KimJongUnstoppable

Is is possible for me to donate blood to go to victims of Hurricane Sandy if I live out of the affected area? I live in Colorado but I'd really like to. And I've done some searching online with very little luck. Your response is greatly appreciated.

This is not a question related to whether or not government should cut spending or how government spends. It is a possible change in our tax system. So please share honest thoughts rather than opinions on spending policies (because we can all agree that there should be some cuts in some areas of spending).

Recently, Fareed Zakaria wrote an article about a possible solution to the debate over taxes. He highlighted that a country absolutely must have some form of tax revenue to go to certain programs. But the problem with raising taxes on corporations is that higher taxes could lower competitiveness in a global market. And with countries like China growing at an exponential rate, it's imperative that we find a way to be competitive. He proposed this:

Instead of raising taxes on corporations, we implement a federal sales tax. A federal sales tax is better than income tax because when there is high unemployment or wages are lower in a bad economy, the government doesn't see a substantial amount of revenue because there is less to tax. And by mainly relying on revenue from income tax, annual revenues are much harder to predict for economists. And when revenue is harder to predict, allotted government spending for following years is harder to predict and determine as well.

A national sales tax would bring tax revenue that is much easier to predict for economists, which would allow economists and politicians to accurately structure spending policies for following years. It would also help prevent consumer irresponsibility by spending more than they earn and going into debt (which carries long term ramifications for an economy).

In the past, consumer spending made a big difference in the sustainability of a strong economy. But now, since we are in a global economy, consumer spending does not pump money back and circulate within the United States. The money goes to companies based overseas, helping other countries (i.e. you buy an LG television and it benefits a South Korean company and the South Korean economy).

But the possible downside is that in order for a national sales tax to be effective, it would have to be at a rate of at least 20% on all goods purchased. This could hurt startup businesses that need to purchase supplies but don't have a lot of money. And 20% on everything they purchase would be a very hefty additional cost to them.

Thank you for your thoughts. Much appreciated!

Hypothetical question as I know this would never happen. But with the size of the population and more complex social and economic system, do you think the Supreme Court is still the way to go?

Although decisions are based on constitutional merit rather than social or economic merit, decisions that can affect up to 350 million people rests in the hands of 9 individuals. On the one hand, these 9 individuals are qualified for such a job based on educational background and experience. But their personal opinions do tend to sway decisions on some occasions. So should we transfer more power to voters, where voters can make decisions based on a health care bill or (quite possibly in the future) some type of contraception based law? Or should we keep these decisions in the hands of the 9 Supreme Court Justices? Many thanks.

I know this question is loaded and I provide thoughts that could very well be deemed in violation of the constitution. But it's food for thought and to get some varying opinions.

Currently with our system based on a balance of power, any bill needs to be passed by both the House then the Senate before it goes to the President's desk for the final signature. And even if a bill passes in the House and Senate the President can veto that bill (unless the vast majority of House and Senate members pass it). However, we are often in situations where one party controls the House and the other party controls the Senate. This puts laws and bills into a stalemate too often nowadays. A bill can pass in the House but get rejected in the Senate and go through this back and forth over and over and over again. Therefore nothing gets accomplished. And when the bill is finally passed, it's a much more watered down, convoluted version of the original idea that isn't as effective as the original idea. A President (Democrat or Republican) can have great ideas but they never come to fruition because the House or Senate, whichever has majority as the opposing party, prevent these ideas from going into place. Then during the election year, the President argues that his ideas were blocked and blames the other party, and the opposing party claims that the President didn't get anything done. In the meantime, working and middle-class Americans are seeing no progress.

My question relating to this is: Do you think a system like the one in Britain and a few other countries, where the elected President has practically full power to enact his/her ideas into law without having them blocked constantly, would work in the United States? This way, if a President's ideas fail, he cannot blame anyone else. But if they succeed, then nobody else can take the credit. More bills would get passed (and not in a watered-down fashion) and there would be a greater effect on the American people. And it could, arguably, make us more competitive with other nations in a global economy if we weren't constantly being held in place by our political system.

Once again, I know it's more hypothetical than anything. But I'd like some thoughts on whether the system needs an upgrade or not. And if it does, how so? Much appreciated.

Like it or not, the vast majority of the time the incumbent President has the upper hand and momentum going into an election unless something catastrophic happens during their presidency. So even if Obama was a Republican, any opposition would be an uphill battle (historically). Do you think any of the current Republican candidates have a chance at defeating Obama or should the Republicans bring out a fresh face that people have no preconceived opinions of (like many have of Bachmann, who looks like she is likely to join the campaign soon, Gingrich, and Romney)?

Recently the international education rankings came out and placed the U.S. somewhere like 28th in the world, worst among all developed countries and worse than some developing countries. China placed 1st and they are known for being very strict in their school system. Students wear uniforms, held to high standards, and reprimanded for poor performance. Do you think we are soft on our students? Should we adopt a strict, and sometimes reprimanding system here in the U.S.?

Not too long ago, after a string of what many called hate crimes against Muslims by students in Texas, state legislature proposed that Muslim studies become mandatory for students in Texas. Surprisingly, this seems like it might go through (if it hasn't already). It is not the learning of the Arabic language. It's a study of Middle-Eastern culture. This is quite controversial being such a conservative part of the country and our relation with the Muslim world. What are your thoughts on this? On the one hand, it does force students into this. But on the other hand, it could give students an upper hand when going into the business world because learning about foreign cultures is an appealing quality to many employers.