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?

32 of 1,455 comments (clear)

  1. well.. by gangien · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:well.. by Retric · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is my personal to 10 list.

      1. Quickly end the war.
      2. Limit military spending to 3 times any other country. (Saving ~428 billion a year.)
      3. Fiber to the home. Every home.
      4. Remove the income limit on SS / Medicare taxes. (It's the #1 reason why the middle class pay a higher tax rate than the super rich and the reason SS is having trouble in the first place.)
      5. Invest in proven solar / wind systems that are close to the break even point. (EX: Solar hot water systems and wind farms.)
      6. Fund mass transit.
      7. Limited universal healthcare (90% coverage up to 10k per person per year.)
      8. Increased regulation of the home lending market.
      9. Limit maximum APR on any form of lending to 15% over inflation so credit card's are limited to around 17.5% APR / year.
      10. Fund ITER and other large science projects.

    2. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I cannot speak for him, I doubt the grandfather is referring to that.

      Ron Paul supports opposing immigration with force which is morally unacceptable. Moreover, he does so in a particulary despisable way, implying that "breaking the law" is intrisically evil, invoking concepts of collective responsibility, etc.

      There's a very un-sane cult of personality around Ron Paul. By tying good ideas and bad ideas into a person the good ideas will definitely suffer by association.

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    3. Re:well.. by halivar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So you say his newsletters were forged for him and signed by his subordinates for the last 20 years without him even reading them? Is that how he plans to run America? Maybe he can hire his Stormfront friends to run domestic policy for him, and sign the bills in his name.

    4. Re:well.. by Sancho · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If I was the President, I'd do 1 and 2. The rest of what you've suggested aren't powers allocated to the president, so he can't do them (though he can try to convince Congress to do them.)

      If I was the President, I'd try to return the Executive branch back to its Constitutional roots.

    5. Re:well.. by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Ron Paul is such a racist, where are Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton and all of the other civil rights leaders who love national attention? How come all of the people throwing accusations at Ron Paul are white, tie wearing, political types?
      Keeping their powder dry.
      In the game-theoretical match being played out, RP only becomes valuable to the left if they can succeed in getting him the nomination.
      If RP gets the nomination, stand by for Jesse and Al to come at you all ahead flank-3, main engines in battle-override.
      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    6. Re:well.. by plague3106 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ugh, enough. I'm not a huge fan of Ron Paul myself, but "oppose immigration with force" is misleading, at best. It's illegal immigration he's against, and quite frankly, I agree with him. There's nothing wrong with having a process to get into this country and become a citizen.

    7. Re:well.. by Arthur+B. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thanks for making my point. Ron Paul's stance on immigration has been breeding the worst kind of legal positivism. Illegal immigration is illegal because the federal government decided it was. Just because the fed govt says something is illegal doesn't mean it's wrong or immoral. No amount of bold or italic on the word "illegal" is going to change that. And why the hell can't Ron Paul fans understand that immigration != naturalization. Who said anything about becoming a citizen ?

      --
      \u262D = \u5350
    8. Re:well.. by Goaway · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In fact, Paul dismissed the editors involved, directly upon being informed of the objectionable content.

      Sources on that, please. In none of the discussions about it I've seen has he ever said he did so.

    9. Re:well.. by Rei · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let's talk for a moment about "fairness". A person doing hot tar roofing earns $9 an hour. Tiger Woods earns $171 a minute for playing golf. Stephen Spielberg earns $632 a minute. Paris Hilton is set for life for doing absolutely nothing of value. Is that a fair rewarding of labor?

      We live in a (mostly) free market economy, and that's generally a good thing. It means that we pay for goods what they're worth. It means we strive to reduce subsidy and get mad when we see it in some form or another. It tends to lead to optimal use of resources. All of this is great, except that it treats people just like another good. The hot tar worker is like sand, available on the cheap, while Tiger Woods and Spielberg are like gold. They're rare, so the market pays more for them, exponentially more, obscenely more. Wages in a free market economy are naturally distributed along an "L" curve. This isn't "fair" in terms of the amount of labor people put in (or even how "smart" they are, or how much risk they were willing to take), but the free market doesn't care about "fairness". It doesn't care about anything. To it, people are just goods.

      Now, while wages may be distributed exponentially, human needs are not. A poor person, buying necessities, has no money left over for luxury. A wealthy person simply cannot buy enough necessities to even dent their luxury budget. And if they did buy necessities for other people, that would be "charitable giving". Our income tax is designed to approximate a tax on luxury; the poor, being unable to spend much on luxury, pay the lowest rate, while the wealthy, unable to spend a significant portion on necessity, pay a luxury rate. And if they give to charity, it's deductable.

      Now, one might argue that a sales tax that directly taxes luxury would be more equitable than an income tax. I'd agree. The problems, however, come in the implementation. Is a $0.30 cent head of cabbage luxury? I doubt anyone would argue that. Okay -- how about a $1.50 pack of buttom mushrooms? A $5.00 pack of Shiitakes? A $60 pack of truffles? How about a beat-up 86 Olds? A 2001 Saturn? A 2007 Prius? A 2008 Lexus? When you look at the big picture, you can't classify the level of luxury based on the category of an object; it really just doesn't work. Sure, some things lend themselves better to luxury taxes -- groceries having no base level of taxation, jewelry having a high level, and so on -- but you can't capture the extreme level of variation within a given field. Hence, the income tax, having brackets for different income levels, fills in the gaps.

      Taxing luxury spending higher than necessity spending is a lot more "fair" than treating people's labor the same way you'd treat a market price for sand versus gold. Flatting out the "L" curve is a lot more "fair" than leaving it in tact. Now, people working harder, taking risks, getting educated, and generally making themselves into the "gold" that the market wants *should* be rewarded. It's only "fair". But it's hard to say that, say, Bill Gates deserves tens of thousands of times the level of reward as a hot tar roofer; it's hard to call that "fairness".

      As for the implications on the economy, people need rewards. Without reward, there's little incentive to improve, little incentive to work harder, little incentive to become that "gold" that the market wants. On the other hand, rewards several tens of thousands of times a hot tar roofer's wage distinctly are *not* required. Let's look at history. Anyone here know what our top income tax brackets were doing our nation's biggest boom time (the end of WWII to the late 1960s)? ~80-90%. We had this staggering level of taxation of the top rungs during this time, and yet the economy took off. Now, most of the credit to our boom belongs to the US being the main undamaged producer of goods after the war. But it's hard to argue that such taxation was some significant impediment. While I wouldn't argue for such extreme bracketting of taxation, in general, I feel the case for bracketted income taxes in terms of fairness is quite solid.

      --
      Tonight's Special: Leg of Salmon
    10. Re:well.. by joggle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then what? Do you think that by removing government that will automatically 'fix' everything?

      1. Abolish the IRS
        • The IRS raises much of the money the Federal government uses to fund the military, subsidize farmers, scientific research, college education (in the form of grants to Universities and subsidized student loans), etc. So how do you go about solving all of the problems such a drastic measure would cause? Force the thousands of college graduates to double or triple the amount they have to spend on their monthly studen loan bill? Force thousands of others to not even go to college because they would not be able to secure loans without the federal Stafford program? Force millions of people to not have access to medical treatment or medication any longer? Leave thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment overseas because there would no longer be enough money to bring them home?
      2. Abolish the Federal Reserve
        • What the heck would this accomplish? While they aren't great, they definitely serve the purpose for which it was designed--dampen market-driven cycles and try to minimize inflation. Do you wish for a return of runs on the market and severe depressions/recessions?
      3. Abolish the Department of Education
        • All industralized nations in the world have some sort of mechanism of implementing national standards for education. There is a reason for this. While the current D of E could do a much, much better job, I don't see how removing them would fix the problem of low education standards in the US.
      4. Abolish the FCC
        • And what would this solve? The FCC exists because, like water rights, the radio spectrum is a limited resource that cross state boundaries. How can anything other than a federal department regulate such a resource to prevent states from duking it out?
      5. Abolish social security
        • What would you do to compensate the millions of workers who have invested a significant fraction of their income into the program?
      6. Abolish medicare
        • How do you propose to give medical treatment to the poor? Leave it to the states? If it were up each state then richer states such as Massachusetts would surely be OK but others like Alabama and Mississippi would surely have little to no medical treatment for the poor due to the much higher portion of the population that is poor and due to having less tax money in order to pay for such a system. This would just cause poor states to get poorer while rich states would be able to keep some money that would have otherwise gone to the poorer ones to fund the program.

      So in short, if a guy is 70, poor, living off of social security and live in Mississippi, he's screwed and that's fine with you, right? And if the guy was 60, approaching retirement he'd have no choice but to work until he died since there would be no possibility of retirement and living off of social security. In the US Declaration of Independence you will find the phrase: " All have right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". How the heck can one do this if they were unlucky enough to be born poor and have no hope of attending college to be eligible for better jobs and not be able to afford their own health care?

      The government exists to solve problems people cannot solve on their own. Removing the current solutions provided by the government without offering any alternative seems ridiculous from my point of view. By abolishing all of the functions of government you mentioned you will surely 'fix' what ever problem created by these programs. However, each program was formed to solve other problems that will now need to be redressed and would surely cause additional problems due to the strong rippling effect it would have on the rest of government.

    11. Re:well.. by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You leave out an important point. The roof taring guy only benefits one person/family/business at a time. Obviously he should be paid less than someone like Tiger Woods who benefits thousands of fans per tournament. Same thing with Spielberg, he benefits millions with his movies. And I don't know what Paris makes, but she entertains more people than the roofer, and besides that, her family benefited a lot of people with their hotels. Basically, a free market helps those who are efficient (benefit the most people) at the cost of the less efficient (benefit one person at a time). Also, these efficient producers pay more taxes in absolute terms than their less efficient counterpart. It's hard to say the roofer isn't being rewarded fairly. Calling entertainment or anything else a luxury doesn't change its benefit. Besides, where should we draw the line? Should we call everything other than food or shelter a luxury? Should high quality/priced food then be a luxury? What about big houses? Or pools? Cars? Maybe everything other than a cardboard box and a bowl of rice should be considered a luxury? Point is, luxury good create wealth just as much as necessities. Would the farmer really care about feeding more than his family if he had nothing to buy with his income?

    12. Re:well.. by b17bmbr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Shrub is an authentic war coward (daddy may have been near danger but Bush wasn't even present for his entire term of service)
      actually, Bush I was a WW2 pilot. he flew a TBF bomber on some very dangerous missions over Japanese occupied islands, and was shot down. in fact, one (perhaps both, I don't recall) of his crew was killed on the mission. and when he splashed down, he was in japanese controlled waters and was in very real danger of being captured, tortured and killed. I'd say he was more than "near" danger.

      the difference between between W and Kerry was this: kerry made his wartime service an issue. period. he made it an issue as to his leadership, judgement, etc. and, it wasn't his service, but his anti-war activities that so angered his fellow veterans.

      I'm not a fan of W: his record spending, amnesty, and federalization of damn near everything, plus his gross mismanagement of the Iraq campaign (notice I didn't say Iraq war, which would be like saying the African War or the French War when talking about WW2. there was an African campaign, a Western Campaign, etc. Iraq is one campaign in a very long war we've been in for many many years.). however, he did not make his service an issue in 2000 or 2004.
      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    13. Re:well.. by darjen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your whole post seems to be based on the faulty labor theory of value... which would make sense, except that value is subjective. Any random person doesn't necessarily deserve Bill Gates' or Paris Hilton's money any more than they do. Economics isn't a zero sum game. It doesn't matter how rich someone is... if people are free to make their own opportunities, that is about as fair as you can get.

  2. Two main concerns by egarff · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. In all seriousness by earnest+murderer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:In all seriousness by Skim123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We are trying to help establish a democracy in Iraq! Damned if we do; damned if we don't.

      We shouldn't ever be waging war to promote democracy. And if going into Iraq was just about "spreading freedom" - which is a laughable claim - then why aren't we "spreading freedom" to other countries in the world that are led by despots?

      We shouldn't be dicking with other countries' governments at all. We shouldn't be supplying arms and money to unpopular dictators. We shouldn't be sending in tanks and bombs to unseat a government we dislike. European powers shouldn't have carved up the Middle East 150 years ago into Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc., etc. They shouldn't have created Israel after WWII. They shouldn't have carved up Eastern Europe like they did after WWI. Britain shouldn't have been such meanies over in India. France shouldn't have tried to control Indochina. The US shouldn't have forced Japan to trade and modernize back in the early 20th century.

      I know I'm rambling here, but what I'm trying to say is that when one nation takes it upon themselves to direct the peoples of another nation, bad stuff is bound to happen. It might be minor bad stuff, or it might be major bad stuff. It might happen in 5 years, it might happen in 25 years, or it might happen in 100 years. But nothing good will comes of bullying other people around.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

  4. Simple answer by SeanTobin · · Score: 5, Insightful
    In order:
    • 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;
  5. 'In God We Trust' by CyberBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  6. Hemp by dave562 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head by jorenko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. If I was President... by kellyb9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  9. Experts by UnderDark · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:VETO! by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Agreed. Then I'd pardon everyone in jail for simple possession.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  11. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  12. Re:The question is not whether he is a racist by darjen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  13. Maybe respect the constitution first of all? by Fat+Cow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  14. Re:Tsiangkun 2012 by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Which illustrates the problem of being President.

    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 ..." -- "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."

    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.
  15. Best President Ever by infinite+jester · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
  16. MOD PARENT DOWN by ahuard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT DOWN by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Typical American response, indicating that the poster clearly doesn't believe that he will ever be "some poor guy". He will never become too sick or injured to work. He will never have his business fold beneath him, or his employer collapse above him. If the unwashed masses need more assistance than the wealthy see fit to voluntarily give, then they are leeches.

      He is America Man!

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  17. Attention Moderators! by Torodung · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thank you for giving up your shot at the presidency to moderate this discussion. ;^)

    --
    Toro