What Is Your Political Philosophy?

I don't recall ever responding to this thread so I'll be quick and concise in addressing it. My political philosophy is summed up by the following:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

Of course there are three prerequisites to this political philosophy:

1) A person must understand what an Inalienable Right is and how they're determined. Few Americans understand the Inalienable Rights of the Person as it is not really explored by our educational system.

2) A person must understand the difference between the Inalienable Rights of the Person and the Freedom to Exercise those Inalienable Rights.

3) You must understand the Constitutional definition of a Person.

There is also one consideration related to it.

1) In cases where the government is incapable of protection of the Inalienable Rights of the Person government has an obligation to mitigate the effects of the violation of the Inalienable Rights of the Person.

Pretty straight forward as it addresses pretty much everything.

 

I believe we should be able to invest in morals testing companies along with drug testing companies on a for-profit basis under our form of Capitalism.

 

That sure sounds good. However, defense of the citizenry pre-911 showed it didn't work. And post 911 a preemptive war that SAVED NO ONE and killed 1,000,000 + Iraqis. GOVERNMENT at its LOWEST! Frankly, if GOVERNMENT works, I have zero problem with it!

 

40 months into his presidential term, there are currently more private sector jobs in the economy than when Obama came into office. At the same point in President Bush’s term, the total number of private sector jobs was still down 1.7 percent from where it began.

The numbers are even starker when measuring each president’s record from the moment job creation returned. Private sector job creation returned in February of 2010, the 13th month of President Obama’s term. Since then, the economy has added 4.3 million private sector jobs, a 4 percent increase.

Under President Bush, the economy stopped shedding private sector jobs in July of 2003, fully 30 months into his administration. From that point until May of 2004, the economy added just 1.5 million private sector jobs, an increase of only 1.4 percent.

But there is one area of job creation where President Bush clearly outshines President Obama: the public sector. Public sector employment is now down 608,000 workers since January 2009, a 2.7 percent decline. At the same point in President Bush’s term, public sector employment was up 3.7 percent. If, over the past 40 months, public sector employment had grown at the same pace as it did in President Bush’s first term, there would be 1.4 million additional people at work right now. That’d be enough to bring the unemployment rate down by nearly a full percentage point.

.

Paul Ryan says Barack Obama 'has doubled the size of government since he took office'
You probably believed this. Politifact checked out this claim. On his congressional website, Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., makes a striking claim that President Obama has doubled the size of goverment.

Ryan, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, is perhaps the leading Republican voice for a fiscally conservative approach to taxing, spending and reducing the federal debt.

So when a reader recently pointed out the doubling-government claim on a web page devoted to Ryan’s views on tax policy, we thought it was worth a look.

To cut to the chase, this was their finding. "Our ruling:

Even Ryan’s out-of-date budget data offers no support for the notion that Obama "has doubled the size of government since he took office."

As the House's budget leader and a key spokesman for his party’s budgetary proposals, Ryan should have known better. We rate his statement Pants on Fire.

UPDATE: After our story appeared, Ryan’s office got back to us. They said that they had been using fiscal year 2008 as their base year, rather than fiscal year 2009. Using the 2008 figures, federal outlays do roughly double between 2008 and 2021 under Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget proposal. However, we think it’s inaccurate to use fiscal 2008 as the base year, since that year ended about four months before Obama took office. In any case, our previous concerns -- using figures for 2021, when Obama will have been out of office for either five or nine years, and ignoring the role of mandatory spending in expanding federal outlays -- still stand, and we’re keeping the rating at Pants on Fire. In addition, Ryan’s office removed the sentence we checked after our story appeared. It has been replaced by a sentence that reads, "At the same time, the president will double the national debt and his plan ensures it will triple in the next eight years."

Are you saying that the SNAP program doesn't help people that are hungry? Are you suggesting that cutting the SNAP program by $8Billion over 10 years benefits the hungry? That's the Republican idea of helping hungry people... cut food stamps. Just exactly how does that help? Give me the logic that you use to look at a person that's hungry, and relying on food stamps to feed his kids, and tell him you're going to cut that program...and that's going to help him.

How can you discuss something that doesn't exist. You don't have any ideas on creating jobs. If you do, then state them. You think eliminating the minimum wage is going to solve that? What then? Offer jobs at $2/hr?

What happened?? Read some history. They got married, bought homes, went to college, started businesses, and created the Baby Boom. BTW...you have a problem with cuts in defense, but you want to reduce the size of government. The defense budget has soared ever since the end of WWII. Ending the war didn't result in layoffs. The fact is that the government created millions of jobs during the war, which you claimed they can't do. We reduced unemployment by 13% in three years. Spending money creates jobs. When money isn't spent, products aren't bought, and when nobody is buying products, then you see layoffs. Spending money is what drives the economy. When GM builds cars, people have to buy them. If they don't, the economy tanks. It doesn't matter who is spending the money. What matters is that it's spent. If I'm a business owner, I don't care where the money is coming from. I only care that somebody is coming to my place to spend it. That's how I pay my help as well as my bills.

No. Wrong. Why don't you grow up already, and come up with something that makes just a little sense. Engage your brain. It's clear by what you just wrote the you have no clue about this, since you spout the same old garbage based on a false premise. NOBODY is saying or thinking that everyone's talents are equal. Can you run as fast as Usain Bolt?? No. You are not the winner in the genetic lottery that allows you to run that fast. Only he is. Did he have anything to do with that? No. He was born with the genetic makeup that allows him to run that fast. He had no say in that. Does he train any harder then the next fastest guy? Probably not. He's gifted in that area in ways that no matter how hard you train, you will NEVER be as fast. So nobody is denying the various talents that people have. It's how they are used to enhance personal gain. Does a person that is the winner in the genetic lottery deserve some kind of moral desert? Did he earn it? If you win the lottery...did you do anything to deserve it? You bought a ticket and your number came up. That's not working for it. We can agree to a qualified principle of equality. One that doesn't deny the innate talents of individuals. Only those social and economic inequalities would be permitted that benefit the least well off. We wouldn’t reject ALL economic inequalities of wealth…we would allow some, but the test would be do they work to the benefit of everyone especially those at the bottom? Only those that work to the benefit of the least well off are just. The distribution of income, wealth and opportunities should not be based on factors for which people can claim no credit. It should be based on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view.

If you bring everyone to the same starting point, and begin the race, who’s going to win the race? The fastest runners would win. But is it their doing that they happen to be blessed with the athletic prowess to run fast? So we say that the person that wins the genetic lottery gets paid a million bucks for something he had nothing to do with. LeBron James is 6'8" and weighs about 270. He was born to be huge. Does he actually work harder than a guy that's 6'? He could put in half the work, and still be better.

You don’t have to go to a “leveling” equality (egalitarian). You permit, even encourage those who may be gifted to exercise their talent , but you change the terms on which people are entitled to the fruits of the exercises of those talents. People may benefit from their good fortune, or luck in the genetic lottery, but only on terms that work to the advantage of the least well off. Michael Jordan can make $31 million, but only under a system that takes away a chunk of that to help those without basketball skills that he is blessed with. Same with Bill Gates. He can make his billions but he can’t think that he morally deserves those billions. Those who’ve been favored by nature, whoever they are, may gain from their good fortune only on terms that improve the situation of those who’ve lost out.

Tell you what. Get out of the way, and lets see. In case you haven't noticed, you've been driving on an Interstate Highway system for years. In fact, this very back and forth between us right now is the result of a government project that created the internet. But then, we could just do the Republican thing and allow the entire infrastructure of the country fall apart. The evidence is in front of your eyes everyday, but like the total ideologue, you're too blind to see it.

 

It's truly funny how the same old party lines find their ways onto message boards. how many boards do you visit to write this garbage? I'll state the facts again, those who lost jobs lost when Obama took office are not all back at work, if so the unemployment rate would not be above 7%.

Shovel ready jobs do not help the economy. Sorry bub!

You can write all you want about your lies, but others like me know the truth, because we experience the truth on a daily basis. We have friends, families who don't have. The inner city woes are still the inner city woes, and i see nothing, nothing from the pres and his side to attack that. If he did, he wouldn't be taking union money! Get the people educated and get them off the programs, ought to be the goal. Sorry, don't see it. Again, giving people food isn't solving a problem it is only feeding (sorry) the problem. That, you don't understand! The old lead a horse to water theory!

 

Can't a person be just as dead from INTERNAL threats?

That, in itself, requires a massive government. And our government has never been able to provide economic stability no matter how much we spend trying. The kind of economic system we have REQUIRES economic displacement.

 

Mine would be an aristocracy. Contrary to contemporary egalitarianism, all folks are not created equal. Therefore, IMO, the best government is that of the most qualified and fittest.

 

Centre-Left Social Libertarian. Let me break it down:

For one, social issues to me are non negotiable. I am a strong proponent of same sex marriage, abortion, regulated narcotics for the general populace, alo with decriminalizing heavy drugs in small doses. I also am a strong hawk on civil liberties; I oppose the NSA and the Patriot Act on the grounds they violate civil liberties along with the Guantanamo Bay facility.

Now, economically, I am centre left. I espouse the Nordic model of economics, with compromise and a fairer tax code. What I mean by that is ending subsidies for corporations and businesses that do not earn them. To earn a tax subsidy, a business/corporation should provide more labour, more benefits for their employees, and revenue for their employees. This merits a tax break. For smaller businesses, I support less regulation and grants. I also espouse technological grants for research, along with balanced labour laws, giving more power to private sector unions and less to public sector unions. I support building a surplus, having a sinlg payer healthcare system, subsidizing instead of taxing, and a healthy safe net. Of course, I am willing to compromise in favor of a centrist solution.

 

An interesting but inaccurate statement. What California lacks is inexpensive fresh water but it has about 187 quintillion gallons of water in the Pacific Ocean. California already has about a half-dozen desalination plants and proposals are in the works for more. The only real issues are the environmental impacts of these desalination plants but there really isn't a lack of water for California to use in the future.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101410845

 

That is true but it is also true that the massive increase in unemployment that continued after Obama took office was a direct result of the collapse of the banking industry under the Bush adminstration.

We can also note that the recovery isn't going very well under President Obama because the increase in income due to GDP growth, as limited has it has been, is all being funneled off to the top 1% of income earners that don't use that additional income to purchase additional goods and services that drives employment. 95% of all income derived from the expanding GDP since 2009 has gone to the top 1% of income earners while the income of those that actually spend money on goods and services that creates jobs has declined significantly in "real dollars" since 2009. In fact "real income" for most Americans has been declining since about 1998 or 1999 according to several sources but really declined because of the Recession that started under the Bush Adminstration.

From an economic perspective we need to realize that increasing the disposable income of the bottom half of the economic ladder is what is required. They spend virtually all of their income on consumption and jobs are directly related to providing the goods and services necessary to support consumption based upon the law of supply and demand. We need to increase demand as that drives increases in supply and to increase supply requires more workers. Of course Republicans are opposed to addressing increases in the disposable income for the bottom 50% as they would rather see the wealthy benefit from economic expansion as opposed to the lowest paid workers in America. Republicans believe the myth that outside investment capital fuels economic growth when, in fact, it's the profits from the sale of goods and services that overwhelmingly fund the expansion of enterprise.

 

You cherry picked certain months to make your argument better, the chart also uses percent change to make Obama appear better if one is dumb enough to ignore the steeper declines in Obama's earlier years. The fact is both presidents inherited employment recessions, but Obama came into office half way down to the bottom while Bush came in at the peak. Job levels 'returning' to the January 2009 level is stupid, its an arbitrary point already well down the curve. Obama's only jobs policy is to deficit spend, hardly genius, and hardly giving us anything to cheer wildly about.

For a better and honest look at this situation, this is a much better graphic

click here

 

Perhaps the philosophy of Machiavelli, in the end, is the most practical.

 

My political philosophy is quite simple;
Men and women who are drawn to politics, and who dream of being top-level, powerful politicians, are the wrong sort of people to be running this country.
The sad state of affairs in Washington DC is strong evidence that this is true.

Selfless men and women who aspire to be leaders on the other hand, and who wish only to do good things for the nation, THOSE are the sort of people who need to be running this country.

The problem is in getting those men and women to run for office.

 

Maybe I didn't articulate that particularly well;

My political philosophy is that only strong leaders with a desire to do good should run for office.

 

Lofty ideals, my friend; but realistically, just that.

 

Fiscal conservative first and foremost.

Moderate on socials issues.

Support the framers idea of a balanced government with the states having a say in the passing of of national legislation.

Support the idea of a national sales tax instead of income tax.

 

Im firmly in the "leave-me-alonist" camp.

 

My philosophy is that most politicians are lying, thieving, money grubbing bastards that must be closely scrutinized at all times. Too bad our MSM outlets aren't up to the job of doing it in an objective and impartial manner.

 

I lean to the left consistently but I try never to judge a person's character by their party affiliation.

 

This is probably a good list, from another post. It does address them in more detail, in a 95 theses kind of way, but if i were to summarize, it would be these:

• heavy emphasis on individual freedom, especially life & property, only limited by the local collective.
• Individual responsibility goes with freedom. No moochers, few dependents.
• Govt is to secure these freedoms, not provide commodities, nanny, or micromanage.
• Citizen representatives are the ideal for govt, with term limits & punishment for corruption.
• Balanced budget for the nation, to limit corruption & protect future generations.
• Govt should provide a stable currency based on hard assets & real production
• govt's primary duty is to provide justice.. freedom from thugs or enemies, foreign & domestic.

I'm a celebrator of human freedom. This is the primary goal of humanity, imo, not to plunder the earth, or kill as many people as possible. We could use some management, but working with mother nature is a good way to do it. We currently fight her in her attempts to curtail human populations & mismanagement. There are a few more details in the following list, but they mostly expand on the same base points.

 

There is an old proverb stating, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

There are a lot of opinions on issues and politicans but few expressions of political philosophy. The United States was established based upon a very simple political philosophy expressed in two simple sentences that I've previously cited. Basically either we believe this political philosophy or not as Americans. Either the United States was established based upon the best possible political philosophy or our nation is a mistake.

So, I'd ask others to comment on whether they support or oppose the political philosophy that is the foundation for government in the United States as expressed in the Declaration of Independence:

Do you support this political philosophy?

 

Yes, of course. Emphatically.

With modern provisos, of course;
a. We accept that 'governments instituted among men' includes both men and women
and
b. We are willing to accept that a devotion to this political philosophy (and these words in the Declaration of Independence) does not necessarily mean a wholesale devotion to the concept of Christianity. A belief that all men and women are 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights' should allow each man and woman to embrace the overarching political philosophy, but still reserve their own opinions regarding whether or not there is a grand Creator.
I say this because there are many people who will throw the baby out with the bathwater (rejecting the spirit and intent of our founding fathers) simply because these people are so violently opposed to any concept that has a foundation in Christianity.

 

This was a fairly short summary of mine, but i definitely include the disclaimers in the DOI.. which is basically that the people have the power. They can change things if they wish.

But i don't think your 'either/or' dichotomy is valid.. It's not either 'we're the best' or 'we're a mistake'. We have pursued a system of securing the most individual rights for the most people in the history of man, and it is a lofty goal. But there 'might' be something better, we just don't know of it. Any political philosophy or ideology has to have a sound basis in its fundamentals, which i believe the american ideal, as expressed in the DOI & constitution, does. Basic human rights are clarified, the role of govt is defined, a system of checks & balances is provided to offset corruption & human aggression, & citizen representatives are presented as a means of watching over this system.

Unfortunately, we have strayed from the mission statement of america, & we are flooded with a greedy, aggressive, elitist ruling class, that guards their halls of power & keeps the people out. They have morphed us from a govt of, by & for the people, to another state centered, state dominated system. They are corrupting the constitution, & moving us AWAY from our mission statement. And for this, the other part of the DOI becomes a valid option:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government