If you ran the country...

Post Reply New Topic

I would launch every nuclear missile we have to random parts of the Earth, stand on the roof of the White House and shout "f**k Yeah!" in a pose that can be easily replicated on t-shirts and made into a meme, then resign and flee to some cave in New Guinea where no one can find and prosecute me.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that I don't really know enough about politics to be allowed to have any input.

Uh-o, I agree with most of this...should I worry?

The only one I'd consider to reinstate in some form somehow, with adjustment is Affirmative Action, but I'm not sure how to do it so that: Yes, people are hired based solely on their qualifications, but prejudice should not play a role in why some people don't get hired. But I'm not sure if it's possible to legislate fairly when people have strong personal opinions.

I'd also consider taking civil unions to a whole new level (don't hate on me Catholics):
- every legal marriage license (from the state) is a civil union in which all have the same rights, but "Marriage" becomes the optional religious ceremony of union. ....Is this like what you're suggesting Fnord?

------------------------

Besides this, I also think there needs to be some way to temper big money influence on policy, and somehow reel in lobbyists. I understand the need for money for candidates' campaigns - for advertising, etc, but there has to be a way to get most of the bribery out of Congress. (i.e.; Buddy Roemer's platform)

I'm sure me too.

If I ran the country you would rue the day I was put in charge.

ruveyn

If I ran the country, I'd proceed with the disclosure of the UFO presence in the US. Then I'd try to contact the ETs and attempt to convince them to take me away. My running mate would be Roseanne Barr, as my last FU to the world

All items and products that involve the use of plastic in their packaging must use a recyclable plastic for all components of said packaging.

As I understand, SuperPac money can be used in any way, and I don't think it's taxed (please correct me if I'm wrong) so:

Until SuperPacs are eliminated or changed, all money still remaining after a candidate has dropped out of the race and when the election cycle is over should be audited and either: A) taxed at at least a 35% tax rate, or B) all of the funds left over get put into secondary education scholarships.

Last edited by goodwitchy on 22 Feb 2012, 2:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

You're only 15. You need to be 18 to press the button and/or turn the key.

OK, this will be Canada since that's what I'm familiar with, and anyway the US is in such a mess that I don't think I'd be able to manage. Also assume that I have essentially absolute power for the duration of my term (which will be precisely as long as it needs to be to do what I want).

I would nationalize the entire rail network, Air Canada and all of the other old crown corporations that were privatized, the Tar Sands, all utilities not already state owned, at least one of the telecom companies, at least one of the major banks, a few of the insurance companies, and maybe some other things if I think of them. Any banks not nationalized would be converted to credit unions, any insurance or telecom companies not nationalized would become cooperatives. Corporate owned farms would become worker's cooperatives, possibly with government oversight for the first few years. I'd allow all tenants the chance to vote on turning their apartment building into a cooperative. Compensation would be given only to those whose net-worth after nationalization/conversion would be less than $1 million. Any company that would need bailing out would just be nationalized.

Meanwhile I'd build a high-speed rail network in as many areas as practical, including stops at the major airports. Flights between airports served by high-speed rail would be banned, with some arrangement between Via Rail and Air Canada to put air and rail on the same ticket. There would also be a major research program in applications of maglev technology. I would invest in a massive expansion of mass transit and ban cars in major city centers (or at least impose a toll, as is done in Europe). Government subsidized retrofits would be provided to homes and other buildings to make them more energy efficient.

I would end the monarchy, abolish the Senate (a pointless, obsolete, unelected body in Canada), and institute Mixed Member Proportional Representation in the House of Commons. The post of Governor General would be elected using Instant Runoff Voting, and would remain a largely ceremonial role, although it would pay less.

LGBT rights would be extended the tiny bit more needed for there to be full legal equality and programs would be put in place nation wide to educate children about how LGBT people should be accepted. I would also try to improve equality for women and visible minorities.

Universal healthcare would be extended to pharmaceuticals, dental and optometry. Tuition would be abolished, textbooks would be paid for by the government, and generous grants would be given to help pay for student housing and other such things. Free, universal childcare would be made available. Libraries, museums, NGOs, and other aspects of civil society would receive increased funding. I'd look at how to reform the welfare system so that people aren't discouraged from working, but have a good social safety net. I suspect that some form of Guaranteed Livable Income would be the best way to go. To pay for this I would put in place taxes on pollution and a more steeply graduated income tax.

if i were the absolute ruler and not just POTUS, i would-
broaden the tax base via a national sales tax, in conjunction with a simplification of the tax code to encourage compliance rather than evasion, savings rather than spending. a flat income tax with a graduated low-income exemption would be tried. capital gains would be taxed at the same hybrid rate, with tax penalties placed upon in-and-out gaming of the system which encourages undue volatility. FDIC banks would be banned from anything smacking of the stock market, and would return to banking's historically boring reputation. i'd pick the brains of other countries to find the best middle course to take regarding universal health care as well as national funding of political election campaigns, with the prohibition of private financing of election campaigns. money would no longer equal speech, and to this end all publically licensed broadcasters would have the responsibility to provide "fairness doctrine"-styled equal access to all registered parties. this nation would no longer be akin to a 3rd-world nation regarding the lack of affordable primary health care to the working class. omnipresent sin taxes would pay for a major portion of it. i'd place a surtax on vehicles larger than compact size, to encourage the development of roomy and practical small cars which would take up less space on the overcrowded roads, and to fund infrastructure repair/public transit. congestion pricing of toll roads during rush hours would encourage people to park and ride public transit, and the tolls would be directed towards infrastructure repairs in addition to subsidization of public transit. increased population density would have to take priority over continued indirect subsidization of continued suburban/exurban development, and to that end i would place a property tax premium upon such, in the interest of reducing driving/pollution/gas consumption. i would bring back 85 m.p.h. speedos on all privately owned vehicles as a subtle reminder to drive at an economical gas-saving pace, and would enforce this with an engine chip. i would institute no-fault "pay at the pump" auto insurance. there would be a regional education curriculum, in conjunction with a regional business board to determine proper allocation of educational resources to supply business with the employees it needs, IOW no more narrow minded school boards. outsourcing to foreign nations would stop. i would bring back the CCC/NRA or something like it, to employ all able-bodied/sound-minded people on public works projects, in conjunction with each state's national guard. i would encourage national guard membership by exempting said members from state taxation with a tax card similar to what businesses/vendors have at present. i would institute mexico's system of enhanced pharmacies to offer a much wider variety of meds OTC, because our present system of making doctors the exclusive gatekeepers of medical treatment needs to be broadened in the interest of making health care more affordable/less onerous to people of limited means. convicted felons would, upon completion of their sentences, be able to vote without question. the war on drugs would end. tax it all, i say. male and female prostitution would be taxed and regulated.
now if i were just POTUS, i wouldn't be able to do a damned thing, so i wouldn't even consider it in any kind of fever dream.

I can certainly see the appeal of nationalizing infrastructure. But let's remember, it doesn't matter whether you are moving people, goods and data across a public network or a private one, moving people goods and data costs money and that must be paid for, one way or another. Now if you are nationalizing for the purpose of providing price stability in order to keep the market in line, that's one issue (but you still need to explain why that is necessary, rather than using government power to break up cartels and uncompetitive behaviour). If you are doing it in order to artificially deflate the price, you still have to explain how you are going to pay for the costs that must be borne out of that smaller revenue stream.

What you would do about farms held by closely held corporations? No farmer with two clues owns a farm directly anymore--almost all are incorporated and held by the farmer as share capital. What is their treatment?

And perhaps most importantly, what's the compensation to pension plans and mutual funds that hold equities in all those companies to be nationalized? Pension plans and mutual funds are reponsible for over 60% of equity in the marketplace. How does your $1m threshold work? Individual pension contributor and unit holder net worth? If so, you're going to have to come up with a massive amount of cash to buy up these assets. On the other hand, if you are going to treat pension funds and mutual funds as institutional investors subject to the $1m limit, then what are you going to do about the retirement savings that you will have erased at the stroke of a pen?



Well, you're really only talking about the Corridor (I'm not even sure that highspeed rail is practical West of London or East of Montréal, but let's assume that it is) and possibly Calgary-Edmonton. But even on this limited scale, how much money are you going to pay for the land that you're going to expropriate? After all, the freight rail network is not going to run on the high speed tracks, so they have to be completely separate lines. A rail right of way from Union Station to Central Station will be roughly 500 km long, and running through significant urban areas. There's not much in the way of vacant Crown land, and certainly not in an unbroken corridor, so you're going to have to buy up what you need. And that's before you have laid a single rail or built a single crossing (you can't run with level crossings on high speed rail...)



Ending the monarchy, fair enough, since you're holding on to the GG as Head of State. But why would you go through $300m of expense to elect a GG who would exercise no power? Why not follow the German model?

As for the Senate, how are you going to load all of the work that it does onto the House of Commons? (And if you don't think that the Senate does work, start reading the reports of Senate Committees sometime). What do you propose to do to balance regional interests in the face of a House of Commons that might no longer have any meaningful regional representation?



So at the root of this is going to have to be tearing up all of our Free Trade Agreements. Because the minute that you set up these structures, you will have created massive trade obstacles. While I can certainly see the appeal in what you propose, where are we going to earn our export revenue? We need to pay for all that food that we import through the winter, and we need a trading currency in order to do that.

-Absolute minimal gun control. No restrictions whatsoever pertaining to any parts of the gun or what type of gun you want to get. One licence would allow you to do it all from concealed carry to openly carrying a rifle on your shoulder. The only regulation there would be is that you would have to be 18 and over, not have a severe mental illness, and not have a serious crime on your record.

-Implement a Castle Doctrine here that applies to your car, residence, and place of business.

-Scrap affirmative action. Institutionally forced equality is BS.

-Legalize marijuana, ecstasy, and coke, decriminalize everything else so that you don't get thrown behind bars. Legalize prostitution as well.

-Reform the welfare system so that it rewards people for being productive rather than reproductive. Like Raptor said, reform the system so that it requires some sort of community service to be done to receive benefits.

-Give the UN a big middle finger. National sovereignty above all.

-Introduce a negative tax income system. The working poor will keep everything they earn if they are somewhere near the poverty line.

-The Government is better when it is divided and localized than united and monolithic. Generally speaking decentralization is the way to go and one place I'd start is to make minimum wage municipal rather than provincial.

-De-unify the armed forces. Like I said, better divided and localized than united and monolithic.

-Start piling up nukes and maybe jack the military budget up a notch. That way we are more autonomous when it comes to national sovereignty.

And that's all for now.

^ I like. Except for the last point. Otherwise

@Visagrunt
it's too long to quote all of that, but I'll address as much as I can. I apologize if I miss something

First, I'm not claiming that I'd do a good job running the country. It would probably be a disaster. For reasons such as the ones you pointed out. I'm just talking about the ideal that, as an ecosocialist, I'd like to do.

You can't really have a lot of competition among airlines and rail-lines. We only have three halfway significant airlines and 2 rail-lines. Also, nationalizing the rail-lines would allow the passenger trains in all of Canada to run more quickly. I suppose in the case of airlines, better regulation could work as well, although low prices isn't exactly what I want, because flying is very carbon intensive. But by nationalizing Air Canada it would give some control over CO2 emissions from aircraft, which would be useful. And profits would become government equity (or be used to pay off debt).

I'm pretty sure that banks and the other services I mentioned could provide lower prices to people, but in any case I just feel that stuff which is so important should be under democratic control. Which is why I am also very positive about cooperatives as a way to do this. For the farms, if I understand what you are saying about the "closely held corporations," turning them into cooperatives shouldn't make much difference. It would just distribute control among the shareholders more equally.

I hadn't thought of pension plans, I admit. I didn't mention it, but I would make sure to have advisers who know about these sorts of issues and be able to suggest solutions. I suppose agreements could be worked out where the government starts paying those dividends at some negotiated level, adjusted for inflation. Also, I would look at using the Guaranteed Livable Income as a way to replace pensions in part (although only in part).

I agree, probably the only places high speed rail would work for now is the Corridor and maybe Calgary-Edmonton. As much as possible, the rail would be built over top of some of the lanes of multi-lane highways. This would increase congestion, but it would also help to discourage people from driving private automobiles. Another strategy would be to build it on elevated rail over top of current rail lines, although that would be expensive of course. Still, it would be a good stimulus project.

Good comment about the GG. I suppose it would make more sense to just have Parliament elect him or her. As for the Senate, I suppose another possibility would be to just give each province 10 senators (and maybe 5 to each territory). Each province could vote based on a party and the ten seats would be distributed by proportional representation or the system (which is kind of weird) that they use to elect MEPs in Europe. Or something along those lines.

I do think that the current Free Trade Agreements need to be greatly changed. They do undermine some of our national sovereignty. And I don't really like globalization in any case. Obviously we can't completely get rid of trade, for the reasons you mention, and so much of our economy depends on it. I think it might be worth diversifying our partners, especially expanding trade (but not free trade) with the Commonwealth. NAFTA needs to be radically renegotiated if we are to stay in it. I think though that trade agreements should be negotiated sector by sector.

I should probably mention too that I would reverse just about everything that the Harper government has done. We would be back in the Kyoto Protocol, the gun registry would stay, the Wheat Board would be brought back, etc. etc.

Right. I live in the Netherlands, and I've been following politics for years.

My first acts would send out a clear message to people in order to outline my general ideas, but within certain legal and political bounds. I'd announce my intention to pursue legalisation, regulation and taxation of drugs with relatively low risks of addiction and physical harm on a European scale. I'd reaffirm my support for the rights of homosexuals and other groups that are, on a practical basis, still discriminated against heavily. If possible, I would show a commitment previously unthinkable - a commitment to tackle trafficking of humans, which is also a problem here.
If people virulently dislike these ideas, they are free to speak out against me. If they remain quiet, they reaffirm my mandate to change society for the better. If they speak out against me, I will step down and allow their preferred, more traditional and economically liberal candidate to take over, and deepen the problems, as is the realistic situation now. When all has gone wrong, I will at least know that I gave these people a chance, and that they should have listened.

Financially, I'd be in a very tricky situation. We're currently in a deep recession, and we're facing an aging population, rising health care costs, higher costs of living, reduced consumer trust and a decreasing purchasing power alongside a rapidly-shrinking economy and a budget deficit which is still at a disturbing level after years of austerity measures and very limited economic growth.

The first thing I would do is related to the housing market. Years ago, the government made large parts of home mortgage interest tax-deductible. This was initially meant for people with lower incomes who wanted to buy a house for their family rather than to rent one. However, the relatively wealthy quickly hijacked the measure, and taxpayer money is now subsidizing mansions worth millions while homelessness is on the rise. Additionally, it seems to be common knowledge that this policy will, at the very least, be reduced greatly in the near future in order to save the government billions, which means the housing market has imploded. I'd add a cap to the maximum deductible interest and add a cap to the maximum mortgage. I'd put it at approximately €350 000 and link it to inflation, so it's more than enough for people to buy a proper family home but not enough for a mansion. This measure should also be a step in reducing our worryingly-inflated private debt figures.

Health care costs are, apparently, worrying. Because of our aging population, and new technological and medical developments keeping the elderly alive for much longer than before, health care costs are bound to become the largest financial problem within a decade, if they aren't already. However, it is exceedingly hard to find support for measures that limit people's access to health care. I'd take steps to reduce overhead (there are far too many managers) in any medical institutions that the government has any control over, and lower budgets for other institutions accordingly. I'd take advice on matters related to health care from doctors and nurses, not from overpaid high-level managers who have cars with personal drivers and international trips on my expense in order to introduce vague management strategies that invariably end up costing a lot more than they save, and lay off staff while there is a dire need of practical staff.

Additionally, I'd put preventive measures in place in order to prevent future health care costs from rising steeply. I might also outline a long-term family planning policy, carried out through child benefits and proper health care for families, in order to ensure a long-term sustainable population growth. As it is now, the replacement rate was well above two children per woman between the 1940s and 1960s, and has rapidly decreased since, causing increasingly few working-age people to be stuck with financial and practical care for previous generations. It should be one of my main goals to restart natural population growth, but at a moderate level.

International policies have been very dubious and controversial here. Some major dictators are well-received by our government; other, more minor dictators are shunned, boycotted and even subject of military violence causing thousands of civilian deaths, as recently seen in our contributions to international missions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. As the leader of my nation, I would vote against selective boycotts, as the only people who genuinely suffer from them are their population, who then lack trading partners and are forced to become less expensive and selective, and our population, who have less of a supply and have to pay much more, as seen with the most recent climb of oil prices as a boycott on Iranian oil was set to be put in place. Much rather, I would enter dialogue with oppressive governments, and make it clear to them that they have something to lose, which is currently not the case, by upsetting my government. And, ultimately, I am not responsible for their actions.

On a European scale, I'd push for leaders to abolish or greatly limit farming subsidies, ideological condemnations and economically liberal legislation, and instead put in place a programme to make European labour laws more compatible and competitive compared to other regions, allow for more scientific, educational and cultural cooperation, and genuinely make an effort to improve the people's situation - there is still relatively large-scale hunger in certain southern and eastern parts of the European Union, and limited-scale abject poverty even in regions considered rich. And as long as these people can see subsidized agricultural surpluses being torched or shipped off while noting their own hunger, the European Union will always be the widely-detested instrument of undemocratic neoliberal centralization that it's widely made out to be, even in nations whose governments are known as staunch supporters of European integration.

Finally, as you may have noted, the European factor is, unfortunately, a burden to any politician or diplomat who wants to make a difference. I'd probably prefer a European political career if the organisation was more democratic, aimed more at people, culture and shared values rather than increasing combined revenue for large businesses and uncompetitive farmers, and rationally-explained to people who only know the European Union as a destination for large sums of their money. However, even with rampant populism and increasing fear of their financial situation deteriorating, people are still largely unable to question the iron fist of the European political and financial elite.

I'd make Detroit into a maximum security prison, dump the sterile couples who can't have kids there with nothing but the clothes on their backs, and let God sort the scumbags out.