And what if it backfires two things I and many people I know want to see is:
A guarenteed social safety net for all citizens and we mean guarenteed affordable housing, food, clothes, assurances of a job or welfare funds if one isn't working and education at Federally supported schools free up through four years of college or a trade school.
It's interesting that you would put this in a thread about the sequester (which you are defending) which includes cuts to things like schools, housing, and other 'safety net' sorts of programs. One of the more well-publicized results of the sequester is the loss of Head Start for a large number of children. Forcing spending cuts when revenues are already lowered due to recession is, uh, not the way to get more
help from the government.
The second would be making all forms of discrimination illegal including economic discrimination for example you couldn't use ones credit rating against them for employment and you couldn't have laws hurting the homeless in public policy.
I could get behind this, as long as 'all forms' includes things like criminal history and drug testing. If someone is a felon who has already served their time, and they are applying to a job that doesn't require security clearance, why do they have to disclose that on their application? After all, they have been rehabilitated by the for-profit prison system.
I am always very wary when someone talks about "Outlaw all forms of discrimination!" because it almost invariably translates to, "Outlaw all forms of discrimination that apply to me
- those other fuckers deserve to be discriminated against!"
And I would add to this the use of the military as it is for the defense of US soil and our territories, and for humanitarian missions only and the former would require a threat of invasion at the level to destroy the body politic of our nation. That is the military is to only be defensive or for humanitarian missions no more deployments all over the world unless its a general war. And I would narrow the threat to be governments and nations not groups to take out any support for a war on terror. I would allow in the language deployments for elimination of foreign threats limited to the special forces as a limited action by the president. This would allow us to downsize the military under clear lack of need for a large military but maintain a strong home force and some special forces.
Now how many here would support this as law of the land? You get the issue you could invoke this and anything could happen some people might like but some could be huge shifts in policy.
This sounds like a really nice idea that might have worked back in the days of rocks and sticks. With modern technology comes the ability to devastate another country from your La-Z-Boy in West Bumfuckigoula or wherever. Since other countries no longer need to invade us to hurt us very badly
, I would be very wary of adopting a strategy like this. I would probably also restrict humanitarian aid to places devastated by natural disaster or civilian populations affected by war - maybe. I'm personally of the opinion that there is so much humanitarian aid needed in the US that we don't have a lot of business sending resources elsewhere until we get that straightened out. It's kind of like expecting those parts of the east coast that got hit by Sandy to ignore their rebuilding so they can send aid to places affected by wildfires in the west.
It's not that I don't think we should help others who need it, but it is an established fact that you are better at helping others when you have reached a stable place yourself. I think the US needs to do that. Badly.