I've long been in favor of some sort of system like this. Why should I spend the time to learn about the issues and candidates and form well constructed hypotheses on economic direction and candidate abilities...only to have my vote cancelled by Honey boo boo's mother? I agree with piezoe that people need to coalesce around an issue and move it forward. Right now, there is little except people on each side of the aisle blaming the other side, while the country slowly burns. It's quite telling the state of the public when reality shows that humiliate people are the most popular programs in the country. Simpson Bowles is a good start, but the people of this country are far from ready to take on more meaningful and long term reforms.
You caught me in another horrible spelling error! (I need a simpler language.) I thought I might participate in formation of one side or other of a consensus. (If you were intending to refer specifically to gun control, I'd have to say I'm a pretty firm believer in Second Amendment rights. (Spell check please.) The only questions I have is what was meant by "bearing arms" in the Constitution, and what should it mean for a 21st Century U.S.A.? Is it muzzle loaders, or Teflon jacketed bullets and bullet proof vests and automatic weapons with hundred round magazines, or is it hydrogen bombs? That's an issue for the consensus to decide. There is going to be a national debate in the media to help us decide these questions. It usually takes a long time to form a consensus firm enough to get action, particularly when there is a strong, i.e., well-funded, opposing lobby. But I'm sure you knew that. I suppose what happens is that eventually those in Congress recognize their job might be at stake if they come down on the side of the minority without a convincing justification. At some point they may begin to weigh the amount of a special interest group's contribution to their campaign fund against the possibility of losing their job. I don't see these issues so much as a matter of right and wrong as I do the formation of a consensus, but always "right" or "wrong" enters into the picture from an individual viewpoint. The consensus is, by definition, never wrong from a majority viewpoint, but it can certainly be wrong from the minority's. Gore Vidal said "The common wisdom is usually wrong." But that was, of course, from his personal viewpoint. Mine is that the common wisdom is often wrong.
See my edit above. And thank you, Oldtime. What a difference spelling makes, or in the case of Ms Truss's example, a comma. I am reminded, by you, of Lynne Truss's delightful book, "Eats, Shoots & Leaves". Pandas eat shoots and leaves. On the other hand, a Panda walks into a bar and, "Eats, shoots and leaves".
well, they didn't bother to put in the constitution, "A guy ought to be able to hunt, and shoot a bad guy if he tries to break in his house."
And what exactly does a guy with a machine gun hunt in the US suburbs ? Or is it who ? Everyone applying for a gun should have a medical with his doctor to make sure he is sane enough and the local policeman to check his record etc. Perhaps even make sure his gun is kept at an armoury/gun range and only used on a range for the average citizen. Farmers Rangers etc. may have need of a gun and that could be taken into consideration.
Surely the psychological picture of the youngish men who carry out these shooting atrocities is well known by now. It is not beyond the wit of man to identify likely people long before they get to carry out their massacres. They could be put togethor and collectively supervised. Their mutual problems would be discussed to help them recognise they are on the wrong track and do something about it. None of the "stay at home " building up their misconceived prejudices etc.
yes, think how many lives would have been saved if Hitler had simply had a medical checkup before he took office. Back on track, Simpson Bowles if you want to talk about gun violence go down to my Protection Against Gun Violence thread on Politcs and Religion and chime in. I would be interested to hear your views. Simpson Bowles 50 pages, raise taxes, cut spending maybe not today right now, but start moving in that direction slowly I hate taxes and don't think they should ever be raised, but unless we are going to scrap medicare I don't see how we can keep it going unless we raise medicare taxes. medicare for all, cradle to grave is starting to actually look more sensible than what we have now. Personally, I would like to see the government get out of the healthcare industry. Not sure how my grandparents were able to live long lives and pass down a little money to their kids without medicare. Maybe people back then just weren't so afraid of death.
There may be a short term need to raise taxes on high earners, but in the long run there is plenty of money in the public sector. As I noted above, we would save 1.4 trillion per year simply by copying the medical system in virtually any other industrialized nation, and we would get better results. (I don't know if that's the best solution to too high costs, but it is a solution.) The problem with medicare isn't a problem with medicare at all, it is a problem of medical costs being 100% too high in the U.S. This was the great failing of Simpson-Bowles. They failed to identify the two primary sources of U.S. deficits, and focus there. Somehow the deficit problem became a problem with social security and medicare, even though neither social security nor medicare had anything whatsoever to do with the deficits. This is somewhat akin to being attacked by a radical Islamist group living in Afghanistan and responding by invading Iran.