouldn't describe my life as tragic. I have some sharp limitations compared to someone wealthy, but my day-to-day existence is, by and large, actually pretty good. I have enough to eat, a place to live that isn't controlled by pirates and warlords like some truly awful places, I have a reliable vehicle (two, actually), some really kick-ass entertainment thanks to things like DVD's, the internet, and my local library, a social life, hobbies... Of course, this brings up the bugagboo of someone getting so comfortable in poverty that the person won't strive to rise out of it. Well, there's a fair amount of uncertainty and some problems that more money would definitely solve in my life which keeps me motivated. Poor people can be greedy for more toys just like everyone else, and if there is an actual path to more wealth rather than an obstacle course tripping them up a lot of them will likewise be motivated.

But hey, what if someone decides a poverty-line existence is OK? So what? You get some conservatives acting like that's a sin. If a person is self-supporting (largely), has adequate food, clothing, and shelter even if that's not fancy, and content why the fuck should it matter?

The only place poverty SHOULD matter is for children – and that's because it can limit education, and thus options, and in this county can limit access to healthcare. If we take away the barriers to poor kids having an education and healthcare then the vast majority of what makes poverty toxic for kids goes away. Again, this is assuming adequate food, clothing, and safe shelter along with the education and medical access.

If I were king we'd have a generous safety net yeah, and I do apologize for being flippant about a very real problem in your life. But unless the Democratic Party really decides to grow a spine and push through something better (which I don't really see happening unfortunately), we might as well find a way. I don't think the poor are vermin just because I don't expect to see a democratic president/supermajority combo getting elected again in the near future, sorry for seeming a huge asshole.

Stop limiting your view. My state already has a superior band-aid to ACA but you don't see it because it is of Republican origin. Richard Nixon was a republican but he also was trying to push through universal health care in the early 1970's. While I have just as much contempt as you do for the Republican Crazies not all Republicans are whackjobs and some are a damn site more moderate than you might think.

It's just a goddamn shame Mitch Daniels doesn't want to run for PotUS.

[Metahive]

Call it a crazy idea, but I think the welfare of the people back home should take precedent over projecting power globally.

Around the 1900's there was an austrian cartoon lampooning this very topic, a homeless guy and his family sitting in abject poverty somewhere on the street thinking to himself "...but it's all good because it's such an arousing feeling to have a strong army".

[Broomstick]

As a member of the working poor I reject the notion that we're all unsalvageable slime. And remember, we're talking about 1 in 6 in the US, that's 50 million people. Are we really in such desperate straits we have to throw away 50 million human beings?

I hope not. I truly and sincerely do. But with the best will in the world, there are some people who really can't be helped. Some of them don't even want to be helped courtesy of generations of media propaganda and under-investment in education.

Just what the fuck are we supposed to do with people like that?

Two things:

First, when it becomes apparent that someone really isn't going to “get better” or however you want to express it stop using the system to torture them. I am a well educated, motivated, experienced adult and I am finding that navigating the system is extremely frustrating at times. For the less capable it's an utter nightmare. We need to get rid of conflicting requirements and the proliferation of programs scattered everywhere. Some aspects can be downright punitive with political-driven agendas that are useless or worse.

Second, as I noted in my prior post, being poor isn't inherently tragic. We should guarantee a floor no one falls below. For shelter, as an example of something we can do right now, we can remove square footage requirements that price housing out of the range of the lower middle class, much less the poor. We can guarantee health coverage to everyone (and no, access to the ER is not “health coverage”). We've already got a decent system to make sure people can eat – one look around and you can see the American poor sure as hell aren't starving, a lot of them are fat.

The important thing is not making everyone a millionaire, it's ensuring that everyone has a decent life, a life where they aren't constantly scrabbling for the most basic needs. While my first choice wouldn't be a one-room domicile with minimal cooking facilities and bathroom, when I was just out of college I lived in exactly that sort of situation and it's not terrible. My physical needs were taken care of. I had a place for a little bit of stuff (clothes, books, etc.) It sure as hell beats being homeless.

Sorry, if we can fight for marriage equality for the much smaller percent of people who are homosexuals who want to marry then we can damn well fight to get healthcare for 1/6 of our population.

Yeah, but allowing gay marriage doesn't cost anyone any money, does it?

Yes, it does. By allowing survivor benefits it will increase the payout for things like pensions. Of course, more straight couples getting married would do the same thing, but with the sudden allowance of SSM there is an unanticipated bump in the number of these which will affect pension funds. There are probably other, equally non-obvious costs.

[SCRawl]

The discussion about downsizing the US military has been moved to [ur=http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 2&t=161249]here[/url]. That discussion was terribly off the original topic.