289Views133Replies

Author Options:

PRESIDENT & GOVERNMENT Answered

OK, I've been a sneaky DIY for a while now, just stealing idea's but not really contributing. Bummer. In my defense I'm currently deployed to Iraq OIF 07-09. Question is what would YOU do as President? How would you help the American people? Background, I'm a gemini, and hope i don't get so out of hand i get banned. (Please keep your input on the U.S. only) Ok, so here i go..... If I was Pres I would round up certain people with certain things (say bums, or the sick and diseased) and "off" them. I would stop competition in consumer goods (ie, why sell energy saving light bulbs, and the crappy ones as well) I would force companies to comply to a higher standard for the greater good.<---this part IS communistic, but only for consumer goods that go to market. If President, I would have large meetings INHOUSE, i would not leave my country to "talk" to other countries, I have a phone, or a VP/VIP i could send. These meetings would gather expert people, in whatever field... for instance the internet, and would make it run flawlessly..... no dead links, no BS info, mmmmm sounds good. I would make a government website, FOR THE PEOPLE, (created by the best web guru's, government guarenteed secure) and it would more or less be an online census, it would be your forced load page.... you couldnt have fun on the web without answering a few questions, about anything. of course personal info, CIA FBI stuff, but mainly for an immediate update as to what the people want, when they want it, and how they expect it done......man ive so soo much more... thats all for now. Call me crazy, i dont care....... what would you do?

50 Replies

user
zachninme (author)2008-07-12

Sorry for bumping this, but I went to rate this, and I couldn't decide. On one hand, the topic itself is just terrible from my stance. We've all pretty much voiced our killarowa distaste. However, in doing so, we sparked some really good, thoughtful discussion. I guess I'll give it a 4/5.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Kiteman (author)2008-06-11
..."off" them... ...FOR THE PEOPLE...

And who says Americans don't understand irony?



Me? Socialism-ish.

  • America needs a state-funded health-system.
  • It needs a net to catch the poor.
  • It needs to do something about it's education system.
  • It needs to cut the power of the churches, disband religious lobby-groups, ban them from holding positions on education and hospital boards.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Labot2001 (author)Kiteman2008-06-15

Seconded! Socialism is the way to go! (Though lets not get too Socialist... I here that France pays a 70% income tax. Is that true??)

What killarowa seems to be talking about is BLATANT COMMUNISM. I denounce thee, sir!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

> (Though lets not get too Socialist... I here that France pays a 70% income tax. Is that true??)

Wow, it was so small that I missed that one !
If it was 70%, I think we would make a new revolution and guillotine many politicians ...

From wikipedia : «The French income tax is a progressive tax, i.e. tax is an increasing piecewise linear continuous function of income»

The maximum is 40% for peoples that make more than 67,000€ a month.
If you make less than 5,600€, it's 0%.
(It's calculated on the gross salary of course)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I've always thought that progressive taxes made more sense, even though I didn't know the term :P
percent is a linear term, they need to create something thats exponental. perpercent or something :P

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Okay, thank you for clarifying that.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I mean : more than 67,000€ a year

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)Labot20012008-06-15

Socialism is the way to go?! NO WAY!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Labot2001 (author)xACIDITYx2008-06-15

What do you mean? We could benefit from socialism. I think the healthiest option would be a happy medium between capitalism and socialism.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)Labot20012008-06-15

Socialism: An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.

Without Competition, prices can skyrocket and noone can do anything about it. That's why they have competition now; to prevent a monopoly. If there is no competition, than one company that can lower prices and still be profitable can do so, and the rest of the companies go out of business. Then said company can raise prices and, seeing as how they are the only one in the business, you have to buy them at the ridiculously high price.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Rishnai (author)xACIDITYx2008-07-12

Like Wal-Mart after they've eliminated all of the the M&Ps; in a small town 50 miles from nowhere. Their prices are great until they're not competing in that market anymore...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
Labot2001 (author)xACIDITYx2008-06-15

That doesn't make any sense. That definition more closely resembles communism than socialism. Where did you get that definition from?

And choose is right; competition is NOT always a good thing. And about the brainwash bit, don't take it as an insult; he's right. If you get a public education, why wouldn't the gov't want you to learn that no matter what they do, they're right? Don't always listen to what Teacher says, form your own opinion.

And while we're on the subject, here's a handy-dandy guide to politics...

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)Labot20012008-06-15

I got the definition from Dictionary.com. Actually, I didn't learn any of this from public education. I form my own opinions based upon the information I'm given.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)xACIDITYx2008-06-15

As much as I despise governmental regulation, Choose has a point. If the balance of competition slants too far one way, things get bad. Look at all the "Mom and Pop" businesses shut down by companies like Walmart. Also, the drug companies abuse the system. Even Ronald Reagan put a significant tarriff on the importation motorcycles over 750cc. This brought Harley Davidson back from the brink of colapse and paved the way for Victory, Iron Horse and other American companies to produce jobs in the cycle industry. I just wish there was a way for individual states and communities to regulate these matters rather than making the Federal government any more powerful

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)skunkbait2008-06-16

Yeah, I suppose he does. I agree with that. I think that we need to give more power to the state governments and less to the federal.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)xACIDITYx2008-06-16

Yep, you got it! State government would share the interests and concerns of its' constituents. Also in state elections, individual votes count. When it comes to federal regulation, it feels like dis-connected, elite outsiders are making decisions for people they neither know nor understand.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)skunkbait2008-06-16

I mean, the federal gov't should still have some powers. For example, they should still print money. Otherwise we'd have problems. I believe it happened before in history, and there was an inflation.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)xACIDITYx2008-06-16

Printing money is a part of maintaining interstate trade. That way your currency is accepted at the same ratefrom state to state. It falls under the true responsibilities of the fed as fully intended by our founding fathers and the framers of the constitution. National DEFENSE fals in the same category. Although emperial expansionism is not really a part of who we were supposed to be. "Manifest Destiny" is a little too close to "imminent domain" which is currently threatening all of us.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)skunkbait2008-06-17

But what if each state prints different money? All of different values, sizes, types, etc. I believe it happened before in history, before the constitution came into play. There was an inflation; the money wasn't worth anything.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)xACIDITYx2008-06-17

Check out my post from Jun 16 @7:52pm. Printing money should be federal business. It falls under the category of maintaining interstate trade. The Confederate states of America printed Federal and state money for a time. Even though J. Davis and R.E. Lee were brilliant, money from individual states is not usually the best idea. I want to be able to spend the money I earn in Arkansas at the same rate when i go visit my sister in NY.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
killarowa (author)skunkbait2008-06-17

nope, money printing is now privatized. oh yeah, and the company that makes our money pays all their bills on time..... hmmm..... I wonder how (they just print more money if your not catching on!!)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)killarowa2008-06-17

Is it privatized or just contracted? (pretty big difference) Governments have just printed more money in the past to bay the bills. it caused disasterous inflation. Inflation in early 19th cent Germany was so out of control you had to take a wheelbarrow load of cash to pay for a beer!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
killarowa (author)skunkbait2008-06-18

yeah, im unsure of privatized vs contracted, but im guessing contract, so whats the big difference? either way, i dont believe those contracted out have the proper controls on em. Sounds silly on my part, but I just dont like the idea of the government not having that control. They could just print a roomful of money for all we know.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)killarowa2008-06-18

Well if it's contracted, then there is at least the "semblance" of propriety, and in theory the T-men/Secret Service would properly regulate that company. (I know in reality it probably wouldn't work that way.) If it is truly privatized, then the Gov lacks the AUTHORITY to regulate it. The Gov contracts a lot of questionable things. But, Should the Fed manufacture toilet paper for all gov buildings? Should they have federally employed golf caddies for senators? Some things are best left contracted.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
killarowa (author)skunkbait2008-06-18

Ive looked around with no success.... Anyone know where to go to see the US national debt total?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
killarowa (author)killarowa2008-06-18

found it, its over 9 trillion smackeronies!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)skunkbait2008-06-17

Oh, I see. I misread the 7:52pm comment.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
killarowa (author)xACIDITYx2008-06-17

HAHAHA, our money ISNT worth anything! What makes you think a twenty dollar bill has any value? You know what that is? its just a paper reciept for actual money which you aint got..... or the government has, for that matter, since the Federal Reserve isnt even federal, its a private bank, and our money printing isnt even controlled by our government.... its controlled privately.... you may as well just wipe your nose with this stuff

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)killarowa2008-06-17

If our money isn't worth anything, then how did I buy this laptop with it?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
killarowa (author)xACIDITYx2008-06-18

Thats fairly nieve, im talking about this history of paper money. Thats all money is, its paper..... Its a paper RECEIPT for actual money in a bank somewhere, and more or less holds no real value. Rich people, and people with REAL money have investments in actual gold and other trade items for sale or bartering purposes, but the rest of the people, MOST of the population in fact, think paper money is worth something when its not. They think "Oh I have money" when really they have absolutely nothing of REAL value.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)killarowa2008-06-18

Well, I have something that can get me something better. That's all I need to know.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)xACIDITYx2008-06-17

Well, it is the implied value that still lets us purchase things with our legal tender. But really, paper money has been of little actual value for years. Under the gold standard, and silver certificates, paper money could be redeemed for its gold or silver equivalent. Now paper money is "valuable" because we beleive that it will be accepted for goods and services rendered. I certainly won't turn paper money down, but if I have a lot of it, I'd rather have it in gold or silver.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)killarowa2008-06-17

I agree to a great extent. The value of the money now rests on the faith of the people. We would be MUCH better off to return to the gold standard, and silver certificates.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

> I think that we need to give more power to the state governments and less to the federal.

Here, we call that "decentralization".
More power to the administrative subdivisions of the country, so the whole country works more efficiently.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

TRES BIEN! It also creates good natured inter-state competition that works in the interest of the little man. Merci, Tu es un ambassaduer magnifique. (My poor attemp at french)You have single-handedly dramatically improved my view of FRANCE. I took French in school, and currently work for D'assault Avion. Je parle le francais, mais il es tres dificile. LaFayette was truly a hero in my eyes. It's just the political appeasement that France has been involved in that still worries me a bit.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

> You have single-handedly dramatically improved my view of FRANCE

Wow, great ! This could mean that I'm not totally useless for my country finally ....
Do you think they will give me a medal for that ?? =o)

> and currently work for D'assault Avion

If not too indiscreet, for which branch of Dassault Aviation do you work for ? The civilian or the other ?

> Je parle le francais, mais il es tres dificile.

If you come to France as tourist, that would be more than enough to win the heart of many of my compatriots ;o)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I work for the civilian branch. It's unbeleivable to see the level of luxury in the commuter jets. Gold handles, mahogany tables, silk carpet! My wife wants to go to Paris for our 20th Anniversary, but with travel costs what they are, I'm afraid we'll just go to the French Quarter in New Orleans!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Haha !

> Gold handles, mahogany tables, silk carpet!

Indeed ! Falcons are not the kind of toy they want to sell to the common citizen ... ;oP
40 million US$ !!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

Have you seen the 7X? WOW!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)skunkbait2008-06-16

. I take a more Darwinian view of business - if you can't compete, you die. But I suppose that's another one of those "looks better on paper" deals. ;)
. I don't see where much could be done to save the M&P stores you mention. Wal-Mart is just another part of the continuing move toward urbanization/centralization.
. How do drug companies abuse the system?
. Not enough info on the H-D/tariff, but I'll assume it fell under unfair practices. I don't see bailing a company out because they can't make a profit as government's job. Just to make the playing field level. Personally, I'd hate to see H-D go out of business - they are an American icon - but there's plenty of hawgs in the Smithsonian already. ;)
. I think the Federal gobmint needs to have a pretty big hand in business regulation. Maybe not as much as they have now, but more than the states. Licensing and such should be up to the states, but HOW business is conducted is, IMNSHO, a Federal function. For one thing, it would make things awfully complicated to have 50 sets of rules.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)NachoMahma2008-06-17

I've always been more "survival of the fittest" too. It may even be that the Harley issue touched me on an emotional level. The M&P; stores in some areas created their own demise by poor quality, poor service, and poor selection. Other M&P; stores were set on an unfair playing field in some communities. Wal-mart can afford to lower prices in one community, (to the point of losing money) for quite a while. M&Ps; can't. But when M&P; are gone, what happens to the prices at the Walmart in that community. BTW- I'm not anti-Walmart. Sam was a GREAT man. I have family and friends that work for them. It's just seeing the little guys go out of business (and then having no choice but Walmart) hurts a little. The drug companies should be paid fairly. They did the research and development. It's just that I've paid less for almost every medication I've EVER bought in a foreign country. (Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Guinea, Singapore, etc.). Maybe it's the litigiousness of the society in which we live. Maybe it's the FDA. I'm aware that some countries produce counterfeit meds. Still something smells fishy, and I suspect it's greed on the part of the drug companies. I also know of Dr.s getting 'persuaded' to prescribe the more expensive alternatives. All said and done, do we pay too much? Yep. Would you accept lesser healthcare? Nope. Another problem related to most of this, is greed within given unions. I won't call names, but that has a great deal to do with the exportation of U.S. jobs. Also, if the Fedgov had behaved itself all along I doubt we'd have these problems. THey are responsible for maintaining interstate trade, but where does it end? I think the states could have handled MOST of the regs on their own, and states would stand or fall on a Darwinian basis (to a degree). I mean we can't all be as liberated and prosperous as Mississippi and West Virginia!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
NachoMahma (author)skunkbait2008-06-17

> It's just seeing the little guys go out of business (and then having no choice but Walmart) hurts a little. . You're starting to sound like me, ie, a grumpy ol' man who yearns fondly for days of yore. I miss having a farrier on every corner. heehee > All said and done, do we pay too much? Yep. Would you accept lesser healthcare? Nope. . I like that. . > greed within given unions . Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. :( I used to be a "Special Representative" for one of the locals and was VERY disappointed in the international leadership. They seemed more worried about protecting their power than really helping the workers. But that's not to say that Unions are all bad - there are still employers who will take advantage of their workers and Unions can provide some protection. . . I still say that when you blame the gobmint, you're really pointing the finger at yourself (collectively speaking). Who hired the ppl that screwed up? . > I mean we can't all be as liberated and prosperous as Mississippi and West Virginia! . ROFLMAO!

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)NachoMahma2008-06-17

On the Gov issue. Are the constituents to blame? Yes and no. I doubt many people vote for candidates hoping to get a guy or gal that will actively overstep constitutional bounds. But, we don't make a loud enough racket when they do (especially if we aren't the ones being violated). Also, we vote emotionally, blindly and in a state of denial. Wishful thinking doesn't go far in the real world. It's hard to vote with "worst case scenarios" in mind. We tend to vote for the way we want things to be (but not reality). Basically we fail to hold our senators and reps feet to the fire. If they toss a few bucks or a little more convenience our way, we sell our souls by voting for them, and then letting them off the hook when they don't keep their promises. (Just keep the free programs coming!!!)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)skunkbait2008-06-15

Actually, I think it was bikes over 700cc.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
killarowa (author)xACIDITYx2008-06-15

"and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity." I see nothing wrong with the government controlling cooperation of Large companies (im talking mass production lines here) for the greater good of the people.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user

I see they brainwash you quite well at school ;o) Unfortunately, in the rest of the real world, competition does not guarantee lower prices or better quality. In many cases competition is a pure bulls**t, even more when patents and IP are involved : and with their IP and Patents, those companies end up acting like if they had a monopoly. Competition can also guaranty high price for relative quality whatever company you choose : That's what we see here with pharmaceutical laboratories, telephone companies, car insurances, banks, cars, etc ... ... and when things get better, it's generally thanks to the intervention of our governement.

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
xACIDITYx (author)Labot20012008-06-16

Haha! I read that over again and you pulled a kiteman! (here vs. hear)

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer

user
skunkbait (author)Kiteman2008-07-11

Ok, Kiteman. I've almost got the net completed. WHat do we do with "the poor" once we catch them?

Select as Best AnswerUndo Best Answer