A US political discussion....

[CaptainHaplo]

Mikhayl - I understand what your saying - but neither of us can predict the future. Based on the situation as it stands now these are ways the US could effectively and reasonably approach issues in the middle east. Changes in the regions will require such policies to adapt as well.

[Aramike]

whenever a politician tells you that they will give you more stuff while taking away less money... you are having exorbitant amounts of smoke blown squarely up your ass.

I agree with this. Politicians shouldn't be telling us that they can give us ANYTHING, because it's a flat lie.

Nothing is just "given".

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - This is where I have to give an answer that you probably won't like. You said "Being POTUS (or any government head, for that matter) requires a lot more than ideas and positions (even good ones)." - really? Why?

Why do you think you'd be able to be the first successful modern Presidential Candidate without the backing of either political party?

Who said I will be successful? But its time people who care did more than - as you say - call in radio shows and talk about ideas. Someone has to act - and if it stirs the pot and causes change - I call that a success. It beats sitting around whining about woulda/shoulda/coulda.


How do you plan to be able to financially compete in a Presidential race?

Did you read my above discussion of campaign finances? The fact is - the more people think about it, the more they want big money out of it. Give them an option that lets them "vote" with their money and time - and I am betting that it will be supported. I could be wrong - but again - doing is better than the alternative. Besides, the recent decade shows how powerful grass roots movements can be.

What experiences do you have working with Congress?

Ronald Reagan was not really versed in working with Congress - on the contrary - when Congress did things he didn't like, he didnt hold midnight burning oil sessions - he went to the people of the country and told em why what Congress was doing was wrong and let THEM speak out. Its empowering the people. He made it work. Not sure why I couldnt. So working with congress - its easy - they pass legislation that makes sense and furthers the best interest of this country and I will work with em fine. They act like knuckleheads and I will let them answer to the people. *Yes I know that Reagan had been a state governor prior to his run*

How would you, as an independant, be able to work with Congress (specifics)?

See above answer - I don't have to - I simply have to make sure they work FOR the people they represent.

What government leadership experience do you have?

I don't. However, I have leadership experience in another sector where I was directly responsible for millions of dollars worth of taxpayer equipment and the lives of multiple people. Nothing got lost and nobody got killed. That good enough for ya?

[Aramike]

Aramike - This is where I have to give an answer that you probably won't like. You said "Being POTUS (or any government head, for that matter) requires a lot more than ideas and positions (even good ones)." - really? Why?

Because ideas don't get anything done. You need a plan and the ability to enact your ideas.

Who said I will be successful? But its time people who care did more than - as you say - call in radio shows and talk about ideas. Someone has to act - and if it stirs the pot and causes change - I call that a success. It beats sitting around whining about woulda/shoulda/coulda.

People are doing more than that all the time. That was just an example.

If you want to effect change and debate, there are other ways to start than running for president.

Did you read my above discussion of campaign finances? The fact is - the more people think about it, the more they want big money out of it. Give them an option that lets them "vote" with their money and time - and I am betting that it will be supported. I could be wrong - but again - doing is better than the alternative. Besides, the recent decade shows how powerful grass roots movements can be.

Okay, sounds great. So, how do you plan on reforming campaign finances in such a way that would help your run for President PRIOR to having any political office?

Your response does not answer my question. My question was how you plan to finance any campaign. Giving the position on campaign finance reform does nothing to finance anything under the current laws.

Ronald Reagan was not really versed in working with Congress - on the contrary - when Congress did things he didn't like, he didnt hold midnight burning oil sessions - he went to the people of the country and told em why what Congress was doing was wrong and let THEM speak out. Its empowering the people. He made it work. Not sure why I couldnt. So working with congress - its easy - they pass legislation that makes sense and furthers the best interest of this country and I will work with em fine. They act like knuckleheads and I will let them answer to the people. *Yes I know that Reagan had been a state governor prior to his run*

Reagan, however, WAS the governor of California and had worked with the legislative bodies there.

See above answer - I don't have to - I simply have to make sure they work FOR the people they represent.

Congress doesn't answer to POTUS. How do you plan on making them do anything?

I don't. However, I have leadership experience in another sector where I was directly responsible for millions of dollars worth of taxpayer equipment and the lives of multiple people. Nothing got lost and nobody got killed. That good enough for ya?

No, not even close.

[CaptainHaplo]

GoldenRivet - your dead on - though sometimes - as has been the case with our country - the payee is now going to be our kids and their kids unless we stop the bleeding now. Thats where we are. So many "entitlements" and no way to really pay for them ourselves. Where we are parallels the Roman Empire in so many ways its scary!

Which brings me to another chance to talk about issues. Entitlements. There are too many of them - doing to little and often in the wrong place. Everyone hears about social security. How many of the presidents talk about "fixing" it. Every fix gives it another decade before its broke again - and the taxpayer foots the bill. Another Washington practice that has to stop. You can't fix it.

Its an unpopular thing to say - but its got to go. It was a bad idea to start with - why is it the government's job to take care of you when your past a certain age? Why isn't YOUR job to plan for those later years? Why isn't it my job to plan for mine? Now - I'm not talking privatizing it or anything - I mean it needs to be GONE. There are ways to do it by phase that are fair and reasonable, with a heavy hit up front that can be mitigated over time. Its time we take some tough problems head on and stop leaving them for our kids. We can keep the promise to our elders as long as we ourselves are willing to stop the cycle of dependance on the government .

So many other programs need to be outside the scope of the federal government. Why is the federal government taking money from the states in taxes, only to redistribute it via the mess that is everything from road money to food stamps? It makes no sense - and its about time we got out house in order.

[CaptainHaplo]

Aramike - since my experience isnt good enough for you - I still hope you vote. If you were looking for a career politician - then I was never - and won't ever, be someone you would vote for. I can run for office and not be a politician - just a real person with some knowledge, skill and experience in situations that is willing to put himself out there to serve this great country and her people.

However - I feel that I can garner enough support from the people of this great country via my ideas by following the reforms I listed - holding myself by deeds to the standard I would like to see implimented. Its one thing to have an idea - its another to act on it. Doing so will allow the people to decide if they want to continue to fund the political machine as it stands - or show by their support they choose differently. Hopefully that answers your financial question.

As for congress - I recall when Congress kept sending legislation to Reagan with all kinds of other crap in it - funding for things that he would never otherwise agree to. Finally he had enough - and discussed the issue with the American people. Well , Congress got the message - they were not going to be able to backdoor stuff through him - and I will be the same way. They don't work for the PoTUS, they work for the American People - just as the PoTUS does. And if you have a real issue with your co-worker - you should take it to your boss. Usually works.

With that I am off here for a few hours. I hope there is more discussion both back and forth, and questions or input for me when I get a chance to get back later this eve.

[Aramike]

My point has been all along that I don't see this is a serious discussion of someone becoming president. Your ideas aren't neccessarily bad, but I don't think you have a grasp on what it takes to even run a campaign, not to mention simply getting one started.

If you REALLY wanted to help your country, you'd start somewhere more feesible - like local office. There you'd gather the experience neccessary for the next steps.

You say that it'd be good enough for you just to start the discussion. I contend that the discussion has been started, and has been waging for quite sometime. Just read this forum.

Again, if you want to discuss your ideas, I'm all for it. However, in the context of a serious run for president, well ...

[breadcatcher101]

You don't need to cloud yourself with valid issues, it's more of a horse and pony show today.

Get yourself a good slogan, learn the art of talking without saying anything, and above all promise everything to everybody.

Oh, and no bad hair days!

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Aramike

My point has been all along that I don't see this is a serious discussion of someone becoming president.

But the discussion can't hurt, right?

Back on topic, I like some of CH's platforms, especially on the role of the Constitution. However......

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

The most pressing issues right now? Boy - talk about a loaded question. But still - the domestic economy is the very top of the list. That has a lot of sub subjects like tax structure, debt and the world economy, immigration, etc. etc.

Ok, you haven't mentioned too much about what you would like to do with the economy. What changes would you like to make and how would you utilize presidential powers to effect those changes?

However - you do bring up an interesting point - and one I will take the opportunity to address. I have posted about it before - money in politics. I think we need a true reform there. So here goes - I would push for the following campaign finance reforms.

I like some of the suggestions you made, but I think that it's too easy to get around them. (fiat powers on passage, for expediency's sake)
For one thing, they won't really eliminate large-scale campaign funding. Lots of powerful interest groups can raise tremendous amounts of money simply by encouraging their members to raise money or donate on their own. And item #7 on your list would have to include some pretty unenforceable laws to prevent them from doing that.
In some ways, they might actually make campaign contributions more unfair by placing too much power in the hands of citizens' special interest groups. It would undoubtedly make the system more "democratic" in a sense, but that's part and parcel with "tyranny of the masses", something our founders deliberately tried to avoid.

You have to cut off the supplies - let the "terror fruit" wither on the vine. Without the state sponsorship that they rely on, the terrorists have their ability to commit their acts crippled.

That's a bold political step you're taking, and you'd be amazed at how insurgent organizations can thrive in the absence of state support.
I have no doubt that a lot of people would like that answer, but then you open up a whole new hornet's nest as well. Some nations may have only certain factions within them that support terror activities. How would you deal with that problem? Especially if their government is not inclined to allow direct intervention?
Are you advocating an unresticted war on terror and the all the nations involved, to whatever extent?




edit-

Constitutionally the role of the Federal Government is to provide for the common defense and settle issues between the states. Boy its gone a bit beyond that hasn't it? It needs to get back to that role - though realistically it may never be solely that again.

It does what you mentioned, and other important things, but I don't think that it is too late to go back. Unlikely, in today's (and in many ways, any day's political climate) but it can be done, and there is some evidence of a reactionary trend towards unconstitutional policy that may manifest itself in a decade or so, assuming that the current administration doesn't perform too well.

[Kapt Z]

Have you held any public, elected office?

If not, I'd say start with mayor of your town and go from there.

[August]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

Have you held any public, elected office?

If not, I'd say start with mayor of your town and go from there.

But then this thread would just be a discussion about elementary school funding or whether the monument in the town square has too much pidgeon crap on it. That wouldn't be much fun would it?

[CaptainHaplo]

UnderSea,

As far as campaign finance - the mechanisms and logistics are in place for checking and verification is in place right now. There is a court battle in CA regarding the prop about gay marriage - and how supporters of that prop wish to keep the donor list itself private. The Federal Election Commission checks the accounting of candidacies currently, so it would not be all that difficult to use those checks to keep tabs on, and audit suspect activity - of a campaign.

As for groups being powerful fund raising entities - sure they are - but if they cannot give the funds they have to a candidate or use them on behalf of a candidate - it doesn't do them any good. The second benefit of this system is that it keeps groups from using the money of individuals in the group from supporting a candidate they would not do so individually. For example - Unions tend to support one particular party over another - removing their ability to donate means they are not using a union member's funds to support something that the member may disagree with. Its all about letting the PEOPLE support those who speak to their ideals and values on an individual basis.

Now I will deal with the economic question in a moment, but since we have already been dealing with the war on terror - lets stay there first. Sure taking a hard stand is a "bold political move" - but who cares? The way I see it, we are up against people who are willing to blow themselves up - thats a pretty hard stand, and we have to be willing to take one for ourselves.

Now I am not suggesting unrestricted warfare. However, let's take Iran for example. The fact is that the Mullahs are spewing not just hate, but genocide against any civilization that does not follow their "path of righteousness". Granted - Israel and the West get more hate than others, but they spew it at any who do not follow their dogma. Then the government they run supports it, while trying to build a nuke on top of it. That's not something that is in the best interest of this country to stand idly by and watch. So what do we do about it short of invade or turn the country into a parking lot? Simple really. First you publicize and call them on the hate they spew. Play the Iranian president's speech on a the big screen where he calls Israel names and promises to wipe them off the map. Broadcasts the hate to the rest of the world - instead of sitting by and turning a blind eye to it. Show the world the hatred that is being bred and encouraged by these rogue regimes, while supporting the opposition to them. Recall the Iraqi's with the dyed finger/thumb when they had elections? People don't want to hate if they have hope. But they can't have hope when they are either repressed or in terror. So first off - use the power of the people, both here and abroad - to cause outrage and outcry against this hatemongering. This unites the world against such hate. With that unity, you can use everything from diplomatic and economic sanctions to export control to keep the SUPPORT for such hate and terror from ever getting outside the borders of these state sponsors. Thats the first few steps.

Now - does this mean I would rule out force if it was required? No. But force should only be used when every reasonable means has been tried. However, I am a firm believer in the "payback" rule. The fact is that terrorists, specifically islamic whackjobs, really don't care much about their own lives. So as a country we need to make it clear to those SPONSORS of terrorism that they had best reign in their thugs and suicide bombers. Simply put, I would put forth the following proposal. If we are hit again by islamic terrorists - and since they don't care about their own lives, we will hit something that does have true meaning to them. Call it a cold war mentality - but the next US target that gets hit by islamic terrorists, the "holy city" of Mecca becomes a big hole in the ground.

I can hear the jaws dropping - how politically incorrect! How unstable and warmongering. No - but the fact is that we came through the cold war on the basis of MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. We are in a war - and while I would regret the loss of innocent life to those who would be lost, the facts are simple.

#1 We cannot catch every terrorist before they strike.
#2 The Sponsors of Terrorism can limit and exert control on the terrorists.
#3 The peaceful followers of Islam would then have ample reason to finally stand up and be counted to act to protect the world from those that would pervert their religion instead of just giving lip service to denouncing them

Its not a pleasant, but in a true war, to win you must have a them or us mentality, and as President, I will be the first to set the tone for the country by choosing US over them.

Your right, terror cells can do some things without support - but if we stop the flow of money and explosives, along with making them unable to train more of extremists, then we still make great strides. Its alot easier to blow something up if getting explosives isn't hard to do.

I figure I just lost alot of possible votes there - but I answered as honestly as I can. Better the truth be known.

Now - a note on the office of President. The President doesn't make law. But as President what I would do is use the "bully pulpit" if you will, to truly educate the American people about the issues we face as a country and help push through policies and legislation that tackles those issues so that we insure the best future for our great country.

Now - lets talk about the economy.

The first thing that needs to be realized is what the real problem is. Its really simple - we are spending way more than we are bringing in. If we are unwilling to tighten our belts and "do without" some things, the problem won't get fixed long term. Now the economic question ties into so many things, I could write for 2 days and not cover it all, but I will touch on many things here and we can go further as people desire.

First lets talk trade. Free trade is like communism. Its a great idea - on paper. But it never works. We signed onto NAFTA for example - and guess what. Mexico and other signatories - still charge us tarrifs on goods that go into their country - while we do NOT charge equitable tarrifs on goods coming from there. When Ross Perot said listen for the sucking sound of all the jobs going away - he was right. We have to stop this free trade lunacy and instead move to FAIR trade - meaning you tax our stuff by x amount, then we will do the same. It keeps a business from moving just so its products are not taxed for import. This alone would cause a substantial shift in the trade equation.

Second - taxes. Now if I lost voters on my terrorism views, who knows whats going to happen now. How many here are business owners? Ask a business owner how much taxes he pays just to employ someone. The government gets tax money every way it can - and thats just because it has an insatiable appetite for it. Your employer is taxed because you work for him, your taxed because you work, the stuff you produce is taxed multiple times more than likely. For example - lets say you work in a furniture factory. Your wages are taxed, your employer is taxed via payroll tax. The wood he buys was taxed when the lumberjack sold it to the sawmill, then it was taxed when the sawmill sold it to the factory you work at, and then it will be taxed twice more, when your factory sells it to a distributor, and then when the distributor or showroom sells it to the consumer. How much does the government need???? Sheesh. If we simply got rid of all the bullcrap and junk in the tax code, it would leave more money in everyone's pocket.

I am a proponent of a consumption tax. Call it a "fair tax" or whatever you want, but the basics are food and other necessities are non-taxable, everything else that is purchased is taxed at the point of sale to the consumer. Get rid of federal payroll taxes, get rid of the federal income tax, etc. Things like state taxes are, again, up to the states. But get the government out of everyone's pocket!
Now - how to get that implimented? Simply - propose a simple change in the way government COLLECTS the existing taxes now. Stop automatic tax withholdings. Let every person have to write that tax payment out to the government - and watch how fast the American people realize how much DC has been ripping them off! You want to see "change" - help the people SEE how much the government has had its hand in their pocket - and you will see a real rapid one!

With these two changes alone, we could greatly affect the way government works. However, the fact is there are MANY things the government spends the Taxpayer's money on that it has no right to be doing. I touched on entitlements, and that is one big area that needs to be addressed. But its more than that. Its time the government had to do what we all do as individuals - and that is keep its checkbook balanced. Look, I feel for the Aids victims in Africa, really I do, but the President should be a better lookout for the American people than to say "We feel so sorry for you we are going to give you XXX Millions of dollars this year.". WHAT???? Bullcrap. Lets put that money to work HERE! I am a firm believer that "Charity begins at home". When we have homeless vets and mentally ill people on the streets because they have nowhere else to go and no help to be had, why are we throwing money at other countries for their problems? Its asinine.

Now, I am going to really make myself unpopular with this one - but the whole "Bailout" is a huge mistake. First off - $350 BILLION dollars has already been dispersed to "shore up" the financial sector. Guess what - the banks can't account for where most of it has gone. I don't know about you, but that makes me really wonder why the bloody hell we would give em any more tax money!!!! The fact is that astronomical amount has not done diddly squat to help the economy. Here is a better idea. Stop taxing the American People to death so they can pay their bills. If a company or bank made bad investments or bad products or whatever, let it FAIL! If the government would instead take all that tax money it collects and left it with you, me and every other Tom, Dick, Harry and Jane, alot more people would be buying goods, paying their mortgages, and keeping the economy humming - without doing it all on CREDIT. Instead of giving all this money to banks and car companies and airlines and whatever else business wants to get in on the deal, lets give that money BACK to the people of this country instead. And I don't mean everybody, I mean the people that actually PAID taxes, vs those that don't pay any but get a "tax refund" anyway. If you did that based of the number of taxpayers in 2005 (sorry I don't have the numbers for 2008) it would amount to $7008.xx to each taxpayer. Thats not even counting "Phase 2" of the bailout which is coming quick.

Government has simply proven that it cannot manage the money that it collects.
As for the concern that failing to bail out the banks and such would be catastrophic - wrong. Let them fail. Let the housing market "bubble" burst more. Let things return to their real value vs the inflated values now associated with them. Do you really think that a bank that holds the deed to a house that got forclosed on really has nothing? No - they have a house and the land it sits on. That has real value. However its not your or my fault that some bank overvalued the home, or made a bad loan on it. They are in a business they ran it badly - and now they want us to bail them out? The answer is no.

And for all the doom and gloomers out there - yes it would cause a depression. Guess what, if you understand anything about economics you know we are going to have one anyway. The longer we postpone it the worst its going to get. However, if we bite the bullet now - we can control the depths of it and enjoy the bounceback quickly - vs end up in a spiraling death dive with no way out. If we take our lumps now, we could see overall growth in 6-8 quarters, with the bottom of the depression being less than 1 quarter in length.

Yes - I said it - we have an ugly and uncomfortable road ahead. But with the proper understanding of where we are and how to get out of it - we can make the drive short.

That means we need to be positioning ourselves NOW for the recovery. That means cutting unnecesary spending, getting the government OUT of trying to run everone's life, and focusing on insuring that our long term needs are acquirable. This mainly applies to energy - and the fact is that energy is key to the recovery, both in regards to the short term impact if job creation, as well as the long term sustainability of our nation. I have no problem with a "green" energy policy as it is in our best interest, but it has to be pursued with reason, and not based of fearmongering thru environmental theories that are still not yet proven. I will address an energy policy in an future post.

Other keys to the economy - and you will have to forgive me for merely touching these, but I have children that I have to get to school tomorrow. They are immigration and border control, health care and education, military spending and military usage, the dollar and its value manipulation by other countries, and a few others. Perhaps I can delve deeper into those soon as well.

[SteamWake]

Grabbing popcorn and pondering the effort that went into that wall of text.

[GoldenRivet]

Captain Haplo


Im sorry to tell you this, but even though you seem to thus far have my vote... im afraid you will never be elected.

the reason?

simple.

you make way too much sense

[A Very Super Market]

My god, if only this were actually published. Y'know, instead of shared to a bunch of guys no president would consider an important demographic.