If You Were Elected President

[Aryk]

Now that it is the day after election, I was thinking what you guys would do if you were President of the United States- or whatever country you reside. Even though you guys don't have presidents.

What would you want to accomplish as president? What would your plans be for the future?

[MultiCanimefan]

I would be immediately impeached for putting to much faith in humanity and being overly optimistic.

But hey, what else is new in the world.

[Idiot-Finder]

I'd be considered the worse president in history.

[CaiWengi]

Pull out of iraq. Universal healthcare. Higher taxes (yes). Keynesian economics.

Those are the basics

[RandomFreak]

I'd push for the national legalization of marijuana, prostitution and gambling. All three of which would be carefully regulated and heavily taxed which would increase revenue without having to raise the income tax. I'd either be hailed a genius or run out of the country with pitchforks.

[IllustriousPotentate]

I'd resign. I'm not qualified enough to hold the Presidency.

[marchohare]

I would be run out of office for telling the American people that most of them were stupid... STUPID, do you hear? Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!

But I would never get a mainstream party's nomination anyway, because I have a bad habit of calling an idiot an idiot.

[TheSilverGuitar]

At 11/5/08 05:38 PM, Idiot-Finder wrote: I'd be considered the worse president in history.

The worst president-ELECT in history.

[Dr-Worm]

If I was President
I'd be elected on a Friday.
Assassinated on Saturday.
Buried on Sunday.

[dySWN]

At 11/5/08 05:50 PM, CaiWengi wrote: Pull out of iraq. Universal healthcare. Higher taxes (yes). Keynesian economics.

Those are the basics

Except that it would never happen, because you have to be an American citizen to enter the office.

[n64kid]

I would adhere to the constitution and threaten small countries with nuclear weapons, but never use them. (Don't tell them though)

[Brick-top]

Be assassinated 3 days after the election by racists in white suits.

[Alphabit]

I would fund research in Artificial Intelligence until we invent robots that are capable of replacing humans in the workforce, then I would bring about a communist regime whereby only robots work and everyone gets the same amount of money. Robots would replace humans in every field; politics, entertainment, even robot-repairing. The robots would derive pleasure from serving mankind and not from power. This would mean that no one would 'have' to work and if they do work, then they can get extra money; but that money wouldn't mean much given that every person would have millions of dollar's worth of services a year at their disposal - I'm talking 10 highly efficient robots per person... The robots would effectively run the economy and humans would reap all the profits to buy the goods and services produced by the robots.

Anyway that's it.

[aFapFapFapExperience]

I would do the same thing as Obama. Free fried chicken thursdays

[Mexifry]

At 11/5/08 05:50 PM, CaiWengi wrote: Pull out of iraq. Universal healthcare. Higher taxes (yes). Keynesian economics.

Those are the basics

So make America Socialistic? :S

[Zeistro]

If I were President I'd gradually making the transition from government to privatized SS. Hopefully at the end of my second term the greater majority of social security would be privatized. From there my predessor could carry out the entirety of what I started.

I'd cut medicaid, medicare, and all forms of welfare present by more than fifty percent. At least, I'd try. Rarely the President could do anything without Congress.

I'd give greater incentives for private charities such as more viable tax exemption.

I'd abolish corporate welfare.

I would overturn Roe vs Wade, but I wouldn't outlaw abortion. I just leave that decision to the autonomy each individual state. In truth, this wouldn't stop abortion or even lesson it, but it'd be a morale boost for half the country and give them a greater feel for democracy.

I'd try to simplify the tax as much as possible and make tax sheltering harder. How? By making taxes more flat, but higher income owners would pay a slighty higher percentile not much of their income in taxes.

I would get rid of the fucking death tax.

I would push in favor of net neutrality.

I'd increase military spending from 5% to 12% of our budget.

I would provide greater incentives for companies not to outsource jobs by giving "preferential" incentives for ones that either come or stay in the US.

Basically, my entire Presidency would be anti-union.

I would make it much, much harder for someone to live off welfare.

I'd push for greater worker's comp.

All the money saved from cutting the nanny-state expenditures could be appropriated for whatever crisis or problem that faced the US such as the trade deficit or debt.

There's many things I'd like to do, but I'll leave at those for now.

[LookUpChauncey]

At 11/5/08 05:23 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: I would be immediately impeached for putting to much faith in humanity and being overly optimistic.

But hey, what else is new in the world.

Yeah, same here I guess.

[Mexifry]

At 11/6/08 02:21 AM, Zeistro wrote: If I were President I'd gradually making the transition from government to privatized SS. Hopefully at the end of my second term the greater majority of social security would be privatized. From there my predessor could carry out the entirety of what I started.

I'd cut medicaid, medicare, and all forms of welfare present by more than fifty percent. At least, I'd try. Rarely the President could do anything without Congress.

I'd give greater incentives for private charities such as more viable tax exemption.

I'd abolish corporate welfare.

I would overturn Roe vs Wade, but I wouldn't outlaw abortion. I just leave that decision to the autonomy each individual state. In truth, this wouldn't stop abortion or even lesson it, but it'd be a morale boost for half the country and give them a greater feel for democracy.

I'd try to simplify the tax as much as possible and make tax sheltering harder. How? By making taxes more flat, but higher income owners would pay a slighty higher percentile not much of their income in taxes.

I would get rid of the fucking death tax.

I would push in favor of net neutrality.

I'd increase military spending from 5% to 12% of our budget.

I would provide greater incentives for companies not to outsource jobs by giving "preferential" incentives for ones that either come or stay in the US.

Basically, my entire Presidency would be anti-union.

I would make it much, much harder for someone to live off welfare.

I'd push for greater worker's comp.

All the money saved from cutting the nanny-state expenditures could be appropriated for whatever crisis or problem that faced the US such as the trade deficit or debt.

There's many things I'd like to do, but I'll leave at those for now.

Protect our borders and you have my vote.
Why don't you run for president? :P

It should definitely be up to the states for such things like abortion.
Also, I believe there should be a certain amount required to spend on health care, but you should be able to puck which ever health care option you want.

Andh ave the government get the fuck out and not make health care so freakin expensive.

[MrKickyourbutt]

At 11/6/08 02:21 AM, Zeistro wrote: I'd increase military spending from 5% to 12% of our budget.

We spend around 47% of our tax dollars on the military. Maybe you should do a little research first.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/w orld-military-spending#InContextUSmilita rybudgetvsotherUSpriorities

[LookUpChauncey]

At 11/6/08 03:05 AM, MrKickyourbutt wrote:

At 11/6/08 02:21 AM, Zeistro wrote: I'd increase military spending from 5% to 12% of our budget.

We spend around 47% of our tax dollars on the military. Maybe you should do a little research first.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/w orld-military-spending#InContextUSmilita rybudgetvsotherUSpriorities

Their sources are extremely questionable on how they came to this number. I would take some time to look over it if I were you.

I believe it's closer to 21% myself than it is what you gentlemen are suggesting.

[Zeistro]

At 11/6/08 03:16 AM, LookUpChauncey wrote:

At 11/6/08 03:05 AM, MrKickyourbutt wrote:

At 11/6/08 02:21 AM, Zeistro wrote: I'd increase military spending from 5% to 12% of our budget.

We spend around 47% of our tax dollars on the military. Maybe you should do a little research first.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/w orld-military-spending#InContextUSmilita rybudgetvsotherUSpriorities

Their sources are extremely questionable on how they came to this number. I would take some time to look over it if I were you.

I believe it's closer to 21% myself than it is what you gentlemen are suggesting.

And I believe you're both mistaken. The total military spending in proportional to what the government spends yearly is 4.06% GDP.

It's easy to mistake this considering there's two different types of expenditures. Also, MrKick, that 47% isn't how much we spend out of our own econoy, rather 47% of the world's total military spending.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_bu dget_of_the_United_States

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications /the-world-factbook/rankorder/2034rank.h tml

Total, in 2008, the total military spending has risen by 1% percent, hence why I would want to more than double it.

[bobomajo]

Yeah but governments don't pull revenue equivalent to GDP, even though US military spending is small compared to GDP you's probably spend more then the rest of the world combined world military spending. Why increase the burden on the budget on more conventional arms, you already have enough nukes to destroy the planet several times over.
Also you would probably find from your very pro business policies that wages might not stay consistent with inflation, which may increase poverty and national purchasing power, which would decrease growth and development and may increase crime rates. Same applies for you welfare policies, mainly poor people being the main recipient of welfare, might not be able to support themselves, through inability to find employment or increased living costs (healthcare), same result as pro employer policy only this is much more certain, if you eliminate welfare then there will be people unable to support themselves which will likely turn them to crime.
The result of your policies that were intended to cut government expenditure may be outweighed by a decrease in government revenue and growth, coupled with a significantly higher cost of law enforcement to cope with the increased crime rate. Think of welfare as a continuous stimulus package to the majority, whatever is being spent increases the purchasing power of beneficiaries, which a large % will go straight into the economy, not to mention other benefits that may come from welfare.

[XaosLegend]

At 11/5/08 08:57 PM, Dr-Worm wrote: If I was President
I'd be elected on a Friday.
Assassinated on Saturday.
Buried on Sunday.

ditto

[marchohare]

Getting serious for a moment, it's kind of a silly question. If the question had been, "What would I do if I became Dictator?" my answer would be different, but the fact is, a President can only push so much.

Ronald Reagan promised to overturn Roe v. Wade. He didn't. Bill Clinton promised National Healthcare and gays in the military; he couldn't deliver. Jimmy Carter found he couldn't do much of anything; the Sold-Out Whores in Congress tied his hands before his "honeymoon period" was even over. Actually (I'm old enough to remember clearly), Carter didn't get a "honeymoon period."

What would I do as President? Preserve the status quo. That's all any of 'em can do. If a President pushes too hard he (or she) will find he's shoved his butt right into a global corporate buzz saw.

Big Money runs the show. The President is just an errand boy.

[CaiWengi]

At 11/6/08 12:54 AM, dySWN wrote:

At 11/5/08 05:50 PM, CaiWengi wrote: Pull out of iraq. Universal healthcare. Higher taxes (yes). Keynesian economics.

Those are the basics

Except that it would never happen, because you have to be an American citizen to enter the office.

Oh right. And all these people are going to become president are they? Its called a hypothetical question you absolute fucking moron. Im not planning on becoming president, but thats what I would do if I was one. Stop being such an idiot.

At 11/6/08 02:16 AM, mexifry895 wrote:

At 11/5/08 05:50 PM, CaiWengi wrote: Pull out of iraq. Universal healthcare. Higher taxes (yes). Keynesian economics.

Those are the basics

So make America Socialistic? :S

Is Britain Socialist? No. Both Democrats and Republicans are fairly right wing in a lot of policies compared to over here. I think all of europe laughed when obama was seriously asked if he was a socialist.

[Zeistro]

At 11/6/08 05:21 AM, bobomajo wrote: Yeah but governments don't pull revenue equivalent to GDP,

Basically, but it's a good indicater and what is used. Compared to both our revenue and overal GDP our military spending is small, or at least the official CIA factbook agrees with me.

even though US military spending is small compared to GDP you's probably spend more then the rest of the world combined world military spending.

Actually, no. The rest of the world combined does spend more than the US. And the past fifty years of peace in Europe is exclusively due to NATO, and more precisely, the US military contribution to member state's survival.

Why increase the burden on the budget on more conventional arms,

So the US and her allies can remain supreme in military dominance? I'd much rather have the US as the world's sole power than some of these other countries that treat human rights as meaningless words. Compared to France, England, USSR, the Romans, Babylonians, Phoenicians, Mongols, Chaldeans, etc the US is the world's most friggin' gentle superpower ever.

Granted, the US is far from perfect or absolute altruism, but considering our record in comparison to others.........well, you get the idea.

you already have enough nukes to destroy the planet several times over.

Don't take this as ad hominem, but I don't think you understand what military power is. Nukes are not a good indicator of military power. For example, Russia maintains the largest and most advanced arsenal of nuclears arms, yet there's a league of nations more powerful than them in absolute military terms.

From your reasoning how would you solve a small regional conflict, nuke?

How would you rectify an insurgency, nuke?

How would you win air superioty, nuke?

It is because of our high military expenditure that the US can proliferate militarily and make the world more safe(not completely, but we'll have to wait for the Illuminati to save that one). If anything, we don't want anybody to have nukes, thus why we spend a huge amount on the military. In hopes of someday producing an effective defense against even the most advanced ICBMs, effectively ending all nuclear threats.

Also you would probably find from your very pro business policies

Everybody is pro-business, even the die-hard socialists are pro-business. The distinction is how they would facilitate economic expansion. So really, "pro-business" isn't a good way of describing someone's economic position.

that wages might not stay consistent with inflation,

Notice how I meticulously left out anything about abolishing minium wage.

which may increase poverty and national purchasing power,

Yes, I know this.

which would decrease growth and development and may increase crime rates.

*Yawn*

Same applies for you welfare policies, mainly poor people being the main recipient of welfare, might not be able to support themselves, through inability to find employment or increased living costs (healthcare), same result as pro employer policy only this is much more certain, if you eliminate welfare then there will be people unable to support themselves which will likely turn them to crime.

This is where we disagree. Many poor people are poor either because they lack an education, are mentally ill, or did not have the incentive to obtain a high school diploma. Yes, they're those born into poverty, but it isn't cliche or naive to say they can move beyond that. The poorest person in the US doesn't starve, infact, the poorest person in the US has it better than the immigrants who came over here with nothing but the clothes on their back. Guess what? They moved out of poverity and contributed to the economic boom of the US as global power.

The result of your policies that were intended to cut government expenditure may be outweighed by a decrease in government revenue and growth,

As someone who works minimum wage and goes to college, I can tell you that alot of these welfare reps could better themselves if they actually cared as the immigrants did in my previous. I've read the IRS publications for highschool consumer mathematics and can tell you people get bullshitted out of money they get to keep whereas people who don't deserve a paycheck receive one.

I used to know someone who received a welfare check. All he did was play Xbox Live and took others money. The reason? He got a check for mental health yet was mental lucid enough to write a book.

coupled with a significantly higher cost of law enforcement to cope with the increased crime rate. Think of welfare as a continuous stimulus package to the majority, whatever is being spent increases the purchasing power of beneficiaries, which a large % will go straight into the economy, not to mention other benefits that may come from welfare.

Welfare is more harmful than beneficial. Riddle me this, we current have welfare, yet an extremely high crime rate. Some people, such as the single mother with four kids deserves welfare, but so many of these fuckers are lazy.

[Musician]

At 11/6/08 03:25 AM, Zeistro wrote: And I believe you're both mistaken. The total military spending in proportional to what the government spends yearly is 4.06% GDP.

Are you talking about military spending proportional to GDP or military spending proportional to the rest of the budget? If you're talking about military spending proportional to the GDP then raising military spending to 12% would be ridiculous, seeing as our federal budget is proportionally only about 18% of our GDP. To raise it like that would either require a dramatic increase in taxes, or large cuts in other US government programs.

If you talking about military spending proportional to our federal budget, then we've already allocate about 21% of the budget towards the military. If you're talking about military spending proportional to how much taxpayer money is actually spent, then military spending is actually at about 29% (43% if you include past wars) of spent taxpayer dollars.

Total, in 2008, the total military spending has risen by 1% percent, hence why I would want to more than double it.

According to your own link, US military expenditure has increased 5.7% from 2008 to 2009.

[NewbleHeimer]

I would call for a press conference and kill a few secret service men on live, nationally broadcast television.

[Conspiracy3]

I would do nothing as i wouldn't have authority until inauguration day.

[TimeLordX]

If, by some incredible stroke of luck, I became president of the United States of America I'd do the following:
make Bush's tax cuts permanent
Freeze gov't spending (allow for inflation)
Attach some strings to Bush's bailout
repeal the Community Reinvestment Act (to put an end to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac)
Shut down the ACLU
Build the fence on the border
Enact stiffer fines for businesses that employ illegals
Enact the Death Penalty for anyone convicted of smuggling illegals into the US
Provide incentives (i.e. tax breaks) for companies to keep jobs here in the US
Pass laws that would require executives of major corporations to pay any fines, settlements, ect out of their own pockets (instead of their company paying for them).
Pass laws requiring any company or industry bailed out by the US gov't to pay that money back. Failure to do so would require the Gov't to seize any and all assets equal to the sum owed to the Gov't.