Who should run our country?
- Thread starter teamjdw
- Start date
NO carrier politicians. After that it would depend the individual. It would depend if they were honest business owners. It would depend on the business they were in. I don't think there is a simple answer.
robh2
Veteran Expediter
I prefer a honest business owner that has a proven record of running a large global company. All lobbying should be against the law.
They should also have a ethics police to watch out for these back room meetings of I will vote for your bill if you vote for mine. When I say watched, I mean if a person that pushed "I am against X" on their ticket turns around and supports a bill with it, they will investigate the reasons behind the bill. Similar to the SEC but for the politicians. No one really watches these guys and its a free for all.
I am so tired of the way things are run. I want someone like Alan Mulally to run this country. He was amazing at Boeing and turned Ford around. Great leader with a great personality.
My .02
Robert
They should also have a ethics police to watch out for these back room meetings of I will vote for your bill if you vote for mine. When I say watched, I mean if a person that pushed "I am against X" on their ticket turns around and supports a bill with it, they will investigate the reasons behind the bill. Similar to the SEC but for the politicians. No one really watches these guys and its a free for all.
I am so tired of the way things are run. I want someone like Alan Mulally to run this country. He was amazing at Boeing and turned Ford around. Great leader with a great personality.
My .02
Robert
teamjdw
Expert Expediter
Would that be like an employee owned co. We the people,will decide.........
What is a carrier politician??
Only one comes to mind would be Turtle.
I know that you mean career politician, but since you've quoted carrier 2-3 times in various places on the board, I thought it was about time to point it out.
LOL!! A temp controlled politician!! HEY, I never said I could speel.
Exactly...WE the people own this country and decide whom we chose to run it...if they don't run it to our liking..we fire them...vote them out...
I don't think I'd go that far....by proxie we've voted in our choice to represent us in those matters..if he/she goes against the people....we change them out....it is a rather simple system that some have made complicated...
How am I doing Joe?
How am I doing Joe?
NO democracy. Keep the republic. We just need to take control of those who we send to represent us. Like OVM said, vote them out if we don't like what they are doing. HECK, vote them out just because we can!!
teamjdw
Expert Expediter
I don't think I'd go that far....by proxie we've voted in our choice to represent us in those matters..if he/she goes against the people....we change them out....it is a rather simple system that some have made complicated...
How am I doing Joe?
I agree,but we should have a vote.Then our representitive would cast OUR vote.
teamjdw
Expert Expediter
I don't care who represents us,just cast your vote according to what WE have decided.
That is the system we have, but, we have allowed those we elect to take control. It is 100% OUR fault. We have to take back our control and insist that they vote as the district wishes or get out. If they do not respond, VOTE THE BUM OUT!!
teamjdw
Expert Expediter
Agreed.VOTE THE BUM OUT
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
I would be all for a good business peson with international contacts...but beyond what has been said about making sure that elected reps do business as the people that vote them in office want and not as the elected feel they need to do business because they think they know whats better for the people then the people themselves...we need term limits and short ones...I'd agree to no more the 3 yrs for any elected fed office...but would prefer 2 yrs...I know the they whine that that isn't long enough a time frame...get over it..thats all the time you get..you would then see better and more cooperation between those elected and more would get done..
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Neither. Because no one person runs the country.
The fallacy that a business man is good for the country seems to be a popular thing but regardless there hasn't been much proof of that.
Politicians can be more than lawyers but again this is a situation where lawyers have evolved into something else that is bad.
Michigan will be the test, we have the former CEO of gateway, Rick Synder, in lansing and already he has made some serious mistakes with his "appointees". For example, he has tapped the leader of the house, Andy Dillon for the guy in charge of the treasury. This is the same guy who spearheaded the tax increases a few years back and the same one who had his staffers threaten people who were petitioning his recall because of the tax increases. There are others, and Synder said that there will be tax increases on the horizon for all of us because he has to get the budget down. I don't see the promise of a business man when comparing business to state government - you don't increase the product cost when it is poor product and it is not making a profit but cut the cost on the front end to lower the price to make it attractive.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter because if we return some semblance of how this country is supposed to operate, then it is the people who would at least have a say.
The fallacy that a business man is good for the country seems to be a popular thing but regardless there hasn't been much proof of that.
Politicians can be more than lawyers but again this is a situation where lawyers have evolved into something else that is bad.
Michigan will be the test, we have the former CEO of gateway, Rick Synder, in lansing and already he has made some serious mistakes with his "appointees". For example, he has tapped the leader of the house, Andy Dillon for the guy in charge of the treasury. This is the same guy who spearheaded the tax increases a few years back and the same one who had his staffers threaten people who were petitioning his recall because of the tax increases. There are others, and Synder said that there will be tax increases on the horizon for all of us because he has to get the budget down. I don't see the promise of a business man when comparing business to state government - you don't increase the product cost when it is poor product and it is not making a profit but cut the cost on the front end to lower the price to make it attractive.
When it comes down to it, it doesn't matter because if we return some semblance of how this country is supposed to operate, then it is the people who would at least have a say.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
You wouldn't like my administration
The first thing I would do is to cut across the board 25% of all federal funding except the military.
I would at the same time, write an executive order removing the right of every federal worker to be represented by a union.
I would then cut federal employment by 40% across the board except at three agencies and the state department.
Then I would eliminate most of the cabinet positions, like the EPA, and so on.
Then I would put a sunset date on Social Security and Medicare - push for the elimination of Part D.
AND after all of that, I would push for the Fairtax to replace the income tax system.
The first thing I would do is to cut across the board 25% of all federal funding except the military.
I would at the same time, write an executive order removing the right of every federal worker to be represented by a union.
I would then cut federal employment by 40% across the board except at three agencies and the state department.
Then I would eliminate most of the cabinet positions, like the EPA, and so on.
Then I would put a sunset date on Social Security and Medicare - push for the elimination of Part D.
AND after all of that, I would push for the Fairtax to replace the income tax system.
fortwayne
Not a Member
First, it would not be politically possible to eliminate union representation. You would have to redefine or reclassify each job to even attempt such, then the courts would get involved in the end.
To lay out a fair tax as so many call it sounds good but that would eliminate tax breaks for the rich who indeed create the most jobs.
Thus, I don't see that taking place.
Simple solution.
You get a tax dollar you spend a tax dollar. We just need people with balls that can say no to the wasteful habits and the countless handouts.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App
To lay out a fair tax as so many call it sounds good but that would eliminate tax breaks for the rich who indeed create the most jobs.
Thus, I don't see that taking place.
Simple solution.
You get a tax dollar you spend a tax dollar. We just need people with balls that can say no to the wasteful habits and the countless handouts.
Posted with my Droid EO Forum App