I come in at 57. Grew up n Idaho in a town of 700. I moved to the burbs north of Atlanta after 30 years in Idaho. Living in a metro area in the SE, I disagree that California needs their own quiz.

Yippee ki a! How about Home Alone. I love it just for the tears of laughter from my kids!

Yippee ki a! How about Home Alone. I love it just for the tears of laughter from my kids!

I do not view Romneycare as an aside.  I think it is a failure, even at the state level, and is indicative of his thought process.  In addition to that, at the state level, Romney employed subsidies as governor to entice business to Massachusetts.  He supported TARP, which I view as a failure, and he has expressed support for subsidizing infant industries.  Finally, unless I am wrong, he supports ethanol subsidies.  These all fall under the category of government choosing winners, trying to "fix" things, and I find them troubling.  I find them inconsistent with the first 10 actions on the 59 point plan and, as was my original point, they leave me in a position of a buyer, not a supporter.

I am approaching this primary election from the point of view of a "buyer".  There are also those approaching the election from the point of view of a "supporter".  I think the majority of changing in the polls relates to "buyers" getting more information about the products.  The "supporters" waiver less, most likely, probably explaining the relatively static levels of Romney's performance in the polls.  I have to admit that I was close to becoming a Cain supporter, but as I have discovered more about the product (particularly in the foreign policy area), the less I like.  I think it is reasonable for some primary voters to be supports with relatively little flip-flopping, and others to be buyers in the market for the best candidate for which to vote. 

I would expect in general that the policy positions of the candidates ought to be relatively stable, with some allowance for a change of mind based on new information.  My main objection to Romney is not that he has changed parties or policy positions.  I object to his tendency to convey that he thinks the government can fix things.

+3

(or 400 words)

Confiscatory tax rates for "the rich" reduces productivity, and provides massive incentive to avoid taxes.  This also provides government massive incentive to coddle your "captains of industry". 

The best misery reduction and opportunity provision policy we can employ is to reduce the scope of government.  Get them out of the loan business and health care business.  Reduce onerous regulation on business, and let the free market work.  This will return America to prosperity.  I am not saying the government should support business or any economic class of people.  The government should get out of the way and allow business to create wealth.  A reduced scope of government will require less money to run, allowing for lower corporate and individual tax rates.  Corporations paying less to government can invest in infrastructure and employees.  Individuals paying less taxes to the government have more to aid the sick, elderly, and less fortunate, as well as take those nice vacations in your letter.  Reward those who work hard and make good decisions.  Punish those who are foolish or evil.  Enable individuals to help the less fortunate.  This is the path to less misery and more opportunity.

(cannot do this in 200 words)

My issue with the Occupy Wall Street movement is the fundamental lack of honesty.  First, the 1% argument is not based in fact.  Second, while there is no central unifying demand, the lists that are publicized generally call for destroying your American dream.  The demands I have seen call for massive wealth redistribution and for consequences for all of a certain class of industry.  Why punish all bankers for the evil of some bankers?  Why accuse all Wall Street executives for the evil of some?  Why not identify those in government from both parties who enabled, and in fact mandated, high risk loans to those who could not afford them?  The OWS movement I see in print and on television does not represent the ideals presented in your letter.

Your letter essentially boils down to two goals I think.  First, reduce misery in our society, and second, provide maximum opportunity to do well.  I share those goals.  I do not think giving government more power or more responsibility will result in achieving these.  No government healthcare system in the world provides excellent care.  

Sir,

I agree with many of your sentiments.  I believe a well functioning society ought to take care of those within it that are less fortunate.  I believe those with the means should provide for their neighbors in need.  We live in a broken world, and this is only solved by reaching out to care for the sick, elderly, and less fortunate.  However, my experience is that government does not effectively or efficiently deliver goods and services.

People respond to incentives built into whatever system in which they exist.  In this world, there are consequences for one's actions.  Talent and ambition are not distributed evenly, and those with more talent and ambition should reap the rewards of employing these.  Likewise, those who work less should get less.  Additionally, those who make poor decisions or break the law ought to pay the price. 

"Wall Street" bears great responsibility for the crash in 2008.  So too, do a large number of politicians, and a significant number of those are liberals.  Everyone responsible should have lost their job and been forced to pay restitution, even to the point they were out on the street.  They all should pay.

Yes, I picked up the version in Austrian before I boarded the Intercontinental Railroad for the trip from Vienna to Atlanta.

I don't think fascism is necessarily left or right, but the Nazi party was influenced much more by the left than the right.  Their big beef with the communists was that German leftists (ie. Nazis) were also nationalists (spread the wealth among the Germans who believe like us), while communists were global (spread the wealth among all who believe like us).

Today's green movement certainly exhibits fascist characteristics, and in fact the Nazis were quite green, promoting organic food and nature worship.

As mentioned above, check out Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg if you have not read it.

I moved from the Pacific Northwest to the Atlanta area in 2006.  One of my reservations was that my children would be exposed to racial tension, and that did not exist in any of the small towns where I previously lived (tough to have racial tension when the demo is lily white).  To my delight, our experience has been the opposite.  Our neighborhood is multi-racial (including many mixed race families), and my children attend schools that are multi-racial.  The lack of division and the community integration is remarkable.  I contrast this to reports from large northern cities where often communities are starkly divided along racial lines, or even the very tranquil (but 99%+ white) villages of the Northwest.  I am happy I moved to the South.

In a command society, the rules tend not to apply to the rulers.  Some pigs are more equal than others.

I prefer that our president is a confessing Christian and believes in the limited power of the state.  Unfortunately, we have had many Christians drive the progressive agenda believing the state to be the tool to perfect society.  Indeed, even "compassionate conservatism" attempted to use the tools of state to drive a Christian agenda.  I'd like to see the power and scope of state reduced, leaving more resources and room for the Church to do the work of compassion.

When discussing Perry the other day, a coworker said candidates should "get their religion OUT OF MY FACE."  I was somewhat surprised.  We had worked together for nearly four years and discussed that we both attend church.  Our conversation was cut short so I was unable to explore this animosity further.  I understand the issues the left have with Christian candidates, but I was surprised to find this in another Christian.

My issue with the burka ban, and now in the case of the Belgian fines, is whether this helps those most oppressed by the burka.  I think the goal ought to be freeing those who are oppressed, while avoiding oppression of those voluntarily making a religious choice. 

How does a fine on a woman wearing a burka help her, exactly?  She will likely be the subject of future worse oppression.

We can say for sure that a fine on burka wearing religious intolerance by the state against those who chose it as a submission to their god.

Claire's argument (in her article and on Ricochet) failed to satisfy my concerns before, and I remain unconvinced. 

I think the burka ban by a the state fails on both levels. 

As for this Nekkaz fellow, I think he may be a pest, but I also think he is calling attention to bad policy.  Would we be discussing this now without his action?