A US political discussion....

[CaptainHaplo]

OK - this is actually for the purpose of considering whether or not I should seriously run for president of the US in 4 years. Now - before every Obama supporter has a hernia about how I am not giving him a fair shake - this is simply a conversation - he has 4 years to prove what he can and will do.

So - with that said - I am going to lay a few things out there about where I stand and let you all ask whatever questions you like regarding whatever public policy stance you care to. I will answer as best I can, and while often a fellow community member may disagree with me, I will keep this civil and respectful and would ask all do the same.

Now - just so its clear, I meet all the requirements to run for the office of President.

My political philosphy is not based on any party dogma. One could only call me a Independant. There are many things in both the major parties that I strongly differ with, as well as many things in the minor parties that I also find horribly wrong. Ultimately, I believe the best thing for this country would be to get rid of the letters beside politicians names and make each and every one of them define themselves on the ISSUES to those they serve.

That is why I am here - to start the process and show what true dialog and an informed voting public could do. Who knows what may come of it. I fully expect to learn quite a bit as I hope you all do as well.

Folks from other countries are welcome to participate as well. There is only two rules I ask all to follow. The first is respect and courtesy even if someone disagrees with you. The second is to not try to use the past mistakes of a government I have not been running as a bludgeon to try and make a point. This is intended to discuss where we could go by learning from our rich 200+ year history, instead of bashing those that have led during that time.

Ok - who wants to throw out a topic or a list of them? Again - NO policy or public issue is off limits here.

[MothBalls]

I have some stock in a biotechnology company about to submit a new product for government approval. If you could push that through I'll hold a fundraiser for you.

Or, for $50 in cash I'll vote for you.

[Aramike]

If you want to run for an office, any office, you should probably have a list of issues and your stances on them already prepared.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Aramike

If you want to run for an office, any office, you should probably have a list of issues and your stances on them already prepared.

Or, he could just use a single, vague, catchword and some empty rhetoric:p
(sorry, sorry, just poking fun dems )


This sounds like fun, though, so I'll ask some questions.

Since you didn't post anything to build on, CH, I'd like to start with; "What is the role the Federal government should have in society?" and, "Which issues do you consider the most pressing right now?"

[CaptainHaplo]

To Aramike - I do have clear ideas on the issues - but this is an opportunity for YOU to be as engaged as a voter.


UnderseaLcpl - I hope it will be fun - and thanks for helping us get started!

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 need to provide oversight on where it spends its money, but stop using that federal money as a bludgeon to force states to comply with dictates from "on high". The question is actually really deep - which I like. The federal government's role is really to get out of the way of the states whenever possible, and allow the citizenry of each state to govern their lives as they see fit. Instead - DC has mandated everything from how our kids will be educated and on what topics, to what you can put into your own body, how fast you can drive on the highway, even to when life begins or ends. That was never its intended role, and that needs to change. Yes it needs some oversight on things like drugs that will be prescribed throught the nation. It shouldn't be telling you what your children will or won't be taught though.

I know I am opening alot of doors for more topics - I hope someone walks through them.

The most pressing issues right now? Boy - talk about a loaded question. But still - the domestic economt 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.

In 4 years - who knows.

The second - would be world stability. Right now India and Pakistan have Nukes, Iran is on the way to them. This keeps up and the world will soon be hostage to whichever national leader is the LEAST stable. That doesn't even touch conventional arms and their usage. The biggest areas that concern world security right now are the middle east and the terrorism issue. Both need to be dealt with - but it seems no one wants to make the tough decisions on how to do so. While the middle east has fairly recognized regional borders, terrorism has no such thing. Both issues will need seperate approaches to not only be contained - but truly remedied for the long term welfare of our nation and society.

[caspofungin]

ok, i'll bite...

i have 2 questions, if i may

1. what's your policy going to be on israel/palestine and the middle east in general? how would you fight the "global war on terrorism?"

2. sort of a follow up, what do you envision the us's role in the world to be?

i'm not a us citizen.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by MothBalls

I have some stock in a biotechnology company about to submit a new product for government approval. If you could push that through I'll hold a fundraiser for you.

Or, for $50 in cash I'll vote for you.

:rotfl: Beat me to it.

[CaptainHaplo]

Sorry Mothballs, thats part of one of the problems in Washington politics - the scratch my back and I'll scratch yours mentality.

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.

#1 If you can't vote for president - you can't donate to the campaign. ONLY individual people can donate. No PAC money, no foreign money, no union money, no big business money. Its nothing more than buying influence - and it needs to stop.

#2 Limit individual monetary contributions to no more than $1000 per person TOTAL. That means you could give $1000 once - or $500 two times - etc - but you can't donate more than a total of $1000.

#3 Individual contributions of time and ability on a volunteer basis would not be limited. Meaning if you wanted to spend hours every day putting out signs you could - but you would volunteer that time. If you were a database person and wanted to volunteer to help administer the necessary record keeping for the contributions - that would also not be limited. People should have the right to give of their time and talents without limit.

#4 No "matching funds" from the US Government. Why should you as a taxpayer have to help fund my campaign (or anyone else's) that you don't agree with???

#5 Full and total disclosure of where campaign funds originate and where they are spent, to be made available to the public at large every thirty days for the month preceeding. (November 30th you get all of the records for the month of October.)

#6 The politician running cannot use moer than $10,000 of his own money for his campaign. This would be his own startup funds and everything else would need to be from supporters.

#7 No organization (since organizations can't vote) should be running adds on behalf of, or against, a candidate. Again - if the GROUP doesn't get a vote, the individuals could better use their energy being involved for the person they support.

These seven simple, common sense steps would go very far to removing the corruption and pay for play workings of Washington. I also am committed to abiding by these standards if I choose to run.

[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.