• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I'm Running For Office

thaiboxerken said:
You can be my running-mate. The PACNW will become the new location for government.
Click to expand...

OK then. After the election, a few strategically placed nukes should take care of that problem.

AS
 
Freakshow said:
How are you going to make this happen? Clinton had a stock market bubble that made this possible. How are you going to accomplish this without such a condition?

Edited to clarify: I'm not saying it couldn't be done, I'm saying it made it MUCH easier. You will have a much tougher job than he did. So how will you accomodate the difference?
Click to expand...

Without a stock market surge, it may not be as rapid as Clinton achieved. However, I believe I can reduce the budget by working against waste and unnecessary corporate give-aways. More can be achieved by investing in infrastructure that allows for economic growth. I will close tax loopholes, and ensure that government contracts primarily go to American tax-paying firms.

The most important method, however, will be fiscal discipline. I will demonstrate that in my budget proposals and require the same of Congress.
 
clarsct said:
gnome: How, exactly, would we save Social Security?
Click to expand...


I don't believe Social Security is in jeapordy. I intend to meet the commitments of the program. If that means spending money from the general budget beyond collected SS taxes, is that any different from adding to a budget for any other program? If the demographic imbalance persists, a different scheme for collection may be necessary. I don't see the real crisis except that someone may need to *gasp* raise taxes. Between that and abandoning senior citizens, I'll do that in a second.

Finally, what is your Iraq War Exit Strategy?
Click to expand...

This may sound familiar, I intend to rebuild our alliances and make it an international effort. I do not know if I would use the UN in particular--it depends what they offer and how well I think they would meet their commitments. But I would seek to broaden the coalition and share in the process of rebuilding the country's infrastructure and society. That's the broader context in which I intend to work. Specifically, we're stuck with the job that's being done... fighting insurgency, training a nationalized police and army force, and rebuilding. We can begin to exit Iraq as they achieve self-sufficiency. However, to succeed we need the alliance and trust of the Iraqi people. We need to give them reason to distance themselves from the insurgency which presents us as predators rather than helpers.
 
ranson said:
What are the candidates' opinions on a flat tax, seeing as many feel it could eliminate loopholes that allow the rich to avoid paying a fair percentage of income, while saving on administrative costs? Do you feel that this a good interpretation of the idea, and would you support such a tax if it made it's way to you for signature?

Edited for apostrope use.
Click to expand...

I believe a flat tax is probably not appropriate. A moderately progressive tax encourages those with more money to reinvest it rather than accumulating it. I'll go out on a limb here--in the strictest sense it may not seem fair to charge a greater percentage with those of higher income. I believe it is reflected in the fact that the wealthier americans have benefited more from the security and investments made by the government.

However, I have heard modified flat-tax proposals that give breaks to those with the least income, then become flat after that. I would consider such proposals depending on its individual details and how sufficiently it would meet budgetary needs.
 
AmateurScientist said:
Can't be done. Economic disparity is a fact of civilization and natural resources.
Click to expand...

My opponent here, AmateurScientist, would have you believe that the problem of poverty is inherent in the fact that economic disparity is inevitable.

While I agree with the latter, I do not believe it is mutually exclusive to fight poverty and accept a difference between the wealthy and the poor. The income gap does not require that the lower END of that income gap be insufficient for basic survival and health. I would not flatten the difference between the rich and the poor--that's communism. Uh uh, no way. People in my nation can still become wealthy... but the "poor" at least should have basic necessities met--either by having a job, or with appropriate benefits if they have a qualifying need.
 
gnome said:
A moderately progressive tax encourages those with more money to reinvest it rather than accumulating it.
Click to expand...

I'm not following you at all here. How do you define "reinvest" and "accumulate"? And how does a progressive tax encourage one over the other?

My confusion comes from the fact that people with a lot of money "accumulate" it by "investing" it. Rich people don't store their millions in their mattresses.
 
Lurker said:
for me, two candidates stand out as possibly having my vote. Back to a couple more questions.

1. Would you do anything to protect American manufacturing jobs?

2. In the likely event that one of the big 3 automakers goes belly up, will you do anything?

3. What should we do about North Korea? Iran?

Lurker
Click to expand...

1. I would look into (and if appropriate, enact) the proposal that all work for government contracts with American firms be performed by American employees--specifically, citizens or legally resident aliens. I would also try to reduce the incentive to ship jobs overseas with the tax break initiatives mentioned before.

2. It would depend upon the circumstances, whether federal intervention would be appropriate.

3. North Korea is a tough situation. I believe we must continue to apply pressure to them (in combination with other area nations) to curtail and disarm their nuclear program. If they won't cooperate, sanctions of some kind may be necessary. I believe they have spent their chance of earning concessions with their cooperation--instead now they face penalty without it. I am likely to stop short of direct military intervention, though I will make sure that my generals have a plan should that become necessary.

(by "necessary" I mean in response to an act of war by North Korea)

Iran may be on the verge of change. I would take care to contain any aggression and do whatever needed to support a more open society there. However as we have learned so painfully there in the past, direct interference can backfire badly. I am likely to wait and watch, mostly.
 
Blondin said:
For all candidates:

Did you inhale?
Click to expand...


I'll say it. Yes. So did most of you. I never formed a habit, in fact have only done so on two or three occasions. If you believe that disqualifies me for president, don't vote for me.

Would you consider abolishing the death penalty?
Click to expand...


I would do my best to. While I believe some criminals deserve death, I don't think we can administer a death penalty with sufficient fairness and cost-effectiveness. Anyone that would otherwise get the death penalty would instead receive a life term without possibility of parole. That would likely be cheaper even than the legal resources required to fairly administer a death penalty, and allows freeing the wrongly convicted.
 
gnome said:
My opponent here, AmateurScientist, would have you believe that the problem of poverty is inherent in the fact that economic disparity is inevitable.
Click to expand...

I told you I'm not going to attack anyone before the election, and here you go trying to tell the voters what my position is.

I'll have a special surprise for you after the election. I hope you have a really deep bunker.


While I agree with the latter, I do not believe it is mutually exclusive to fight poverty and accept a difference between the wealthy and the poor. The income gap does not require that the lower END of that income gap be insufficient for basic survival and health. I would not flatten the difference between the rich and the poor--that's communism. Uh uh, no way. People in my nation can still become wealthy... but the "poor" at least should have basic necessities met--either by having a job, or with appropriate benefits if they have a qualifying need.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. There are plenty of unemployable persons in our society. Besides the mentally challenged and physically disabled persons, there is a substantial underclass of persons who simply have never been taught many basic skills that so many of us take for granted. For example, lots of underprivileged persons have no idea how to properly shake a hand, how to fill out a job application, how to create a resume, how to dress for a job interview, or how to stand upright and look someone in the eye when talking to them. In addition, a very sizeable portion of persons in our society has never had a bank account, a home telephone, a driver's license, or insurance of any kind. They pay for all their basic needs in cash. Look inside the offices of your utility companies and phone companies when bills are due. They have long lines of poor people standing and waiting to pay their bills in cash. They drive and have to show up in court periodically for tickets for improper tags and driving without a license, and they are continually on probation and making payments to local courts. These people need some very basic training in economic and life skills.

There are lots of even middle-aged adults who simply can't function in society without government assistance. Our entitlement state encourages that and keeps them as economic slaves.

Government benefits keep people dependent on the state and encourages them not to develop basic life skills. There are whole subcultures and large neighborhoods in which virtually no one has such basic skills. Throwing money at them is no way to end poverty.

The best approach I have ever seen is having local persons from their communities who have broken the cycle of dependence and being social outcasts return to teach their own kind how to break out of the cycle. I cannot remember the name of the private, non-government program I have in mind, but 60 Minutes did a truly uplifting story about it about 7 years ago. Persons who had escaped the cycle of dependence on government benefits had moved into the middle class and had respectable jobs and their own homes. They returned to their new neighborhoods and formed community outreach centers for the residents. Adults came into their classes and were taught basic life skills, such as how to shake a hand, how to stand up straight, and how to act in a job interview. It was amazing how crude and unskilled most of the people were at the beginning, and to see the incredible transformation most of them made after a few months of class. During the course of learning basic skills, they also learned self-respect, self-reliance, and responsibility. Upon graduation from the program, most of them landed jobs. When they returned to report their successes to their teachers and fellow students, they were the proudest people on earth.

That's how to get poor people out of poverty. They need a little push from people they can relate to and trust. That has to come from their own communities. It can happen and should. It's just not going to occur with government programs. Those outreach programs are private enterprises led by local entrepreneurs, and they are achieving success. Government has almost always failed miserably at the same task.

Even with successful programs like that, there will always be people unmotivated to avail themselves of them or to complete them. In fact, the instructors kicked several people out of the program near the beginning for such infractions as showing up late or refusing to stand up in class when asked. Poor attitudes and a lack of ambition killed those persons' chances. You are simply not going to eliminate that problem, ever.

Accept it. Poverty is a way of life for some people. Some of them have it thrust upon them, and that's not fair, but that's the way it is. Others seem to bring it on themselves and are pretty hopeless. They simply will never be self-reliant or responsible citizens. Again, you can bemoan how it shouldn't be that way, but it is.

Anyway, like I said earlier, the only way to end poverty is to get rid of poor people. I will ensure there are plenty of tanks for that purpose if I decide to end poverty. It I do, it will be at my whim. That's how I will rule.

AS
 
So far, my vote is between AS and TBK. I'm still thinking. I like TBK's stance on the issues, but AS' attitude really hits home with me.

Gnome is a distant 3rd, and will only get elected if both AS and TBK don't live to see the election (hint, hint).

As for the possibility of my voting for CL...
:dl:
 
Freakshow said:
I'm not following you at all here. How do you define "reinvest" and "accumulate"? And how does a progressive tax encourage one over the other?

My confusion comes from the fact that people with a lot of money "accumulate" it by "investing" it. Rich people don't store their millions in their mattresses.
Click to expand...

Bah. Allow me to retract that. Serves me right for answering too quickly--the point I was trying to make doesn't work.

There are still plenty of reasons to have a progressive tax. If you are unfamiliar with the general case I can point to some info.
 
I have no argument with the fact that some people have personality issues that prevent them from being self-sufficient. As a society we will fight that until the end of time. What I argue is that it is not ECONOMICALLY necessary for anyone to live in poverty.
 
gnome said:
Bah. Allow me to retract that. Serves me right for answering too quickly--the point I was trying to make doesn't work.

There are still plenty of reasons to have a progressive tax. If you are unfamiliar with the general case I can point to some info.
Click to expand...

No prob. I am familiar with the arguments for and against. :)

I asked because...I have met some people that actually DO think that rich people hoard their money by just having a bunch of cash sitting around in a vault somewhere. Based on seeing many other posts from you, I knew that you knew better. Which is why I asked, rather than just writing it off and thinking "what an idiot". Because I know you're not. :)

But you're still not getting my vote, unless you take care of AS or TBK (hint hint, my services are available.) Or if you can promise me some sort of position in your new government.
 
Freakshow said:
No prob. I am familiar with the arguments for and against. :)

I asked because...I have met some people that actually DO think that rich people hoard their money by just having a bunch of cash sitting around in a vault somewhere. Based on seeing many other posts from you, I knew that you knew better. Which is why I asked, rather than just writing it off and thinking "what an idiot". Because I know you're not. :)

But you're still not getting my vote, unless you take care of AS or TBK (hint hint, my services are available.) Or if you can promise me some sort of position in your new government.
Click to expand...

I might just pick you as a running mate because I could use someone whose viewpoint differs significantly from mine to call me on my bull.
 
AmateurScientist said:
Stand still young man, while I draw a bead on you. I don't want to waste any extra ammo.

AS
Click to expand...

Howard Dean - like response noted. But, at least you called me young :D
 
AmateurScientist said:
HUGE BLOCK OF TEXT
Click to expand...

Delphi Ote, I'm Running for Office Times. Mr. AmateurScientist, being that some speculate John Kerry's difficulty connecting with voters was caused by his inability to state his opinions concisely, do you fear scaring away potential supporters with intimidating blocks of text?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom