Corporations are efficient at finding the maximum price that the market will bear, and minimizing their own costs, so as to maximize profit.
Oh, in my previous reply I missed replying to this. Not all corporations are concerned only with maximizing corporate profits. Corporations like Whole Foods Markets work to improve local economies and sustainability. The first corporations were granted a corporate charter for the purpose of improving society. The first corporation to be issued a corporate charter and issued shares was the Dutch East India Company, not to be confused with the Honourable East India Company which was the second corporation to be issued a charter, by England's Elizabeth I. Because shipping was so risky, from both pirates and the weather, not many people wanted to invest in a ship. If a ship sunk and lost all it's cargo or the sailors were drowned the ship owners were financially liable. So the Dutch government started granting corporate charters that limited the liability of investors, all the investors could loose is the amount they invested in the corporation.
The problem with corporations today is that they were able to get the government to get rid of laws that required corporations to improve society. Thomas Jefferson warned of the Corporate Aristocracy: "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." What needs to be brought back is the original purpose of corporate charters, to serve and improve society.
Any "Universal Health Care" plan must by necessity mean that people are coerced into buying their own or paying for others to have health care.
Oh I agree. I don't think anyone should be coerced into paying into any health care scheme if they don't want to. Therefore I oppose any sort of universal health care.
Competition in health insurance will lower insurance premiums.
And has it? Or has it resulted in insurance companies lowering costs by providing fewer benefits?
My point is there is no free market in health insurance. Most people in the US who have it get it through their employer, where the employer contributes to the insurance. Because of laws it's cheaper for employers to do this than for employers to pay employees more. If they could pay employees more without them or the employees having a large tax bill then they will. One of the issues today between the US auto manufacturers and the United Auto Workers, UAW, is health insurance. Because the cost of providing health insurance to employees is raising the auto companies want workers to pay more for insurance. However the workers don't want to pay more. This goes away if employees were paid more. I don't know the costs now but say GM can pay employees $1000 a year more tax free, with 10,000s if not 100,000s of UAW members insurance companies will step up to offer health insurance to those people, and to try to sell as many policies as they can they'd lower premiums and or offer different plans. Someone single may only want catastrophic coverage and will pay out of pocket for normal expenses. They may be able to get coverage for $500, then they can put the other $500 into a medical savings plan. A married couple with two children may want full coverage. So they may have $2000 to pay. With 3, 4, or more insurance companies compeating against each other they will be willing to lower insurance premiums to entice the couple to go with them, they'd rather have a more people paying a little less, having 100,000 people paying $900 per person is better than 10,000 paying $1000.
Maybe that's fine if you're completely pro-free market and don't mind that some people can't afford and thus don't have health care,
As stated above, with competition from a free market insurance companies will lower their insurance premiums and more people will be able to afford coverage. If for some reason some people are unable to afford any insurance Civil Society can provide assistance. A concerned group like the Rotary Club or Elks Lodge can open up a free clinic on a street corner. The Shriners Hospitals have treated many, many children. Saint Jude Children's Research Hospital started by Danny Thomas threats many more children for free. " St. Jude is the only pediatric research center where families never pay for treatment not covered by insurance, and families without insurance are never asked to pay." Imagine how many more would step up to the plate if they could keep more of the money they work to earn.
I'd say that he was fairly well absorbed with the whole "preserving the union" thing. So if you don't consider that a worthwhile goal, I can see how you might consider him a do-nothing President.
I don't consider "preserving the nation" as being worthwhile. Actually I don't like national borders and believe people should be able to live wherever they want so long as they can afford it. All borders are are imaginary lines drawn on maps.
He also has a few notable accomplishments on the "good" side of the scorecard.
The only good thing I can think of Lincoln did was end slavery. However as slavery was economically unsustainable it would have ended without the Civil War, which was not about slavery but was about states rights.
Can you provide any other good things Lincoln did? There may be more but my memory is bad, and no I don't consider keeping the US whole good in and of itself.
Hmm... an all-electronic system doesn't work, and neither does all-paper. Gee, I wonder if there's someway to combine the two and maybe get some sort of hybrid, combining the best of both worlds...
TFA does describe a method of combining electronic and paper, the optical scanners. A person votes on a paper ballot which is then fed into a scanner. The scanner allows for quick tabulation of votes but if there's any questions about the votes the paper ballots are still available. And there's no reason touch screens or other electronic voting machines can't have a paper record either. Diebold, one of the companies making these machines, makes ATMs as well and ATMs print out receipts. Just require the machines to print out a record of the vote on a roll of paper, the voter can check to make sure the name of the person he or she voted for is on the paper. Then the paper is stored in case there are questions on the results.
I would think that a 21" wide laptop would have a pretty small audience.
I don't think there was much demand for that 21" laptop. Shortly after I saw it at Best Buy they didn't display it anymore. I only saw it a couple of tymes. If Linux (or BSD) instead of Windows had been installed on it, or I was given the choice of having Linux preinstalled on it, I might of gotten one. There was no way I was going to pay the Microsoft tax and I wasn't able to try to install a *nix on it myself.
Yeah you really have to be some kind of crack-head to think giving the government billions in tax dollars to spend on health care is a bad idea, but think giving the government billions in tax dollars to give to insurance companies who will spend some of that money on health care, but will also try to keep as much of that money as profit as possible, is a great idea.
GP did say "free market", the government deducting or taking money from income isn't a free market. I don't know if GP looks at it this way, but I think it's better for government to allow people to buy health insurance on their own without making them pay tax on it. Competition in health insurance will lower insurance premiums.
"Hillarycare" would represent a right wing alternative to their existing health care system.
It may be right wing for parts of the world but it's left wing, ie socialist, in the US. And if you think health care is expensive wait until it's free.
Most advanced countries would have to reduce the scope of government involvement (including subtantial privitization) in their health care systems to match what Hillary has proposed.
That's not the Hillarycare I recall. She called for universal health care for everyone, which sounds socialistic "left wing" to me.
Since almost all of these countries have longer lifespans, lower infant mortality, etc. than the USA
Where do you get your data from? According to wiki life expectancy in the US is one of the highest. Out of 191 countries the USA is listed at 29. According to WHO in 2000 the US ranked 24th. While not as high as say Japan, the US has a higher life span than most nations.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe everyone should have access to health care but I believe it's the individual's responsibility. The way the system is rigged in the US is part of the problem with people not being able to afford health insurance. For one thing, because of wage control laws in the US during WWII employers weren't able to offer prospective employees more pay however they were allowed to offer health insurance to employees. Today if employers were allowed to pay employees more without either the employer or employees having to pay more taxes people would be able to buy their own health insurance. This would create more competition in insurance which would lower insurance premiums. In a way Ron Paul's health policy would address this, though not compleatly. Or take Taxol. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and therefore part of government, spent $183 million to develop and test Taxol as a treatment for certain cancers. After spending all that taxpayer money what did the NCI do? It sold the rights to all of the data needed by the FDA to win drug approval to Bristol-Myers Squibb, BMS, for $43 million, $140 million less than taxpayers paid. And how much does a Taxol course of treatment cost? Several thousand dollars. Yet it cost less than a dollar for BMS to make one dose, and one treatment course takes less than 1000 doses. If the NCI had allowed any pharmaceutical company to use the data to get FDA approval, even if the manufacturers were required to pay say a 10% royalty to the NCI which would allow the NCI to do more research, the cost for treatment with Taxol would be a lot lower.
And "it takes a village" would represent common sense consensus among most societies (apart from the US). Someone who proposed the common US view of "I'm looking out for number one everyone else can go die for all I care" would be thought a dangerous sociopath.
Again I think you may be misunderstanding me, then again I wasn't really clear about it. I do believe in people working together in communities to help each other, voluntarily. What I don't like is anyone being mandated or required to do so, such as by having some of the money they work to earn being taken out to pay taxes. As an example of how I'd prefer it is the old Barn Raising wh
you are basically arguing for going in full force to destroy all those shitty little countries we created.
No I'm not. I believe the population of those countries should be the ones who determine their future. So long as it's democratic, ie everyone has a voice, and they don't harm or control others they should be able to do what they want.
The middle east has enough money to do whatever they want. They could build world class universities to create the doctors, engineers, and scientists they desperately need. They could build hospitals, factories and technology bases to rival the best of the western world. The golden age of the middle east was a period when education and tolerance ruled supreme.
This brings up something I wish wold have happened, as you describe I believe all the money coming in from oil should have been used for education, and health care. It also bothers me that many can't afford to own their own homes, Islam doesn't allow interest to be paid on loans. And since most people can't afford to buy a home without a mortgage it means they are left to pay rent. For instance in the apartment building I live in there are 3 or 4 Middle Easterners who have shared an apartment for years (one's an Egyptian, another a Syrian, and I think the others are either Jordanian or Lebanese), I've lived here almost 4 years and they are the only ones who have lived here longer than me. Though I'm not sure I think they are Muslims and therefore can't get a mortgage.
Conservatives hate it when it comes to medical mj or assited suicide or pro-gay marriage. Liberals hate it when you are pro gun or anti-abortion or needing to enforce civil rights on uppity sounthern states.
Everyone hates you when you're pro mj (hemp), assisted suicide, gay marriage, guns, choice, and civil rights.
Yes, I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, ie I am a Classical liberal!
Blaming Americans for middle east violence, however, is pushing it too far. The blame rests solely on on the saudi princes and theocracies who use their huge profits to export hate and violence to the entire world.
And who created those theocracies? The West, including the US, after WWI. Britain, France, and the US partitioned the Middle East into separate countries when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. For aiding in the fight against the Turks Sheiks were promised land to form a country on. Look at a map of the Middle East, it looks almost like a jigsaw puzzle because of this.
The EPA has always been part of the executive branch of government, well since it was established in the 1970s by Nixon. Whatever bad things can be said of Nixon, and they exist, Nixon did push to cleanup the environment.
in the case of the first Gulf War it was in direct response to an overt act of aggression against a Middle Eastern ally.
Though I agreed with forcing Saddam to leave Kuwait, Saddam and Iraq were allies at that tyme too. Throughout the '80s Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam. In 1988 and '89 congress debated sanctions against Iraq, unlike the UN sanctions through the '90s after Kuwait was invaded these sanctions being debated only related to military assistance, because Saddam had used WMDs against not only Iran but also against Kurds and Marsh Arabs as well as others inside Iraq.
I don't think it's fair to put the elder Bush in the same category of mental defective as his son.
As VP Bush argued in front of congress that those sanctions debated in 1988-89 would hurt US trade.
In this age of climate change hysteria, if you did research that ended up suggested otherwise would you like to have it out there with your name on it? i'd rather have frank and honest EPA employee's and not be able to read their findings then being able to read a bunch of 1/2 truths that they were forced to self censor to protect their jobs and reputations
So you also support smoked filled back rooms then. There's very little the government does, if anything, that should be kept hidden from those who paid for it, taxpayers. If it can't stand sunlight it must smell. Or put it another way, if you have nothing to hide why don't you let people know? Maybe we could just have the mafia run the government.
Lincoln tried to suspend habeas corpus as did Bush Jr whereas Thomas Jefferson fought against the Alien and Sedition Acts believing they were unconstitutional.
While as president Ron Paul wouldn't be able to actually get rid of all the government he could veto all spending, in which case unless congress overrode the veto the federal government would have to shut down. I'd love to see that.
Well, no. What would happen is that Congress would pass a continuing resolution to keep spending going until they could pass a budget.
In order to pass one they'd still have to override his veto, which I find unlikely unless either Democrats or Republicans are able to get large enough of a lead in congress. It would take too much compromising otherwise.
but would definitely leave the President looking like a complete idiot, after the Congresscritters got finished making speeches about his "obstructionism" or some such.
He could simply point out to the public that the Constitution does not authorize many of things that are being funded and that congress supports unconstitutional things. Take the Department of Education, not only is it not authorized but it's actually a local issue, at the state level at most. Nor does the Constitution say anything about any Department of Energy.
Not that I would ever be elected, I wouldn't even want to run, but if I were I'd say that unless congress gave me a Constitutional bill I would veto it.
How would you immediately reduce military spending? It would put lots of people out of jobs. (Not that I think it shouldn't be done--I agree with you. But you can't really do it immediately.)
By pulling many military units out of other countries that alone would reduce military expenditures. My plan would temporarily increase spending in one area, for every year someone served in the military they'd have 1 year of college education paid for. However this would increase individuals' earning potentials so more would be paid in taxes. Then with a citizens' army like Switzerland the nation could be protected.
1) Given the extreme volatility of the Middle East--especially if Iran is edging closer to building "gunbarrel" style U235-based nuclear weapons, in spite of a number of claims to the contrary--that might not be a good idea.
I'm still waiting to see those WMDs Saddam had.
4) Removing the income limit on SS/Medicare taxes would be a BAD idea, because that would encourage high-income Americans to move their income offshore--legal or not!
I would do my best to abolish individuals' income tax. The only income tax payers would be corporations, hey if you want limited liability you pay for it. Individuals would pay user fees (taxes). For instance if you drive you will pay tax on the fuel which the income will then be used to pay for building and maintaining those roads you drive on. With the rest of your money you could then buy health insurance, and with competition in insurance the premiums will come down.
5) I'd offer major tax incentives to build and develop next-generation solar power arrays based on nanotechnology.
With lower taxes more money would be available to develop and build new generation PV and wind generator plants. Then with lower costs more entities, whether businesses, coops, or individuals could then buy and install PVs, wind farms, and other energy sources.
6) I'd fund primarily trolley systems and light rail, systems that are relatively easy to implement.
Fact is is many who own cars won't give them up in the US, even if a good commuter transit system exists. The only way to get more people to use them is by driving up the cost of personal transportation. I was a bike riding fanatic, I used to ride my bike more than 200 miles a week, but even then I knew most people in the US would hate to give up their cars. Heck, I knew homeless people who wouldn't give up their cars for a roof over their head.
7) I'd create a commission to look into the issues of various universal health care plans, and make sure we have one that addresses the problem of health care rationing.
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.
8) I'd be real careful about any increased regulation of any financial market
Let me get this right, you don't like regulating, any more than it is now, the financial market but you'd increase regulations in health care?
#2 involves funding, which originates in the House of Representatives, not the Executive Branch. A strict literal reading of the document limits to you to #1 only, I'm afraid.
A strict as well as practical reading of the Constitution allows the president to veto spend bills. So if congress sends a bill with too much spending money he can veto it.
Enjoy your term--you're going to have a lot of free time on your hands!:-)
I probably would, depending on how many bills congress passes. My veto stamp would get a good workout though. Then either congress could go home and get real jobs or they can try to override my vetoes.
Well, now that I think about it I think I would be real busy at first. I would propose Amendment XVIII (28). It's text would be real simple to understand, "Congress shall not meet for more than 90 days every 2 years unless the president calls for a special session."
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations are efficient at finding the maximum price that the market will bear, and minimizing their own costs, so as to maximize profit.
Oh, in my previous reply I missed replying to this. Not all corporations are concerned only with maximizing corporate profits. Corporations like Whole Foods Markets work to improve local economies and sustainability. The first corporations were granted a corporate charter for the purpose of improving society. The first corporation to be issued a corporate charter and issued shares was the Dutch East India Company, not to be confused with the Honourable East India Company which was the second corporation to be issued a charter, by England's Elizabeth I. Because shipping was so risky, from both pirates and the weather, not many people wanted to invest in a ship. If a ship sunk and lost all it's cargo or the sailors were drowned the ship owners were financially liable. So the Dutch government started granting corporate charters that limited the liability of investors, all the investors could loose is the amount they invested in the corporation.
The problem with corporations today is that they were able to get the government to get rid of laws that required corporations to improve society. Thomas Jefferson warned of the Corporate Aristocracy: "I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of their country." What needs to be brought back is the original purpose of corporate charters, to serve and improve society.
FalconAny "Universal Health Care" plan must by necessity mean that people are coerced into buying their own or paying for others to have health care.
Oh I agree. I don't think anyone should be coerced into paying into any health care scheme if they don't want to. Therefore I oppose any sort of universal health care.
Competition in health insurance will lower insurance premiums.
And has it? Or has it resulted in insurance companies lowering costs by providing fewer benefits?
My point is there is no free market in health insurance. Most people in the US who have it get it through their employer, where the employer contributes to the insurance. Because of laws it's cheaper for employers to do this than for employers to pay employees more. If they could pay employees more without them or the employees having a large tax bill then they will. One of the issues today between the US auto manufacturers and the United Auto Workers, UAW, is health insurance. Because the cost of providing health insurance to employees is raising the auto companies want workers to pay more for insurance. However the workers don't want to pay more. This goes away if employees were paid more. I don't know the costs now but say GM can pay employees $1000 a year more tax free, with 10,000s if not 100,000s of UAW members insurance companies will step up to offer health insurance to those people, and to try to sell as many policies as they can they'd lower premiums and or offer different plans. Someone single may only want catastrophic coverage and will pay out of pocket for normal expenses. They may be able to get coverage for $500, then they can put the other $500 into a medical savings plan. A married couple with two children may want full coverage. So they may have $2000 to pay. With 3, 4, or more insurance companies compeating against each other they will be willing to lower insurance premiums to entice the couple to go with them, they'd rather have a more people paying a little less, having 100,000 people paying $900 per person is better than 10,000 paying $1000.
Maybe that's fine if you're completely pro-free market and don't mind that some people can't afford and thus don't have health care,
As stated above, with competition from a free market insurance companies will lower their insurance premiums and more people will be able to afford coverage. If for some reason some people are unable to afford any insurance Civil Society can provide assistance. A concerned group like the Rotary Club or Elks Lodge can open up a free clinic on a street corner. The Shriners Hospitals have treated many, many children. Saint Jude Children's Research Hospital started by Danny Thomas threats many more children for free. " St. Jude is the only pediatric research center where families never pay for treatment not covered by insurance, and families without insurance are never asked to pay." Imagine how many more would step up to the plate if they could keep more of the money they work to earn.
FalconI'd say that he was fairly well absorbed with the whole "preserving the union" thing. So if you don't consider that a worthwhile goal, I can see how you might consider him a do-nothing President.
I don't consider "preserving the nation" as being worthwhile. Actually I don't like national borders and believe people should be able to live wherever they want so long as they can afford it. All borders are are imaginary lines drawn on maps.
FalconThere are Muslims who disagree with you. There are moderate Muslims who support democracy. Radwan A. Masmoudi of the Center of the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID) is one who supports democracy. Here's more on Islamic Democracy.
You also overlook Algeria as a democracy. As well as Egypt. And Turkey. Fact is is you left out a number of democratic Muslim nations.
FalconOptical scan ballots, in practice, are only "audited" by the same scanning equipment used to count them initially.
Humans are capable of reading those ballots. So if there's questions as to the accurracy of the count the ballots can be hand counted.
FalconHe also has a few notable accomplishments on the "good" side of the scorecard.
The only good thing I can think of Lincoln did was end slavery. However as slavery was economically unsustainable it would have ended without the Civil War, which was not about slavery but was about states rights.
Can you provide any other good things Lincoln did? There may be more but my memory is bad, and no I don't consider keeping the US whole good in and of itself.
FalconHmm... an all-electronic system doesn't work, and neither does all-paper. Gee, I wonder if there's someway to combine the two and maybe get some sort of hybrid, combining the best of both worlds...
TFA does describe a method of combining electronic and paper, the optical scanners. A person votes on a paper ballot which is then fed into a scanner. The scanner allows for quick tabulation of votes but if there's any questions about the votes the paper ballots are still available. And there's no reason touch screens or other electronic voting machines can't have a paper record either. Diebold, one of the companies making these machines, makes ATMs as well and ATMs print out receipts. Just require the machines to print out a record of the vote on a roll of paper, the voter can check to make sure the name of the person he or she voted for is on the paper. Then the paper is stored in case there are questions on the results.
FalconI would think that a 21" wide laptop would have a pretty small audience.
I don't think there was much demand for that 21" laptop. Shortly after I saw it at Best Buy they didn't display it anymore. I only saw it a couple of tymes. If Linux (or BSD) instead of Windows had been installed on it, or I was given the choice of having Linux preinstalled on it, I might of gotten one. There was no way I was going to pay the Microsoft tax and I wasn't able to try to install a *nix on it myself.
FalconYeah you really have to be some kind of crack-head to think giving the government billions in tax dollars to spend on health care is a bad idea, but think giving the government billions in tax dollars to give to insurance companies who will spend some of that money on health care, but will also try to keep as much of that money as profit as possible, is a great idea.
GP did say "free market", the government deducting or taking money from income isn't a free market. I don't know if GP looks at it this way, but I think it's better for government to allow people to buy health insurance on their own without making them pay tax on it. Competition in health insurance will lower insurance premiums.
Falcon"Hillarycare" would represent a right wing alternative to their existing health care system.
It may be right wing for parts of the world but it's left wing, ie socialist, in the US. And if you think health care is expensive wait until it's free.
Most advanced countries would have to reduce the scope of government involvement (including subtantial privitization) in their health care systems to match what Hillary has proposed.
That's not the Hillarycare I recall. She called for universal health care for everyone, which sounds socialistic "left wing" to me.
Since almost all of these countries have longer lifespans, lower infant mortality, etc. than the USA
Where do you get your data from? According to wiki life expectancy in the US is one of the highest. Out of 191 countries the USA is listed at 29. According to WHO in 2000 the US ranked 24th. While not as high as say Japan, the US has a higher life span than most nations.
Now don't get me wrong, I believe everyone should have access to health care but I believe it's the individual's responsibility. The way the system is rigged in the US is part of the problem with people not being able to afford health insurance. For one thing, because of wage control laws in the US during WWII employers weren't able to offer prospective employees more pay however they were allowed to offer health insurance to employees. Today if employers were allowed to pay employees more without either the employer or employees having to pay more taxes people would be able to buy their own health insurance. This would create more competition in insurance which would lower insurance premiums. In a way Ron Paul's health policy would address this, though not compleatly. Or take Taxol. The National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and therefore part of government, spent $183 million to develop and test Taxol as a treatment for certain cancers. After spending all that taxpayer money what did the NCI do? It sold the rights to all of the data needed by the FDA to win drug approval to Bristol-Myers Squibb, BMS, for $43 million, $140 million less than taxpayers paid. And how much does a Taxol course of treatment cost? Several thousand dollars. Yet it cost less than a dollar for BMS to make one dose, and one treatment course takes less than 1000 doses. If the NCI had allowed any pharmaceutical company to use the data to get FDA approval, even if the manufacturers were required to pay say a 10% royalty to the NCI which would allow the NCI to do more research, the cost for treatment with Taxol would be a lot lower.
And "it takes a village" would represent common sense consensus among most societies (apart from the US). Someone who proposed the common US view of "I'm looking out for number one everyone else can go die for all I care" would be thought a dangerous sociopath.
Again I think you may be misunderstanding me, then again I wasn't really clear about it. I do believe in people working together in communities to help each other, voluntarily. What I don't like is anyone being mandated or required to do so, such as by having some of the money they work to earn being taken out to pay taxes. As an example of how I'd prefer it is the old Barn Raising wh
you are basically arguing for going in full force to destroy all those shitty little countries we created.
No I'm not. I believe the population of those countries should be the ones who determine their future. So long as it's democratic, ie everyone has a voice, and they don't harm or control others they should be able to do what they want.
The middle east has enough money to do whatever they want. They could build world class universities to create the doctors, engineers, and scientists they desperately need. They could build hospitals, factories and technology bases to rival the best of the western world. The golden age of the middle east was a period when education and tolerance ruled supreme.
This brings up something I wish wold have happened, as you describe I believe all the money coming in from oil should have been used for education, and health care. It also bothers me that many can't afford to own their own homes, Islam doesn't allow interest to be paid on loans. And since most people can't afford to buy a home without a mortgage it means they are left to pay rent. For instance in the apartment building I live in there are 3 or 4 Middle Easterners who have shared an apartment for years (one's an Egyptian, another a Syrian, and I think the others are either Jordanian or Lebanese), I've lived here almost 4 years and they are the only ones who have lived here longer than me. Though I'm not sure I think they are Muslims and therefore can't get a mortgage.
FalconConservatives hate it when it comes to medical mj or assited suicide or pro-gay marriage. Liberals hate it when you are pro gun or anti-abortion or needing to enforce civil rights on uppity sounthern states.
Everyone hates you when you're pro mj (hemp), assisted suicide, gay marriage, guns, choice, and civil rights.
Yes, I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal, ie I am a Classical liberal!
FalconBlaming Americans for middle east violence, however, is pushing it too far. The blame rests solely on on the saudi princes and theocracies who use their huge profits to export hate and violence to the entire world.
And who created those theocracies? The West, including the US, after WWI. Britain, France, and the US partitioned the Middle East into separate countries when the Ottoman Empire was dismantled. For aiding in the fight against the Turks Sheiks were promised land to form a country on. Look at a map of the Middle East, it looks almost like a jigsaw puzzle because of this.
FalconIs the EPA now part of the Executive Branch?
The EPA has always been part of the executive branch of government, well since it was established in the 1970s by Nixon. Whatever bad things can be said of Nixon, and they exist, Nixon did push to cleanup the environment.
Falconin the case of the first Gulf War it was in direct response to an overt act of aggression against a Middle Eastern ally.
Though I agreed with forcing Saddam to leave Kuwait, Saddam and Iraq were allies at that tyme too. Throughout the '80s Reagan and Bush Sr supported Saddam. In 1988 and '89 congress debated sanctions against Iraq, unlike the UN sanctions through the '90s after Kuwait was invaded these sanctions being debated only related to military assistance, because Saddam had used WMDs against not only Iran but also against Kurds and Marsh Arabs as well as others inside Iraq.
I don't think it's fair to put the elder Bush in the same category of mental defective as his son.
As VP Bush argued in front of congress that those sanctions debated in 1988-89 would hurt US trade.
FalconIn this age of climate change hysteria, if you did research that ended up suggested otherwise would you like to have it out there with your name on it? i'd rather have frank and honest EPA employee's and not be able to read their findings then being able to read a bunch of 1/2 truths that they were forced to self censor to protect their jobs and reputations
So you also support smoked filled back rooms then. There's very little the government does, if anything, that should be kept hidden from those who paid for it, taxpayers. If it can't stand sunlight it must smell. Or put it another way, if you have nothing to hide why don't you let people know? Maybe we could just have the mafia run the government.
FalconLincoln, IMHO the best president ever
Lincoln tried to suspend habeas corpus as did Bush Jr whereas Thomas Jefferson fought against the Alien and Sedition Acts believing they were unconstitutional.
FalconI'm sorry, you think Clinton is far left? If anything she's a moderate righty.
Hillarycare anyone? How about "it takes a village"?
FalconWhile as president Ron Paul wouldn't be able to actually get rid of all the government he could veto all spending, in which case unless congress overrode the veto the federal government would have to shut down. I'd love to see that.
Well, no. What would happen is that Congress would pass a continuing resolution to keep spending going until they could pass a budget.
In order to pass one they'd still have to override his veto, which I find unlikely unless either Democrats or Republicans are able to get large enough of a lead in congress. It would take too much compromising otherwise.
but would definitely leave the President looking like a complete idiot, after the Congresscritters got finished making speeches about his "obstructionism" or some such.
He could simply point out to the public that the Constitution does not authorize many of things that are being funded and that congress supports unconstitutional things. Take the Department of Education, not only is it not authorized but it's actually a local issue, at the state level at most. Nor does the Constitution say anything about any Department of Energy.
Not that I would ever be elected, I wouldn't even want to run, but if I were I'd say that unless congress gave me a Constitutional bill I would veto it.
FalconTo believe Ron Paul's own explanation, he didn't read his own newsletter for ten years.
Backup your assertion these statements were published for over a decade. I dare you.
FalconRon Paul can have racist drivel put out under his name for over a decade and somehow it does not rate a mention.
Can you point out where the info that racist remarks were published for over a decade? Last I read those statements were published for about 2 years.
FalconHow would you immediately reduce military spending? It would put lots of people out of jobs. (Not that I think it shouldn't be done--I agree with you. But you can't really do it immediately.)
By pulling many military units out of other countries that alone would reduce military expenditures. My plan would temporarily increase spending in one area, for every year someone served in the military they'd have 1 year of college education paid for. However this would increase individuals' earning potentials so more would be paid in taxes. Then with a citizens' army like Switzerland the nation could be protected.
Falcon1) Given the extreme volatility of the Middle East--especially if Iran is edging closer to building "gunbarrel" style U235-based nuclear weapons, in spite of a number of claims to the contrary--that might not be a good idea.
I'm still waiting to see those WMDs Saddam had.
4) Removing the income limit on SS/Medicare taxes would be a BAD idea, because that would encourage high-income Americans to move their income offshore--legal or not!
I would do my best to abolish individuals' income tax. The only income tax payers would be corporations, hey if you want limited liability you pay for it. Individuals would pay user fees (taxes). For instance if you drive you will pay tax on the fuel which the income will then be used to pay for building and maintaining those roads you drive on. With the rest of your money you could then buy health insurance, and with competition in insurance the premiums will come down.
5) I'd offer major tax incentives to build and develop next-generation solar power arrays based on nanotechnology.
With lower taxes more money would be available to develop and build new generation PV and wind generator plants. Then with lower costs more entities, whether businesses, coops, or individuals could then buy and install PVs, wind farms, and other energy sources.
6) I'd fund primarily trolley systems and light rail, systems that are relatively easy to implement.
Fact is is many who own cars won't give them up in the US, even if a good commuter transit system exists. The only way to get more people to use them is by driving up the cost of personal transportation. I was a bike riding fanatic, I used to ride my bike more than 200 miles a week, but even then I knew most people in the US would hate to give up their cars. Heck, I knew homeless people who wouldn't give up their cars for a roof over their head.
7) I'd create a commission to look into the issues of various universal health care plans, and make sure we have one that addresses the problem of health care rationing.
If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.
8) I'd be real careful about any increased regulation of any financial market
Let me get this right, you don't like regulating, any more than it is now, the financial market but you'd increase regulations in health care?
FalconMy last ambulance ride only took 10 minutes to get to the hospital from where I was and cost $700 more than insurance would pay.
Heath care tends to be overpriced due to billing issues.
If you think health care cost is expensive wait until it's free.
#2 involves funding, which originates in the House of Representatives, not the Executive Branch. A strict literal reading of the document limits to you to #1 only, I'm afraid.
A strict as well as practical reading of the Constitution allows the president to veto spend bills. So if congress sends a bill with too much spending money he can veto it.
Enjoy your term--you're going to have a lot of free time on your hands! :-)
I probably would, depending on how many bills congress passes. My veto stamp would get a good workout though. Then either congress could go home and get real jobs or they can try to override my vetoes.
Well, now that I think about it I think I would be real busy at first. I would propose Amendment XVIII (28). It's text would be real simple to understand, "Congress shall not meet for more than 90 days every 2 years unless the president calls for a special session."
Falcon