If you were President of the United States..

[GRtak]

I would follow Bush jr's example and go on vacation.

 

[Cold Fussion]

Mostly. But if the company doesn't make money, eventually, they wont be in business. (GM and the like not withstanding)

Would you start a business, and pour all of your hard earned money into for no profit? Even if your employees get paid?

They don't have to pour all their profits into charity, but they should be pouring some of it in. Here's a quote from wikipedia dealing with the way Bosch distributes it's profits.

For example, in 2004, the net profit was US$2.1 billion, but only US$78 million was distributed as dividends to shareholders. Of that figure, US$72 million was distributed to the charitable foundation, and the other US$6 million to Bosch family stockholders. The remaining 96% of the profits were invested back into the company. In its core automotive technology business, Bosch invests 9% of its revenue on research and development, nearly double the industry average of 4.7%.

 

[MadCat360]

MadCat - I agree that people are often wrongly convicted. Maybe its the econ major in me but wrongful convictions aside, I don't see why our tax money should be used to keep a rapist or child molester alive. I realize, however, that there is really no "right" or "wrong" answer to this, but just personal opinion.

The cost is not to keep the criminals alive. It is to keep innocents as safe as possible.

The ultimate solution, obviously, would be to perfect the justice system. Since that is not possible, damage control needs to be robust.

The costs would also be a lot less strenuous if prosecutors weren't so overzealous and if we decriminalized a lot of things that should be decriminalized. Most people are in jail for things that shouldn't be illegal (ie, drugs) or should at least have more lenient penalties. It's quite ridiculous how much time you can spend in prison for some things that aren't that bad.

 

[nomix]

1) More rights given to individual states, just like the forefathers wanted it. Eg gay marriage, abortion, etc.

The forefatheres were oposed to discrimination. In their day, that didn't mean blacks. These days, we've obviously done something with that. Gay marriage might be our generation's answer to all the other civil rights movements; after all, none of us wants to have segregation back.

3) Up the power of the referendum. If the citizens of a certain state don't like something, they should be able to vote on it. Like the Swiss did regarding minarets.

Referendums aren't a bad idea, but I would like to point out that the minaret ban would probably be quite unconstitutional.

4) This one is bound to get me elected some day: end affirmative action.

Agreed.

5) Nation-wide background and mental health checks for firearms ownership, as well as mandatory licensing. That said, everyone who has a clean history and is sane should be able to own weapons.

Can't hurt.

6) Although I presently have no idea how this could be accomplished, it would be nice to bring some common sense to courtrooms. Eg you spilled hot coffee on your lap? Its your own damn fault, not Dunkin's. Broke your leg while burglarizing a house? Cant sue the owner, sorry.

Make every case pass a "sillyness test" in front of a judge before it moves to trial by jury.

7) Capital punishment for rape and molestation.

Too big a risk.

What? Murderers and drug dealers and such get off on little technicalities all the time! You killed 48 people and we found a hundred keys of cocaine in your basement? Its ok, the arresting officer did not use a #2 pencil, you're free to go.

They don't get off because the arresting officer used the wrong pencil, they get off because they can afford proper legal aid. They get off because they have money (including drug dealers, they've got loads of it). The people getting convicted even if they are innocent are the people who can't afford good legal aid. And those that are innocent even if the evidence is quite convincing.

Added to that come a lot of young, ambitious public prosecuters all around the country that make their promotion on their conviction record.

That's how non-profits operate Alternatively I suppose you could severely cap salaries at insurance companies (for managers and execs, that is).

Doesn't most of them do lots of boards? So let them have 50k per board they sit on, 70k if they are the chairman (as it entales real work), and if they do four boards (which is, after all, a pittance), they'll be bringing back a nice and tidy 200k per year.

 

[LeVeL]

4) Yes. If the only reason I'm being considered for a job is because I'm a woman, then I'm probably not really qualified.

Correct me if Im wrong but I believe Clarence Thomas, the supreme court justice, who is black, mentioned before that his grandfather used to say that if a nigger (his words) is down, dont help him get up - if he is strong enough then he will get up on his own but if not then too damn bad. Clarence also said that he always knew that he got into college because of his skin color and that always angered him. Affirmative action promotes discrimination, imo.

Yes. 100%. Or maybe 90%. You want a hunting rifle..or a gun that's obviously for shooting practice, then sure. You want an assault rifle or want to buy a gun out of the blue...and a ton of ammo for a handgun...I'd like some better background checks. My ex was not a nice person. I was married to him for 18 years and was a victim of crappy mental abuse. He was un-officially diagnosed as bi-polar(before the age of 18), and had done some rather borderline psychotic stuff about 10 years ago. But never 'committed a crime'. Or was officially diagnosed as being a dumbass or a nutjob for insurance reasons. Legally he's allowed to walk into any gun store and buy what he wants. Does he have any business having one? Hell no. Would I want to know he has one? Hell no. As unbalanced as he is, neither do you.

yeah i suppose an exception could be made for hunting rifles

But, if you're caught dead to rights (in the act so to say) I say...fry them.

this. If you are caught with your hand in a little girl's pants, you get the chair. Without decisive evidence like that, maybe "just" a senten e

Referendums aren't a bad idea, but I would like to point out that the minaret ban would probably be quite unconstitutional.

Somewhat debatable but that was just an example anyways

They don't get off because the arresting officer used the wrong pencil, they get off because they can afford proper legal aid. They get off because they have money (including drug dealers, they've got loads of it). The people getting convicted even if they are innocent are the people who can't afford good legal aid. And those that are innocent even if the evidence is quite convincing.

Added to that come a lot of young, ambitious public prosecuters all around the country that make their promotion on their conviction record.

Doesn't most of them do lots of boards? So let them have 50k per board they sit on, 70k if they are the chairman (as it entales real work), and if they do four boards (which is, after all, a pittance), they'll be bringing back a nice and tidy 200k per year.

there you go. I worked for a non-profit before and the top execs were pretty well off but not millions-a-year kind of well off. Insurance companies currently charge us a ton and then dont want to pay when they have to. Its bs


OT: this post is coming to you from an iphone. It took a long time and my thumbs are getting tired. Ha!

 

[nomix]

Somewhat debatable but that was just an example anyways

Yeah, but there's also the issue that referendums seem to make people even less interested in voting. In the Swiss referendum you refer to, I belive only 50 percent or so participated in the polling. Switzerland also has rather low turnout generally, even more so when we're talking about referendums. In Norway, we've had six referendums. We had two in 1905 (sovreignty from the union with Sweden, wether Prince Carl of Denmark were to become King of Norway (so we've got the only popularily elected royal family, fun fact)), one in 1919 to ban alcohol, one in 1926 to make it legal, one in 1972 over membership in the EEC (we voted 'no') and the last one over the same issue in 1994, which also panned out as a 'no'.

What am I hinting at? The point is that we've had six referendums, but apart from 1919 and 1926, they were all over properly big issues. Should we become independant? Should we have a Danish Prince as King? Should we join the EEC? Those are big issues. Issues like "should we make the use of seat belts compulsory", "should people be alloved to eat bread" (yeah, that was a pun) is less relevant as issues for referendums. Another point is, that referendums are, per legal practice, not entirely constitutional in Norway. That is to say, that they don't really have any ground in the constitution. The parliamentary practice of Norway is to view them as advisory referendums, so that the parliament will enact the decisions of the referendums as law. There's nothing legally binding the parliament, but disregarding such a vote would go down.. well, let's say less favorably.

I guess something like that could be proposed in the US as well. Just a tought.

there you go. I worked for a non-profit before and the top execs were pretty well off but not millions-a-year kind of well off. Insurance companies currently charge us a ton and then dont want to pay when they have to. Its bs

I was referring to the insurance companies.

OT: this post is coming to you from an iphone. It took a long time and my thumbs are getting tired. Ha!

I've done the very same myself on my Samsung Galaxy S. I believe it was in this very thread in fact.

Btw, I suppose it was because of your fruity telephone you forgot the passage on the penal system.

 

[LeVeL]

Btw, I suppose it was because of your fruity telephone you forgot the passage on the penal system.

<stewie>BLAST!</stewie>
i meant to mention that while youre right, its also often the case that criminals get off on little technicalities.

Regarding referendums - it would appear that that part of the swiss population that didnt vote simply didnt care about the issue turning out one way or another. That said, i feel like part of a democratic system is that citizens should be able to change something if they dont like it, no?

 

[nomix]

<stewie>BLAST!</stewie>
i meant to mention that while youre right, its also often the case that criminals get off on little technicalities.

Regarding referendums - it would appear that that part of the swiss population that didnt vote simply didnt care about the issue turning out one way or another. That said, i feel like part of a democratic system is that citizens should be able to change something if they dont like it, no?

Generally speaking, I agree. But as Winston Churchill once said, democracy is a very bad system of government, but the best there is. One initial problem I have with referendums is that they open the door for less stabile government. For instance, what if a federal referendum just said that the United States had to remove their troops from Iraq in 2006, without any specific details in the referendum. It would, in effect, become law. And it would be an extremely bad way to end a war.

And while I agree that low turnouts mean less people care, it's worth noting that Switzerland has very poor turnout in general as well. If a method leads to more voter apathy, it's viable to make a nation less democratic, for that reason alone. If we look at the referendum in question, the majority of that referendum gave the cause a legitimacy that can't be argued. Even so, no more than 30 % of the actual electorate (I did the sums at the time, can't be bothered to look them up) voted for the ban of minarets.

There's also the point that what's popular at a time doesn't have to be the right thing to do. When we voted over the EU, the turnout was 89 %. If you can get close to 90 % turnout, that's good. But you would need 56 % for it even to be a popular majority, and that is IF you get 90 %.

There are a lot of potential laws that might have been enacted in the aftermath of september 11 2001 that I think most of us are very glad never happened. It might have, if there were federal referendums.

 

[LeVeL]

I quote Churchill on that all the time. So very well put.

The way I see it, if I'm deciding on which pizza to order for a party and out of the 10 people present 3 say meat loves and the rest don't say anything, then I just order meat loves because that will satisfy everyone Its not perfect but it'll get the job done. You might be right though, maybe referendums should just be left as a strong indicator to the government of what the public wants.

Oh, and I thought of another thing I'd do if I were President - revamp the whole suing-doctors-for-malpractice thing. Its a bit ridiculous how much doctors have to pay for insurance against lawsuits and, in turn, how much we have to pay to see a doctor.

 

[nomix]

I quote Churchill on that all the time. So very well put.

The way I see it, if I'm deciding on which pizza to order for a party and out of the 10 people present 3 say meat loves and the rest don't say anything, then I just order meat loves because that will satisfy everyone Its not perfect but it'll get the job done. You might be right though, maybe referendums should just be left as a strong indicator to the government of what the public wants.

Yeah. I believe it was John Adams who said "If someone proposed that two and two is four, and the motion is seconded, Congress would spend a three full days debating the issue.". The more people you put in a debate, the less likely it is to actually lead to anything.

I'm not oposed to it, but I just think it needs very careful deliberation. The voice of the people is the voice of a dog, to refrase a saying. People change their minds so much it makes the most waffled congressman look reasoned.

Oh, and I thought of another thing I'd do if I were President - revamp the whole suing-doctors-for-malpractice thing. Its a bit ridiculous how much doctors have to pay for insurance against lawsuits and, in turn, how much we have to pay to see a doctor.

There needs to be the option to sue, but the system today is sort of rediculous. I'm not that sure it has that much of a bearing on the final cost, I'm thinking more of common sense. If a doctor has had a pint of ale at the pub and someone is hit by a car, he becomes liable at the moment he treats the victim. That's just fucking madness.

Another thing I'd do.. hmm.. think up a sort of new, new deal. It's needed.

 

[LeVeL]

More things I'd do:
-Get our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan
-Cut spending - ending the war would help, as well as a "better' healthcare reform (including addressing Medicare/Medicaid/SS)

 

[nomix]

I think I'd do something about red tape. While I am a fond believer in the social democratic idea, I do think it should be possible to do it without too many administrators and beaurocrats. It seems like there's more "leadership" in modern government (and modern corporations). By that, I mean that there's a lot of leaders, that mostly don't do much. I'm having a hard time putting words on it (perhaps because English isn't my first language, it would be the first time since 9th grade), but you know, people who cash a pay check and fullfill some sort of hypotetical role thought up by modern economists.

 

[ahpadt]

I actually worked at the Norwegian Directorate for Health for 2 years and I can back up the theories about the big leaders not doing much. It's mostly their secretaries who run around while they turn up and get all the glory. Apart from that it was a building with 3-400 people mostly doing nothing, or atleast nothing particularly interesting. Among one of the groups who worked there was the ones who make the anti-smoking campaigns on TV. They were actually really friendly but I honestly never understood what they did to fill their days.

Lots of bureaucracy, not much actually happening.

 

[nomix]

Something has to be done about that. But I'm not just talking about that, I'm talking about this modern myth that leaders are needed on every level. That you need someone with an exam from a business school to decide on everything. But bureaucracy will also be high on my list.

 

[tigger]

If I were President (assuming any president could get half this done :lol: ) ...
- Universal healthcare
- Worldwide drawdown of our military, within the limits of any currently binding treaties (though still pumping money into R&D, special forces, intelligence, etc).
- Start from scratch on automotive regulation.
- Bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
- Lots of "trust-busting" A whole lot.
- Make taxes more progressive.
- Reform campaign and election rules to give third parties a shot.
- Get rid of the electoral college.
- Untangle government and marriage.
- Lots of other stuff that would probably get me shot.

1. Well, no it can't. However, I am seriously concerned that expenditures will outstrip incoming cash sooner rather than later. SS is already in the hole, if I recall.
2. Well, we could just cut it and let everyone find out the hard way.
5. I don't think we'll have to do it more than once.

I'm not totally serious about my suggestions, mind you. I just get tired of hearing that intervening in Iraq is bad but we never did anything about Darfur, which sounded like another fine pile of quicksand to get involved in. Sometimes I'm tempted to let them all rot.

1. SS won't be spending more than it receives for a couple decades yet. A slight tax increase would solve the problem, but that will be a hard political pill to swallow for a couple decades more.
5. It's just not that simple.
And I know what you mean about Darfur etc. Next time you hear someone debating that line remind them that we're the largest contributor to the UN (US provides 22% of their budget), the most influential AU nations (who backed the Darfur independence referendum) are pals with the US and according to some Wikileaks cables, we've been smuggling guns, ammo, tanks even, into southern/western Sudan. There are a lot more ways to fight a war than having our forces roll in there guns blazing.

Most important issues:
1) More rights given to individual states, just like the forefathers wanted it. Eg gay marriage, abortion, etc.
2) Make insurance a non-profit industry.
3) Up the power of the referendum. If the citizens of a certain state don't like something, they should be able to vote on it. Like the Swiss did regarding minarets.

1. Some of the founding fathers wanted a much more powerful federal government too.
2. Or just let people buy into medicare/medicaid. I don't even know if a non-profit private venture could match how low their overhead is.
3. I'd be apprehensive about that. Most people don't know their elbow from their asshole when it comes to politics.

Other issues:
4) This one is bound to get me elected some day: end affirmative action.
5) Nation-wide background and mental health checks for firearms ownership, as well as mandatory licensing. That said, everyone who has a clean history and is sane should be able to own weapons.
6) Although I presently have no idea how this could be accomplished, it would be nice to bring some common sense to courtrooms. Eg you spilled hot coffee on your lap? Its your own damn fault, not Dunkin's. Broke your leg while burglarizing a house? Cant sue the owner, sorry.
7) Capital punishment for rape and molestation.
8) Let Massachusetts residents have fires in their yards

4. I think we could do without if for a while and see how things work. Positive minority rights are a good thing in many cases, but I'm not so sure about AA.
5. That's going to require one hell of a bureaucracy to back it up. But that would be an improvement over the status quo.
6. There's been tort reform that has helped with some of that. However, it can also lead to people with legitimate cases getting the shaft.
7. Nope, I'm against capital punishment. Costs too much, for one. And pedophiles usually don't last long in jail anyway.

 

[British_Rover]

I love these emails because they are just so bad. They are written by people who either don't know what they are talking about or are trying to delibrately mislead people. Then those emails get sent out to people who won't bother to check the facts. At least you questioned if they are true.

Also, got this in an e-mail yesterday. Don't know how many of the 'facts' are true, but it still made me giggle.

Subject: Fw: Walmart vs. The Morons


Here are the Facts


Wal-Mart vs. The Morons

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart Every hour of every day.

2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!

3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.

4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.

5. Wal-Mart employs 16 million people, is the world's largest private employer, and most speak English.

6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.

7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years.

8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.

9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.

10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.

11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at Wal-Mart stores (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)

12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.

This should be read and understood by all Americans Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of the Legislature,

It is now official you are ALL corrupt morons:

a The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

The US postal office ran as a surplus for most of those 234 years. The rise of email contributed to the deficit it is in now. The collapse of magazine subscriptions and newspapers, their third and second class postage rates helped pay for regular first class postage, also contributed. Also UPS and FedEx didn't exist for most of that time. I work for UPS now and believe me we don't want all of the USPS business. We could never handle all those small letters. We could never live with a mandate to service the whole country either. UPS can pick and choose where it will deliver packages and can charge enormous premiums for delivery to out of the way areas. That is not something we want the USPS to do. You should be able to get basic mail delivery anywhere in the country without being ass reamed for charges.

b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
Flat out wrong. SS is not broke. SS has the income and reserves to pay out benefits at 100% for the next 27 odd years. After that time if everything stays the same as it is now then benefits can be reduced down to 75% and still be paid out just fine.

Lets say you hired a financial planner and they looked at your income and expenses. The planner told you that you are BROKE because in 27 years you will have to reduce your spending by 25% if you keep your current income level. You would fire that planner and call them an idiot.

c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

d. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more. One trillion seems a little high. Makes me wonder what all is being included in that figure. Remember we don't have a regular welfare system in the US anymore not since the welfare reforms put in place by Clinton and the Reps in the 90s. I mean the regular DOD budget excluding special items and the VA plus interest on old war debt isn't even a trillion dollars a year

e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
Again neither is broke yet though they are in more trouble then SS. Both can be fixed and the health care reform bill start doing that.

f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

g. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

This makes it sems like the DOE is mainly concerned with oil. That is not true at all. It was started with that as part of its mission by the Carter administration but Reagan cut back on that goal. The vast majority of the DOE's budget is spent on nuclear and atomic energy, basic/advanced research and various defense projects. The current FY2011 request for the DOE is about 28.4 billion dollars. Total FY2011 expenditures on Fossil energy projects is only about 760 million dollars. Contrast that with just the request for only the National Nuclear Security administration portion of DOE budget at about 11.2 billion dollars.

http://www.mbe.doe.gov/budget/11budget/Content/FY2011Highlights.pdf



You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars.


AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??



WAL MART SEEMS TO KNOW HOW TO RUN A BUSINESS.... WHY DON'T YOU GUYS JUST ADMIT IT'S WAY BEYOND YOUR PAY GRADE, AND QUIT?

Lastly the health care reform bill isn't gov't run health care. A public option wouldn't have even been gov't run health care because there would still have been private health care.

I love all these people who want to run gov't like a business. Elect me I will run gov't like a business they say. No, that is a bad idea.

What is the primary function of a business? To make money. Now what you do with that money could change depending on the business. Maybe it is mainly pushed into R&D or redistributed to shareholders via dividends. Maybe it is all donated to charity but profit is the motive of a business.

Profit is not the motive of a gov't and shouldn't ever be.

 

[MadCat360]

Profit is not the motive of a gov't and shouldn't ever be.

But should not the government attempt to manage it's money in such a way that it ends the year with a surplus?

 

[Cold Fussion]

But should not the government attempt to manage it's money in such a way that it ends the year with a surplus?

Why should it?

 

[LeVeL]

But should not the government attempt to manage it's money in such a way that it ends the year with a surplus?

breaks even

 

[ahpadt]

breaks even

And what would you do if you suddenly had an economic crisis then, since you have no money saved up?