Slashdot Mirror
What Would You Do As President?
With the elections continually in the news there is constant discourse on what each candidate has done or will do. However, rarely do people get the chance to say what they would do. Here is your chance, you have been elected President of the US (god help us all), what items go to the head of the class and how would you handle them?
call up Ron Paul and ask him what he'd do, and probably do that :P. I imagine starting with getting all our military home, would be one of the first few things.
First: Honestly, I would do my best to remove our military presence from Iraq (and yes, I know this would probably lead to civil war, but I think its going to happen anyway, just delayed while we're there). Second: I would see if I could get the ball rolling on government insurance (socialist medicine), our privatized insurance system has become the bane of the under and uninsured people in the country, particularly children in those 2 categories.
First thing I would do would be to understand that most people are unhappy with the powers given to the president during these last eight years. I would immediately begin to ask congress for a new checks and balances constitutional amendment.
Quit doing things that make other people want to knock our buildings down.
Understandably this will make a number of very large corporations unhappy. But knocking a couple zero's off a few dozen people's income doesn't bother me much.
There's lots of other things I'd do, but this is the big one we've been refusing to make eye contact with for about 70 years.
If the economy takes a dive, I'll maybe push for a large domestic project rather than invent a war. Maybe an interstate highway syste... aww damn... I'll come up with something good.
Promise.
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
- Have Ron Paul be my VP
- Get legislation introduced eliminating the DMCA, Patriot Act
- Get legislation introduced mandating consumer copyright bill of rights and resetting copyright terms to the term when the work was created
- Resign, enjoy my retirement, pension & SS protection
- Watch as Ron Paul fixes the economy, foreign & domestic policy
I'd try to get the first four items done within the first 24 hours. I don't think I could handle being president any longer than that.Karma: SELECT `karma` FROM `users` WHERE `userid`=138474;
I would remove "In God We Trust" as the national motto, as well as removing the "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. After that, I'd put limits on advertising and marketing which are constantly being shoved in our faces. Then I'd make Network Neutrality a reality. I'd pull out troops out of Iraq. Gay marriage would be legalized at the federal level. Basically I'd pretty much change everything. :)
-Bill
I would legalize hemp for industrial uses and decriminalize marijuana. There are so many great industrial uses for hemp that it is absolutely stupid not to be using it. Marijuana is also far safer than alcohol. Other than that big one I'd probably try to come up with some sort of Peace Corp like serious public works project to take care of the infrastructure in this country. I'd also like to see a similar program setup overseas in countries that would have us. Instead of sending in troops with guns and tanks, we could send in Americans with seeds and tractors. Maybe I'm a bit too idealistic, but I have a hard time believing that we wouldn't be well received around the world if we spent as much on actually improving infrastructure and agriculture and water supplies as we spend on bombs and guns and bullets and other military expenses.
1. Kick off investigations of the crimes of the Bush administration.
2. Scale down our forgein military presence (not quite to the extent Paul wants to, but significantly).
3. Do everything in my power to get all of the unconstitutional legislation that has been passed in the last few years repealed (Patriot Act, MCA, etc).
4. Balance the budget. I would lay down absolute ultimatums that government programs justify their existence and their tax cost to the American people, and cut anything that's not convincing. Maybe I'd even call for a vote on what programs get to stay. We would have to leave taxes at close to current for a few years and pay off our debt, though, I'm afraid.
5. Not overstep the bounds of my office with signing statements, etc.
I would wonder how I got a few million people to vote for me, despite the fact that I refused to be controlled by special interest groups.
Oh nevermind, I'd never get elected.
I would get the EXPERTS on topics (Economy, Warfare, Science...) to tell me what the best course of action is (multiple, independent experts for sample size (exact size from stats experts)) and then act along those lines.
Agreed. Then I'd pardon everyone in jail for simple possession.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Also agreed. Then I'd severely cripple or remove unrepresentative 'rule-making' bodies under the authority of the executive.
My main agenda would be to promote personal responsibility. I would also promote states rights, I think alot of bureaucracy could be avoided by having more local control of things. One example for states being healthcare and on an even more local level education. A good policy in one part of the country is often not a good policy on the other side of the country. I'd work to remove federal control of most things, not unlike Ron Paul, I'm not a supporter of his, though I think he has the right philosophy. I'd then work on accomplishing goals to restore people's pride in America by promoting cutting edge science research, aiding developing countries and space exploration. I'd try to take a pragmatic approach to climate issues, trying to find more innovative solutions to climate issues than things like a carbon tax, for example spending money to reforest parts of America. Also, I'd try to simplify the tax code by either having a simpler graduated income tax, with less exemptions and lower percentages, or institute a consumption tax that is somehow graduated. In terms of Iraq and terrorism, I would try to accomplish specific goals and start to reduce US troop levels as soon as it was reasonable to do so, but certainly make sure that the country was stable first. For other threats to security, I'd follow Asimov "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", and try to use our might in more precise ways to achieve a desired goal, one scenario I could imagine is if things go bad in Iran, to simply use our air power to stop anything from entering the country, after a few weeks the country would run out of food and water, so the government would be overthrown, or change itself entirely to stop the blockade. But to sum it all up, basically promote responsibility and fairness,restore American pride, and focus on how to solve our problems without resorting to full-scale invasions.
Abolish unions? Right to peaceably assemble much? How about, instead of becoming President, you actually study what happened the last time assholes like you were in even more control: Ever hear of the Gilded Age?
"It's not the taxpayers responsibility to fund disaster recovery efforts. A compassionate community should be able to do that without needing to have the government confiscate our property from us (in the form of taxes)."
Do you really think if this was true that we'd have government? War and disaster are the two main reasons governments are created. Both, because the community cannot absorb these kinds of shocks. Who would have been the compassionate community with the ability to help fund disaster relief efforts in the case of Katrina? Neighbors who also don't have houses? Random individual contributions?
Once you start organizing a way for a community to provide services such as disaster relief, you're creating government.
NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm
Don't worry, I suspect you wouldn't have long to worry about it anyway, before your impeachment.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Please note that I would only cut the budget on Nasa for the first 2 years, then I would ramp it up past 100B, if we don't get our asses in space and start strip mining other planetoids and asteroids, we're ALL in bigger trouble than deficit spending. In reality, a good chunk of the defense budget would go to NASA as well.
Social Security: 600B (Mandatory)
Defense: 250B
Universal Health Care as part of Health and Human Services : 700B (Mandatory)
Other Mandatory: 350B (a whole bunch of tiny, popular things. A few punching bags are in this category, such as TANF/Food stamps, but they're only ~7B and ~12B, respectively, so not much left to cut there.)
Interest on debt: 239B (Mandatory)
Medicaid/SCHIP: 0B (Mandatory) (see Universal Health Care)
"Global War on Terror": 0B (emergency supplemental)
Education: 100B
Housing and Urban Development: 30B
Veterans Affairs: 30B
Homeland Security: 0B (this is bullshit, covered under Defense spending)
State and other Intl. Programs: 15B
Energy: 100B (includes nuclear weapons)
Agriculture: 20B
Justice: 20B
NASA: 15B (primary budget is covered under Defense for first 2 years)
Labor: 10B
Treasury: 5B
Transportation: 15B
Interior: 10B
Social Security Adminstration: 5B
EPA: 5B
Other Agencies: 5B
Commerce: 5B
National Science Foundation: 5B
Judicial Branch: 5B
Corps of Engineers: 5B
Legislative Branch: 2B
Border Security and Other Suppl.: 0B (once again, bullshit, covered under defense spending)
Small Business Administration: 0.4B
Executive Office: 0.1B
Hurricane response: 0B (emergency supplemental, covered under Health and Human Services)
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The race card is almost always played by people who wish to short circuit debate on genuine issues and cut straight to an emotional response designed to override logic and reason when frankly, there are much more important issues at stake in this next election. The race issue in our society has already been well addressed and it has been for at least a decade now if not longer. In my own experience it is rare to uncover the types of institutionalized discriminations that used to be part of the system and if you do experience that sort of discrimination then you have adequate methods of redress and relief via the courts. If you are trying to eliminate all bigotry then you are truly wasting your time. The test of a free society with free speech is the allowance of speech that we may disagree with or which represents a minority point of view. Discrimination is one thing, but free speech, even bigoted speech, should be answered with speech, not banned out of hand. Kicking off one's campaign at Bob Jones U or referring to 'states rights' does not make one a racist, one can speak to groups, even groups with values you don't agree with, without becoming part of that group or endorsing their message. In fact, there may be many groups which support a candidate or run ads for a candidate, but that does not mean that the candidate endorses or is even connected with those groups. Why do you think that candidates generally include the line, "I am candidate name and I approve of this message." in their ads? People should be more careful about labeling someone a racist, that is a serious charge and it is, more often than not, unfounded. Ron Paul is NOT a racist.
Who am I supposed to believe - you, or the NAACP president who has known Paul for 20 years? Tough one there, but I think I'll choose the latter.
It's unfortunate that RP allowed his name to be used for such drivel. He should have paid more attention to what people were writing. But that doesn't give you any license to continue smearing him when he has publicly repudiated those views many times.
You realize that it was "president," not "dictator," right? The president can't just order laws changed. Good luck convincing congress to sign off on any of that.
Ironically, there are 2 themes co-existing in comments in this thread...
1) Support for Ron Paul
2) Proposing that the president do a bunch of stuff that he has no power to do (stepping on Congress' toes)
stay frosty and alert
"basically shady mortgage brokers forged lending documents and got people into homes they never should have"
That is too narrow in the blame. The problem WAS shady brokers, but it was also, shady lenders. My wife worked for a couple of different direct lenders during the boom, and the number of forgeries that went on at the lenders themselves were amazing. The lenders were giving loans that they knew the borrowers could not afford. They were just counting on the borrower refinancing later when the house went up in value.
There was also the problem of shady real estate agents that would convince buyers that they could afford more house than they could afford. When we were buyers during the boom, we would go through real estate agents like they were used baby diapers. The agents would just flat out refuse to show a house that was not at the absolute limit of what the shady brokers/lenders would give you a loan for.
Then you can't dismiss the buyers themselves. It was common practice for people to buy houses that they knew they couldn't afford. They just assumed that they could sell or refinance after the price went up.
The housing crash is a perfect example of a system that broken on every level.
Which illustrates the problem of being President.
..." -- "The problem with giving big tax breaks to the wealthiest people is that it doesn't work like it might have in the past. In an era of globalization, putting more capital in the hands of the ultrawealthy is that it can and does go overseas to make people who compete with American workers more productive."
People think the President can do anything. But in fact the office of the President does not have the power to any of the things listed here, not without cooperation from other parts of the government, or in case of #3, a grand jury (which you are not allowed to stack with partisans).
Ideas for solving problems are nearly useless to a President. What a President has to do is frame problems. People have to accept that (a) a problem exists and (b) it is just the way you characterize it. Expecting to get your way on (c) [this is what we're going to do about it!] is excessively optimistic.
So, you have backtrack on your solutions to defining the problem in a way that is politically attractive and leads to the kinds of solutions you favor.
1) "I will repeal corporate personhood." -- "Corporations are using their personhood status to meddle in politics, which is not what it is for."
2) "I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth
3) "Prosecute the supreme court justices who appointed Bush, and every person in the federal governemnt who continued to aid and abet the terrorist regime." -- "Government is acting as if it is above the law, and institutions that should be politically neutral have become tools of party and in some cases personal interests."
4) "Establish a department of peace..." -- "We're asking the taxpayers to give tons of money for national security, but we're spending it in ways that make the country less secure."
5) "Reparations for the victims of hurricane katrina who were failed by their governments." -- "It's been three years since since Katrina, and we still haven't been able to marshal an effective response. We can't wait anymore for some bureaucratic program, we need to do something immediately that will make a difference right away."
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So you'd apply laws differently to people based on national origin? I take the phrase "equal protection under the law" is unfamiliar to you?
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
I would literally go down the list of every decision George Bush has made in office, and then do the opposite.
i thought, therefore i was...
Why should I be forced to pay, at gunpoint, for some poor guy's health care? What are those taxes doing for me? The original purpose of taxes were not to redistribute wealth, but to provide basic community services such as police protection and national defense. Taxes are not supposed to be taken entirely from one group to support another.
Thank you for giving up your shot at the presidency to moderate this discussion. ;^)
--
Toro
Also, bomb them.
You can't take the sky from me...
Did you know that MIT has a space in its application form asking whether a member of family or a relative has attended MIT (and I'd assume something similar for most prestigious private colleges)? While I agree that a great number of brilliant people have graduated from, have taught at, and have worket at Yale (and many others), you would be a fool not to realize that a significant fraction of students are there only on the strength of their (mostly social) background, not on academic merit.
Replace "was" with "is" and "are" and you have the perfect post.
:*(
In the last two months I've had four real estate agents lie straight-faced to me about houses they were showing, and when I called them on it they flat out told me to get off of "their" property. One of the houses that was being shown had major structural problems, but the agent showing it to me assured me that it had passed a "city inspection", yet none of the qualified local inspectors had ever heard of the asshole showing it to me, and the structural defects were glaringly obvious to anyone with any experience in the field.
Strangely enough those realtors aren't returning my calls. I wonder why?
These people are state-licensed - at least, that's what they claim. Funny, that. I'm an experienced contractor... from out of state. I guess I failed to mention that to them.
(and yes, I did report them to the local authorities. I had one callback about a week ago, who assured me he'd look into it. After some research I found he used to work for the same local realtor I was dealing with. Not surprising, this is the same shit I was dealing with in the last state I lived in. )
A local city councilperson confided to me not long ago that the city just doesn't have the resources to pursue these people - the agents have better lawyers than the city can afford to hire. Big surprise.
You do mean "the impending" housing crash, yes? It's the 80s all over again, but worse
tic
Plato's Republic: Philosopher suggests philosophers should be put in charge, decries the influence of political ambition.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199