Mike, I'm surprised you would use those liberal progressive consumer protection laws. Isn't the free-market supposed to protect you from bad contractors?

And what's this about only hiring contractors that are regulated by the government. I thought that all government regulation was bad?

At least that's what the free-market advocates have been claiming.

dsc

But you did seem to endorse consumer protection laws that protect consumers (like yourself) from being ripped off.

Of course I know that doesn't mean you are for big government, I was just giving you a hard time.

I'm also for small government. In all corners. But I'm okay with basic standards to protect citizens from harm or fraud.

peas..............................dave

That's a tough one.

I think it's not that surprising that a Democratic President would spend money. It's almost a given. Especially when you consider the election results. But I think that Obama has made the same mistake that Bush made when he was elected.

The attitude that the election result is an endorsement of all of your particular policies and ideologies. Bush did it after his election by cramming all kinds of conservative things down our throats that the people didn't vote for, now Obama is making the same mistake by proposing liberal solutions that most people are not comfortable with.

As far as Obama's spending. There are a lot of area's that I would not have spent taxpayer money. The bailouts are at the top of my list. Even though I realize that the economy would have tanked if not for the bailouts, I think that would have been the only way to weed out the problem actors in the US economy. It would have been painful, and conservatives would blame the pain all on me due to the fact that they never blame their own policies. But it needed to be done. Let the failures fail.

Already on Wall St. some of the same players that devised the financial derivatives that caused the collapse of the biggest banks are already setting up new firms to take advantage of the low prices caused by the mess they caused. But these guys will prosper because we are all too busy and involved blaming everything on the new guy.

You ask what I would do.

The first thing I would do is stop the finger pointing and honestly look how we got here.  I would then begin to re-regulate, YES, REGULATE, the banks, investment brokers, and financial markets to make sure that these banks have the capital to back their risky plays with our money. And I would appoint people to the SEC and FDIC that were not industry insiders that do the bidding of their former and future employers. Instead, banks would now have to be accountable for their business decisions. WHAT A CONCEPT...accountability. No more using our tax dollars to guarantee your salary when your bets don't pay off. This is not having the "government run your business", it's just simple, moderate collateral regulations to protect the nations financial system so they wouldn't even be a need for a bailout. And it's simple common sense.

I would next look at cutting programs and cutting federal payrolls. Now this would also cause a spike in unemployment that the conservatives would blame on me, but so be it. The federal government is the nations largest employer. No need for that. Many tasks can be turned over to the private sector as a public utility contractor.

I would also computerize all government documents and implement data sharing systems that have been developed and adopted by the private sector. This would also help in cutting government paper pushers and speed any dealing with the government.(permitting, social security, taxes, medicare, etc.) More efficient, and less folks on the federal payroll. Win-Win.

I would keep tax rates to what they were during the Clinton era when we were running budget surpluses. Cut the Capital gains tax a little. Cut the estate tax for families making less than $500,000. Cut the loopholes for off-shore accounts. Increase compliance among member nations hiding income. Give tax credits to small businesses that increase employment for a number of quarters.

Once the economy was back on track I would attempt more cuts to social services and social security. Again, I would be hated by almost everyone, but the benefits would soon start to show.

If things went well I'd probably try some more courageous changes like relaxing marijuana laws, taxing only recreational use. Medicinal use would be tax free, but I would increase the medical standard to get a prescription. No more fly-by night doctors or dispensaries.

And if I really had balls, I would add a small public option to health care by expanding the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program (FEHB) to include any American that wants to join that meets certain basic employment standards. I would pay for this by a small 2% to 3% tax on businesses. Yes this would also be unpopular among businesses, but the benefits of not having to provide health care to employees will more than make up for the tax. And healthier employees are more productive. I would also require private insurance companies to cover the patients that are already paying their premiums. No more dropping a customer after 20 years of paying premiums because they got sick and the insurance company then "discovers" that you didn't fill out your application correctly.

And finally, I would use stimulus money to pave the parking lot at SMS. It would boost the local economy and my car wouldn't get so dirty. Okay, so I'm guilty of caving to a special interest, my own.

Wow! I keep thinking of more, but if I reveal it all then Mike wont buy my upcoming book. lol!

dsc

i have not had time to absorb the response to my request but i will!


but jr07's last line of his response is spot on!


peace.................................mike

I can't believe where this thread has gone.  I mean --- all the guy wanted was to get somebody to paint the trim on his new house................... Thirty posts later we have guys campaigning for government office.  I vote for formercrewguy.............LOL  

I would add FCG's suggestion about lobbyists to my platform. Our campaign finance system almost guarantees that politicians will always favor special interests over the common folk. But remember, conservatives consider it a form of freedom of speech to give massive amounts of money to politicians they support. They have always been against restricting the money flow to politicians because they have more money to buy the politicians.

I also like the part about eliminating the "add-ons" to legislation. This is how pork gets into every bill. Good call Bob.

And to answer jr07 question. Yes, I would do this without taking over massive parts of the private sector. Unless of course you consider setting basic rules for businesses as a massive takeover of the private sector.

And I think I would actually increase personal privacy rights. I don't think what I do in the privacy of my own home is any business of the government as long as I am not harming, or otherwise infringing on someone else's rights.

And wouldn't legalization of marijuana actually shrink the government? No more DEA. And law enforcement could now focus on violent criminals who are an actual danger to society.

And term limits is a good idea only if the lobbyists are eliminated from the political system. Term limits in California has actually had the negative effect of increasing the power of career lobbyists in the state capitol because they have more experience that the elected officials. Getting rid of experienced legislators has only increased the influence that lobbyists have on our laws.

So before we can have term limits for elected officials, we have to have term-limits for lobbyists.

Forgive me if this doesn't make any sense. I only thought this out in the time it took me to type it. lol!

dsc

If that were true, why is it that the biggest opposition to campaign finance reform are conservative Republicans?

If the influence of Union money is so powerful, why not eliminate money from the system?

I think that the answer is that wealthy conservatives and powerful corporations have a lot more money to throw around then the unions. And the thought that unions spend "multi-billions" is hyperbole in the extreme.

It's true that different unions are individually among the biggest donors to both Dems and the GOP (but mostly Dems)

But the single biggest contributor to politicians is AT&T. And corporations are by far the biggest contributors when you add them all together.

But I'm in favor of eliminating all political contributions of any kind. You'll find opposition to this from both Dems and the GOP. But the GOP has historically been the biggest roadblock to public financing of campaigns. But lets be honest. No politician wants the flow of money to stop.

dsc

dscEvents wrote on 09/03/09 at 10:14am:


#############

Dave,

My post was not a question but an affirmative statement in response to your post.

Not all of my posts include sarcasm...........well........... not all of my posts are completely sarcastic.

Whenever ppl talk about legalizing weed, the movie," Refer Madness" comes to mind....................LMFAOOOOO

Duane,

Thanks for your detailed answers to my points. Although I don't agree with some of your counter-points, I do appreciate your measured response.

Your comment about Madoff ignores that he did the majority of his swindling during the Bush years with Bush appointees at the helm of the SEC. The permissive nature of the Bush SEC allowed many to get away with thievery. My appointees would not be beholden to Wall Street traders.

You say there is never anything moderate about government control. How are basic regulations and laws "government control"? Are you against all State and Federal laws that protect the public? Are you saying Toy companies should be able to make products that are fatal to children? Or that Banks should be able to spend your money in any way they wish?  C'mon now. It is my belief that you can have laws without tyranny. Common sense regulation is not "government control" in the way that you mean.

I'm not surprised you would agree with my cutting federal payroll and programs. But most economists on both sides agree it would cause serious short-term unemployment. There's not much I can find to dispute that. But I would still do it.

And there's no real proof that tax cuts increase employment. There are many differing opinions, but nothing conclusive. There have been times when employment has gone down after a tax cut. And there are examples when employment has been fine even after a tax hike. It really depends on how those tax savings are spent. And because the government doesn't (and really shouldn't) force businesses to invest their tax savings in added hiring, there's no guarantee that cuts produce jobs.

About the school systems problems with information technology. I never take someone's failure as proof that something can't be done. Just like the GW Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina doesn't prove that the government can't respond to emergencies. It just proves if you need to appoint competent and experienced people to be in charge. There are always smarter people out there.

Klinton's budget may have been "smoke and mirrors", but he used the same budgeting standards that both Bushes used. That's how GW kept the Iraq war "off the books" so he could pass that cost off onto your grandchildren.

Social Security needs to be a part of any cuts. Old people are just another special interest group. I thought you despised the "liberal" AARP? Now you're in favor of their platform?

I didn't really understand how marijuana skews conservative? or what that means. But I do think decriminalizing pot would save billions in prison costs and free up cops to take down real bad guys.

And I'm not sure that the Constitution has anything that prevents government health care programs. Medicare has never to my knowledge been deemed unconstitutional. Nor has the Veterans Administrations health care system. But go ahead and bring your pocket Constitution. We'll look for where the Patriot Act is listed. lol.

And the health program I proposed only covers working people. It wouldn't cover all the uninsured. That would be a problem with liberals, but tough. Yes the employment tax would add short term debt, but would pay for itself over many years as businesses and employees reinvested their health savings back into the economy, adding to tax revenue.

I do find it interesting that you don't want your grandkids and great-grandkids paying for a public health care plan, but it's okay that they'll be paying a lot more for the Iraq war and other mandated debt that's been accumulating since Reagan started the trend of massive deficit spending. Remember, it was Reagan who said that "deficits don't matter". The majority of total national debt has come from budgets signed over the years by Republican Presidents. Where have you been for the past 3 decades?

( Correction ) I have found out that I was wrong about the Reagan quote. It wasn't Reagan who said "deficits don't matter". It was actually Dick Cheney who said that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" when referring to government spending by the GOP. My apologies.  dsc

And I mailed my car registration to the DMV and received my tags a few weeks later. Also, my mail came today at about the same time it has been coming for as long as I have lived here. Another government operation. I'm not sure why you've had so much problems with your registration. But generally if you follow the rules, like providing proof of insurance or a smog certificate(not a certification of smog, lol) then you shouldn't have problems with the DMV.

Again Duane, thanks for your honest critique of my platform. But I have to ask, where the heck is Fastmike? He started this mess by asking me a detailed question and then he disappeared! It's a good thing Duane is there to take up his slack! lol!

Sleep tight!

dsc

Thanks for your detailed answers to my points. Although I don't agree with some of your counter-points, I do appreciate your measured response.

Your comment about Madoff ignores that he did the majority of his swindling during the Bush years with Bush appointees at the helm of the SEC. The permissive nature of the Bush SEC allowed many to get away with thievery. My appointees would not be beholden to Wall Street traders.

I kinda thought that was a given, cause he was in jail almost the same time Obama was becoming Prez. I listened to a guy that said he handed Madoff to the agency on a silver platter but no one there was smart enough to figure it out.  That was my only point. Having  inspectors of the sake of just having inspectors won't work, they'll need to be well versed in the financial end of it and if they are, they can make a whole bunch more money on the outside, rather then on the inside.

You say there is never anything moderate about government control. How are basic regulations and laws "government control"? Are you against all State and Federal laws that protect the public? Are you saying Toy companies should be able to make products that are fatal to children? Or that Banks should be able to spend your money in any way they wish?  C'mon now. It is my belief that you can have laws without tyranny. Common sense regulation is not "government control" in the way that you mean.

That may be your interpretation of regulation, but for what ever reason it always turns into government control. Case in point, a few years ago during our contrived gas shortage, all states were mandated by the Fed's to have a 55 mph speed limit, if they didn't do it they received no fed funding, that to me is control.
I'm not surprised you would agree with my cutting federal payroll and programs. But most economists on both sides agree it would cause serious short-term unemployment. There's not much I can find to dispute that. But I would still do it.

Maybe so, but  is conjecture by all I guess.

And there's no real proof that tax cuts increase employment. There are many differing opinions, but nothing conclusive. There have been times when employment has gone down after a tax cut. And there are examples when employment has been fine even after a tax hike. It really depends on how those tax savings are spent. And because the government doesn't (and really shouldn't) force businesses to invest their tax savings in added hiring, there's no guarantee that cuts produce jobs.

I disagree here alot, every time, not once in a while, but every time that you give the business men a tax cut, the coffers in the treasury go up.  There is only one way that can happen, it has to be employment and sales.  I know its hard for the left leaning (notice I didn't say lib) to give a tax cut and credit to big business, but none the less it still works.




About the school systems problems with information technology. I never take someone's failure as proof that something can't be done. Just like the GW Bush's response to Hurricane Katrina doesn't prove that the government can't respond to emergencies. It just proves if you need to appoint competent and experienced people to be in charge. There are always smarter people out there.

With the hurricane, you need to start a little lower then the President, those problems started locally with the Mayor and the Governor way before "W" got involved.  I remember watching on Fox news with Shepard Smith crying on TV about how come it took so long to get the water and supplies to the people.  The only thing he left out is they had three days warning to get out and didn't do it, how is that "W"'s fault.    I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying with the government mentality, you'd have to fire everyone in the administration and start fresh.

Klinton's budget may have been "smoke and mirrors", but he used the same budgeting standards that both Bushes used. That's how GW kept the Iraq war "off the books" so he could pass that cost off onto your grandchildren.

In my opinion, the Iraq war had to be fought, you may disagree with how "W" went about it, but the fact remains we haven't been attacked on a large scale again. And for that I am truly thankful to President Bush and his staff of millitary.

Social Security needs to be a part of any cuts. Old people are just another special interest group. I thought you despised the "liberal" AARP? Now you're in favor of their platform?

I don't know if you recall, but AARP is NOT a government agency.  I am not nor never will be a member of AARP, as a matter of fact, it pains me to write the letters. My point is, anyone who has paid into the system deserves there just reward.I'm in complete favor of changing the system or privatising it.

I didn't really understand how marijuana skews conservative? or what that means. But I do think decriminalizing pot would save billions in prison costs and free up cops to take down real bad guys.

I just don't think it'll make much difference in the law enforcement end of it, I could be wrong.  But if I am, so is the Sheriff that lives across the street from me and my son-in-law, also a Sheriff dep.

And I'm not sure that the Constitution has anything that prevents government health care programs. Medicare has never to my knowledge been deemed unconstitutional. Nor has the Veterans Administrations health care system. But go ahead and bring your pocket Constitution. We'll look for where the Patriot Act is listed. lol.

Medicare is in shamble and broke, bad examples.

And the health program I proposed only covers working people. It wouldn't cover all the uninsured. That would be a problem with liberals, but tough. Yes the employment tax would add short term debt, but would pay for itself over many years as businesses and employees reinvested their health savings back into the economy, adding to tax revenue.

Raising taxes NEVER works, the coffers ALWAYS go down when taxes are INCREASED

I do find it interesting that you don't want your grand kids and great-grand kids paying for a public health care plan, but it's okay that they'll be paying a lot more for the Iraq war and other mandated debt that's been accumulating since Reagan started the trend of massive deficit spending. Remember, it was Reagan who said that "deficits don't matter". The majority of total national debt has come from budgets signed over the years by Republican Presidents. Where have you been for the past 3 decades?

I'm sure you remember three thousand people were killed on 9-11.  The war was necessary.  The debt you speak about by the Republicans will be dwarfed by Mr. Obama, probably four fold.

( Correction ) I have found out that I was wrong about the Reagan quote. It wasn't Reagan who said "deficits don't matter". It was actually Dick Cheney who said that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" when referring to government spending by the GOP. My apologies.  dsc

And I mailed my car registration to the DMV and received my tags a few weeks later. Also, my mail came today at about the same time it has been coming for as long as I have lived here. Another government operation. I'm not sure why you've had so much problems with your registration. But generally if you follow the rules, like providing proof of insurance or a smog certificate(not a certification of smog, lol) then you shouldn't have problems with the DMV.

Ahh, using the USPO as a model agency of the government is perfect, constantly over budget, and uncompetitive. Personally, I'd stop Sat. delivery and save a bundle.  The DMV, are nice folks trying hard to do a good job, I'm sure.  It's just a government agency with to much regulation, what difference does it make if I can show proof of insurance for a vehicle over a yr ago?  The lady I was dealing with was very nice and was helpful but when she said I should keep my vehicle documentation for seven yrs, I had to tell her she was nutz, in a nice way.  All was resolved, but if you have 304 million people to deal with, its going to bog down the system.

Again Duane, thanks for your honest critique of my platform. But I have to ask, where the heck is Fastmike? He started this mess by asking me a detailed question and then he disappeared! It's a good thing Duane is there to take up his slack! lol!


See, we knew Mike was there the whole time!!!


Duane