M-13 - What would you do as President?

[HollywoodBob]

Seeing as it's an election year and we are soon to start hearing all the campaign promisses of things that presidents should they be elected will try to do, I'm interested in hearing about some of the things you'd do if you were in their place and were elected President of the US.

Myself, I'd probably start by streamlining foreign affairs, I'd lessen the amount of aid given to countries that have active economies, and with the saved money, try to provide all people with potable water. I think it's sad that Americans have cleaner water in their toilet bowls then, most of the "third world" has for drinking. I think it might go a long way toward improving the reputation of the US in the world's view.

Second, I'd institute plans to phase out oil use. By the year 2012, no automobile manufacturer would be allowed to build cars that were gas powered. And by 2025 gasoline powered cars would need to either be licensed as an antique and limited to only a few hundred miles a year(so if you've got that 57 Corvette you can keep it all original, but you be limited to the amount you could drive it much), or converted to new fuel systems, a process that would be allowed to be deducted from a persons taxes. Research for new energy systems would be at the top of my list for governmental grants. Coastal wind mills, and wave power generators, are good examples of abundant energy collection systems.

Next, I would try to cut back on military spending, and redirect it to the space program. I found out recently that in 1967, the Outer Space Treaty was initiated in order to divert funding from the US space program to the Vietnam War. In just 4 years, space funding dropped a whopping 45%, nearly crippling the space program. Had this not occurred the Apollo programs momentum could have led to the mid 80's construction of a moon base, and a Mars colony possibly by the end of this decade.

Also I'd try to put more research into non lethal weaponry, I firmly believe in the second amendment, but the right to bare arms, doesn't necessarily entail projectile weaponry. New technologies like the Active denial system, a weapon that fires millimeter waves of energy at a person are already in development as crowd control. I'd focus on having these technologies made portable and available for personal use. If you feel you need something to protect your family an energy beam that makes it's target feel as if they are on fire, seems to me a good method. With enough power they can be used to completely incapacitate a person instantly. As for projectile firearms, I'd try to phase them out by making ammunition less available. For people that are hunters and gun collectors this isn't much of a problem since all of the ones I know make their own ammuntion. I would never force a person to give up their guns, I'd prefer to give them other options that had little to no chance of accidental death.

I've got a few other ideas, but my fingers are going numb. :)

-HollywoodBob

[FirefightingMuggle]

If I were president I think the first thing that I would do is pull our military out of all these places that we really don't need to be. Japan, Germany (I don't really think they are threats any more), Haiti, Kosovo etc.... and I would take the money that we save from all those extra expenses and put it toward reviving programs like Americorps, the Peace Corps and the CCC. I would put people to work. I would also work to downsize the military and, begin to look at using compromise instead of force. We would never go to war unless it was 100% necessary, like in the case of WW2. No more Vietnams, no more Iraqs. We don't go unless it is 100% necessary and American lives are in danger. And along with this, I would quit knocking off the leaders of other countries just because they are "communists" or "terrorists" or we just don't like them. It's not our place to whack other countries' leaders.

I would implement welfare reform, so that it is not easy to get on welfare unless you are a working person who can't make ends meet. Being that I live in a town with lots of Welfare-lifers, I am rather prejudiced against people who can work, but just sit around and get a check once a month and don't do jack for it. Those people would have to go to work or risk losing their benefits.

I too would work on decreasing our dependancy on oil. I would promote the use of hybrid and electrical cars, and encourage companies to research alternative energies. I would also encourage companies that make products with oil derrivatives in them to find alternative ways to make their products...imagine Vasoline with no petrolium in it at all....
I would also give incentives to companies who do not test products on animals and who are concerned with cleaning up and preserving the environment.

And I would have to re-instate the steel tariffs. It's hard to see my fellow PA residents losing jobs in the steel industry because cheeply produced steel can be imported for nothing from overseas. And I would appoint a commission to help find ways to save the steel industry, and other manufacturing jobs in our country. We can't lose these jobs and replace them with the fast-food type minimum wage jobs. I would fight to save blue-collar jobs.

And the Bush tax cuts would be gone. I would make the rich pay everything that Bush said they didn't have to, and pass the tax cuts onto the middle class and working people. And I would get rid of loop-holes for big business. It's time the middle class got a break.

That's about all I can think of right now....

[Midnightsfire]

Not too sure I should get too involved here.

I would definitely work on getting the Sun-Pac decision overturned.

"The SUN-PAC decision legalized corporate Political Action Committees, the lobbyist organizations that bribe our Congress today. In the ten years after the SUN-PAC decision, the number of corporate PACs exploded from 89 to 1,682. (1) By 1992, corporations formed 67 percent of all PACs, and they donated 79 percent of all contributions to political parties. Inevitably, an enormous shift of power occurred in Congress, from workers to corporations."

It'd be political suicide but it would make for a more honest system in the future.

[purplehawk]

Wow! Lots of great ideas here. It's a shame none of those in a position to do something like the ideas suggested here are going to life a finger.

Anyone up for a plan to save Social Security?

[DrummerboyDT]

I think I would order the Walt Disney Company to work on better feature films to promote family values to our nation's children.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Anyone up for a plan to save Social Security?
Sure. When Social Security was introduced, the life expectancy was around 65, so the beginning age for Social Security was set at 65. Now the life expectancy is around 75. So change the bottom limit from 65 to 75.

Funny how it's so easy to fix goverment in three sentences. :D

[purplehawk]

I'm afraid it would take more than three sentences. We need one to make raiding the Social Security coffers punishable by death, as every administration has done so since the program was brought into being. We need another sentence to require Washington to abolish the ritzy pension plan they set up for themselves - and which they've NEVER touched and is thus solvent. I figure it this way: if their pensions were tied to Social Security, they'd sure as hell find a way to fix it.

[Nick]

I don't know enough about American politics so I'll instead answer "What would you do if you and your posse took over Australia?"

I'd take bribes from whoever pays the most money. I've always believed that no matter what you do (not just in politics; in life in general) there will always be people who complain and hate you for it, so you might as well do what's most profitable for yourself.

[HollywoodBob]

You can't just move the age for social security back. Why should younger genereations be punished, because the past administrations mismanaged the social security system? If social security was left self supporting it would have had no problem supporting us in the future.

Now they're talking about privatizing it and making it more like a "thrift savings plan" where the money is taken out of your pay and put into an investment fund. But that has the flaw of relying on a strong and stable economy to provide lasting earnings.

Personally, I'd rather see an end to social security as a retirement plan, keep it for disability and the non-retirement benefits, and improve the economy enough that everyone can make a decent wage, and have enough money to invest for their own retirement. It may not seem practical now, but maybe over the next 40 years it can be done. :)

I started young, and invested everything I could spare starting at the age of 17 with the money that I got for highschool graduation in '95 and had made a decent headway toward retirement, that was until the economy went in the loo, and I was forced to drop my investments and move the money into savings where I wouldn't earn much, but atleast I wouldn't lose it all. I want to be able to not have to work until I'm 75, and then rely on others to provide for me.

Something also needs done with the congressional pension plan. Why does a politition deserve to get the same amount of "pay" when they're out of office as when they were in. Why are they any better than the hardworking people that make up this country, who if they're lucky enough to be able to retire get a paltry percentage of their pay?

-HollywoodBob

[purplehawk]

Excellent points, Hollywood. Like you, my husband and I started young. We had kids and hoped they would go to college. They did - and darned near bankrupted us in the process, but still there was enough to fund one for nine years and another for seven. I retired at 40; my husband a couple of years later. None of our retirement plans panned out, of course. One never knows what the future may hold and in our case it meant starting over with a second generation of children to rescue (via a lengthy legal battle) and then raise. I don't regret a minute of any of that, however, for there is no price one can put on a child's life. My husband - by then known as "Poppy" - went back to work when the eldest child came to grace our home and I became a stay-at-home grandmother. So we're still buying at Stride-Rite and paying school tuition, and using a trust and a 529 plan to fund a college education for the little ones. Social Security is a part of our lives, sure, but the larger part of things, for us, are the careful investments we made much earlier in life.

I obviously agree with you about the congressional pension plan. It's a disgrace and something should be done.

Nick: You speak like a true capitalist! :rotfl:

[Masterfroggy]

Were I given the power to run the country I would put a crippling tax on the tobacco industry and on fast food joints, I would make all real food tax free and all pre packed meals carry health tax,
I would scrap ¾ of all long distance lorries and move all the goods by train, increase taxes on all fuel for the motorcars, refund tax on recycled goods, move away from tin, aluminium and plastic, return to paper and glass.
Educations would be judged on ability with no allowances for how rich you are as to the level of education, education would be mandatory for all until the age of 21, either vocational training (for a real job) or higher education for all who are able and willing Stupid people will be protected from themselves as will the naïve, and the weak. Everyone will have the right to be free, and receive the education they need

All health issues would be free.

Crime would not pay, life would mean life, and only one crime would carry the death penalty and all cases before the court would be heard by peers and reviewed by experts.

With organised crime the sin of the father will be sat up on the shoulders of the sons, and daughters ( just because daddy is doing the time does not mean children is going to hold the fort until he’s back to take up the reins once more) the Bosses when caught they lose the lot, money property everything)

I would make it a crime steal from shareholders or stockholders and I would punish banks and other organisations that allow this to go on unchecked I would remove the right for people to carry any form of gun, (if they want to protect themselves carry a sword or a knife, drive by knifing would be a whole lot harder,)

Imports will be made more expensive unless the country cannot produce it for themselves.

Local good will be tax free to local shops but out of state good will carry a shipping charge

I’ll stop now before I get to radical, and talk about proper education of minors and what to do with transgressors

[purplehawk]

Which crime would be punishable by death?

[Masterfroggy]

Child abuse

[HollywoodBob]

Child abuse is kind of a vague crime. Are you talking molestation, spanking, beating, or neglect; all of those can be considered abuse?

Also you can't revoke the right to own a gun. If you do that honest, upstanding citizens wouldn't be allowed to own them, and only criminals would have them. Do you really want make it possible for criminals to have better weaponry then all law abiding folk?

Your increase of taxes on petrol also makes little sense since you don't state an alternative fuel source. You can't expect to raise costs on everything by taxing imports out the wazzo and raising fuel prices without providing a viable solution.:(

I do like the idea of ditching the shipping of freight via roadway. Train freight should be used much more then it is currently. I'd like to see more high speed trains for passenger travel. There was a show on TV recently about the new mag lev train they built in china and it travels so fast that if it were to be built in the US, it would make cross country travel faster then the average flight, cheaper too.

-HollywoodBob

[Nick]

The theory behind revoking gun rights is that nobody would have them. Personally anyone who feels the need to carry weapons around, "law-abiding" or no, should maybe get some professional help.

[Masterfroggy]

Child abuse is kind of a vague crime. Are you talking molestation, spanking, beating, or neglect; all of those can be considered abuse?

Also you can't revoke the right to own a gun. If you do that honest, upstanding citizens wouldn't be allowed to own them, and only criminals would have them. Do you really want make it possible for criminals to have better weaponry then all law abiding folk?

Your increase of taxes on petrol also makes little sense since you don't state an alternative fuel source. You can't expect to raise costs on everything by taxing imports out the wazzo and raising fuel prices without providing a viable solution.:(

I do like the idea of ditching the shipping of freight via roadway. Train freight should be used much more then it is currently. I'd like to see more high speed trains for passenger travel. There was a show on TV recently about the new mag lev train they built in china and it travels so fast that if it were to be built in the US, it would make cross country travel faster then the average flight, cheaper too.

-HollywoodBob

Point one it would be the only serious crime to carry the death penalty, spanking is up to the parent and is not child abuse, beating up side the head a child with a hammer is abuse and should carry the maximum penalty, as all form of sexual abuse

No one would be allowed to own, have, and carry guns in the country unless they are forces personnel
High stakes carry high risks get caught with a fire arm and receive a very long time in prison be it a thug or your home owner protecting their property

A fuel and transportation systems that everyone is provided with by God, short journey will be on foot, and longer journeys will be public transport orientated local shops will be local, as will local amenities, local schools, local hospitals, local police stations with lots and lots of police persons, 15,000 years of the slow creep towards civilisation, and it’s all gone to pot in 50 years, it was safer in the 1900, than it is now.

[purplehawk]

Not everything has been bad in the last 50 years, but I agree with you - much of it has. We seem to have lost family and neighborliness over the years. I'm old enough to remember when doors didn't have to be locked at night, when misbehavior on the next block would already be known by the time we reached home, when achievement was earned and not an entitlement. I don't know the reasons - nor do I have answers or solutions to fix what has happened to alter things so dramatically.

[Wab]

If I were president I think the first thing that I would do is pull our military out of all these places that we really don't need to be. Japan, Germany (I don't really think they are threats any more)

While Japan is no longer a threat there is the perceived (and possibly very real) threat of North Korea. If the balloon goes up on the peninsula the only safe staging point will be Japan as Seoul would be a smoking crater even in a conventional war.

I would also work to downsize the military and, begin to look at using compromise instead of force. We would never go to war unless it was 100% necessary, like in the case of WW2. No more Vietnams, no more Iraqs. We don't go unless it is 100% necessary and American lives are in danger. And along with this, I would quit knocking off the leaders of other countries just because they are "communists" or "terrorists" or we just don't like them. It's not our place to whack other countries' leaders.

Have to agree with that.

And I would have to re-instate the steel tariffs. It's hard to see my fellow PA residents losing jobs in the steel industry because cheeply produced steel can be imported for nothing from overseas.

A simple sounding solution but even if you choose to ignore the WTO the rest of the world will throw up tariff barriers that would kill the industry.

[Chrysalis]

If I were the leader of my country I would start paying a lot more heed to the enviroment. Here in the Netherlands the government and cities just keep building and building. It's happening where I live. A lot of pastures have disappeared just to make way for hideous looking factories and offices. Also I would stop the mindless building of railroads and highways. If there are too many traffic jams then the solution is not to build more roads.

I would also stop supporting the USA in everything. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-American, but the government here support the American government blindly because 'it is the right thing to do'.

Another problem with our government is the fact that they cut costs in Education and Health and yet order 10 Joint Strike Fighters from....guess who? The US government. If I were to rule the country I would definitely decrease the spending in Defense(c'mon, Holland doesn't even HAVE a properly functioning army and won't be needing one anytime soon) and spend that money on Education and Health and Welfare instead.

[Tane]

After hearing about what Etta has just done, I would do everything in my power to end terrorism by national co-operation. How I not sure but I would find a way.

Materfroggy, the death penalty for child abuse is a little extreme as some children still love those that abuse them (strange I know but still true) and may find it mentally abusing by having sentenced there parents for example to death.

I think I agree with you Purplehawks on the pension situation, even in Britain it is dire and needs radical changes to accommodate the increasing life expectancy that is around today.

I would make age discrimination laws to allow people to work to an older age if they wish and not be ousted by younger members of the public.

[purplehawk]

I like the idea of downsizing the military. It's been attempted before, usually under a Democratic administration, but the right-wing demagogues (Liddy and Limbaugh and their ilk) are amazingly efficient at rousing people's passions and thus reversing any "reduce the military" initiatives. Our constitutional right to free speech is guaranteed, but I sometimes wish it were permissible to permanently silence these fools. They are as dangerous to our national security as Osama bin Laden or North Korea... perhaps more so because they are homebred and in possession of a bully pulpit.

[HollywoodBob]

No one would be allowed to own, have, and carry guns in the country unless they are forces personnel
High stakes carry high risks get caught with a fire arm and receive a very long time in prison be it a thug or your home owner protecting their property.You still can't expect to removed every gun from the public. Like I said if you ban guns, then only criminals will have guns, and frankly I don't want to know that the only people with guns are police who are too busy to protect me, and criminals out to hurt me and the ones I love. And no sword is going to defend you from a lead bullet.

A fuel and transportation systems that everyone is provided with by God, short journey will be on foot, and longer journeys will be public transport orientated local shops will be local, as will local amenities, local schools, local hospitals, local police stations with lots and lots of police persons, 15,000 years of the slow creep towards civilisation, and it’s all gone to pot in 50 years, it was safer in the 1900, than it is now.
So you want the world to go back to it's pre-industrialized ways, because you think it was nicer back then? If you destroy the transportation systems and you will cripple society. Too many people have no choice but to commute to work. Most of small town America is too small and rural to support it's own Hospital and Police station.

Not everything has been bad in the last 50 years, but I agree with you - much of it has. We seem to have lost family and neighborliness over the years. I'm old enough to remember when doors didn't have to be locked at night, when misbehavior on the next block would already be known by the time we reached home, when achievement was earned and not an entitlement. I don't know the reasons - nor do I have answers or solutions to fix what has happened to alter things so dramatically.A lot of times this has been attributed to women in the workplace, I think that's a load of masoganistic hooey. I think it has more to do with the high cost of having a family, then anything else.

Government policies over the past 35 years have been hostile to marriage and the family unit. Not only have these policies played a direct role in weakening marriage and the family, but they imply that marriage and the family are no longer important.

Federally funded social programs have displaced the natural community structure of American society by taking on the roles of family, church, and voluntary associations. Although federal programs have spent enormous amounts of money on social problems, they have failed consistently to achieve their intended objectives, in addition to which they undermine the institutions that have sustained the American community through wars and depressions.

Government tax policies place an enormous financial burden on families. Since the vision of a Great Society gave birth to the troubled entitlement programs and the welfare state over 30 years ago, American families with growing children have had to bear the greatest share of the cost.

On average a child raised in the 90's had less then 60% of the time with their parent each week than their 1965 counterpart had with their's.

I don't think you can pin it down to any one factor, many groups have tried, and I think each of their assessments are valid, but it's an amalgem of all the factors that contribute to the breakdown of the family unit. I also doubt there will be an easy solution for it.

-HollywoodBob

[JofpGallagher]

Masterfroggy, you will have my vote for your re-election! :p

Things that come to my mind are:
- Ban guns
- Abolish death penalty
- A handsome tax increase to fast food and those food that damage your health
- Free education (schools, college and university levels)
- Ban National Enquirer type of newspapers and stupid magazines because they do not bring anything positive. Rubbish do not affect any Free-Speech laws
- Decret New York Mets as the new champions :D
- Close that "concentration camp" called Guantanamo. Land of no law.
- Increase all possible actions against Fidel Castro cruel regime

[Midnightsfire]

One of the things that will eventually lead to a form of social breakdown is the fact that wage increases aren't even with inflation. For the longest time, a person needed only one income in the family. Now it takes two incomes just to break even in many cases. How much will we need in another 30-50 years?

I don't think I would be able to become president. To fix things would take...umm...

*stands proudly*

Military-Dictator-for-Life! That's me!

[purplehawk]

You still can't expect to removed every gun from the public. Like I said if you ban guns, then only criminals will have guns, and frankly I don't want to know that the only people with guns are police who are too busy to protect me, and criminals out to hurt me and the ones I love. And no sword is going to defend you from a lead bullet.

That's a cop-out. A well-used NAR cop-out and it serves only to keep the issue from ever being resolved satisfactorily. I think the law-abiding members of the NAR would be more loathe to surrender their guns than petty crooks would be. Guns signify power to the male segment of our society and men just don't get that distinction, regardless of which side of the law they are aligned with.

[PadfootBlack]

Just a quick note. Cuts in military would be disastrous.

I don't care how anti-military the president would be, a US government would be crazy to make cuts in the nation's defense. Even the slightest change in military spending would decrease troop morale to such a degree that the military would be unable to live up to its full potential. In other words, we'd be very vulnerable to attacks much greater than 9-11.

Sorry for the sweeping generalization, but I believe it's true. If you were in the military right now you might know what I mean. Most people that join the military are doing it for different reasons, mostly because of the personal benefits. Take those away and you lose personnel. (Bad thing.)

[HollywoodBob]

That's a cop-out. A well-used NAR cop-out and it serves only to keep the issue from ever being resolved satisfactorily. I think the law-abiding members of the NAR would be more loathe to surrender their guns than petty crooks would be. Guns signify power to the male segment of our society and men just don't get that distinction, regardless of which side of the law they are aligned with.
While it's true that most NRA members would fight tooth and nail to keep their guns, it's not merely a cop out. It would a simple task of collecting all licensed guns, you know where to get them. As for unlicensed and illegally owned guns, they would be nigh impossible to retrieve. I am the last person to advocate the owning of handguns, but it's naive to think that they can simply be removed from society by simple legislation. The best chance of stopping gun violence is by removing ammunition from the equation, ammo is exhaustable and easily regulated. Make it impossible to get, and in a matter of time guns become no more dangerous than a rock. :)

I own a WW2 era japanese rifle that my grandfather brought back from the south pacific. It's worthless as a firearm because ammo hasn't been made for it for nearly 60 years, and on a different continent. At most I might be able to use the bayonet to poke someone, or it might work as a club. It's certainly not going to shoot anyone.

-HollywoodBob

[purplehawk]

I like that idea. No more ammunition = no more guns. It seems so simple, yet it really wouldn't work because a black market ammo dump would be in business before the ink was dry on the law. I expect those licensed gun owners would be among the best customers because they're more apt to have credit cards, LOL.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So when in our lifetimes has such a thing been necessary? Not since the earliest days of our country, of course, but guns (and even militias) were used to steal land from the native Americans and to keep former slaves from the polls. It is quite easy to dismiss inner-city gun owners as "crooks," but it's also easy to see that for every crook with a gun there are five inner-city residents who keep guns to protect their own as more mainstream Americans do. With them, there is fear and reason enough to perhaps justify the need. I'm not talking about protection from gang-bangers who want to steal their audio-visual stuff... but instead fear of their not-too-distant neighbors out in the 'burbs, fear born of the fact there remain many American citizens who quietly dispute their right to exist.

[Masterfroggy]

I don’t know if it is still true today but a few years ago there were more unregistered gun in the hands of the good citizens of America, and this is what is feeding the guns back into your society, a house holder gets robbed and amongst his possessions is the gun that he cannot tell the police, he has, so it goes unreported.

As for getting rid of ammo and or guns, fine do what ever it takes but start now, stop gun shops from selling guns and ammunition, melt the guns down and make park benches if you have to, it might take five years to find them all (guns) but if you start now in five years time they will be 90% less then there is now, but if you start in five years time, it will be ten years before the figures drop, just because it will take years and years to make you streets schools places of work safer, that is not reason not to do it.

In England there was a law that stated that every free man should own and practice with a long bow for a quarter of a day per week, that law is as out dated as the “right to bear arms” is in you country, we abolished it and there was no noticeable increase to the mayhem and public disorder of our land, nor were we invaded by every Tom Dick or Harry form across the water.

Fear is being used by your leaders and your media to keep you from asking the questions that should be asked, why is it in Canada gun ownership is on a par with the United States but unlawful killing (with a Gun) is a tenth what it is in the USA.

Fear is what your own leaders are using against you, to stop you asking questions anyone who does ask questions is met with the same answer that was dished out in the 1950-60 “you are either with us or against us. “

[hesdead-dealwithit]

You can't just move the age for social security back. Why should younger genereations be punished, because the past administrations mismanaged the social security system?
That's the thing - they didn't mismanage it. People live ten years longer nowadays - why shouldn't the bottom age be moved back ten years as well? The reason why Social Security is about to go caput is because there are so many old people nowadays. You can't tell me that a 65 year old is too old to work. I'd like to work until I'm 80, personally, and I don't see why we should give away money to people that can easily support themselves.

[purplehawk]

They surely did mismanage the fund, dead. I can remember my grandfather worrying about the way they were "borrowing" interest-free "loans" from Social Security - and he died in 1965! This business of baby boomers creating a drain on the fund, and of the longer life expectancy of people today, is just more cop-out politics. The rape of Social Security has been a privilege of almost every administration since Harry Truman's days in the White House. This has not been the case of the pension fund created for retired presidents and congressmen.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Well, I'm not going to pretend I know more than I do. But if Social Security has continually been raped, for generation after generation, then I don't think it would exist today, seven decades after it started.

[HollywoodBob]

Well, I'm not going to pretend I know more than I do. But if Social Security has continually been raped, for generation after generation, then I don't think it would exist today, seven decades after it started.
It still exists because of population growth. There are more people paying into it then there are drawing on it. The main problem is that the money we pay in to it doesn't remain in it, it's been taken out to use on other government projects, when it should only be used for Social Security payouts.

And no 65 isn't too old to work. But don't you think people who have been working for the last 50 years or more deserve to retire? You may think you'd like to work until you're dead, but I'd like to have some time to enjoy the my golden years, and the fruits of the past 5 decades of working, and not being able to do all the things I'd like to do because I only get 2 weeks vacation a year. And I don't want to have to wait until I'm so old that I can't do much more then eat dinner at 3:30 and complain about young'uns driving too fast. :D

-HollywoodBob

[purplehawk]

Previous administrations counted on the baby boomers to keep the program afloat after their pillaging, dead. Now they blame the baby boomers for reaching retirement age and stressing the program. This is not a myth but honest-to-gosh truth. What you've grown up reading or hearing is sheer political spin. And again the significant truth is the greater care they've given to their own pension plan. No tomfoolery going on with that piece of cash!

Here's one perspective (http://www.anotherperspective.org/advoc320.html) of what has happened since Social Security came into being. Congress hasn't played fairly, that much is assured. Clinton's initiative to "keep Social Security Solvent" was political double-speak for forcing Congress to agree to pay back money they siphoned from the program over the years. The only other real change - and not a good one - was Reagan's decision to tax Social Security benefits... so retirees were hit with a double-tax situation.

Edit: You know, they've turned Social Security into little more than a pyramid or Ponzi scheme. They're sending Enron execs to jail for this kind of stuff.

[Wab]

Just a quick note. Cuts in military would be disastrous.

I don't care how anti-military the president would be, a US government would be crazy to make cuts in the nation's defense. Even the slightest change in military spending would decrease troop morale to such a degree that the military would be unable to live up to its full potential.

The military can be funded to the gills and have morale problems if it is poorly led and dumped in seemingly pointless undefined conflicts like Vietnam and Iraq.



In other words, we'd be very vulnerable to attacks much greater than 9-11.

No amount of military preparedness cold stop 9/11. Asymetic warfare is won on intel.

[purplehawk]

I agree with Wab on the military. I mean, come on, Iraq was an utterly pointless initiative and its cost in terms of international relations far outweighs any benefit of digging Saddam Hussein out of that dung hole they found him in. I will never believe anything other than Dubya chose Saddam for entirely personal reasons; in short, it was sheer revenge for the grudge match played out between Saddam and the elder Bush. Imagine being the most powerful man in the world, with a matchless military machine at your disposal, and using all that firepower - wasting all those lives - to play a little boys' game of got'cha. There were no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to the real threats of Osama bin Laden's Al Quaida or the very real weapons arsenal of North Korea. Nope... in classic playground bully style, our little cowboy chose instead to go after the weakest enemy possible - and then, when caught in his own trap, to blame it all on faulty intelligence.

If anything, Iraq should be a convincing argument to downsize the military and instead empower statesmen to take a long hard look at why so much of the world despises us.

[bobtduck90]

Everybody's talking about military and social security, but what I'd do as President would be to decrease the pay gap between men and women. Even though women have been "equal" for decades, we still only earn 73% (on average, of course) of what men in the same jobs earn. People talk about how working women have made things worse for their children, but the truth is that higher pay would decrease the number of welfare mothers in this country.

[daniel4hp]

A few quick things...
Reduce military spending and scale back the military program. No more nuclear research, pull troops out of places where they don't need to be, etc.
Look for ways to cut spending in obsolete or uneeded government programs to provide funding for more important things.
Repeal all Bush tax cuts. They don't do anything to help the economy in the long term.
Increase funding to police, fire, port security, etc. Fund research to develop better security systems, provide local police and fire with better equipment. I feel this is the best way to prevent terrorism.
Work to repeal the Patriot Act -- its unconstutional and is the wrong way to go about fighting terrorism.
Increase gun control. Guns would still be available, but there would be more restrictions on it.
Work more closely with the UN and other countries in an attempt to better international relations.
Work to repeal No Child Left Behind, and attempt to find other ways to improve American schools. NCLB only cripples local schools and is flawed in many ways.
Provide more government scholerships for college to make higher education more easilly available to more people. Ideally, these scholerships would be good at both American and non-American universities.
Work towards more healthcare coverage for people who need it.
Oppose marriage ammendment -- the constitution doesn't exist to tell us what marriage is; a ban on gay marriage isn't the federal government's job. And such an ammendment is unfair.
Those are just some things off the top of my head. I'm not familiar enough with the social security system to say what needs to be done there, but I know the solution is not to up the starting age to 75. That is unfair and is not the way to go about solving the problems.

Essentially the economy has to improve. That would allow many things to go ahead that currently can't (funding for homeland security, more funding for education, healthcare, etc.). Other than that, all we can do is try to sort out our priorities by cutting programs that aren't as important, such as the military.

[Benzo]

Excellent post, Daniel. I agree with you.

[purplehawk]

Nice post. I would like to see the government repay the money siphoned away from Social Security since 1939 with what is saved from closing off some of the programs you've mentioned. It's a huge amount of money and so much of it has gone to pork-barrel political projects that should never have been on the agenda, let alone being given greater importance than the folks who worked forty or fifty years and paid into a program that was supposed to insure their retirement. The social security fund has been treated as a tax, a source of income to the federal government for a very long time and this is just wrong-headed.

[PadfootBlack]

What exactly should the president "scale back" from the military? I'm curious.

[HollywoodBob]

Well we could start with the $400Billion that was diverted to the DoD last fall. Then he could lessen the multibillion dollar contracts to companies like Lockheed Martin, for unneeded programs like the Joint Strike Fighter. They could close down bases that are not needed. Military personnel could be thinned out too, after all most of the unfortunate soldiers that were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq were reservists. If all you're going to mobilize for "war" is the reservists then why need so many active duty personnel? And they could also lessen the amount of need for US military. Our soldiers are supposed to defend our country, not to work as a global police force, or a tool to settle 12 year old grudges against other countries.

If the world needs a "peacekeeping force" then the UN should form their own military. Let all the nations to fork out the bill for it.

-HollywoodBob

[purplehawk]

Nice one!

[Wab]

If the world needs a "peacekeeping force" then the UN should form their own military. Let all the nations to fork out the bill for it.

-HollywoodBob

The rest of the world does. For its strength and wealth the US contributes relatively few resources to these operations.

Latest available figures show that the US has a total of 484 assigned to UN peacekeeping operations.

By comaprison Bangladesh contributes 6426; Ethiopia 1067; Ukrain 1244; Zambia 925; Nigeria 3380; Nepal 2294; Uruguay 1873 and South Africa 1453.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/January2004Countrysummary.pdf

[purplehawk]

I think the number was quite a bit higher before Iraq.

[Midnightsfire]

Well, if this helps...

Nine Misconceptions about Social Security (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jul/socsec.htm)

(Yeah, I know. In the past couple years we've been pooch-screwed by our president. *sigh*)

I would definitely look into DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency created in 1958)

Their research is fascinating in the extreme. However...take a look yourself (http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10060) at some very odd research they're doing. I think we can trim their funding.

[Wab]

In Sept 2001 the US had 732 troops committed to UN operations while Australia (pop 20 million) had 1580 (mostly in East Timor).

In March 2003 (immediately before Iraq) the US had 584 and Australia 890.

[HollywoodBob]

Pardon me, I misspoke, the US has been lacking when it comes to contributing troops to UN endeavours. Our military seems to focus on NATO operations instead. :(

What I was referring to though, was not troop contributions, rather a completely globalized military force, funded, trained, and recruited by the UN.

-HollywoodBob

[purplehawk]

Well, if this helps...

Nine Misconceptions about Social Security (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/98jul/socsec.htm)

(Yeah, I know. In the past couple years we've been pooch-screwed by our president. *sigh*)


That's an interesting article, Midnightsfire, but it's pretty far right... in fact, it's the same argument the GOP has been using for decades to deflect the fact a Republican-led Congress passed legislation to give themselves control of the assets of the fund in 1941 and have been pilfering it ever since. Here's a hard look at the way both parties have treated the issue:

The Social Security Board began its life at 3:30 p.m. on August 14, 1935 when President Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act. Originally, the SSB was designed as an independent agency but, four years later at the order of Congress, was folded into the newly created Federal Security Agency which also encompassed the Public Health Service, the Office of Education, the Civilian Conservation Corp. and the U.S. Employment Service. Renamed the Social Security Administration in 1946, the SSA was again moved into the newly created Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) in 1953 under the Eisenhower administration. Finally, in 1995 President Clinton signed legislation allowing the Social Security Administration to regain its status as an independent agency.

Originally, the SSA was designed to be funded by an accumulation of capital into a reserve fund. This fund would grow according to the amount collected from workers and employers minus benefits paid with the total of the reserve having no upper limit. As the total reserve grew, though, political pressure grew to raise benefits for qualified Americans and to expanded the number of eligible recipients, both by lowering the age at which one could initially begin drawing from their account as well as providing subsidies for the children of deceased workers and for those who were too disabled to begin or to continue to earn a wage.

By 1939, even before the first benefits were paid, Congress became angry that the huge reserves of capital were virtually untouchable by them. This anger resulted in legislation that converted the Social Security fund from a ever building reserve into a system which was only required to hold a "contingency reserve" equal to "three times the highest annual expenditure anticipated in the ensuing five-year period." This new type of reserve consisted not of actual funds but rather mere debt obligations issued by other government funds. In fact, the continuation of the term "reserve fund" was only a political ruse to protect Congress from the factual charge that they were misspending Social Security funds.

In reality, the fund was to use a different and nearly impossible to achieve accounting method of zero sum, meaning that the fund could only consist of debt obligations equal to the balance of incoming revenues and outgoing benefits, no matter how much revenue was actually being received. All excess revenue was no longer to be considered in relation to the fund and, instead, became another source of income into the federal government's general revenues.

Between 1939 and 1942, high employment rates due to the war effort had created a fund five times larger than that believed necessary for the next five years of current benefits (this sounds as if it doesn't agree with the last paragraph but government accounting methods and logic seldom intersect). The Roosevelt administration favored raising benefits for recipients in as much as it was American worker's money in the first place. Congress, however, wanted to use the surplus to fund government programs unrelated to Social Security. An increase in payroll deductions scheduled for 1943 thus became a point of contention between Roosevelt and Congress in that the administration wanted to use half of that increase to help fund the war effort. Congress, however, wanted to delay the increase in federal revenue because, even should other taxes be raised to meet the needs of the war machine, the national debt would appear to be falling but would, in fact, remain the same and the debt owed by the fund was larger that required and, again, Congress wanted any surplus for their use. Congress favored raising other taxes since, in their view, the increased revenues for the Social Security reserve would tempt them (Congress) to raise the benefits once again. The problem was deftly solved by Congress by simply passing legislation delaying the increase until the next Congress was seated and then continued to delay it again in 1943, 1944 and 1946.

Finally, by the 1980's, the fund held only enough debt obligations to fund less than six months worth of benefits. In the 1990's, though, an expanding economy created a rising level of obligations until the fund could now pay out fifteen months of benefits. Congress immediately raised benefits and the fund's long term instability was once again in great danger. The answer by Congress and the President?

In 1997, rather than repair the system by simply removing the debt obligation method of financing future and present benefits and returning to a fully funded and separate reserve made up of all revenues collected for the fund from income, these two inept and mean spirited collections of professional dissemblers just changed the manner in which the COLAs were figured. By the disgraceful but effective method of including only slowly increasing segments of the economy in the Consumer Price Index (the CPI), the increases in inflation and, consequently, the increases in the COLAs, could be artificially and shamefully deferred. This delay, of course, causes massive pain and suffering to the elderly but has kept the government from having to make hard decisions regarding the platform of the Republican Party (smaller government) and the desire of the Democratic Party to retain control of the White House.

So, gentle readers, how shall we encapsulate this sad history of an ingeniously created but quickly politicized government program? With the foundation being a reserve of funds untouchable by Congress except in the process of returning more to the taxpayer in benefits in exchange for increases in revenues from those same taxpayers, the system would have grown and offered a real sense of security for the retired and a guarantee that they would not be forced into poverty simply through the process of aging. As the fund grew beyond its obligations to current and future recipients, the benefits paid would have risen and the security for the elderly constantly assured.

Instead, by the Congressionally mandated method of stealing all funds determined to be in excess of future obligations and placing that plunder into general revenues where it could be wasted along with all of our other taxes, Congress has created a system constantly teetering on the brink of insolvency. It has also created a system which must rely on the intelligence and decency of our elected officials, a process long established as doomed from the onset as we simply cannot find any candidates possessing these qualities. The answers, of course, are simple and obvious.

First, remove Social Security from the control of Congress and the President. Enact legislation that firmly mandates that Congress may only increase those taxes contributing to the Social Security fund and/or benefits to Americans pending from the fund but can never, under any circumstances, reduce them.

Second, realign the CPI to reflect the reality of America's economy so that any future COLAs will follow the nation's actual financial trends and not the nation's political winds.

Third, return the fund to a reserve which is completely and utterly untouchable by any future Congresses. Eliminate the constant temptation to steal your retirement funds to pay for ill advised and destructive "across the board" tax cuts or new programs aimed at issues completely unrelated to your best interests as you grow older.

Finally, establish the age at which individuals are qualified to receive their funds and legislate that age as unchangeable. The fact that you may live longer should not become a factor that forces you to work longer. The length of time that you receive benefits, once retired, should not remain static by the foolish and harmful act of increasing the age at which that retirement will be funded.

As some well-maintained pension funds have demonstrated, creating a system and a set of firm rules by which the system is operated with a long term view related only to the pension fund's original charter will result both in a fund balance at which all those enrolled are guaranteed a high level of income at retirement but also can eventually become self sufficient in that revenues from interest alone is equal to any and all future obligations.

It could be at that point only at which the government could borrow (in the truest sense of the word) from any funds in excess of those necessary to pay life time benefits to all enrolled Americans. These loans could only be instituted through a super majority vote in both houses of Congress and repaid from general funds at the interest rate determined by the federal reserve board for long term federal lending. The feasibility of these loans, however, may not be in the best interest of the American people and the option to allow this practice should, thus, be put forth before the American voters.

All in all, even I was surprised at the true history of the Social Security Act and of all of the twists and turns this legislation has been through as the political winds altered what the government determined its mission to be. What I brought from this new knowledge was the fact that the original proposition put forth by President Roosevelt was the very best form that a national retirement system could have taken in that it was protected from the pushes and pulls of poorly informed politicians and voters. Those two groups, however, altered the roots that would have fed the system and placed them firmly in the hands of those we should, sadly, trust the least with our futures; career politicians.

Oh, by the by. Want two more reasons to return the Social Security fund to a system far outside the political arena? First, the mirage of a budget surplus falls apart when you realize that the "surplus" not only doesn't exist but is twice as large as it could possibly be. The "surplus" is only that amount of money taken in by Social Security that is in excess of the currently mandated funding period's expenses. This "surplus" is then injected into the federal budget process and counted, once again, as another distinct "surplus", and the amount magically doubles. To pretend that you can spend half of it on pork barrel politics and then "return" the other half in order to "SAVE SOCIAL SECURITY" is smoke and mirrors at its worst. In point of fact, there may not even be this illusory "surplus" since it is founded, not on deposited revenues, but on revenues that may or may not come to pass in the near and distant future. If these revenues do not magically arrive or do not arrive on time or in the expected quantity then the next administration and the next Congress will again get to fight over what programs to cut and by how much in order to repay the debts incurred with these insane budgetary tricks.

Secondly, by allowing the debate to center on saving Social Security, we are allowing the focus to be removed from the millions of children going hungry and homeless every single night of the year, to ignore the 40,000 children who die every single day of the year all around the globe from easily preventable diseases and starvation, to tolerate the horrors of more single mothers and their families falling between the cracks of our once proud "safety nets" and to subsist within lives of hopelessness and despair in what we proudly proclaim to be the richest nation on Earth, and to allow every progressive and decent urge still left within the hearts of so few Americans to find no help or assistance emanating from our government simply because it cannot afford the costs, no matter how low.

You can't look to your President or your Congress because Social security isn't a serious issue to solve but only an issue to use against the other party come election time. The rest of the time it is either forgotten or given mere lip service in hopes that the elderly will just quietly die and the uninformed voters go along with the insane individual savings accounts meant only to make the vastly over valued stock market reach even new heights before the next depression comes along, a depression that will make the Thirties seem pastoral.

Gentle readers, we can return the Social Security system to permanent solvency and to face, head on, the many deficiencies within our sad system of government when we speak about the needy and the children and the elderly, but it will take a truly concerted effort by a knowledgeable and well informed voting public. Those requirements, in and of themselves, will probably doom our futures to forever be ruled by the whims of fully bribed politicians.

[PadfootBlack]

Well we could start with the $400Billion that was diverted to the DoD last fall. Then he could lessen the multibillion dollar contracts to companies like Lockheed Martin, for unneeded programs like the Joint Strike Fighter. They could close down bases that are not needed. Military personnel could be thinned out too, after all most of the unfortunate soldiers that were sent to Afghanistan and Iraq were reservists. If all you're going to mobilize for "war" is the reservists then why need so many active duty personnel? And they could also lessen the amount of need for US military. Our soldiers are supposed to defend our country, not to work as a global police force, or a tool to settle 12 year old grudges against other countries.

If the world needs a "peacekeeping force" then the UN should form their own military. Let all the nations to fork out the bill for it.

-HollywoodBob

I don't see anything wrong with the joint strike fighter program. The F-22 is gonna be great!! I can't wait for its wide release! With people complaining about funding in fighter production it's a wonder we aren't defending the country in canvas biplanes.

Closing bases -- where do I begin?? I live in a small town in the heart of South Carolina. Without a big ol' air force base 8 miles away this place would literally go bankrupt. The economy around here is bad enough as it is. I really do think that most communities in the US with a nearby military base rely on government employees for a stable economy. That's all I have to say about that.

Activating guard and reserve personnel -- when we're at war, when people get deployed overseas, there will be manning problems. Anybody that tell me otherwise deserves some kind of award. Obviously they needed to be activated to fill in the gaps caused by deployments. Not all guard and reserve troops got activated and sent overseas. Many were activated to provide support here while active duty left. It's a very complicated subject. My point is that I don't see anything wrong with this process. I don't know why it's an issue.

Overall, what I want to say is that the military is fine right now. If you need to make cuts in the nation's budget, military is definitely not the first place to look. It's potentially one of the most important aspects of our country. (By "potentially", I mean if you cut it now you might be sorry later when we really need it.)

[HollywoodBob]

The JSF is still unneeded. Air to air combat is not something that is a major part of modern conflicts. We mainly just spend weeks bombing the heck out of our enemies. In my opinion multi-billion dollar R&D programs aren't needed to design new systems to drop explosives on buildings.

The truth is that there are plenty of small cities that suffer when large employers depart. Just look at Flint, Michigan, General Motors left and the town has yet to recover. But there are many US military bases, both overseas and in the US, that are superfluous and expendable, as well as a few foreign bases on Islamic holy land that helped provoke terrorist groups like Al Qaeda to loathe our country.

Activating gaurd personnel is fine to reinforce at home defense. But that didn't happen in Iraq. Reservist personnel were sent over without sufficient training, and put into combat situations that would make seasoned active duty soldiers cringe. The fact is that reservist personnel were used in a place they had no business being, I believe because our government felt that there would be minimal resistence and when our less experienced troops started dying, the administration was too proud to call them back and deploy troops that had the experience needed for the amount of resistence they were facing.

You may be right, if our government continues on the course it's going, it'll need all the military build up it can get. Our administration seems to think that the only way to solve problems is to pick a target and attack it. Iraq is starting to look like another Vietnam, North Korea is at the of the hit list, and I'm sure there's atleast a few more countries that are in the position to annoy us enough to make us attack them.

My point is that it doesn't need to be that way. There are few threats to our nation, and even the pretend ones were created by our past administrations. Our government has a history of doing things that benefit their current agenda, with no thinking about the consequences down the line. You might recognize the names Bin Laden and Hussein, two people that the US not only allowed to gain their positions of power, but encouraged, funded, and armed. They served the past agendas, then came back to take a BIG chomp out of our backsides. We need to completely stop making these arrangements, and start working toward promoting a more positive attitude toward the US. The message "you mess with us and you're gonna get blown up" is childish. We should be more civilized than that. I know there are many in this country that are, and our government should reflect that. The fact is that we wouldn't need as large of a military force if we made an effort to lower the number of "enemies" to our country.

End Rant.

-HollywoodBob

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Our government has a history of doing things that benefit their current agenda, with no thinking about the consequences down the line.
Oh, sure. In WWII we defeated fascism only by supporting the lesser evil of Communism. In the Cold War we defeated Communism only by supporting the lesser evil of terrorism. In the "war on terrorism" we defeated terrorism only by supporting the lesser evil of ...

Well, we can't finish the sentence because it isn't over yet. But yeah, the US does have a history of supporting bad governments, dictators, etc. It's despicable the way we eradicated fascism, Communism, et al as major global dangers. Despicable.

[Wab]

I don't see anything wrong with the joint strike fighter program. The F-22 is gonna be great!!

The JSF (F-35) and F-22 are separate projects.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/jsf/

[Wab]

Oh, sure. In WWII we defeated fascism only by supporting the lesser evil of Communism. In the Cold War we defeated Communism only by supporting the lesser evil of terrorism. In the "war on terrorism" we defeated terrorism only by supporting the lesser evil of ...

Well, we can't finish the sentence because it isn't over yet. But yeah, the US does have a history of supporting bad governments, dictators, etc. It's despicable the way we eradicated fascism, Communism, et al as major global dangers. Despicable.

A lesser evil is still evil and as it turned out Stalinism turned out to have more innocent blood on its hands than Nazism.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

A lesser evil is still evil and as it turned out Stalinism turned out to have more innocent blood on its hands than Nazism.
Stalinism had more innocent blood on its hands because it lasted longer. But if Hitler wasn't stopped, he could easily have conquered much of the world. And let me guarantee you this - a post-war Hitler regime would be just as and probably more brutal than the post-war USSR was.

And yes, a lesser evil is still evil. But it's also a lesser evil.

[daniel4hp]

I don't see anything wrong with the joint strike fighter program. The F-22 is gonna be great!!
Regardless of whether the JSF and F-22 are the same thing or not, the point is, it isn't needed. Sure, it would be nice, but we don't have unlimitted funds, and I'd rather spend more money on education, welfare, social security, paying off the deficit, etc. than on JSF.

Closing bases -- where do I begin?? I live in a small town in the heart of South Carolina. Without a big ol' air force base 8 miles away this place would literally go bankrupt.
That's sad to hear, but I think the government needs to think about the greater good of the country. We can save a lot of money by removing unneeded bases, and although it may cause problems in some communities, I'm afraid that can't be helped. The money can be better used elsewhere.

My point is that I don't see anything wrong with this process. I don't know why it's an issue.
Its an issue because if we have fewer active troups, we will save money. So people are looking at ways to cut down on the number of troops, and naturally, reserve troops get pulled into the equation.

Overall, what I want to say is that the military is fine right now. If you need to make cuts in the nation's budget, military is definitely not the first place to look. It's potentially one of the most important aspects of our country.
As I said above, I personally feel that there are more important things to spend money on than the military. I'd rather put money towards improving schools than finding more ways to kill people. The military is important, but as it is right now, its bigger than it needs to be and we can't afford it. Perhaps if the economy recovers at some point, we could bring back some (not all) of the programs, but right now, I feel there are more important things in our country. And then, perhaps if we had better international relations and kept our nose out of other people's business, we wouldn't need a big military...

[Midnightsfire]

Daniel :huh:

*looks around cautiously*

You're starting to sound, almost, well...liberal.

(You HAVE changed in the past couple years. I mean that in a good way.) :tu:

[PadfootBlack]

Wow, Wab. How embarrassing. Well, I guess we all learn something new every day. I have to admit I have NEVER heard of the F-35. But some pictures I've seen of the F-35 look almost exactly like an F-22 anyway.

Thanks for correcting me.

[purplehawk]

Stalinism had more innocent blood on its hands because it lasted longer. But if Hitler wasn't stopped, he could easily have conquered much of the world. And let me guarantee you this - a post-war Hitler regime would be just as and probably more brutal than the post-war USSR was.

And yes, a lesser evil is still evil. But it's also a lesser evil.

Are you aware that much of the world considers our president as dangerous as either Hitler or Stalin?

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Are you aware that much of the world considers our president as dangerous as either Hitler or Stalin?
And that fact by itself should convince anyone of the lunacy of those who feel that way.

[purplehawk]

You think? I'm not so sure. I mean, I can surely understand where they're coming from and our losses in terms of global support have suffered severe blows under his presidency. It might not be such a loss if he had majority support here in the United States, but the honest truth is he lacks that too. They laughed at us for electing a cowboy and they very well may be enjoying the last laugh now - even as they watch askance, wondering where his hubris is going to take him next. Sad, really.

[Hagrid442]

I would streamline the military budget. Get rid of programs like more advanced fighters, tanks, artillery, etc. What we have right now is so ahead of just about everybody, that money is better spent somewhere else. And if we are to fight terrorism, that money is better spent towards improving our intelligence structure. Also, a serious look needs to be given towards companies like Halliburton providing traditional military logistical services. Not only has Halliburton proved incompetent, but they overcharge. Surely, we can save some money here? Every little bit we save is more pay for the personnel, and maybe we can also get away with cutting the budget about 15-20% as well. It might be a smaller force, but one better equipped, more flexible to deal with terrorism. Terrorism will not be defeated by invading countries. It will merely serve to inflame it. Intelligence and covert ops are crucial to truly eradicating terrorists.

I would also try to mend bridges between America and the rest of the world. I think an election in Spain might have been skewed one way for the simple reason that people wanted to spite the US, and in turn, spite Bush. I don't know if Spain chose the right people or not, but it sure is looking reactionary. This division between the US and its traditional allies only serves to weaken us to more attacks. Allies share intel. They work together.

Repeal some of Bush's tax cuts, mainly those to the top wealth brackets.

Advocate for an extension of the assault weapons ban, and mandatory background checks everywhere, even "gun shows". Outside of that, it's up to the states to determine everything else.

Reverse all the ruinous environmental policies that Bush has set in place, like the Orwellian Clear Skies initiative or Healthy Forests.

Re-do the Medicare bill, and make it into something more reasonable, and more effective. You know. The version that doesn't give enormous subsidies to an already overbloated pharmceutical industry.

Draft a plan for Iraq. We can't, for obvious reasons, pull out now. However, how can we rotate troops in and out effectively? Make rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure a priority, and utilize Iraqis more in this process. Idle hands and minds... make for more potential terrorists. The constitution is a good start, but more Iraqis need to be involved. Maybe some local elections can be held. Give them some experience. Create an oil trust fund for all Iraqis. Let their great potential wealth work for them, instead of against.

And, of course. Prosecute those of the former administration that made it necessary to clean up this mess they left me. :rotfl:

[purplehawk]

I think maybe we should go after the Republican-controlled circus that was masquerading as a Congress during the last administration. The group of jokers literally set aside their sworn task of attending to the country's interests and instead spent six years trying to bring down one man - and making fools of themselves in the process. If I saw Hyde walking down the street, I'd be tempted to run him down.

[Hagrid442]

Guess who my representative is? Henry Hyde lol. I even voted for him once, in 1998. Needless to say, I haven't made that mistake ever again. :p

[purplehawk]

That impeachment debacle wasn't even good if measured by the standards of reality television. I was more offended by the behavior and tactics of that Congress than anything Clinton did or did not do. No, not just the Congress. They were the most visible oafs. I had trouble with the whole GOP spin machine... And most of all, I had trouble with the fact our business was left unattended while they pursued a president they didn't like.

[PadfootBlack]

Sounds familiar.

[Hagrid442]

Really? I don't see a Congress calling for a lockdown, or impeachment hearings. I don't see radio pundits scrutinizing every little thing he does. It'd be pretty difficult for this Congress to stonewall Bush, seeing as it's Republican in both Houses.

And really, there is just way more evidence of mismanagement. If anything, Bush isn't being criticized or scrutinized enough in the mainstream press.

[PadfootBlack]

Maybe it's because he's not really ALL that bad.

[purplehawk]

I think it has nothing whatsoever to do with him being good or bad. Instead, it has everything to do with the fact the Republican Leak-and-Smear Machine is semi-retired at the moment. The GOP is much better organized at leaking information to the press and they also have pit bulls like Limbaugh to pick up the banner. Yes, I am saying the GOP is far better at dirty politics than the opposing party.

Bush IS "all that bad." We don't need a vigilante in the White House.

[Auror Williamson]

Great thread idea!




As president, I would:


1. Reform medicare so that it makes the majority happy, and that majority decently satisfied. Those that are uninsured may have half of their hospital stays funded, but with the expectation that that half is to be paid off within five years; ample time for those in the lower income range. I don't want to bankrupt the system, either. This program would apply to families with a combined income of $15,000 or less.

2. Continue our occupation of Iraq for three more years. The government would be turned over to the Iraqi's by January 1st, 2005, no later. U.S. and coalition troops would continue to patrol the streets until 2007. A small U.S. base would constructed near Baghdad for permanent military usage for the future. All troops would be pulled out except for about 2,000, used as a garrison for the base.

3. U.S. troops would still stay in Afghanistan, until at least 2010. No military base shoiuld be built.

4. Our war on Terrorism should continue.

5. Pull out of the United Nations, but continue on as members of NATO, since NATO truly works to the advantage of the world, unlike the UN.

7. Embargo restrictions should continue on Cuba, but with lighter restrictions.

8. Border security with Mexico should be drastically be beefed up. There should be no way any more illegals make it into the country. Also, Canadian borders should be strengthened, for the Candadian border is a favorite of terrorist usage.

9. Gay marriage should be banned via a constitutional amendment. I'm all for civil unions, but marriage? NO!

10. Create initiatives for a cleaner ocean, with forests being protected as well. Heavy fines would be placed upon corporations infringing on the acts. I'mt thinking upwards of $5,000,000,000 dollar fines per infraction.

11. Double the budget for the National Underwater Marine Agency. (NUMA)

12. Eradicate the seperation of church and state.

13. Propose a constitutional ban on abortion.




Insert hateful rants below

[purplehawk]

What about Social Security?

[PadfootBlack]

WOW!!! Auror Williamson actually makes sense to me!!! I didn't think I'd ever say anything like that about anybody on this board. :agree:

[Auror Williamson]

To be truthful, I don't have a strong opinion on Social Security.


But to give an answer:

I'd have it so that people would have a little more, and end the destruction of Social Security caused by Bush. Pretty soon we wont have Social Security, and I want to keep it from disappearing.

[purplehawk]

It is to be hoped they do the right thing. Whenever I ponder a moment on what they have done to that fund in the name of politics, it incenses me. When the baby boomers entered the job market 30 years ago, it was hailed as a boon for Social Security when, in fact, it was treated as surplus cash by Nixon, Ford, Carter and most of all by Reagan and his stupid trickle-down economics. He actually added taxation to it, so that retirees were double-taxed. Nowadays, they claim the baby boomers will bankrupt the fund entirely. Clinton tried to raise an initiative to save the fund (read: pay back all the money each successive Congress has pilfered), but the GOP kept that from happening.

[DsX Phoenix]

Great thread idea!




As president, I would:


1. Reform medicare so that it makes the majority happy, and that majority decently satisfied. Those that are uninsured may have half of their hospital stays funded, but with the expectation that that half is to be paid off within five years; ample time for those in the lower income range. I don't want to bankrupt the system, either. This program would apply to families with a combined income of $15,000 or less.

2. Continue our occupation of Iraq for three more years. The government would be turned over to the Iraqi's by January 1st, 2005, no later. U.S. and coalition troops would continue to patrol the streets until 2007. A small U.S. base would constructed near Baghdad for permanent military usage for the future. All troops would be pulled out except for about 2,000, used as a garrison for the base.

3. U.S. troops would still stay in Afghanistan, until at least 2010. No military base shoiuld be built.

4. Our war on Terrorism should continue.

5. Pull out of the United Nations, but continue on as members of NATO, since NATO truly works to the advantage of the world, unlike the UN.

7. Embargo restrictions should continue on Cuba, but with lighter restrictions.

8. Border security with Mexico should be drastically be beefed up. There should be no way any more illegals make it into the country. Also, Canadian borders should be strengthened, for the Candadian border is a favorite of terrorist usage.

9. Gay marriage should be banned via a constitutional amendment. I'm all for civil unions, but marriage? NO!

10. Create initiatives for a cleaner ocean, with forests being protected as well. Heavy fines would be placed upon corporations infringing on the acts. I'mt thinking upwards of $5,000,000,000 dollar fines per infraction.

11. Double the budget for the National Underwater Marine Agency. (NUMA)

12. Eradicate the seperation of church and state.

13. Propose a constitutional ban on abortion.




Insert hateful rants below

Wow. As president you intend on completely rewriting the Constitution, it seems. Why, pray-tell, eradicate Separation of Church and State? Would you plan on making America a theocracy? Or just partially one?

Anyways, I don't really agree with any of the Constitutional Amendments you've listed, but for no reason other than different ideologies. However, I would like to know how you plan on making it so that there is "no way any more illegals make it into this country"? Do you plan on building a wall similar to the Great Wall? Or simply have an entire army standing along the border, shoulder to shoulder?

[Auror Williamson]

It is obvious to any scholar of history that America was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. These principles are the basis of our law. Madison argued this point time and again in Congress.

While there is no way to completely keep illegals from entering, increased spending in the line of security and efforts to beef up the security on the border has proven to drastically help.


But the Chinese did know how to do it. You know it's good border secuirty when the border can be seen from space. :lol:

[DsX Phoenix]

Yes, everyone knows that America has historically been a "Christian state", but it has also been historically a "melting-pot" of different cultures and religions. Why risk the discrimination of certain groups because of history?

Oh, and really, you can't see the Great Wall from space, but that's of no importance at all.

[Auror Williamson]

This is just like the Left wanting the official language to be English-Spanish. We have always been English speaking, and we must stay that way. We have always been a Judeo-Christian state, and we must always stay that way.

If you don't like a Judeo-Christian based government, move to Socialist Canada, or better yet, to the new Socialist Spain.

[DsX Phoenix]

Well then, maybe we should be less critical of Middle Eastern nations who have theocracies?

And, you say we should always be a Judeo-Christian state, saying you would like to keep things as they've always been, right? Well, we've always had the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution, and we have had it in there for a reason. You still haven't given an idea of what Christian beliefs you would make law, so you really haven't given any reason why we should do away with it.

[Auror Williamson]

The reason I and many others are critical of the theocracies in the Middle East is because they call for the murdering of those who differ in beliefs and persecute women.

The Constitution states:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


Seems to me that it gives the government the ability to do both.

[DsX Phoenix]

Errr...maybe I'm missing something, but that's exactly why it shouldn't be eradicated, and why it was put in the Constitution to begin with...

[Auror Williamson]

Lemme rephrase my first post:

End but not eradicate the seperation of church and state so that the government and the church are intertwined.

[DsX Phoenix]

But you see, that still causes persecution of people of other religions. You are saying that because the Christian faith says something is wrong, everyone must follow that, irregardless of their own beliefs. That is still persecution.

[Wab]

The reason I and many others are critical of the theocracies in the Middle East is because they call for the murdering of those who differ in beliefs and persecute women.

You use the plural. There is only one theocracy in the ME.

[Midnightsfire]

It is obvious to any scholar of history that America was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. These principles are the basis of our law. Madison argued this point time and again in Congress.
So go find a scholar of history and have him explain things. Ending the Separation of Church and State means you haven't learned anything from past mistakes that others have committed throughout history.

[OrbitingElle]

As president, I would:

8. Border security with Mexico should be drastically be beefed up. There should be no way any more illegals make it into the country. Also, Canadian borders should be strengthened, for the Candadian border is a favorite of terrorist usage.

12. Eradicate the seperation of church and state.

Unless you're a native American/Indian, then you shouldn't have made it into this country, either. At least the "illegals" who come here now have the decency to refrain from taking over the country, killing us all, and confining our survivors on lame reservations.

You're a prime example of why church and state are kept separate. You think everyone should be required to live by YOUR ideals, regardless of the fact that your ideals may not be what's best for everyone.

[Auror Williamson]

I don't think that everyone must live by Judeo-Christian principles, but it should be encouraged and it should be a basis of government.


I think that your all thinking that my government would be more of a religious community than actual government. Actually, there would be very little influence, but there would be some.

I wouldn't be advocating the government force students to pray facing Jerusalem five times a day while at school. I wouldn't be saying that all Muslims would be locked up. I would be saying that religion in the government would be open, and beneficial.

[purplehawk]

I think that your all thinking that my government would be more of a religious community than actual government. Actually, there would be very little influence, but there would be some.

I wouldn't be advocating the government force students to pray facing Jerusalem five times a day while at school. I wouldn't be saying that all Muslims would be locked up. I would be saying that religion in the government would be open, and beneficial.

The love of God and country... these are admirable sentiments and ones I believe most Americans share. On the other hand, I sincerely resent the fact the right postures around so pompously, as though it has a stranglehold on both faith and patriotism. To politicize the most basic of human desires - the desire to be a good citizen and do good works under God's eyes - is about as sick as they come. This integration of conservative Christian values into government is terribly, frighteningly similar to the mindset of people like bin Laden and his so-called holy wars. It has no place whatsoever in a free society where differences of faith, creed, and color should be accepted without question.

I resented having prayer removed from schools, but it didn't stop me from having a moment's prayer each morning or teaching my children to do the same. I don't agree with same-sex marriage, but neither do I feel the need to write legislation forbidding it and ranting about gays and lesbians being an abomination under God. We are not God and thus not in a position to judge our fellow human beings. The one issue I truly believe is deserving of repeal is that of abortion. We are too fallible to determine when life begins; thus we have no right whatsoever to cut it off based on a piece of faulty legislation.

[DsX Phoenix]

I don't think that everyone must live by Judeo-Christian principles, but it should be encouraged and it should be a basis of government.


I think that your all thinking that my government would be more of a religious community than actual government. Actually, there would be very little influence, but there would be some.

I wouldn't be advocating the government force students to pray facing Jerusalem five times a day while at school. I wouldn't be saying that all Muslims would be locked up. I would be saying that religion in the government would be open, and beneficial.

Well, truthfully, it doesn't matter what you would intend to do with the abolishment of Separation of Church and State, because it would never even get a majority vote, let alone the two-thirds vote in Congress and three-fourths vote among states. Likewise with the Ban on Abortion amendment.

In fact, if you did propose these amendments, you would probably become the most hated president ever. If you weren't impeached, you would be a lameduck president the entire term, because no congressman would be willing to support anything you proposed afterwards, for fear of being branded a "Williamson" supporter.

You have to understand, irregardless of your intentions, you would be viewed as someone who was attacking the First Amendment, which is probably the most sacred part of the Constitution to most Americans. Everyone knows the First Amendment, but how many people know the 15th? Or even the 5th?

[purplehawk]

I agree with the ban on abortion, though. I won't start that whole debate again by explaining my reasons, but it's one I absolutely cannot support.

[DsX Phoenix]

Well, I personally do not agree with it, and I certainly do not agree with a Constitutional Amendment banning it, but irregardless, it would be political suicide to propose it.

[purplehawk]

I think that's political double-speak for avoiding the issue, at least among politicians. Abortion in this country is a right held sacred by a few; the "silent majority," if asked, would like very much to see it repealed. You cannot legislate life.

[DsX Phoenix]

Actually, I disagree with you that a majority of Americans want abortion banned. Mainly because, as you said, "you can't legislate life." Most people feel that if abortion were banned, it would be based on the religious view that life begins when an egg is fertilized. Which, goes against the Separation of Church and State.

[purplehawk]

Well, I would submit that life is beyond legislation. Period. Yet the abortion laws on record attempt to do just that. Defining when an unborn child is truly alive. If that isn't crossing into the realm of church, I don't know what is. It is incomprehensible to me that we have tried to do so and continue to defend our definition.

I don't see it being a church-versus-state issue so much as a morally and biologically dumb-a** thing to do!

I also do not support the death penalty.

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Because you think it's immoral?

[purplehawk]

It's a very personal thing with me. I celebrate life. I stop when I see an animal cut down by a vehicle. If the animal is still alive and I can manage, I take it to my vet's office and pay to have it healed or euthanized, if healing isn't possible. Last spring I discovered a doe with twin fawns nesting in a cloverleaf off I-270. I was concerned enough about them being killed, trying to cross the ramp for food and water, that I called the Department of Wildlife and waited for them to arrive with specialized help to get Mama and her babies settled in a safer location. I do rescue work for dogs and birds. I once even rescued a baby wren picked out of the sky on his or her maiden flight by a pack of nasty crows. The same would be true of chipmunks and squirrels and the ever-prowling hawks in my neck of the woods.

I enjoy my garden. I love the seasons. I love my children and grandchildren and their friends. I've enjoyed watching them grow and mature.

Life is a precious thing and it isn't for us to determine when it should end.

[daniel4hp]

Regarding mixing church and state, I strongly feel this is unconstitutional. The constution clearly states that the government is not to pass a law that establishes a religion, and if you try to mix Judeo-Christian ideals into the government, you are doing just that -- the government is establishing a religion. Sure, they may not be locking up Muslims, but by having Judeo-Christian elements in the government, they are saying that that's what's right, that's the way the country is going to run, and that's the way Americans should live. This clearly violates the first ammendment by establishing a national religion, regardless of the fact that people will still have religious freedom.

America was founded in part because people wanted to leave European countries that did not have separation of church and state. This separation is at the heart of American ideals. To suddenly introduce religion into government -- to mix the two -- would be to violate not only the constitution but the historical legitimacy of America. Separation of church and state is one of the fundemental principles in America, both in the constution and in the minds of most Americans, and I feel it is wrong and unnacceptable to end it.

[purplehawk]

So was "freedom and justice for all," but slavery was an enduring institution in this country for almost a century after the Constitution became a reality.

[Hagrid442]

Great thread idea!




As president, I would:


1. Reform medicare so that it makes the majority happy, and that majority decently satisfied. Those that are uninsured may have half of their hospital stays funded, but with the expectation that that half is to be paid off within five years; ample time for those in the lower income range. I don't want to bankrupt the system, either. This program would apply to families with a combined income of $15,000 or less.

2. Continue our occupation of Iraq for three more years. The government would be turned over to the Iraqi's by January 1st, 2005, no later. U.S. and coalition troops would continue to patrol the streets until 2007. A small U.S. base would constructed near Baghdad for permanent military usage for the future. All troops would be pulled out except for about 2,000, used as a garrison for the base.

3. U.S. troops would still stay in Afghanistan, until at least 2010. No military base shoiuld be built.

4. Our war on Terrorism should continue.

5. Pull out of the United Nations, but continue on as members of NATO, since NATO truly works to the advantage of the world, unlike the UN.

7. Embargo restrictions should continue on Cuba, but with lighter restrictions.

8. Border security with Mexico should be drastically be beefed up. There should be no way any more illegals make it into the country. Also, Canadian borders should be strengthened, for the Candadian border is a favorite of terrorist usage.

9. Gay marriage should be banned via a constitutional amendment. I'm all for civil unions, but marriage? NO!

10. Create initiatives for a cleaner ocean, with forests being protected as well. Heavy fines would be placed upon corporations infringing on the acts. I'mt thinking upwards of $5,000,000,000 dollar fines per infraction.

11. Double the budget for the National Underwater Marine Agency. (NUMA)

12. Eradicate the seperation of church and state.

13. Propose a constitutional ban on abortion.




Insert hateful rants below


There's actually a lot here that DOES make sense. And some that doesn't, of course, but people have already hopped on that, so why echo? (At least in great detail, that is)

1. Yes. Yes indeed. I would propose that Medicare should be turned into a limited general health care system where it covers prescriptions, doctor appointments and minor surgeries, but have private insurers for more serious procedures.

2. This could be rather optimistic, but it is at least a good guideline. There's no way in hell we can or should pull out prematurely. Like it or not (and I don't) Iraq is a battleground in fighting terrorists. It's no time to do a Spain and cut-and-run. I'm sure the Spanish figured that if they pull out of Iraq, that Al Qaeda will thank them with no more attacks. Hmmm... what's Spanish for "appeasement"?

3. Afghanistan should have been done right the first time. But you're right, we're there to stay for the long haul.

4. We should combat terrorism the right way, with intelligence and covert ops instead of invasions. But yeah, it needs to be combated. Anyone that thinks AQ will negotiate is naive in the extreme.

5. I say that we reform the UN instead. Strengthen it. Contrary to right wing beliefs the UN does do some good in humanitarian efforts. As an international policing force, it is horrible. Oh, and whoever put Libya at the head of the Human Rights Commission should be sent to the moon.

6. What happened to #6? It's a conspiracy, I tell ya!! :p

7. Can't argue with this. Embargoes have only served to strengthen Castro's hold over Cuba. However, get rid of all together, and you reward him for past bad behaviour.

8. I agree with the sentiment. However, it's realistically near impossible. No more amnesties. Make Bush's amnesty the last. Increase funding for the INS so they can naturalize those that want to, while keeping track of illegals more tenaciously. Regarding Canada, as much as I like that it's the longest unguarded (by military) border in the world, there is too much of a loophole there. Plus it might cut down on the amount of pot and paraphernalia that crosses the borders.

9. So you favor "separate but equal" unions? Granted, I'll accept just civil unions for now, because to change too quickly will not do. It will take time to redefine marriage, and civil unions are a viable experiment. But a constitutional amendment is a bad precedent. There's been only one amendment repealed in our history, and that was the one that restricted what citizens could do.

10. Oh my God! Williamson's talking like a liberal here! :tu:

11. Not sure what that is. But I typically favor more scientific research, so I probably wouldn't oppose it. :)

12. To do so would go against the grain and spirit of the Constitution. Yes, perhaps some of the Constitution is based on some Judeo-Christian law, but it also borrows heavily from many other places. Our judicial system is based on English common law. The Constitution also borrows from Classical philosophies. Let's ignore the fact that our population is very cosmopolitan and diverse. The fact is, the highest law in the land is as well. Let's have the government enforce the law, and the churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques enforce people's morality. That is what separation of state and church is.

NOTE: The other extreme is what is happening in France with the ban on headscarves. In their misguided attempt to keep state and religion totally separate, they have instead imposed secularism (ironically, the state's sponsored religion) on the populace. Go here (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=22719) for discussion on that. :)

Regarding mixing church and state, I strongly feel this is unconstitutional. The constution clearly states that the government is not to pass a law that establishes a religion, and if you try to mix Judeo-Christian ideals into the government, you are doing just that -- the government is establishing a religion. Sure, they may not be locking up Muslims, but by having Judeo-Christian elements in the government, they are saying that that's what's right, that's the way the country is going to run, and that's the way Americans should live. This clearly violates the first ammendment by establishing a national religion, regardless of the fact that people will still have religious freedom.

America was founded in part because people wanted to leave European countries that did not have separation of church and state. This separation is at the heart of American ideals. To suddenly introduce religion into government -- to mix the two -- would be to violate not only the constitution but the historical legitimacy of America. Separation of church and state is one of the fundemental principles in America, both in the constution and in the minds of most Americans, and I feel it is wrong and unnacceptable to end it.

[edit]Good points, daniel. I had those in mind as well, but neglected to write them down. :tu:

13. See 9.


Tallying all these up, we agree on many things. Does this mean that I'm more conservative than I think, or you're more liberal? Or maybe it shows that if we debate intelligently, there's not much difference between Americans on each end of the spectrum.

[Auror Williamson]

I am what you would call a "moderate Republican". In fact, I'm probably more Libertarian than Republican.


I need to add another thing to my list!


14. Create stricter gun control laws. Automatic weapons have no business being in America excpept for the military, security agencies and police forces. There should also be mandatory background check for all buyers. Concealed and carry should not be legal (this is a big issue here in Missouri, where the state legislature passed a bill allowing anyone over 18 to carry a gun concealed.)





Hagrid -- Do you live in Chicago? My family is going on vacation there this summer and I have some questions if you do indeed live there.

[Hagrid442]

14. No arguments here. I think the same way. You're actually way to the left of Howard Dean on this issue. :)

I'm a "moderate Democrat".

I live in the Chicago area, yes. Not the city itself, but in a western suburb in DuPage county.

We had our primaries yesterday. I voted for Edwards, even though he's pretty much out. And a man named Barack Obama, who ended up winning. He's real progressive, but also a man of dignity and integrity. So glad Blair Hull (wife-beater lite) lost overwhelmingly. Obama reminds me of Paul Simon and Paul Wellstone.

[Sineed]

Great thread! I don't have the time to really get involved here, but I wanted to clear up a little misconception:

Also, Canadian borders should be strengthened, for the Candadian border is a favorite of terrorist usage.

AAUGH!! Soon after 911, a member of the Bush administration (I'm getting tired; I think it was Rumsfeld) said that terrorists sneak into the US through the Canadian border. But 911 was due to a failure of US security and had nothing to do with us. You understand we perceived this as a huge insult.

And then there was the whole "Axis of Weasels" thing, and slurs directed against "Old Europe." So maybe the first act of a new president after Bush should be to mend fences with the rest of the world ...

[DsX Phoenix]

I never heard of an "Axis of Weasels"...But my guess is it was Canada, France, and Germany.

Anyways, I guess I was being too harsh on you Auror (I still completely disagree with the things I already noted). I did agree with a lot of what you said, and though I don't see how you got your dates for leaving Iraq and Afghanistan, I do agree there should be a solid timeline we should be trying to go by.

[purplehawk]

Sineed, you've just emphasized my point. We are in so much trouble with the rest of the world. Old Europe had it right when they were picturing Bush as a cowboy with a pistol in each hand; perhaps even those images likening him to Adolf Hitler were pretty close to the truth. I don't see him changing his ways. The man thinks he's on some kind of personal religious and/or familial crusade and that's dangerous.

[Sineed]

Cool avatar, Purple Hawk!

I saw "Axis Of Weasels" as a headline in the New York Post, excerpted on a french website. I have been reading french news websites in an effort to improve my french, and this headline was given prominent play. My french isn't all that great, but my impression was that the French seemed to have a sense of humour about it, though I'm sure the insult was noted.

[Wab]

If you want to live where church and state aren't separate move to Britain where there's an official faith.

[purplehawk]

Church and state aren't separate here either. What is the basis for banning same-sex marriages if not religion? What is the real-world translation for "family values" when it comes to political campaigns. Read: conservative religion. Why are so many photos taken of our presidents attending church each Sunday? Why on earth does Pat Robertson's name keep popping up in recent political campaigns? And let's don't talk about the Supreme Court usurping the power to determine when life begins and ends?

[Auror Williamson]

Sineed-

The "Axis of Weasels" was not used at any time by Bush. It was the frustrated and furious American public that came up with that and used it.


I've decided this is as good a time as any to post this -- It shows why many Americans are frustrated with France etc.


Although this was written in 1973, 90% of it seems like it was written yesterday.




The Americans (1973)


By Gordon Sinclair




The United States dollar took another pounding on German, French and British exchanges this morning, hitting the lowest point ever known in West Germany. It has declined there by 41% since 1971 and this Canadian thinks it is time to speak up for the Americans as the most generous and possibly the least-appreciated people in all the earth.

As long as sixty years ago, when I first started to read newspapers, I read of floods on the Yellow River and the Yangtse. Who rushed in with men and money to help? The Americans did.

They have helped control floods on the Nile, the Amazon, the Ganges and the Niger. Today, the rich bottom land of the Misssissippi is under water and no foreign land has sent a dollar to help. Germany, Japan and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Italy, were lifted out of the debris of war by the Americans who poured in billions of dollars and forgave other billions in debts. None of those countries is today paying even the interest on its remaining debts to the United States.

When the franc was in danger of collapsing in 1956, it was the Americans who propped it up and their reward was to be insulted and swindled on the streets of Paris. I was there. I saw it.

When distant cities are hit by earthquakes, it is the United States that hurries into help... Managua Nicaragua is one of the most recent examples. So far this spring, 59 American communities have been flattened by tornadoes. Nobody has helped.

The Marshall Plan .. the Truman Policy .. all pumped billions upon billions of dollars into discouraged countries. Now, newspapers in those countries are writing about the decadent war-mongering Americans.

I'd like to see one of those countries that is gloating over the erosion of the United States dollar build its own airplanes.

Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them? Why do all international lines except Russia fly American planes? Why does no other land on earth even consider putting a man or women on the moon?

You talk about Japanese technocracy and you get radios. You talk about German technocracy and you get automobiles. You talk about American technocracy and you find men on the moon, not once, but several times ... and safely home again. You talk about scandals and the Americans put theirs right in the store window for everyone to look at. Even the draft dodgers are not pursued and hounded. They are here on our streets, most of them ... unless they are breaking Canadian laws .. are getting American dollars from Ma and Pa at home to spend here.

When the Americans get out of this bind ... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

When the railways of France, Germany and India were breaking down through age, it was the Americans who rebuilt them. When the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New York Central went broke, nobody loaned them an old caboose. Both are still broke. I can name to you 5,000 times when the Americans raced to the help of other people in trouble.

Can you name me even one time when someone else raced to the Americans in trouble? I don't think there was outside help even during the San Francisco earthquake.

Our neighbours have faced it alone and I am one Canadian who is damned tired of hearing them kicked around. They will come out of this thing with their flag high. And when they do, they are entitled to thumb their nose at the lands that are gloating over their present troubles.

I hope Canada is not one of these. But there are many smug, self-righteous Canadians. And finally, the American Red Cross was told at its 48th Annual meeting in New Orleans this morning that it was broke.

This year's disasters .. with the year less than half-over… has taken it all and nobody...but nobody... has helped.



Before 9/11, terrorists came through Canada and attempted to blow up the Space Needle in Seattle. Many of the 9/11 hijackers entered through Canada. I think the blame can be placed on both governments. Your failure to check the terrorists, and our failure to keep them out.

[Wab]

Oh boo-hoo poor America.

I can remember several occasions in the past few years when Australia and NZ supplied firefighters to assist the US.

Come on... let's hear it! Does any other country in the world have a plane to equal the Boeing Jumbo Jet, the Lockheed Tristar or the Douglas 107? If so, why don't they fly them?

The Airbus A380 will be far superior when it takes to the air.

[Auror Williamson]

Wab, remember that that was written in 1973...


Wow, once instance of a foreign country helping the United States. I'm shocked.

All I'm doing is showing why many Americans are fed up. And it makes me even more angry when the response is "Boo-hoo poor America".


"who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'?"


Amen. After we're done fighting AQ, that is my response.

[Wab]

What that article fails to mention is that in the same period (the early 70s) were also aiding poorer nations and I'm pretty sure by that stage the US wasn't helping out with Europes natural disasters.

As it didn't a few years ago when western Europe was flooded by the Rhine or last year when my city was ravaged by the worst bushfires in memory.

It's all part of being in a community of nations. Rich nations help the poor.

As for "boo hoo poor America" I stand by it when I hear self-pity coming from the richest nation on the planet.

[Midnightsfire]

Sineed-

The "Axis of Weasels" was not used at any time by Bush. It was the frustrated and furious American public that came up with that and used it.

Uh..No. It was from a website (http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/weasels.asp). And the website is news satire (http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/000608.html). (Ergo nothing to take seriously.)

I've decided this is as good a time as any to post this -- It shows why many Americans are frustrated with France etc. Although this was written in 1973, 90% of it seems like it was written yesterday.

It's a bit out of context and definitely dated. Sinclair was writing about How the US was taking a beating, being smeared from many countries because of the Vietnam Conflict. Don't mistake me. I liked reading it myself, but some things about it just don't apply anymore.

When the Americans get out of this bind ... as they will... who could blame them if they said 'the hell with the rest of the world'. Let someone else buy the Israel bonds, Let someone else build or repair foreign dams or design foreign buildings that won't shake apart in earthquakes.

It will never happen. The US has invested too heavily into other countries for that to ever happen now. Back in '73 it was a possibility. But in '75-'76, the Sun-PAC decision effectively gave too much power to big business and other organizations and they are running the show now.

[Auror Williamson]

The term originated by an American citizen, right? Many of us have the same views, therefore, it was used by the American public.

[Midnightsfire]

Considering that Scott Ott is a Christian conservative with Libertarian leanings, I wonder at this anger you imagine he has.

How about checking your supposed facts next time?

[purplehawk]

Hey guys, let's not take pot shots at one another. I'd like to see some serious discussion, even if I don't agree with what I'm reading, but it's really offensive to slam someone for holding the opposing opinion. That's not playing fair. Granny says!

[Sineed]

Okay, I just need to clarify this once again: NONE of the 911 terrorists came through Canada.

[Pegasus]

Okay, it's my turn. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs. People came here for the freedom to practice their religion, not to have religious beliefs and practices banned, which I think is precisely what is happening. A noisy minority is trying to take away our religious roots.
That said, I could never support a president who was in favor of abortion, because it is murder, and that baby has just as much right to live as the rest of us. If it's an unwanted pregnancy, do you know how many broken-hearted couples out there are lining up to adopt? Abortion, in most cases, is extremely selfish. I know that's going to sound harsh, but I don't know how else to say it.
I might ask, is there something wrong with being a Christian?

[Auror Williamson]

This site (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683026/posts) explains the hijackers and the supporters' actions in great detail.

There are several instances where hijackers go into Canada, do flight training, other stuff, then leave Canada.

Nabil AL-MARABH (Toronto) was the AQ guy stationed in Canada.

[OrbitingElle]

AAUGH!! Soon after 911, a member of the Bush administration (I'm getting tired; I think it was Rumsfeld) said that terrorists sneak into the US through the Canadian border. But 911 was due to a failure of US security and had nothing to do with us. You understand we perceived this as a huge insult.

And then there was the whole "Axis of Weasels" thing, and slurs directed against "Old Europe." So maybe the first act of a new president after Bush should be to mend fences with the rest of the world ...

Didn't we try to blame you guys for our blackout, too? The first thing I would do as president is to start taking some responsibility when we screw up.

"Terrorists? They all came over from Canada. Blackouts? Canada's fault. Got the flu? You probably caught if from a Canadian."

[OrbitingElle]

It's all part of being in a community of nations. Rich nations help the poor.

As for "boo hoo poor America" I stand by it when I hear self-pity coming from the richest nation on the planet.

I am sometimes ashamed that I'm from here. I lived most of my life in the same city where George Bush senior and George W. came from, and I hate that I can be classified in the same category as them (with my cowboy hat, waving a pistol in each hand). I can't blame anyone for not feeling sorry for Americans, but try to remember that even though the majority might be pompous jerks, a few of us hate what our country is like just as much as you do.




If it's an unwanted pregnancy, do you know how many broken-hearted couples out there are lining up to adopt? Abortion, in most cases, is extremely selfish.

The argument could easily be made that it is selfish of someone to want a child when nature has decided not to give them one... but I think we're already addressing this argument in another thread.

[purplehawk]

You're right... the current administration has a detestable way of blaming everything it does wrong on someone else or something else. The opposing party is the especial choice, but when that fails to gain poll points they go for the jugular with another country, the intent being to fan the flames of patriotism in the noisy right.

[Bhodi]

the noisy right.

As opposed to the quiet left? :rolleyes:

[Midnightsfire]

Sineed:


Check it out: No direct Canadian link to attacks: RCMP (http://www.canada.com/national/features/attack/story.html?id=EC57B22E-4B78-4A43-88D0-3E0626E798DF)

;)

Free Republic website...It always needs to be taken with a degree of skepticism.

[Auror Williamson]

Midnightsfire, if your're going to disregard any source that is contrary to your opinion, we might as well stop using sources.

You have to admit, the terrorist info thing was very in depth. Are you mad that it isn't pro-terrorist or that it doesn't explain why it's America's fault we were attacked?

Purplehawk-

You say that the right has a habit of blaming things on other people or other countries. Have you ever noticed that the left has a tendency to blame America first? The left has said it was our fault for 9/11. The left has said that it is our fault terrorists hate us. The left has said that we must be understaaaaaanding of the terrorists. The left says that we must be compaaaaaaasionate to our enemies.


The left has it's faults too -- and in many cases the left is unwilling to discuss their problems.

[Kaonashi]

Hey, it's the blame game, and everyone's playing it. But the more everyone is playing the blame game, the further we are to finding a solution.

Hey Hagrid, I voted for Obama too. I wasn't surprised that Oberweis lost. That "10,000 illegal aliens are sneaking over the border and stealing your jobs every night as you sleep" campaign was one of the ugliest things I've ever seen.

[Midnightsfire]

Midnightsfire, if your're going to disregard any source that is contrary to your opinion, we might as well stop using sources.
I have a better idea, let's take an indepth look at what you posted. You linked (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/683026/posts) someone's personal comments in a forum. What kind of source of information do you call that??? As far as I'm concerned you have already stopped using sources. (credible ones.)

Maybe you can show everyone where he acquired this info? But before you think of doing that, consider the disclaimer on the bottom of that page:

Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management.

[purplehawk]

The left isn't blaming the average everyday John Q. Public. You know as well as I do the left blames the GOP for our poor showing among the nations of the world - with considerable justification, I might add. We've taken an beating with every Republican administration since Ike in terms of loss of trust among allies. Again with justification.

The GOP ignored John Q. Public for six years as they attended to the business of running Bill Clinton to ruin. That isn't what they were elected to do, not what over 80% of the country wanted them to do. Whose agenda were they following while they were blatantly ignoring the country's business to pursue their own? I believe bin Laden saw his opportunity when we foolishly added a Republican president to that bunch of nincompoops in the House of Representatives. A country in the hands of those idiots who'd been keeping the planet entertained for years and a president with less than a 50% mandate... I would see that as a good time to strike a blow to the gut of the mightiest nation on earth... and bin Laden recognized and took advantage of the gift we handed him.

And what did we do after burying and grieving for our dead? We fabricated intelligence of weapons of mass destruction and Al Quaida ties in Iraq and went after Saddam Hussein, the whipping boy of every administration since Reagan - at least.

[Kaonashi]

To be honest with you, I don't know what press to believe anymore. One side presents their information. The other side presents theirs. And somewhere in the middle is the truth, and nobody gets it.

[Hagrid442]

*shrugs* I guess it's our nature to give information that supports our opinions and biases. Hell, I just cited a William "I was a speechwriter for Nixon" Safire article to make a point on something that the Left might not like to hear.

I also got blasted by liberals at a weblog like Free Republic for saying that I was "aghast at 'Blame America First' liberalism" because they were all so quick to blame the US for those mercenaries caught in Zimbabwe. Apparently, because the plane was last registered in the US, it had to be a plot by Bush to overthrow Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe. Right... circumstantial evidence. There's enough things that can be put on him without inventing them.

Oops.... tangent. Point is, even a stopped clock is right twice. It's good to have a healthy source of skepticism when reading anything. Even those that you agree with. It's difficult sometimes.

[Auror Williamson]

Midnightsfire, the post on Free Republic was not opinion, it was fact. Most people can recognize fact and opinion.


"We fabricated intelligence of weapons of mass destruction and Al Quaida ties in Iraq"

Last time I checked, Saddam used the WMD's on his own people and Clinton tried to destroy them with "tactical" missile attacks on an aspirine factory. The intelligence was credible under Clinton, but not under Dubya? :rolleye:

And, as I've said before, Al Queda openly says in their little press releases they put out every month or so that they support Hussein.


bunch of nincompoops in the House of Representatives.

And I suppose the Democrats and the supreme Dick Gephardt are spotless?

[Hagrid442]

Just for the record, if I were a Congressman, I would have voted to impeach Clinton, no matter how much I liked him as a president.

[purplehawk]

And I suppose the Democrats and the supreme Dick Gephardt are spotless?

You're avoiding the issue. I am speaking of a particular Congress operating a witch hunt rather than the thoughtful consideration of legislation they were elelcted to pursue. It was a Republican-led Congress and they did it national television, so there can be no argument. Gephart isn't the issue and is not a good choice of means to deflect my comments.

Come to think of it, wasn't this the renegade Congress that brought the federal government to a halt during those same six years?

[Midnightsfire]

Midnightsfire, the post on Free Republic was not opinion, it was fact. Most people can recognize fact and opinion.
Someone's personal comments are true as you say... I'm sure you want to believe it.

Last time I checked, Saddam used the WMD's on his own people and Clinton tried to destroy them with "tactical" missile attacks on an aspirine factory. The intelligence was credible under Clinton, but not under Dubya?
Our current administration has already admitted they didn't have anything. (But I guess you didn't want to believe them? How inconsistent.)

[purplehawk]

Our current administration has already admitted they didn't have anything. (But I guess you didn't want to believe them? How inconsistent.)


They didn't bother admitting it until it was politically expedient to do so... Did they?

[Auror Williamson]

The Congress of the Clinton years acted fine, in my opinion. They still worked on the pressing issues while pursuing the impeachment of a President that lied under oath.

I thought that Clinton was a pretty good President except for the lying under oath thing, his defense problems and vowing to lower taxes but instead raising them.

The reason I commented on the Democratic lawmakers is because it seems that they are never criticisized on CoS.


David Kay? That was just one expert's fidning's... findings I accept. I don't think there currently are WMD's, but I think there were. I think that intelligence we had was thought to be genuinely true, but turned out to be false. The administration has never outright said that there are no WMD's.

[Midnightsfire]

They didn't bother admitting it until it was politically expedient to do so... Did they?Check it out (http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm)


Q&A here too (http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030528.html).

[Auror Williamson]

I understand what the links are saying, but was the words of Powell the official stance of the Adminsitration?

I don't know.

[purplehawk]

My goodness, Midnightfire! I wasn't even aware of that and I normally read till my eyes can't take any more.

Auror, they Republican majority of that Congress did not behave admirably by any stretch of the imagination. It did a bit better under Trent Lott than Newt Gingrich; I guess I can concede that point, but look at Lott! Surely not a leader you'd want to write home about. Anyone have an extra white sheet and a torch?

[Midnightsfire]

Well we could look at the actual words (http://www.counterpunch.org/wmd05292003.html).

Ludicrous.

[Hagrid442]

*ALERT*

Alexander Cockburn.

Take with grain of salt!

[Sineed]

[QUOTE=OrbitingElle

"Terrorists? They all came over from Canada. Blackouts? Canada's fault. Got the flu? You probably caught if from a Canadian."[/QUOTE]


Hee, hee, hee, hee :lol:

You forgot about SARS ...

[OrbitingElle]

Hee, hee, hee, hee :lol:

You forgot about SARS ...

Oh yeah! SARS, Anthrax, Y2K, and El Nino. All Canadian.

[Wab]

Last time I checked, Saddam used the WMD's on his own people and Clinton tried to destroy them with "tactical" missile attacks on an aspirine factory. The intelligence was credible under Clinton, but not under Dubya? :rolleye:

The misbegotten attack on the El Shifa plant was in response to Al Qaeda attacks on the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9808/20/us.strikes.01/

And, as I've said before, Al Queda openly says in their little press releases they put out every month or so that they support Hussein.

"The al-Jazeera Arab satellite station broadcast a new audio statement from bin Laden on Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2003, in which he expresses solidarity with the Iraqi people but labels Saddam Hussein an 'infidel'."

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0211-11.htm

[Auror Williamson]

Funny, I specifically remember Clinton saying that the attacks were to destroy the WMD's at the urging of major Democratic representatives and Senators such as Gephardt, Daschle and other notables.


Regardless of Osama calling him an infidel, the tape still showed their support for the Iraqi government. I don't love Bush, but I still support the Government.

[purplehawk]

They were retaliatory strikes if I recall correctly, and entirely appropriate for the laughable menace Saddam presented to the United States. Clinton's restraint was far more relative than declaring all-out war on Iraq. The firepower we set loose in that joke of a war strikes me as similar to hiring Mike Tyson to pop a water balloon.

[Wab]

Regardless of Osama calling him an infidel, the tape still showed their support for the Iraqi government. I don't love Bush, but I still support the Government.

The tape showed support for the Iraqi people.

Saddam and his cronies were members of the minority Sunni.

[OrbitingElle]

The firepower we set loose in that joke of a war strikes me as similar to hiring Mike Tyson to pop a water balloon.

I could not have said it better myself. Bravo.

Bush wanted Iraq to let us come in and look for his WMD's (W'sMD?) and he wouldn't. So we plowed in and destroyed the whole country, and we still havent found any. If we found Saddam in a 6 foot HOLE IN THE GROUND, we'd have found the weapons by now. It is painfully obvious that this war is an overreaction. You can say what you want about us saving the people who were living under Saddam's evil regime, that wasn't the reason for going to war. It was a side effect meant to gain more support from the people of the US.

(How incredibly convenient that we won't hear the results of the investigation into our massive intelligence failure until after the election.)

[purplehawk]

I think this war has been in the making since the Gulf War and particularly since Saddam's attempt to assassinate the president's father. Cowboy justice - bah!

[Masterfroggy]

I know it’s hard to keep rhetoric out of a discussion on firmly held beliefs but please remember that in the last “joke of a war” several hundred people lost their life, and two of my friends were amongst those that died, they were killed when their helicopter was shot down by a group of heavily armed, poorly trained and poorly disciplined troops that fired rockets and missiles at anything that moved.

[Auror Williamson]

and two of my friends were amongst those that died

I'm sorry to hear that. Here in KC, we've lost around 15 of our citizens. It hurts, no doubt about it.




If I were president, I would slowly edge the emphasis away from Iraq and start putting it on the Phillippines and Malaysia. We know that Al Queda used to have it's yearly meeting in Malaysia and there are many Al Queda cells operating in the Phillippines and Malaysia. It would not be an "invasion" but more in the line of special forces operations. Small scale stuff along with both of those countries military's.

[purplehawk]

Froggy, I haven't lost sight of the lives that were lost in our cockawoop president's war on Iraq. I grieved for each and every one of the souls that perished in this "war" that was nothing more than a grudge match. I grieve for the Iraqis who died as well in our heavy-handed attempts to blow Saddam off the face of the planet, or bury him under a 50' deep crater.

[Auror Williamson]

I grieve for the Iraqis who died as well in our heavy-handed attempts to blow Saddam off the face of the planet, or bury him under a 50' deep crater.

No grieving for the estimated 60 million Iraqi's Saddam executed in his reign of terror? Another great example of blame America first.



As President, I would like to add to my initial list, I would make it a priority that military pay is raised by 50% for the average soldier. Pay hasn't gotten much better since the 1800's, where soldiers were paid a whopping $13 dollars a month. I would not give a pay raise to Generals since they make plenty of cash already. I would also take the initiative to improve the conditions of military installations in the States. With Fort Leavenworth being a few miles away, I've seen the poor conditions that military family houses are in. If these people are going to defend America, then they can have equal housing and decent pay.

I think we halt some funding on new military research while we better the lives of our service men and women.

[Pegasus]

It's amazing to me--we finally get a decent president in the White House after Clinton's joke of a tenure, and everywhere I look since it happened, people are bashing Bush. Must be the people who still thought Clinton should be president after effectively destroying Southern Utah (I'm quite close to that one, literally) and committing perjury. I was shocked to see a new book on display at my library today, bashing Bush while he's still in office. I can't remember the title, something about lies and politics--maybe one of you can help me out--but I'd be very interested to know if such a slanderous book has been published about a president before elections--and no, Monica Lewinsky's doesn't count. Yes, I know we have freedom of the press, but I just couldn't believe the audacity.

[Auror Williamson]

It's a fact that most Americans are the silent majority, and the Left and the media are the loud minority that runs the country. We're being run by an oligarchy.

[Midnightsfire]

It's amazing to me--we finally get a decent president in the White House after Clinton's joke of a tenure, and everywhere I look since it happened, people are bashing Bush. Must be the people who still thought Clinton should be president after effectively destroying Southern Utah (I'm quite close to that one, literally) and committing perjury. I was shocked to see a new book on display at my library today, bashing Bush while he's still in office. I can't remember the title, something about lies and politics--maybe one of you can help me out--but I'd be very interested to know if such a slanderous book has been published about a president before elections--and no, Monica Lewinsky's doesn't count. Yes, I know we have freedom of the press, but I just couldn't believe the audacity.
Decent president? Who That joke who is in the White House now?

Perhaps you should read the entire thread. And let's not repeat the utter ridiculousness that the "Myth of of the Liberal Media. (http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html)" Bush hasn't received half the kicking around that he deserves for lying to the public about those WMDs in Iraq. Yet, while American soldiers are dying over there and this myth of the justification for this alleged war will cost the taxpayers billions, aiding in the ruin of our economy, people still have the unmitigated gall to complain about Clinton.

[purplehawk]

The questions asked of Clinton relative to Monica Lewinsky should never have been asked. It was an entirely private matter and should have remained so. Interestingly enough, however, it was a disgruntled right-leaning White House employee who saw fit to "break" the story. Clinton's lie, while terrible, is a lot more understandable in terms of embarrassment for his wife and daughter. I would hazard a guess that none of you know a man who wouldn't lie if asked such questions. Extramarital affairs are not exactly the kind of information any of us are exactly forthcoming about.

On the other hand, let's talk about the fabricated weapons of mass destruction that supposedly justified Bush's new bully pulpit. Blatant lies. Lies that cost American lives and those of innocent Iraqi civilians - not to mention the Brits and other allies.

We had no business hearing what Monica was doing under Clinton's desk. We have every right to be outraged at the way Bush and his administration lied to us about Iraq, particularly when it cost American lives and billions of dollars in an already troubled economy.

The book you're looking for, UtahMom, is Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken. And while you're complaining about his book being slanderous and worse because it came out while Bush is a sitting president, how about Limbaugh, Liddy and their ilk during Clinton's administration?

Auror, you need to read a bit more! Listen to the news! The silent majority would be those centrists and left-leaning people who honestly lack the vituperative chat network that so marks the right. The network media is a glowing example of fair and impartial news gathering when you consider the spin machine the right maintains. Where is there anything left of center that compares with a Motor-Mouth Limbaugh?

[Hagrid442]

Ummmm.... could we stop the bashing of Bush? That's not what this thread is about. How about offering alternatives?

As President, I would like to add to my initial list, I would make it a priority that military pay is raised by 50% for the average soldier. Pay hasn't gotten much better since the 1800's, where soldiers were paid a whopping $13 dollars a month. I would not give a pay raise to Generals since they make plenty of cash already. I would also take the initiative to improve the conditions of military installations in the States. With Fort Leavenworth being a few miles away, I've seen the poor conditions that military family houses are in. If these people are going to defend America, then they can have equal housing and decent pay.

I think we halt some funding on new military research while we better the lives of our service men and women.

This is a very laudable goal. I agree completely. This is something that the Republicans have upset me over because they've actually shortchanged the soldiers lately. Not saying Democrats are any better, but it's the Republicans in control. Maybe if they weren't so busy handing out tax cuts to the affluent, there would be enough money.

[Pegasus]

Several things. Most of the people I have come into contact with wholeheartedly support Bush and his involvement in Iraq. I don't know any people in the military or their families--including the two people I know who are in Iraq right now and their families--who agree that we shouldn't be there. They are there wholeheartedly because they have seen the faces of Saddam's tyranny. If our country had Iraq's problems, I really hope someone with power and influence would come over and intervene. Those people were treated appallingly. And that's not the book I saw today. It had Bush's name in the title and his picture on the cover. I need to get on my library's website and look it up.
Also, I don't care what excuses anyone comes up with, but perjury is a federal offense. I was so mad when Clinton got impeached and still stayed in office. And I doubt you have any idea what that man did to Utah. And it didn't just affect Utah.
Anyway, back on topic. I agree that more money should go to NASA, but I don't agree that it should come from military cutbacks, especially with the terrorism occurring all over the world. It would be insane.
I would never want to be president--I have enough life to live, thank you--but I heartily support those who still have a sense of right and wrong. Unfortunately, that number is dwindling.
I just found it: The Lies of George W. Bush:mastering the politics of deception by Corn, David

[MadMagic]

Could we stop with the off topicness (the various party bashing and such) and get back to 'What would you do as President?'.
If not I'm going to have to close this thread :)

[Wab]

No grieving for the estimated 60 million Iraqi's Saddam executed in his reign of terror? Another great example of blame America first.

Well, as the CIA engineered the coup which installed the Ba'ath Party in power a bit of blame is warranted.

Which would be a central platform of mine: "No replacing other people's governments and installing new ones. It just doesn't work."

[Falchman]

I would scrap ¾ of all long distance lorries and move all the goods by train, increase taxes on all fuel for the motorcars, refund tax on recycled goods, move away from tin, aluminium and plastic, return to paper and glass.
Thats not practical, it would take longer than two terms of power to be able to do this, and the next president would overturn the policy because it would be hugely unpopular!


Stupid people will be protected from themselves as will the naïve, and the weak. Everyone will have the right to be free, and receive the education they need
"Stupid people" or politically naive people make up most of the voting population how could you protect them from themselves? By changing those who are able to vote? So only people who have degrees can vote? Not very democratic...
Every1 has the right to be free, Freedom speech, religion, association..
"The education they need" are you going to brain wash them lol.


All health issues would be free.
How would this be funded.... ?

[Masterfroggy]

I would scrap ¾ of all long distance lorries and move all the goods by train, increase taxes on all fuel for the motorcars, refund tax on recycled goods, move away from tin, aluminium and plastic, return to paper and glass.

That is not practical, it would take longer than two terms of power to be able to do this, and the next president would overturn the policy because it would be hugely unpopular!

Why would it take more than four years to achieve, such a well-needed change? By moving all heavy goods by rail it will remove millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide from the air, it will extend the life of the countries dwindling fuel reserves, Shell has once again confessed that it’s stated fuel reserve is less that it had previously published (two hundred million barrels less, or about 10%).

Popularity contests is the cause of the problems at the moment you have to think long term and in the long run it will have to happen there has to be change, and change should start now (or 45 years ago )



Educations would be judged on ability with no allowances for how rich you are as to the level of education, education would be mandatory for all until the age of 21, either vocational training (for a real job) or higher education for all who are able and willing Stupid people will be protected from themselves as will the naïve, and the weak. Everyone will have the right to be free, and receive the education they need


"Stupid people" or politically naive people make up most of the voting population how could you protect them from themselves. By changing those who are able to vote? So only people who have degrees can vote? Not very democratic...
Every1 has the right to be free, Freedom speech, religion, association..
"The education they need" are you going to brain wash them lol.


A collage education for a person who is going to wash cars or pump gas, why?
A student with a thirst and drive that will take him from the poor shack and shantytowns, struggling with school and two jobs why?
Jocks getting into collage who can barely read and write why?

If at the end of each and every year students or assessed on their ability to study learn and retain that knowledge, and bright students no matter where they are from, get encouraged to go further and strive harder, where as the people who book learning is hard beyond reading and writing and maths but have a skill with their hands or can be taught to do blue collar job, they should be taught that, instead of giving them unrealistic hopes about a degree. People that run the nations big business and banking system are not there because someone picked their name from a hat, even small business run by stupid tend not to survive.

All I would ask of a voter is that they are willing and able to understand just what they are voting on and why. It’s does not take a genius to read a paper every day or go to a library, and borrow a few books, not does it take a martyr to volunteer for one or two evenings a month to teach or help students, or anyone of the tens of thousands of jobs that millions of people do without thought of reward, everyday these people make a difference everyday to millions and millions of people.

If you understand what you are doing and are willing to help your own community, why should you have less say in it than some drunk who Hates pinko liberals so he votes for the man with the Nazi haircut not caring that that man intends to shut down the towns only employer and sell the land to a friend from school to build a golf course.

Before each vote, people should be given the issues they are to vote on (without knowing any of the candidates or parties) and then it is up to them to learn all about it, informed voting is what it should be all about.




All health issues would be free.



How would this be funded.... ?

Taxes how else :cool:

[OrbitingElle]

Taxes how else :cool:

I've heard a lot of people down on the idea of free health care in the US (don't they already have it in Canada?) but the truth is that the tax raise used to fund it would be affordable. Your taxes would go up, but it would eliminate the need for workers to pay for health insurance. I think it would balance out. It would DEFINITELY help me out, since I have no income to pay taxes on (out of work for almost a year) and I have no health insurance.

If I were president, this is the first thing I would do.

[DsX Phoenix]

If I were president, I would first set difinitive goals for both Iraq and Afghanistan. In doing this, I would push for more international help in Iraq, including the UN's cooperation.

I would repeal many tax cuts that help the wealthy, but I would also offer higher tax cuts for higher education.

I would also make it mandatory that students in high school determine if they want to continue their education in college by the Junior year. High schools would thus offer two different degrees: one for students planning on attending college, and one for students planning on entering the workforce. The former would require higher level math, science, and literature classes, and the latter would require one or two years in a technical program.

However, in either case, I would make a requirement that some kind of formal paper be written in order to graduate (It would either be a simple research paper required in every 12th Grade English class, or an essay which would be graded nationally, similar to the AP Exams). This is so that literacy would be stressed more in high school, which would presumably decrease the number of illiterate people in this country.

As far as gay marriages, I would simply leave them alone. States are the only ones with the power to decide whether or not they want gays to be allowed to marry, so I do not believe there should be any federal involvement in this issue.

I would also make it easier to allow illegal immigrants to become American citizens, since I feel that these people will come into America irregardless of what we do to keep them out, so we might as well be able to collect taxes from them. Further, instead of trying to crack down on people who enter this country illegally, I would rather crack down on companies who illegally employ these people. My reasoning is this: People who are poor and starving are not going to care about laws. If they are desperate enough to illegally come into America, then they are desperate enough to keep coming in, no matter how hard we make it for them to. However, businesses who employ these people are not desperate for workers: they are simply trying to benefit from the situation, so they are paying these people under the table, and lower wages. They are the ones stealing jobs from Americans, not the illegals.

I would call for the repeal of the Patriot Act. I believe this law goes against everything that America stands for, and is really simply playing into the hands of terrorists.

I'm sure I'm forgetting something, but this is enough for starters.

[purplehawk]

I would also make it mandatory that students in high school determine if they want to continue their education in college by the Junior year. High schools would thus offer two different degrees: one for students planning on attending college, and one for students planning on entering the workforce. The former would require higher level math, science, and literature classes, and the latter would require one or two years in a technical program.

Ah... I like your style! :tu: This, believe it or not, is a return to education the way I knew it, before all the so-called experts got into the picture and decided that every kid since Cain had an inherent right to feel good about himself or herself - regardless of whether or not they've done anything to deserve it. That's all wrong. There is always going to be a bottom half of a class, for whatever reasons, and watering down the curriculum to suit that half does a disservice to those in the top half.

Indeed, they've muddied up the curriculum so badly that we sent all three of our kids to private preparatory schools. They got what we paid for - an excellent primary and secondary education that set them in position to take advantage of Ivy League university educations. We've done the same for our grandchildren.

[OrbitingElle]

I would also make it mandatory that students in high school determine if they want to continue their education in college by the Junior year. High schools would thus offer two different degrees: one for students planning on attending college, and one for students planning on entering the workforce. The former would require higher level math, science, and literature classes, and the latter would require one or two years in a technical program.

My high-school German teacher told me that's the way things are done in Germany. (Can anyone verify this, or tell me if they do it anywhere else?)

I'm 50-50 on this topic. My insticts are telling me that by the time you're in your junior year, you pretty much know what path you will take. But my brain tells me that someone struggling to find themselves might make the wrong choice and be stuck with a technical degree and be prevented from going to college.

My district had something similar to your technical training idea. They had a building called the "Career Center" and students in our district wishing to be trained in those fields were bussed there for a few periods a day. They offered classes in cosmetology, fixing cars, and a few other things. This way, kids who needed to work immediately after graduating wouldnt have to waste months in a technical school, they could get certified and go to work right away. I think other school districts could take a cue from how well it worked for us. This way the advanced classes and the technical classes are available to everyone, but no one is forced into making an irreversible or unwise decision.

[DsX Phoenix]

Well, I personally don't think it would be irreversable. And, certainly, people who opted for the technical degree would not be forced to take only technical electives. They would just have the opportunity to opt out of a high level science course they have no interest in taking. There would still be a minimum "core curriculum" each student would have to take, including math, science, English, and history. But by the time you are in your Junior and Senior years of high school, you are usually done with most of these classes, and are instead taking electives, such as art and such.

Essentially, all this degree change would do is, instead of everyone being required to take, say, an art class or an extra science class (most high schools only require 3 years of math and science, and 3-4 years of history), a student could opt instead to get certified in auto-repair, if that is what they would prefer to do.

In my opinion, this would encourage more students to stay in school, since they would more likely feel it is still worth their time, even if they have no intention whatsoever of going to college.

[purplehawk]

We have a similar program in our public schools here, but all is not as it seems. The quality of the academic classes are not good; the technical career centers aren't up-to-par either. Our local district has only just come off probation. As recently as five years ago, they were in danger of being taken over by the State Board of Education - not that that would have helped much. States put way too little emphasis (meaning cash) on public education and the funding is all wrong.

Still, the bigger issue might be what goes on away from school in a child's life. There are way too many kids just drifting through the school years.

I agree with you that the junior year is a bit too late for some and too early for others. The college-bound kids are sure to have been earmarked by the time they take the 9th grade proficiency test - and in a just world, much sooner. But, as you say, there are late-bloomers who goof off their frosh and soph years and then come on strong at the end.

[DsX Phoenix]

We have a similar program in our public schools here, but all is not as it seems. The quality of the academic classes are not good; the technical career centers aren't up-to-par either. Our local district has only just come off probation. As recently as five years ago, they were in danger of being taken over by the State Board of Education - not that that would have helped much. States put way too little emphasis (meaning cash) on public education and the funding is all wrong.

Still, the bigger issue might be what goes on away from school in a child's life. There are way too many kids just drifting through the school years.

I agree with you that the junior year is a bit too late for some and too early for others. The college-bound kids are sure to have been earmarked by the time they take the 9th grade proficiency test - and in a just world, much sooner. But, as you say, there are late-bloomers who goof off their frosh and soph years and then come on strong at the end.

I think you may have actually misunderstood me...No one but the student will decide which degree they want to follow (and of course the parent, but that's impossible to change). I do not believe in limiting someone to certain paths, but rather, allow them to decide what they want to do with their lives. It is not the education system's responsibility to decide who has what it takes to make it through college. Rather, it is the system's responsibility to ensure that every student is as well equipped to become successful in society as is possible.

To me, this merely shows students that college isn't the only route in life, and while it may provide the most financial returns, it isn't even the best choice to become successful.

[purplehawk]

I did understand that. My comments were more aimed at the sorry state of public education in most larger city school districts across the country. Some of the rural systems are in just as much trouble in my state, at least, because funding is based on real estate values which are depressed in those areas.

What I would really like to see is a standard bar to which children across the country strive to achieve and maintain, with no "basic math" or "introductory science" or "elements of history" classes for high school aged kids. I don't think the syllabus should be "watered-down" to accommodate kids who haven't gotten the basics by the time they reach their freshman year in high school.

I guess this is a different topic, though. Sorry!

[daniel4hp]

What I would really like to see is a standard bar to which children across the country strive to achieve and maintain, with no "basic math" or "introductory science" or "elements of history" classes for high school aged kids. I don't think the syllabus should be "watered-down" to accommodate kids who haven't gotten the basics by the time they reach their freshman year in high school.
The "basic" courses are not always bad, though. If a student cannot do pre-algebra, then there's no point in putting them in a pre-algebra class. I think students should have to take the more advanced courses as well, but if they are not able to do those courses their freshmen year, there should be something there to help them catch up.

It does make sense to have a national standard for that all students would have to meet. However, the problem is that there is a conflict between local interests, state interests, and federal interests, resulting in our school system right now being a total mess. Many people feel that it should be the job of the school boards, made up of local individuals, to control the education of local children. However, this doesn't always work, so the state and federal governments step in to help. You then get state standards students must meet (such as NY's Regents). But the federal government wants a national standard, so we get No Child Left Behind thrown in, which, in my opinion, only makes things worse.

Perhaps the best way to go would be to require the states to set standards for education that all students would have to meet, with the federal government setting standards for the states to ensure that the states standards were up to par. However, the federal government itself would not have standards students would have to meet -- only guidelines for the state standards. That would ensure that students had to comply with certain standards, but would prevent there from being to many different levels of standards for students to meet.

Although a national education system would be very nice in my opinion (it would be much simpler and ensure all students accross the country got the same education), America has a tradition of local and state control, and I don't think this would be given up easilly. For the US, I think the best option is for the federal government to work with the states, with the direct control of education coming from them, rather than Washington. The federal government would still be excercising control, but I think it would be seen as less intrusive by most people. :shrug:

[purplehawk]

I agree a national standard - a national system - for educating our children would be and excellent development. I think most states have abdicated their responsibility to assure the kids get a quality education and therefore should either put up or shut up. I also think this system should be scripted by educators primarily, with input from the parents, and as little involvement from politicians as possible. Politicians are already responsible for ruining education in this country.

I wish every child could have an education like the one my grandchildren are getting. The resources of the school they attend are matchless; every teacher has a graduate degree and over 70% have attained a doctorate. When you walk into a classroom at this school you are just awed at how into learning the kids are - and they're so happy! The theory is to educate the whole child and they do so excellently. Computer professionals teach the kids computers inside out in a lab. Physical education means more there than 45 minutes a week running around a gym. The kids are in PE three times every six days. They swim in an Olympic-sized pool. Spot-on Attention is given to individual personal fitness. The kids are bilingual before they leave the lower school (fourth grade), and there is always that rock-solid liberal arts, college-preparatory curriculum. There's much more but now is not the time.

All this comes with a steep price tag, of course. The school I speak of is incredibly well-endowed and can boast a legacy of four generations in some cases. In a public school environment, the cost per child could be prohibitive in terms of tax dollars; yet I wonder how much of it would be fluff or sheer waste?

[star22]

What I would do. Well, it is hard to choose. You cannot have everything. I guess that I need to figure somewhere where we can cut back. However, that is very hard. I believe that we need a better education system, but I I believe in other things more strongly.

1. Keep America involved. In the world we live in, isolationism does not work. Appeasement never works. We need to stop the terrorists. I don't care if they hurt us or not. We live in a world that is increasingly global. As the only real world power left, I believe that the US has the responsibility to help other countries. That can include sending relief, aid, or military. Personally, I also think that this means that the US can make world decisions. If a world leader is genocidal, or is a mass murderer, then they have no right to be in power. It is perfectly moral to take them out.

2. I want to keep money in the military. We live in a violent world. Even if we never use the military, we need to have it there. We will probably need it. A strong military is a necessity for America right now. To cut back would be a mistake. Clinton did it. I am just glad that 9-11 did not happen under his presidency. He would not have been able to handle it.

3. Put money into the space program. The space program is of huge importance. It gives us more of a global perspective. I think that the space program is important for world peace. I think that humanity needs to explore, to discover things. Space is the place left to do it. I think that it is part of human nature. It is something that humans need. It is a good thing. I think that more money needs to be put into it.

4. The biggest thing that I would do, which goes with getting involved, would be to do my best to stamp out racism, sexism, child pornography, and basically chrimes against women and children at home and in other countries. I know that I cannot stop everything, but I would be able to stop some of the big things.

[Wab]

As the only real world power left, I believe that the US has the responsibility to help other countries.

In case you haven't noticed both Russia and China still have huge conventional and non-conventional arsenals.

That can include sending relief, aid, or military. Personally, I also think that this means that the US can make world decisions. If a world leader is genocidal, or is a mass murderer, then they have no right to be in power. It is perfectly moral to take them out.


And Americans wonder why the world thinks them arrogent.

The US itself is responsible for installing and supporting some of these leaders including our old friend Saddam.

[star22]

True, we are. Now, does that not make it even more our responsibility to take them out? We are not perfect. We have made mistakes. It is our job to correct them. Saddam murdered thousands. He needed to be taken out. Even if it was our fault, that makes it even more our job to take them out.

Why is it arrogant to say that "with power comes responsibility." I think that it makes us more noble. If we had power and only used it for our advantage, then we do not deserve the power. And, yes, I know, sometimes we do. However, in this instance, we did not.

I think that getting involved is the right thing for any country. As I said, we live in a global world. Isolationism just does not work anymore. We need to use that wisely. We need to use it not just for our own advantage, but for the world.

[Wab]

Why is it arrogant to say that "with power comes responsibility." I think that it makes us more noble. If we had power and only used it for our advantage, then we do not deserve the power. And, yes, I know, sometimes we do. However, in this instance, we did not.

The US only removed Saddam because he displeased them. Had he toed the line over these years he would still be in place and killing with impunity.

If your theory were true the US would have focussed on the North Korean regime (which is far worse tha Iraq was and actually has WMD) and it certainly wouldn't be co-operating with such vile human rights abusers as Saudi Arabia and dictatorships like Pakistan.

[star22]

Your first paragraph is ridiculous. I cannot believe that you think that. That is totally not true. The only difference is that we got a new president who was willing to do something about it. It was the president that made the difference, not that Saddam "stepped out of line."

Secondly, no we are not perfect. I never said that we were. The problem is that with North Korea, we have to be a little more careful. The situation is a little more delicate. As for the others, they were not as bad as Saddam was.

[Wab]

As for the others, they were not as bad as Saddam was.

If it's a moral imperitive as you claim that makes no difference.

But it comes down to the fact that no one country can determine how others run their affairs.

[purplehawk]

Your first paragraph is ridiculous. I cannot believe that you think that. That is totally not true. The only difference is that we got a new president who was willing to do something about it. It was the president that made the difference, not that Saddam "stepped out of line."

Secondly, no we are not perfect. I never said that we were. The problem is that with North Korea, we have to be a little more careful. The situation is a little more delicate. As for the others, they were not as bad as Saddam was.

I don't think Wab's statement is anything close to ridiculous. He spoke the truth - a truth held by fully half the American public and most of the rest of the world. I haven't checked the polls; fully half might even be short of the mark. What is ridiculous, IMO, is your last statement that the "others" were not as bad as Saddam was. There is absolutely no factual basis for what you've said. Methinks you've been listening to too much right-wing radio.

That kind of thinking is precisely why so much of the world despises us.

[Bhodi]

If your theory were true the US would have focussed on the North Korean regime (which is far worse tha Iraq was and actually has WMD) and it certainly wouldn't be co-operating with such vile human rights abusers as Saudi Arabia and dictatorships like Pakistan.

What I find humorous is how the U.S. was/is criticized for acting unilaterally in Iraq (which it didn't, by the way... whether folks like to acknowledge the fact or not, there was, indeed, a coalition of nations supporting the action...) and simultaneously was/is criticized for not acting unilaterally in North Korea... Amazing...

[purplehawk]

Not really... it's the sense of using all that firepower on a decided underdog. Makes no sense whatsoever.

[Wab]

What I find humorous is how the U.S. was/is criticized for acting unilaterally in Iraq (which it didn't, by the way... whether folks like to acknowledge the fact or not, there was, indeed, a coalition of nations supporting the action...) and simultaneously was/is criticized for not acting unilaterally in North Korea... Amazing...

True, the world got it a bit skewed. The US and its three allies acted without UN authority. If it were to be consistent it would act the same way in N Korea.

But because N Korea can put up a decent fight the US is hiding behind the authority of the UN and IAEA.

[DsX Phoenix]

Your first paragraph is ridiculous. I cannot believe that you think that. That is totally not true. The only difference is that we got a new president who was willing to do something about it. It was the president that made the difference, not that Saddam "stepped out of line."

Secondly, no we are not perfect. I never said that we were. The problem is that with North Korea, we have to be a little more careful. The situation is a little more delicate. As for the others, they were not as bad as Saddam was.

Everything in American politics always comes down to Iraq these days, doesn't it? And no, we did not go into Iraq because Saddam is a bad person. This justification was only used after the invasion. Our "reason" was that Saddam supposedly had WMD. That is why we went to the Security Council, that is why we decided to act on our own, that is why Iraq is considered (incorrectly, IMO) part of the "War on Terrorism".

The main issue I have, star, is we simply cannot afford to correctly install democracies in every country that has a dictator or tyrant running it. Look how much it is costing us in Iraq. And we are still making mistakes. Look at the effort we put in Afghanistan, and how that country is today. It is still run by warlords.

And, all of this military action is creating isolationism. Tell me, how many close allies do you think we would have, if every government in the world is afraid that we may one day decide that they are "inhumane" and take them out? None. Eventually, the world would have enough and decide to take our government out.

Then, look at all of the dictatorships we currently support. Saudi Arabia, which has a horrible human rights record. China, the largest Communist country in the world. In fact, we're not even supporting Taiwan's independence attempts, even though they are pro-democracy.

Finally, you say we have to tread more carefully in North Korea. OK, I can understand that. But, tread more carefully to accomplish, what? So far, our only goal in North Korea has been to get the Koreans to give up their nuclear program. We are not trying to get them to give up thier dictatorship, or to give more consideration to human rights. Granted, them giving up nuclear weapons is good, but it still doesn't meet your "standards".

[purplehawk]

I think the issue with North Korea is more like Mohammad and the Mountain. There is no question North Korea would fight back with everything they have - or that they have enough to give us a run for our money. So, in classic playground bully style, we chose to go after Saddam, our favorite punching bag for many years but in truth not enough of a security threat to merit a blip on the radar screen.

[OrbitingElle]

What would I do as President? NOT THIS:

Bush Allows Gays to Be Fired for Being Gay

Despite President Bush's pledge that homosexuals "ought to have the same rights" as all other people, his Administration this week ruled that homosexuals can now be fired from the federal workforce because of their sexual orientation.

According to the Federal Times, the president's appointee at the Office of Special Counsel ruled that federal employees will now "have no recourse if they are fired or demoted simply for being gay." While the Bush Administration says it is legally prohibited from firing a person for their conduct, they have the legal right to fire or demote someone based on their sexual orientation. To carry out the directive, the White House has begun removing information from government websites about sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace.

Not only does the new directive contradict the president's own promise to treat homosexuals as equals under the law, but it also contradicts what the Administration told Congress. As noted in a bipartisan letter from four Senators to the Administration, "During the confirmation process [of the president's appointee], you assured us that you were committed to protecting federal employees against unlawful discrimination related to their sexual orientation."


Story and sources listed at http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df03202004.html

[purplehawk]

Oh, my! His hubris just grows and grows.

[Bhodi]

True, the world got it a bit skewed. The US and its three allies acted without UN authority. If it were to be consistent it would act the same way in N Korea.

But because N Korea can put up a decent fight the US is hiding behind the authority of the UN and IAEA.

Interesting interpretation... I especially like the part about the "three allies"... Is that the "new, new math"? Humorous... And still amazing...

[purplehawk]

Why not try posting something helpful, Bhodi, and not rely solely on sarcasm and snide remarks? These really contribute nothing to the conversation. Just my two cents.

[DsX Phoenix]

Everyone here needs to calm down a bit, and stop with the posts that have no real usefulness to the discussion. And remember, this thread is about what we personally would do as president, not just what the president has/has not done. A little discussion into current politics is surely OK, but we need to be careful not to turn this into a purely Bush thread. There is a reason why all of those have been closedthus far...

[purplehawk]

I agree - and I apologize for my part in the Bushiness of this thread. I am frustrated to no end with the direction our country is taking, but I shouldn't be taking it out on those of with valid platforms. I'll just go away and be quiet.

[thethirdman]

As president I would remove American troops from places like Okinawa. There's no need to be there anymore.

I would cut taxes for the working and middle classes. Then I tax the CEOs and irrationally wealthy for all their worth.

I'd change the way we spend money on military. Instead of buying a whole bunch of crappy equipment that doesn't work right, I spend a bit of money on things that have the best track records.

I'd put more money into education. I'd create one national minimun standard for all schools and texts etc. I'd require thinner texts so students go in depth on important things instead of trying to cram 400+ pages into their memories. I'd require year-round school everywhere. I figure classes start in August and go until the first week of July with a two weeks in December and April as well as a no more than a week in October and May. A holiday here or there would be fine too. I'd require a national exam for anyone planning to become a teacher. And the standard for that would be high too.

Then I'd tackle public transit. I'd like to see a commuter train station is every county seat with a dependable bus system that connects surrounding cities of 500+ to the county seat. I want to see a transportation system that will help reduce the amount of interstate traffic.

Lofty goals I know, but I can dream.

[Wab]

Interesting interpretation... I especially like the part about the "three allies"... Is that the "new, new math"? Humorous... And still amazing...

I'm talking real boots on the ground combat allies not farcical "allies" like the Federated States of Micronesia whic doesn't even have a military and was worried about its aid or cheer-leaders like Spain.

The US had three combat allies in Iraq: UK, Australia and Poland.

[Bhodi]

Why not try posting something helpful, Bhodi, and not rely solely on sarcasm and snide remarks? These really contribute nothing to the conversation. Just my two cents.

Let me make sure I understand this clearly... So, Wab's [who I like immensely and would enjoy drinking a pint or two with, by the way, although we clearly don't see eye to eye on many issues] short, sarcastic response to my political observation is fine (presumably because Wab's political views align more closely with yours), yet my short, sarcastic response to his response is not okay? Interesting... Is that the way things operate up there in Buckeye Country?

And now, back to our regularly scheduled discussion...

Here's just one issue... I'd be bold as President and announce that we're axing Social Security... Those who have paid into it can be guaranteed the benefits they expected when they did, but we're establishing a cutoff point -- the Gen X-ers (since I'm a Gen X-er, I'll collectively step us up to bat for our children and grandchildren)... Those still working now will continue to pay into the system to ensure that those older folks expecting benefits actually receive the benefits... Once the elder Social Security generations have kicked the bucket, the payroll tax (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1350) will be immediately abolished... No more slush fund for the federal government to play with...

However, [since the government insists on folks preparing for retirement] workers will instead have 6.5 percent of their income [the current worker's "contribution" to SocSec through the payroll tax] automatically set aside for retirement... This 6.5 percent of their income will be put into an IRA/401k/403b/etc. account, where the worker will actually be able to choose the investment vehicle into which he or she wishes to put the money (and the guvmint won't be able to touch one penny of it!)... Imagine that -- choice! What a novel concept for a 'free' society!

[star22]

I don't think that it is a matter of completely removing social security. The problem is the age. When 65 was set up, it was the equivelent of what 100 would be today. Therefore, I think for those I guess in their 90s or older, they should have social security. However, not for anyone older. That is the big problem. People are living longer now. That takes more money.

[DsX Phoenix]

I don't think that it is a matter of completely removing social security. The problem is the age. When 65 was set up, it was the equivelent of what 100 would be today. Therefore, I think for those I guess in their 90s or older, they should have social security. However, not for anyone older. That is the big problem. People are living longer now. That takes more money.

No, it isn't the equivalent to 100 years old now. It was the age by which most Americans had retired. I believe that age is now somewhere in the 70's.

[star22]

No. The 65 thing was originally a German thing. They set it at that age because at that time not everyone even made it to that age. It was suppesed to be something that did not last a long time. It would be for someone who was near death and was incapable of working.

Now, 65 is not like that. People are still healthy and strong. people work at 65 and still get social security. That is the problem. S.S. should only be for people who really cannot work anymore.

[purplehawk]

Social Security has been treated as surplus cash by politicians, as an additional tax paid by Americans who assumed their money was going into a retirement fund for the comfort of their golden years. What is wrong with Social Security has nothing to do with how long people are living or the sheer numbers of baby boomers, of which I am one, coming to retirement age. The baby boomers have paid into Social Security like no constituency before or since.

I won't repeat myself here. Please take the time to read this post. (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=828560&postcount=49)

[Bhodi]

Social Security has been treated as surplus cash by politicians, as an additional tax paid by Americans who assumed their money was going into a retirement fund for the comfort of their golden years. What is wrong with Social Security has nothing to do with how long people are living or the sheer numbers of baby boomers, of which I am one, coming to retirement age. The baby boomers have paid into Social Security like no constituency before or since.

I won't repeat myself here. Please take the time to read this post. (http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=828560&postcount=49)

Great article! Thanks for linking it, PH! (And it's nice to see we agree on some things, eh? ;) )...

Though I can embrace and agree with the main solution as presented in the article, there's clearly one big problem... It requires Congress to enact and the President not to veto legislation that takes the Social Security surplus away from the sticky fingers of said Congress and President... Call me crazy, but I just don't see that happening (much like I term limits -- great idea until you're elected to office)...

[Wab]

Let me make sure I understand this clearly... So, Wab's [who I like immensely and would enjoy drinking a pint or two with, by the way, although we clearly don't see eye to eye on many issues]

Any time your in this neck of the woods. I have two pubs at the end of my street.

[purplehawk]

I know, Bhodi. Honestly, the pilfering of Social Security was something I grew up hearing about from my grandfather. He was a veteran of WWI and fought in France. He was also a big supporter of many of Roosevelt's initiatives, particularly Social Security. He occasionally took us fishing, but more often than not we had conversations about the workings of the government. I recall learning about the Electoral College before I hit a double-digit age. Back to Social Security, though, Grandpa was dead-on foresighted in what he said would happen and how the Washington establishment would try to excuse it away. Incredible, considering how long ago we discussed it. He died in 1965.

You know, I could use a cuppa too. I really wonder how stupid those inside the Beltway think we really are. A silent majority has no business existing in a country that is supposed to be governed by the people.