# What changes would you make? (political)



## Tina (Nov 14, 2005)

This sort of thing makes me crazy. What's with the Deer in the Headlights Syndrome? Hurricane Katrina hits and it takes, what, ten days for FEMA to give any actual help, while WalMart, of all places, has already been providing water? 9/11 happens, and we see complacency when it comes to actually protecting us, and we find that no real plans are in place and there are no real protections in place to prevent anything of the sort from happening? And what about this bird flu? I've been reading for almost two years about how some sort of superflu, whether it's the bird flu or not, is going to kill millions of us and they are only NOW starting to try to see if they can make TamiFlu (which will take a long time), and they have no real plans in place?

Do you have any ideas about what you would do were you in charge, or just any suggestions as to what should be done? Not that it makes much difference, because nobody listens to us regular citizens, but dang, there has to be some better ways out there than what is being done -- or not being done -- in Washington.

*US faulted on handling nuclear threat*

By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent 2 hours, 49 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government is not doing enough to protect nuclear weapons from terrorists and its handling of terrorism suspects is undermining America's image in the Muslim world, members of a commission that investigated the September 11 attacks said on Monday.

Although President George W. Bush calls arms proliferation the country's biggest threat and al Qaeda has sought nuclear weapons for a decade, the former commission's chairman Thomas Kean said, "the most striking thing to us is that the size of the problem still totally dwarfs the policy response."

"In short, we still do not have a maximum effort against the most urgent threat ... to the American people," he told a news conference, noting that half the nuclear materials in Russia still have no security upgrade.

The bipartisan commission was established by the U.S. Congress to investigate the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the
Pentagon by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network that killed nearly 3,000 people.

It formally disbanded after submitting its final report in July last year, but members continue working as the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, which tracks implementation of the report's recommendations.

Monday's report recorded little progress on combating weapons proliferation as well as on U.S. foreign policy and public diplomacy issues,

"This kind of grade -- unfulfilled, insufficient, minimal progress -- those grades are failing grades ... That is an unacceptable response," Commission member Timothy Roemer said.

The panel attributed the poor results to the difficulty of the tasks and a divided government that is easily distracted even from urgent priorities.

GROWING DIVISIONS

The 9/11 commission had stressed the need for leaders to work together to protect the country but "if anything, we have become less unified and more partisan," commissioner Jamie Gorelick said.

Although the panel was encouraged by the appointment of Karen Hughes, Bush's close aide, as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, Vice chairman Lee Hamilton said Muslim world distrust remained high and "detainee abuse in
Abu Ghraib (prison in
Iraq), Guantanamo and elsewhere undermines America's reputation as a moral leader."

The United States was sharply criticized for its handling of detainees after photographs of guards abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq shocked the world.

U.S. forces have held hundreds of detainees at known facilities outside the United States, such as Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since September 11 but senior al Qaeda leaders have been kept in secret detention facilities overseas.

The Washington Post last week disclosed the existence of
CIA secret prisons in eastern Europe.

Meanwhile, Vice President
Dick Cheney has spearheaded an effort in Congress to have the CIA exempt from an amendment by Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) that would ban torture and

inhumane treatment of prisoners. Bush threatened to veto the defense bill containing the amendment without the exemption.

Commissioner Richard Ben Veniste strongly endorsed the McCain amendment and said as leaders debate it, "the moral authority of our nation hangs in the balance."

Others on the 10-member commission did not specifically take sides on this politically-charged legislation.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 14, 2005)

Well of course it can be argued that the problems in FEMA were institutional or even endemic, however being that is was staffed and linked with incompetant morons. Anyhoo. 

Anyway, if I were in the shoes of the President, given the limitations of that role in the present form of government. Hmmmm. Well get rid of all Bush's cronies and replace them with mine. Sort out the economy trying to reduce the massive budget blowout. Reduce government spending in all areas to stop the slide into massive debt since Kenysian economic handling has largly been discredited, try and get the balance of payments and trade back into line so as to keep interest rates low. Start building up a stockpile of anti-flue vaccines, not jsut Tami-flu because it may not be that effective, or the the virus may mutate. Get rid of Guantanimo Bay detention, its a disaster. However having inherited the economy in a very dangerous situation, it would be a top priority, followed by bird flu, then security recomendations as outlined, then whatever else there is.


----------



## Emma (Nov 14, 2005)

I'm just wondering what happened to political discussions being banned from this board?


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 14, 2005)

I would reverse the unnessary tax cuts and dramatically cut the defense budget. I would use the freed up money to protect the country against any and all public health disasters including avian flu. I would spend a lot of funds on disaster relief. I would spend the rest of the money on deficit reduction, education and transportation.


----------



## Jes (Nov 14, 2005)

Make Levees Not War


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 14, 2005)

Of course just pumping money into establishments may not help them totally, many sweeping reforms would have to be included as well.


----------



## Tina (Nov 14, 2005)

CurvyEm said:


> I'm just wondering what happened to political discussions being banned from this board?



From what was posted, and I'd link it, but can't remember where it was, they're not banned. Why, do they bother you? I put "political" in the heading so those who don't want to be a part of, or even see, political discussions can conveniently avoid them.



Australian Lord said:


> Well of course it can be argued that the problems in FEMA were institutional or even endemic, however being that is was staffed and linked with incompetant morons. Anyhoo.



True. But it sure didn't improve with a new administration. Gov't being gov't, so often things are not done in the most efficient, expeditious, or commonsense way, unfortuantely. But what we've seen here, since 9/11, is amazingly dismaying. I have to say I expected more.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 14, 2005)

Well the elected government does have the power to change those establishments and institutions, however they will change by themselves, and will often be left behind in expediency and incompetance.


----------



## Emma (Nov 14, 2005)

Tina said:


> From what was posted, and I'd link it, but can't remember where it was, they're not banned. Why, do they bother you? I put "political" in the heading so those who don't want to be a part of, or even see, political discussions can conveniently avoid them.



They bother me because feuds from the political debates carry on over to "normal" threads. And yeah Conrad did say they were banned on the old board. Dunno if that still counts.


----------



## Tina (Nov 14, 2005)

I haven't seen that as a problem here, and think the new board format will help in that area. Given that Conrad himself has participated in a political thread, I think that says something, aside from the message that AnnMarie relayed in the message I referenced, but cannot find, earlier.


----------



## Tragdor (Nov 14, 2005)

we need to end corporate welfare, farming subsidies, and tariffs. If we are going to promote globalization we should practice what we preach.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 14, 2005)

Step one: Put the guys from Georgetown University's National Security Archives in charge of handling FOIA requests.

Step two: Settle the Cobell v. Norton case in favor of the Native Americans.

Step three: Return the Black Hills to the Lakota Sioux. Go back and honor all treaties with Native Americans, for that matter. It's time to end those wars.

Step four: Cut the budget so it could be supported by a flat tax of 5%.

Step five: Keep current taxing where it is so the national debt can be paid off in a decade or two.

Step six: dodge the bullets...


----------



## Zoom (Nov 14, 2005)

Death to all riff-raff!


----------



## fatlane (Nov 14, 2005)

_First, let's kill all the lawyers..._


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 14, 2005)

First, I'd set out my overriding goals, recognizing that any and all of them could require modifications in the process of their development and execution. (The devil is always in the details.) These would include:

1. Reducing our dependence on oil, i.e., _seriously_ pursuing conservation and alternative energy sources.
2. Setting and following a realistic timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.
3. Immediately canceling the Bush tax cut extension.
4. Completely overhauling our tax structure - working toward real simplification and fairness while balancing the budget and eliminating the deficit.
5. Pulling back our military from overseas bases that have little or no military significance.
6. Working toward creating a "clean bill" law to prevent politicians from attaching pork barrel riders to legitimate bills.
7. Helping McCain pass his anti-torture legislation. 
8. Working with other world leaders to cut greenhouse gas emissions; developing a realistic program to do so at home.
9. Restoring protections for our national forests and closing the Alaskan wilderness to oil drilling; enforcing and strengthening environmental laws and regulations.
10. Identifying and eliminating all foreign aid that does not verifiably aid the needy or protect legitimate democracies from real threats. (That, I suspect, would eliminate most of it.)
11. Identifying and eliminating all government programs that do not protect or benefit most ordinary citizens (and I'm ruling out any "trickle down" bullshit here).
12. Repealing all provisions of the Patriot Act that interfere with personal liberties or allow spying on American citizens without probable cause. 
13. Repealing all broad subsidies and corporate welfare programs.
14. _Really_ centralizing the intelligence agencies; providing realistic oversight and accountability to prevent abuses.
15. Giving the General Accounting Office expanded audit/investigation authority and resources to monitor and report on systemic abuses.
16. Creating real welfare reform, with the objective of providing aid only to those really incapable of helping themselves.

To plan for these (and possibly other) changes, I would surround myself with leading experts in the relevant fields, preferably with a variety of different opinions, philosophies, and viewpoints (as opposed to the current practice of surrounding oneself with ass-kissing cronies). Each group would be given a timetable to come up with and present two or three viable proposals. I would then study the proposals, kick them around with my cabinet and a couple of Congressional leaders, send them back for more info if necessary, and pick the one I thought best.

And then the Easter Bunny would fly down with gold coins, free food, beer, and chocolate, and he would give all of these things to the good citizens.


----------



## GregW (Nov 14, 2005)

With natural disasters I'd start by discouraging people from living in areas that are truly "an accident waiting to happen" on a large scale - e.g., limited oppportunities for insurance. Beyond that, you're looking at changes in structure and thinking in various US govt. agencies - and that's got about a snowball's chance of happening. 
Nuclear is a different issue. On the offensive side of the ball we need some "long and deep" covert foreign intel. programs, but we are more able to pull that off than play well on the defensive side, which deals with how we react effectively after a strike. Matter of time...
FWIW, I have voted Libertarian in the last 5 presidential elections on party principles. I've always been skeptical of "power" and those who seek it.


----------



## Jay West Coast (Nov 14, 2005)

CurvyEm said:


> They bother me because feuds from the political debates carry on over to "normal" threads. And yeah Conrad did say they were banned on the old board. Dunno if that still counts.





If I had presidential powers....I'd push a bill that made Fat Admiration a national mandate. 

There! Now its a FA thread too! Everybody's happy! :bow:


----------



## Jes (Nov 14, 2005)

Jay West Coast said:


> If I had presidential powers....I'd push a bill that made Fat Admiration a national mandate.
> 
> There! Now its a FA thread too! Everybody's happy! :bow:



Typical pork politics, Jay. Typical.


----------



## Jay West Coast (Nov 14, 2005)

Jes said:


> Typical pork politics, Jay. Typical.




Hahaha...

Well, I never understood how "pork bellies" should pertain to anything else! If _I _were president...


----------



## Jes (Nov 14, 2005)

If _you_ were President, I would totally be Monica Lewinsky.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 15, 2005)

Of course its different for each nation, each nation has its own strengths and weaknesses, and areas that need to be worked on.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 15, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> First, I'd set out my overriding goals, recognizing that any and all of them could require modifications in the process of their development and execution. (The devil is always in the details.) These would include:
> 
> 1. Reducing our dependence on oil, i.e., _seriously_ pursuing conservation and alternative energy sources.
> 2. Setting and following a realistic timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.
> ...



A few problems, this alienates a heck of a lot of people, and under the current system, you would have no hope of getting re-elected.
1. Can't do that quickly, dont have money to invest. 
2. Might work, though it has its draw backs, look at vietnam. 
3. Alientates the rich and the business owners. 
4. Tax reform is good, though would this be a flat tax?
5. To whom determines what is useful and what is not? Onverseas interests, allies and so on might be alienated. Hence harming trade and foreign relations. 
6. Alienates support in the House of Reps and Senate. 
7. Yeah, thats a good step.
8. Would this by accepting the Kyto protocols or a revised plan that does not totally alienate Industry and business?
9. Yes good on the hole, but would put pressure on oil prices. 
10. So aid should be based on political not humanitarian reasons? 
11. Such as? So subsidies for farmers and eco friednly businesses should be stopped?
12. Here here. 
13. And practically destroy the entire economy in the process. Subsidy allows agriculture and business to compete on the world market, unless the US is prepared to start a trade with with the EU and China or even South America over protectionist trade and tarrifs. 
14. Sounds good. 
15. Is that general increase in power or only in government departments and organisations?
16. Would alienate the poor/lower classes and unemployed, however yes reforms are needed, but would be very unpopular. 
_Sorry to rain on the parade and all that. _

On the topic of political discussion and debate, I think as long as anyone involved remembers that we are all adults and can talk about things sensibly and in a stable manner, and as far as I am concerned, politics stays in the political threads.


----------



## Zandoz (Nov 15, 2005)

1) Only registered voters are allowed to contribute to political campaigns. Contributions by businesses, unions, PACs, special interests, etc would be expressly forbidden. This is supposed to be government of the people...period.

2) Remove all institutionalized support for parties from the political system. Example: Primaries...no republican and/or democratic primaries...one primary, anybody who wants to can run, top two candidates go to the general election, regardless of the party they are from. No where in the constitution are the Republican and Democratic parties institutionalized...it needs to stay that way. They are nothing more than Uber-PACs.

3) Individual registered voters limited to contributing to only those campaigns where they are legally registered to vote. This is supposed to be a representative government...an office holder is supposed to represent his constituency, not any one else

4) Individual registered voter's contributions to political campaigns limited to a fixed percentage of the national mean income. Make it in the politicians interest to see that EVERYONE'S financial well being is tended to....not just the few high and mighty.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 15, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> _Sorry to rain on the parade and all that. _



Hey, I started from a fantasy assumption anyway, namely that I ever would be placed into power. Then I just started listing changes that I think are needed and astonished myself at the number I came up with. (I could have listed even more, but that seemed enough for the first year. You'll note that I put in an "adjust and modify as necessary" caveat at the beginning.) 

Of course, most of my list will never happen. I especially regret that I'll never get gold coins from the Easter bunny.


----------



## Jane (Nov 15, 2005)

GregW said:


> With natural disasters I'd start by discouraging people from living in areas that are truly "an accident waiting to happen" on a large scale - e.g., limited oppportunities for insurance. Beyond that, you're looking at changes in structure and thinking in various US govt. agencies - and that's got about a snowball's chance of happening. .


Okay, can't live in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Arkansas.......tornado alley

Can't live on the west coast - earthquakes and volcanoes

Can't live on the east coast or gulf - hurricaines

Can't live in the desert - it's a desert

Can't live where there are trees - forest fires

Where the heck do you perch in these instances????


----------



## Tina (Nov 15, 2005)

Yeah, I miss those gold coins, ods. I'm enjoying the lists, and wishing that at least some of the ideas listed could become reality...

Jane: under the ocean. Just make sure your underwater house has no cracks, and that it's not built near a fault line or volcanoes... Oh, scratch that. Hmmm... I guess this just means that simply being alive is risky. Better grab all the wonderfulness from it while we can, before we're swept away by a tsunami!


----------



## Jane (Nov 15, 2005)

Exactly, Tina.

You also can't tell other people where to live, and yes, you have to help them out when there's a problem. Everywhere has problems.


----------



## Tina (Nov 15, 2005)

That's it. I live in California, and have experienced many earthquakes. Dont'cha know, we were supposed to have slipped into the sea by now.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 15, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> First, I'd set out my overriding goals, recognizing that any and all of them could require modifications in the process of their development and execution. (The devil is always in the details.) These would include:
> 
> 1. Reducing our dependence on oil, i.e., _seriously_ pursuing conservation and alternative energy sources.
> 2. Setting and following a realistic timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.
> ...



Good, but I would like to add a couple. 

1) Rewrite tax code, so businesses can write off payrolls for *American* workers and investments in *America*. For example factory expansions, and new plants on American soil. 

2) Ban free trade with countries that refuse to open their markets in the same way the states do, or continues to ignore trade argeements. 

3) Ban "No Bid" contracts.

4) *Real* penalities for companies that hire illegals.


----------



## GregW (Nov 15, 2005)

Jane said:


> Okay, can't live in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Arkansas.......tornado alley
> 
> Can't live on the west coast - earthquakes and volcanoes
> 
> ...



Was stationed in OKC for 4 years and liked it there - and they made sure that you knew that you were in Tornado Alley! Life is short, fragile and precious and living is - to varying degrees - hazardous. One can choose to maximize/minimize those hazards, though. 
Got to see firsthand the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I'm all for helping others - we donated a good deal of items to the local Red Cross and participated in an effort to distribute plus-sized clothing to evacuees.
What I don't think is a good use of funds is, for example, government money being spent to rebuild a multi-million dollar house that sits directly on the beach for the third time. If someone wants to live there w/the knowlege that repairs will come from their own pocket, fine.
Actually, governments can and sometimes do tell people where they can't live due to zoning regulations, etc. Is that good or bad? Depends...


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 15, 2005)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Good, but I would like to add a couple.
> 
> 1) Rewrite tax code, so businesses can write off payrolls for *American* workers and investments in *America*. For example factory expansions, and new plants on American soil.
> 
> ...



Actually, businesses already can write off payroll expenses. They also can write off many investment expenses, and what they can't write off up front they can depreciate (i.e., write off over several years).

I think we do have some sanctions in place for countries that don't open their markets, but I'm not sure how comprehensive they are.

On items 3 and 4, I agree completely.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 15, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> Actually, businesses already can write off payroll expenses. They also can write off many investment expenses, and what they can't write off up front they can depreciate (i.e., write off over several years).
> 
> I think we do have some sanctions in place for countries that don't open their markets, but I'm not sure how comprehensive they are.
> 
> On items 3 and 4, I agree completely.



Does the states have sanctions against China? Aren't they refusing to open their market?  

On the other issue, I was more think about a tax structure that encourage companies to operate in the states!


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 15, 2005)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Does the states have sanctions against China? Aren't they refusing to open their market?
> 
> On the other issue, I was more think about a tax structure that encourage companies to operate in the states!



I don't think the U.S. has any sanctions against China, although I could be wrong. I think their markets are open to us (again, not 100% sure), but we hardly manufacture anything to sell them anymore. Instead, they're manufacturing more and more consumer goods and selling them to us, thereby creating a huge trade imbalance. They also have bought up an inordinate volume of our debt. Because of their rapid development (particularly in manufacturing), they are consuming ever-increasing volumes of natural resources, especially oil, which puts an ever-increasing strain on the world's supplies and pushes up prices everywhere. They are a threat to us in many respects (mostly economic for now), but we seem to fall all over ourselves to appease them, rather than devising ways to compete more effectively.

Under our present federal tax structure (which is pretty bad), probably the best way to encourage companies to operate in the states would be to offer some sort of U.S. jobs tax credit. That would need to be a part of overall tax reform, however, since we're already spending way more tax revenue than we're taking in.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 16, 2005)

Its all down to economics. Say you are a clothes retailer. Costs $40,000 to produce and transport the merchandise in the US, it say costs $10,000 in China, because they lack the build quality and pay their workers practically nothing, compared with the US.



> On the other issue, I was more think about a tax structure that encourage companies to operate in the states!


Subsides by any other name. Thats how US agriculture works even though there are no "tariffs" per say.


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 16, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> I don't think the U.S. has any sanctions against China, although I could be wrong. I think their markets are open to us (again, not 100% sure), but we hardly manufacture anything to sell them anymore. Instead, they're manufacturing more and more consumer goods and selling them to us, thereby creating a huge trade imbalance. They also have bought up an inordinate volume of our debt. Because of their rapid development (particularly in manufacturing), they are consuming ever-increasing volumes of natural resources, especially oil, which puts an ever-increasing strain on the world's supplies and pushes up prices everywhere. They are a threat to us in many respects (mostly economic for now), but we seem to fall all over ourselves to appease them, rather than devising ways to compete more effectively.
> 
> Under our present federal tax structure (which is pretty bad), probably the best way to encourage companies to operate in the states would be to offer some sort of U.S. jobs tax credit. That would need to be a part of overall tax reform, however, since we're already spending way more tax revenue than we're taking in.




Well, according to CNN, China wants to buy up a number of american companies including the third largest oil company in the states. But, if a american want to buy a company in China, their government says no way. 

Of course, I can't be sure of this.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 16, 2005)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Well, according to CNN, China wants to buy up a number of american companies including the third largest oil company in the states. But, if a american want to buy a company in China, their government says no way.



If I'm not mistaken, our government prevented China from buying the oil company in question. But there's no question that their government is more ruthless about protecting their interests than we are about protecting ours. While we squander our resources in sinkholes like Iraq, China is gradually working toward becoming the biggest economic powerhouse in the world. I'm not saying we should emulate their methods - quite the contrary - but we need to factor that variable into our long-term planning. (That's if we ever start planning for the long term in the first place.)


----------



## exile in thighville (Nov 16, 2005)

- basic human rights
- banning straights from marraige (especially on tv)
- a new holiday for hip new york women: national pegging day
- jay-z being nominated and elected to the supreme court as a chief justice after lengthy bidding war with island/def jam
- chemical castration of pedophiles (not convicted child molestors)
- reinstating unintelligent design
- renovating abu gharib into a ride at universal studios
- reinforcing the right to choose whether or not i wanna kill some babies (not just mine, but most people's, frankly, especially in restaurants and movie theaters)
- making something other than "jowls" the common thread of political leaders dabbling in "fat"


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 16, 2005)

Oh by the way, it would be nice to have the following law in place on the federal level. 

"The opportunity to obtain employment, housing and other real estate, and the full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public service, and educational facilities without discrimination because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, *weight*, familial status, or marital status as prohibited by this act, is recognized and declared to be a civil right."

(Michgan Law)


----------



## Tina (Nov 16, 2005)

EtobicokeFA said:


> Oh by the way, it would be nice to have the following law in place on the federal level.
> 
> "The opportunity to obtain employment, housing and other real estate, and the full and equal utilization of public accommodations, public service, and educational facilities without discrimination because of religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, *weight*, familial status, or marital status as prohibited by this act, is recognized and declared to be a civil right."
> 
> (Michgan Law)


----------



## Fuzzy (Nov 16, 2005)

Abolish the minimum wage.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Nov 16, 2005)

If I were President - 

I would make Marijuanna legal

AND

Mallowmars available year round

That should solve most of the worlds problems and those it doesn't fix? Who's gonna care???:bow:


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 16, 2005)

Fuzzy said:


> Abolish the minimum wage.



Yep, and end up with an economy based on the crowed sweat shops and a new age of the "robber barons".


----------



## Totmacher (Nov 17, 2005)

Minimum wage is just a trick to bankrupt small business owners through payroll taxes.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Nov 17, 2005)

Totmacher said:


> Minimum wage is just a trick to bankrupt small business owners through payroll taxes.




I think that's called "The American Way"


----------



## EtobicokeFA (Nov 17, 2005)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> I think that's called "The American Way"



Well, the joke goes, that every law and regulation cost companies.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 17, 2005)

Totmacher said:


> Minimum wage is just a trick to bankrupt small business owners through payroll taxes.



Good one, if you're joking. If you're serious, however, that makes no sense.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 17, 2005)

Totmacher said:


> Minimum wage is just a trick to bankrupt small business owners through payroll taxes.




No it isn't. It's just a reasonable way to ensure that people make enough money to eat after they've earned an honest wage. The sad thing is you can't even eat a decent McDonalds meal on the minimum wage because the wage hasn't been raised to adjust for inflation. By now the minimum wage should be $7 per hour.

There are some people in this country who would gladly pay people a dollar a day if they could get away with it. And they would consider that to be honest capitalism. Any decent man would consider it to be economic exploitation.


----------



## Tragdor (Nov 17, 2005)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> No it isn't. It's just a reasonable way to ensure that people make enough money to eat after they've earned an honest wage. The sad thing is you can't even eat a decent McDonalds meal on the minimum wage because the wage hasn't been raised to adjust for inflation. By now the minimum wage should be $7 per hour.
> 
> There are some people in this country who would gladly pay people a dollar a day if they could get away with it. And they would consider that to be honest capitalism. Any decent man would consider it to be economic exploitation.



any notion of a just price comes from an intrinsic view of economics that basically was killed by the marginilist reviolution of the 1870's. 

I doubt anyone would work at that wage at the current price level because there is a trade off for every worker between lesisure and labor with labor being the inferior good. Once workers have gone beyond the substiance level, wages are incentives to get people to subsite leisure hours for labor hours. Since a one dollar an hour job can't even obtain anything close to subsintance people would not take that job.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 17, 2005)

Not in the United States, but in places like China and India or Indonesia, a dollar a day may be quite good for some. Thats the whole point is that with free trade, large western nations cannot compete on an even playing field when the wages are so pathetically small.


----------



## Totmacher (Nov 17, 2005)

Tragdor said:


> any notion of a just price comes from an intrinsic view of economics that basically was killed by the marginilist reviolution of the 1870's.
> 
> I doubt anyone would work at that wage at the current price level because there is a trade off for every worker between lesisure and labor with labor being the inferior good. Once workers have gone beyond the substiance level, wages are incentives to get people to subsite leisure hours for labor hours. Since a one dollar an hour job can't even obtain anything close to subsintance people would not take that job.



Three words for ya, "mex-ee-can"  OK, that was really bad, but seriously. Recent immigrants from anywhere who just come to make a quick buck are willing to do all kinds of things for next to nothing.



old_dogsoldier said:


> Good one, if you're joking. If you're serious, however, that makes no sense.



It's a joke based on personal experience :bow: I've no quarrel with minimum wage except for my own situation where I am going to go bankrupt if I have to keep paying myself $7 an hour (read: paying $4 an hour in taxes for every minute of work I do)

In the interests of keeping the thread on topic I'd add a minimum wage loophole so I'm not going bankrupt. Then I'd legalize pot, illegalize weight discrimination, maybe nuke something (who knows, it might get me some, "respect"), probably balance the budget... by then it'd be getting late so I'd have have lunch


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 17, 2005)

Why dont you jsut invade Cuba and shutdown Hollywood while your at it?


----------



## Totmacher (Nov 18, 2005)

Because I can't trust the USMC not to get the cigars wet, break the rum bottles, and injure las senoritas bonitas? DUH! I don't particularly mind Hollywood, really. Perhaps I'll declare martial law and force them to be truer to the comic books and scifi novels they rip off tomorrow...


----------



## Jack Skellington (Nov 18, 2005)

You really can't change the world on a major scale. You have to be satisfied with making little changes. Like making Mimes illegal.


----------



## Imp (Nov 18, 2005)

Zandoz said:


> 1) Only registered voters are allowed to contribute to political campaigns. Contributions by businesses, unions, PACs, special interests, etc would be expressly forbidden. This is supposed to be government of the people...period.
> 
> 2) Remove all institutionalized support for parties from the political system. Example: Primaries...no republican and/or democratic primaries...one primary, anybody who wants to can run, top two candidates go to the general election, regardless of the party they are from. No where in the constitution are the Republican and Democratic parties institutionalized...it needs to stay that way. They are nothing more than Uber-PACs.
> 
> ...



In other words, amend the First Amendment to restrict free assembly--but only when that assembly is expressly for political purposes, and even though political freedom is the highest form of freedom the First Amendment was conceived of to protect in the first place.


----------



## Imp (Nov 18, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> I don't think the U.S. has any sanctions against China, although I could be wrong.



I believe Bush 41 and Clinton 42 (to be distinguished form Clinton 44) rode the post-Soviet wave to a free trade agreement with China, hoping it would bring liberal reforms there as well.


----------



## Imp (Nov 18, 2005)

But to speak to your original post, I'd say that based on what you wrote those are good reasons to put more of our faith in Wal-Mart and less of it in our federal government. If I could make political changes in the States, I'd create an informed electorate, possibly by restricting the vote in some way. I might start by returning to having Senators selected by state legislatures so the Senate will stop being a place to play politics and instead be a place to properly exercise the checks and balances the way they were intended.


----------



## exile in thighville (Nov 18, 2005)

dan ex machina said:


> - basic human rights
> - banning straights from marraige (especially on tv)
> - a new holiday for hip new york women: national pegging day
> - jay-z being nominated and elected to the supreme court as a chief justice after lengthy bidding war with island/def jam
> ...



everyone's ignoring my calculatedly rabble-rousing wise-ass list :-(


----------



## Jes (Nov 18, 2005)

dan ex machina said:


> everyone's ignoring my calculatedly rabble-rousing wise-ass list :-(



yeah, boohoo, try inviting everyone to HH or offering to make out, and then tell me how you feel!


----------



## Totmacher (Nov 18, 2005)

dan ex machina said:


> everyone's ignoring my calculatedly rabble-rousing wise-ass list :-(




Congratulations. I don't know how, but you've somehow managed to underestimate our collective intelligence or overestimate our rousability


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 18, 2005)

Imp said:


> But to speak to your original post, I'd say that based on what you wrote those are good reasons to put more of our faith in Wal-Mart and less of it in our federal government. If I could make political changes in the States, I'd create an informed electorate, possibly by restricting the vote in some way. I might start by returning to having Senators selected by state legislatures so the Senate will stop being a place to play politics and instead be a place to properly exercise the checks and balances the way they were intended.



Right now I _do_ have more faith in Wal-Mart than in the federal government, and I don't have much faith in Wal-Mart. Creating an informed electorate is a very worthy goal, but I have no idea of how to do that, especially in the short run, without requiring mass brain implants. 

I wouldn't want to see Senators selected by state legislatures in today's environment. The majority parties in many state legislatures have shamelessly gerrymandered their electoral districts to lock their most extreme elements into office. I surely wouldn't want those clowns selecting Senators. (Prime examples: the Republican legislature in Texas and the Democratic legislature in California.)

The only way to break the cycle is for more and more of us to start encouraging and supporting third parties, such as the libertarians or Greens. It's a very long shot, but it's better than surrendering to despair.


----------



## exile in thighville (Nov 18, 2005)

Totmacher said:


> Congratulations. I don't know how, but you've somehow managed to underestimate our collective intelligence or overestimate our rousability



is it too much to ask for a little "all pedophiles should be in jail"? i'm pretty sure you guys aren't radical enough for chemical castration, no matter how ready you may be for jay-z.


----------



## Totmacher (Nov 18, 2005)

dan ex machina said:


> is it too much to ask for a little "all pedophiles should be in jail"? i'm pretty sure you guys aren't radical enough for chemical castration, no matter how ready you may be for jay-z.



OK, OK, fine. Personnaly I wanna use a butter knife. Not sure if that's my righteous piety or latent sadism talking though. If anyone should be a supreme court justice it should be Busta:bow: He's deep The only thing Hova should be unanimously approved for is chemical castration... :doh: now I've got a meddly of all his wack ass rhymes stuck in my head just thinking about it. Oh, *teehee* your gay friendly humor is so cute! I agree, we should allow for abortion up until atleast the 51st trimester, share the creativity of half a dozen hicks trying to spice up a few POW's encaceration, force all single or unfaithful elected officials to date atleast one, "large" consort a month and devote one day a year to, "pegging" I'm a little peeved you left out basic human lefts though, most people are ambi-turners.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 18, 2005)

dan ex machina said:


> - a new holiday for hip new york women: national pegging day
> - jay-z being nominated and elected to the supreme court as a chief justice after lengthy bidding war with island/def jam



I'll consider some of your other suggestions, but I don't know:

a. What pegging is;
b. Who jay-z is; or
c. Who/what island/def jam is.

Okay, so I'm really old. And really unhip. But at least I'm still insane.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 18, 2005)

go to the urbandictionary.com


----------



## Egbert Souse (Nov 19, 2005)

Most importantly, as President, i would really work that folksy, man-of-the-people image. 
You'd think that the citizens of the richest, most powerful nation on earth would want a brilliant thinker...a genius with all the eccentricities and quirks that come with brilliance to be their leader. 
Nope. 
We want a guy who is just like ourselves; the guy next-door who doesn't seem any smarter than we are, would be a good guy to have a beer with and is just another schmuck doing the best he can.
I know...go figure....that's always been a big WTF'er for me, too.

Anyway, i'd be a great communicator. 
I'd have a weekly Fireside Chat much like FDR's, except my fire would be in an oil drum which sits next to the spot under the bridge where i sleep. (It's common knowledge that, while i'm getting the Presidential salary and all, after alimony and child support my annual adjusted gross is about 300 bucks. I sublet my White House and Camp David privileges for a little cash flow).

My administration would have only a few specific objectives.
Some examples might be:
-Stop the madness of sending our children to fight wars. When we do have a war, you would be eligible for the draft at age 75. MAYBE allow people to join up if they want to at age 60. Nobody any younger than that. No virgins.
-Using the words, "Family Values" in a political setting is a treasonable offense.
-Apply a HEFTY wheel tax to all vehicles 3,000 pounds and over. An annually-renewable license tag would be required for Hummers which would cost $50,000 and would read, "IAmAAssholeInCaseYouHadn'tNoticed".
-Get a Mastercard for the country with, say, a billion dollar limit. 

Beyond that, i'd be all about privatation, privatation, privatation. 
It's not that i wouldn't ever TRY to fix things. I'd approach it a lot like i do plumbing problems. If the toilet's leaking a little i'll give it a shot, but if the whole house is smelling like sewer gas, i'm calling in a professional.

I'd take bids on getting somebody to get my ass outta this Middle East sitch and make it look like i had straightened em out over there.
Get bids on somebody to balance the budget and to deal with all the peeps who start screaming about getting screwed by the fix.

It's all about bids. This is the age of specialization and i'd just be a sort of General Contractor.

I'd close my Fireside Chats with some kinda passive scam....maybe mentioning that if i could just raise five grand, i could produce a Springsteen concert in the Pine Bluff Civic Center and clear an EASY 50K on the deal.


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 19, 2005)

Oh, if it was in the states I would change that only running for two terms thing as well.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 19, 2005)

Australian Lord said:


> Oh, if it was in the states I would change that only running for two terms thing as well.



Bloody monarchist.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 19, 2005)

Screw it, I'm voting for Egbert. And if he wins, I'll buy Australian Lord's idea of doing away with the two term limit. But only if he wins. (Egbert, I want a lucrative cabinet post for this.)


----------



## Egbert Souse (Nov 19, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> Screw it, I'm voting for Egbert. And if he wins, I'll buy Australian Lord's idea of doing away with the two term limit. But only if he wins. (Egbert, I want a lucrative cabinet post for this.)



Sorry, od.
Shoulda mentioned that i wouldn't THINK of running if i didn't have you on my team.

Haven't really nailed down the details but i see you either as Fed Chairman or head of the SEC. These are both pretty lucrative positions and have you checked out the retirement benefits of the latter?

On the other hand, you'd be a good man to have as Press Secretary. There'd be less money involved but you'd probly get laid a lot more with that one. You should talk this over with the wife.

I'll get back to you on this. There are a lot more details to iron out.


----------



## CurvaceousBBWLover (Nov 19, 2005)

Imp said:


> But to speak to your original post, I'd say that based on what you wrote those are good reasons to put more of our faith in Wal-Mart and less of it in our federal government. If I could make political changes in the States, I'd create an informed electorate, possibly by restricting the vote in some way. I might start by returning to having Senators selected by state legislatures so the Senate will stop being a place to play politics and instead be a place to properly exercise the checks and balances the way they were intended.



Your ideas sound good in theory. But the founders of the coutnry had American senators chosen by state legislatures. That was amended in the early 20th century so they could be chosen by popular vote, as they should have been. Taking away the people's vote is a dangerous thing because a citizen's vote is a citizen's voice. Just because a group of so-called wise men will pick senators does not mean they will pick the best candidates.

If you want to ensure an informed electorate, you are going to have to overhaul the communication networks. Find a way to encourage them to give people information and not just sensationalism. Get them to see that useful information helps their bottom line every bit or even more than constant reporting of gossip and the latest sex scandals.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 19, 2005)

_"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern.
Every class is unfit to govern."_

-- Lord Acton


----------



## 1300 Class (Nov 19, 2005)

Oh, and change the entire structre of government to a federalist westminister cabinet system as well, along with flexible terms and all that. Also, anyone who voted for me would receive a tax cut.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 20, 2005)

Egbert Souse said:


> Sorry, od.
> Shoulda mentioned that i wouldn't THINK of running if i didn't have you on my team.
> 
> Haven't really nailed down the details but i see you either as Fed Chairman or head of the SEC. These are both pretty lucrative positions and have you checked out the retirement benefits of the latter?
> ...



I'm leaning toward Fed Chairman. I'd contract the actual work to Paul Volcker (probably the last Chairman who had his head screwed on straight) and spend my time pontificating like Greenspan (only in plain English).

The Press Secretary/getting laid idea sounded good for a minute, but then I remembered that my wife would render me dead in short order, which would take a lot of the fun out of it. Also, those Washington socialites and press corps ladies are way too skinny. As Fed Chairman, I'd insist that all my interns look like Monica Lewinsky (fatter would be fine, thinner would be unacceptable). Volcker could get his own damn interns.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 20, 2005)

fatlane said:


> _"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern.
> Every class is unfit to govern."_
> 
> -- Lord Acton



Damn, I like that. Sounds like Acton should have been a libertarian.


----------



## fatlane (Nov 20, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> Damn, I like that. Sounds like Acton should have been a libertarian.



I got about 400 quotes I consider to be my favorites... that's one of 'em.


----------



## BBW Betty (Nov 20, 2005)

CurvaceousBBWLover said:


> If you want to ensure an informed electorate, you are going to have to overhaul the communication networks. Find a way to encourage them to give people information and not just sensationalism. Get them to see that useful information helps their bottom line every bit or even more than constant reporting of gossip and the latest sex scandals.



Too true. You can't tell me the "news" networks moguls don't promote their own opinions in the workings of government. It would be fine if they admitted it, instead of pretending to be impartial. They use more loaded words and phrases than advertising execs.


----------



## Egbert Souse (Nov 20, 2005)

old_dogsoldier said:


> I'm leaning toward Fed Chairman. I'd contract the actual work to Paul Volcker (probably the last Chairman who had his head screwed on straight) and spend my time pontificating like Greenspan (only in plain English).
> 
> The Press Secretary/getting laid idea sounded good for a minute, but then I remembered that my wife would render me dead in short order, which would take a lot of the fun out of it. Also, those Washington socialites and press corps ladies are way too skinny. As Fed Chairman, I'd insist that all my interns look like Monica Lewinsky (fatter would be fine, thinner would be unacceptable). Volcker could get his own damn interns.



Welcome aboard, Chairman Dog (hope you don't mind if i refer to you in my addresses as Dog...it's got a folksy ring to it)

Plain English is good. In fact, i see you in a dahshiki and your defense of the decision to bump the prime rate up a half-point simply, "Dude....we SERIOUSLY gotta CHILL!"

And i'm way ahead of you on that other stuff....
Sex scandals will be rampant and all will involve babes who make Monica look like one of those anorexia porn chicks. All the skinny socialites and press corps ladies won't be able to buy dates and will suddenly notice that they are addressed as "ma'am". (Naturally, the press is gonna jump on this pattern and it'll be a boon for size acceptance).

You will be encouraged to do product endorsements...something like ETrade would be great. 

Everyone in my administration will be encouraged NOT to deny or even downplay any boondoggling they might be accused of but to exaggerate it.
Then, when the truth comes out everybody will be going, "Well, that wasn't THAT bad."
One thing i learned from the experience of Bill Clinton and Martha Stewart is that if you're accused of something, don't start bullshitting around about it. If you own up to it and take a "Yeah, what's it to ya?" attitude, they'll just get used to it go on to something else.

I understand about The Wife.
Now i've got my eye on Sonntag for Press thing.


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 21, 2005)

Egbert Souse said:


> Welcome aboard, Chairman Dog (hope you don't mind if i refer to you in my addresses as Dog...it's got a folksy ring to it)
> 
> You will be encouraged to do product endorsements...something like ETrade would be great.
> 
> Now i've got my eye on Sonntag for Press thing.



Chairman Dog has a great ring to it, although just Dog is fine. I could put out my own little red book -"The Thoughts of Chairman Dog." Okay, so it would have to be more like a little red post card. 

Sonntag is a brilliant choice for Press Secretary. The current ones just lie; Ned would always tell the truth, but he'd do it in a way that nobody would understand anyway. 

For product endorsements, I'd go with motorscooters, the Corona beer plant, and Mexican restaurants. For the freebies, of course.

To paraphrase Harriet Miers, you are the best presidential candidate that has come along in my lifetime. (Maybe you should nominate me for the Supreme Court.)


----------



## Boteroesque Babe (Nov 21, 2005)

I'd reinstall the drape John Ashcroft put over the breastly "Spirit of Justice" statue in the Great Hall. But I'd give it a more flattering cut for her figure, perhaps something low-cut and slinky. Cocktail-length, maybe. With some strappy heels?


----------



## old_dogsoldier (Nov 21, 2005)

Boteroesque Babe said:


> I'd reinstall the drape John Ashcroft put over the breastly "Spirit of Justice" statue in the Great Hall. But I'd give it a more flattering cut for her figure, perhaps something low-cut and slinky. Cocktail-length, maybe. With some strappy heels?



Given current policies, a black mask, leather camisole, and whip might be more appropriate.


----------

