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?

Comments

well..

[gangien]

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.

Re:well..

[dave562]

Don't buy into the smear. Even the President of the Austin, TX branch of the NAACP came out in support of Ron Paul and said that he has known him for 20 years and he knows that he isn't a racist.

Re:well..

[dave562]

Alright smart ass... 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? How come the strongest attack is coming from The New Republic, a neo-conservative online magazine? Why is it that even Wolff Blitzer on CNN said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "You're right Ron Paul, I've known you for a while now and those newsletters really don't sound like your words. I've never heard you say anything like that."?? Yet despite that, why did CNN then turn around and on the Anderson Cooper show, only repeat the allegation and out of 5+ minutes worth of quotable material from Ron Paul, why did they only use the few seconds worth of him saying that he didn't write the letters surrounded by a bunch of contextual spin to imply that his denial makes him guilty?

The charges are baseless bullshit. The South Carolina primary is coming up. It is being touted as the "indicator of the black vote". Ron Paul has more support among the African American community than any other Republican candidate. It's telling that the information is coming out right now.

Of course you posted AC. You're a worthless chicken shit who can't even associate himself with the slander that you're throwing around. Go fuck yourself.

Re:well..

[Retric]

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.

Re:well..

[Linux_ho]

call up Ron Paul and ask him what he'd do

Now that's leadership.

Re:well..

[Arthur B.]

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.

Re:well..

[halivar]

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.

Re:well..

[DrXym]

I think you have as much chance of being president as he does.

Re:well..

[Sancho]

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.

Re:well..

[smittyoneeach]

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.

Re:well..

[plague3106]

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.

Re:well..

[dave562]

If you dig into the issue a little bit more you will realize that the remarks were made during a very short period of time, spanning maybe a year or two. According to what Paul has said, that was a time of transition in the newsletter and he wasn't at all involved in the day to day operations. They had to go all the way back to 1996 to dig up dirt, and it wasn't even new dirt, it was rehashed old dirt. Like I said, if it's such a big deal, where are Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton? Look at it this way, do you think that Jimmy Dean personally inspects all of the sausage that goes out under his name? Maybe Sara Lee really comes up with all of the recipes for her desserts too.

Over the last couple of years I've heard all sorts of main stream candidates claim to not have read the intelligence reports before voting to go into Iraq. I've heard candidates claim to have not read the PATRIOT Act before voting for it. What's the big deal about some newsletters? You're a complete tool if you let this bias you against Ron Paul. He's the only candidate from both parties who has any clue about what is going on with the economy and our foreign policy. He is the only candidate out there who is being honest with the American people. He is on the record numerous times talking about how the War on Drugs unfairly targets minorities. His record speaks for itself.

Re:well..

[Arthur B.]

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 ?

Re:well..

[Goaway]

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.

Re:well..

[Rei]

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.

Re:well..

[joggle]

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.

Re:well..

[GnarlyDoug]

Self defense. First rule of natural law is not just keeping your rights intact, but it is also about survival. You do not have to wait to be attacked to attack so long as their is a credible threat to your survival. Doing away with any form of organized defense and ignoring the truth that geographical dominance is integral to being able to defend yourself against large scale threats such as war or invasion (even peacable) is suicide.

In other words our government is presumably our mechanism by which we secure protection of our rights. (Granted, this is changing and badly so, but that is another matter.) One requirement for this to happen is that we be able to defend ourselves. Now, it's nice to imagine that a bunch of independent and scattered people living on their land in an Anarcho-Capitalist utopia could do this, but I don't buy it. Once a large enough group of people who don't hold to your ideals have moved in and they have sufficient numbers and are scattered through your 'nation' and they decide to change things, you don't have a say anymore. Let alone what happens if you face an actual invasion by an organized army when you've gotten rid of such things in pursuit of utopia.

I'll embrace concepts like Anarcho-Capitalism and borderless states when technology exists that allows a man to be an island onto himself. When I can guard myself and my plot of land against an organized force many, many times more massive and well funded. Until that time comes and geographical mastery is no longer an aspect of armed conflict, I'll live with nation states protecting their borders as a necessity to survival.

I believe that philosophy exists to serve man, not vice-versa. Natural Law can lead us to a much better place the Positivism. But like all abstractions, it leaks. This is one place where it leaks. Getting rid of borders, at least in todays world (and maybe forever), leads to likely death and slavery. If most of the world embraced the ideals of Natural Law then it wouldn't be an issue. But it doesn't and it is. Allowing yourself to be surrounded and intersected many times over by people who think Natural Law is a bunch of BS or who have never even ran into the concept before and then expecting they will leave you alone instead of forcing their own philosophy on you is naive.

In short, I'll not embrace a philosohy to an extent that it leads to my destruction. I am not a zealot willing to martyr myself for the cause. In any event, I do believe that an argument can be made with Natural Law that when faced with credible threat, seizing the means to defend yourself is justified. Borders are a regrettable necessity. Maybe one day they won't be.

Re:well..

[uncqual]

1. Abolish the IRS... response

The notion here is to create a simpler tax system that does not require the IRS as we know it today. No reasonable person is proposing eliminating all collection of Federal taxes and, hence, some infrastructure to collect those would of course be needed.

As far as subsidized college loans is concerned (which really has little to do with the IRS)... The free and easy access to student aid is a vicious cycle -- the colleges just raise their tuition to match the available money, making it harder and harder for students who don't quite qualify for aid to get an advanced education. If someone needs a loan for college, let them go out and get one -- let the market decide if pursuing a degree in Ancient Interpretive Literature is likely to result in enough income that the student can pay back the loan. It's not my responsibility as a taxpayer in State X to fund the hobby of another person in State Y. The Feds could perhaps, via the power of the interstate commerce clause, have a role in making the student loan market more viable by making sure that a student can't just jump across the state border to avoid repaying a student loan (existing laws probably deal with this fine but might need some changes).

2. Abolish the Federal Reserve... response

Meddling in interest rates, for example, creates it's own set of problems. Recessions are inevitable and not necessarily the worst thing - ask someone who has just lost all the equity (and retirement nest egg) in their house and just got foreclosed on if they could care less if we are not in a recession (yet)? Let the market work it out - yes, it may be volatile at times, but the "propping up" of the system by the Feds results in big bubbles instead of more little ones that burst early. We have a global economy now -- the Fed really can't change that and will be increasingly less able to achieve their goals anyway.

3. Abolish the Department of Education... response

Funny, I've never heard the Governor of a state say "We here in Hickstate are too stoopid to figure out how to lurn our kids - we need the Feds to tell us this". Instead it sounds more like "We here in Hickstate want money forcibly extracted from any state but Hickstate to help pay to educate our kids". States are free to band together to share R&D costs of education if they wish to, the Feds are not needed for that and the Constitution doesn't give them the power to IMHO.

4. Abolish the FCC... response

Ah, finally something we agree at least partially on -- the allocation of frequencies and technical broadcasting standards seems to fall well within the scope of the interstate commerce clause as RF doesn't respect state boundaries.

5. Abolish social security... response

Of course the sunsetting of Social Security will require a staged process so those that have put money into the plan will receive partial benefits and those that are already retired will continue to receive benefits until death. Yes, since the plan is basically bankrupt, there will be some combination of life support (covering shortfalls with general taxation) and benefit reductions during the phase out -- but not as bad if we continue the ponzi scheme for another 30 years. Not pleasant, but better to amputate the gangrenous lower leg now than to wait for the infection to spread up into the torso and internal organs - we infected ourselves with this disease decades ago and our attempts at fighting the infection have failed so drastic action is now needed.

6. Abolish medicare... response

Phasing out Medicare would need to be done much the same way as phasing out Social Security would be done -- in a staged fashion. As far as state-to-state disparity - that's life. People are free to migrate from one state to another state to seek a better life and have historically done so in the Unite

Re:well..

[darkwing_bmf]

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?

Re:well..

[b17bmbr]

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.

Re:well..

[demonlapin]

Sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to leave. Using arguendo in a sentence, correctly, is not appropriate to this forum. Take your dirty Latin elsewhere.

Re:well..

[darjen]

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.

Re:well..

[tic!lock]

Obviously he should be paid less than someone like Tiger Woods who benefits thousands of fans per tournament.

  Oh pshaw. You're valuing mindless entertainment over a necessity (rain-proof shelter). There's no comparison in any real assessment of what's important.

  That's the point - shelter, food, clean water are necessities to existence whereas TW and Spielberg are not.

  What the hell are you kids being taught nowadays?

tic

Resign

[CrazyJim1]

And let someone who knows what they're doing operate.

Re:Resign

[PinkPanther]

employ a shadow government that holds all the power, and then operate merely as a figurehead

Wow, what a concept. Could you imagine the president of the most powerful nation in the world not actually being smart enough for the position?

...er...wait a sec....

Re:Resign

[apt142]

Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our politicians learning?

Top Three Things

[Mr.Intel]

1) Straighten out the economy. Oil prices, housing slump, and the mess that is the Federal Banking Commission. 2) Scale back the size of the Federal Government and lower taxes accordingly. 3) Get a kick-ass foreign relations team into the embassies and capitals to repair our good name.

Re:Top Three Things

[192939495969798999]

0) get in a time machine because you have to be at least 35 years old to be president.

Since you asked...

[Crash McBang]

... any time I was in doubt as to what to do, President McBang would post the question to Slashdot and use the top-moderated answer for guidance.

Oh, and I'd ask Cmdr Taco what he thought as well.

Elected on Fri, Assassinated on Sat, Buried on Sun

[PrescriptionWarning]

If I was president,
I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,
and buried on Sunday.

If I was president...
If I was president

An old man told me, instead of spending billions on the war,
we can use some of that money, in the ghetto.
I know some so poor, they use the spring as the shower,
when screaming "fight the power".
That's when the vulture devoured

[chorus]
If I was president,
I'd get elected on Friday, assasinated on Saturday,
and buried on Sunday.

If I was president...
If I was president...
If I was president...
If I was president

But the radio won't play this.
They call this rebel music.
How can you refuse it, children of moses?

[chorus]
If I was president,
I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,
and buried on Sunday.

If I was president...
If i was president

Tell the children the truth, the truth.
Christopher Columbus didn't discover America.
Tell them the truth.
The truth
YEAH! Tell them about Marcus Garvey.
The truth YEAH! The truth.
Tell them about Martin Luther King.
Tell them the truth.
The Truth.
Tell them about JFK

If I was President
[chorus]
If I was president,
I'd get elected on Friday, assassinated on Saturday,
and buried on Sunday.

If I was president...
If I was president

VETO!

[mooingyak]

Veto everything. With exceptions for bills that repeal earlier laws.

Re:VETO!

[Hatta]

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

Re:VETO!

[nasor]

The president can only pardon people who have been convicted of violating federal laws. Since most people in prision for drug posession were charged under state drug laws, there wouldn't be anything you could do about it.

Re:VETO!

[geschild]

disclaimer: I'm European, haven't been to the US and given the circumstances will not travel there for the forseeable future.

"Agreed. Then I'd pardon everyone in jail for simple possession." Why not go several steps further and end the war on drugs altogether? Change it to a commercial model where distribution is legalized and FDA controlled. Everyone who wants to buy/use has to follow a course much like drivers-ed and get a license to use, perhaps even per-substance and perhaps with a practical exam (using under supervision) to make sure there are no adverse reactions? The 'license' would hold biometric data, only to make sure it's the original holder that is buying and you could put quota on it.

Such a system would yield major advantages for everyone:
- Educate users. I'm a firm believer in education as a way to reduce harm and raise awareness.
- take away income from criminals and put it into the taxable real economy.
- use said income to mitigate medical and social consequences of (a)buse
- get rid of a lot of 'criminals' (small time dealers are usually opportunity criminals. no opportunity, no criminals.)
- not throwing away a lot of human potential over petty crime like posession or use
- police would have a lot of capacity to battle drugsrelated crime like theft, robbery, DUI, etc. as well as check the fringes like reselling to people without a license (meaning you get a fine and forfeit your license to buy)

After everyone has come to terms with that, perhaps you can put alcohol and tobacco in the same system as they are (hard)drugs themselves.

Will this end all problems? No. There will always be people trying to abuse the system for higher gain. There will always be addicts and their related problems. Issues with home-producers (meth labs, etc., not home growers of pot.) Lots more that I'm too tired to think of right now.

Anyway, 'The State' is harming users that get caught a lot more than most drugs will ever do. End that and you've done at least one good thing as a president.

more disclaimers: I don't see marihuana as 'completely innocent', I think all recreational psychoactive substances should only be available to people over the age of 18. Taxes should be imposed in relation to the cost to society.

Two main concerns

[egarff]

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.

In all seriousness

[earnest murderer]

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.

Re:In all seriousness

[ricegf]

So you would pass the 'Let's All Become Muslim' Bill?

Show me one statement/website/whatever where ANY pseudo-legitimate group has even suggested such a thing

Not sure if you consider them "pseudo-legitimate", but you might try this BBC's report on a video statement made by Osama Bin Laden in September 2007:

The speaker tells the American public that there are two ways to end the war in Iraq: "The first is from our side, and it is to continue to escalate the killing and fighting against you."

The second way, he continues, is to reject America's democratic system and convert to Islam.

Sure sounds like he plans to keep knocking down buildings until we all embrace his religion to me. At least, I didn't notice a "we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone" clause anywhere in his statement.

Re:In all seriousness

[Skim123]

Although you have to seriously wonder if OBL (or his ilk) would have even bothered the West if the West hadn't:

• Propped up the Shah in Iran
• Propped up the Royal Family in Saudi Arabia
• Supplied Israel with advanced weaponry
• Supplied Saddam with weaponry to wage war with Iran

Our foreign policy over the past 75 years has been screwy and downright slimey at times. We like to preach democracy, but we don't hesitate to help prop up un-popular dictators who will bend to our will.

Re:In all seriousness

[Skim123]

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.

Simple answer

[SeanTobin]

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.

'In God We Trust'

[CyberBill]

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. :)

Hemp

[dave562]

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.

My top 5 priorities, off the top of my head

[jorenko]

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.

What would I do?

[Sciros]

Interns.

Re:What would I do?

[mathletics]

Two interns at the same time?

If I was President...

[kellyb9]

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.

Re:If I was President...

[pseudorand]

> 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.

Wonder, schmunder. Your pondering can be ended with one simple word: diebold.

Two words

[ProppaT]

Your mom

Number One Thing

[spun]

Absolute number one thing, first day on the job: get a blowjob from a cuter intern than Monica, then post pics of it on MySpace. You know, just to get that out of the way.

Re:Number One Thing

[xSauronx]

Not me dude:

Two chicks at the same time, man.

Re:Number One Thing

[Zeinfeld]

Absolute number one thing, first day on the job: get a blowjob from a cuter intern than Monica, then post pics of it on MySpace. You know, just to get that out of the way.

You americans are so tediously moralistic, the French have their guy on an 'incentive' program. The more manifesto promises he makes, the more 'rewards'. Mitterand had four mistresses.

I don't qualify under current law, but the first thing I would do is to look at how to make the current US problem in Iraq someone else's problem. Over the past five years Iraq has all but destroyed the US army. Whose army do we most want to destroy most (or care least about)? That would be Iran. So the US says to Iran 'your problem now', withdraw to Kuwait, see whether Iran prefers to have a festering civil war on its border or gets sucked in.

Second foreign policy position: Cuba. Eliminate all sanctions with immediate effect. They have not worked in 40 years and it is obvious that they never will. It is equally obvious that the Cuban political system can hardly survive if there is a massive influx of capitalist spending. Close Gitmo while we are at it and sign a retroactive extradition treaty. Let those who committed torture face a criminal system that is no worse than the one they created themselves.

Third position: Al Zawahiri and Bin Laden get a slotting. The US needs to withdraw from lost and irrelevant conflicts to concentrate resources on the conflicts that matter. Al Zawahiri has now had a major role in the murder of two US-friendly world leaders (Sadat, Bhutto). He cannot be allowed to survive. These problems cannot be dealt with by simply creating a bigger military, do that and some idiot neocons will come along and decide to use it for their own pet purposes.

Fourth: halt the deficit spending program. Congress will not lower spending, under the GOP earmarks and spending exploded under the Democrats the difference is that spending is rising less quickly. The deficits are causing interest rates to soar, they are tipping the country into recession. The only way to reduce the deficit is for the country to live within its means and raise revenues. So unless you believe in the tax fairy the choice is between raising taxes and crashing the economy. Don't wait for the Bush tax cuts to expire, repeal them immediately and institute a 2% war tax. Time to remind people that deficit spending is merely a deferred tax rise.

Fifth: comprehensive review of earmark projects, no-bid contracts and other potential graft. It appears that Haliburton and Blackwater owe the government rather a lot of money, we would like it back. Also Alaska can whistle if they think they are getting the idiot Stephens bridge to nowhere.

Sixth: Implement measures to protect the Internet economy against Internet crime and the risk that terrorists use the Internet for fundraising. (Full program described in The dotCrime Manifesto.

Seventh: New Orleans, remember?

Eighth: Healthcare.

Re:Number One Thing

[Weh]

The deficits are causing interest rates to soar, they are tipping the country into recession

US interest rates are like what? 4-6% ? hardly what I call soaring. One of the main reasons the usa is heading for a recession is that the interest rates were/are so low, they made ninja (no income, no job, no assets) loans too hard for financial institutions to resist and now they're stuck with the mess.

Experts

[UnderDark]

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.

Honest answer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Put SCIENCE back in the classroom.

Tax religions like any other business.

Put people before corporations. (I love Capitalism but we've denigrated to Corporatism)

Move the US to metric. :)

Tsiangkun 2012

[Tsiangkun]

1) I will repeal corporate personhood.

2) I will tax the top 5% and distribute the wealth through increased funding for basic academic research, reimburse college loans for students carrying 3.2GPA or higher, national daycare programs, and national health care programs.

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.

4) Establish a department of peace, reduce military funding, and give anyone a seat a a negotiating table so we do not have to fight them "over there" or "over here".

5) Reparations for the victims of hurrican katrina who were failed by their governments.

Re:Tsiangkun 2012

[hey!]

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."

That's easy

[0xdeadbeef]

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!

Might as well...

[kallisti777]

Consider this a platform, since I'll be 35 fairly soon.

1. Use our armed forces for national defense, not the world's police
2. Divert savings from needless wars into balancing the budget and paying down the debt
3. Reverse laws that punish victimless crimes and legislate personal morality
4. Pardon and release non-violent drug offenders to help with prison overcrowding
5. Revise the tax code to bring fairness and relief to the working/middle classes

Since it doesn't look like Dr. Paul will get the nomination, vote me in 2016... if we're still here.

Grand scale and vision

[Liquidrage]

Every election is the same thing. Candidates with speech writers talk the talk of "at home" issues. They can almost never do anything about it because "at home" issues are mostly local issues. Outside of coming up with a way to tax more more, and going to war, Washington doesn't do much for me. When the fed cuts rates or raises them, that impacts me at home. Most of the at home issues they don't belong in anyways.

But what ever happened to thinking big. Last time we thought big was the 60's I guess and the space race. We're a large country, I want a large project. One that inspires us (try putting a price on inspiration), and that becomes a legacy for an entire generation. One whose impact will last for decades.

I would love to see some grand project. Lunar colony (not in 20 years, but like, let's start doing it now). New space vehicle. Particle accelerator bigger then anything on the drawing board today. Something. Anything that inspires us and improves the planet.

I know!

[jollyreaper]

That smokin' hot deaf chick on West Wing.

Oh, I thought you asked "who."

Let's see, what would I do as president? I think the speech would go a little something like this.

"Hey, folks, you know how they say there's nothing that gets an economy moving like a war? Let's consider that for a moment. We're talking about uniting the entire nation behind one goal. We're talking about reordering the economy to meet this goal, every working man and woman either directly engaging in the mission or serving in a supporting role. We train the flower of our youth, equip them with our treasure and send them thousands and thousands of miles away to foreign lands, all this effort just to drop a bomb in someone's lap. Could you imagine going to this sort of effort to give that same guy a helping hand, rebuild a house, provide a hot meal or maybe just a cold beer? It's laughable! And what a sad joke we are as a species that we feel this way.

"So, what's on the agenda for the next four years? We're going to go to war. Not any of this silly war on drugs and terror nonsense, much more effective than the war on poverty. No, we're going to war on business as usual, the way we've always been doing things. We spend $500 billion on the military and what we have to show for it is worth maybe a tenth of that number. Our nation has lost its leading role in science and industry. The solution to these problems is not just throwing money at 'em, the solution is to use that money intelligently.

"It's a simple truth that centralized organizations are among the most efficient forms of human effort we've ever seen. The Soviet Union's economy fell apart because bureaucrats in Moscow tried to make decisions on how business on the other side of the empire should be conducted. The former genius of the capitalist system was the decentralization of authority to the periphery of the economy, let the businesses make decisions on what they need to produce and how to do it. Efficient organizations succeed, inefficient ones are allowed to fail, their capital and employees and resources free to be used by more efficient enterprises. Folks, the consolidation we're seeing with today's megacorporations is simply a repeat of the Soviet folly. And the growing wasteful bureaucracy in Washington is no better.

"Government needs to concentrate on what government does best in a 21st century nation-state. Such duties include providing for the common defense, making treaties with foreign powers, providing regulation and inspection of private enterprise to ensure those organizations operate in the public interest, national health care and retirement funds, and conducting basic research in the sciences.

"Government is not to be a piggy bank for special interests to raid. It is not a cash cow to be tapped by connected contractors who have made big donations to politicians. To that end, all political campaigns will be publicly funded. Anyone money recieved from outside the election funding system will be seen as a bribe and the criminal penalties will follow from that."

That's just a few thoughts I had off the cuff. I would assume if I ever were president and tried to say something like that, I'd be taken aside into a smoke-filled room and shown that film of the Kennedy assassination, but shot from a view I've never seen before, a view that looks like it's from the Grassy Knoll. "Any questions?"*

*With apologies to Bill Hicks.

Re:Going back to capitalism.

[sktea]

Take the US mail for instance - it used to be a government ran cooperation, but went under private ownership and saved a ton of money by working for profits.

Are you high?

The U.S. Postal Service is an "independent establishment of the executive branch of the Government of the United States," according to statute; it is wholly government-owned and, as such, is exempt from prosecution under the Sherman Act, according to the Supreme Court. I quote from this link: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=540&page=736

"The Postal Service has different goals, obligations, and powers from private corporations. Its goals are not those of private enterprise. The most important difference is that it does not seek profits, but only to break even...."

PUH-leeze. Get the facts wrong, and you're MY meat.

I would lead by THESE TWO WORDS

[Dystopian Rebel]

"Ask Slashdot"

Top ten things

[Quiet_Desperation]

1. Everyone who ever picked on me as a kid would receive all expense paid accommodations in Gitmo.

2. A Manhatten Project level of effort to develop realistic sexbots.

3. Presidential Security: Bye-bye Secret Service. Hello Mord'Sith.

4. New Marine units composed of the Islamic extremists worst nightmare: superbutch lesbians locked into eternal PMS synchronization. Name? The Crimson Tide.

5. The immediate carpet bombing of Hollywood.

6. Churches? Tax 'em, and require every claim they make about their deities be backed up by documented proof.

7. Abortions would be free for all at sidewalk kiosks and in malls. No age limit. No question asked.

8. Power? Breeder reactors (and other advanced types) that double as desalination plants. More power? Gentetically bred giant superhampsters.

9. Lawyers who lose frivolous lawsuit would be able to keep their license to practice, but they'd have to fight a lion using nothing but a spork.

10. Everytime I get something like "Slow down, Cowboy. It has been X minutes since you last posted!" where X is anything greater than 2, a Slashdot editor is waterboarded.

Re:The question is not whether he is a racist

[CodeBuster]

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.

Re:The question is not whether he is a racist

[darjen]

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.

Maybe respect the constitution first of all?

[Fat Cow]

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)

Homey's master plan to bop the Man

[Tumbleweed]

In no particular order:

1) Recall U.S. troops from Iraq and probably Afghanistan, and any secret troops in Iran
2) Reinstitute Habeas Corpus
3) Initiate investigation into war crimes on the part of previous administration officials, as well as charges of treason (The Bush administration has gone WAY beyond 'impeachable offenses')
4) Release political prisoners in U.S. (of course this also includes Gitmo/Abuwhatever type places, but let's not forget people like Leonard Peltier, etc.)
5) Honor existing treaties with Native American tribes.
6) Appoint N.M. Governor Bill Richardson as Secretary of State, and send his ass out on a very long trip to start repairing U.S. relations abroad. I doubt this dude will be back by the end of my administration.
7) Find lackeys in Congress to start legislation I suggest, such as: no Congressional payraises unless a proportional increase in the minimum wage is approved at the same time.
8) Enforcement of the Constitution: try to get laws in place that forbid the kind of things W has been up to. Immediate legal penalties on politicians (including the President) if these laws are broken.
9) Fix the voting machine mess; mandate a auditable paper trail.
10) Fix the gerrymandering of voting districts - by either side.
11) Fix the EPA, and allow states to implement stricter pollution standards (but disallow looser standards)
12) Legalize, regulate, and tax the holy hell out of Marijuana.
13) Fully legalize hemp, and provide incentives to switch as much cotton production as is feasible over to hemp. (better for the environment, and actually more profitable for agribusiness.)
14) Legalize, regulate, and tax the holy hell out of prostitution.
15) Make lobbying a felony
16) Change the law so that corporations are not legal entities on a par with an actual human
17) Make animal abuse a felony, and make people convicted of it tracked; they often have serial killer tendencies.
18) No more subsidies to corn agribusiness
19) No more subsidies to oil producers
20) Much higher energy efficiency standards

And that's all I have time for now. I got a million of these, though.

The New Republic

[JDAustin]

How come the strongest attack is coming from The New Republic, a neo-conservative online magazine?

Point of order here. The New Republic is NOT a neo-con site. It is in fact quite liberal. You a probably confusing it with the Free Republic or even the National Review.

Best President Ever

[infinite jester]

I would literally go down the list of every decision George Bush has made in office, and then do the opposite.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[ahuard]

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.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN

[An Onerous Coward]

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!

Attention Moderators!

[Torodung]

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

--
Toro

LALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALALA!!!!

[Scrameustache]

I have yet to hear if Ron Paul is or is not repudiating the positions in the newsletter. Press Releases Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."