You're President for the next 4 years. What ya going to do?

[Bacchus]

I thought of a great Idea. Take your post and outline your presidency. What you want to do. If you want to add more to it don't post again go back and edit your original post so you can build on your Presidency. So we should have some great outlines by the time the election rolls around.

All right guys step up and put your money where your mouth is.

[Bacchus]

My Presidency I would like Biden as my VP. What can I say I love that guy. Plus he is very knowledgable of the world affairs. After all he is the one that said the U.S. surge in Afghanistan should be just small bases used for hunting Al Queada and not some massive nation building effort that we are currently doing. I would let the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy lapse in December and then I would let all the Bush tax cuts lapse the December after that. Then we would all be paying the same taxes we did in 1992 Under Clinton. I would like Colin Powell to be Secretary of State and give him a chance to redeem himself for his Bush years. If he refused I would interview John Kerry and Robert Casey and see who I liked better.

No exact figures but slash military spending on weapons and vehicles/boats that are obsolete. China has inveted a weapon that will be able to hit aircraft carriers from 1,500 miles a way. It will do this in 12 minutes. Making aircraft carriers nothing but huge slow moving targets. http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/chinese-kill-weapon The Navy will have to be remodified for a war against China and more moblie and smaller for the war on terror.

I would get rid of oil subsides. i think these oil companies no longer need them. Oil companies get I believe about $30 billion and another $60 billion for Ethanol. I would get rid of both of them Farmers should be growing food to eat not for fuel in our vehicles. That is part of the reason why food prices have increased. I would take about $50 billion of this money and give it to grean energy companies, Wind and Auotmobile companies for researching and inventing in a better battery that will take you farther on a charge and charge up quicker.

I would start a massive jobs program that will fix roads and bridges that are in desperate need for repair. I would also give $100 billion for a super speed train that will travel from New York down the east coast to Washington DC. All countries have these 200 MPH and fastewr trains except for the U.S. It would revolutionize travel on the east coast, Reducing flights and pollution and also making the commute much more enjoyable for passengers. I would also do this on the West coast from San Diego up to San Francisco and why not a train from L.A. to Vegas? This would reduce commute times for people in cars, Would take cars off the highway making it safer to drive and it would increase the volume of people moving and spending money which in itself would stimulate the economy.

I would legalize pot. Not only legalize it but make it retroactive. If you are currently in jail for a pot offense you get to get out. I would also close down for profit prisons. When their main objective is to keep people in their jail so they make money that is not a good thing for the United States. I would abolish the death penalty. I believe an eye for an eye but there are too many documente cases of innocent people being executed. Life in prison is the way to go.

[Kaylore]

I would start by correcting this thread title from "your" to "you're." Then I would waterboard you until you never did it again.

[Bacchus]

I would start by correcting this thread title from "your" to "you're." Then I would waterboard you until you never did it again.

Done, now come on Kahn you potray yourself as a thoughtful guy. lets see your presidency.

[Rohirrim]

I would start by correcting this thread title from "your" to "you're." Then I would waterboard you until you never did it again.

LOL


So, I guess waterboarding would be okay in a Khan administration?

[SoCalBronco]

Done, now come on Kahn you potray yourself as a thoughtful guy. lets see your presidency.

You may still be water boarded.......considering you also misspelled Khan. Lol

[Kaylore]

LOL


So, I guess waterboarding would be okay in a Khan administration?

All spelling errors are WB level offenses.

[The Lone Bolt]

I'll tell you what I'd do, man: two chicks at the same time, man. ;D

[BroncoInferno]

I'll tell you what I'd do, man: two chicks at the same time, man. ;D

http://claycollinsblog-cdn.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/lawrence.jpg?cda6c1

[pricejj]

Day one, minute one:

Fire Ben Bernanke.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

To name just a few things...

Roll back the Reagan tax cuts.

End all corporate welfare, i.e., subsidies for big oil, etc.

Double capital gains tax rate.

Reinstate windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Establish tax code that severely punishes U.S. companies for outsourcing jobs, moving operations overseas, and hiding assets offshore.

Cut taxes on incomes of $100K and below by 30%.

Bring back protectionism.

Repeal NAFTA and similar trade agreements.

Establish single payer health care system.

Appoint liberal judges to SCOTUS.

Repeal Citizens United.

Pursue meaningful campaign finance reform.

Close non-essential U.S. military bases around the world - bring troops home.

Reduce defense spending by ~30-50%.

Prosecute GW Bush, Dick Cheney and cabinet members for war crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors.

Prosecute Wall Street criminals responsible for 2008 crisis.

Reinstate Glass/Steagall.

Abolish Federal Reserve Bank - turn powers over to Treasury Dept.

Repeal tax exempt status for churches and organized religious groups.

Outlaw electronic voting machines - paper ballots only.

Strictly enforce existing immigration laws - impose severe criminal penalties on U.S. companies and employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Reform FCC - eliminate antiquated censorship rules.

Break up telecom monopolies - roll back deregulation.

Restore FEMA and EPA to pre-Bush functionality.

Roll back all Bush-era changes to environmental standards.

Reinstate Brady Bill and assault weapons ban.

[barryr]

To name just a few things...

Roll back the Reagan tax cuts.

End all corporate welfare, i.e., subsidies for big oil, etc.

Double capital gains tax rate.

Reinstate windfall profits tax on oil companies.

Establish tax code that severely punishes U.S. companies for outsourcing jobs, moving operations overseas, and hiding assets offshore.

Cut taxes on incomes of $100K and below by 30%.

Bring back protectionism.

Repeal NAFTA and similar trade agreements.

Establish single payer health care system.

Appoint liberal judges to SCOTUS.

Repeal Citizens United.

Pursue meaningful campaign finance reform.

Close non-essential U.S. military bases around the world - bring troops home.

Reduce defense spending by ~30-50%.

Prosecute GW Bush, Dick Cheney and cabinet members for war crimes, high crimes and misdemeanors.

Prosecute Wall Street criminals responsible for 2008 crisis.

Reinstate Glass/Steagall.

Abolish Federal Reserve Bank - turn powers over to Treasury Dept.

Repeal tax exempt status for churches and organized religious groups.

Outlaw electronic voting machines - paper ballots only.

Strictly enforce existing immigration laws - impose severe criminal penalties on U.S. companies and employers who hire illegal immigrants.

Reform FCC - eliminate antiquated censorship rules.

Break up telecom monopolies - roll back deregulation.

Restore FEMA and EPA to pre-Bush functionality.

Roll back all Bush-era changes to environmental standards.

Reinstate Brady Bill and assault weapons ban.

In other words, let's bring back Jimmy Carter. Yikes.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

In other words, let's bring back Jimmy Carter. Yikes.

The smart money says you're not even old enough to remember the Carter years.

In any event, you could just as easily have said "bring back Nixon" or "bring back Ford."

[barryr]

The smart money says you're not even old enough to remember the Carter years.

In any event, you could just as easily have said "bring back Nixon" or "bring back Ford."

The smart money is you think Carter was a great president and use that "d" by his name as proof, you "deep" thinker LOL

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

The smart money is you think Carter was a great president and use that "d" by his name as proof, you "deep" thinker LOL

One thing is certain: If your metric takes middle class standards of living into account, then Carter was a greater president than Saint Ron.

But you're obviously too young to remember life in America before the Reagan Revolution.

[Mecklomaniac]

One thing is certain: If your metric takes middle class standards of living into account, then Carter was a greater president than Saint Ron.

But you're obviously too young to remember life in America before the Reagan Revolution.


How about the using the misery index, the metric everyone became familiar with under Carter.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://rlv.zcache.com/jimmy_carter_malaise_ohp_postcard-p239097144059690696baanr_400.jpg&sa=X&ei=Qz6HUNLqPMjRiALOqICYDA&ved=0CAwQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNFdZv_pldT71iRk5vOboYSXZOtj_g

[Rohirrim]

I start using the Patriot Act to arrest people I don't like and make them disappear without charges or habeus corpus, just because I have that power. ;D

[SoCalBronco]

Domestic Affairs:
1. Social Security and Medicare reform: We are going to go to a Wyden-Ryan style voucher system for the younger generation in order to reduce federal obligations. We leave it alone for 55 and over and convert to voucher at about 8k a person for those who are younger, plus means-testing adjustment to give the poor and middle income more than the standard amount, whereas less for the wealthy to partially offset the harsh effects, and also ofcourse adjust it for inflation as well. Create the insurance exchange to promote competition between plans but we do need a regulatory agency in order to make sure all the plans have at least a certain standard for benefits. There will also be a very slow but steady increase in the eligibility age over time. Per CBO, this program will reduce federal spending as a share of GDP on these programs from 5.5% to 12.5% by 2050 under current law to 5.5% now down to 4.5%. The savings would be beyond massive and with such savings, there is more flexibility to increase the means-testing additional benefit for the poor as needed when we start recouping real savings. These are undoubtedly very painful and draconian changes, but they are necessary for long term fiscal health, so we need to bite the bullet. With regard to Social Security, thats a much smaller problem and I think it can be largely solved with increasing the amount of income subject ot the SS tax slightly, I think its about 106k now, you can take it to 110k and solve most of the problem. We can also reduce SS slightly for the very wealthy. Since we are slightly increasing the eligibility for the new Medicare voucher over time by about 2 years (over a few decades very slowly and incrementally), to make the overall proposal a little more palatable, we won't touch the eligibility ages for SS at all. Bigger long term problem is Medicare anyway, and there is real benefit reduction there, so we'll go for a lighter approach on SS to keep the effects relatively moderate overall.

2. Taxes- Half of the problem has been solved with SS/Medicare reform. The other half is in taxes. It makes little sense to reap savings in the entitlement area only to blow them in the tax area. Our first priority is letting the Bush tax cuts expire. If the Congress attempts to extend them, it will be met with a swift veto. This too will lead to substantial savings....CBO says about 1 trillion over the course of a decade (I think that is jsut for the cuts for over 250k, it is even larger if you wipe out the entire package). In their place, I think we can promote a tax cut package which is a little more equitable and can be much cheaper. Bowles-Simpson is a starting place, where overall rates would be reduced (albeit not as drastically as Romney proposes, not 20% across the board), just slightly and yes we'll go after loopholes. This may be difficult as it will create political quandries for lawmakers. If that approach doesnt work, we could re-institute the Bush cuts for those under 250k, which is still far less costly than the entire Bush tax cut package as a whole. We could also tinker with the law pre-2001 by proposing a series of small to moderate cuts based off of the law as it existed under Clinton. This will probably hurt the economy in the short term, but I think there will be more than ample money for targeted and effective tax cuts over the course of the term (for both individuals and businesses) as the deficit starts to get reduced by fewer interest payments.

3. Cap and Trade system to combat Climate Change- We will revive the Obama Cap and Trade proposal. It is in fact a moderate proposal that uses free market forces to incentivize firms to reduce various emissions. This is a serious problem, which does need to be addressed. I think we can start to see the effects already in recent extreme weather changes. I am convinced there is a sufficient agreement in the scientific community. One will never get to 100% on any issue, but there is enough agreement overall. Even the Koch brothers commissioned a study attempting to get to the opposite result and it still ended up showing there are real effects from global warming and I believe at least one Koch brother is on board. I prefer the cap and trade system to carbon tax because you are actually giving positive incentives for firms to change their practices and become environmentally more efficient so they can sell the credits for cash. There is good precedent for such a system in Europe with certain types of emissions. When you work with business and give them financial incentives, its generally a much better idea and will engender more cooperation than top-down orders.

4. Improving efficiency in federal departments- We will conduct a national performance review of all programs and departments, not unlike the program undertaken by Vice President Gore in 1993 and 1994. The purpose of the review is to find duplication, inefficiency and see in what instances, we can re-organize things to reduce these problems. Domestic discretionary spending is not a huge long term cost driver, but we can be even more efficient. The federal government needs a regulatory and oversight role in all these areas and can also provide assistance to States, but perhaps we can make operation a little sleeker. Re-organization to reduce ineffiency is the main goal, not abolition of whole departments or functions.

5. Education and Infrastructure- With some of the savings in terms of the performance review and more importantly entitlements, we can put more money into education programs, federally subsidized scholarships, aid grants to universities for research and technology, and even local aid for school districts, as the housing market decline has hurt property tax revenues, which largely go to funding these schools. This problem is even worse in poorer areas, where the property tax revenue wasnt high to begin with and those schools were getting meager funding through these revenues, which has had a disproportionate affect on minorities (although it also affects poor kids in general as well, regardless of race), since through no fault of their own, many of them havent had equivalent levels of education to other kids who were born in wealthier areas. So we can direct more of the funds towards those poorer districts. I suppose it is a form of affirmative action and I'm ok with that (although the emphasis conceptually is the poor, not necessarily race). These districts are badly in need of assistance and with these other reforms, we will free up alot of money in terms of reduced deficits, so we can provide significant assistance to these school districts (and middle class school districts as well). I think this will send a message to minorities and the poor and the blue collar middle class that a moderate GOP administration does in fact care about them and we're willing to put our money where our mouth is in terms of significant increases in aid to their neighborhood schools. This aid would also include vastly expanding full college scholarships for HS students from very poor households for good grades. We need to start adjusting and moderating as a party in order to survive and this is a good first step (it is only a first step, but we have to start somewhere). I agree with the administration that we need to upgrade infrastructure, so investing in that is important.

Foreign Policy
1. General theme- I'm a realist from the Nixon school of thought. We're not going to make grand flowery pronouncements about democracy, freedom, rights etc. This is not to say these are not important things, but they are not at the absolute fulcrum of US policy. We will make cold, hard assessments of US strategic, political and economic interests. We are interested in stability. Where everythign else is equal, and the US strategic and political interests are not significnatly threatened by certain behavior, then sure, we'll try to promote human rights and freedom where we can, but we'll always look at actual US interests first and foremost. If this means having to support dictators, we will. We will go to great lengths to preserve stability and keep Al Qaeda and other extreme organizations on the run. I'm not going to get involved where its based just on emotion or "principles", I don't care about platitudes about "siding with the people in X region". We will make a calculation of interests and thats what its based on. Period.

2. The Defense Budget- There are areas in which I think we can reduce spending and also increase spending. On the whole, I think we can continue to make overall cuts while not jeopardizing anything. For instance, we will continue the Vietnamization in place in Afghanistan and perhaps leave a small residual force there to help keep the peace, but the savings from Iraq and Afghanistan will allow us to do things in other areas without having our budget explode. First, there will be cuts to quantitative military goods in terms of procurement. We don't need thousands of tanks as there are very few actual direct conflicts we have. Or thousands of fighter jets. We can reduce the quantitative number, not significantly, but enough that we still have an overwhelming amount, while increasing spending on qualitative issues, such as technology to increase the deadlyness and efficiency of both our offensive and defensive weapons. R&D is where it is at in defense, not total number of jets, tanks, etc. We'll make sure we have a more than sufficient number of all types of weapons, but just not as much as we have now. We will focus on what President Nixon called strategic sufficiency, not necessary quantitative superiority. Our weaponry and defenses will be technologically much better than anyone else, with tons of cash going from procurement to technology, testing, research and development. However, we will not reduce the size of the military contingent on the whole, by this I mean we are not closing bases worldwide and reducing the military personnel. We need bases worldwide and personnel so that we can protect US interests all over the world, including important waterways, have listening posts all over the world and be able to respond quickly to a conflict in any area. I'm not cutting any bases or reducing personnel. We will increase foreign aid, because its an important carrot to curry favor and keep friendly regimes happy. I'm fully aware some os skimmed off the top by teh ruling elite and thats fine. We will increase CIA projects, special ops etc. We have no qualms with destabilizing unfriendly regimes and making sure extreme Islamists do not take hold and we'll go to great lengths, even through questionable means to make sure that happens. That its a democracy is of no concern to me.

2. Arms Control- I think we can continue to work with Russia to reduce nuclear arms quantitatively through bilateral negotiations, which will continue to lead to the savings mentioned above, while making sure our nuclear offensive and defensive weapons are superior through R&D spending. I'm not willing to ban the development of new armaments, just reduce the arsenal of existing nuclear arms. Savings from reducing the nuclear arsenal will be in the tens of billions. We don't need 1900 ICBMs. We can cut it in half and achieve massive savings. If the Russians have 1500 ICBMs and we then only have 1000 thats, ok. We have strategic nuclear sufficiency. Our advantage lies in pouring in many of the billions in savings into technological superiority of our weapons, not in the total number of weapons. At 1000, or even less, we have reached the point where no one has first strike capability and we're all operating under MAD.

3. The Middle East- Top priority as noted above is stability and avoiding non-secular extreme Islamist regimes from taking over and preventing such regimes from acquiring nuclear weapons. We'll do whatever it takes. We will start with carrots, such as increased aid in exchange for moderate policies. From there, we'll go to sticks. We will infilitrate their governments, research labs, plants and militaries, and make their economies scream if need be. We'll go further if need be, in terms of eliminating key personnel of said regimes, regardless of how their government was formed (I'm not going to be any less aggressive just because they were democratically elected, I don't care) and we'll make sure we spend whatever resources are necessary to ensure we have covered our tracks well so as to lessen the possibility of a PR disaster. Our objective is to be effective in combating such regimes and any links to Al Qaeda (and making sure nuclear material or financial assets are not transferred from such regimes to Al Qaeda), while avoiding an actual ground wars which can end up in quagmires. This will involve doing alot of dirty things behind the scenes. I'm perfectly willing to do it.

[Dr. Broncenstein]

30% tax credit towards the purchase of any large ticket item manufactured in the US.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How about the using the misery index, the metric everyone became familiar with under Carter.


How about plain common sense instead?

The Carter years were a time when a family could still enjoy a comfortable middle class lifestyle on the father's income alone while mom (if she chose) could stay home and raise the kids.

The Red Ink Ron Revolution ended that.

If those folks who were dissatisfied with the economy under Carter had an inkling of what the future had in store, chances are they wouldn't have been b*tching.

[Cito Pelon]

Domestic Affairs:
1. Social Security and Medicare reform: We are going to go to a Wyden-Ryan style voucher system for the younger generation in order to reduce federal obligations. ........

You asked for what you gonna do and SoCal did so. Yeesh, talk about getting on a soapbox. Not bad, actually IMO.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

You Think You Could Be a Better President than Either Candidate? Try It (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct24.html#item-9)

Talking about running a country is easier than actually doing it. It you want to see how well you can do, take a look at simcountry.com (http://www.simcountry.com), a free online multiplayer game where you get to be president of a country. You have to make decisions about taxes, unemployment, education, social security, defense, transportation, and a hundred other things, while keeping your people happy and dealing with sometimes hostile neighboring countries. If running a country isn't your thing, you can also opt to be CEO of a multinational corporation.

[Bacchus]

You Think You Could Be a Better President than Either Candidate? Try It (http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Pres/Maps/Oct24.html#item-9)

Talking about running a country is easier than actually doing it. It you want to see how well you can do, take a look at simcountry.com (http://www.simcountry.com), a free online multiplayer game where you get to be president of a country. You have to make decisions about taxes, unemployment, education, social security, defense, transportation, and a hundred other things, while keeping your people happy and dealing with sometimes hostile neighboring countries. If running a country isn't your thing, you can also opt to be CEO of a multinational corporation.

That website as a whole seem pretty good, I'll have to ad it to my favorites.