Would you be president

[Arbo]

What of those who cannot?

They die.

So what.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Most of the time I think you'd have to be insane to want to be president not to mention be a complete ego maniac which explains why the vast majority of our presidents are such failures but then I think of what I would do if I was pres and I think I would be a good one. Thing is I would never want the job, it would destroy my life really and I just wouldn't make the sacrifice. What about you?

Hell, no. I'd never be president.

 

[NoC_T]

They die.

So what.

Never let it be said that your heart is unequal to your conviction, Arbo. It just ain't true.

 

[CanadaJohn]

IMV, Reagan was the last that truly sought the office on conviction of principles to better the nation. Since then, it's been a circus of those desiring to make the country in their own political mold...

Evening V1.1 - I'd add in that there are a few that just really love the perks and the adulation.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Evening V1.1 - I'd add in that there are a few that just really love the perks and the adulation.

Agreed.

Good evening jcj...

 

[Arbo]

Never let it be said that your heart is unequal to your conviction, Arbo. It just ain't true.

Tis not cruel to say such, it's merely life. How on earth did people get by in the 1700's and 1800's without big government paying for every need? By being self reliant.

 

[Gathomas88]

I would absolutely love every minute of being president.

That's exactly how I know that I need to be kept as far away from the position as humanly possible. :lol:

 

[radcen]

Elect me Benevolent Dictator and all your problems will be solved.

 

[Ontologuy]

President, no.

Political party chairman and chief philosopher, yes.

 

[NoC_T]

Tis not cruel to say such, it's merely life. How on earth did people get by in the 1700's and 1800's without big government paying for every need? By being self reliant.

As I understand it, a great may people didn't get by back then.

 

[Tigger]

What of those who cannot?

That is what family, extended family, friends, and the local commumity (private not public) are for. Beyond that the lasw of nature take effect.

 

[NoC_T]

That is what family, extended family, friends, and the local commumity (private not public) are for. Beyond that the lasw of nature take effect.

Assuming such participation; motive and resources are far from certain. A developed society doesn't leave the public welfare to chance and charity. There should be some provision for those not so affluent. This 'sink or swim' attitude is not one that behooves the mentality of any society that would call itself enlightened.

The 'laws of nature' allow for any number of horrors. This is no fitting basis for a code of conduct.

 

[Tigger]

Assuming such participation; motive and resources are far from certain. A developed society doesn't leave the public welfare to chance and charity. There should be some provision for those not so affluent. This 'sink or swim' attitude is not one that behooves the mentality of any society that would call itself enlightened.

The 'laws of nature' allow for any number of horrors. This is no fitting basis for a code of conduct.

A developed society does not need the Government to keep itself on the straight and narrow. A truly developed society is made up of individuals who are willing to do what is necessary to provide for themselves or accept the consequences if they do not.

That's not to say there aren't those in society who truly deserve some help, but until the vast majority of citizens are willing to DO for themselves, the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

 

[Arbo]

As I understand it, a great may people didn't get by back then.

Life is tough. So what.

 

[radcen]

A developed society does not need the Government to keep itself on the straight and narrow. A truly developed society is made up of individuals who are willing to do what is necessary to provide for themselves or accept the consequences if they do not.

That's not to say there aren't those in society who truly deserve some help, but until the vast majority of citizens are willing to DO for themselves, the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

That's not developed, that's merely base instinct.

 

[Tigger]

That's not developed, that's merely base instinct.

I believe that it was you, not I, who mentioned that word. In general I find that most "developed" nations have simply "developed" ways to ignore the morals and values that I hold as the basis for any proper society.

 

[laska]

I just want to be able to email my public policies to the President and Congress, have them love them, take credit for them, and enact them.

 

[grip]

I just want to be able to email my public policies to the President and Congress, have them love them, take credit for them, and enact them.

I'm curious to what policy changes people would enact to fix things?

 

[laska]

I'm curious to what policy changes people would enact to fix things?

You asked :lol:.

My alternative economic plan to Obama's plan.

*0% corporate rate
*eliminate all the payroll taxes
*business no longer have to provide health insurance of employees
*smart regulation overhaul. Tons of regulations on industries are archaic and simply need to be eliminated as it is burdensome on job creators. But good regulation protects against harmful business practices such as protecting environment, protecting consumers, etc.
*policies against crony capitalism from phasing out subsidies, breaking monopolies in markets in such things as cable TV and internet access through licenses, and corporate welfare
*lower capital gains rates on public offerings to 10%
*expand free trade agreements across the globe
*immigration reform that allows foreign students with advance degrees from U.S. universities or with advanced skills needed by U.S. industry immediate citizenship. Low skill workers that U.S. industries need because Americans do not want the jobs, such as agriculture workers from Mexico, should be able to get temporary work permits.

Many on the Right likely is loving most of this so far and the Left not so much. But it evens out. Let me go ahead and post rest of tax code.

Scrap current tax code and create the following:
Eliminate all deductions on net income, no joint filing, eliminate pay roll taxes.
10% on income between 0-$100,000
20% any additional income between 100,000-1 mil
30% any additional income above 1 mil
capital gains taxed like regular income at 10/20/30% rates (except on public offerings)

The significant savings to companies from a 0% corporate rate, no payroll taxes, and no health insurance costs will either go back into growing the company such as buying machinery and adding employees, which creates jobs and increases the GNP which is the magic in increasing government revenue through 0% corporate tax, or the owners do not put the money back into company to expand their business but cash out for personal income. It is when they cash out when the progressive tax rates kick in. I believe currently the million and above income bracket pays on average somewhere around 15-20% in real taxes. So a real 30% is a significant increase in taxes on the wealthy. I also will tax capital gains as regular net income using the 10/20/30% progressive rates except when companies offer stock to raise capital where it will be a flat 10%. This also significantly increases overall taxes on the rich compared to current code while lowering the cost to investors in increasing growth. OK the Left leaning readers likely are starting to like this much better than when I first started, while and on the Right many of you guys are thinking I am messing everything up, that this kind of tax increases on the wealthy backfires as it cuts their entrepreneur incentive to work, and the stuff they would have bought creates jobs. The old argument someone has to build the private plane. The old trickle down theory that these higher rates actually lessen government revenue in long run. Their mindset is ever lower taxes equals greater and greater government revenue. The problems with this argument is that 1. there is no proof that entrepreneurial incentive will be decreased at my extra rates. It could be argued it could have the opposite effect as they may work harder to make up the difference, especially if they want to buy that second backup plane or 10th vacation home in France. If someone making ten million gross and pays 2 million in taxes under current tax code, and pays 3 million under my tax code, do you really think they are not going to work for the 7 million. They are just going to throw their hands up and say dang it is not worth it. Seven million is better than nothing, and their desires for material things are not going to less. Also with my 0% corporate rate and other reductions in business costs, it will make it easier for them to increase their income pie. That 10 million may become 14 million through their company's growth from utilizing the savings to expand their business and output. So while they pay a higher rate on personal income, under my tax code it will be easier to grow their income. A win win for everyone, higher personal incomes, lower unemployment, higher government revenue. 2. while it may hurt the luxury item industries taxing the wealthy at higher rates, the money does not leave the economy, it is just transferred to someone else. It may go from the wealthy through government to pay the salaries of firemen, who then use the money to buy necessities such as a home, food, clothing. Someone has to build those things the firemen buy. So the Right's argument that someone builds the plane is hollow. The question is whether you'd rather the nation borrow on the China credit card the salaries of the firemen and allow the rich person to buy his 10th vacation home or 2nd plane, or reduce the deficit. Another argument from the Right is the constitutionality of progressive tax rates. Is it the majority stealing from a minority. While I put a ceiling rate of 30% on the high income bracket, I don't think we should ever go above that, I do think a strong case can be made that it is fair to require the wealthy to pay a greater share of the cost of government. First, the assumption by the Right is that the invisible hand of the market is fair. The vast majority of the blood, sweat, and tears in the creation of the annual GNP is done by the working poor and yet they get a tiny fraction of this wealth they have primarily created. A large percent of this wealth goes into the hands of a very few. Because of the unfairness of it all, and the current high cost of government, I believe it is more virtuous to protect the economic freedom of the say 99% of the population and require the few to cover more of the costs of government, which they benefit more from than anyone else, than require more from those who least can afford to give. So if it comes down to a 18% flat tax where that extra 8% really makes life hard for millions of people or a progressive code that makes a rich person have to save an extra year so they can pay cash for another vacation home, I believe progressive is a greater protection of economic freedom.


Implement single payer for catastrophic. Cash/charity system for everything else. This would be such a better system than we have now. It would drastically reduce health care costs because of the so many ways it will cut costs which I will not go into detail here, and save people the worries of going personally bankrupt by not affording co-pays, or going past limits, or not having insurance because of pre-existing conditions or whatever. It allows companies to concentrate on their business and employees will have the freedom to change jobs when they want without health insurance provided by the companies effecting their decisions. Gives them greater freedom.

Transform education/job training to super high quality, super cheap, universal access by creation of my virtual university concept.

Reform welfare and model after Mormon welfare system. Basically a structure against corruption where able body work for tangible goods and clothing.

Instead of creating more public jobs like Obama wants, implement a world class efficiency program that eliminates jobs and spending that is not needed. Downsize government through efficiency. Elimination of inefficient bubbles in economy in long term is pro job growth, anti-poverty, increases standard of living across the board, lowers deficits, increases government revenue. To visualize why firing some people will in the long term be healthy for overall society in fighting long term unemployment and poverty, (and my job training and welfare system would act as a way to soften the blow and quickly redirect this labor to efficient places) visualize a non industrialized agrarian society where basically 100% labor was required to feed and clothe the population. The invention of machinery may cause 90% unemployment but it also freed up this labor to create other things. This causes living standards to rise across the board, because where they only had food, they now have food, and whatever this 90% labor creates, such as houses, autos, etc. This 90% unemployment turns out to be a blessing. The same concept goes with inefficient government agency. If technology and managerial changes can allow an agency to do its duties at 1/10 the cost but public unions and current management will not allow the changes because it may cost them their job, tax payers are stuck with a bloated bill, and this labor and capital could otherwise be used to create additional wealth to the economy. It is these type of bubbles in the economy that drags down the economy to slow, sluggish growth. This is what happened to Japan. They bragged about jobs for life in a company. All this did was killed their economic growth, and lowered living standards.

Pass amendment for term limits of one term for President, 6 yrs, and one term for House of Representatives, 3 yrs, and one term for half the Senate who are elected by the public for 6 yrs, other half of the Senate goes back to being indirectly chosen by Governors of the states and confirmed by the state legislatures. No term limits on these 50 indirectly chosen Senators. They serve 6 yr terms like they do now. 10% of the House of Representatives are special seats outside of any districts and are without term limits and are elected by the Senators from outgoing Representatives who have served their one term. So a really talented outgoing Representative may be recognized by the Senate and serve several terms in the House, which gives added experience and leadership in the House. The indirect selection of the 50 Senators with no term limits does the same for the Senate. I think another check on the Presidency besides impeachment process in case of a disastrous Presidential pick as well as a mechanism to encourage the executive and legislature to work with each other, would be at the state of the union of the midterm of his presidency, a vote of confidence is given. 3/4 negative vote and there is a new presidential election.

 

[grip]

You asked :lol:.

My alternative economic plan to Obama's plan.

*0% corporate rate
*eliminate all the payroll taxes
*business no longer have to provide health insurance of employees
*smart regulation overhaul. Tons of regulations on industries are archaic and simply need to be eliminated as it is burdensome on job creators. But good regulation protects against harmful business practices such as protecting environment, protecting consumers, etc.
*policies against crony capitalism from phasing out subsidies, breaking monopolies in markets in such things as cable TV and internet access through licenses, and corporate welfare
*lower capital gains rates on public offerings to 10%
*expand free trade agreements across the globe
*immigration reform that allows foreign students with advance degrees from U.S. universities or with advanced skills needed by U.S. industry immediate citizenship. Low skill workers that U.S. industries need because Americans do not want the jobs, such as agriculture workers from Mexico, should be able to get temporary work permits.

Many on the Right likely is loving most of this so far and the Left not so much. But it evens out. Let me go ahead and post rest of tax code.

Scrap current tax code and create the following:
Eliminate all deductions on net income, no joint filing, eliminate pay roll taxes.
10% on income between 0-$100,000
20% any additional income between 100,000-1 mil
30% any additional income above 1 mil
capital gains taxed like regular income at 10/20/30% rates (except on public offerings)

The significant savings to companies from a 0% corporate rate, no payroll taxes, and no health insurance costs will either go back into growing the company such as buying machinery and adding employees, which creates jobs and increases the GNP which is the magic in increasing government revenue through 0% corporate tax, or the owners do not put the money back into company to expand their business but cash out for personal income. It is when they cash out when the progressive tax rates kick in. I believe currently the million and above income bracket pays on average somewhere around 15-20% in real taxes. So a real 30% is a significant increase in taxes on the wealthy. I also will tax capital gains as regular net income using the 10/20/30% progressive rates except when companies offer stock to raise capital where it will be a flat 10%. This also significantly increases overall taxes on the rich compared to current code while lowering the cost to investors in increasing growth. OK the Left leaning readers likely are starting to like this much better than when I first started, while and on the Right many of you guys are thinking I am messing everything up, that this kind of tax increases on the wealthy backfires as it cuts their entrepreneur incentive to work, and the stuff they would have bought creates jobs. The old argument someone has to build the private plane. The old trickle down theory that these higher rates actually lessen government revenue in long run. Their mindset is ever lower taxes equals greater and greater government revenue. The problems with this argument is that 1. their is no proof that entrepreneurial incentive will be decreased at my extra rates. It could be argued it could have the opposite effect as they may work harder to make up the difference, especially if they want to buy that second backup plane or 10th vacation home in France. If someone making ten million gross and pays 2 million in taxes under current tax code, and pays 3 million under my tax code, do you really think they are not going to work for the 7 million. They are just going to throw their hands up and say dang it is not worth it. Seven million is better than nothing, and their desires for material things are not going to less. Also with my 0% corporate rate and other reductions in business costs, it will make it easier for them to increase their income pie. That 10 million may become 14 million through their company's growth from utilizing the savings to expand their business and output. So while they pay a higher rate on personal income, under my tax code it will be easier to grow their income. A win win for everyone, higher personal incomes, lower unemployment, higher government revenue. 2. while it may hurt the luxury item industries taxing the wealthy at higher rates, the money does not leave the economy, it is just transferred to someone else. It may go from the wealthy through government to pay the salaries of firemen, who then use the money to buy necessities such as a home, food, clothing. Someone has to build those things the firemen buy. So the Right's argument that someone builds the plane is hollow. The question is whether you'd rather the nation borrow on the China credit card the salaries of the firemen and allow the rich person to buy his 10th vacation home or 2nd plane, or reduce the deficit. Another argument from the Right is the constitutionality of progressive tax rates. Is it the majority stealing from a minority. While I put a ceiling rate of 30% on the high income bracket, I don't think we should ever go above that, I do think a strong case can be made that it is fair to require the wealthy to pay a greater share of the cost of government. First, the assumption by the Right is that the invisible hand of the market is fair. The vast majority of the blood, sweat, and tears in the creation of the annual GNP is done by the working poor and yet they get a tiny fraction of this wealth they have primarily created. A large percent of this wealth goes into the hands of a very few. Because of the unfairness of it all, and the current high cost of government, I believe it is more virtuous to protect the economic freedom of the say 99% of the population and require the few to cover more of the costs of government, which they benefit more from than anyone else, than require more from those who least can afford to give. So if it comes down to a 18% flat tax where that extra 8% really makes life hard for millions of people or a progressive code that makes a rich person have to save an extra year so they can pay cash for another vacation home, I believe progressive is a greater protection of economic freedom.


Implement single payer for catastrophic. Cash/charity system for everything else. This would be such a better system than we have now. It would drastically reduce health care costs because of the so many ways it will cut costs which I will not go into detail here, and save people the worries of going personally bankrupt by not affording co-pays, or going past limits, or not having insurance because of pre-existing conditions or whatever. It allows companies to concentrate on their business and employees will have the freedom to change jobs when they want without health insurance provided by the companies effecting their decisions. Gives them greater freedom.

Transform education/job training to super high quality, super cheap, universal access by creation of my virtual university concept.

Reform welfare and model after Mormon welfare system. Basically a structure against corruption where able body work for tangible goods and clothing.

Instead of creating more public jobs like Obama wants, implement a world class efficiency program that eliminates jobs and spending that is not needed. Downsize government through efficiency. Elimination of inefficient bubbles in economy in long term is pro job growth, anti-poverty, increases standard of living across the board, lowers deficits, increases government revenue. To visualize why firing some people will in the long term be healthy for overall society in fighting long term unemployment and poverty, (and my job training and welfare system would act as a way to soften the blow and quickly redirect this labor to efficient places) visualize a non industrialized agrarian society where basically 100% labor was required to feed and clothe the population. The invention of machinery may cause 90% unemployment but it also freed up this labor to create other things. This causes living standards to rise across the board, because where they only had food, they now have food, and whatever this 90% labor creates, such as houses, autos, etc. This 90% unemployment turns out to be a blessing. The same concept goes with inefficient government agency. If technology and managerial changes can allow an agency to do its duties at 1/10 the cost but public unions and current management will not allow the changes because it may cost them their job, tax payers are stuck with a bloated bill, and this labor and capital could otherwise be used to create additional wealth to the economy. It is these type of bubbles in the economy that drags down the economy to slow, sluggish growth. This is what happened to Japan. They bragged about jobs for life in a company. All this did was killed their economic growth, and lowered living standards. The Democratic party is enslaved to these public type unions so for them it is usually all about creating more public employees whether they are efficient use of labor in the economy or not. As it get's them elected. That is why it is not surprising Obama's new economic plan ties any increases revenue through lowering of corporate tax, which as explained above does magically increase government revenue, to public hiring. And all it will likely do is create more economic bubbles that stymies growth, decreases government revenue what it would otherwise be, raises deficit, and long term raises unemployment what it would otherwise be if the labor was used more efficiently.

Pass amendment for term limits of one term for President, 6 yrs, and one term for House of Representatives, 3 yrs, and one term for half the Senate who are elected by the public for 6 yrs, other half of the Senate goes back to being indirectly chosen by Governors of the states and confirmed by the state legislatures. No term limits on these 50 indirectly chosen Senators. They serve 6 yr terms like they do now. 10% of the House of Representatives are special seats outside of any districts and are without term limits and are elected by the Senators from outgoing Representatives who have served their one term. So a really talented outgoing Representative may be recognized by the Senate and serve several terms in the House, which gives added experience and leadership in the House. The indirect selection of the 50 Senators with no term limits does the same for the Senate. I think another check on the Presidency besides impeachment process in case of a disastrous Presidential pick as well as a mechanism to encourage the executive and legislature to work with each other, would be at the state of the union of the midterm of his presidency, a vote of confidence is given. 3/4 negative vote and there is a new presidential election.

I agree with the premise of much of your solutions but see some glaring holes.

The government could never keep up with entitlement payments to Social Security, Medicare and other gov expenditures on the lack of revenue your tax plan would create. Businesses would continue to show low profits by funneling the proceeds out of country. You need to make any corporation that profits off the American people pay for that privilege without using their leverage to avoid it. Corporations are sitting on $38 trillion in offshore accounts. The idea that they don't make enough profit for more American people to be successful is a big fat lie.

No income tax on $100K or less but 2% FED tax on all purchases.
A 10% flat tax on income of $100K - $5mil
A 30% flat tax on anything above $5mil

Welfare reform is a good idea.
Single payer is not going to control medical costs. Unfortunately we'd need something like a combination of gov provided medical with private pay. Humana type of medical insurance where the gov pays most of the cost but is run by companies that are more efficient at controlling medical costs.
I'd like to see a lot of fraud and waste cut out of gov, especially big defense contracts.
I like term limits.

We're not far off on concepts but it's too much for even a two term President to accomplish.

 

[radcen]

I believe that it was you, not I, who mentioned that word. In general I find that most "developed" nations have simply "developed" ways to ignore the morals and values that I hold as the basis for any proper society.

In post #63, the one I was responding to, you said, "A truly developed society is made up of individuals who are willing to do what is necessary to provide for themselves or accept the consequences if they do not.". (Emphasis mine) That's what I was referring to.

My only other post in this thread was a joke about electing me Benevolent Dictator.

 

[NoC_T]

A developed society does not need the Government to keep itself on the straight and narrow. A truly developed society is made up of individuals who are willing to do what is necessary to provide for themselves or accept the consequences if they do not.

That's not to say there aren't those in society who truly deserve some help, but until the vast majority of citizens are willing to DO for themselves, the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.

A developed society benefits from a level of consensus that becomes distilled into broad economic and moral provision. Any expression of mass social dynamic culminates in leadership, of whatever format, so the existence of government per se is moot. The society you would have is one defined by catastrophic social collapse, at the expense of an infinitesimal minority of the privileged. It may be that you believe opportunity is a given, and that such is of equal access to all people. The problem with simplistic appraisal is that it's always synonymous with brutality and a delusional time frame. Forget fiction, Tigger. Reality is more than pressing enough.

 

[NoC_T]

Life is tough. So what.

Yeah, it was mildly amusing the first time. Now it's just silly.

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth, because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. We use words like 'honor', 'code', 'loyaltyl. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

 

[Tigger]

A developed society benefits from a level of consensus that becomes distilled into broad economic and moral provision. Any expression of mass social dynamic culminates in leadership, of whatever format, so the existence of government per se is moot.

A developed society comprehends that Right and Wrong over-ride concensus every time. I have never and will never agree that there is or ever has been a Right to think or act in an immoral manner. Leadership is the ability to demand that people act properly, whether they want to or not, and make them do it.

The society you would have is one defined by catastrophic social collapse, at the expense of an infinitesimal minority of the privileged.

The society I would have is defined by a caste system for those who can, will, and do what they're supposed to compared to those who will not; as it should be. This whole idea that we have Rights and Privileges without the corresponding Duties and Responsibilities is insane so far as I'm concerned.

It may be that you believe opportunity is a given, and that such is of equal access to all people. The problem with simplistic appraisal is that it's always synonymous with brutality and a delusional time frame. Forget fiction, Tigger. Reality is more than pressing enough.

Opportunity IS a given, though not always at the same level across the board. Those who truly want to make something of themselves, will do so. Those who choose not to do not deserve to eat at the societal table that the rest of us partake of. Reality is that we live in s social pig's wallow here in the United States and Western Society in general.

 

[windowdressing]

IMV, Reagan was the last that truly sought the office on conviction of principles to better the nation. Since then, it's been a circus of those desiring to make the country in their own political mold...

WOW! I didn't know that! The things you learn here ... I'm guessing this would be news to the Gipper too ...