my platform as presidential candidate - what's yours?
POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Monday, June 3, 2024 14:50
VIEWED: 27072
PAGE 2 of 27
Ok, I have time to discuss ....
Quote:All of these are technically do-able, and well within the purview of a President. But the way this is phrased gives rise to a few questions:
Originally posted by rue:
military
severely reduce military overseas
abandon our policy by which we allow ourselves the 'first strike' nuclear option
maintain reduced nuclear capability that's still sufficient to assure destruction of nuclear opponent
How severely do we reduce our overseas military? 50% 80%?
Which areas of the globe continue to enjoy" our bases, installations, and troops?
What does this do to NATO and our agreements with Japan and Saudi Arabia and to Israel? Do we give them time to prepare for our troop withdrawal?
What happens to the troops that we bring home? Technically, if they're still enlisted don't we till have to pay them?
Nuclear capability ... in order to be credible, it's my understanding that the warheads need to be tested from time to time as the nuclear "fuel" degrades; also the explosive which rams the nuclear material together also degrades.
A "defensive" nuclear posture would probably require submarine-based nuclear weapons because land-based nuclear weapons are subject to a first-strike attack. I think that's do-able and would be credible, but maybe someone with more info on nuclear strategy can help out.
Quote:This is beyond a President, who can sign a treaty but which much be approved by Congress. The President DOES have regulatory authority, but that's an ephemeral thing: Just look how the EPA gets whipsawed every time a new President takes office. The only way to make progress on this is to convince the population ... and that means the ENTIRE population, not just the "Hillary archipelogo" ... that climate change is upon us.
environment
commit to significant greenhouse gas reductions; stump the country for it to create popular pressure in Congress so Congress will pass the Paris Accord
Quote:Some say that EVERYONE currently has an "opportunity" to earn a living wage, altho not everyone all at the same time. Rephrase to mean ... "A job at a living wage for everyone who wants to work".
economy
stump for a 'fair deal' economy where everyone has the opportunity to earn a living wage
That would require an enormous change in our economic basis. It would basically mean creating a command economy ... affecting how banks lend money or direct investment by the government, protecting fledgling industries from foreign competition by tariffs, severely and effectively restricting illegal and legal immigration etc ... It would be like the wartime effort of WWII, but without a war
-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake
"The messy American environment, where most people don't agree, is perfect for people like me. I CAN DO AS I PLEASE." - SECOND
America is an oligarchy http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=57876 .
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
military
severely reduce military overseas
abandon our policy by which we allow ourselves the 'first strike' nuclear option
maintain reduced nuclear capability that's still sufficient to assure destruction of nuclear opponent
Quote:It would have to be on a case-by-case basis.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Ok, I have time to discuss .... All of these are technically do-able, and well within the purview of a President. But the way this is phrased gives rise to a few questions:
How severely do we reduce our overseas military? 50% 80%?
Which areas of the globe continue to "enjoy" our bases, installations, and troops?
What does this do to NATO and our agreements with Japan and Saudi Arabia and to Israel? Do we give them time to prepare for our troop withdrawal?
What happens to the troops that we bring home? Technically, if they're still enlisted don't we till have to pay them?
For example, the US has troops actively fighting in various African countries. I would have to be convinced that they're needed for US NATIONAL DEFENSE (Isn't that what our military is for? US NATIONAL DEFENSE?), or that other troops all around the globe are there for US NATIONAL DEFENSE.
In other cases US troops are there by agreement. I would look into renegotiating those deployments.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_deployments
https://qz.com/374138/these-are-all-the-countries-where-the-us-has-a-m
ilitary-presence/
https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bas
es-2/5564
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-arou
nd-the-world-119321
I think part of the reason for the approximately 800 military installations and 125,000 - 250,000 troops and personnel around the globe is in support of US military policy to rapidly deploy anywhere on the planet with complete deployment in 48 hours. Rather than deploy from the US, the US divides the globe into military 'theaters' under various commands.
https://www.businessinsider.com/us-military-operations-worldwide-2016-
1/
To meet the new global dominance goals, the Army started reorganizing in 2006.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reorganization_plan_of_United_States_Arm
y
Quote:
This effort formally began in 2006 when General Peter Schoomaker (the Army Chief of Staff at the time), was given the support to move the Army from its Cold War divisional orientation to a full-spectrum capability with fully manned, equipped and trained brigades. ... By 2028, in Multi-Domain Operations (MDO)— as part of the Joint force, Army Strategy is to counter a near-peer adversary which is capable of competition in all domains.
I would need to be convinced that these policies are needed for US NATIONAL DEFENSE.
In addition to saving money by gradually reducing the size of the US military to whatever is needed for US NATIONAL DEFENSE and treaties, the US would save money on the installations themselves.
I would also take a look at US military weapons budgets. These projects are the well-earned butt of many jokes as being far over-budget and creating defective or at least inferior products.
Quote:I'm not saying that the US should disarm its nuclear weapons or let them deteriorate past the point they can be used. I believe we need to keep an honest threat of retaliation.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Nuclear capability ... in order to be credible, it's my understanding that the warheads need to be tested from time to time as the nuclear "fuel" degrades; also the explosive which rams the nuclear material together also degrades.
A "defensive" nuclear posture would probably require submarine-based nuclear weapons because land-based nuclear weapons are subject to a first-strike attack. I think that's do-able and would be credible, but maybe someone with more info on nuclear strategy can help out.
I agree that the most credible threat is from sub
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
environment
commit to significant greenhouse gas reductions; stump the country for it to create popular pressure in Congress so Congress will pass the Paris Accord
Quote:And I fault Obama for not 'going there' in his second term, because Obama had a natural audience he could have brought along.
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
This is beyond a President, who can sign a treaty but which much be approved by Congress. The President DOES have regulatory authority, but that's an ephemeral thing: Just look how the EPA gets whipsawed every time a new President takes office. The only way to make progress on this is to convince the population ... and that means the ENTIRE population, not just the "Hillary archipelago" ... that climate change is upon us.
The thing about climate change is that there are people who've made up their minds to reject the data, because they dislike the conclusions. As you know, bringing MORE data to the table doesn't fix the problem. More data just leads to more mental discomfort. To relieve the discomfort people can either embrace the data and change their minds, or reject the data and double-down on their beliefs. The problem is it's far easier to reject the data. And people do what's easy ... they grip their beliefs even harder. But there are ways to address this irrational mental quirk, which I'm not going to go into here.
But to get back to what a President can do ... the President has the power of the bully-pulpit. Think of Kennedy and going to the moon; or more analogously FDR's Social Security Act, which was popular with people but stalled in Congress for ~2years. The President can stump and persuade for an idea, which in turn creates political pressure.
I also think it can be focused on immediate and I think popular ideas: energy independence from foreign countries, material independence from foreign countries, manufactured goods independence from foreign countries, and a clean environment.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So I've proposed reducing the US military from being a globe-spanning behemoth capable of fighting wars on 2 fronts within 48 hours anywhere on the globe - to being one better suited to US national defense and supporting formal allies. And I propose that we reexamine our military weapons projects, scrapping what's excess and/or non-functional (like the F35 or the naval vessels that can't run in the Mediterranean because the ocean water is too warm to be used for cooling), and focusing on meeting defense needs.
I've proposed changing our nuclear stance from giving ourselves offensive 'first use of nuclear weapons' rights (first strike), to defensive posture only; reducing our nuclear arsenal to one capable of destroying the entire planet only twice; permanently banning so-called 'limited' nuclear weapons; and banning the 'nuclearization' of space.
But I've also proposed reconfiguring our missile systems so that retaliatory strikes will be devastatingly complete and guaranteed. A nuclear attack on the US will result in the complete annihilation of the attacker.
I've also proposed swift re-tooling of the US's energy systems, and other vital environmental projects, by using the power of the President's 'bully pulpit'.
My final proposal is the FAIR DEAL, where everyone has a real chance to work at a job that pays a living wage.
And here's where the military and environmental policies help create the FAIR DEAL economy.
The reason for a lot of strife in this country is because there simply isn't enough for everyone at our level in the economy (some would say 'class'). And when you have so many people for so few jobs, there's no logical reason to prefer one person above another - many of them can do the job - so you adopt illogical preferences. One is white. One is female. One is young.
And each group struggles to secure a preferred place in the system, since it's about earning a living.
With so many capable people trying to find scant work, wages, hours, and benefits get squeezed down or out.
I think with the money saved on the military, the US government can hire people for environmental jobs at a living wage - with training. And an increased competition for workers will drive wages, hours, and benefits up in private industry.
This is only an outline of my proposals for both the environment and for a FAIR DEAL economy. I'll post more details later.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Meh - party platforms are easy to write and even easier to ignore. They're probably written by some first year interns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
1. Balance the Budget.
2. Pay down the Debt.
For a very long time, any year's Federal Revenues exceeded the Spending of 2 years prior.
Obama obliterated that model.
So, the simple version is freeze spending until the Revenues are higher.
The better version would be no spending increases above the levels of the 2006 Federal Budget for any Department or Agency, until the Budget is Balanced. Everything since then is bloat, inflation, devaluation, runaway spending.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree with you. But rather than an across-the-board freeze I'd look for areas that can be trimmed of fat. And our globe-spanning behemoth military looks to be in serious excess of national defense.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Balance the Budget.
2. Pay down the Debt.
For a very long time, any year's Federal Revenues exceeded the Spending of 2 years prior.
Obama obliterated that model.
So, the simple version is freeze spending until the Revenues are higher.
The better version would be no spending increases above the levels of the 2006 Federal Budget for any Department or Agency, until the Budget is Balanced. Everything since then is bloat, inflation, devaluation, runaway spending.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:So you have no thoughts about what is going wrong that you'd like to change or eliminate; or about what is going right that you'd like to expand or at least preserve?
Originally posted by captaincrunch:
Meh - party platforms are easy to write and even easier to ignore. They're probably written by some first year interns.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Threat to whom, I wonder. And what does Venezuela have to do with NATO?
Pompeo: NATO Must Confront "Emerging Threats" From Russia And China In Venezuela
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04-05/pompeo-urges-nato-confront-e
merging-threats-russia-and-china-venezuela
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-nato/pompeo-calls-on-nato-to-ad
apt-to-new-threats-from-russia-china-idUSKCN1RG1JZ
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree with you. But rather than an across-the-board freeze I'd look for areas that can be trimmed of fat.
Originally posted by rue:Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
1. Balance the Budget.
2. Pay down the Debt.
For a very long time, any year's Federal Revenues exceeded the Spending of 2 years prior.
Obama obliterated that model.
So, the simple version is freeze spending until the Revenues are higher.
The better version would be no spending increases above the levels of the 2006 Federal Budget for any Department or Agency, until the Budget is Balanced. Everything since then is bloat, inflation, devaluation, runaway spending.
That is the exact logic behind the problem.
There are no Partisans who do not have a pet project, pet Department or Agency, favored sector of Government or constituents.
As some Libertarian candidates have simply said, if you could reduce the spending in all the portions of the budget you dislike, would you be willing to allow the reduction in spending of your favorite program?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME