How would you run the nation? One rule: no sniping at the plans of others if you don't post your own detailed plans yourself (those who can, do; those who can't, criticize). And while not a rule, it might as well be said that if your plans are all Republican talking points or all Democratic talking points, you're entitled to that view, but America's got plenty of people just like you -- all it can stand, in fact. Let's aim for party-bending new ideologies here.

If I ran the world...

the govt would deal with people in this way: libertarian for everyone above the poverty line and not asking for govt help, and socialist for everyone below the poverty line asking for help. If you're making your own way in the world, paying your bills, minding your own business, and you want to smoke pot, that's none of my business as Supreme Leader. You've got your sh*t figured out. More power to ya. You want to marry someone of the same sex, fine.

If you're asking for a government check, then I would do as Obama did for bankers and institute mad socialism. Random drug tests, required parenting classes, job skills classes, GED classes, etc. Obama put the bailed-out banks under tight restrictions and made it a condition that in order to have the restrictions lifted they had to pay back the bailout money. The bankers, it seems, can't wait to pay it back. That's how welfare ought to work. Give it to people, but make it so onerous that they can't wait to get off it. At best, they'll haul ass to the working class where they can smoke some pot. At worst, maybe they'll finally learn something from all those classes and figure out how to stop being incompetent with their own lives. [Obviously, exceptions for the physically disabled. Some have great jobs, like the paraplegic who works on my computers, but many are chronically unemployed because of their limitations, and classes won't change that.]

I would reform Social Security to partially privatize it and try to find someone to figure out the bankrupt morass that is Medicare. I do not want to go back to pre-SS days of elders in poverty, but neither does it need to pay Warren Buffett's greens fees while being a lousy investment for younger workers.

I would expand the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, already the largest insurer in the nation, to all citizens. It was in sound financial shape, last I heard, and is smart enough to use its purchasing power to negotiate to keep costs down while giving federal employees some of the most lavish benefits in the nation.

I would shrink the size of government, aggressively. This is kind of a Democratic talking point, because the last time the government shrank it was when Al Gore ran the Reinventing Government initiative, but it's something Republicans talk about without doing. It needs to be done, and done, and done. I would use an aggressive policy of buyouts, retirements, and not filling vacancies, but after that it would be time to take on the unions and cut people. The government needs to run like a successful business, with no more people than necessary and people who know they can be fired if they don't perform.

I would pull US troops back a lot. This is something else that has shifted party affiliation. Used to be that Republicans were against having soldiers everywhere, and they were the party of non-interventionism (even when Hitler was in Germany -- then, it was Dems who wanted to fight). Now that it's terrorism instead of Hitler, Dems are the non-interventionists. It fits the ideology of "small and limited," so I'm going to call it an old-school Republican idea, but either way, I'm for it.

I would, apologies to hblask, have a centralized school system, because school systems can and do race to the bottom. If you've ever lived in Alabama or Mississippi or West Virginia, you know that. For most school systems, they can and do rise higher, but it's in the interest of the nation to make everyone meet a minimum and without feds, some places just won't do it, and since kids aren't the ones who decide where their families will live, it shortchanges them to live in such a place.

The big problem is how to deal with businesses. I don't believe that unregulated capitalism has worked, not at all. On the contrary, I think this crisis spun out of control due in large part to the repeal of the Glass-Steagal act and rampant speculation. Potomophobia, elsewhere, is right -- Wall Street still doesn't think it's done anything wrong, and is still eager to create more derivatives. Those are not the kind of geniuses-with-a-J that I want to leave unregulated. And the Cato Institute tries like hell to show how evil regulation is, but I've seen the arguments and they're pretty shabby compared to what a lack of regulation has done to the nation in the past couple of years. I don't want to be totally socialist, but I also don't want to be libertarian.

I would not adhere to the popular notion of giving power back to the states because they are "closer to the people." They also have far less oversight. The only thing in America that dwarfs the federal budget are the fifty state budgets -- giving them more power does not save money. Neither does it diminish corruption -- state governments also dwarf the size of the federal government, and the number of officials on the federal level charged with corruption pales in comparison to the number of state officials charged. Duplicating services and workforces fifty times saves neither money nor manpower.

Lastly, I would balance the budget and start paying down the national debt. We owe that to future generations. The national budget breaks down roughly like this: 50% entitlements, 25% defense spending, 20% interest on the national debt, and 5% all other spending, from schools to roads to welfare to corporate subsidies to foreign aid. You can all do the math. You could cut all the programs to sheep farmers and all the other stuff people like to point to as government waste, and it will amount to well under 5% of the budget (probably under 1%). That isn't what will balance the budget at all. What we have to get under control are entitlements, defense spending, and most of all the interest on the debt. Right now, twenty cents out of every federal dollar pays interest -- it buys nothing, builds nothing, defends nothing, supports nothing. It just keeps us from defaulting. That's pathetic. Being someone who will spend another half-century or more in this nation, I'm a hardcore believer in budget balancing. Again, that's something that has switched parties -- used to be Republicans' thing, but Dems did it most recently (in fact, the only two balanced budgets in the past 75 years were both under Democratic presidents, Clinton and LBJ).

So that's that, and with that I've made my 1,000th post, on the ides of March (an important day for us Shakespeare geeks), and now I get to rename myself.

I'm really curious as to how some of you want to run the world. We see bits and pieces of each other's philosophies in random other threads, but I thought it would be nice to make our statements all in one place.

Roll out Reagan era.



Put on autopilot.


repeat.

That would be one damn large deficit, and the arc of that history bends toward US bankruptcy.

Anyway ... all of it, including the "Reagan recession," Iran-Contra, and the Cold War?

Well, SB's post is pretty good. If we put where we are now at one end of a line, and where I think we should be at the other end, SB would be about 95% of the way toward where I think we should be. It's interesting, because we spend so much time arguing fine points on here, I like this sort of big picture view to see what is common.

So here's my plan, as short as I can make it:

The federal government has two main jobs: national defense, and defending our rights. National defense would consist of keeping our borders safe from invasion. Period. If people want to kill each other in other countries, they can go at it. As for the domino theory, it's something to be analyzed and considered, but not used as an excuse for imperialism. Nobody in the Mideast is capable of taking over the world; let them bomb each other back to the stone age, without our help.

The Supreme Court would be pretty similar to what it is today, except that it would care about the Constitution. It would protect our right to free speech, freedom of religion, etc, etc. It would strike down laws that interfere with commerce; e.g., licensing laws would have to be relevant to the profession, socially necessary, and open and fair to all. States would not be allowed to create barriers to competition from other states, no matter what the excuse. States would not be allowed to make laws protecting entrenched businesses from competition. Property rights would be protected from those with political power; eminent domain would be rare.

All federal laws would require a 2/3 vote of Congress. If we cannot get 2/3 of Congress to agree to it, it's not important enough to impose on 300 million people. All laws with legal status must be explicitly voted upon by members of Congress; no agencies would be allowed to write the details. If it's not in a bill explicitly voted upon by Congress, it has no legal status. No bill may cover more than one subject, and the subject must be specific ("government budget" -- not specific; "funding of Fort Specious Army Base" -- specific).

States would be required to have a 55% majority to pass any laws, 60% to increase taxes. States would be allowed more leeway in the types of laws they could pass. For example, a state would be allowed to pass socialized medicine, but the federal govt would not. States could create highways, fund schools, etc.

Cities/counties would only require a simple majority, and would be given wide latitude in the types of laws they could pass. About all that would be disallowed is laws that interfered with a person's right to make a living or tried to take away our basic rights, such as speech, self-defense, religion. Property rights would still prevail over city council.

Since I posted mine, I get to snipe at SB's plan now. As I said, I could live with it as-is, so I'm just being picky here, but I think the reason that states CAN "race to the bottom" in education is because of one-size-fits-all federal standards. You can see this with the No Bureaucrat Left Behind Act put into effect by Bush. It is destroying our schools, nobody likes it, not teachers, not parents, not students. What it does is set a minimum bar for states to shoot for. Instead of reaching for excellence, they attempt to not be embarrassed by having too many kids below this minimal line. So education is dumbed down for the smart kids in the hope that the dumb kids won't fail by quite as much.

Without federal intervention, states have to answer to angry parents and people who vote with their feet. Federal standards just gives schools excuses ("well, we have to teach to this test or we lose funding").

Regulation of business: nobody has ever said we don't need to regulate business -- that's a recurring strawman. What we are opposed to is the sort of crony capitalism that is justified with terms like "unfettered capitalism". That phrase means nothing except as a scare tactic. Nobody thinks businesses should be allowed to murder people in their sleep or sell exploding apples or whatever other crazy things people think businessmen fantasize about, but every economic crisis in the last 100 years has been created not by lack of regulation, but by misguided regulation. The worst is the "socialize risk, privatize gain" laws that led to the S&L crisis and the current mortgage crisis. Poor regulation led to the gas crisis in the 70s, and mismanagement by the fed led to the inflation crisis of the late 70's/early 80's, and led to the Great Depression. Most of these problems come from *too much* regulation -- central planners trying to micromanage a system that can respond at lightning speed with laws that take months or years to write and implement.

I'm not sure what you mean by the federal healthcare thing, so I'll let it slide.

meh?



I suggested it mainly because I like jelly beans



and now that you mention it, the Reagan recession was actually worse than this one....and we came thru that just fine.

Golf is the national sport And I get 5 mulligans a round

Politicians can be personally sued if any plan they vote on fails And shot if they steal

Lawyers must make minimum wage plus tips only And tipping them is illegal

Free cigars

Doctors have a three strikes law and then they lose their license and are deported

Soldiers make double national average wage

Flat tax of 15% on everybody who makes over $60K, no tax on anyone below that

You must own a house in order to vote, and by own a house, I am using code for be a man.

If you received money from the government, whether it's welfare, or subsidies for a corporation you are an officer of, you cannot vote the next 2 years

Shorter posts with more spaces

A lot of this makes you seem like a republican.

I agree with a lot of what SB has to say. My question is Do other people in this country feel the same way? And if so then why can't we get a strong third party in here to clean out the mess? Is it only a small majority that want to see real "change"? It seems that people did want change ... but are not getting what they really wanted! Would we be ready for another revolution? And I don't mean a warring revolution, but rather a revolution of thought process. Where people begin to think anew. Will we ever be able to turn the ship around? I believe that we can, but it must take a collective consciousness as a nation to do.

Am I just a dreamer?

I think the answer is that there are 100 ways to be a third party. So instead, we get the shorthand of a two-party system: one likes big government at all costs, the other wants smaller government. (Never mind that the reality is wrong in both cases.) You can hate them both and realize they are both hypocrites, but then comes the difficult question of what to replace it with, and that is where the fracture comes.

I think Ross Perot had it right, too bad he was a nutjob. He basically campaigned for a smaller, more responsible government, and he avoided getting into details about program X or department Y. His following was growing up to the point that he started spouting crazy conspiracy theories and picked a VP candidate who was incapable of public speaking.

There is a huge demand for a fiscally responsible candidate with a heart, but such a person has no place in either of the big two parties. And now the system is so rigged that no third party candidate has a chance.

SB and Hblask were excellent IMO, I was quite surprised by SB because I thought we would be further apart.

Federal responsibilities would be confined to national defense, collecting taxes, and enforcement of the law.

All other regulation would come from the state and local level.

I agree with Hblask on defense it would be primarily defense of our borders, but would of course honor our treaties and alliances we have with other countries. Would expand special forces units to do covert actions around the globe which would include as primary responsibilities gaining intel, and assassinating known terrorists.

Law enforcement would be expanded slightly. There would be fewer laws but they would be more strictly enforced. Fed responsibilities would include oversight of local and state law enforcement, providing resources and expertise in stamping out crime in crime infested regions of the country, and to run the federal prisons.

Taxes would be 10% of income at the highest bracket and capped at that amount. No estate taxes, no capital gains taxes. There would be a nationwide flat tax on all goods and services. State would be responsible for funding all their own social services, education, regulation, ect.
I will expand later on how I would run my state.

bingo, bango, bongo.

America will not be fixed until people get fed up and a third party emerges.

I like this idea but am curious about how the socialism would be funded. Would the libertarians be responsible for funding the social programs for the socialists. I would assume that would be the case since those below poverty line wouldn't be able to afford to much if anything in taxes.

Again, I do think this is a good brainstorming idea and I am interested in hearing more.

I'd free all my sons.

Because I love them, love them,baby.

Black diamonds and pearls?

Bring back the tredmill for the homeless,

No more gettin off on technicalities, you either did it or didnt,

In cases of obvious guilt in murder cases, 1 appeal within 30 days then BZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

Force Algore to live 100% green.

Here is where we have a dilemma in this country. Let's say that we use Cane's premise that we need a strong third party to emerge, to "fix" the things that are wrong with our system, governmental or otherwise.

For this to happen, there has to be a power grab, which by definition, would be contrary to the ideals of a third party. It is actually an interesting paradox if you think about it. It is the reason we have a successful two party system.

What exactly do you mean by "power grab"?

And I don't necessarily agree that we have a successful two party system. If it was successful, then wouldn't there be no need for a third party?

I thought I was closer to a lot of you than we might have realized from random debates that broke out in other threads. The irony is, to me that's a very Democratic platform that I laid out. Republicans have talked up these ideas, but here's how I see it: we have sixteen years of history that covers the last four elections and the last two administrations. Which one balanced the budget? [Poor BG -- I know he'd like never to poked in the eye with that fact again.] Which one shrank government? Which ones are now the non-interventionists? Which ones favor getting the government out of our bedrooms? Republicans talk, but Democrats do. They've implemented all these ideas.

Meanwhile, Bush absolutely gutted the Republican party. He did everything the party says it doesn't stand for, and the party not only didn't fight him, it defended him against everyone who said, "Hey, this guy's a crappy excuse for a Republican." I may have a lot of old-school Republican ideas, but I have zero respect for the party today. I'll never be a conservative, mainly because they favor using government to enforce their version of family values, and that's neither respectful of freedom nor is it small government. But if the party went back to what it says it stands for, and actually DID it instead of just talking, I could easily be a liberal Republican (the ones you conservatives so contemptuously call RINOs).

As far as funding the socialist programs below the poverty line, we're already spending a lot on the safety net, and it's dreadfully disorganized and wasteful. I don't think my very roughly-planned idea would necessarily cost so much more than we're already spending. It's just a case of focusing more carefully and reorganizing it with a clear mission in mind.

I think a lot of people want something fairly close to what I've laid out, and the warning for Republicans is that Democrats have moved closer and closer to getting there. Bill Clinton, mock him as much as you want, governed exactly like a "fiscal conservative with a heart." Liberals hated him for moving to the right, but it worked. I think Obama is using the same playbook, which now makes two Democratic administrations in a row to govern from center-left. Meanwhile, Republicans have moved to big-spending bastards without hearts, and wonder why their base is shrinking. Us Democrats are such suckers, because people like Nimue and I are sitting here practically begging Republicans to get back in the game, to be competitive again. And of course, conservatives are playing the role that liberals played, hating any Republican who tries to govern from center-right as being "too moderate, bending over backward for Democrats."

Everything BG said and a couple of additions:

Anyone who wants to be a politician is automatically denied the job. We need a draft of some sort.

Same for policemen.

Legalize and tax pot.

(EDIT)

vegetarians should be shot on sight.


WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

Yeah, I think you are correct; there is an entire generation that has no reason to vote Republican. Even Reagan, the last real conservative president, missed a golden opportunity by refusing to make the tough choices to balance the budget. People always try to blame the Dem's for increasing spending faster than the increases in revenue during Reagan's years, but you can't take credit for the parts you want and blame the other party for the parts you don't like. It's the president's job to only sign things he supports, so apparently he didn't mind the deficit spending that much.

And yeah, out of the last three (before Obama), Clinton was by far the best, AINEC. He reformed welfare, signed NAFTA, kept Hillary out of the way with a hopeless task, and balanced the budget. His wars were small and short-lived.

As for the Democrats now, with Obama, Reid, and Pelosi in charge, they are blowing all that out of the water. Obama seems determined to be a one-term president, and will stop at nothing to make sure that happens. The R's seem to be getting serious, so in 4 years the picture could turn around, but why should we trust the R's anymore? The last 8 years was just a disaster on every front for anyone who believes that people are more important than government. It's time for a dark-horse candidate to rise from nowhere, someone like Ross Perot only sane. The timing will be right by 2012.


PS RINO does not refer to the economically conservative/socially tolerant republicans; it refers to Republican who spend recklessly and don't believe in free markets.

All kinds of simulations have shown that the two-party dynamic is an inevitable end-point when you have a winner-take-all voting system like ours where you can only vote for one candidate. In order to have a viable multi party system we would probably have to change the way we vote.

It means that for a party (i.e. the libertarian party or independent party) whose broad ideal system is based on less government and not having as much power over their people is contrary to the process of building a political party to get power. It is almost impossible to believe that such a party would strive to get the power to be a player in the political system, then to give it back to the people. It is altruistic, and is more of a Utopian ideal. Individuals in the party's can think this way, and strive for this, but thousands and millions of pundits and voters could not accomplish this, without all the moons aligning.

re: insurance premiums. what? you think the actuaries haven't already priced the pot percentage into their demographic rates? I've heard a lot of silly reasons to avoid legalizing pot, but car insurance?

See, this is funny to me. SB is probably painted as a big time liberal and from what I've read of your stuff, you're...well, not liberal. I think she hit the nail on the head that most liberals feel the way she does, at least the ones that think. I have never voted for a republican and don't see that changing, but I guess I have fiscally conservative views and hate free handouts. I love the welfare thing where it should be awful to get it. Sure, it would punish some of the people that need it and can't change their circumstances, but hey, a few bad apples spoil the bunch. Sorry. I just want gov't to stay out of people's personal business, bedroom, etc and just take care of the big stuff.

I do love you sometimes.

could we replace "liberals" with "sensible people"? this isn't a shot at conservatives or anything, I just think if you put it in those terms, almost everyone agrees that it ought to be put into action.

definitely

I actually thought for about a minute for the correct word and wasn't satisfied with my selection

Personally, I think the direction that the republican party is headed is away from sensible thinking, especially the deeper they get in bed with the religious right. That's the main reason I'd never go that way. There are plenty of other reasons, but that's the main one.

So everyone is really libertarian, and we're just arguing about the details?

I've got several reasons why I wouldn't legalize pot but the first one is that I don't want them behind the wheel of a car.

Well, then we better criminalize alchohol too because I don't want a drunk behind the wheel of a car either. Oh what's that they have rules and laws against that ... weird. Maybe they would do the same thing with pot. Cmon, let's think outside the box on this one. If that is your number one fear of pot becoming legal, then I don't even want to hear the rest of your debate. We would try to control that the best we can as we do with Alchohol. I actually think there should be tougher rules on driving drunk! And I would want tough laws on a person driving hella stoned. You have one drink that's fine ... you have one toke ... that's fine, but when you are too high or too drunk and you get behind the wheel, I almost think it should be an automatic two week sentence in jail + a $5,000 fine. You are caught a 2nd time then you get 3 mos in jail and a $10,000 fine. I think that would get peoples attention.

Sort of. But as long as the Libertarian party focuses on legalizing drugs, they will never be relevant. The majority of Americans do not want this, or even if they are indifferent to it, do not care enough to make it a major part of their voting decisions.

I'm not really concerned about the Libertarian party -- they're like a Star Trek convention for politics. They have no intentions of being relevant. But for the record, I don't think they focus on legalizing drugs, it's just the part of their platform that most shocks people who haven't thought about it very hard, so it's the part everyone remembers.

I'm really more interested in at least getting the ship moving in the right direction; I'm less concerned about philosophical purity. Which brings up a question: if even the liberals on here tend toward small-l libertarian, why do we keep electing small-s socialists? Is this forum that skewed of a sample that "left" means "right of Clinton"? Or is this a problem caused by public choice theory, where the average voter has so little impact that it doesn't pay to stay informed or even care who they vote for -- in other words, we are America, but politicians don't care?

The line under my avatar used to say "poker forum groupie," but once you get to 1,000 posts you can either become a "veteran," as you are, or you can choose your own line. I was looking forward to that. SB, though, stays (at least until I need a joke account).







You've hit the nail on the head here, too. We refuse to vote for Republicans because of the religious right, but that has very little to do with how we actually believe a well-run country ought to look. It just leaves us only voting Democrat, and the Democratic Party took note of that and began tailoring its messages to us.




I wish I knew the answer to this. Even more, I wish I knew why the system is so miserably broken that moderates on both sides, who would probably agree in theory to nearly everything I suggested, find it more important to vote the party line than to, you know, lead the country or something. If we could simply do away with those evil, stupid little letters after candidates' names (D and R) and listen to their ideas, we might get leaders like this.

As for me, I also want a politician who bucks his or her party regularly -- partly because it proves they have some intellectual integrity, partly just because I'm ornery like Mark Twain and enjoy seeing institutions poked in the eye now and again. As Robert Casey, Jr. of PA once observed, "When two politicians agree 95% of the time, one of them isn't necessary." By that math, I figure about three quarters or more of Congress is irrelevant.

I have agreed with a ton of what you've said in this thread despite coming from a very different place than you on most actual micro issues, but there's no way this isn't some kind of typo.

I'm lazy, so I quote my previous post to make my point, which is somewhat relevant to your question here.

I want to see how LLY would run the world. I'm afraid to see how Hollywood would run it. And I both want to see and am afraid to see what BigD would do.

Let me fill in some blanks. In my local paper on any given day, you can find "Mr. X charged with 5th offense DWI" or "Ms. Y charged with 6th offense driving on a revoked license, failure to yield, schedule IV drugs, etc." Law enforcement either can't or won't take care of the problem drivers we already have out there. And just a few weeks ago (I think it was CA) was fairly certain that they were going to release many THOUSANDS of inmates who were in jail for alcohol and/or drug related charges. If we add "legal" pot into the mix, they'll finally need to do what I've recommended for years............put a fence around West Virginia and throw 'em all in there! Wait...maybe legalizing pot could take care of two problems at once! LOL

But seriously, we don't have the jail space available for the drunks. Where would they put the stoners?

You seem to believe that the laws against drugs change rates of use or availability. You may want to do some research into that.

Actually, the laws do change the availability in one way: underage kids have easier access to pot than they do alcohol.

Reality matters.

I think there's some truth to this.



Currently we put them in jail, since marijuana is illegal. This is one of the silliest wastes of money ever. It seems rather peculiar to me that you are worried about legalization because you think more people will end up in jail.

what are you guys talking about? drugs are illegal should be punishable by severe prison sentences because drugs are scary and turn normal people into dangerous minorities.

I think it's funny that in a thread called "If I Ran The WORLD" people post only about America. As if America = the world.

That just makes me giggle a bit

You make a good point -- most people who aspire to that much power are generally salivating over the prospect of controlling a small northern european nation.

Yeah, the thread title should be "If I ran the important part of the world".

God bless America (not the rest of the world and other people, just America)
Sorry, just can't stand that American way of acting like they're so "special" and all the other people in the world are 2nd class humans or something.

At least we're not second place to a newcomer in threads named after ourself.

I kid, I kid.

You know that's my favorite thread ever.

Don't worry, I still love you

Right now if I was in charge for a day I would fire everyone in DC, especially the entire Congress as they are all retarded right now, regardless of party affiliation. I'm going to throw up now.

I agree with most of what SB posted on this subject. There are a couple things I'd add however.

1. Term limits on U.S. Senators & Congressmen. Now I wouldn't object to a former Senator running for congress and vice versa and back again. So if someone really liked one of their congresspeople they'd have the option of running them for the other branch. I figure 2 terms is plenty in one of the legislative branches however. That way we'd only have the specter of Nancy Pelosi being 3rd in succession for the Presidency for only 2 terms instead of more like a lifetime unless she's caught bonking somebody she shouldn't be.
2. Flat income tax with no deductions whatsoever except individuals and dependents. This means corporations will pay a flat income tax period. If the rate is decent, say 15% then that should be enough to fund anything the government needs.
3. To help with whatever pollutants or emissions I'd say that any city with more than 100,000 people should not allow private cars within the city limits. If you wanted a car and wanted to live within the city limits then you'd put it in storage someplace outside the city limits. Have park and ride lots outside the city limits for commuters. Commercial vehicles & mass transit would be the only motor vehicles allowed inside the city limits. If you want to own a car - live outside the city. And inside the city you'd still have to ride mass transit. Yeah I KNOW I'll hear from H and LMD on this one. But SB did say to think outside the box.
4. Have every executive order have to be approved within one year by the congress or it would automatically expire. Give them 2 years to take care of the ones already in effect. I know this will be a bone of contention also. But it's my contention that we've given the executive branch way too much power in the last few administrations and it needs some checks and balances.