English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Given the current situation, given the current economy, the greedy rich people, the war, REALISTICALLY what would you as a president do? By realistically i mean seriously taking into account the obstacles and factors of the people's wants, economic status, and war....see you can say "oh i want to end world hunger" but HOW....when we have to worry about our deficit, then negotiating with strongly traditional or stubborn leaders in starved nations, and then those (congress) who would even consider your motives. So I want some logical answer please, world peace is all fine n dandy, but i'm lookin for what one would do if the responsibilty was in your hands, in real life.

2006-10-25 23:55:30 · 14 answers · asked by Dennis 6 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

Well first off, I have nothing against all the other presidents, they all were great presidents, even bush, but because their focuses and strategies as presidents of course pleased some pissed off others, they didn't focus on the whole because damn, they're human, and also, the higher up's influence.
To biasely say all rich people are poor is my wording not put in a 'politicaly' correct way..go figure, but not all poor people are greedy either. If you have peopel who live in a negative atmosphere of COURSE they're gonna be negative, if you put more positive aspects in their life then their views will be more positive and more WILLING to actually do something with themselves than nothing. You can't focus on one problem to solve everything, you have to put everything into one whole, so one will support the other. Otherwise you have people like you who don't look outside the box to see what other factors will be influenced and may benefit the one problem.

2006-10-26 00:38:02 · update #1

Well first off, I have nothing against all the other presidents, they all were great presidents, even bush, but because their focuses and strategies as presidents of course pleased some pissed off others, they didn't focus on the whole because damn, they're human, and also, the higher up's influence.
To biasely say all rich people are poor is my wording not put in a 'politicaly' correct way..go figure, but not all poor people are greedy either. If you have peopel who live in a negative atmosphere of COURSE they're gonna be negative, if you put more positive aspects in their life then their views will be more positive and more WILLING to actually do something with themselves than nothing. You can't focus on one problem to solve everything, you have to put everything into one whole, so one will support the other. Otherwise you have people like you who don't look outside the box to see what other factors will be influenced and may benefit the one problem.

2006-10-26 00:38:07 · update #2

14 answers

This *is* real life and the responsibility *is* in our hands. Don't tell OverDruged that though... she is living in this fantasy world where its more important to attempt to appear cutsey with her answers. Cute, but absolutely no substance. What a waste.

Current Economy? Our econonmy is thriving. What is the problem with it?

Greedy rich people? Greedy because they want to keep the money they earned or they want to only be required to pay a portion that is percentagely equal to everyone else? Or is it the Greedy poor people who feel they are entitled to a portion of the greedy rich people's money?

The War is a problem, I'll agree. I would stop playing this political correctness game and do what it would take to defeat our enemy. War is war, it isn't some board game we can afford to depend on the role of the dice to win.

People's wants? People can "want" all they can. People will "get" when people produce.

End World Hunger? "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"

What would you do Dennis? Let me guess. If your phrase "greedy rich people" is any indication, here comes the whole Bush Bashing, Republican Bashing explanation again.

2006-10-26 00:00:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Reading your first sentence , I know how you lean politically, so you won't like the majority of my ideas .
1 . There are over 300 NGO's ( non-governmental organizations )
sucking at the taxpayers wallet . These include labor unions , Planned Parenthood , and private interest groups .
All would lose the handout , saving billions .
2..Education would become mandatory , 14 grades , 12 months a year . No H.S. diploma , no vote , no welfare , no drivers license , You have to age 21 to complete High School .
3.Those getting Government money for college will be required to spend 1 year for every year of college , working for the government . Same pay as as a 2nd Lt in the military to work off the debt .
4. All employers will have to OFFER health insurance , the cost of which will be 100% deductable for both employer and employee .
Government paid health insurance without the government , what an idea , politicians can't screw it up .
That takes care of week 1.
Week 2 , I start slapping around politicians .

2006-10-26 01:01:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

I would eliminate executive departments. The President has the power to send home the employees of the executive departments and I'm not sure but I don't think he needs approval to do it. Not all of them I would keep the Department of State, The Department of Defense and I would keep any functions that are not dismantled from the other departments under the Department of the Interior.

Their are so many government workers who don't do anything of value. Have you noticed that whenever they run out of money they will close down "non essential offices" Well I would shut down all non essential offices.

I would put a lot of time and effort to Pass HR25 the Fair Tax and then repeal the 16th Amendment to the constitution. Forever eliminating the Income tax.

I would begin a phase out of the government mandated pyramid scheme otherwise known as Social Security so that those who depend on it would still get it but it would not continue to be a Burdon on future generations and individuals would be responsible for their own destinies.

You may not like it but I would change very little in Iraq and Afghanistan, I would not give up on these young governments when they need us the most. Eventually more of their own forces would take over security and we would probably still have forces there when my term ends, but we would have republican governments in a developing part of the world to help stabilize it.

I would lock down the border. No one in or out without papers or an inspection. Then we can figure out worker visa or what have you.

I think with these changes the country would be much better off. We would be able to control more of our own money, government spending would go down so we would be able to start paying off the debt. We would be more secure.

I have put methods down not results. All of the things listed are things that the presedent could do.

2006-10-26 00:17:19 · answer #3 · answered by MP US Army 7 · 2 1

Nothing, the partisan bickering going on now would not allow me or any other person as president, to do anything worthwhile.
If I could get past that then maybe I could secure the borders, work on making health Insurance available to all Americans, Change welfare to a workfare program for long term abusers, Give Iran and Syria 1 month to get the insurgents out of Iraq (as they are funding and supporting them) or level most of their cities and industry. If your going to war go with everything, finish the job, or don't go. I might have France pay for the UN and have them give them a rent free building and the free land. Try to push thru campaign reform so that anyone in America could run for office instead of just the rich. Try to increase the pay of teachers and police officers, but hold them to a higher standard. Especially the teachers. This could go on forever

2006-10-26 00:13:11 · answer #4 · answered by mark g 6 · 2 0

i do no longer think of having a woman as president might have any effect on how "heavily" a rustic might replace into conscious persons. All of our government operations (e.g. Congress, the militia, the CIA) could be a similar. The president would not have as lots ability as many human beings think of. so a strategies as different international locations flow, there are at present 2 lady presidents that are evoked on the instant. Finland is administered via a woman (who seems uncannily like Conan O'Brien) and so is Philippines. and don't think of that Islamic international locations does no longer have a woman chief. Pakistans former chief became a woman previously the hot guy took over.

2016-11-25 21:26:55 · answer #5 · answered by bacca 4 · 0 0

1) will immediately pull out from Iraq . Knowing you made a mistake , the next best course of action is making a correction. cutting loses.
2)will concentrate on economy. try to do more trade rather than talking about sanctions. China & others are looking ways to increase trade for their own good when america is going for sanctions all over the place.
3) As far as possible , will not meddle in other countries affairs . At least will stop to think if it is going to benefiy the country in any way.
4) will see to it that competent people are occuppying high places in govt.
5) will see to it what can be done next time when disasters like 'katrina' strike. At least even now will see if everything possible was done for the victims.
the list can go on and on. But I will not be presidant. They are supposed to be held by people without imagination.

2006-10-26 00:23:54 · answer #6 · answered by jaco 3 · 0 2

Well, let's start at the beginning.

The Presient's job is to protect the United States.

It's not in his purview to stop world hunger, for example, nor anything else that has to do with promoting the Good of the Earth. He's the Commander in Chief, and his job is to shield our national interests and promote the country's security.

Given that, I doubt that I would handle things much differently than Mr. Bush is...although, I would probably be a bit more aggressive.

By the way, excellent question.

2006-10-26 00:08:59 · answer #7 · answered by silvercomet 6 · 2 1

Since so much of the world considers the U.S. a big bully, I would give them what they want. A quick pull out of Iraq, leave the United Nations, leave NATO, withdraw all U.S. troops from Korea and Europe (leave just enough troops in Saudi and Kuwait to protect the oil). At home, build the 700 mile fence on the border, and zealously prosecute companies that employ illegal immigrants.

2006-10-26 00:07:13 · answer #8 · answered by chad 3 · 4 1

When ever a reporter ask a dumb question have them banned for life from press conferences. Refuse to answer the question.

Not be politically correct. Profile every one that comes in to our country. Build fences on both borders. Remove Iran from the face of the earth.

2006-10-26 00:09:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I would stop trying to police the world, that is not our job. I would raise the taxes on wealthy people to try and cover some of the deficient. I would stop giving money away around the world buying influence. I would prosecute anyone who hires an illegal alien. I would require people who get government assistance to work, even if it is just cleaning and beautifying the country. And I would require all government programs to get approval from a common sense committee to stop waste.

2006-10-26 00:21:31 · answer #10 · answered by industrialconfusion 4 · 0 3

fedest.com, questions and answers