If you were elected President in November, what would you do?
My Agenda Would Go Something Like This:
My first goal would be to coax employers into hiring those who don't have a college degree or have gaps in their resume. We need more job training programs in this country. The first step is to partner directly with employers to make that happen. Secondly, we need to coax employers into paying higher salaries to workers in America. No more outsourcing jobs. It doesn't benefit the country in the slightest.
I would repeal the every child left behind act. It's ridiculous and insulting to our educators. What we need is a more balanced approach to teaching. We need to understand that not every kid cares about school. That's OK. Many people who aren't book smart turn into productive citizens if given the right situation. The education system needs to be more about kids and parents actually teaming up with the teacher to make sure that the child is learning properly. Get rid of administration and let teachers teach. Otherwise, you might as well just let the kids be home-schooled.
Universal health care for everyone. It's a human right to be treated when you are sick. It doesn't have to be government run, but it probably will have to be if health insurance companies continue to be run as a for-profit business.
You would get nowhere, like every other President before you.
I'm of a different understanding. Remove Politics and Religion(but keep the topics themselves for general study) BS. This should be beneficial once done.
Really? The President of the United States couldn't make it happen. How do you think you could?
How can you FORCE someone to treat a sick person? Because if it's a right of another person to be treated, then who is to be forced to do the treatment.
Yes, it doesn't have to be government run, even IF for-profit business were to operate. Government shouldn't be in the business of managing health care period. It should be in the business of regulating insurance companies on a National level, but nothing else otherwise.
As it comes to jobs..
I'm curious, do we then decide to scrap the system of capitalism in this country in favor of socialism? Or, do we decide to stop with the "global marketplace" and adopt a more isolationist approach to things? The issue is that you can't force a business to hire or do anything that will cause their stock price to not be as high as possible. So how do we reconcile the fact that workers deserve to be paid with the fact that businesses only see workers as a commodity?
Sure, we need to get rid of the politics behind it. That's why we need less administration and more teacher control of the classroom. Teachers can't teach when they are worried about their "bosses" getting them in trouble because some whiny parent can't accept that their child isn't perfect.
As It Comes To Health Care....
How do you not have a system where everyone has access to medical care. It seems as it we need some sort of solution besides the current one we have. As a species, it would seem that we are better than simply letting the sick die. It's weird when my cats have better health care than I do.
Nope. Capitalism can be used. But for it to be effective, then people have to be educated on how to do just that and those same people must understand the importance of having equality and equal rights in the Economy and America.
Really? Where did you get this from? Business does what it needs to protect profit and profit margin. That is what drives stock prices, as well as, repeat customers(including new repeat customers people who didn't buy before but now repeatedly buy). The direction of the company and it's ability to generate profits are all shareholders are interested in.
Workers are a commodity. Technically, half of the people currently holding a job, is holding a dead-end-lead-nowhere job. Companies are departmentalized that most of the departments don't contribute to direct growth. Why? Because, they are TOO big of companies and employ too many workers. This is a prime example of proving government and corporations have been manipulating the Economy for exactly as long as I have been saying it. You can only departmentalize a company so much before those departs become detrimental to the future of the company. Many companies have already realized this and why they are not hiring, regardless of the incentives.
So, the question is how to produce growth? Do you have an answer? I do, but it requires deep cutting of the military budget and a spending on education- including getting religion and politics out. It also requires easy access to grant funding on both State and Federal level for small businesses expansion or start up.
Less administration on a State and Federal level, then I'll agree.
That was funny! Thank you for the laughs
My view about Teachers is this- Teachers should be people who care about teaching more than they do about themselves. Why? Because, Public Education needs major reform and proper funding. These are public schools, not to be compared to private schools or even charter schools. People have a choice where to send their child and if finances are a problem for sending a kid to a school, then assistance should help(and to qualify shouldn't be absurdly outrageous) State or Federal.
The fact that when I graduated high school, I was able to have access to college type classes if I wanted them. At this point, what was college material when I graduated is now grade 10 year work for students. That is ridiculous.
It's a fraud. For everyone not having coverage, Medicare is going to pick up the slack or an expansion of Medicare powers will be made to pay for the services offered. It may be Universal in the manner in which anyone could walk into a hospital and get treated, yes.
The Affordable Health Care Act was about providing affordable health care options for people. Not to bestow a Universal Health Care. The Health Care provided isn't universal and it's based on profits. People with money are still treated better than those without it.
One of the main reasons I opposed the Obamacare is because it's nothing more than a money grab for companies in a weak economy and will only create further national debt than required. Subsidizing low rates isn't the answer and never was. The problem is the growing number of poverty stricken families and those who are homeless. Between 2006 and 2007 it was reported that 700,000 citizens went homeless. This is in ONE year. And people tell me homelessness isn't a problem because it effects/affect such a small portion of people. That 700,000 were newly unemployed people or people who walked away from their homes because they couldn't afford them. Or they could even be people who are so sick and tired of the past/present system of living in America and possibly don't like the direction of America, and are homeless by choice. Not to mention, the drug addicts and gamblers, and alcoholics who have destroyed their lives because of whatever reasons.
I would agree. A solution does need to come. And, I'm working on it.
I'm not saying that we are to let the sick die. Nowhere did I say that.
I agree that cutting the military budget is important. However, the US already spends enough money on education. It's an issue of quality over quantity. We need better teachers, but we also need better students who care more about their education. We need parents who will hold their children accountable. Throwing more money at it won't help anything.
As for "we should be better than letting the sick die", I wasn't accusing you of saying that. I was merely thinking out loud. Or at least, that was my intent. Basically, we are smart enough (I think?) as a species to be able to take care of others if we really wanted to.
To produce growth on the business front, we need businesses to start hiring. Outsourcing is killing our economy, businesses are using the economy right now as an excuse. I sincerely believe that people would start spending again in a heartbeat if steady work was available. Instead, businesses are worried more about the bottom line. If they are making a profit, what do they care?
I'll try to clarify my statement about not being able to force businesses to do anything that would hurt their profits or stock prices. Essentially, I mean that the government can't really do anything about it. It isn't a free market if the government tells a business to do something that would go against its own self-interest.
Good to know.
Really? Last time I checked, with all the funding, 16% of the Federal Budget(when the last time there was a budget) went to Education. What it is now? I have no clue. No one seems to want to put a Budget on the table. And, I cannot imagine it would be higher now.
It's quality and quantity all rolled into one. Otherwise, what's the point. Effective and efficient schooling.
Okay, now I'm going to head you off at the pass, right here. We don't need better teachers, but to reform the position, so teachers do what they do best and that's teach.
You want to become a teacher because you love to teach, then assistance programs which should be easily accessible, can help do that. I don't want people teaching children, because they need work. That displays a lack of compassion almost anyone with two honest eyes can see. Teachers salaries shouldn't be extremely high, unless they are college professors. The Teachers of the future are to teach students how to improve themselves and all the critical knowledge, so they can sustain themselves when schooling is done. Teachers should be independently earning residual earnings from some other source, so as to not need worry about salary. Less attention on payment, more attention on teaching.
Really? I would have never guessed*note sarcasm*. However, did you have a plan on "how to go about doing that?" or are you just throwing out observations? It can be addressed through the educational system. Some people do need to learn etiquette...and I mean common decency.
I'm not suggesting throwing more money which would result in no results. REFORM the educational system. It churns out robots, not actual thinking students...okay maybe that's a little dramatic, but a thinking student has been known to slide through the cracks. I know, I made it.
On an individual level, you would be correct. On a global level? Forget it pal, it's chaos heaven out there.
The sick are going to die. Most of those who have incurable diseases are going to die, with treatment or not. Yes, I understand that most people cannot take care of themselves and have little to no financial support to fall on for end of living issues or medical expenses from diseases that are incurable. And, I don't want that to sound harsh, but it's something to be accepted. You want to stop the sick people from dying, then lean on those who are supposedly researching these diseases?
The drug companies are not interested in curing diseases, to them there's no benefit, when treating symptoms and the diseases themselves is a goldmine no one can play with.
You don't listen very well, do you? Why would a business want to take on employees, when there's no business to cover the profit loss. Would you like the company to shuffle it's profit margin on a whim? If it's not in the interest of doing business, then it's not likely to get done.
Outsourcing? Really? Lack of investment here is the problem. Why? Why are not companies creating jobs here? Government regulations. If the government regulations were enforced like they are suppose to, then government would continue to collect thousands, if not millions in fines from corporation after corporation, and most likely bankrupt a lot of companies. The fact that companies don't like the regulations and costs of doing business here is their own fault.
The market isn't a free market. There's no equality and equal rights don't exist.
So, uh, are we having a conversation here, or are you just gonna pretend like you know it all?
I don't pretend to know anything Cody.
I have reached a conclusion, end strategy. The object is to get people to wake up to the factors presently ruining life in America.
The first thing that needs to be addressed is the status quo. It has been left unchecked by citizenry for far too long. The corporations are bleeding dry the citizens and the government is allowing it to happen.
That to me says corruption of the highest order. So, should Congress be tried for Treason?
Do you even have a clue to go about trying Congress for Treason? Do you have a plan to put in place where it would be possible to eject the President of the United States and Congress from their elected position and accommodate putting in new elected officials? I don't yet, but am working on it.
Unfortunately, by the time I do, the present upcoming election will already have happened. So, how does one eject a newly elected President out of office? Would it be based on his previous position or does he get a free pass on the ejection but must work with a new Congress? Would that shake things up in government? I'm sure it would.
Obama ran his campaign on bringing down the status quo, and yet at every turn has supported it's position. Blatant lies from our now President, can be tried for Treason? Failing to do what is best for society, which is abiding by his promise to the people about breaking the status quo.
The Federal Reserve Bank bailed out a lot of businesses to cover losses accumulated during poor operations of said companies. Trillions of dollars were put into place to protect these companies from failing. Government practice of corporate protectionism must end. A company succeeds as long as it succeeds. Government shouldn't be protecting failure brought on by irresponsible corporate decision making.
You talk about Education and I give you an honest way to proceed, and you act as if things are fine the way they are? Discussion is good. I'm simply pointing out a direction to which probably would be best. At least it's a honest approach to making things better.
But, understand one thing- Government isn't in control. You control a Country's Currency and you control that Country. I'd be really interested to see you read the Constitution and tell me what the U.S. Currency is?
I'm always open for discussion. And, you did make this about being the President of the United States, did you not?
1-Yes I did make this about being the President. Unfortunately, I have seven years to go before I am even eligible to run. I could run for state or local office, but local politics is just a popularity contest and running for state office in New York presents its own problems with popular representatives in my district.
Overall, what I'm trying to do is have as many debates as possible with as many people as possible. I was hoping for a more diverse crowd on this forum, but this has still been a valuable debate. One of my weaknesses is talking without thinking. Hopefully through debate I can find my voice and defend my positions well over time. I suppose it would be nice to have a real policy were I ever serious about running for public office.
2-My view on education is that we already spend enough money on it. In fact, I think the United States is among the highest, if not the highest, in per capita spending on education. Obviously, the results aren't working. We need to stop teaching to tests while pushing phony "tougher standards" on teachers. I feel as if there ARE a lot of teachers who are passionate about teaching as their number one priority as you brought up earlier. I *think* we both agree that less red tape is necessary to help teachers do their job.
3-Completely agree that those who control the money control the government. It's hard to vote how you really feel when you need someone to fund your next election campaign. How does that change in this country? Well, first we need to overturn Citizens United. The only time that the phrase should be mentioned is when REAL CITIZENS are uniting for a better government. Unfortunately, change is slow. I think Ron Paul is showing us how it can be done. He won't win the nomination of his party. However, quite a few states are now controlled at the local level by those who support his movement. Maybe in 2016 we can get someone who believes in the Constitution to run.
4-Watching Obama is the reason why I know Washington is broken without much hope for it to be fixed. I honestly believe he wants to be better than those around him. Unfortunately, the climate in Washington just won't allow it.
Interesting. I am currently 43 and not once considered entering the political arena.
My fight with government is on an individual level.
Got the idea when I was 18 actually. However, I figured I should probably spend some time gaining life experience before getting into something like that. When you know what you believe it makes it much easier to fight for it.
Good for you.
Interesting statement. Considering I hold few if any beliefs and yet somehow managed to make my life about other people and protecting their interests.
Beliefs are not bulletproof. They should never be solidified because life is ever changing. If the beliefs don't evolve or change with life, then what good are they?
Ideas, imagination and creativity are.
What is needed in America is leadership which leads by example. Never mind the mind numbing morons who continue to lead people into separation.
I suppose we will disagree somewhat about this thought.
I feel like you have to have solid beliefs in order to be a good leader. If you lack beliefs, you will often lack conviction. Of course, this is just my opinion. I agree that you have to be flexible to a degree, but it should be based on a broader belief system. I think that not learning from mistakes is where people go wrong.
For example, I believe that everyone should have health care. You can't convince me that people don't deserve health care and that it isn't a human right. However, if the ACA doesn't work, it would be foolish to not try to keep improving within that framework that everyone should have some basic level of coverage.
I don't require beliefs when what I know is what is right for the sake of it being right. This is a conscience driven action reinforce with my will power(conviction).
Doing what is right for the sake that it is right is always a conscience driven action. Your conscience will assess what you know(learned(gained knowledge(including experience) and wisdom), so you can honestly assess what is right for the sake of it being right.
Yes, not learning from mistakes will happen. I have a problem with some the flexibility people want to take for granted and I don't care for their flippant attitude(ego based). I had to learn to control my ego, then other people should learn it too. If not, then only conflict will exist without any form of peace ever. That is unacceptable.
I'll agree that everyone should honestly carry some medical coverage. It would be the responsible and affordable way to go.
Deserve? I don't care for that word. It implies entitlement and health care isn't an entitlement. It's an industry which provides public and private health services for people who have all sorts of medical issues.
Yes, people have a right to be seen at a hospital. Yes, they cannot be denied services. I just don't agree with government involvement.
Getting health care and access to it, is a right. That has never once been the real issue. The "real" issue is affordable health care coverage from insurance companies. This particular industry needed to be reformed and the ACA does nothing to do that.
It won't work. And, I have no problem with making Health Care in America more affordable. But, the only way to do that is for the government to stop spreading distortion and misinformation about products/goods and services available in America.
The FDA cannot make up it's mind what is dangerous and what isn't. It's taken a flip-flop status for the last decade on several things. Not to mention, if you haven't turned on a TV in a while, then view some of the drugs(from big pharma) that are on the market and the side effects. It's absurd.
<b>I don't require beliefs when what I know is what is right for the sake of it being right. This is a conscience driven action reinforce with my will power(conviction).
Doing what is right for the sake that it is right is always a conscience driven action. Your conscience will assess what you know(learned(gained knowledge(including experience) and wisdom), so you can honestly assess what is right for the sake of it being right.
Isn't that the same thing though in a way? Taking action based on what you believe is right.
<b>Deserve? I don't care for that word. It implies entitlement and health care isn't an entitlement. It's an industry which provides public and private health services for people who have all sorts of medical issues.
Yes, people have a right to be seen at a hospital. Yes, they cannot be denied services. I just don't agree with government involvement.</b>
I'm not saying that the government has to do it. Unfortunately, health care is being increasingly run as a for-profit industry. In some ways, I'm sure it always has been, but since 2000 or so it has become increasingly all about making money as opposed to delivering care. Because of this, the government has no choice but to become involved to reverse some of the recklessness of the insurance companies.
No belief required. The end results leads me to know it's right, not believe it's right. There's a difference.
One believes something to be. Knowing because you've seen the end result(because you've thought it out completely and assessed).
But, you're willing to let them attempt it, just like the rest of society is just accepting it(the people). The politicians, such Republicans are denying enforcement and are going to force the Obama Administration to enforce it themselves, because that's what the ACA is going to do, if the State refuses to do it on their own, then the Federal Government is going to invade the State and set it up.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Just because a company makes a profit from providing health care to people, doesn't make it wrong or unjust or unfair.
This is supposedly a Free Enterprise Marketplace isn't it? Health care is a service.
The quality of care is an issue. There's no doubt about it. And, the costs are elevated because there are too many people who are sick, diseased, dying, shot, run over by a car, involved in a car accident, stabbed by some man's mistress or a cheating wife killed by her husband.
Purely lays at the feet of the individual and being responsible about living. To say otherwise, is to put blame on someone else. There's a degree in which others can be blamed, like Monsanto and GMOs, and other corporations which use unethical practices for profit, which does affect and effect, a person physical, mentally and emotional because of the impact done to the overall health of society.
Actually, if the government had done education reform years ago, then this type of step wouldn't have been necessary. But, having educated people are not par for the course of any government. The government rather you be dumber than a 5th grader.
1) Outsourcing means that most companies are just going to build overseas. So yes, outsourcing is the problem.
2) The comment doesn't say that businesses benefit by hiring. All I'm saying is that consumers would spend more if they had jobs. To have a job, a company must hire them. Therefore, businesses need to start hiring again.
The only reason to "outsource" is to cut waste, internal corporate waste. That means, if it is necessary for whatever reason, use a cheaper source to provide products/goods and/or services.
A company will outsource something it doesn't want to be financially hampered by or better yet better profit margins. You seem to be looking at it from an individual perspective and not from a business perspective, which is causing your misunderstanding.
Not to mention, I addressed the "outsourcing" problem. A company won't have to outsource a product/goods or services to someone else to do, if they don't have to. This poses a problem with something else...what? What is the true problem that is forcing companies to go overseas? Whatever it is, it needs to be addressed. Not to mention, as I said about funding for small business start up and expansion would be extremely helpful toward creating jobs.
But they do benefit if they do hire. There are incentives in place for companies to hire people, but the simple fact is there's no business to offset the hiring of the person and the incentives are not high enough to initiate it.
Yes, they would.
Really? There's thousands of work at home, legitimate companies. There are even more creative ways to make money, people only need to look, learn and use their brain.
They don't need a job. They need an income.
You give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. You teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
You give a person money, you satisfy him for only a moment. Teach the man to create wealth, and I'll guarantee he'll return the favor to others out of gratitude.
I'll respond to this first before responding to your other comment...
Granted, there are many forms of outsourcing. However, when a company decides that their new factory is going to be built in China, or their call center is going to be built in India, it means that the company must pour resources into those countries.
Why are companies going overseas? Simple, a lack of regulation and/or not having to pay nearly as much to foreign workers. So is the only way to bring jobs back to America going to include getting rid of regulations and paying American workers $1 an hour? Sorry, but unless we go back to 1900, that simply won't happen.
As for work-from-home opportunities.....
It is a mixed bag. For each legit company, there are two that are not legitimate. Most don't offer much in the form of wages or benefits. For most, working from home is a supplemental income at best. Even for opportunities that could yield big rewards for people, most people are so skeptical that they wouldn't want to try them.
They are going to pour resources into those location to ensure operations, nothing more. They will set up there, invest there and remain there, until it requires them to outsource from that location.
Which is why I said that there was more to it.
Anyone can start any sort of business right from their apartment or home. There are no particular regulations except for foot traffic and what type of business it is because of particular zoning laws for businesses.
That's pretty negative and limited in creativity.
Yielding big rewards isn't the answer. The answer is creating wealth. Getting more people to learn how to create residual earnings, instead of this paycheck to paycheck type of junk. Investment in small business start up and small business expansion creates jobs...jobs that have growth potential for the average person to learn from, experience and hopefully learn enough to do it on their own or pursue other avenues. As I said, many of the BIG companies are too departmentalized already.
I'm not being negative when I say that there are a lot of scams out there when it comes to work from home opportunities. It's the truth. Even legitimate companies can be scammed by those who use the service. For example, I write for a place called Textbroker. The company itself is legitimate and one of the best in the writing business for online freelance work. However, some of the clients will reject an article after copying the text to their own website to use it without paying for it.
I can see your point about people developing residual incomes and diversifying their income through non-traditional means. Now that I have finally gotten past some debt issues, I'm looking at way to maximize passive revenue opportunities. However, attitudes toward these types of things are either not understood really well or are simply blown off as some sort of scam. Yes, even if some of these investment opportunities are regulated by the SEC.
Sure, people CAN start a business online. More people probably should be looking into these opportunities. The issue once again is that too many people don't understand how to go about it. Too many people don't yet realize that running an online business is almost exactly like running a typical business without as much start-up cost.
Yes, I realize that getting people to understand that residual incomes are the way to go is surely be difficult. However, it isn't anything which couldn't be taught in schools.
Students are not taught to generate wealth, but instead plan for a career or get a job. They teach children to manage money but don't teach about the power of money. My hub on schools teaching kids about money matters covers that. It was a question asked by another hubber, which I decided to make a hub out of.
End the wars in the middle-east.
Legalise the competing currency and disband the Federal Reserve.
Legalise every action that does not harm an individual directly, i.e. massive deregulation of every industry, end the war on drugs, end the police state.
Stop enforcing taxes, but open a voluntary fund, contributing to a system intended to wean dependent individuals off welfare and aid and get them back into the work-force.
But of course all of this is in a perfect world
In reality I think of the Presidency as the One Ring of Power from Lord of the Rings:
"I would use this ring to do good, but through me I could wield a power too great and terrible to imagine"
I would rename the United States Shandinavia (A mixture of my name and a fitting ending) and immediately set about redecorating the White House, after which I would require all cats in nearby shelters be released in the White House so that I may make them all mine.
I've thought long and hard about this.
OMG. I never thought about that.... Dang it. I thought Shandinavia was so creative and clever, and you just destroy it all with Shanada.....
I would lay in a big old supply of Clairol, cuz if history serves, I'm gonna need. it.
Inspire the people.
Then empower them.
Stop telling them lies.
Start spending our money..
That's just for starters.
For some the urge is to lead.
Yet many just backseat drive.
If you were president .
I have no doubt.
You would be unhappy.
with your performance .
And see it as.
by Susie Lehto 3 years ago
"This is the closest that we have come to repealing Obamacare."I am over joyed at the moment! I confuse that I thought Speaker of the House Ryan was another Republican Rhino like John Boehner. The Repeal is going to the presidents desk. Obama will veto the bill most...
by scoop 5 years ago
What exactly is "Obamacare" and when does the law go into effect?
by qwark 7 years ago
what a waste of time!It will never be "repealed."Read it damnit! All 2000+ pages and make, in bi-partisan manner, the necessary changes that will improve it!Qwark
by The Shark 2 years ago
I'm not afraid of it. But I'm not in favor of it. The government screws up a lot. You can't always trust them when it comes to money. I would like the government to stay out of it as much as possible.
by taburkett 5 years ago
President Obama has delayed Big Business requirement in Obamacare - does this make the law bad?Is this proof that Obamacare is bad for the nation? From the outset, many people have stated that Obamacare will actually ruin the healthcare and insurance communities in the USA. Now this action has been...
by mikelong 7 years ago
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07 … k1%7C77674If businesses could play by the rules, perhaps they wouldn't need to be watched...
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|