View Full Version : Thinking of running for President.
Old Dog New Trick
02-20-2016, 20:45
Thinking of running for President. What do you all think?
Having seen what we have for choices, I believe I'm a better candidate than any of the current choices both Democrat and Republican.
I'm mostly a conservative liberal otherwise known as a libertarian. Very good at international diplomacy and a great strategist and war figher. I see everyone as being "green" and while I realize there is race problem in America, I also am smart enough to know it's not going to be fixed by the fringes. We have not a plan or a future in our current domestic and foreign policies and any continuation of them will result in failure. Something needs to change!
I believe in the Constitution and while it is old, it was and is the greatest set of rules ever written to govern the government and its citizens.
I would probably not be liked by the current employees of the government and likely not many others in the Washington D.C., establishment of "business as usual" in fact I'd be hated.
If you could magnify the "diversity" of an SF team or the Army as a whole and say that 200+ years of evolution is a social experiment, then I could say that it has been the best experiment ever created.
Just a lowly Enlisted guy with a high school diploma and some college who made it through hard work and lots of sacrifice to create something better than himself. I learned to solve problems not create them. I learned to help people help themselves and lived by that motto: "I'm not here to help you, I'm here to help you, help yourself."
I think I need about $2,000,000 just to create a stir in the current comedy show of U.S., Presidential races. Wanna help?
SABERTOOTH
02-20-2016, 22:49
If I win powerball, I will consider giving you that 2 million.
You would get my vote just based off of your post since it makes more sense than the last eight months of junk I have had to listen to.
Not to mention the fact your leadership skills are exponentially better than theirs combined.
Thinking of running for President. What do you all think?
...
I think I need about $2,000,000 just to create a stir in the current comedy show of U.S., Presidential races. Wanna help?
No doubt you'd be a great a President. Two big impediments...
1) Pretty sure the buy-in for an outsider to have a seat at the table and get dealt some cards for the Primaries is in the $100 million range. Not sure if would $2 million would even get you a seat at the bar.
2) Don't have the citation, but IIRC both the Dems and Repubs sued (the states maybe) back during Clinton years, and won, about the the parties selection of nominees. Bottom line is the nominee for a party is the representative of that party and the party can make or break any rules they want to select who represents them. Parties are run by the establishment. Primaries just end up being smoke and mirrors. Makes it almost impossible for an outsider to get selected by one of the parties. Also, super difficult for an independent to get elected with little on the ground party support. I'm thinking the concern about Trump as an independent is probably less about Trump winning (as an independent) and more about him pulling a Perot. Anyway, parties have pretty tight control of who makes it to the general election.
Maybe you should go for a write-in campaign. "ODNT for President."
Old Dog New Trick
02-21-2016, 20:34
Naw, thanks guys for entertaining my drunken stupor for the past 24-hours. I've sobered up and realize I don't want that job.
None of the current candidates are qualified but what's new. We are truly fu*ked going forward.
"P.S. If only someone who knew what to do would run and win, those men are smart enough to stay home and run whatever they do well."
...If only someone who knew what to do would run and win, those men are smart enough to stay home and run whatever they do well."
The only problem with that is that those men have too many traits that would keep them from qualifying, like...honesty, integrity, work ethic, etc.
We are in serious trouble....
blue02hd
02-21-2016, 21:03
I'll donate! But only if I can secure an Ambassadorship to St Thomas.
You would get my vote just based off of your post since it makes more sense than the last eight months of junk I have had to listen to.
Not to mention the fact your leadership skills are exponentially better than theirs combined.
Maybe not the right thread, but perhaps take a step back for a minute. "the script" is that the dems get to lie and say whatever they want. The repubs are supposed to be "intellectual" and "moderate" and McCain and Romney did what? Got us punked. Hell if it was a battle of intellects, Newt Gingrich would be president. That is one smart MFer ! But, IMO, the public focused on his dick problem and we end up getting shit for our leadership.
Respectfully consider that Trump is a non-politician who assembled a team and has learned/adapted to be the overwhelming Repub (no, POPULAR) candidate. Trump is hearding Sheeple right now. And he is doing a great job. He and his team will transition to being more "Presidential" going forward.
Middle level bureaucrats and the media obsess over the details. The boss makes the BIG calls. Trump has already proven that he has the stones (basketball sized) to make the big decisions that fly in the face of those who are influenced by the status quo... his business... making illegals an issue, committing to build a border wall, calling out the Pope... etc. etc. That is what is needed of a boss. Set the course for the ship...
Respectfully consider that Trump is a non-politician who assembled a team and has learned/adapted to be the overwhelming Repub (no, POPULAR) candidate. Trump is hearding Sheeple right now. And he is doing a great job. He and his team will transition to being more "Presidential" going forward.
...
Nobody could defeat the Comanche because it's foolish to employ infantry troops and single shot rifles against wild horse warriors with bows that shoot 12 times in a minute from behind a running horse.
If the libs are Comanche, Trump is Jack Coffee Hays with both Colts running wide open.
Too Late Man. I'm writing you in on the ballot.
Team Sergeant
02-22-2016, 15:17
Too Late Man. I'm writing you in on the ballot.
LOL, good idea!
DJ Urbanovsky
02-23-2016, 14:34
See, that's the problem - the guys that we really need in office don't want the job.
I'd vote for you in a heartbeat.
I've sobered up and realize I don't want that job.
Old Dog New Trick
02-23-2016, 14:58
Alright, let's have a little fun with this thread. Cyber "Town Hall Meeting" style.
Ask one or two, no more than three questions in a single post about how I stand on a particular issue affecting America at home (Domestic Policy) and/or American interests abroad (Foreign Policy) and I'll do my best to answer candidly and respectfully.
If I don't have answers I'll explain who or how I'd go about finding an answer. Because this country is bigger than one person and that's always been one of those things that has separated us from tyrants, dictators and kings.
The "meeting" starts now:
DIYPatriot
02-23-2016, 15:13
Alright, let's have a little fun with this thread. Cyber "Town Hall Meeting" style.
Ask one or two, no more than three questions in a single post about how I stand on a particular issue affecting America at home (Domestic Policy) and/or American interests abroad (Foreign Policy) and I'll do my best to answer candidly and respectfully.
If I don't have answers I'll explain who or how I'd go about finding an answer. Because this country is bigger than one person and that's always been one of those things that has separated us from tyrants, dictators and kings.
The "meeting" starts now:
With respect to the recent mandate by a federal judge ordering Apple to create a tool that can be used to unlock their very own encryption, where do you stand on that?
Old Dog New Trick
02-23-2016, 15:41
With respect to the recent mandate by a federal judge ordering Apple to create a tool that can be used to unlock their very own encryption, where do you stand on that?
I strongly support American businesses to do the right thing, and which is in their best interests. It's not the governments right or position to order a company to undermine or compromise its business model to achieve a temporary solution to a complex long term security issue.
Cyber security and preventing cybercrime should be a hallmark of both the government and private business to solve. Even if that means in this case that those answers will not be found.
Do better police work and track suspects and data back to the phone in question. Better to prove probable cause than fish to support reasonable suspicion. The FBI hasn't done that IMHO.
The only thing that can come from creating a "skeleton key" to Pandora's box is misery and future compromise - even compromise to government systems relying on iOS security.
I support Apple to do what they can legally or morally do and to stop when it reaches across 4th Amendment issues of the company and/or users of that product.
Old Dog New Trick
02-23-2016, 15:54
Furthermore, as president I'd ask the department heads of DHS, DOJ, NSA, DNI and CIA why they can't hack into this phone that they are in possession of?
If they told me the iOS and encryption is that good, I'd be dumping Blackberry and Samsung from government purchasing contracts.
(Senior USSS special agent loses his iphone in Moscow hotel room while having sex with unpaid prostitute...no problem! In the words of my closest rival- "yur fired!) :D
I have no doubt you would do a better job than any of the fuck sticks running at the moment.
IMO it's a shame Rick Perry couldn't have got it together.
I think damage to the Country could have been minimized with him at the reins.
Badger52
02-23-2016, 18:27
IMO it's a shame Rick Perry couldn't have got it together.
I think damage to the Country could have been minimized with him at the reins.He would've attended a Chief Justice's funeral, and pedophilia wouldn't be an Army Value.
ODNT, good response to the iPhone question. Bonus points for making some other contractors & lobbyists & receipients-of-procurement-largesse quake in their shoes.
:lifter
DIYPatriot
02-24-2016, 09:00
If they told me the iOS and encryption is that good, I'd be dumping Blackberry and Samsung from government purchasing contracts.
(Senior USSS special agent loses his iphone in Moscow hotel room while having sex with unpaid prostitute...no problem! In the words of my closest rival- "yur fired!) :D (That cracked me up)
My thoughts as well - a bunch of hipsters are schooling the 3 letter orgs...however, looking at it from my perspective - private industry has paid me a heap more $$$ than any DoD contract ever did. Not saying I'm more intelligent and a better engineer than my counterparts across the aisle. I'm saying, "Show me the money!".
Guess we need socialism to fix this disparity so that everyone is equal and the 3 letter orgs can attract and retain the types of folks that can encrypt a tween's cell phone so that even the NSA can't crack it.
On the other hand, I think we're going about this all wrong - the FBI should've said, "We have reason to believe that there are never before seen nude selfies of Jennifer Lawrence on this phone..." and that sucker would've been hacked before the ink dried on the press release.
This Country's like a 350 with 400K miles on it. Needs a rebuild, starting with turning the crank on up to the injection system.
Trump talks like the man to do it. I'm willing to give him and his platform a shot at the risk of the greatest Military conflagration the world has ever known.
Problem is how he's gonna load up the SCOTUS over 8 years, because we're at a timing crux with replacements.
Tryin' to look out for my grandbabies...
Old Dog New Trick
02-24-2016, 11:02
I agree that the country needs to be rebuilt. That rebuilding needs to start in Washington D.C., and each state legislature. It needs to start in the classroom of the first grade all the way through college and the universities. No one group of academics should rule the brain of our future.
I believe the Constitution and the idea of a Republic and free 'persons' in a free state should elect representatives that represent a majority of the state and not just the ideology of one city should represent that state. If the electoral college is good enough (still) for national elections it should be implemented at the state level so smaller communities are represented at the same level of one major city. These representatives should make up the congress of the nation to ensure equal and equity are a shared interest between the states. This is that business, healthcare, laws and so on are established that no 'person' is denied their constitutional rights by a local ordinance.
The power of the federal government should be in the hands of its citizens and the three branches of government should return to being a check and balance of each other - not giving one more power than the other but support the majority rule - not special interest and fringe groups.
And yes, our military needs to be and should be the best and brightest in the world because, real threats do exist and they will need to be dealt with.
DIYPatriot
02-24-2016, 11:08
Whole Post
That makes too much sense - really wish we had candidates like you running for leadership positions. You really need to stop teasing me. It just isn't fair.
I agree that the country needs to be rebuilt. That rebuilding needs to start in Washington D.C., and each state legislature. It needs to start in the classroom of the first grade all the way through college and the universities. No one group of academics should rule the brain of our future.
I believe the Constitution and the idea of a Republic and free 'persons' in a free state should elect representatives that represent a majority of the state and not just the ideology of one city should represent that state. If the electoral college is good enough (still) for national elections it should be implemented at the state level so smaller communities are represented at the same level of one major city. These representatives should make up the congress of the nation to ensure equal and equity are a shared interest between the states. This is that business, healthcare, laws and so on are established that no 'person' is denied their constitutional rights by a local ordinance.
The power of the federal government should be in the hands of its citizens and the three branches of government should return to being a check and balance of each other - not giving one more power than the other but support the majority rule - not special interest and fringe groups.
And yes, our military needs to be and should be the best and brightest in the world because, real threats do exist and they will need to be dealt with.
WoopWoop! ODNT on fiyah.
IMO it's a shame Rick Perry couldn't have got it together.
I think damage to the Country could have been minimized with him at the reins.
I'm in full agreement with you sir!
I believe the Constitution and the idea of a Republic and free 'persons' in a free state should elect representatives that represent a majority of the state and not just the ideology of one city should represent that state. If the electoral college is good enough (still) for national elections it should be implemented at the state level so smaller communities are represented at the same level of one major city.
While an interesting idea, I think that there is a flaw in your plan. State legislative districts can be redrawn in order to maintain a population balance within the state. State borders cannot be redrawn to balance population numbers within the nation, hence the EC.
Pat
Old Dog New Trick
02-24-2016, 21:32
While an interesting idea, I think that there is a flaw in your plan. State legislative districts can be redrawn in order to maintain a population balance within the state. State borders cannot be redrawn to balance population numbers within the nation, hence the EC.
Pat
Understand your point. While we know and have experienced how well that works or doesn't work. I also know that in my state and the rest of the Northwest only the cities of Seattle, Portland and Boise matter both in state elections and national elections. If you control the city folk and give them bread and circuses they control the outcome at the expense of the farmers, ranchers, and other hard working productive people (usually the ones paying the Lions-share of taxes.)
To me, it seems those city counsel members and the legislative district representatives from the most populated counties want to raise taxes and give away free shit and the representatives from the outlying counties are the ones standing in the way. Seems the whole problem with congress is the same problem: California, New York, and one or two other East Coast states keep trying to tell the rest of the country what's best for them.
Honestly I wish the EC would go away. It's no longer needed as it was intended. Presidential candidates don't ride Steam Locomotive across the country and attend the State Fair during and election year. I believe a singular "popular" vote can be counted and verified electronically in seconds.
Let's fix voter fraud, gerrymandering districts for party politics and campaign finance reform and let the legitimate and authorized voters decide.
Honestly I wish the EC would go away. It's no longer needed as it was intended.
Better that the 17 Amendment goes away and give back to the states the 2 EC votes, each, that they were intended to cast. Remember, the Constitution would not have been ratified if senators were also to be elected by popular vote. In our Republic, the states were to get a voice, too.
Pat
Better that the 17 Amendment goes away and give back to the states the 2 EC votes, each, that they were intended to cast. Remember, the Constitution would not have been ratified if senators were also to be elected by popular vote. In our Republic, the states were to get a voice, too.Pat
Right on.
Barbarian
02-25-2016, 08:35
Honestly I wish the EC would go away. It's no longer needed as it was intended. Presidential candidates don't ride Steam Locomotive across the country and attend the State Fair during and election year. I believe a singular "popular" vote can be counted and verified electronically in seconds.
That settles it for me. ODNT for Prez. Were can I donate to your campaign? ;)
Peregrino
02-25-2016, 09:04
Understand your point. While we know and have experienced how well that works or doesn't work. I also know that in my state and the rest of the Northwest only the cities of Seattle, Portland and Boise matter both in state elections and national elections. If you control the city folk and give them bread and circuses they control the outcome at the expense of the farmers, ranchers, and other hard working productive people (usually the ones paying the Lions-share of taxes.)
To me, it seems those city council members and the legislative district representatives from the most populated counties want to raise taxes and give away free shit and the representatives from the outlying counties are the ones standing in the way. Seems the whole problem with congress is the same problem: California, New York, and one or two other East Coast states keep trying to tell the rest of the country what's best for them.
Honestly I wish the EC would go away. It's no longer needed as it was intended. Presidential candidates don't ride Steam Locomotive across the country and attend the State Fair during and election year. I believe a singular "popular" vote can be counted and verified electronically in seconds.
Let's fix voter fraud, gerrymandering districts for party politics and campaign finance reform and let the legitimate and authorized voters decide.
I like most of your platform; however, I have to disagree with your stand on the EC. PSM has a much better idea - ditch the 17th Amendment. The Founding Fathers rightly feared the tyranny of the majority.
Dept of State:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Treasury:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
What about the Federal Reserve Board of Governors? Who, what and how?
Dept of Justice:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Interior:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Agriculture:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Commerce:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Labor:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
What about the LRB? Who, what and how?
Dept of Health and Human Services:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
What about Obamacare? Who, what and how?
Dept of Housing and Human Development:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Transportation:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Energy:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Education:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Commerce:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Veterans Affairs:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Homeland Security:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Take your time, we'll look at Regulatory agencies next.
Badger52
02-26-2016, 04:33
Take your time, we'll look at Regulatory agencies next.
Well, awlrighty.
Dept of Interior: Disband; No constitutional authority
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Agriculture: Disband; no constitutional authority
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Labor: Disband; No constitutional authority
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
What about the LRB? Who, what and how?
Dept of Health and Human Services: Disband; No constitutional authority
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
What about Obamacare? Who, what and how?
Dept of Housing and Human Development: Disband; No constitutional authority
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Energy: Disband; No constitutional authority
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Education: Disband; No constitutional authority
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Homeland Security: Disband; No constitutional authority
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Alright, let's have a little fun with this thread. Cyber "Town Hall Meeting" style.
Ask one or two, no more than three questions in a single post about how I stand on a particular issue affecting America at home (Domestic Policy) and/or American interests abroad (Foreign Policy) and I'll do my best to answer candidly and respectfully.
If I don't have answers I'll explain who or how I'd go about finding an answer. Because this country is bigger than one person and that's always been one of those things that has separated us from tyrants, dictators and kings.
The "meeting" starts now:
We have somewhere around $18 or $19 trillion in debt.
The budget is $3.7 trillion or so. We only take in $3.2 trillion in taxes, so we're spending about 13% more than we take in.
Medicare is 28% of the budget
Govt Pensions are 26% of the budget
Defense is 22% of the budget
Welfare is 10% of the budget
Interest on the debt (not debt payback) is 6% on the budget
Running govt is 1% of budget
Those 6 are 93% of the budget. The last 7% is for bridges/roads/education, etc.
IIRC, because of the ongoing deficit (and increasing debt) sometime around 2025 we're going broke.
How do we fix that?
Old Dog New Trick
02-26-2016, 09:45
This is gonna be a long meeting. Hope you brought beer! :D
Old Dog New Trick
02-26-2016, 10:43
MR2 -
You forgot the IRS...:p
Let me work on that one too!
Let me see, disband in its current form and policy and develop a means to create a national flat rate sales tax.
Don't have all the answers- it's complicated! :D
Disband; No constitutional authority
Just like the real life ankle-biters - no solution. No how. No one gave you a magic wand. And you're not running...
This is gonna be a long meeting. Hope you brought beer! :D
MR2 -
You forgot the IRS...:p
Let me work on that one too!
Let me see, disband in its current form and policy and develop a means to create a national flat rate sales tax.
Don't have all the answers- it's complicated! :D
I listed Executive Departments to start with, the IRS is a part of the Department of Treasury. While it is certainly fair game for the discussion, my thought was it deserves it's own separate discussion - and maybe after we've abolished/created Departments, it would have more relevance.
I'm taking this as a serious discussion and you look like you want to play. And if the undeclared candidates want to formally declare - then do so and join in the debate.
It's complicated. Boy howdy it is! All too often well meaning folks, self included, pop off with shoulda, woulda, coulda's on how things should be changed, fixed, done. Well let's engage in a serious and substantive debate with the declared candidate of the ODNT Party and see what he has to say.
So for me, lets just concentrate on the Cabinet level Executive Agencies listed and cover:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How? Let's also add a why in there too.
With all seriousness and respect.
Case of Dr. Pepper is a chillin'.
Old Dog New Trick
02-26-2016, 13:08
Fair enough and all seriousness I didn't mean to come off sounding smug.
I know that if I had to fill those "Secretarial" positions. It would be by trying to find the best qualified people with experience willing to do the job and not based on favoritism, back-door deals and cronyism.
I highly doubt the new or next president would be able to abolish federal agencies because they are redundant or serve no needed purpose.
Old Dog New Trick
02-26-2016, 14:02
As an Infantry NCO, an SF Medic and eventually an SF Operations Sergeant, I believed in doing the basics brilliantly! Continuously working towards mastering the core elements of the tasks needed to achieve success and sustainability for the unit from the singular person up to the higher commands mission objectives.
I required a high level of integrity, commitment and honor from those I led, and those I would give my life for their leadership.
I would hope to restore that level of expertise and knowledge in all the "Executive Departments" and hold them both fiscally and morally responsible for the duties they hold to the American people.
As far as repealing or replacing policies like ACA or PPACA? I think it needs a line item review and an overhaul of the parts that aren't feasible or effective. I don't know that a "single payer" system is the answer but would like to review the whole thing and come up with both a sustainable and viable solution to a complex problem. Both Medicare and Medicaid need an overhaul as well.
An enormous amount of greed and needless spending is caught up in insurance scams, tort claims and liabilities, and just plain old corruption that plagues being able to medically do the right thing at a fair and equitable cost. It doesn't cost what people are charged for the service rendered.
Old Dog New Trick
02-27-2016, 20:32
[QUOTE=MR2;604638]Dept of State:
Who would you nominate? The best qualified person for the job with years of experience in foreign relations. Probably an Ambassador from a high profile posting with a record of success.
What would you change? Return the focus on international diplomacy and foreign trade agreements that are fair or more fairer to us.
How? Establish strategic and economic priorities through analysis as most important to the least important.
Dept of Treasury:
Who would you nominate? Don't know. Someone with both a legal and financial background and a propensity to promote and protect our monetary value.
What would you change? I'm not entirely sure. We need to loan money at an affordable rate and protect against inflation. People who invested in the country should expect a safe and legitimate return. We can't print our way out of financial destruction...the balance of output needs to weigh heavily against intake and a means to payback what's already owed.
How? Like I said, I don't know.
What about the Federal Reserve Board of Governors? Who, what and how? Why isn't that a responsibility of the State elected Governors? As a "Republic" each of the 50 Governors should have a say as to the financial welfare of the country as a whole.
Dept of Justice:
Who would you nominate? A career Lawman (someone who's been a trusted and respected Commissioner, Chief of Police, Director of a Federal Law Enforcement agency...etc..), Criminal Justice Lawyer/Judge and someone with an excellent history on Constitutional law and law enforcement.
What would you change? Return to a focus on oversight only of local and state jurisdiction. Establish compliance with Constitutional law and civil rights issues. Stop imposing federal levels of justice at the local level (unless the Feds just want to take possession and prosecute) and get back to criminal justice to find and prosecute only the right "bad" people and organizations. There is no need to create a problem where none exists. Fiascos like Waco, Ruby Ridge, Bundy standoff (AZ) and Oregon (Bundy II) never even needed to be solved with force. If one thing the government has is time.
How? Damn good question! Return to the basics and use technology only where appropriate and necessary.
Dept of Interior:
Who would you nominate? Someone with a clear understanding and a sound management plan for the national parks, fish, wildlife and conservation policies. Probably a scientist or environmental professor open to ideas and not a person who believes the best way to protect the land is to fence it off and close the gates.
What would you change? Return a sense of this land is our land, be good stewards and enjoy it! I also suppose this is good place to cover BLM and land use agreements. There needs to be a clear and definable purpose to control or regulate open lands, and one that has historically been used by ranchers and citizens for pleasure or business. There must be better ways to protect turtles, small birds and scrub oaks in the desert than to close millions and millions of acres of desert.
How? Proper enforcement of established policies and an openness to discuss land use grievances in a mutually beneficial way to all users.
Dept of Agriculture:
Who would you nominate? I would think someone with an extensive background (Ph.D./Doctorate) in horticulture, zoology (animal husbandry), disease, infection, contamination, and parasitical infection. Although it may not be as important for the Secretary to know all this stuff, the staff should be experts in food handling, animal safety, produce inspection and a list of other variables that promote food safety and inspection from the hoof to the table, or the farm to the supermarket.
What would you change? I would get the Dept of Agriculture out of the federal payroll system that see to making payroll for federal law enforcement agencies as part of its months duties. I would hope that the Dept would step up inspection, enforcement and prosecution of plant managers, farmers, shippers, and restaurants that cut corners and produce, release, or store foods that are not fit for human consumption.
How?
Dept of Commerce:
Who would you nominate? This will take a wise, educated and experienced business (person) to regulate, control and expedite Interstate trade and transportation of goods and services. It should be someone who has actual experience in running a large business or corporation with thousands of employees, multiple business locations and has dealt with government red tape and bureaucracy to find ways to cut the "middleman" and streamline the process. It is the responsibility of the Dept of Commerce to "PROMOTE THE CONDITIONS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND OPPORTUNITY!" Promote - not control or restrict.
What would you change? It's not the "Governments" job to find you a job! However, it may be the governments job to make sure you are earning the proper wages for the work being performed. That you are not being discriminated against because of your race, sex, religion, or any of the other protected statuses.
How? Damn good question, because as I see it, there is too much control being orchestrated by the government to tell local business how to run their company and too many regulations that far exceed common sense. You can't tell a company they are not in compliance with "federal" hiring practices if none of the people they didn't hire didn't meet the requirements of the job. Life it not fair, the job market should reflect that unfairness if the best person for the job isn't a minority by classification.
Dept of Labor:
Who would you nominate? I think this one is redundant to the Dept of Commerce and could go away or be combined under the leadership Commerce. With few exception to OSHA, Fair Wages, Unemployment standards and Insurance - this really should be a States issue and no federal duplication is necessary.
What would you change? Disband it!
How?
What about the LRB? Who, what and how? I don't know, some unions are good, most have lived past their usefulness, some are just plain harmful to equality, wage standards, and working conditions. I think there is a better way to move this forward at the State level and get the federal government out of business and workers rights issues.
Thank you. Appreciate your putting forth the effort in this intellectual exercise. I think we can all learn more about the process.
You might want to consider adding some policy advisers to your campaign staff to help flesh out any areas. Upon appointment, they would would be able to play and you could agree/disagree with their 'policy advice'.
BTW, the Fed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Board_of_Governors) is not made of of State Governors but are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Last hard class
02-27-2016, 22:44
MR2 -
You forgot the IRS...:p
Let me work on that one too!
Let me see, disband in its current form and policy and develop a means to create a national flat rate sales tax.
Don't have all the answers- it's complicated! :D
I would be interested in seeing your ideas on taxation. Most of the candidates have a couple of good ideas but don't stand the acid test in totality.
Also:
You have some good ideas, and would make the government run better. But is that enough to get you elected in today's digital world? IMO, if you are going to run against the establishment you will need a couple of bold ideas that differentiate you from the herd. Otherwise you just splinter the republican party. As a third party candidate you will need to peel votes from both sides.
I read somewhere that the average smart phone user has an attention span of less than 30 seconds when reading articles.
For example. If you want to sell a stronger immigration policy, get the fence and all that, offer a path of citizenship to the illegals who have already made it in. I know it wouldn't taste good going down, but common sense says we are never going to deport 20 million people. Why not use that to get the attention and a huge voting block behind you?
I'm going to go have a couple of libations while you guys fire for effect.
LHC
Why not use that to get the attention and a huge voting block behind you?
I'm going to go have a couple of libations while you guys fire for effect.
LHC
Incoming! :D
Because it doesn't. We have a huge legal Mexican population here, and the ones I know are pissed at anyone who suggests such a thing. Those who did it legally would riot against allowing illegal interlopers in. You don't have to "round up" the 20 million, just deport the ones who come into contact with law enforcement for any reason. And, BTW, the 14th Amendment doesn't include aliens. The author of the Amendment specifically said that it did not. I posted a reference to that on this site.
ETA: I left out the important part: If you give free entry to illegals, there is no way in hell that they would vote for anyone (Rep) who would deny them other freebees.
Lets say the offer of amnesty was that they could not vote for 20 years. Would the Democrats go for that?
Pat
p.s. Is your daughter an RB Sea Hawk or a MB Mustang, now? ;)
Last hard class
02-27-2016, 23:32
Incoming! :D
Because it doesn't. We have a huge legal Mexican population here, and the ones I know are pissed at anyone who suggests such a thing. Those who did it legally would riot against allowing illegal interlopers in. You don't have to "round up" the 20 million, just deport the ones who come into contact with law enforcement for any reason. And, BTW, the 14th Amendment doesn't include aliens. The author of the Amendment specifically said that it did not. I posted a reference to that on this site.
ETA: I left out the important part: If you give free entry to illegals, there is no way in hell that they would vote for anyone (Rep) who would deny them other freebees.
Lets say the offer of amnesty was that they could not vote for 20 years. Would the Democrats go for that?
Pat
p.s. Is your daughter an RB Sea Hawk or a MB Mustang, now? ;)
Jeesh. I haven't even made it out the door yet.
While I happen to disagree, my point is to think UW as a 3rd party candidate.
I will pm you tomorrow on the personal stuff.
LHC
Jeesh. I haven't even made it out the door yet.
While I happen to disagree, my point is to think UW as a 3rd party candidate.
I will pm you tomorrow on the personal stuff.
LHC
FFE means now. :D
Third party means Loser Party.
Copy on the PM.
Pat
Old Dog New Trick
02-28-2016, 02:30
Continued (too long)
Dept of Health and Human Services:
Who would you nominate? I really don't even know where to begin on this one in short answer. I have written extensively elsewhere on what's wrong with HHS and why it can't do anything near where it should be focused. It really has lost its way as a federal agency to oversee and protect the American healthcare system. You can't just promise people health and happiness and it won't cost you anything to take personal risk or hazard your life and "Big Brother" will step in to cover the costs of your poor choices. I would likely find someone who has experience in running a large healthcare facility as a President or CEO and has a vast level of experience in managing the very very complicated levels or patient, doctor, nurse, supply, financial side of billing, records keeping and wages...etc... I know that you can't put a computer systems and former data collection and survey coordinator in charge and expect rainbows and butterflies.
What would you change? Start over!
How? Define the mission of HHS! Limit the scope and practice of HHS to Medicare and Medicaid. Establish guidelines and requirements for healthcare professionals and hospital administration to practice best preferred management of available resources. Promote and enforce compliance with and between federal and state controllers for billing and services covered under Medicare and Medicaid and promote healthy life choices in schools and and endemic services conducted by the CDC to protect and educate about disease and other unhealthy life choices.
What about Obamacare? Who, what and how? C&P from above: As far as repealing or replacing policies like ACA or PPACA? I think it needs a line item review and an overhaul of the parts that aren't feasible or effective. I don't know that a "single payer" system is the answer but would like to review the whole thing and come up with both a sustainable and viable solution to a complex problem. Both Medicare and Medicaid need an overhaul as well. An enormous amount of greed and needless spending is caught up in insurance scams, tort claims and liabilities, and just plain old corruption that plagues being able to medically do the right thing at a fair and equitable cost. It doesn't cost what people are charged for the service rendered.
Dept of Housing and Human Development:
Who would you nominate? This is a freaking disaster!
What would you change? Damn near everything about it!
How? With a chainsaw and a shovel! And, a lot of pink slips!
Dept of Transportation:
Who would you nominate? I'd like to find someone with experience in horizontal construction management, and a preferred knowledge of Interstate trucking. He or she should be intimately familiar with the auto industry, the insurance industry, and highway safety.
What would you change? I can see a lot of shovel ready projects everyday. Our roads and transportation system is falling apart. There needs to be a better way to fund growth, expansion and repair of existing roads and structures to not only keep up with today but ten and 20-years from now. I would use "Imminent Domain" to create new highways and federally funded freeways where needed to keep people moving between homes and businesses. I would invest heavily in light rail and commuter trains where they currently do not exist and speed up projects that are underway but underfunded to meet growing demand. I would also cut federal spending that supports underused mass transit.
How? The gas tax has not changed in nearly 20-years, it's far to low compared to European countries that seem to construct and build new roads and transportation projects twice as fast as we do. FEVs and EVs should not get a free pass from paying road taxes because they use less gas or no gas. There needs to be a way to charge everyone an equal amount of tax per mile based on frequency or vehicle weight. I'm not apposed to toll roads and pay as you go lanes if they help to alleviate congestion during peak traffic hours.
Dept of Energy:
Who would you nominate? I'd like to find a 'brainiac' and forward thinker in this area. Someone with knowledge and experience in all forms of energy, transmission, use, clean air, and reusable resources. Someone who has the balls to tell a Congressman or Senator that their pet project is a net waste of energy and should be tossed in the "trillions of wasted dollars tank" along with a healthy dose of "fuel corn" that burns through more energy to produce and to and refine than the oil it reduces.
What would you change? Many things. I'd like to see more use of fleet vehicles using fuels and electrics that are readily available. I'd like to see better programs to replace older non-efficient appliances in the household and in industry that phases out power hungry items.I'd like to see a better and more efficient means to reward people for creating private and public businesses that are clean air and reusable energy efficient like; solar and wind.
How? It'll take time and forward thinking but it can be done. Less wasted time on arguing about "Climate Change" and more effort used to speed up the process to make real change towards cleaner burning fuels and reusable sources of energy. Aggressive inspection and compliance of clean air standards for existing organic fuel users (coal electrical plants) and including automobiles that are not just outdated but the worst of the worst polluters.
Dept of Education:
Who would you nominate? I would like to disband it! I don't feel that the federal government should be in your classroom, controlling what's on the lunch menu, or telling the local community school that they should or should not be telling you you can or cannot say the "Pledge of Allegiance" with or without the phrase "under God", that should be a local decision and an individual choice. Along with the First Amendment and the freedom to speak is the freedom to not speak.
What would you change? Just about everything the current program administers. The federal government should get out of the student loan business, should get out of the funding public, private and charter schools as a daily business. If the local or state government wants to borrow money for new school construction that should be worked out like any other loan and repaid not as a condition of control over sports programs or the cafeteria menu. There are plenty of worthwhile objectives and testing requirements the federal government could pass down to ensure standards are being met, but forcing a school to create gender-neutral (confused) locker rooms and bathrooms as a condition of receiving operating money should not be one of them. Same goes for Title 9 sports? It's about time all the "special snowflakes" in school get told if you want to have an all female rugby team find 14 other girls and have a car wash. In fact lets make it really abundantly fair: the boys football team needs to have a car wash too if they want new uniforms and helmets - the school shouldn't be buying this equipment as a condition of play. There are so many "sports" that are in fact gender-neutral and only require a pair of running shoes. Football, soccer, La Cross and other contact sports are a liability and are now proving to cost schools more money than the benefit gained.
How? start over and clearly define what the governments role is in promoting a competitive education on par with the world at large.
Dept of Commerce:
Who would you nominate?
What would you change?
How?
Dept of Veterans Affairs:
Who would you nominate? I'd hope to find someone who deeply cares about our service members, be they retired and receiving benefits themselves (preferably), or someone with the courage and conviction to stand on the principle that our veterans deserve the best possible care and comfort that they earned - whether a short time and combat related illness/injury or someone who served until retirement and has service related injuries and illnesses from military service. Whether this person was an Officer or Senior Enlisted member and has/had an equivalent level of leadership and management while serving. I would also hope that he or she had some knowledge of the military medical system and is a clear advocate for patient rights and due process.
What would you change? Many things that currently plague the VA. One thing that stands out though is a lack of professional interest in working for the VA. It's hard to attract the right people to work for wages that are inconsistent with private or public care facilities and that leads to shortcomings throughout the VA. Like most all other government agencies it has become to bureaucratic and clogged up with red tape and under-sight that allows lifetime employees to punch the proverbial clock and go home.
How? Fire some people!
Old Dog New Trick
02-28-2016, 02:31
Continued some more...
Dept of Homeland Security:
Who would you nominate? I would like to see someone with either a military background in intelligence, special operations, or Director level law enforcement take the helm. Since its inception it has had no leadership, no vision, and out of control management at all levels. It was a fine concept in theory but lacked purpose from the beginning. With the right leadership and vision it has the ability to control, coordinate and respond to natural or manmade disasters and security threats, but it will take a unified effort and a fundamental change from the top down.
What would you change? Much.
How? Diligently.
Take your time, we'll look at Regulatory agencies next.[/QUOTE]
ETA: I'm sure with more time and energy I could expand some of those and I would definitely gather my most trusted friends and comrades to establish an advisory panel to help me with selecting the best and brightest. I would send out job applications after November 2nd, to all who would be interested in serving their country for a period of up to four years and then go through each application and determine who would actually be the best for the job.
I don't have any specific names at hand, and most likely wouldn't spend the effort until I was either so far ahead in the polls or actually won the general election. Then it will be crazy times...before January 22.
Old Dog New Trick
02-28-2016, 02:43
I would be interested in seeing your ideas on taxation. Most of the candidates have a couple of good ideas but don't stand the acid test in totality.
Also:
You have some good ideas, and would make the government run better. But is that enough to get you elected in today's digital world? IMO, if you are going to run against the establishment you will need a couple of bold ideas that differentiate you from the herd. Otherwise you just splinter the republican party. As a third party candidate you will need to peel votes from both sides.
I read somewhere that the average smart phone user has an attention span of less than 30 seconds when reading articles.
For example. If you want to sell a stronger immigration policy, get the fence and all that, offer a path of citizenship to the illegals who have already made it in. I know it wouldn't taste good going down, but common sense says we are never going to deport 20 million people. Why not use that to get the attention and a huge voting block behind you?
I'm going to go have a couple of libations while you guys fire for effect.
LHC
It's late, I'm going to have one more beer than hit the sack. Will touch on this soon.
Old Dog New Trick
02-28-2016, 03:38
My ideas on taxes:
I don't like an income tax and I don't agree with escalating tax brackets on levels of income. The poor don't pay taxes, and the rich find loopholes and offshore accounts to protect them. This leaves the middle-class to pay the brunt of federally collected taxes. People earned their money through hard work, better jobs, higher education, etc... Then get hit in their pocket books for doing all those things to better themselves. Then on top of that we have the most complicated taxation rules and regulations that either require you to hire someone so you can keep some of your money or spend money on software to again keep some of your money. The rest you spend, or save.
I don't care who you are, everyone buys stuff...rich people buy more expensive stuff, middle-class people buy stuff they can't afford and poor people buy the stuff they can afford to live the best life they can under the circumstances (wether they bought that with 'FREE' money or not) they likely got it through less than ideal or legal means (hence the immigration problem of working under the table or the drug trade on the streets) they didn't pay any "income" taxes.
I think a national flate rate sales tax is the answer. I don't know exactly what that rate should be, I've heard somewhere between 17 and 24 percent of a national sales tax would garner enough money to balance the federal budget and create a surplus to pay down the deficit.
I'm not apposed to luxury taxes, sin taxes, common use taxes (energy, fuel, consumables like water and waste management), and special purpose taxes (toll roads and bridges, HOT lanes, Interstate trucking, etc...) to add to this sales tax for the general public because you probably should be charged an extra tax to live beyond your means, conduct business, or add risk to your health. So, beyond that 17 to 24 percent flat sales tax, you may pay more taxes (at time of purchase only) for exotic cars, gas guzzling cars/trucks, mansions, estates, cigarettes, booze, tobacco (Marijuana), risky activities that increase your risk of injury or health and so on...but you will know up front that you are paying for the pleasure, profit, or increased risk and can change your mind without consequence. That may be a very high tax but you don't have to pay if you don't want to play.
Once this is agreed upon, we can shutter the IRS for most all of their complicated rules of exemptions, loopholes and unclaimed earnings reports and let them investigate the seller for false reporting and collections.
No more "write offs" no more capital gains taxes, no more "income based" tax brackets, no more stacks of forms and wasted hours every year before April 15th. You earned it through legal (or illegal) means and you spend it. If you don't want to pay any taxes - don't buy anything - ever.
Badger52
02-28-2016, 06:13
My ideas on taxes:
...
I think a national flate rate sales tax is the answer. I don't know exactly what that rate should be, I've heard somewhere between 17 and 24 percent of a national sales tax would garner enough money to balance the federal budget and create a surplus to pay down the deficit.
I'm not apposed to luxury taxes, sin taxes, common use taxes (energy, fuel, consumables like water and waste management), and special purpose taxes (toll roads and bridges, HOT lanes, Interstate trucking, etc...) to add to this sales tax for the general public because you probably should be charged an extra tax to live beyond your means, conduct business, or add risk to your health. So, beyond that 17 to 24 percent flat sales tax, you may pay more taxes (at time of purchase only) for exotic cars, gas guzzling cars/trucks, mansions, estates, cigarettes, booze, tobacco (Marijuana), risky activities that increase your risk of injury or health and so on...but you will know up front that you are paying for the pleasure, profit, or increased risk and can change your mind without consequence. That may be a very high tax but you don't have to pay if you don't want to play.
If you would entertain a couple of questions please:
1. (Because the highlighted areas above seem to conflict.)
What authority would be the arbiter of what is an item that falls into the category of 'luxury' or a 'sin'? Specifically, who decides that purchase of a certain item by someone, making their own decision to expend the fruit of their labor, is something contrary to the common good and that a further 'penalty' should be assessed for someone being judged to be living beyond their means? Under what agency would you propose setting up this authority & what would be their level & means of enforcement?
2. Separately, what is your view on the taxation of the inventory of a business? That is, presuming they have paid a tax on items when initially purchased, should they pay a tax on the items again and again? Or would you advocate eliminating the issue entirely along with the jockeying of managing depreciation schedules as well as having to balance unsold inventory against the expense of bringing it inside the business?
#2 has impact down to the local level; and if one wants to continue to see the demise small-town brick & mortar businesses one can simply imagine:
Owner: "Sorry, I don't have that in stock but I can get it here for you in a week or so."
Customer: "Never mind; I'll just go ahead & drive over to the big city or order it online."
Thoughts on both of those would be welcome.
Thank you.
Old Dog New Trick
02-28-2016, 10:50
If you would entertain a couple of questions please:
1. (Because the highlighted areas above seem to conflict.)
What authority would be the arbiter of what is an item that falls into the category of 'luxury' or a 'sin'? Specifically, who decides that purchase of a certain item by someone, making their own decision to expend the fruit of their labor, is something contrary to the common good and that a further 'penalty' should be assessed for someone being judged to be living beyond their means? Under what agency would you propose setting up this authority & what would be their level & means of enforcement?
2. Separately, what is your view on the taxation of the inventory of a business? That is, presuming they have paid a tax on items when initially purchased, should they pay a tax on the items again and again? Or would you advocate eliminating the issue entirely along with the jockeying of managing depreciation schedules as well as having to balance unsold inventory against the expense of bringing it inside the business?
#2 has impact down to the local level; and if one wants to continue to see the demise small-town brick & mortar businesses one can simply imagine:
Owner: "Sorry, I don't have that in stock but I can get it here for you in a week or so."
Customer: "Never mind; I'll just go ahead & drive over to the big city or order it online."
Thoughts on both of those would be welcome.
Thank you.
It's a concept that would need to stand on several reviews and legal definitions before implementation. E.g., would materials and services be taxed every time they changed hands or just at the original point of sale? Would merchandise shipped to outlets and distribution centers have a tax other than the 'transport taxes' and those 'inventory and depreciation issues' would go away with amortization schedule.
I don't know? Also, i don't feel it's a conflict of ideas to say I stand for this, but would entertain other ideas if they moved the country forward. Common sense and a panel of experts could be the 'arbiters' of deciding what it and what is not a "luxury item" or a "sin" "health" issue. Certainly it would have its detractors so research and statistics would have to be used to quantify the governments position that say 'smoking is bad for you and a pack of cigs is going to cost you and additional 100%, or that McLaren F1 is going to cost 10% over the national tax rate of 17%.
The "living beyond your means" was a bit tongue in cheek. Because certainly some people don't do that and they tend to be the most well off in terms of financial security and retirement ready. (I'm not one of them people so maybe if I knew ahead of time that last years tax loopholes, amortization schedules, exempt taxes and reimbursable taxes paid but can only be claimed if you itemize your losses enough to surpass a magic formula, that lets me keep some of my money would be the same next year, I could plan better for the future knowing I can't deduct shit that I used to be able too and now the government gets to keep more of my money.)
I think we run businesses out of the country because of how complicated our tax system is. When it takes a bevy of highly paid lawyers and accountants to save a business money on taxes you have to ask, is it better for business to pay others to save that money or waste time within your own small business to try and figure out how much you are supposed to pay the government for unsold inventory, workers wages, health insurance, an unemployment insurance and the taxes on those services?
It's all too complicated for me. We need to uncomplicated it.
Badger52
02-28-2016, 13:32
^^ previous post ^^
and
It's all too complicated for me. We need to uncomplicated it.On the last thing we can completely agree. Thanks for taking the time.
A couple of follow-up thoughts (and using one of your examples):
I feel it's an important facet of messaging to be able to answer a hypothetical such as:
"I worked hard, paid plenty of taxes, provided for myself & family, and have accumulated personal assets that let me indulge in something I really enjoy, to wit: Taking my vintage F1 McLaren out to Elkhart Lake or Road Atlanta a few times a year & really having a go. Why did I have to pay 10% more for it?"
The other thing (not to you personally, to politicians in general) is the use of the word "loophole" nearly always as a perjorative. Loopholes are what someone calls them when they wish they had 'em. Most objective folks would say that's taking best advantage of provisions in existing law. Ya want it different? Change the law. Did I deduct my mortgage interest while paying off my home so I had a roof before retiring? You bet. Some called it a "loophole"; those still renting but who owned every gaming system on the planet to play on the 60" wall-TV would be examples. So I think it's important to understand whether a candidate ultimately believes we're better off in a meritocracy, or should we continually take from the ant to give to the grasshopper.
Back to watching. Interesting thread; and thanks again for playing.
:)
Old Dog New Trick
02-28-2016, 14:31
I feel it's an important facet of messaging to be able to answer a hypothetical such as:
"I worked hard, paid plenty of taxes, provided for myself & family, and have accumulated personal assets that let me indulge in something I really enjoy, to wit: Taking my vintage F1 McLaren out to Elkhart Lake or Road Atlanta a few times a year & really having a go. Why did I have to pay 10% more for it?"
The other thing (not to you personally, to politicians in general) is the use of the word "loophole" nearly always as a perjorative. Loopholes are what someone calls them when they wish they had 'em. Most objective folks would say that's taking best advantage of provisions in existing law. Ya want it different? Change the law. Did I deduct my mortgage interest while paying off my home so I had a roof before retiring? You bet. Some called it a "loophole;
1) I guess simply because you can. Maybe it's not fair, maybe I'm asking the wealthy to pay for 'extravagance' because they can. It works that way in other countries that aren't even "socialist." Thailand for example has a 300% mark up on imported luxury cars and yet the rich still buy them. As for 'sin' taxes it's nothing more than a disincentive to stop using products that add costs to our healthcare problems. I love taking my cars to the track a couple times a year. Cost a lot to go around in circles but I still pay the man for gas, tires and brakes.
2) I agree "loophole" is a bad way to express taking advantage of existing laws or the lack there of - clear interpretation. As a home owner and renter of a second home I used every available tax deduction to keep some of my money. That is until I made too much or invested too much. I get nailed every year because I collect my Army retirement check and have a good job. Apparently I need to pay more taxes because I'm too young and shouldn't get a pension yet. I'm probably just bitter, but thankful just the same.
General discussion:
Ever notice who is most likely to be addicted to cigarettes and booze? The poor that don't pay an income tax don't have suggested levels of health insurance or none at all and demand to be cared for after losing everything. No skin in the game yet they play the odds that they will be cared for from cradle to grave. Some win many lose!
If the federal tax at 17-24% on top of state taxes was a disincentive to buy that 60" 4KHDHR TV and you settled for a 36" 1080 HD for the family on a budget maybe, just maybe you could stay out bankruptcy court, take a free (nothing is free) smoking cessation program and make the mortgage/rent payments on time.
Badger52
02-28-2016, 14:48
1) I guess simply because you can.Because I can or because, ultimately, Government can make me under some threat of action (forfeiture of money, deprivation of liberty, both)?
I'm honestly not trying to play trivial pursuit here. If one wants to reform a tax structure and arrive at an equitable solution (and the actual rate/percentage of what would be the tax under discussion) there needs to be a definition of what is equal. Or are some just more equal than others? Once those currently defined as rich (who pay "because they can") die off, where is the incentive to achieve when the result is to become one of the 'not-equals'? The result would be to lay-low under the threshold, or move one's assets off shore - but isn't that kind of a circular problem already?
Old Dog New Trick
02-28-2016, 15:53
It is becoming a circular argument and I don't know how it would all come together. Obviously the rich have already written the laws that allow them to shelter money earned in a multitude of ways. My way says they don't have to. Be as rich as you can become but know that with that success your 'toys' will cost more. You don't have to buy the 'toys' but they will.
Where is the cut line? Is this luxury tax passed from first purchasers to subsequent second and third buyers - I don't know.
What constitutes a mansion or estate? More or less a million dollars, number of rooms/bathrooms, size of property...I don't know.
Is a $300,000 sailboat a luxury or regularly prices second home or first home. What about a million dollar yacht with a helicopter?
If you buy your McLaren 650S in Britain and ship it to states to avoid the luxury tax? Will it cost more or less? Why not buy your supercar in Britain or Italy and drive it over there? Many questions no solid answer.
First have find a responsible solution, overcome the overwhelming resistance from within the establishment and iron out the details on how to implement it.
Can a national flat sales tax even work. Some economists seem to think so. So do I.
Badger52
02-28-2016, 16:23
It sounds, from your campaign's perspective anyway, that a flat-rate tax might be a misnomer and whatever it would be called is a complicated thing to pull off - I concede that stuff is complicated, no dispute. So might want to think about the interpretation of what people imagine when they think of "flat" tax rate.
Hat-tip due that you did entertain the questions longer than current politicians (from someone not yet wearing one of your t-shirts) at least without having me thrown out by a couple dozen goons.
So thank you. I'll go get some literature now & let someone else have a turn. Where's the coffee and :munchin
:)
Old Dog New Trick
02-28-2016, 17:33
I think what people would have to know is that everyone will pay the same tax rate for common everyday goods and services. The IRS as we know it would ensure compliance and investigate fraud and subversion to the system. We should be able to abolish 74,000 of the 74,608 estimated pages of the current tax regulations and code.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look-at-how-many-pages-are-in-the-federal-tax-code/article/2563032
https://www.irs.gov/pub/tas/08_tas_arc_msp_1.pdf
Who will resist this? The filthy rich, those CPAs who make a living ripping people off to save them a few hundred bucks, lawyers and accountants and of course those who work for the IRS and their cronies in Washington.
The details would have to be worked out but ultimately the retailers and the service industry would be the ones who ultimately collect and report "sales tax" on all purchases.
Few if any 'exemptions' would exist and the process of individual tax returns would go away. Otherwise it's a business issue.
Old Dog New Trick
02-29-2016, 12:50
LHC-
Immigration or more specifically illegal immigrants-
I think there is a minor to major problem with illegal immigrants crossing our borders. The minor part is that people do and they should be collected up and sent back to where they started - all the way back to their homelands - Central and South America if applicable.
The major problem is that of drug couriers and the possibility of terrorist organizations gaining access across our porous borders.
I don't think a total fence is the solution. History should show us that fences don't work. Didn't work in China, only worked in East Germany and elsewhere because men with guns, dogs and land-mines kept people from reaching the walls. Erecting impenetrable walls and fences only work where observation is carried out. Ladders are cheap! Shovels take a bit more time!
As President I would strengthen the CBP and the USCG with their role in protecting the borders north and south from illegal penetration, drug trafficking and anti-terrorism. I would also submit to congress for limited authorization to redeploy the U.S. Military; be they NG or AD in a limited campaign to support and enforce (DHS) Homeland Security against terrorism. (Yes I know this is Posse Comitatus Act issue but there are exceptions and the scope would be very limited to observe and report with self-defense clearly established in the ROE.) As long as we are "at war against terrorism" I believe this could be properly worded and approved by congress and the border states legislatures.
For those already here 'illegally' I would support a program that continues to incarcerate and deport anyone found to have committed a crime and to detain and deport anyone caught and found to be not a U.S. Citizen by naturalization or the process to become a naturalized citizen. They will be deported back to their home country as a result. While the 14A does grant citizenship to anyone born here, it does not grant amnesty or citizenship to the parents of said children. So if both father and mother are found to be here illegally they are both subject to deportation and the child may become a ward of the state or adopted by family with legal protections afforded by citizenship if one were to exist.
I would not unless cited to be a criminal trespass issue or other criminal investigation, hunt for illegal immigrants nor spend federal dollars to search for them - I'd leave that up to the states. Although, it is likely through other departments and routine inspection of food and agricultural processing, or the service industry that reports of undocumented workers will be rounded up and deported at the expense of the company that hired them - and any additional legal fees that may be associated the the hiring of an illegal work force.
I would also support better funding of DOS and INS to clear the backlog and development of a streamlined process which is both affordable and time sensitive to vetting and approving the 'legal' process for immigrating, visiting, working, or becoming a non-permanent resident in the U.S. (My wife and I experienced that process and it was crap 18-years ago and no better now.)
I would support the states to come up with their own laws and policies to deal with illegal immigrants and to keep those clearly within the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. If so good, if not we have a judicial system all the way to the SCOTUS.
GratefulCitizen
02-29-2016, 14:34
I would support the states to come up with their own laws and policies to deal with illegal immigrants and to keep those clearly within the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. If so good, if not we have a judicial system all the way to the SCOTUS.
At the state level, legislate a ridiculously high minimum wage for "undocumented workers" (maybe $100/hr).
Allow them to sue their employers for underpaid wages.
Creates a "prisoner's dilemma" which collapses the incentive system for illegal immigration.
Problem solves itself.
Old Dog New Trick
02-29-2016, 14:41
At the state level, legislate a ridiculously high minimum wage for "undocumented workers" (maybe $100/hr).
Allow them to sue their employers for underpaid wages.
Creates a "prisoner's dilemma" which collapses the incentive system for illegal immigration.
Problem solves itself.
:D haha!
(But, in KalifornIa they could vote themselves a pay raise over that. :cool:)