Jesse MS3GT
Querulous
^they have heard waaaay more than enough about Rp from me, im pretty sure they are sick of hearing about him lmao
what do you want in our nations next president
- Thread starter ij1889
- Start date
ZoomZoom Diva
New Member
OK... here goes...
The first and most important thing I expect from any president is that (s)he actually keeps the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. This means that no legislation is proposed and all legislation is vetoed that falls outside of the enumerated powers granted to the federal government. This means the federal government must stay out of education, must uphold citizens' rights by repealing the spy acts ("Patriot" Act and others), stop blackmailing the states by holding their interstate commerce and defense responsibilities hostage, and remove themselves from numerous places they have no business being in the first place.
Second is fiscal responsibility. I expect the president to set the tone and pace that all budgets be balanced at the very least and better are designed with a 10% surplus to pay down on the debt. Any unbalanced budget is vetoed without consideration, dead on arrival.
The social contract is one amongst people, not government. While some are quick to speak of society's obligations to those in need, they fail to mention the responsibility of the individual to not be a burden on society. This means that assistance should be temporary and through private charities funded by voluntary donations.
On taxation, the only ethical tax is a flat rate income tax. It is unethical and discriminatory for a person to pay a different percentage of income in taxes based on any demographic or behavior choice within the law.
We need to get out of Iraq by forcing the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country. If they can't hold it, it's their loss, not ours. Terrorism is a crime, not a military action. Treat terrorist group like organized crime gangs and use international police organizations to fight them everywhere. However, it must be done in a way that preserves the rights of all, as that is the essential fact here.
That's at least a start...
The first and most important thing I expect from any president is that (s)he actually keeps the oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution. This means that no legislation is proposed and all legislation is vetoed that falls outside of the enumerated powers granted to the federal government. This means the federal government must stay out of education, must uphold citizens' rights by repealing the spy acts ("Patriot" Act and others), stop blackmailing the states by holding their interstate commerce and defense responsibilities hostage, and remove themselves from numerous places they have no business being in the first place.
Second is fiscal responsibility. I expect the president to set the tone and pace that all budgets be balanced at the very least and better are designed with a 10% surplus to pay down on the debt. Any unbalanced budget is vetoed without consideration, dead on arrival.
The social contract is one amongst people, not government. While some are quick to speak of society's obligations to those in need, they fail to mention the responsibility of the individual to not be a burden on society. This means that assistance should be temporary and through private charities funded by voluntary donations.
On taxation, the only ethical tax is a flat rate income tax. It is unethical and discriminatory for a person to pay a different percentage of income in taxes based on any demographic or behavior choice within the law.
We need to get out of Iraq by forcing the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country. If they can't hold it, it's their loss, not ours. Terrorism is a crime, not a military action. Treat terrorist group like organized crime gangs and use international police organizations to fight them everywhere. However, it must be done in a way that preserves the rights of all, as that is the essential fact here.
That's at least a start...
dmention7
Hater
Really, all I want is someone who is an american first and a politician second. Is it really that much to ask that "the leader of the free world" would make decisions based first on what is best for the country and not what is best for their career or their ego? These people are all damn billionaires anyways, so would it really kill them to spend 4 years of their life in service to their country instead of just amassing more personal power and wealth?
YSOSLO
is the word, beotch
I think Zoom Zoom Diva makes some excellent points, especially with regard to the Constitution and budgeting. With regard to the welfare/social assistance side of things, I feel that if it were left solely to the private sector to provide temporary assistance to those in need that the assistance would most likely never be available on a large enough scale to be effective. Also, the unspoken omission we have to acknowledge as well here is that, if we as a country aren't providing any assistance to our own citizens, then we also aren't providing any assistance to any other citizens of the world either. And while this separationist policy will certainly reap HUGE tax benefits and allow us to pay down our national debt much faster than we expect to at this point, it also puts us in a very difficult position in the worldwide community. We might be viewed as the selfish superpower and that would be certain to bring anger, hatred and retribution our way.
The other issue I would expand a bit more on is the taxation mentioned. While a flat tax seems like the fairest way to tax a nation, we would have to then also eliminate ALL loopholes that would allow individuals and businesses to receive any sort of special treatment to be fair to all, which is going to restrict our "free trade" society because individual communities and states will no longer be able to entice or incent businesses to locate in their community which will be certain to effect employment opportunities throughout the country. I believe a better option would be to combine a flat income tax with a usage tax on ALL goods and services in addition to strict tarriffs for any company importing assembled goods from outside the U.S. to the point where the thought of having a product made outside the U.S. by an "American" company is unheard of. That keeps the labor opportunities here on native soil and would (hopefully) eliminate the massive trade deficit we've had for decades now.
One other little tidbit that I believe would make a huge difference in our society as a whole is if Congress was compensated based on a percentage of the average of the national income not to exceed 200%, and their pension and health insurance were both also dependent on national averages. This would eliminate a lot of the desire for the rich to get into Congress, which currently assures them and their family the best possible benefits and pension of anyone in the U.S. It would also incent them to do whatever they can to better the income and insurance for ALL in our country, because the only way their salary and insurance gets better is if they do what they can to make the salary and insurance of the citizens of this country better too. Can you imagine?....no more voting themselves a raise. They have to EARN a raise through helping the rest of us. It would be interesting to see what 50 years of THAT type of policy brings about. I know it's super crazy liberal talk, but the status quo has gotten us so far down the wrong path that it would seem as if extreme measures might be in order. It'll never happen of course, but it's fun to imagine.
The other issue I would expand a bit more on is the taxation mentioned. While a flat tax seems like the fairest way to tax a nation, we would have to then also eliminate ALL loopholes that would allow individuals and businesses to receive any sort of special treatment to be fair to all, which is going to restrict our "free trade" society because individual communities and states will no longer be able to entice or incent businesses to locate in their community which will be certain to effect employment opportunities throughout the country. I believe a better option would be to combine a flat income tax with a usage tax on ALL goods and services in addition to strict tarriffs for any company importing assembled goods from outside the U.S. to the point where the thought of having a product made outside the U.S. by an "American" company is unheard of. That keeps the labor opportunities here on native soil and would (hopefully) eliminate the massive trade deficit we've had for decades now.
One other little tidbit that I believe would make a huge difference in our society as a whole is if Congress was compensated based on a percentage of the average of the national income not to exceed 200%, and their pension and health insurance were both also dependent on national averages. This would eliminate a lot of the desire for the rich to get into Congress, which currently assures them and their family the best possible benefits and pension of anyone in the U.S. It would also incent them to do whatever they can to better the income and insurance for ALL in our country, because the only way their salary and insurance gets better is if they do what they can to make the salary and insurance of the citizens of this country better too. Can you imagine?....no more voting themselves a raise. They have to EARN a raise through helping the rest of us. It would be interesting to see what 50 years of THAT type of policy brings about. I know it's super crazy liberal talk, but the status quo has gotten us so far down the wrong path that it would seem as if extreme measures might be in order. It'll never happen of course, but it's fun to imagine.
ij1889
New Member
there are a couple things i want to add to this little quote here,
1. as we all know the war is just a front to give a single man crazy power.
2. k i agree that bin laden an al qaeda were a threat that we should kick some ass
3. last time i knew islam was a religion
4. is he saying that we have to wipe out all islam(meaning Muslims?)
5. this guy sounds like fucking hitler making a race sound bad, i mean fuck ive had best friends that followed islam and i dont believe that they wanted to blow up the school or anything like that, even tho i gave him the nickname of t-bomb
and as for welfare shit is more fucked up than anything, example when my dad died in 92 the social security gave my family (mom, brother, and i) a check for about $1,000 each, so thats 3 thousand, the catch was that my mom could not work or else they would take away all the check, we did fine in ecuador my mom even started working and she called them and said "i am currently employed" and what did they do because of her honesty, they stop paying us for a couple months, then we came back to the states and once my brother turned 25 and i turned 18 they took both mine and his away which i understand we are grown men and we can look after ourselves now, but then my mom is left with only $1,000 dollars a month and if she works she doesnt receive that help how is someone supposed to live with just $1,000 dollars a month(just in case my mom after the accident that my father died in never fully recuperated) so my mom said fuck it and she is now working not receiving any help from the social security, the point im trying to make is that welfare only encourages people to not work instead of helping them in most occasions.
ZoomZoom Diva
New Member
YSOSLO, charitable aid to other nations would also be in the form of voluntary charitable donations through nonprofit organizations. The nonprofit sector (which is separate from the private sector) is enormous and generally more efficient than government. If people will not donate their own money to a cause, they have no business asking government to spend money on it either. Also, the bottom line is these programs are not Constitutional, as government was never given the enumerated power to be a charity.
Liberals love social programs because it is much easier to spend other people's money than their own. Conservatives have been shown to donate a larger percentage of income to charitable causes.
We're already viewed as the selfish superpower, and no matter what we do or don't do, we're blamed for interfering too much or not enough or incorrectly or whatever. With our debt, we really can't afford to do it anymore anyway.
A flat tax implicitly means that there are no deductions or loopholes on a federal level.The Constitution does not empower the federal government to force the state and local governments to eliminate tax incentives. I am against any consumption or sales or value added taxes as they are discriminatory based on behavior. Ethical taxation has no variables to the percent of your income you pay in taxes. I am also against protectionist tariffs, as these only increase the cost of goods and waste our resources on things it is better to let others do so we can focus on places where we hold a competitive advantage. However, I would be pushing strongly from the removal of trade barriers from our exports.
I disagree Congressional pay and benefits should be tied to national averages. First, the pay and benefits need to be high enough to attract talent from the private sector. Second, people are responsible to better their own income and benefits, not government. Third, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to act in those areas.
Liberals love social programs because it is much easier to spend other people's money than their own. Conservatives have been shown to donate a larger percentage of income to charitable causes.
We're already viewed as the selfish superpower, and no matter what we do or don't do, we're blamed for interfering too much or not enough or incorrectly or whatever. With our debt, we really can't afford to do it anymore anyway.
A flat tax implicitly means that there are no deductions or loopholes on a federal level.The Constitution does not empower the federal government to force the state and local governments to eliminate tax incentives. I am against any consumption or sales or value added taxes as they are discriminatory based on behavior. Ethical taxation has no variables to the percent of your income you pay in taxes. I am also against protectionist tariffs, as these only increase the cost of goods and waste our resources on things it is better to let others do so we can focus on places where we hold a competitive advantage. However, I would be pushing strongly from the removal of trade barriers from our exports.
I disagree Congressional pay and benefits should be tied to national averages. First, the pay and benefits need to be high enough to attract talent from the private sector. Second, people are responsible to better their own income and benefits, not government. Third, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to act in those areas.
Jesse MS3GT
Querulous
^ I agree with the Congressional pay. Why? If you are making more than the average man, you do not understand the needs of the average man; none the less poor. Liberals fail to understand big rich white men on either side do NOT care about the middle class and poor. They only appear to cater to you.
What you may call "talent" I call "greed". Greedy men are more likely to take a position like that because of the pay. Take away the pay, and a successful UNSELFISH man will gladly work for less to support his fellow man out of goodness, not green.
What you may call "talent" I call "greed". Greedy men are more likely to take a position like that because of the pay. Take away the pay, and a successful UNSELFISH man will gladly work for less to support his fellow man out of goodness, not green.
Last edited:
dmention7
Hater
I would agree with that to a large extent. The last place we need greedy power-hungry people is in the capitol. If the elected positions are attracting those types of people, then the compensation is too high, plain and simple.
ZoomZoom Diva
New Member
Unfortunately, the low level of compensation we have now is attracting people more interested in personal glory than in attracting the type of leadership material we need. Making the compensation even lower will likely eliminate the few public servants we have in Congress, as one can barely make ends meet for two households on their current salary. The whole concept of successful unselfish public servants is a nice ideal, but it's not realistic.
Seriously, I don't feel having something in common with an income demographic will magically enable you to understand others with that demographic in common. There simply is no singular or small set of experiences that typify "poor" or "middle-class" just as there isn't one for "rich". I'd rather have strict adherence to the Constitution than be understood. Frankly, I'd rather be left alone.
Seriously, I don't feel having something in common with an income demographic will magically enable you to understand others with that demographic in common. There simply is no singular or small set of experiences that typify "poor" or "middle-class" just as there isn't one for "rich". I'd rather have strict adherence to the Constitution than be understood. Frankly, I'd rather be left alone.
Jesse MS3GT
Querulous
The current salary (2008) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $169,300 per year.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm
Barely make ends meet? They make in one year what I make in 8!
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm
Barely make ends meet? They make in one year what I make in 8!
dmention7
Hater
Hmm, that's a good point also. I forget that the average US congressperson is probably not relying on their salary to pay the bills.
Jesse MS3GT
Querulous
The most successful congresspersons/politicians are the ones who support the corporations the most. They are also the ones who become electable as presidents etc
If you cant be bought you wont be elected.
If you cant be bought you wont be elected.
ZoomZoom Diva
New Member
You try maintaining a household in a respectable area of the Washington D.C. metro plus one in your home district and the various costs you incur.
ij1889
New Member
169k in washington is practically nothing, the housing cost more there than here, thats fucking redicoulus, i have heard pf new politicians rooming together when first starting bc its really that expensive, i mean sure you do have the big rich ones that can afford gold toilets, but there are also the politicians that are starting out barely making it
Jesse MS3GT
Querulous
What does it matter where someone lives or how much money they have while they are trying to better the country? Do you think the founding fathers were making bank? Hell no, and they did the best job out of them all.
Its just shallow materialism. You cannot flaunt your integrity, character and intellect by showing off your huge house.
M
mazdamn02
Guest
For god's sake. Do you think George Washington lived in a box? No! He had a fuckin mansion and slaves. Don't try to make it out that the 'founding fathers' were saints.
The current salary (2008) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $169,300 per year.
I don't know about you, but that sounds fair. Plus they don't get to have slaves.
What are you trying to prove Jesse?
The current salary (2008) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $169,300 per year.
I don't know about you, but that sounds fair. Plus they don't get to have slaves.
What are you trying to prove Jesse?
Jesse MS3GT
Querulous
I am not trying to prove anything, just making a point. Why are you getting so worked up? Relax lol but
Just because someone is rich it does not make them intellectual, nor does that mean they have integrity and principle.
We should elect people based on who they are, and what they have to offer as an official. Not based on what they have. I would prefer someone who made his own clothing and lead a modest life with integrity over someone whos materialistic and says "Look at how successful I am, look at my material possessions... I am a leader. My point is wealth should not matter when electing someone.
MLK jr? Gandhi? They would have made poor political leaders...
Just because someone is rich it does not make them intellectual, nor does that mean they have integrity and principle.
We should elect people based on who they are, and what they have to offer as an official. Not based on what they have. I would prefer someone who made his own clothing and lead a modest life with integrity over someone whos materialistic and says "Look at how successful I am, look at my material possessions... I am a leader. My point is wealth should not matter when electing someone.
MLK jr? Gandhi? They would have made poor political leaders...
M
mazdamn02
Guest
What point are you trying to make again?
What does the fact that members of the house and senate make an average of $169k have to do with electing people based on their integrity and principle? People with money can be trust worthy, in some cases they get their money because they worked hard for it.
How does it matter that they make 8 times what you make in a year? That's not the point here. If you want to make more money do something else. Tell me what your point is and we'll continue...
Don't tell me to relax, I'm perfectly calm. I'm just trying to understand your mistrust of people that aren't impoverished.
upgtx
New Member
I agree, regardless of all other things, people can be slime balls or angels. Depends on the person, not any other factor in my opinion.
You can generalize and say, "Well, blah blah blah, they are only looking to keep themselves rich..." But, you are making a GENERALIZATION, which are always full of examples that prove the generalization wrong, and most of the time those generalizations are labelled as negative stereotypes and people flip out about them.
As far as who I am going to vote for.... Obama, because he seems the least corrupt/evil.
You can generalize and say, "Well, blah blah blah, they are only looking to keep themselves rich..." But, you are making a GENERALIZATION, which are always full of examples that prove the generalization wrong, and most of the time those generalizations are labelled as negative stereotypes and people flip out about them.
As far as who I am going to vote for.... Obama, because he seems the least corrupt/evil.
ZoomZoom Diva
New Member
My problem with Obama is it seems his answer to every problem is the copious application of taxpayer money. His website seems to be all about spending more on this program or creating that new program.
Increasing compensation to attract talent has nothing to do with valuing rich people over others. In fact, when the compensation is not enough to cover the costs of holding office, middle class and poor people can't afford to serve in those offices as they don't have the money to pay for their living expenses.
Increasing compensation to attract talent has nothing to do with valuing rich people over others. In fact, when the compensation is not enough to cover the costs of holding office, middle class and poor people can't afford to serve in those offices as they don't have the money to pay for their living expenses.