If you were President...

Spartanacus

...granted, a "non-existent omnipotent" President that gets things done on his or her terms right away and doesn't have to wade through legal or political red tape...what would you focus on or change to improve life in your country?

National Debt - I'd concentrate on taking care of ourselves before I got involved in other countries problems so much, namely I'd start paying back the national debt and putting additional funds set aside for International aid into the programs below.

Welfare - Most subsidies would be gone and the moochers would have to start working. If they can't find a job, they will work for their food/health care by working for the government in some capacity...landscaping, demolition, construction, drug prevention/addiction/counseling programs, foster programs, etc....things that will start improving life for us all, from the bottom up. If your truly found disabled (on a case by case basis) of course you will get some type of assistance still.

Health Care - I don't have the time and motivation to lay all this out, but essentially people should be able to get the best health care services available...IF...they are at least working in some capacity as stated before. And if they are really disabled, then they will be licking stamps from home or doing whatever they can to add SOMETHING to society. Sitting on a couch and watching Jerry Springer while waiting for food stamps or welfare checks WON'T be an option. If you have use of your arms at least, you work or you starve or won't get your required treatments. If you're in a coma, a quadriplegic, etc. you or your family will get some sort of assistance to help you.

Work Comp and Disability Insurance - would be done away with. The new and improved health care system, whether or not that still incorporates "health insurance," will cover any substantiated injuries or disabilities, etc. There's too much fraud...too many people taking advantage of the system.

The Judicial System - We're too damn sue happy. We must fix the system to immediately stamp out any frivolous lawsuits. Buyers must be aware and 100% accountable for their choices. If you get lung cancer, get your treatment, but you don't get to sue Marlboro. If you get fat or have health issues from eating McDonald's every day, get your treatments, but you don't get to sue. If you spill hot coffee and burn yourself or find a finger in your chili...you don't get to sue.

Drugs/Prostitution/Gambling - Soft drugs (at the very least) would be legalized or decriminalized and the whole drug issue would be focused on personal choice and become a health issue, not a criminal one. Mayors across the US would be forced to take back their streets one crack house at a time. Excess Federal money saved by my administration would be funneled to local governments to demolish crack houses, and essentially clean up the streets aesthetically. If the crack houses go bye-bye, the weeds are cut, the garbage is hauled away, and drugs, prostitution amd gambling are decriminalized and somewhat monitored by the government...crime will go down and our country will start the slow process of becoming the great country it has the potential to become. Those who continue to put themselves in harmful situations in life will not be prosecuted unless they are inflicting harm on others. Hopefully they would take advantage of the newly formed treatment centers that would be very liberal in dealing with drug issues, include free but controlled handouts for a certain amount of time. But if they choose to not work for the government in some capacity or seek drug related assistance from the government, they will be on their own.

Those are my key points. Basically people need to fend for themselves and make their own choices in life, and deal with the consequences. But if they run into problems, yet still contribute to society, there will be help available.

See the link below about how the Netherlands policymakers believe that if a problem has proved to be unsolvable, it is better to try controlling it instead of continuing to enforce laws with mixed results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drugs_policy_of_the_Netherlands

I believe 100% that decriminalizing drugs in the US and focusing on prevention and addiction treatment/counseling (with funds saved from pulling out of other countries or cutting back on international aid) is the first step in taking this country to the next level versus continuing to waste billions of taxpayer dollars to try and win a war that can't be won, and is only continuing to shrink the middle class and separate the haves from the have-nots.

What about you???

lalalalaaaaaaaa

haha. That handicapped stamp-licking idea has promise.

blueandwhite

Interesting ideas, but without looking at the logistics of such changes, you may be doing more harm than good. For example, by putting welfare recipients into certain services or industries, you run the risk of putting existing workers out of a job. Moreover, the dramatic increase in available bodies could reduce wages, and worker benefits as private contractors desparately low-bid on projects. Remember, not everybody is a moocher. I've been working odd minimum wage jobs for the better part of 2 years, and I've got a law degree. I'm not on welfare, but I certainly appreciate the humility of being poor.




I'm also skeptical of your changes to the Judicial system. Yes, buyers must be 100% accountable for their choices, however sellers and vendors should also be held accountable. What your proposing seems to release a vendor from any responsability, despite marketing products which are both unhealthy, and costly to the economy. If your government is going to allow the sale of toxic and addictive substances, shouldn't the vendor be held accountable for the cost those substances placed on the nation as a whole. Shouldn't enticing people to take up habbits that have been shown to be both harmful and addictive carry some liability?

Also, who is paying for the health treatments you so graciously provide to smokers and McDonald's junkies? I certainly hope it isn't the taxpayer. I mean, if your not going to allow the smoker/fast food glutton to sue for his/her mistortune, who exactly is footing the healthcare bill?

Your ideas are interesting, but I'm skeptical as to whether they would result in an improved nation.

Spartanacus

blueandwhite wrote:

Shouldn't enticing people to take up habbits that have been shown to be both harmful and addictive carry some liability?

Also, who is paying for the health treatments you so graciously provide to smokers and McDonald's junkies? I certainly hope it isn't the taxpayer. I mean, if your not going to allow the smoker/fast food glutton to sue for his/her mistortune, who exactly is footing the healthcare bill?

I'm not saying the government should entice people to smoke crack. Just let people grow their own pot for example, and don't criminalize those who are dumb enough to smoke crack...Darwin's Law will take care of them.

I'd propose being able to allocate your share of federal taxes to whatever causes or charities you support. If you would like to allocate 25% of your taxes to obesity related health treatment, then go for it. A fat unhealthy person might give the majority of their share to that fund, while a healthy person with no kids and a family member with cancer might want to give 25% to foster kids, 25% to health care, 25% to cancer research, and say each person can give up to 25% away to an international cause, like AIDS vaccines in Africa. If one particular fund is lacking in funds, that's where Bill Gates and Forbes can come in and help out.

brain of c

oh, you mean like james k polk.