Why SHOULDN'T....WULF be President? by Wulfenstar

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

hehehehe

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2011 1:04 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, it's still near the top so I'll respond...after that I'll hope it dies the death it deserves.

Why shouldn't Wulf be Prez? Because Wulf shouldn't even be a voting citizen; he's incapable of discerning reality.

Oh, no, wait, Bush was too and HE was Prez...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2011 1:11 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Why shouldn't Wulf be Prez? Because Wulf shouldn't even be a voting citizen; he's incapable of discerning reality."

Ain't she a peach folks?

Good. I'm glad to hear that I am unable to discern/accept the lib-prog-national-socialistic way of "reality".

From the horses mouth, so to speak.

(Niki isn't that bad. Her physical appearance, even for being old, is quite pretty. Its just her beliefs that make her ugly.)

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2011 1:15 PM

WHOZIT

Should you President.....well ya can't!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2011 1:20 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Should you President.....well ya can't!"

Always did love a challenge.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2011 3:27 PM

Because Wulf is under 35.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 3, 2011 6:23 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

And nobody's seen his birth certificate, either. ;)

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 1:03 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Ok, but when I turn 35...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 1:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And nobody's seen his birth certificate, either. ;)

This Space For Rent!

That hasn't stopped you gay Americans from voting for that monkey you homos worship. Well, it's true.......

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 2:05 PM

Wulf

In order to become president, you almost always have to have held a lower office first.

People who become president have generally been

1. Governors
2. Senators
3. Congressmen (rarely)
4. Mayors? I can't think of any, but many have tried.
5. Generals. Maybe even lower ranking officers, but not lately.
6. Many CEOs have tried, I don't think any have won.
7. High ranking cabinet officials also try, but I'm not sure any have won.

Typically, executive offices have a double benefit:

1) They show you can lead (or sometimes that you can't.)
2) They don't come with the sort of murky record that being a legislator does*

* The snag with legislation is that often bills come up that are called the "We love puppies act" This bill includes a recognition that America loves puppies, and also has a rider that says that poor children will no longer be served school lunch for free.

If you voted for the bill, your opponent will say that you want poor children to starve, and if you vote against the bill, your opponent will say you hate puppies.

For this reason, it's better to be an executive.

Your executive choices are Governor and Mayor. Mayors rarely win higher office, with the notable exception of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and former Russian President Boris Yeltsin. It's worth noting that they were both mayor of rather large cities (Tehran and St. Petersburg.) I'm sure there are other examples, but size does matter. Even so, I'm not sure Mayor will help you in a US presidential election. Rudy Giuliani did not get far, but this might have had something to do with his being a republican while being a flamer, or it may have had something to do with him being a REALLY TERRIBLE MAYOR. Oh, and 9.11, 9.11, and also Nine, and Eleven.

That doesn't mean skip mayor, mayor is a good stepping stone to Governor, but if you want to be president, you're probably going to want to be a governor first.

In stepping up the political ladder, it doesn't really matter which branch you're in. You can run for governor based on your record as a legislator much easier than you can run for president. You probably want to start small, so you won't get noticed, and so you can learn the ropes, make your mistakes while splashing around in a small pond without making a lot of waves.

Community Organizer is not really a position, but it's the sort of area you can start, like city council, anything that gets you involved in politics. In general, you're better off sticking with a party.

I assume you will be conidering yourself a tea party candidate, whichever banner your run under, ulimately, probably republican or some third party. It's a shame the RPUSA has disbanded, but I'm sure a credible replacement will show up eventually.

Next, you're going to want to have your own crew. While hobnobbing with powerful elites can get you a lot of allies and campaign support, it's a bad way to build a crew. If someone is already a powerful elite, they probably have their own agenda, and will expect you to implement it. If you don't, they probably have ways of taking you down.

This was Obama's biggest mistake. He has no real crew of his own (okay, a very limited one) but not enough to hold down the presidency. Bill Clinton, son of a bitch that he is, built himself up a pretty powerful crew before he marched into Washington. When we was elected president, he basically just took his Gov. of Arkansas govt. and transplanted it to DC. Then later he attracted new members, but they came to join *his* crew, not he to join theirs. This group collectively are of course the Clintonistas, and they still hold more power in Washington today than Obama, even though Obama defeated Hillary in the Dem. primary. All of which goes to show how important a crew is.

Given your own background, I figure you can get this concept pretty quickly.

Remember also, though, being president, or even governor, means being the front man. You will make enemies, and if anything heads south, you're going to be the one holding the bag. Try this sort of stuff out on a smaller scale and see how you like it.

I mean real small, like town council. I started out as a political strategist for a national party, and when I got into the actual practice of politics I found I didn't care for it. There's a lot of infighting and pointless battles with the locking of horns of not just the two parties, but subgroups within the parties. Then again, you may have better luck with it.

The first thing you should do is pick up a copy of Robert A. Heinlein's "Take Back Your Government." Heinlein was involved in politics lifelong, but he preferred to keep it a secret. He had a large fanbase in Sci-Fi, and didn't want to alienate anyone, and as he put it, he didn't want to be known for political positions he was likely to change or things that he said that turned out to be wrong. Heinlein started out as a Socialist, then became a Democrat, and then a Republican. This had less to do with beliefs than it did with disillusionment. The socialists proved disastrous, and the democrats under FDR and Truman no better. Probably by the end he would have said fuck 'em all, but pick up the book, his grasp on the nature of the game is pretty solid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 2:27 PM

Yeah, but Obama had slogans and rhetoric...Wulf's got videos...I think he has a shot.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 3:26 PM

STORYMARK

Yeah, but Wulfie's videos aren't even his.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 4:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Yeah, but Obama had slogans and rhetoric...Wulf's got videos...I think he has a shot.

And let's face it - you thought Christine O'Donnell was a shoe-in.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Yeah, but Wulfie's videos aren't even his.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Story has a point

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 5:35 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Becoming President is probably the only way to get me to embrace the most recurring theme of your ideology.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Yeah, but Wulfie's videos aren't even his.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

nor was obama's slogans.....change? idiot

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 7:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Yeah, but Wulfie's videos aren't even his.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

Story has a point

and "change" was Obama's?.....bad dt...bad

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 8:28 PM

DMAANLILEILTT

"Like a dog returning to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."

"I really am ruggedly handsome, aren't I?"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 4, 2011 11:02 PM

kane

hope and change is the slogqn that every dem since fdr has used.

anthony

what? that the answers to lifes questions are in hair metal band videos?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 3:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
what? that the answers to lifes questions are in hair metal band videos?

Well, why not ?

Btw, don't knock Hair Bands, I've always found em quite inspirational, particularly White Lion.

Also, you DO realize that I once offered that whiny punk prettymuch the same advice you just did and his only response was to run like a bitch and hide under a rock chug-a-lugging teabagger koolaid to make the awful truth that he might have to DO something other than run his mouth go away.

Which is *why* I am so nasty to him, mind you.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 5:58 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"anthony

what? that the answers to lifes questions are in hair metal band videos?"

Hello,

Not that theme. But thanks for the chuckle.

--Anthony

Assured by friends that the signal-to-noise ratio has improved on this forum, I have disabled web filtering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 7:10 AM

I actually like hair bands, but can never play his videos. heres a sad commentary, the only computer that i have that could actually play the white lion video is my phone.

but yes, re politics, i remember, though i resent the teabagger comment, which imho is anti hillbilly, and i think for all their faults, they basically have the right idea, or a subset of theright ideas with some added corporate corruption and divisive political group targeted bias, but what american political party doesn't?

as far as presidents go, i was a memberof a group at the rpusa which called ourselves "the coalition of the level headed." one of our main points was "don't run for president," its an unattainable position of almost no power.

of all the shiny distractions our society sets up for us, the race for president has to be way up there.

its an unattainable dream, like the one that Wulf will actually turn of the MTV and do something

oh.and wulf. when you do, make sure it doesnt involve guns. guns come only very late in the game, when the nazis actually *are* moving you into death camps, not when someone disagrees with you ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 7:16 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

DT: You make a lot of sense.

But really, since the "teabaggers" have started making noise, the whole idea that ANYONE can be President is back in play.

AS IT SHOULD BE.

I do need to get some more "experience". But from what I've seen, that has a very HIGH cost. You lay with the pigs, you end up smelling like shit.

Still.

It may be a foolish experiment, but let me test some ideas out...

1. Restriction of income taxes to 10% total. 5% going to the state. 5% going to the federal. AND, only if your state allows FOR income taxes. Some states don't. (Which is more along the lines of what the constitution states.)

The amount of your income taxes could never rise above that amount. No matter how much you make, no matter how little.

Want to shrink the government? Starve it. Want to hold the officials accountable? Make them MAKE DO with what they are given.

Argue it, the pros and cons of this. You guys can usually be counted on to hit the spread of ideaology, and I learn alot.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 1:19 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"its an unattainable dream, like the one that Wulf will actually turn of the MTV and do something

oh.and wulf. when you do, make sure it doesnt involve guns. guns come only very late in the game, when the nazis actually *are* moving you into death camps, not when someone disagrees with you ;)"

Duh.

Its the last resort.

But I'm glad the option is there.

And..

Its not some unatainable dream. Nothing in this life is unatainable.

We will see, right?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 1:25 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

Its not some unatainable dream. Nothing in this life is unatainable.

We will see, right?

True. It remains to be seen if you'll get off your couch. It does indeed.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 1:26 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

I remember, wasn't so long ago
We had a one room shack and the livin' was low
And my mama by herself raised me and my bro
Wasn't easy, but we did it with the little that go
Worked hard got us off to school every day
And kept her eyes on the stars when the skies were gray
Gave us pride to survive, really showed us the way
Now I really understood what she was tryin' to say

She said, "Son there'll be times when the tides are high
And the boat may be rocky, you can cry
Just never give up
You can never give up," uh-uh

In this life you could lead if you only believe
And in order to achieve what you need
You can never give up
You can never give up

And this hope
That keep me holding on
On and on
And this hope
That makes me carry on
On and on

Boom-boom, couldn't have made it alone
I got a wonderful life, two kids on my own
With a strong foundation that was carved in stone
And my mama for the love that made my house a home
Made me wonder some time if this was meant to be
All this for a humble little guy like me
And all I ever really wanted was a family
To teach my kids the same value that she gave to me

She said, Son there'll be times when the tides are high
And the boat may be rocky, you can cry
Just never give up
You can never give up, uh-uh

In this life you could lead if you only believe
And in order to achieve what you need
You can never give up
You can never give up

And this hope
That keep me holding on
And on
And this hope
That makes me carry on
On and on

We nah turn no stepper, things a go better
Never let yourself be overcome by pressure
Cool yah me Bredda Have faith insteada
Sit down an watch em all a fight one another
Blaze like fire- nah go retire
God nah sleep and a him an inspire
We fa reach higher
A that him require
Haffa mek a mark before a time expire

And this hope
That keep me holding on
And on
And this hope
That makes me carry on
On and on

And this hope
That keep me holding on
And on
And this hope
That makes me carry on
On and on

There's hope, yeah
Hope keeps it alive, yeah, uh
Hope keeps it alive, yeah, uh
And it strikes an iron, uh
Hope keeps it alive, yeah, yeah
Hope keeps it alive, yeah
Only the strong survive, yeah
Keep it carry on, keep it carry on, yeah
Uh-uh
I'll keep it carry on, yeah
I gotta carry on, gotta carry on and be strong
Uh-uh-uh
Yeah, yeah, yeah, uh-uh

And this hope
That keep me holding on
And on
And this hope
That makes me carry on
On and on

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 4:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

1. Restriction of income taxes to 10% total. 5% going to the state. 5% going to the federal. AND, only if your state allows FOR income taxes. Some states don't. (Which is more along the lines of what the constitution states.)

The amount of your income taxes could never rise above that amount. No matter how much you make, no matter how little.

Want to shrink the government? Starve it. Want to hold the officials accountable? Make them MAKE DO with what they are given.

Argue it, the pros and cons of this. You guys can usually be counted on to hit the spread of ideaology, and I learn alot.

Apply it equally, across the board, to ALL income (including capital gains, bonuses, dividends, etc.), and you might get somewhere. But the rich will never go for that, nor will theircGOP paid lapdogs, because capital gains, bonuses, dividends, and the like are the kind of things that the rich get that the working poor don't. And the very last thing the rich have EVER wanted is anything approaching a level playing field.

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 8:15 PM

Wulf

I don't think you took me literally enough. I mean to say that I think the system is rigged, and they won't let anyone be president, but I don't think it's the most desirable position, but that's just my humble position.

Simple rule of the forum, this one, but forii in general: When submitting an issue for discussion, start a new thread.

My short answer is I think you've just created Puerto Rico. Do you speak Spanish?

Personally, I think it's an excellent idea and I see no con to it, other than that the federalists would never let you implement it.

Also, on guns, I was serious. You make occasional noise about revolution, I just wanted to make sure you didn't do something stupid in the name of saving your country. Not that I thought you were going to shoot someone, but that if you are seen as an advocate of armed revolution by homeland stupidity et al, or you are seen as a political threat whom they can *paint* as an advocate for armed revolution you will be styling new orange fashions in Cuba.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 5, 2011 8:19 PM

Mike

I think the rich would go for it. If corporate, capital gains, and dividends were all taxed at 10% you would get a lot of support.

The rich are not the ones who want to avoid a level playing field. It's the elite.

Many many people could be called rich; you're not in the elite unless you control the system.

I've become increasingly convinced that the goal of taxation is not in fact to raise money, but to limit the earning power of the masses to prevent class mobility, and that the owners of the economic system use it to this end.

Certainly I can find no explanation for taxation and spending and their total lack of correlation if the goal here is to actual pay our actual bills. It would seem that a trillion dollars for a genocidal campaign against Kandahar or Baluchistan would be somewhat out of our price range at the moment.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 6:39 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

1. I meant that it be applied across ALL income.

I will add to this as well. Sales tax cannot rise above 1%.

Also, business taxes would equally be set at 1%. You start a business, your profits could only be taxed by 1%.

2. Minimum wage is lowered, if not gotten rid of. This put the power back in the hands of the workers. If X company only pays 1 dollar an hour, then go to Y company that pays 10.

The whole idea of minimum wage is wrong anyway. It doesnt pay for the minimum basics, and raising it to what would, bankrupts business.

I know there are people out there with no skills, and no education. But there has to be a better way than what we have now.

3. A 1 year limit on welfare. You can apply for welfare again after 7 years.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 7:46 AM

Wulf,

Gotta argue some points.

1. Why so low on corporate profits? I thought you were going with a flat 10%. Think about it. If I earn $30,000, I'm paying tax on the whole $30,000, regardless of my rent, bills, etc. If I'm a small business, I'm in the same boat. If I'm a corporation, I'm only paying taxes on the excess. So if my business takes in $300,000 and spends $250,000, then it's only going to pay tax on $50,000. Profits are gravy, the only thing you lose by taxing them is you slow corporate growth a little bit. Or a lot bit if taxes are high, but corporate america will love your 10% rate, there's no need to pander with a 1% rate.

Second, why not bring back our original constitutional tax, tariffs? If you're selling something that says "Made in China" then it gets a 10% sales tax. If it says "Made in USA" or "Made in NY" it gets a lower tax rate, or perhaps none.

Welfare limits are tricky. If you made someone dependent on welfare, they will set up expenses etc., and like you, I'm opposed to welfare, which I largely think goes to subsidize the illegal drug market (in volume of welfare dollars) and of course to jack up rents for the working poor (low income housing would be a lot cheaper if it weren't subsidized.)

That said, I oppose welfare time limits. The reason is what happens to a person or family who rolls off the end of welfare. A lot of people on the left might say "they starve!" which is very unlikely. But what is equally unlikely is the right wing assumption that they get a job.

Consider what it takes to get a job:
1. there has to be a job to get
2. you have to be the best qualified applicant
3. you have to have it reasonably together

If these three qualifications had been met, you probably wouldn't be on welfare. Chances are, little has changed in the past year.

So what really happens?

1. Maybe you just stop paying bills, and get kicked out on the street.
2. Maybe you have a rich relative you can sponge off of for a while, or at least a working class one.
3. More likely you turn to crime. Crime is a great welfare system. It provides jobs for the needy, food, shelter, and drugs, which are as good as clothes if you're stoned enough, and money. All you have to do is whatever they say you have to do. If you're stuck with the expenses you set up when you were on welfare, crime makes an excellent substitute.

Here's my alternative:

Keep welfare low, so working is always better. Second, don't give people money. It's very easy to hand money to drug dealers. Instead, give people welfare credit cards, and monitor what they buy. Look out for suspicious patterns, like they're buying very large quantities of things that can be resold for cash. As long as they're buying normal amounts of food, paying rent, etc. with their welfare, they can stay on. After all, that money isn't being lost, it's cycling back into the economy. The poor are more useful as consumers than they are as criminals.

Now to the minimum wage

I agree that it's a dumb idea, but you have to stop and look around the world at what happens when it doesn't exist: People will, yes, work for less than 7 bucks an hour, but they won't work for nothing. If you allow employers to hire people for 10 cents an hour, you can pretty much guarantee that the workers are not there by choice. They may be in labor camps surrounded by armed guards, they may be locked in basements, too drugged to move, or they may simply be trapped in a truck system debt mechanism that prevents them from leaving the job that doesn't produce a sustainable wage.

When you get into cheap labor, at a certain point it's cheaper to higher people with guns or employ some other mechanism other than paying the workers more to attract them in a free market. You need to make sure that the wage rates don't get this low, or it will happen.

I don't know the answer to this one, I'm not a fan of the hourly wage which I think increases inefficiency, but I can see where a slave labor camp has a benefit to increase its number of workers limitlessly. The answer probably involves some sort of transparency on what companies are making and how much they're paying workers.

It has been pointed out many times that due to economies of scale, inner city neighborhoods often can't support businesses because they can't afford minimum wage, and even been suggested that the system is designed that way. The stories of drug dealer millions are always tantalizing to the would be dealers, but nationally, they're taking in just under 5 bucks an hour, if they're not the kingpin. Still, if there is no other employer, then that's where they go. If the minimum wage is $7, then a real legit business that could afford to pay $6 doesn't exist, and gets replaced by a drug dealer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 6, 2011 8:09 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

1. "Gotta argue some points.

1. Why so low on corporate profits? I thought you were going with a flat 10%. Think about it. If I earn $30,000, I'm paying tax on the whole $30,000, regardless of my rent, bills, etc. If I'm a small business, I'm in the same boat. If I'm a corporation, I'm only paying taxes on the excess. So if my business takes in $300,000 and spends $250,000, then it's only going to pay tax on $50,000. Profits are gravy, the only thing you lose by taxing them is you slow corporate growth a little bit. Or a lot bit if taxes are high, but corporate america will love your 10% rate, there's no need to pander with a 1% rate."

The idea being that we have to stimulate job creation and growth. If someone starts a business, then its a great incentive in that they have to pay such a low rate.

Also, thats a GREAT idea. If your business is homemade and homerun, you pay the 1%. If its outsourced thry China or the like, you pay much higher.

2.

"Consider what it takes to get a job:
1. there has to be a job to get
2. you have to be the best qualified applicant
3. you have to have it reasonably together

If these three qualifications had been met, you probably wouldn't be on welfare. Chances are, little has changed in the past year."

Yes, there has to be a job. We need to renew the job creation in America. You do need to be the best qualified and you do need to have it together.

Now, does it make more sense to help someone get it together, or make it so that they are better off NOT having it together?

"Keep welfare low, so working is always better. Second, don't give people money. It's very easy to hand money to drug dealers. Instead, give people welfare credit cards, and monitor what they buy. Look out for suspicious patterns, like they're buying very large quantities of things that can be resold for cash. As long as they're buying normal amounts of food, paying rent, etc. with their welfare, they can stay on. After all, that money isn't being lost, it's cycling back into the economy. The poor are more useful as consumers than they are as criminals."

I agree. Except, I would add there HAS to be a time limit to it. Not to be repugnant, but if an illegal can get a job working McDonalds, so can you.

The time limit forces you to hustle. You know that it will run out. So you have to bust your butt to get a job.

------------------------------------------------

3. Crime and Drugs.

Weed should not be outlawed. Prohibition didnt work the first time, its not working now.

Crack, Heroin, Meth etc, need to be outlawed. Why? Because they are instant addctions. You can take a single hit of any of these and have a true physical need for them.

Now, I say take much of the money that goes to enforcing the drug laws and the incarceration of offenders, and put it into treatment.

Put crackheads in rehab clinics, and not jail.

Use the money that was going to SWAT, to doctors that can monitor and help the heads sweat it out.

You want a cheap labor force? Use reformed users. Get them clean, then get them working.

In my perfect world, a crackhead come in to a clinic, sweats it out over a month. The next 3 onths they are put on simple work detail. Picking up highway trash, working at the clinic.

The last 2 months are trade/ed training.

After 6 months you are released with a clear head, a history of work, and some job skills.

Its got to be better than just huffing in jail.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2011 11:07 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Well?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2011 11:38 AM

I oppose your job creation program. It sounds too much like socialism to me. People will create their own jobs if they are not taxed, and there's enough small business capital.

The problem with small business loans is that almost exclusively, the ones who get those $50k start up loans already have over $400k in assets, because that's who people know are going to pay it back. A smarter system is needed. Funding should be based on some measure of success that comes earlier than profits, like that it's attracting customers, or volunteers or something. Not a govt. regulator who decides whether what you are doing is worth doing though, then you end up with the USSR.

The drugs problem has to be tackled on the import level. My tactic would be to destroy the market price so it's not worth anyone's while to do. Other than that, I half like your rehab program, but I forsee bad things for a society run by former crackheads.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2011 12:21 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

DT... wtf?

"It sounds too much like socialism to me."

You drop to snark?

Come on. If I'm wrong, show me a better way.

You can do this.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2011 5:06 PM

Wulf,

I can, and I will, but I spent most of the day working out the effects of hypoxia on angiogenesis, and I still am not sure I understand. See, it's not as straightforward as everyone thinks. "hypoxia causes angiogenesis" okay, but no, it's way, way, wayyy more complicated than that.

My snark was serious. Like a lot of us here, you got check and make sure that your schemes are logically consistent.

I'm going to bounce the ball back in your court:

Use the Govt. to create jobs without using a) socialism or b) corporate welfare.

(show your work)

I'm serious about this though. If you're serious, you're going to need to think this stuff through very thoroughly, *before* you end up on an interview with Katie Couric or Rachel Maddow or someone who you never suspected was a Katie or a Rachel.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2011 5:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
1. I meant that it be applied across ALL income.

I will add to this as well. Sales tax cannot rise above 1%.

Also, business taxes would equally be set at 1%. You start a business, your profits could only be taxed by 1%.

So in your WulfieWorld™, corporations are 10 times better than people, eh?

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 7, 2011 6:03 PM

Quote:

3. Crime and Drugs.

Weed should not be outlawed. Prohibition didnt work the first time, its not working now.

Crack, Heroin, Meth etc, need to be outlawed. Why? Because they are instant addctions. You can take a single hit of any of these and have a true physical need for them.

So you agree that alcohol and tobacco should equally be outlawed, yes? After all, they are AT LEAST as addictive as crack, heroin, met, "etc."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 12:34 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Use the Govt. to create jobs without using a) socialism or b) corporate welfare."

Why?

Government doesnt create jobs. Or at least, it shouldn't.

Really. What job can government do, that WE can't do better?

Name it.

We hardly ever need government. And it hardly ever helps.

So, it needs to be there... sure.

But like a gun, government is needed only at certain times and NEVER ALL the time.

Also "Its better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it"..

For the anarchists...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 1:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

3. Crime and Drugs.

Weed should not be outlawed. Prohibition didnt work the first time, its not working now.

Crack, Heroin, Meth etc, need to be outlawed. Why? Because they are instant addctions. You can take a single hit of any of these and have a true physical need for them.

So you agree that alcohol and tobacco should equally be outlawed, yes? After all, they are AT LEAST as addictive as crack, heroin, met, "etc."

@ Wulf....So. How is it your business what I do with my body or what I choose to put in it? You can't spout personal liberty Half the time. You either buy it or you don't...Liberty is no mutt.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 1:27 PM

Wulf

You promised to create jobs earlier in your campaign. Are you flip flopping on that position now?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 10, 2011 2:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"Use the Govt. to create jobs without using a) socialism or b) corporate welfare."

Why?

Government doesnt create jobs. Or at least, it shouldn't.

Really. What job can government do, that WE can't do better?

Military.

Infrastructure.

Disaster relief.

Postal service.

Regulation and safety (think FDA and EPA).

Private industry has done a horrible job of building roads, protecting the nation, and regulating themselves.

You say we CAN do better, but "we" DON'T do better. Show me one industry that, when left completely alone, regulates itself satisfactorily. Banks? Investment firms? Mortgage lenders? Food processing plants? Petroleum industry? Mining? Any of those ring any bells?

This Space For Rent!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 5:56 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

By "we" I meant the states. We are a republic after all.

Now if you are talking about the Fed. Gov....

1. Military. Ok, Im good with the Fed Gov keeping a standing army. But I don't like how we are spread across the globe, nor how we have so many bases in places that are no longer necessary. I'd pull most of the troops back, and use them (as many as needed) to protect our borders.

2. Infrastructure. Meaning what exactly? Being that we are a collection of states, it is not the Fed Govs business to meddle in their affairs beyond certain things.

3. Disaster relief. Fed Gov should only come in when called. The states should be able to handle it themselves.

4. FDA/EPA. I agree these are need. So long as they do not infringe on the rights of citizens. Think iminent domain (sp?)

The BATFE would be disolved under my Presidency as the regulating of firearms etc should fall to the states themselves, if at all.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 6:26 AM

BYTEMITE

Yay Wulf!

I hope other people see this thread soon. I think sometimes you get a little badgered by people to explain your positions, and your response to that is to go "why the hell should I have to explain myself to you?" but it's good to see you talking.

The tariff idea DT proposed is a good one... I find myself kind of wary of the credit card idea though. Those bastards already try to sink their hooks into you and force you into debt as it is.

You know supposedly they set up the system so that you get the best credit rates if you have maybe 1,000 or 2,000 dollars of debt? I think it's a bullshit carrot on a stick is what I think it is. You buy something, you pay for it, you don't chose to make yourself beholden to someone just so you get a better deal. What the hell is that? Selling yourself into slavery to save a few bucks, come on.

So I don't know if you both really mean a credit card, because if the credit card you guys have in mind works the same as a normal credit card, the people on welfare won't ever be able to get off welfare. Debt just goes up and up. Do you guys mean a DEBIT card instead?

Also, I'm not easy with the idea of watching what people purchase on their debit cards. Okay, you don't want people to game the system, at the same time, what kind of oversight would this require? More than either you two (and me) would want I think.

You guys want a system were drug use isn't so rampant and welfare isn't used for drugs, legalizing drugs and making a system where life is simpler for people will go a long way all by itself. In the first case, people can't get rich off drugs, they aren't looking for new addicts so much, and you know most drug dealers become addicts, and in fact make up the majority of drug abusers? In the second case, people aren't looking for an escape as much. Let people be responsible for their choices, and they'll learn responsibility. You don't need to look over their shoulders all the time.

As for welfare itself, I think the bigger problem, even than drugs, is that the current welfare system works counter to actually helping people get jobs, and keeps whole families in poverty. I mean, in lots of cases, in order to go see their welfare agent or whatever they have to get on a bus for a hours when they could otherwise be doing interviews. And the work programs are similarly a joke, usually set up by one of the local cronies to a politician looking for cheap labor for long hours that you can't live on but can't get enough to go somewhere else. And because parents aren't home, guess what happens to the kids in school. It's all screwed up.

But I like that you guys are talking about it.

Not sure about the no minimum wage idea.

I really like your ideas on pulling military back from unnecessary bases and just defending OUR borders. That's a good start. Also, I like your decision to kick back most stuff to state control. Like DT, I'm unsure about your crackhead cheap labour idea; I think if you get other things right, the crackhead problem takes care of itself.

...You know, your platform is a decent one. I'd be more nervous about voting for you because you have a tendency sometimes to snap off kinda rash comments that are easily misinterpreted or which look over-violent than because I disagree with any of your proposed policies here.

I'm also concerned about some of your apparent influences in media and politics, but that's a different thing. That's less so much your fault, and more me thinking those people aren't sincere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 7:20 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Thanks Byte,

I admit I have some "anger management" issues, but I'm working on them. I also like to think I only get heated at things that we all *should* be angry about.

Also, crackheads being used as "cheap labor" is part of their rehab. Get them clean, get them working, get them some education and trade skills, and then release. At that point they are no longer crackheads, but clean, even-keeled people with some job experience. The rest is up to them.

As to the credit-card racket, it is just that. Whatever happened to people only buying what they could afford? Saving up money until they could buy it out right?

Granted, with things like homes, thats almost impossible. However, I did have an idea on that.

Home loans can only have straight interest. No compound interest. Also, property taxes would be eliminated, as well as home loan taxes.

This is a bit radical, but... it would have the benefit of driving down home prices and incenting people to purchase homes.

Its an idea I'm working on at any rate.

Also, home economics, would make a huge comeback in schools. Know how to balance a budget, know how to cook for yourself, know how to change the oil in your car, learn how to find the best deals.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 8:29 AM

Wulf

the most important thing here is that your are *thinking* about your positions. This is something almost no one does, including most of the people here. Many posters on RWED and a larger % of the general public anchors themselves to their political positions and never thinks about whether or not they are right, or if they are right, whether or not the implementation of that idea that they support is the best one, or even if it is, whether they are supporting it in the most effective manner. You're doing all of that thinking, and yay you.

Next, point by point, to continue the discussion, I like some of this, most of it, actually, and have some quibbles:

1) The military. I can see this as a tricky one. The US has no need at all of a federal military because we have the national guard. If any international crisis were *truly* essential to our national interests, then we would band together and go fight it, like NATO does, or like the ancient greeks did. So we don't *need* a national military, and when we consider that Obama just signed into law a record $725 billion defense bill* (rant in a second) that we do clearly need to scale it back.

My idea, and why it will fail: Okay, here's the problem with getting rid of the federal military: The same thing that happened when we got rid of Saddam's Army: Those guys go and join or form some private military contracting or insurgency, and either attack us, or hire themselves out to international corporations.

Better idea: Phase it out. Here's my second idea. Set the standards for entry and advancement higher and higher until the federal military gets so small that it is not larger than the national guards of the states, and can no longer enforce its will on them. Recruitment turnover is pretty quick, and in 20 years we could see the US military reduced to a small elite fighting force whose only real purpose was to see to it that Texas didn't invade Louisiana.

[rant]Obama complained about having to sign the "no rights for detainees" bill because it was in the defense spending bill. This is what a friend of mine says is Obamas MO: Try to make himself the good guy. But the US military currently has a budget *surplus* of over a trillion dollars. We could not give them anything this year and they'd be just fine. Also, WTF? The amount of this budget that goes to Iraq and Afghanistan is $159 billion. That means $566 billion goes somewhere else. That's still a record defense budget, and the army is no larger, we have no more military bases, we have fewer, and the new technology is not really particularly expensive. So, WTF? Why does Obama *need* this so bad that he is willing to "sacrifice" the rights of detainees, including US citizens.[/rant]

Moving on

2) Agreed. Any international infrastructure should be private, like the railroads. The interstate highway system is not really interstate at all, its maintained by each state. That's why 90 is a toll road in some states and not in others.

3) Yes, and I'd like to define "called" as some sort of democratic process. Some yahoo called in Fema here and they wrought havoc on our town.

4) wrong word: "eminent." The EPA is totally corrupt but something like it is needed. This should set minimal environmental standards which states can exceed, but not undercut. They should include things like you can't pour toxideathanol into the water supply.

Also, The FDA approval for drugs should be a recommendation. The patient should always have the right to know whether or not the FDA approved something, but allowing states to do their own testing would enable the reduction of some corruption. Often corruption comes in banning the competition for not very good reasons. I guess if any state does ban something, people should have access to why, so if your doctor prescribes toxideathanol to you, you can go look and see that it was banned in Oregon because in studies, it was shown to cause death in 8 out of 9 mice.

5) Agreed. The states *should* have the right. Remember, the text of the 2A specifically says that this is to retain the sovereignty of the states. Technically, this requirement is fulfilled by each state having its own national guard. As long as the state is defended, it's not constitutionally required to give any more rights, but we would expect that states would grant more rights so that they wouldn't turn into NK.

If states observed the constitution, including the 14th, then the 2nd and others would be protected, because the 14th gives you the right to move freely, among other things, as a citizenship right. So if North Dakota becomes like North Korea with an abuse of states rights, then its people have the right to relocate to South Dakota, or anywhere else, which will harm the tax base of ND, and so the system would tend to discourage this sort of abuse.

However, a caveat of democracy is that sometimes the guy you like doesn't win, and someone might elect a socialist if we got rid of these national parties, which we should do, because they are unconstitutional. But that's just life. Someone will elect a socialist governor, and someone will elect a theocrat, but not very often. It would be preferable to what we have, which is 1/2 of all american wages going to supporting their own oppression and the oppression of other nations and the maintenance of a resource stealing empire for the purpose of supporting that oppression.

On loans, here's an idea:

You don't want companies to be able to foreclose, or to garnish wages, but what if they could garnish taxes?

That way, if you owed 15,000 that year in interest, they could deduct money from taxes before it went to uncle sam, but after you had paid it.That would give the govt. a reason to see that irresponsible lending didn't happen.

And yes, if we removed this ridiculous credit scheme, the real estate prices would fall considerably.

I agree with no compound interest. If it's 5%, you owe 300,000, then 315,000, then 330,000, etc. Sure they should be able to foreclose at some point, but also making that more difficult would reduce the amount of credit.

I also agree with getting rid of property tax. It's the only thing in America that enforces a class structure. It makes sure that no poor people live in nice houses, and that all mansions are inhabited by the rich. The lifestyle you lead is linked to your income and assets only because we have property tax. Also, it's a completely regressive tax. If you live in a small home, you might pay $5,000 a year vs. $10,000 for someone in a larger home (depending on county and state) but the % of your income that this will be if you're poor is always going to be higher.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 9:07 AM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

DT: "Technically, this requirement is fulfilled by each state having its own national guard. As long as the state is defended, it's not constitutionally required to give any more rights, but we would expect that states would grant more rights so that they wouldn't turn into NK."

No.

You might not agree with this, but this is how I would do it.

The state governments would not have the right to prohibit any citizen from owning any firearm. This includes actual assault rifles.

I believe the term is "small arms".

Before the flood, yes I do mean that people could have grenades, and grenade launchers.

The only stipulation being that people could not have WMDs, but this would be regulated by the states themselves.

The right to disagree, then protest, then vote, THEN FIGHT, would be protected.

Believe it or not, we are all citizen soldiers.

Our purpose, beyond our small little lives is to preserve our state and our nation.

Everyone one of us is in a militia, by its true definition.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:29 PM

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

lol But truth be told, I would love to do the work just to see the faces of the people when I rolled in with my pack... :))

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 12:55 PM

BYTEMITE

...I'm going to take a guess at the content of the video because I can't see it and ask the following.

Is there any way that we can implement the policies discussed here in this thread, without society devolving completely into post-apocalyptic gang warfare that only survives by raiding other settlements? I mean, if you want to put together a motley crew /ragged band of misfits and go raiding, fine, have at it, but surely you envision there might be some stability at the end of this as well?

Or is the end goal as you see it constant struggle for life and survival of the fittest?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 11, 2011 1:05 PM