Hyperpartisanship has always existed. Nobody has been caned to death in congress lately so it has arguably gotten better. I think it would be a check on run away presidents. Imagine if Hillary was in meetings about Syria right now. It would also make the voters that lost the biggest race feel like they got a consolation prise. Imagine if Hillary was the tiebreaker vote in the Senate. I think it would go a long way towards smoothing things over. My opinion of course.
My coworkers from Germany would disagree with you. In Europe they have VAT and income taxes. Once you have a tax it is a bear to get rid of. They hate having both.
My point wasnât âmake it easy for tax dodgersâ rather: My worldview is such that it is immoral for the government to tax something that you must do in order to survive (earn income). They might as well tax the air I breath. Now I donât have to buy MOST of the goods and services I consume. I choose to buy them. It would give taxpayers the feeling of agency in their taxation. Donât like your tax burden? By less stuff.
Raj, we can all think of examples where a someone got the short stick in a divorce. I might agree with you that itâs sometimes the man. Push and the ex-Mrs. Push made a mutual decision for her to home school the little Push kids while he developed his business. Maybe he got the economic short stick in the divorce, but I know he doesnât regret homeschooling his kids. They made choices together.
After youâve been married and had some kids, you can let us know how you and Mrs. Raj deal with division of labor, particularly if one of your children has serious health problems.
Yes, women are more likely to choose flexibility. Itâs risky for women, but itâs worked out really well for some of us. The Puffâs are still going strong, Raj.
We thought about getting a divorce a few times, but neither of us wants the kids. Sorry, Iâve told that joke before here.
Would you prefer to have a society where everybody is in the labor force? Nobody is home raising their own young children, or taking care of the disabled or sick people in the family? In fact, we have social programs from cradle to grave so none of us has the choice to do that if we wish? This is an Elizabeth Warren dream. The taxes will be high, but Iâll do the smart thing and put my disabled child in a state institution so I can be sure and work full time so I can support the taxes that pay for that, and so I can support myself financially in the event of a divorce? See where that argument goes? Iâm a little bit surprised to have you arguing against people who choose traditional gender roles here.
Sure. But weâre taking about women with kids here. She may still be a child herself when she has kids, and even if you donât care about her, most of us will care about her kids. We often help people who make poor life choices because there are innocent kids in the deal. Not everyone has family and church support, in fact, people have less and less of those things. I know you imagine this all happening through charity, but thatâs another discussion.
If Hitlery were VP, Trump would have already committed suicide by 3 shotgun blasts to the back by now.
Have there ever been times when there wasnât a tax? Nope - 6000 year old clay tablets record it.
But making it equitable, hardened against excessive collection, or against wasteful allocating are worthy topics for discussion.
Aside from the tiebreaking vote in the Senate, the Vice President has essentially no officially mandated duties or powers while the President is alive and well. Trump simply wouldnât invite Hillary to any meetings. Even if he was mandated to invite her to meetings, he would just hold other meetings without her where the decisions get made. The only reason Mike Pence has power in Washington is that Trump backs him up and asks for his input and people know that. The same wouldnât hold for VP Hillary. (I suppose we would have a different SecEd, but thatâs a relatively minor sidenote).
Beyond that, having a Vice President and President who are politically (and perhaps personally) at odds with one another creates practical problems. It makes a distinct motivation for assassination of the President (whether by the VP or just by opponents of the President). And even if the President dies of natural causes, it would cast a shadow over the successor. Moreover, having a system whereby the death of a President causes a 180 degree policy shift on many issues is not good for stable governance.
It might work, but I think the cost-benefit analysis when compared to the current system isnât very favorable. Youâll just end up with (at least) two presidents from one party. Theyâll consistently outvote the other so you have a more complicated and ballasted system that basically does the same thing.
It might become interesting if you make most of the Presidentâs powers only actionable by unanimous consent. But that would bog things down significantly and make the Executive branch more fractured.
What kind of damn map is this? We get carved up and I still have to remain with a bunch of Midwesterners and Northerners who drink bad beer and still wear acid-washed mom means?
Sorry, Iâve told that joke before here.