What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

Byron · 2003-08-29 07:42:56

Since I seem to be on a bit of a roll on this board, I want to play a game I used to play a lot when I was a kid (didn't you?) :;):

I'll start this off by stating some of the things I would do (or TRY to do, I should say) if I was President - not that I ever intend to run...this is just a game, remember... :

Iraq: It's a terrible mess that we can't exactly back out of at the moment. But what I would do is push for greater international involvement in the rebuilding of Iraq's government and infrastructure....especially of that country's educational system, so that they're not graduating 1000's of new terrorists every year. This is a very long-term problem that needs to be corrected at its source...which happens to be the impressionable kids in the Islamic educational system.

Economy: Personally, I think this is where the United States is most at risk...and don't think our enemies don't know this as well. (think if they took out Saudia Arabia's oil export centers, etc.) Yes, our economy is improving, but at a terrible cost, and the kind of economic growth we are currently experiencing is simply not sustainable over the long run. I'll explain below:

Deficits: The U.S. budgetary deficit is totally out of control, reaching $450 bil this year, close to $500 bil next year, with monstrous deficits stretching as far as the eye can see. And these grim projections DO NOT account for the cost of rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan, or to fight any renewed conflict in and around those nations, as well as the uber-sized prescription drug benefit that is sure to pass Congress before the Nov. 2004 election (who said Bush wasn't a big-spending liberal??)

The U.S. has already experienced a huge increase in long-term interest rates, which is in response to the tremendous level of deficit spending. The higher the deficit goes, the higher long-term interest rates will go. I don't care how much Viagra Greenspan is taking...he is impotent in these matters. You simply cannot have low long-term interest rates and super-sized deficits at the same time. So, as President, I would seek to rectify this problem as quickly as possible. Where to get the $$ to close the gap? One way of doing this is to simply look at past policies that actually worked for decades on end. How do you think the U.S. was able to fight the most expensive war in history (WWII) and yet come out financially smelling like a rose? How did the U.S. manage to fight the Vietnam war for a decade and a half, launch a huge War on Poverty, -and- the Apollo Program and yet not pile up the untenable deficits we have today? While I'm sure there are a myriad of explanations for this, but I beleive the No. 1 reason is that we taxed the f*ck out of the rich. Marginal income tax rates for the wealthiest 1% or 2% of Americans were far, far higher than they are today...and this tiny sliver of the population helped provide the national government to do all the things I mentioned above and more.

While I wouldn't advocate going back to the same tax structures as we had in the 50's and 60's, as it would probably disrupt the economy too much, I would suggest that anyone making over $1 mil a year pay the most taxes, with marginal rates going as high as 75% for the folks making the mega bucks (like over $5 mil a year.)

To help the working poor (which is inexcusable for a nation as wealthy as the U.S.), I would eliminate the universal payroll tax, which represents the largest share of the tax burden for 80% of all workers. I would then implement a series of graduated tariffs with all nations that have a positive balance of trade with the U.S. The trade deficit is yet another dragon that needs slaying, and by setting import tarrifs at a level to ensure the U.S. imports more or less what we export (isn't that a novel idea!), we would not only rebuild our ravished manufacturing base, (since it would be cheaper to make things at home instead of abroad), we would probably bring in enough revenue to pay for the Social Security program, which we all know can never, ever be cut. We would also probably end up creating enough jobs to create an actual labor shortage, which is the true ticket to a booming economy, as wages would rise in relation to corporate profits and the like.

Granted, this would make prices rise sharply at the stores...but considering that I can now buy a pair of shorts for $7.99 and a shirt for $6.99 (made in China, of course) at the local Target, I honestly think this is one aspect of the economy that can support higher costs. Higher prices at the stores in relation to fatter paychecks would also encourage saving as opposed to personal forms of "deficit" spending, which has basically the entire country in hock (which is why I think rising long-term interest rates is a HUGE threat to the future of our economy...the American people are way over-leveraged right now - just look at the current bankrupcy statistics for the past couple of years.)

One more thing, and I'll turn the floor over to anyone that wants to have a potshot at me --

The Medicare prescription drug benefit. I would drop that thing like a hot potato, as that would turn out to be the largest fiscal black hole ever created. (If you think the cost of rebuilding Iraq is high....ha..think again, buddy.) This is nothing but a sop to the drug companies, who will be able to raise prices as high as the late '90's stock market and get the gov't to pick up the tab for the millions of seniors who depend on these drugs. What will I do instead? The obvious. I would follow the example of Canada and virtually every other developed country in the world and REGULATE the drug companies. Drug manufacturers should be treated just like a public utility...with the price of every drug sold to the public fixed by a central agency, just like the way electricity prices are regulated. If the price of drugs were lowered to 1980's levels, the problem of access to prescription drugs would vanish overnight. As for the "problem" of high research & development costs....I say that's hogwash...they don't seem to have this problem in other countries...why should the U.S. be the world's only exception in this regard?

O.K., I'll stop now....(fingers twitching...I'm trying....)

B

Ranger_2833 · 2003-08-29 10:21:17

I dissagree with the progressive tax. Taking from the rich to give to the poor doesn't sound fair to me, after all they did earn it (possibly through exploiting the working class, but hey, that's still earning it ). Instead I would propose a flat tax rate far below the current rates. At a level high enough to cover justice, police and defense (who's budget I would cut in half, which is far more than they really need anyway).

In its place, I would recommend three steps: higher sales taxes, maximum pay ratios and cutting government programs/departments. I know that I don't give exact numbers, but hey I'm not running for president now and I don't have advisors and interns to research it for me.

Sales tax: I would propose federal sales taxes to replace the income tax (to a much lesser extent) on all items except food/medicine, clothing and shelter. The more you spend, the more you pay in taxes (this I think is a much fairer version of a progressive tax). On the basic needs categories, I would only place taxes on luxury items (i.e. houses with over a certain square footage per person, designer clothing, and food like caviar that cost over a certain price per unit weight). Along with these sales taxes, I would reinstate the taxation of church property and no longer allow them to recieve free utilities (orphanages then, as now, would fall into a entirely different tax category; shelter in my plan). People should not be forced to pay for services that they do not use. I would allow tax reductions for people who donated to charity from their property taxes, or if those are not paid, federal income tax.

Maximum Pay Ratio: I would also propose a maximum pay ratio for all companies operating in the U.S. For example a limit of 100:1 on pay for the highest paid employee to the lowest (including bonuses earned and stock). Thus if your lowest paid employee made $8/hr ($16640/year) the CEO would make at a maximum of $800/hr ($1.664 million/year). The average American CEO now makes 500 times the lowest pay.

Cutting Programs/Departments: There are quite a few that fall into this category, but I'll only mention a couple. No more congressional pension (they voted themselves $50,000/year for life). I would unite the military into two branches: Army and Navy. The Air Force would fall under the Army/Navy depending on which task they support (much like modern carrier groups act). This would drastically reduce the redundant personell and equipment in the current 3 force system (the Marines are a department of the Navy). Space would be, as it is now, a joint command. At the same time I would cut wasteful congressional pork programs like the Ballistic Missile Defense program that do nothing to support defense. The government would no longer be allowed to purchase systems that are unproven, or sponsor those that are untested. NASA would be cut from near Earth space, and replaced with a "Port Authority" type control system. Their primary mission would be exploration and supporting American Aerospace research (emphasis on supporting, not doing). NASA Launch Facilities would become the domain of the new Space Authority, who would in turn lease them out for private/government use. This is but a short list of the programs I would alter.

In addition to this, I would make a mandatory bi-weekly meeting before congress in which the president (me in this case) would have to stand before congress and justify/debate my actions; much like the British Parliment. The President is not supposed to be the most powerful office in the country, that is exactly what the founding fathers faught to prevent. To simplify my stance, I support a vastly reduced government based on the Constitution (we haven't had a Republic based on it for about 150 years) where non-essential services would be paid for by targeted taxes (i.e. taxing automobiles and gas to pay for roads and infrastructure). Also I believe in minimal required taxes to cover the three essential duties of this nation's government: defense, police and justice. We have ignored the rules set by the Constitution for too long; it is time we abolish this ogliarchy and return to a Republic.

Judson McCarty for President in 2020!

(Makes me feel young )

clark · 2003-08-29 10:27:23

Okay would be Presidents, a question is raised from the floor,
What would you do on Education?

Byron · 2003-08-29 11:21:53

Okay would be Presidents, a question is raised from the floor,
What would you do on Education?

Good question, clark, as education is one of the most important tenets of a civilized society.

The problem with education in the U.S., as I've outlined in a previous post (I forget where) is unequal schools and unequal districts. Despite everything the federal government has done to "even things out," it has failed miserably in its objectives.

To be honest, I think the politicization of public education is what is causing most of the problems we're experiencing today. You've got the teachers' unions which help keep shoddy teachers on the job, you have elected officials who pander to the suburban electorate as opposed to the inner-city areas, the list goes on and on...the end result being that while some kids get a superior education, others get left behind in the dust.

What would I do to fix this problem? Simple. Take politics out of education by issuing a universal education voucher to every school-aged child in America (cost-adjusted according to geographical area), and letting the parents decide where to send their kids. You would have to have regulatory bodies of course (preferably the states), to enforce minimal standards for the schools, such as the material taught in the different grade levels, length of the school day and year, max class sizes, etc, so you don't run into the problem of for-profit schools seeking to take advantage of the children's universal educational credits.

Radical? Yes. But Medicare beneficiaries are allowed to choose their own doctors and hospitals...why shouldn't parents be allowed to pick the schools they wish their children to attend? This way, you're putting control back in the hands of parents and children instead of misguided politicians. Of course, you would have a rough transistional period, as the shoddy schools empty out and the better schools become a bit crowded, but I think this problem would even out over time.

It's just an idea, anyhow...lol... :;):

B

Josh Cryer · 2003-08-31 18:12:45

Cut back our military, get rid of Star-Wars, and streamline what we have. Free health care for everyone (if Canada can do it, so damn well can the US). Studies even show that a single-payer style plan would be cheaper and more efficient than our current system where HMO's eat up all the money with little results. Clean up the schools, since all that military budget is now happily available to be spent on more important things. Legalize most drugs, especially hemp, so that it can be used as an industrial crop and bring in many more jobs by opening up the unused landbanks. Work on renewable energy alternatives to our oil dependence. Open up programs so that towns and cities around the country can be more energy efficient; local energy production from solar sources.

Hmm, think I've set my sights too high?

Palomar · 2003-08-31 20:30:04

*Everyone with an income has to pay a flat percentage tax on their earnings: Say 5% of what is earned.

Doesn't matter if you're a kazillionaire or a minimum wage worker shoveling french fries at McDonald's...5% of your income goes to paying for public roads, libraries, Social Security (which is ONLY to be used for old folks retiring and disabled people), etc.

The rest is your money.

Is this practical?

---

Josh: IMO, legalize only marijuana. Other stuff is too potently addicting and hence dangerous.

Universal healthcare/insurance for all citizens? I agree. It's absurd that so many hard-working, middle-class families either are not covered by employers or the premiums (even co-pay) are so expensive that many people have to opt-out. We can well afford it; so much of America's tax dollars are being squandered on stupid stuff by morons. And prescription medications for our seniors -- ALL prescription medications -- should be automatically discounted for them: At least 60% discount, if not more.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-09-01 06:54:58

Sorry, i don't follow ... President of what country ?!

The good 'ol U.S. of A..lol

Doesn't matter if you're a kazillionaire or a minimum wage worker shoveling french fries at McDonald's...5% of your income goes to paying for public roads, libraries, Social Security (which is ONLY to be used for old folks retiring and disabled people), etc.
The rest is your money.
Is this practical?

I don't think so. Finance the entire $1.5 trillion U.S. gov't budget on that level of taxes?? No way, Jose....

And why shouldn't the "rich" pay more of their income? Personally, I think NO ONE making less than $25,000 US per year should have to pay income taxes. The poor should not have to pay what they cannot afford. Then from $25-$75k per year, income taxes should be about where they are now - 20-25%. $75k to let's say $500,000 a year, the tax should be around 35% (still close to current levels.) But when we're talking about making over a million a year and up...I'm sorry...no matter how hard you work, that is too much goddammed $$$ for any one soul should make - not when we have millions of *hard-working* families struggling to get by. I say tax those uber-millionairs out the ying-yang...because they can afford it. So income taxes on that kind of money should be very, very high....if you can't get by on a "modest" half mil or a full mill a year...then you've got some real problems.

This is from this morning's paper, quite typical of the discourse I've been coming across as of late:

--- * "Over the past 30 years, the productivity of the people whose brain and muscle create the wealth of the world's richest nation has grown by 66% But the wage of the typical employee - the median wage - has grown by only 7 percent." (!). ----

Where's the outrage, huh? Where's Huey Long "The Kingfisher" when you need him? There is NO REASON why we should have hard-working wage slaves making $5.15 an hour with NO benefits whatsoever in this country, while others are laughing all the way to the bank and tax office. This is just not right - not in this country of supposely "equal opportunity." Where's the powerhouse labor unions that used to dominate the American labor force? Where's the fair trade laws that used to balance the level of exports vs imports so millions of people could get a high-paying job at a factory like they could prior to 1973? Why must us *poor people* bow down and kiss the toes of the uber-rich as if they are gods?

Sorry to be immature about this..but I say f*ck that sh*t. Get things back to the way they were...when a fair day's work actually meant a fair day's pay.

It's high time for the Democratic Party in the U.S. and the Labor/Liberal parties of other nations to rise up and restore justice to the people. Dean Howard for President in 2004!!!

B

Palomar · 2003-09-01 09:48:55

Where's the outrage, huh? Where's Huey Long "The Kingfisher" when you need him? There is NO REASON why we should have hard-working wage slaves making $5.15 an hour with NO benefits whatsoever in this country, while others are laughing all the way to the bank and tax office. This is just not right - not in this country of supposely "equal opportunity." Where's the powerhouse labor unions that used to dominate the American labor force? Where's the fair trade laws that used to balance the level of exports vs imports so millions of people could get a high-paying job at a factory like they could prior to 1973? Why must us *poor people* bow down and kiss the toes of the uber-rich as if they are gods?
Sorry to be immature about this..but I say f*ck that sh*t. Get things back to the way they were...when a fair day's work actually meant a fair day's pay.

*Erm...gee, I didn't think I was promoting -that-!

I agree with your sentiments.

I can't helping wondering, though, how many currently poor/middle income people would be howling about paying 35% tax on their money should they find themselves suddenly wealthy ...say from winning a lottery or writing a best-selling story which would be made into a blockbuster movie ala George Lucas. Can't say that I know much of Lucas' background, but I'm pretty sure he rose from middle-class obscurity to the fame and fortune he has now. Sylvester Stallone is a good example of "rags to riches." In 1974 he might have agreed with your sentiments...but by 1977, when he's a super-rich megastar thanks to "Rocky" (his story made into an Oscar-winning film), he might have changed his mind ("why should I have to pay 35% of my earnings from Rocky because other people can't write a good story, and have to punch a time clock instead?").

Many things in life are relative. I don't have a problem with the wealthy paying out more so the poorer can have a better "go" at life. I agree with you. But I also know how relative things are to many people, and how quickly and "conveniently" minds can be changed.

I think I'll say a little "mea culpa" now and return to our regularly scheduled programming.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-09-01 10:19:57

Erm...gee, I didn't think I was promoting -that-!

Cindy, I wasn't going after you in particular...that was just one of my soapbox rants...

In case you're wondering where I get my current sentiments from....here's an excellent site to check out: Economic policy site It talks about the current imbalances in the U.S. economy, and the potentially dire economic consequences of current trends (such as the Bush tax cuts and the huge imbalance in trade.) It also has articles like the one that dispel the notion the Europe's generous public and worker benefits are dragging down the economies over there...there are a number of countries that actually have lower unemployment rates than the U.S., etc. Definately worth checking out, imo.

:;):

B

Byron · 2003-09-01 10:49:33

Here's a site that will make even a liberal blush... ...based out of the U.K. Lots of good stuff to read, though, like the negative effects of globalization, debt, the growing inequality of the rich and poor, etc.

Jubilee site

B

Byron · 2003-09-02 05:53:45

Here's a "mainstream" article about the state of work in the U.S. today...could we finally be seeing the beginning of a European-style "anti-work" ethos here in the great United States?

One can only hope and dream for the best.... :;):

Article about overwork

Also, this morning, I was greatly gratified to hear that a very prominent, long-time local Republican has switched over to Democrat...can this be a sign of an eventual demise of the high-flying Republicans here in the U.S.? Again, there is reason for hope and optimism this morning... (Reflecting the real smile on my face...)

B

Surferosad · 2003-09-02 09:49:47

Where's the outrage, huh? Where's Huey Long "The Kingfisher" when you need him? There is NO REASON why we should have hard-working wage slaves making $5.15 an hour with NO benefits whatsoever in this country, while others are laughing all the way to the bank and tax office. This is just not right - not in this country of supposely "equal opportunity." Where's the powerhouse labor unions that used to dominate the American labor force? Where's the fair trade laws that used to balance the level of exports vs imports so millions of people could get a high-paying job at a factory like they could prior to 1973? Why must us *poor people* bow down and kiss the toes of the uber-rich as if they are gods?
Sorry to be immature about this..but I say f*ck that sh*t. Get things back to the way they were...when a fair day's work actually meant a fair day's pay.
*Erm...gee, I didn't think I was promoting -that-!
I agree with your sentiments.
I can't helping wondering, though, how many currently poor/middle income people would be howling about paying 35% tax on their money should they find themselves suddenly wealthy ...say from winning a lottery or writing a best-selling story which would be made into a blockbuster movie ala George Lucas. Can't say that I know much of Lucas' background, but I'm pretty sure he rose from middle-class obscurity to the fame and fortune he has now. Sylvester Stallone is a good example of "rags to riches." In 1974 he might have agreed with your sentiments...but by 1977, when he's a super-rich megastar thanks to "Rocky" (his story made into an Oscar-winning film), he might have changed his mind ("why should I have to pay 35% of my earnings from Rocky because other people can't write a good story, and have to punch a time clock instead?").
Many things in life are relative. I don't have a problem with the wealthy paying out more so the poorer can have a better "go" at life. I agree with you. But I also know how relative things are to many people, and how quickly and "conveniently" minds can be changed.
I think I'll say a little "mea culpa" now and return to our regularly scheduled programming.
--Cindy

35% ! Do you know that in the late forties, back in the days were people when terrified that a Great Depression could happen again, very high incomes were taxed in the 70 to 90% range? Funny how now that kind of taxation levels are perceived to be "unjust"...

clark · 2003-09-02 12:10:23

Flat taxes are intellectually easy to understand, thus the draw. You make 5 dollars or 5,000, you pay the same rate as everyone else. Shining beacon of fiscal equality, aint it?

But it aint.

A person making 10,000, paying 5% in taxes, ends up with 9,500 to live off.

A person making 1,000,000 paying 5% in taxes, ends up with 950,000 to live off.

Which one is going to be living off of dog food?

Is that the 'equality' we are striving for?

I'm surprised that no one here has also taken into account the debilatating effect large amounts of wealth, concentrated among a few individuals, has on a democracy. If money is a form of free speech (exercised when we contribute to politcal parties or politicans), what equality is there between the man who has 950,000 dollars with which to make his voice heard versus the man who has only 9,500?

Where is the equality when the man who has 950,000 dollars has the luxary and means to take the time to become politcaly involved- where as the man making 9,500 must work several jobs to make ends meet, thus reducing his free time to become politicaly involved?

Byron · 2003-09-03 06:53:06

Flat taxes are intellectually easy to understand, thus the draw. You make 5 dollars or 5,000, you pay the same rate as everyone else. Shining beacon of fiscal equality, aint it?
But it aint.
A person making 10,000, paying 5% in taxes, ends up with 9,500 to live off.
A person making 1,000,000 paying 5% in taxes, ends up with 950,000 to live off.
Which one is going to be living off of dog food?
Is that the 'equality' we are striving for?
I'm surprised that no one here has also taken into account the debilatating effect large amounts of wealth, concentrated among a few individuals, has on a democracy. If money is a form of free speech (exercised when we contribute to politcal parties or politicans), what equality is there between the man who has 950,000 dollars with which to make his voice heard versus the man who has only 9,500?
Where is the equality when the man who has 950,000 dollars has the luxary and means to take the time to become politcaly involved- where as the man making 9,500 must work several jobs to make ends meet, thus reducing his free time to become politicaly involved?

Thank you, clark, for agreeing with my sentiments...highly concentrated wealth is bad for democracies...and it also has a tendency to cause nasty things like depressions, which I think will happen to this country if we don't put things back on track... ???

On another note, I may have spoken a bit too soon a few days back when I stated that the U.S. really needed to work with other nations on the rebuilding of Iraq....it seems Mr. Bush is seeking to do just that. Maybe the man has a bit of common sense after all....lol...

B

Palomar · 2003-09-04 07:57:08

On another note, I may have spoken a bit too soon a few days back when I stated that the U.S. really needed to work with other nations on the rebuilding of Iraq....it seems Mr. Bush is seeking to do just that. Maybe the man has a bit of common sense after all....lol...
B

*Yep. It certainly looks like President Dumb-Dumb is doing a "mea culpa," now wanting other nations to send in their troops...trying to make deals with the UN, etc....

Snippet from today's Yahoo! headlines (hey, I just had a Freudian slip: I typed "headache" instead of "headline"!) "BAGHDAD, Iraq - The top U.S. commander in Iraq (news - web sites) said Thursday he needs more international forces to deal with an array of potential security threats, including al-Qaida terrorists, Iranian fighters and clashes between ethnic and religious militias." Duh, no kidding. As if this WEREN'T coming and wasn't foreseeable.

-

Going on with the "What would you do if you were president" question:

I'd outlaw SUVs, Hummers, and similar gas-guzzling pieces of junk littering our highways. If they couldn't be outlawed, I'd certainly make it very hard on the makers and dealers of these vehicles. Maybe the idiot owners of these vehicles aren't thinking ahead (most people don't), but I'd sure like to keep the air as clean as possible for THEIR grandkids.

I'd push for mass transit systems to be built, bicycle paths, encourage carpooling, etc -- with real and tangible *incentives* for their use. Gas rations for everyone else (based on number of people in the home, distance to work, and "free time" allottment), and if you insist on driving to work alone you can pay $10.00 per gallon after your rations have run out.

--Cindy

Byron · 2003-09-04 09:31:45

I'd outlaw SUVs, Hummers, and similar gas-guzzling pieces of junk littering our highways. If they couldn't be outlawed, I'd certainly make it very hard on the makers and dealers of these vehicles. Maybe the idiot owners of these vehicles aren't thinking ahead (most people don't), but I'd sure like to keep the air as clean as possible for THEIR grandkids.
I'd push for mass transit systems to be built, bicycle paths, encourage carpooling, etc -- with real and tangible *incentives* for their use.

Taking care of the SUV "problem" would be quite simple...if they would just raise the average mpg to 40 from the 25 it is now, as well as eliminating the "truck" exemption which currently allows auto makers to circumvent the mileage requirements altogether.

I'd support the construction of better mass transit, requiring housing developments to be "alternative" transportation friendly and the like (like the "green" housing development that KSR lives in near Davis, Cal.) Don't know about the rationing, though, as people need to be able to take trips and stuff, but if you had much stricter licensing requirements like they have in Germany, that would help keep a lot of drivers off the road.

B

clark · 2003-09-04 09:50:57

Cindy,

As a member of the largest state in the Union, and as a person who owns a vehichle in said state, and looking at my mass transit alternatives, I find your draconian ideas related to transportation frightful.

I think you just lost my vote. :laugh:

dicktice · 2003-09-05 09:04:04

Cindy: Why don't you have a kind word for hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles, as an intermediate approach to whatever will become the "new norm" in personal transportation? My feeling for what it is worth (?) is that gasoline/petrol prices will continue to rise, in anticipation of the flood of "hybrid car" sales beginning next year. That way, the oil cartel(s) can keep their bottom line intact, despite the increased mileage rates of 50% and greater from these new cars. Cities legislating what I shall call "cleaner-air vehicles" only starting with with the latest hybrid models, will benefit immediately from gradually improved air quality without changing a thing. Given more time, of course, hydrogen fuel-cell electrics, etc. will possibly take over. I can't see giving up individual personal transportation in the form of "automobiles" in cities, as long as we insist to live away from where we work. Modern equivalents of electric "streetcars" and "monorails" of course should be part of any future city renewals. So--let's hear it for the new Toyota and Honda hybrids . . . as well as the "Big Three" if and when they get their fingers out. (Thank you, kindly.)

Palomar · 2003-09-05 09:38:19

Cindy: Why don't you have a kind word for hybrid gasoline-electric vehicles, as an intermediate approach to whatever will become the "new norm" in personal transportation?

*Hi dicktice: Because I forgot about them!

Hopefully they'll become common in use, soon.

--Cindy

George H · 2003-09-05 10:18:30

I'd make Cindy my First Lady, but, everyone'd have to treat her like a Queen

dicktice · 2003-09-07 07:33:14

Anyone who owns up to an oversight . . . can't be all bad!

prometheusunbound · 2003-09-13 10:07:26

Watch out, here is my platform. . . .

1. I will solve the nuclear profileration problem and the enviromental problems by inviting foriegn contrys to fire their nuclear weapons at oil refinerys and our infrastructure.

2. At the same time I will distribute the wealth of the nation to its most needy members by reviving the pony express, and I will announce when and where via use of a really, really loud poltician (I might release tragificant to do this duty, as there is no power anymore to do anything) to announce this.

3. with no power for anything, the government will burn piles of money to produce smoke signals to communicate with each other.

4. When we run out of money, we will use government forms, of which there is an infinate supply and shall never run out under any and all circumstances.

5. We will tell the other nations of the world to follow our enviromentally friendly example and that we trust them not to exploit us in any way.

6. The army and the navy will be disbanded and used to plant trees whereever they may be.

7. Since it is difficult to grow trees out at sea, the navy will breed whales and other large marine animals.

8. Taxes will be voluntary.

9. The remaining rockets of the space program and all nuclear missiles will be used for fireworks.

10. We will give up texas to mexico and californa/puerto rico to spain. After all, we are oppressors of the colonial powers!

11. The land will be restored to its natural state, which will be decided by the local inhabitances what exactly that shall be.

Byron · 2003-09-13 10:51:08

Here's something some of you may want to ponder...

Anyone on here familiar with Huey Long ("The Kingfish,") who was the Governor of Louisana in the late 1920's and was elected Senator in the early 1930's? He was a profligate orator who built an extremely powerful political dynasty in his home state, the remments of which still persists to this very day. He was well-known for constructing 1000's of miles of paved highways and giving every single student free textbooks, which he financed by so-called "severance" taxes on the oil produced in his state.

He was a truly radical politician who sought to revitalize the nation's depressed economy by confiscating the monies of the super-wealthy and major corporations and redistributing it among the rest of the population in the form of a "reverse income tax." However, as he was making a bid for President in 1935, he was gunned down in Baton Rouge by his hard-core enemies. His plan was called "Share the Wealth," and it would have guaranteed an annual income for every American.

I have often wondered what this country would have been like if he had succeeded Roosevelt as President of the U.S. Would he have been able to carry out his Utopian plan, providing all of America's citizens access to this nation's vast natural wealth, or would he have driven this country into total ruin like so people accused him of doing?

The idea of this country not having any major corporations or super-wealthy individuals does have an alluring appeal to me...lol...although I'd have to admit we'd probably be significantly less well-off than we are under our current system. It'd probably be like Australia and New Zealand circa 1950...a time and place when people didn't have all that much, but pretty much everyone lived a decent, comfortable life. In this day and age, when something like the top 5% owns close to 80% of the nation's wealth, it does give one pause, doesn't it?

Don't mean to start a big debate or anything here...it's just one of these things I like to ponder every now and then...

B

Byron · 2003-09-13 11:23:57

One more thing...I found a link to the text of Huey Long's famous "Share the Wealth" speech in 1935 before he was assasinated.

"Share the Wealth" Radio Speech, 1935

This should give a fairly clear picture of what this man *hoped* to accomplish...i.e., "Every Man a King..."

While I know it's pretty unreasonable to think that this sort of plan would have ever worked...but gosh, it sure sounds nice... <sigh>

B

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-08-29 07:42:56

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#2 2003-08-29 10:21:17

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#3 2003-08-29 10:27:23

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#4 2003-08-29 11:21:53

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#5 2003-08-31 18:12:45

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#6 2003-08-31 20:30:04

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#7 2003-09-01 06:54:58

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#8 2003-09-01 09:48:55

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#9 2003-09-01 10:19:57

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#10 2003-09-01 10:49:33

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#11 2003-09-02 05:53:45

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#12 2003-09-02 09:49:47

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#13 2003-09-02 12:10:23

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#14 2003-09-03 06:53:06

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#15 2003-09-04 07:57:08

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#16 2003-09-04 09:31:45

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#17 2003-09-04 09:50:57

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#18 2003-09-05 09:04:04

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#19 2003-09-05 09:38:19

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#20 2003-09-05 10:18:30

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#21 2003-09-07 07:33:14

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#22 2003-09-13 10:07:26

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#23 2003-09-13 10:51:08

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

#24 2003-09-13 11:23:57

Re: What would YOU do as President of the U.S.?

Board footer