Financial Information
What parts of the “Contract from America” do you agree with? What is your political leaning?
Question : What parts of the “Contract from America” do you agree with? What is your political leaning?
First the use of the preposition “from” in this case strike me as negative. Why is everything so negative?
Anyway here’s the agenda:
1. Identify constitutionality of every new law: Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does (82.03%).
2. Reject emissions trading: Stop the “cap and trade” administrative approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants. (72.20%).
3. Demand a balanced federal budget: Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax modification. (69.69%)
4. Simplify the tax system: Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words — the length of the original Constitution.(64.9%).
5. Audit federal government agencies for constitutionality: Create a Blue Ribbon task force that engages in an audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities. (63.37%)
6. Limit annual growth in federal spending: Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%).
7. Repeal the health care legislation passed on March 23, 2010: Defund, repeal and replace the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. (56.39%).
8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above’ Energy Policy: Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation. (55.5%).
9. Reduce Earmarks: Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%).
10. Reduce Taxes: Permanently repeal all recent tax increases, and extend permanently the George W. Bush temporary reductions in income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes, currently scheduled to end in 2011. (53.38%).
The percentages are the percent of online votes for each one used in creating the Contract.
I am a liberal and would like to see a lot of this. I only really disagree with 2 and 7, no tax and cap and getting rid of the health care legislation.
1 and 5 are not as needed and we might find that we may like some of those “unconstitutional” laws and agencies and we may want to have an amendment or two. I don’t say get rid of those two, just don’t assume that the result would be what you expect.
Also, I find it interesting that in something so obviously Conservative, only 56% said get rid of “Obamacare”.
Peace – I am probably a fiscal conservative, which is what most of what this contract deals with. Most certainly socially liberal.
And my fiscal conservatism has limits. Not like what you have suggested.
And Peace, you are exaggerating.
tax audit protection
Best answer:
Answer by Shamus
2 & 7 are what is going to kill our economy……I agree with all of it.
-
-
#2 written by Chibi - thulhu 1 year ago
i find 2 funny, instead of making them pay, to reduce, we shall give benifits to those who reduce, same thing really it might even cost the same, incentives don’t create themselves they are paid by the taxpayer
i also find 10 funny, the reason bush only had them as temporary was because he knew that they are unsustainable with how the budget currently looks like
reduce earmarks, ok, shame that most of tax payers money goes to red states, kinda shooting self in foot
fair tax is never fair, sooner they learn the better
6, great idea, already in use in “socialist” europe
7, i agree wholeheartedly, you need single payer not the same thing just made to look better
8, is nice, but i’d like something about longterm energy since fossil fuels are a fininte resource (also doesn’t evil obama have something the same going on)
i don’t like the idea of this consitutionality thing, what happens if a law is good but has no consitutional backing
-
#3 written by Speak for The Trees 1 year ago
1. No, that is expanding Congress’ powers beyond what was originally intended.
2. No, because I believe that oil production should not be legal anyways.
3. No, because I believe in deficit spending
4. If I interpret this summary correctly, then no, because I believe in taxing the rich more than the poor.
5. No. “Blue Ribbon Task Force” smells of thinly disguised Orwell-esque CONTROL.
6. No, for the same reasons as number three.
7. No, you can’t just do that, you already passed it, jackasses.
8. NO! I wonder when these assholes will realize that the SUN IS FREE. You don’t need to rely on international energy at all!
9. No.
10. That isn’t so smart for our situation now, is it?I’m a Green Party member; my primary concern is the environment and the community. I’m a social nonconformist, and therefore reject most common ideas propped up by the mainstream as to what we should politically support.
- Comment Feed for this Post
As with most self-identified “liberals,” you aren’t a liberal. Democrat propaganda notwithstanding, just being a decent person who isn’t a hate-filled bigot does NOT mean you’re not a conservative.
Some things you claim to support that are objectively antithetical to liberalism – as demonstrated by leading liberals:
> Allowing Constitutionality.
> Allowing a balanced budget
> Taxes not DESIGNED to balk upward mobility
> Allowing accountability for Federal agencies.
> Allowing the speed of the INCREASE of growth in federal spending to be limited.
> Allowing domestic energy production.
> Not accelerating Earmarks
> Taxes of less than 100%
I’m NOT kidding, NOT exaggerating.
I find it interesting that YOU identify obeying the law as “obviously Conservative.”