If you were running for president...

[Chazumi]

If I had time for more, I'd abolish Public School. Yes. Private School on average cost $5,000 per student per year, as opposed to public school's $18,000. With the reduction in taxes, including those for public school, most should be able to afford private school, for the few who could not, just let the government pay for private school, its still cheaper than running public, and those who could would pay for themselves.

Also a note: The difference between the above and welfare, welfare is given mostly to people who made some bad decisions in life, while education is given to the children of these people.

Everyone I've met who went to private or home schools as opposed to public were wierd. Maybe even socially ******ed...

 

[JollyRoger]

1. Get rid of abortion

2. pass a series of edicts essentially getting the Federal government out of peoples lives.

So, with #2 you are going to overturn #1?

 

[Quackers]

Don't privately educated people run your government and instuitions? They do over here..

 

[Perfection]

Yes. Private School on average cost $5,000 per student per year, as opposed to public school's $18,000.

Back up your figures, please.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Fundamental Christians for the death penalty

 

[Tani Coyote]

Wow, I'm actually disagreeing on a few.

Considering I'm not an actual right winger akin to how I was prior to May 1st, no need to wow about it.

1. Death Penalty: America needs it. First off, the only reason its pricey is because we're too complex.

That's to prevent an innocent person from being executed. Just as the complexity of our federal government prevents any one group from wielding total power.

Once we've proven the murderer's guilt, a bullet to the head does just fine. Not using the death penalty is a lack of respect to the victim.

Oh I have no moral qualms with the death penalty. I have many right-wing values personally, but I just shift more left with actual policies because they can often make more sense.

Chances are the victim didn't get a painless death, however. Leave the murderer in a cell for decades on end, living in horrid conditions that are only just good enough to let them live. In a nutshell, make them wish you'd kill them. All without resorting to outright torture as well.

It may seem sadistic, but it does indeed pay respect to the victims, it's cheaper, and overall, you can release them if it turns out they're innocent. It's much easier to release a person from prison than a casket, go figure.

3. Nationalized insurance: Isn't this what Obama did (Or is private insurance still optional. I am unsure. Either way, we need capitalist reform, not socialist.)

Kind of. Obama wanted to create a public insurance company that would operate on a non-profit motive yet sell the same insurance services, thus lowering the costs of insurance enormously. It would be funded entirely through these insurance services like any other company, and not rely on taxes. I thought it was one of his best ideas.

Now, how would private businesses compete against this megalithic government-chartered business? Simple. Enough people fear government insurance to keep private insurance viable; so long as there is demand, there will likely be supply.

The argument for the free market is it delivers goods and services more efficiently than the government. I'd say, for the most part, this is true. But in insurance, which is merely pooling money and paying it out, what is the benefit of private insurance, other than increased costs? Sure, the government borderline-monopoly could manipulate costs, but if they raise them too much, we can always elect people who will lower the costs.

4. Military: We are hated by a lot of people. Also, we really need more military to invade Iran (Muslim extremists won't nuke us, the odds are?)

Not hated so much as disliked. Many of those who dislike us will still stand by us when push comes to shove; Europe's the best example of this. Our nuclear weapons also will serve to deter most threats. We still need a standing force for obvious reasons, not to mention the fact terrorists don't have a home nation we can just blow up.

6: We were just fine with no welfare state when the nation started, so we are today.

But we did have a welfare state. Or at least a corporate one: tariffs cut the flow of foreign goods into the USA, allowing our industries to prosper and become independent, paving the way for our major power - and later superpower - status.

The government also used its limited authority to stimulate our growth and expansion, through such things as the railroad companies and the Louisiana Purchase. While not a welfare state in the traditional sense of the word, the government was indeed spending money to stimulate our economy and nation's expansion through money transfers. The "welfare" merely went to different people than today.

Similarly, by putting money into the hands of people - mainly workers, but some unemployed on one condition(see below) - we expand the consumer base. It's of no use for money to just be hoarded by the top income earners: tax some of that money, redistribute it to the lower income earners, and let them begin to spend the money on new products. More products bought = more profit margins for certain companies = more jobs and more expansion.

Not to advocate excessive government power, however. I'm skeptical of it, but will generally support it if it can be proven to have a benefit.

Let people work or they don't get benefits as if they did.

I do support using unemployed welfare recipients as forced labor of sorts, since the government is more or less their boss. This can be used to offset the costs of government initiatives. For example, I think they all need to be put to work cleaning streets and harvesting recyclable materials from our mountains of landfill.

Get rid of Social Security, let people decide whether they want to save or not.

I agree with this in principle, yes. But not all people can save equally, and equality of opportunity(not equality of outcome, which is what the far left desires) is what is most important.

But we must stop allowing previous generations to build upon the backs of current generations. The Baby Boomers show just how idiotic the current system is, and how much reform is necessary.

 

[downtown]

Back up your figures, please.

The difference in cost is real, but can be explained by the following reasons:

1) Selective Enrollment. Teaching special needs children is very expensive, thanks to govt-required special services. Public schools must accept all children, and pay for the services. Privates can decline to accept them.

2) Salary. Private schools pay substantially less in benefits, which they can get away with because their quality of life is often easier (nobody has to deal with exceptionally difficult children cause the school doesn't have to take 'em).

If you remove the selective enrollment, labor costs for schools are going to skyrocket.

 

[civver_764]

1) This proposal would only serve to enhace the incumbency advantage. Ask Aleksandr Lukasehnka, he seems to like such electoral tactics.

2) Yeah, the US has a huge prisoner population problem that has been ignored due to the fact they have no political clout. But how would anyone ever get elected on a pro-prisoner platform?

1) How? All the candidates receive the same amount of funds, regardless of whetehr or not they're currently in office.
2) It would be more like a pro-society position. Abolishing the death penalty is technically pro-prisoners yet that has been passed in several states.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Considering I'm not an actual right winger akin to how I was prior to May 1st, no need to wow about it.



That's to prevent an innocent person from being executed. Just as the complexity of our federal government prevents any one group from wielding total power.



Oh I have no moral qualms with the death penalty. I have many right-wing values personally, but I just shift more left with actual policies because they can often make more sense.

Chances are the victim didn't get a painless death, however. Leave the murderer in a cell for decades on end, living in horrid conditions that are only just good enough to let them live. In a nutshell, make them wish you'd kill them. All without resorting to outright torture as well.

It may seem sadistic, but it does indeed pay respect to the victims, it's cheaper, and overall, you can release them if it turns out they're innocent. It's much easier to release a person from prison than a casket, go figure.



Kind of. Obama wanted to create a public insurance company that would operate on a non-profit motive yet sell the same insurance services, thus lowering the costs of insurance enormously. It would be funded entirely through these insurance services like any other company, and not rely on taxes. I thought it was one of his best ideas.

Now, how would private businesses compete against this megalithic government-chartered business? Simple. Enough people fear government insurance to keep private insurance viable; so long as there is demand, there will likely be supply.

The argument for the free market is it delivers goods and services more efficiently than the government. I'd say, for the most part, this is true. But in insurance, which is merely pooling money and paying it out, what is the benefit of private insurance, other than increased costs? Sure, the government borderline-monopoly could manipulate costs, but if they raise them too much, we can always elect people who will lower the costs.



Not hated so much as disliked. Many of those who dislike us will still stand by us when push comes to shove; Europe's the best example of this. Our nuclear weapons also will serve to deter most threats. We still need a standing force for obvious reasons, not to mention the fact terrorists don't have a home nation we can just blow up.



But we did have a welfare state. Or at least a corporate one: tariffs cut the flow of foreign goods into the USA, allowing our industries to prosper and become independent, paving the way for our major power - and later superpower - status.

The government also used its limited authority to stimulate our growth and expansion, through such things as the railroad companies and the Louisiana Purchase. While not a welfare state in the traditional sense of the word, the government was indeed spending money to stimulate our economy and nation's expansion through money transfers. The "welfare" merely went to different people than today.

Similarly, by putting money into the hands of people - mainly workers, but some unemployed on one condition(see below) - we expand the consumer base. It's of no use for money to just be hoarded by the top income earners: tax some of that money, redistribute it to the lower income earners, and let them begin to spend the money on new products. More products bought = more profit margins for certain companies = more jobs and more expansion.

Not to advocate excessive government power, however. I'm skeptical of it, but will generally support it if it can be proven to have a benefit.



I do support using unemployed welfare recipients as forced labor of sorts, since the government is more or less their boss. This can be used to offset the costs of government initiatives. For example, I think they all need to be put to work cleaning streets and harvesting recyclable materials from our mountains of landfill.



I agree with this in principle, yes. But not all people can save equally, and equality of opportunity(not equality of outcome, which is what the far left desires) is what is most important.

But we must stop allowing previous generations to build upon the backs of current generations. The Baby Boomers show just how idiotic the current system is, and how much reform is necessary.

Maybe I'm going off topic a bit, but what's the deal with May 1st?

Equal Opportunity, not equal result, is important, in Medieval times, it was usually not equal opportunity, while most modern nations try to make equal result. That is the best I've heard it.

Of course, some people will have better education and the like than others, but the important thing about the US is everyone has a chance...

I personally think simple death penalty still costs less, and is more fair, eye for an eye...

The difference in cost is real, but can be explained by the following reasons:

1) Selective Enrollment. Teaching special needs children is very expensive, thanks to govt-required special services. Public schools must accept all children, and pay for the services. Privates can decline to accept them.

2) Salary. Private schools pay substantially less in benefits, which they can get away with because their quality of life is often easier (nobody has to deal with exceptionally difficult children cause the school doesn't have to take 'em).

If you remove the selective enrollment, labor costs for schools are going to skyrocket.

Well then, make a few specifically for special needs children, but don't spend a ton of taxpayer money where you don't need it.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Some would probably argue that my following attempt is a waste of time. But whatever, maybe it accomplishes something. I will therefor give you a broad overview what two of your favored reforms would have of an actual effect on society (so maybe you understand why many many people don't share your views):

6: We were just fine with no welfare state when the nation started, so we are today. Let people work or they don't get benefits as if they did. Get rid of Social Security, let people decide whether they want to save or not. Besides, if you're struggling to put food on the table without it, they won't be able to with it, and I think we know which is more important.

The development of slums will be strengthened, social mobility worsened. As a result, civil unrest and criminality will also be strengthened.

If I had time for more, I'd abolish Public School. Yes. Private School on average cost $5,000 per student per year, as opposed to public school's $18,000. With the reduction in taxes, including those for public school, most should be able to afford private school, for the few who could not, just let the government pay for private school, its still cheaper than running public, and those who could would pay for themselves.

- Increased isolation among the youth
- Decreased skills in the resolution of social conflicts
- Decreased educational standards as it is impossible to ensure the quality among all those private teachers (which badly hurts the economy)
- Again decreased social mobility as your income will determine if you are able to ensure the quality of the private teacher

In conclusion: The economy will heavily suffer, American people will get poorer in general, crime rates will rise, social mobility will strongly decrease and civil unrests strongly increase.
America will be screwed.

If I were Osama Bin Laden I would definitely vote for you (well, if I could ^^).

I like your idea of nationalizing health care though (but as I have to tell you: it is socialist by nature, their is no none-socialist way to do this).

 

[Joecoolyo]

1) Dismantle Congress and the senate, institute myself as president for life, and put absolute power in my hands

2) Bump up military spending to 75%, institute draft, put military-industrial complex into full motion, and then wait and see what happens next

And this is a serious response, I want to take the reigns of the most powerful nation on earth and put it too it's full (conquering) potential.

 

[civver_764]

1. Death Penalty: America needs it. First off, the only reason its pricey is because we're too complex. Once we've proven the murderer's guilt, a bullet to the head does just fine. Not using the death penalty is a lack of respect to the victim.

A lack of respect?! You're an asshole.

 

[Karalysia]

1. Abolish capitalism and introduce socialism by placing means of production in hands of the workers
2. Destroy reactionary forces to safeguard socialism. Tea party, Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, Democrats, sent to either re-education camps or bullet to the head.

 

[JollyRoger]

1. Heavy tax on teabags.
2. Free guns to felons being released to show my support for universal 2nd Amendment rights.

 

[Kerozine]

Electoral system and Senate reform.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Some would probably argue that my following attempt is a waste of time. But whatever, maybe it accomplishes something. I will therefor give you a broad overview what two of your favored reforms would have of an actual effect on society (so maybe you understand why many many people don't share your views):


The development of slums will be strengthened, social mobility worsened. As a result, civil unrest and criminality will also be strengthened.

- Increased isolation among the youth
- Decreased skills in the resolution of social conflicts
- Decreased educational standards as it is impossible to ensure the quality among all those private teachers (which badly hurts the economy)
- Again decreased social mobility as your income will determine if you are able to ensure the quality of the private teacher

In conclusion: The economy will heavily suffer, American people will get poorer in general, crime rates will rise, social mobility will strongly decrease and civil unrests strongly increase.
America will be screwed.

If I were Osama Bin Laden I would definitely vote for you (well, if I could ^^).

I like your idea of nationalizing health care though (but as I have to tell you: it is socialist by nature, their is no none-socialist way to do this).

I do not believe in Nationalized healthcare.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I do not believe in Nationalized healthcare.

Ah I see. I thought "Nationalized insurances" means that you like that. But now I see you just referred to Taniciusfox.
Anyway, I challenge you to respond to the rest of my post in order to prove that you are not the epic troll everybody thinks you are.

 

[civver_764]

I do not believe in Nationalized healthcare.

Why not?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Why not?

Silly question. Because it is socialist! (and because Obama could maybe partially like it)

 

[GhostWriter16]

SiLL, all you said was the supposed results of my reforms, without explaining. So, not responding.