Topic: If I were President (Read 1401 times)

Anthony Horvath · « **on:** January 21, 2006, 10:27:33 AM »

I thought an interesting exercise for some of us might be to lay out what your platform would be if you were running for president. Below is mine:

1. I would push for an immediate elimination of the tax code, to be replaced with a flat tax of 15%, with those in the bottom $50,000 paying 10%, and those under 35,000 paying nothing.

2. A consumption tax of about 2% would be applied to all purchases except groceries.

3. The Federal budget would be reduced to agree with whatever income is projected to be generated from #1 and #2.

4. Judges will be appointed who will constrain themselves to the words on the pages.

5. I would push for a repeal and re-writing of certain Constitutional amendments which have harmed, in my opinion, the rule of law. A portion of the 14th amendment comes to mind.

6. An executive order would be issued authorizing conceal and carry nation wide. This order would be sunsetted. This order would accomplish what is already in the 2nd amendment, so therefore obviously is redundant. If #4 has success, this executive order would be unnecessary.

7. Any military action involving more than 10,000 American service men will be justified by an actual formal declaration of war.

8. A push to amend the constitution to more clearly delineate when the 'war powers' kick in would be take care of.

9. Limited government will be the goal. The US Congress will have their legislation vetoed over and over again until they conform. Federal mandates will end, but so too will the largesse appropriations. States and individuals alike will have more of their own money to spend on the things that THEY think are important.

10. Legislators will be called on to develop a list of ethical rules and principles consistent with the American worldview. Trade and cooperation with nations that are completely abhorrent to those principles will be suspended or curtailed.

11. The American military will be doubled. Between this doubling and the arming of the populous (#6), we'll be able to handle the consequences of #10.

12. Strong incentives will be issued for 18-20 year olds to serve a 2 year stint in full time service of the country- military, politics, local community.

13. Education will again become de-centralized. States and local communities will again be the primary authority.

14. Corporations will have their incorporation re-visited. They exist only at the mercy of the government, by the will of the people, in the understanding that they provide a necessary benefit to the country. The primary operating principle would be that there is no distinction between management and employees. Therefore:

14a. Corporations will be given a choice of a number of different salary structures. Example, they could allocate 30% of net income to management, an additional 30% goes to the workers. 40% discretionary (investors, research and development, etc). A variety of approved options will be made available.

14b. Corporations will not be allowed to file for bankruptcy without first publicizing the actual date and time when the vote for bankruptcy shall ensue. Such decisions will need to be made jointly with members outside of management and the board of directors. (workers, investors, etc).

14c. Compensation for all corporate workers, down to the guy behind the counter at the gas station, will include stock options.

14d. Lots of ideas on corporations. The idea is to affirm their value, but point out that 'corpus' means 'body', and so they should act like it.

15. The 'press' will be re-defined to include anyone and their mother, and not just the major media outlets. For example, pure space constraints prevent the white house corp from being too big- that's ok, the average joe-blow blogger from down the street may still be able to get in on a lottery system. In otherwords, there will be an effort to democratize the media.

16. The Federal government simply will not be involved in health care. The states and local communites will deal with it.

I have more.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2006, 10:52:24 AM »

Well your rules on corporations would alone make your campaign budget impossible. Many of your ideas are to idealistic, but I do agree with the tax part even though I am still a minor. Military increase I would not do. If local control of goverment had happaned to us, slavery would still be allowed and so would segregation.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2006, 11:17:07 AM »

"Well your rules on corporations would alone make your campaign budget impossible."

Yes, it would be populism that would get me elected. :)

"Many of your ideas are to idealistic,"

That was the idea. But it helps to see where I'm at on things.

"but I do agree with the tax part even though I am still a minor."

Awesome.

"Military increase I would not do."

You've got to have the military increase, because if you decide not to deal with countries that suck, its only a matter of time before countries that suck are taking advantage of the power vacuum. We will need to have the military capabilities to absolutely devastate any country that wishes to try taking advantage TOO much.

In otherwords, the price for principled action abroad means, in effect, isolationism to a large degree. Example, we supported Hussein in the 1980s because Iran was a bitter enemy at that point, and supported by the Soviets, who besides being bitter, were formidable. If Iraq fell, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Egypt could be next (and our friend Israel too). Principled action would say, "Well, Hussein, you are a bad man. We can't support bad men. Good luck!"

We then have to be willing to endure the consequences. That is, we need to be comfortable with a Soviet dominated middle east and a willingness to forgo middle eastern oil. The hypocrisy of the left, imo, is that they want to criticize our government for things like the Hussein/Iran affair in the 80s, but then bums that they are, they'd be unwilling to take the steps at home that we'd have to take by removing ourselves from such associations. For example, if we'd have done nothing to help Hussein, and Iraq and Saudi Arabia fell to Iran and the Soviet supported armies, I have little doubt that the Liberals would have cried and moaned about how we 'didn't do anything.'

Anyway, I support principled action, but also think that we need to pay the price. Thus, such principled action will mean that the Soviets (in this example) are going to spread throughout Africa, and probably much of South America. Doubling our military, giving our citizens a real right to bear arms, and having a large part of the citizenry doing an obligatory 2-3 year stint in the military, will mean that when our enemies are trying to decide whether or not its really worth it to go for the full monty, they will be deterred by 300 million mostly armed and mostly trained American citizens.

Right now, we want to have it both ways. We want to condemn our country for its overseas activities, but we don't want to prepare ourselves at home for what would inevitably follow if we did otherwise.

"If local control of goverment had happaned to us, slavery would still be allowed and so would segregation."

I didn't set the scenario for what I would do as President 50-100 years ago, or before the constitution was framed. Both slavery and segregation follow from flaws in our constitution and in its application. Even so, you are not completely accurate. Segregation suffered some serious blows from the court system, but it had already been fomented by legislative actions at the Federal level, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There is nothing in my set of principles that would preclude legislation like the Civil Rights Act.

It is true that we'd have to put up with some isolated incongruities. Community 'X' does something we find intolerable over here in Community 'Y.' I'm sorry, anti, but as long as that something is not explicitly anti-constitutional, community X should be able to do what they want, or its not really freedom, is it? If you live in community 'X' and the majority there is doing something that is constitutional, but you don't like, move. Or try to sway people to your viewpoint.

Within the agreed framework of the Constitution, local communities should have a lot more freedom to express their individual idiosyncrisies.

David · « **Reply #3 on:** January 24, 2006, 11:28:02 AM »

What do you mean by "strong incentives" for 18 to 20 year olds?

Ragnar · « **Reply #4 on:** January 24, 2006, 01:58:25 PM »

Parts of my platform (this is free-wheeling fantasy, I'm not sure the president has the power to institute some of these):

Domestic: Laissez-faire capitalism. My view is the government should serve two basic functions: protect its citizens from foreign threats and protect its citizens and its citizens' property from domestic threats, i.e. the police and the military. I would privatize just about everything else, including transportation. I would legalize all drugs, suicide, and physician assisted suicide, and reduce the statutory rape age to 13 (you should know what you're doing by the time you hit puberty, if you want it you can have it, if you don't want it and someone forces it on you, it's rape, plain and simple). I would eliminate speed limits, affirmative action, welfare, social security, Medicare/caid, and by saving all that money I would also eliminate all taxes - except for tariffs on imported goods and sales tax. The sales tax would fund the military and police. I would maintain state funded ER units for emergency life-or-death situations only. My government aint gonna tell ya how to save your money and it aint gonna tell ya how to spend your money.

Foreign policy: heavily imperialistic. In other words, I would go even further than the current administration. I would have no problem backing "bad" people if it meant keeping stronger, worse people in check. To comment on part of johnny's policy, ending the threat of the Soviet Union was necessary and good. I think backing Hussein at that time was the right decision. Instead of singling out Iraq as a target today, though, I would have a broader "no tolerance" policy for terrorism of any kind. Instead of using so many U.S. troops, though, I would fund Israel in ongoing search and destroy missions throughout Palestine, Saudi Arabia, and the rest of the Middle East. Any government that resists these terrorist-cell-hunting task forces would be dealt with - harshly.

As a result of the above policies, North Korea and Palestine would probably no longer exist.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #5 on:** January 24, 2006, 02:11:53 PM »

"What do you mean by "strong incentives" for 18 to 20 year olds?"

This one is probably my only 'social program' that I'm willing to get behind. Probably some cash incentives. They wouldn't be working for free, that's for sure. College grant incentives, like now. Credits to be applied to a degree, if applicable. Internships that will help in future careers can be created, too. I do not believe we can or should coerce people to do these things, but I think we are wasting our money on most of our 'social programs.'

It would be very hard, imo, for anyone to have any excuse- poverty, education, whatever- for not succeeding in our country when they get 2 years of their lives to be funded in explicit service to their country. They can come away with credits for college, internships completed, certificates, earned. And oh yea, the country gets a lot of people informed on the innards of their country and a sizable militia in case anyone wants to test American's resolve.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** January 24, 2006, 02:15:57 PM »

I wonder what the philosophical difference is between Ragnar and myself that allows both us to argue for annihiliation of those who won't leave us in peace, but has him becoming 'imperialistic' and me becoming 'protectionist.'

My own view is that even though I think what Ragnar suggests is straightforward correct (I definately agree with ending the Soviet Union and our support of Hussein in the 80s), even if we managed to get American's on our side, the rest of the world would probably declare war on us. I mean, the world pretty much wants us to be around to clean up messes (that they typically make) but they want us to do it in a way that they approve of. I think Ragnar's approach would be too much even for them.

Heck, even the French would field an army. With the rest of the world on their side, maybe they'd get a victory.

Ragnar · « **Reply #7 on:** January 24, 2006, 02:48:18 PM »

I'm all for paying the military well, but there need to be some changes there, too. For one thing, I would eliminate the "weekend warrior" thing, where people do weekends and 2 weeks in the summer or whatever, and then act all surprised when they get sent to Iraq. The policy should be if you're enlisting in the military, you're enlisting in the military. You would have to sign an explicit contract saying yes, you will very likely see action, and there's a good chance you could end up dead. I would also make the government honor contracts - you sign up for two years, you do two years. If there's no one to replace you and you don't want to re-up, they can't force you to stay.

Ragnar · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2006, 05:53:11 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

I wonder what the philosophical difference is between Ragnar and myself that allows both us to argue for annihiliation of those who won't leave us in peace, but has him becoming 'imperialistic' and me becoming 'protectionist.'

My own view is that even though I think what Ragnar suggests is straightforward correct (I definately agree with ending the Soviet Union and our support of Hussein in the 80s), even if we managed to get American's on our side, the rest of the world would probably declare war on us. I mean, the world pretty much wants us to be around to clean up messes (that they typically make) but they want us to do it in a way that they approve of. I think Ragnar's approach would be too much even for them.

Heck, even the French would field an army. With the rest of the world on their side, maybe they'd get a victory.

Hmm, well that would be the challenge - I'm not suggesting willy nilly destruction of anyone we don't like. You would have to stay balanced about this. I meant to say slightly imperialistic, by the way, not heavily imperialistic - Freudian slip

I don't think there would be many other countries crying about the destruction of Palestine and North Korea. I mean, we virtually destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan and, beyond your typical protests, the rest of the world has pretty much gone along with it. I don't even really agree with the types of fighting that have been going on. We've been choosing the wrong targets.

I'm in favor of more subtle tactics. I said I would prefer to spend more money backing countries like Israel than committing U.S. troops, but I wouldn't exactly advertise that fact.

The world has become too small and dangerous to remain isolationist. I used to think isolationism might be a good idea, but I just don't think it is practical anymore. We can't just stick our heads in the sand because people would hate us anyway.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #9 on:** January 26, 2006, 04:20:34 PM »

Large armies are not nearly as important as superior technology. If I was general i would want superior weapons and superior armor over superior number of troops because one nuclear missile could wipe out 300 million troops.

Sntjohnny, would you have women also serve as well?

David · « **Reply #10 on:** January 27, 2006, 10:06:57 AM »

Quote

This one is probably my only 'social program' that I'm willing to get behind. Probably some cash incentives. They wouldn't be working for free, that's for sure. College grant incentives, like now. Credits to be applied to a degree, if applicable. Internships that will help in future careers can be created, too. I do not believe we can or should coerce people to do these things, but I think we are wasting our money on most of our 'social programs.'

It would be very hard, imo, for anyone to have any excuse- poverty, education, whatever- for not succeeding in our country when they get 2 years of their lives to be funded in explicit service to their country. They can come away with credits for college, internships completed, certificates, earned. And oh yea, the country gets a lot of people informed on the innards of their country and a sizable militia in case anyone wants to test American's resolve.

Sounds good. As long as the service is not forced, I agree.

Also, what would your policy be concerning the environment?

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #11 on:** January 27, 2006, 10:57:30 AM »

About women:

I assume you meant military service. I think my policy might be similar to the way it is now. I'd scale it back a little bit so that it really would be improbable that they'd fight. Wars are dirty if the women have to fight.

With that in mind, I'm fully supportive of putting a gun in the hands of every woman in America and making sure she knows how to use it. It fits in perfectly with making any would-be exploiters of apparent 'American Weakness' (as it would seem when we stopped dealing with tyrants) think twice about launching any kind of military action against our country. Amazon Women, baybe. The American Woman IS the Amazon Woman right now, I believe, but not encouraged or armed.

Imagine how the rape and battery problem in our country would go down if nearly every woman was packing and trained.

About the environment:

I'm soft on the environment compared to how enviromentalists tend to think. I am not opposed to development, but I think development when there are existing buildings and developments being unused is stupid. I would discourage it, but not outlaw it. Companies and corporations would have to abide by a simple "At least as clean as you found it" policy.

If they make a mess, they clean it up.

On the other hand, they won't find a whole lot of emphasis on preserving the environment for flippin sand flies. Evolution, right? Adapt or die right? The habitat will be preserved insofar as it is in OUR best interests, not the best interests of insects or rare rodents. I happen to think we can make the argument that keeping around rare species is in some measure 'in our best interests' but I think re-defining the question from the point of view of OUR interests as opposed to the stupid BUG's interest, provides a rational way to approach the question which may still result in protected habitats, etc.

TheAtheistHeratic · « **Reply #12 on:** February 09, 2006, 06:53:04 PM »

?s
1. Would you invade islamic countries?
2. Would you take over Israel/Palestine?
3. Would you use your army to spread Christianity?
4. Would you change the bill of rights? (any part)
5. Would you in any way restrict freedom of the press?
6. Would you outlaw abortion for most people?
7. What would you do about protesters against you?
8. Would you like to answer anymor questions?

Author Topic: If I were President (Read 1401 times)

David

David