It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Candidate Declaration: iori_komei, Socialist

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:
ape

posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Question:

Can you call it a democracy if you place term limits? Surely, if I want to vote for the same person over 30 years it is my choice? Why do you get to decide who I can vote for and who I can not vote for?

Last time I checked, that wasn't democracy.

Edit: Correct a few words. My English skills stopped being so pro.


[edit on 25/2/2007 by Odium]


you can make this same argument about the presidency, so i guess we are not living in a democracy now with that kind of logic. the fact of the matter is staying in power for that long is corrupt and special interests end up taking you over.. a prime example of this is our present day legislative branch.

I agree with iroi on the term limits issue but iori you do not have my vote, most of your policies would cause the collapse of this country even quicker than current washington politicians are working to achieve.



[edit on 17-4-2007 by ape]




posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 11:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
I would not initiate any kind of energy tax, though as I have mentioned
in my tax plan there would be a tax on buying vehicles that use fossil
fuels, that would increase with the vehicles efficiency decreasing.

The money for energy would come from the rpofits earned from selling
the excess, some would come from fossil fuelbased machinery purchasing
taxes and the rest would come through the few non-specialized taxes.

...Okay, then, how will you pay for it? Who is going to buy the excesss, and how much will there be? Don't we import much of our oil, too?

Energy is expensive. that won't cover it.



Originally posted by iori_komei
I have to admit, I should have re-read this better, as I really jumbled
what I meant up.

The government would provide all the material resources, the company
would provide the workers and the machinery, whcih I was considering
resources to.

So if the company isn't being paid...where do workers get money from? There's no way I would do it for free. How does the company pay for expenditures (which are large)? This makes no sense. You'd effectively shut down the defense industry.

Unless that's your intention...



Originally posted by iori_komei
Medicine would be covered by taxes, therefore you would not be paying
for it, nor would you have a specific tax to cover medical.

Um... hint hint.

Taxes are paid by taxpayers. You know what that means?

You are forced to pay for it through taxes. Saying that you don't have to pay for it is a lie.


Originally posted by iori_komei
Only real medical problems would be covered under the program, not
cosmetic or trivial procedures.

Though gender realignment procedures would be covered, even though
some may not consider that to be a real medical issue, it is.

Trivial, decided by...the government?
Thanks for telling me what I deserve to do to my own body.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by Johnmike]


ape

posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by Johnmike
So if I make $3,000,000 I get to keep $300,000 of what I make?

That's a pretty...villainous concept, don't you think? It feels like stealing.


Yes, that's how much you get out of it.

No, I do not think it's villanous, considering you do not require that
much money in the first place, and the othwer money is going to
good causes.


this is insane, only a totalitarian government would tell someone they dont require a certain amount of money. why would you say this? for all you know alot that money could go to charity... oh wait the government does the charity in your world right?

good causes? you mean giving the rest of the money to people who live on the dole of a socialist government who are lazy and dont wanna work?


[edit on 17-4-2007 by ape]



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
...Okay, then, how will you pay for it? Who is going to buy the excess, and how much will there be? Don't we import much of our oil, too?

Energy is expensive. that won't cover it.


A mixture of existing taxes, transferring money from unneeded things (like
giving millions to places that have not needed it for some time) and through
the profits from selling the excess.

Other countries or corporations would be the primary purchasers.

Yes, we import a great amount of oil, something that is not a good thing,
especially given the instability of the primary sources.




So if the company isn't being paid...where do workers get money from? There's no way I would do it for free. How does the company pay for expenditures (which are large)? This makes no sense. You'd effectively shut down the defense industry.

Unless that's your intention...


The company would still be allowed to build aircraft for other sources,
that is where it would get its money.

However, something I forgot to mention, is that the company would also
get the plus of being the first to get to use and incorporate newer
technologies into its products, as a side-effect of building for the
government.

To tell you the truth, nationalization of the defence industry is still a
concept that is evolving for me, so I'm actually still working out the
nuts and bolts of it, so the concept is not going to be perfect, or at least
complete for a few days.

Not to say you can't still point out any problems you see in it as it does,
as that actually does help, as I do not necessarily see all the problems
with something all the time.

Honestly, I would like to be able to get rid of it, rather have it become obsolete, but I realize that will not happen anytime soon, if ever.




Um... hint hint.

Taxes are paid by taxpayers. You know what that means?

You are forced to pay for it through taxes. Saying that you don't have to pay for it is a lie.


What I mean is there is not going to be a bunch of new taxes created
to pay for medical, it would be taken out of other taxes, though I am still
playing with the idea of instituting a 1-5% tax on private medical procedures to help it, have'nt really decided if that would be an idea I'd
be for or not though.




Trivial, decided by...the government?
Thanks for telling me what I deserve to do to my own body.


It is simply decided to be trivial or not so that you do not end up paying
for trivial procedures through taxes.

You would still be free to get any trivial procedures done in private clinics
that cater to whatever it may be.



posted on Apr, 17 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ape
good causes? you mean giving the rest of the money to people who live on the dole of a socialist government who are lazy and dont wanna work?


The money would go into social programs, such as healthcare, and basic
needs providing programs, basic needs being food, shelter and basic
telecommunications.

People would not be encouraged not to work, nor would they be forced
to work.

That is you could in theory decide you were going to be a leech, but you
would only have the basic essentials, barely enough to live comfortably,
if you wanted to live more comfortably, or even (as much as I dissaprove)
luxuriously, you would have to work.



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Just a quick thing I don't think I've mentioned.

I will/would give the majority of money I make as president away
to various causes.

I will alsow work to reduce the presidential slary by 30%.



I'd also like to add, that after consideration, as much as I would like to
see it, nationalizing the defence industry would be far to much to do,
considering the more importan things that I would have to do.

Further more I a am also scaling down my ideas on nationalizing the
energy industry, which the new plan for I will get to tomorrow when I
have the enrgy to really do it.

[edit on 4/18/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Just a quick thing I don't think I've mentioned.

I will/would give the majority of money I make as president away
to various causes.

I will alsow work to reduce the presidential slary by 30%.



But it's only $200,000 as it is now. Don't you think that is fair compensation for the leader of the free world?



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
But it's only $200,000 as it is now. Don't you think that is fair compensation for the leader of the free world?


Why does the president, who is generally rich as it is, and does not
actualy have to spend alot of money, need to be payed so much money?

It is in my opinion a waste of money that can go to more valuable causes.



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Well, you've lost my vote for being a rapist and an economic nitwit.

Thanks for your explanations.



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
Well, you've lost my vote for being a rapist and an economic nitwit.

Thanks for your explanations.


I'm not a rapist.

And I'm pretty sure I never had your vote in the first place.



posted on Apr, 18 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
I gave you, like everyone, the benefit of the doubt.

Then I realized that you had absolutely no idea how the economy works. At all.



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 08:54 PM
link   
An issue that I have not really touched on, is that of the homeless.


I will/would try to get a program started, where-in involuntary
homelessness would be all but eliminated (there are going to be some
between the point they become homeless, and the point they enter the
program.


In this program large facilities would be built, these facilities would be
able to house up to 1,000 individuals, comfortably.

They would be equipped with a functioning medical clinic (not a full
fledged hospital), 24/7 fully trained staff for it, as well as a few clinical
psychologists, nutritionists and therapists.

The facilities would be capable of growing enough food for the entire
facility, though they would not be totally self-sufficient.

They would also have top rate educational facilities, and study programs.

These facilities would not be meant to be camps to put the homeless in,
rather they would be places where those who have, for whatever reason
hit rock bottom, and need a place that they can get back on their feet.

The facilities would provide a place for people to go when they have no
where to go, somewhere they would have a roof over their heads, food
and a chance to get a job again.

If they needed retraining for a job, it would be provided for them, if they
needed to get a degree for a job, they would have the chance to get it.



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 09:41 PM
link   
And you plan to pay for this how?



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
And you plan to pay for this how?


In part through money from the tax system, though not totally.
Money from other things that are not important would be reallocated to
the program.

Preferably from the program that gives obsecene amounts of money to
Israel ever year, even than there would be alot of moeny fro that left
over to.



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 09:45 PM
link   
From EXACTLY where, and exactly how much?

I don't think you understand just how much this will cost...



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 10:19 PM
link   
True, I do not know the exact amount of how much it would cost, but I
do know that it would not be cheap, but it would not be incredibly
expensive either.

Now, considering that there are probably around 1,800,000 homeless
individuals in the country.

Now, assuming that each homeless person represents spending $2,000
a year (assuming they stayed that long).

If these numbers are used, and I'm including all homeless, involuntary
and otherwise, so the actual cost would be lower, we can estimate that
it would cost about 3.6billion dollars a year, now this number is obviously
not going to be correct, as there are several factors that could increase
or decrease this amount.

Now considering how many programs exist that spend billions of dollars
that are not required, by reallocating money from these programs would
cover the cost.

And I will admit, when I originally did the calculations, I did'nt put enough
0's in one of the numbers, so the amount I got was lower than the real
amount, which is why I though that it would be entirely capable of being
payed for by the Israel money, though if it does come up to about the
amount I stated, it would almost pay for it.

The only real things that would actually require money, beyond the
building and maintenance of the facilities, would be paying the
doctors/therapists/nutritionists and buying the half of the food that
would not be grown there.



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 10:44 PM
link   
$2,000 a year for food, shelter, and education?

Wrong. Just wrong.



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
$2,000 a year for food, shelter, and education?

Wrong. Just wrong.


Only half the food is needed to be bought.
Shelter, well apart from general maintenance there are no real costs
for it.

And education, well education would be through a mixture of individual
learning, that is the person doing the learning themselves, and bi-weekly
professor sessions.

I think that $2,000 is an adequate estimate of cost.



posted on Apr, 27 2007 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Mod Edit Please refain from insults.



Originally posted by iori_komei
And education, well education would be through a mixture of individual
learning, that is the person doing the learning themselves, and bi-weekly
professor sessions.

...That costs money.

[edit on 27-4-2007 by spacedoubt]



posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Shelter, well apart from general maintenance there are no real costs
for it.

I think that is hilarious. Keep going, Iori, this is great!

I guess the way I said it was too...insulting...or something, so it was edited out of my first post.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join