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: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 11:14 PM
link   
$2000 per head a year for all these services?

Hm.

Let's think about the fees. First your going to pay billions to construct your large compounds for 1.8m people. (I guess around 5000 capacity, 360 compounds - 7.5 per mainland state varying with area). That's going to worsen our national debt. Second, your going to be billed millions each year from energy and maintenance corporations. The worst part of it all, is the cost of employing qualified people to teach, feed and keep the system running smoothly. I dare not guess at that. You may, ofcourse, impose an oppressive tax on their first working year before "graduating" the compound, not that I'm sure this will remotely cover it.

My optimistic estimation? $50,000 per head per annum, totalling $90bn if all 1.8m homeless are interned. A sixth of our defense budget, in other words $300 per every head - man, woman and child - in the United States. The taxpayers will just love that.

[edit on 28/4/07 by SteveR]




posted on Apr, 28 2007 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
$2000 per head a year for all these services?

Hm.

Let's think about the fees. First your going to pay billions to construct your large compounds for 1.8m people. (I guess around 5000 capacity, 360 compounds - 7.5 per mainland state varying with area).


They would not all be built at one time, and each one would only have
a capacity of 1,000.

The plan would to slowly build a predetermined amount, obviously not
enough to house everyone, but to be able to initially hold about 50%,
after that more of them, or additions to the existing ones would be built
by the homeless who are there, as a way to make things better, and to
make some extra money for things.




That's going to worsen our national debt.


Not really, the money would just be money that was already being used,
but just being reallocated to this program, plus there would be some tax
money to add to it as well.




Second, your going to be billed millions each year from energy and maintenance corporations.


The facilities would have solar power installations built into/with them,
so they would create there own power.




The worst part of it all, is the cost of employing qualified people to teach, feed and keep the system running smoothly.


The only people employed would be doctors, nutritionists, and a few
security guards, to protect the facility from outside threats, and to
break-up any fights that could break out.

The individuals housed there would cook there own meals, in a communal
cooking program, sort of like some of the progressive housing complexes
in Japan have.




I dare not guess at that. You may, of course, impose an oppressive tax on their first working year before "graduating" the compound, not that I'm sure this will remotely cover it.


Like I said, most of the money for the initial building and maintenance
would come from reallocating money from unneeded projects, and some
of it would come from existing taxes.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
They would not all be built at one time, and each one would only have
a capacity of 1,000.


Well yeah, that's a sensible ballpark figure. Obviously the real numbers will come from a commissioned panel where the variables will be discussed at length. This early into the game, I'd pick a higher capacity, sure you'd have more displacement but the upkeep for less facilities should be cheaper.


Originally posted by iori_komei
more of them, or additions to the existing ones would be built
by the homeless who are there, as a way to make things better, and to
make some extra money for things.


You are planning to educate random homeless folk in construction, engineering and materials? I would assume you mean they would 'help out' where they could and do the manual labor. Still a rather unconventional approach, could you flesh this out a little more?


Originally posted by iori_komei
That's going to worsen our national debt. - SteveR.

Not really, the money would just be money that was already being used,
but just being reallocated to this program, plus there would be some tax
money to add to it as well.


Wait. You are going to reallocate billions of dollars, from where? This is no small program.


Originally posted by iori_komei
The facilities would have solar power installations built into/with them,
so they would create there own power.


At the moment, solar power is actually more costly to implement than running off the grid. You also have inherent limitations to deal with, especially geography and weather. I can imagine your commission rejecting this, but a noble prospect nonetheless.


Originally posted by iori_komei
The only people employed would be doctors, nutritionists, and a few
security guards, to protect the facility from outside threats, and to
break-up any fights that could break out.


Doctors, teachers, structural engineers.. are you going to pay them competitive salaries? You will also need inhouse maintenance technicians (especially for your solar panel systems).


Originally posted by iori_komei
The individuals housed there would cook there own meals, in a communal
cooking program, sort of like some of the progressive housing complexes
in Japan have.


Very good, I like this.


Originally posted by iori_komei
Like I said, most of the money for the initial building and maintenance
would come from reallocating money from unneeded projects, and some
of it would come from existing taxes.


See above.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 01:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Well yeah, that's a sensible ballpark figure. Obviously the real numbers will come from a commissioned panel where the variables will be discussed at length. This early into the game, I'd pick a higher capacity, sure you'd have more displacement but the upkeep for less facilities should be cheaper.


Well I more or less would overrule such a panel, I'm pretty sure I would
have the authority to do that.

The project would be my baby, and one of the key prides of my
administration, and something I would use in my campaigns, and
therefore I want to give the people what I promised, not some watered
down version created by some bureaucrats who wanted to pinch pennies.



You are planning to educate random homeless folk in construction, engineering and materials? I would assume you mean they would 'help out' where they could and do the manual labor. Still a rather unconventional approach, could you flesh this out a little more?


Well not all homeless are uneducated in building, so I'd primarily to get
those who were knowledgeable in the field to be spread out to each facility
(in there home state) so that they could oversee it, and teach others.

I would utilize the skills of all those willing in the building process, and
would hire professionals where needed, and of course I'd look for
volunteers to help before I'd have professionals hired.



Wait. You are going to reallocate billions of dollars, from where? This is no small program.


From all programs that are not necessary, the main two sources would
most likely be from military projects and Israeli foreign aide, which they
don't need in the first place.




At the moment, solar power is actually more costly to implement than running off the grid. You also have inherent limitations to deal with, especially geography and weather. I can imagine your commission rejecting this, but a noble prospect nonetheless.


Well maybe at first, but I'm sure that using power from the grid would
over time cost a significant amount more.

Another thing to, is I meant to add, that wind power turbines would be
used as well, and in places where it was viable, wave-powerplants would
be built as well.

Actually, the cost of energy really would not be a big problem under my
administration even if they were'nt using there own power, as I advocate
nationalizing the energy companies.




Doctors, teachers, structural engineers.. are you going to pay them competitive salaries? You will also need inhouse maintenance technicians (especially for your solar panel systems).


The salaries of the people would depend on how well they do there jobs.

After everything has been built and is up and running, the only people
who would actually need to be payed is the full-time doctors, therapists
and the part-time nutritionists and educators.

Maintenance would follow a similar program to the building one.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
The project would be my baby, and one of the key prides of my
administration, and something I would use in my campaigns, and
therefore I want to give the people what I promised, not some watered
down version created by some bureaucrats who wanted to pinch pennies.


The idea with a commission is to bring together the best minds in economics and social issues from your cabinet and elsewhere to flesh out the details in a concieveable way. The idea is not to pinch pennies but take care of valuable tax dollars. Do you think the people would be happy if you personally micromanaged every monetary aspect of this expensive plan?


Originally posted by iori_komei
I would utilize the skills of all those willing in the building process, and
would hire professionals where needed, and of course I'd look for
volunteers to help before I'd have professionals hired.


Good.


Originally posted by iori_komei
From all programs that are not necessary, the main two sources would
most likely be from military projects and Israeli foreign aide, which they
don't need in the first place.


Last I heard the slush fund figure was around $5bn p/a. If you were aiming to house 50% or less of the homeless then perhaps this may be feasible.


Originally posted by iori_komei
as I advocate nationalizing the energy companies.


That's one way to beat them.


Thankyou Iori.



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

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]

So, there is a group somewhere deciding what is a trivial medical procedure and what is not?

And one of the up-front rules is that gender realignment procedures are a necessary and covered procedure?

You're kidding, right?



posted on Apr, 29 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
So, there is a group somewhere deciding what is a trivial medical procedure and what is not?

And one of the up-front rules is that gender realignment procedures are a necessary and covered procedure?

You're kidding, right?


A large panel of specialists from various fields, that would be different
each meeting, I think that would be the best idea.

[edit on 4/29/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   
"Specialists."

I love regressing into authoritarian communism.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike
"Specialists."

I love regressing into authoritarian communism.



Specialists as in people who are the of the best and brightest in there
respective fields.

Biology, Sociology, Therpists, Doctors, etc.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Specialists as in people who are the of the best and brightest in there
respective fields.

Biology, Sociology, Therpists, Doctors, etc.


I'm glad you're learning.


So, any answer to my pet project question?



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
The idea with a commission is to bring together the best minds in economics and social issues from your cabinet and elsewhere to flesh out the details in a concieveable way. The idea is not to pinch pennies but take care of valuable tax dollars. Do you think the people would be happy if you personally micromanaged every monetary aspect of this expensive plan?


I know that such things are meant to be good, and normally I'm all for it,
heck I advocate getting rid of the presidency and replacing it with an
executive council, which interestingly enough Benjamin Franklin actually
wanted to have instead of a presidency.

However, even though I would most likely have some sort of commission,
there would be certain things that I would not allow to be changed.

Honestly I don't think most people would care if I micromanaged it or not,
as long as it did what it was supposed to do.

[edit on 4/30/2007 by iori_komei]



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei
Honestly I don't think most people would care if I micromanaged it or not,
as long as it did what it was supposed to do.


Good answer so far, my only concern is oversight on your personal use of tax dollars. People care very much about that and rightly so..

Programs have to be fiscally optimized or they are a drain. Fiscal conservatism emphasises responsible use of money in the government, not throwing billions of dollars at one person's plan.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Good answer so far, my only concern is oversight on your personal use of tax dollars. People care very much about that and rightly so..


Well this is the only project I'd really do this with, but I do see what you
are saying.

I'd most likely have some sort of monthly journal for it reported,
so everyone could see what money was being used for what.

Maybe even a presidential blog, just right down everything I do and think
during the day for people to read about.





Programs have to be fiscally optimized or they are a drain. Fiscal conservatism emphasises responsible use of money in the government, not throwing billions of dollars at one person's plan.


Well I'll be the first to admit, I'm not exactly conservative in any way,
but I do agree with making sure tax payer money is being used for things
that actually help society, rather than going into the pockets of the elected.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 03:17 PM
link   
Thank you Iori.


No further questions from your potential constituent.



posted on Apr, 30 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Thank you Iori.


No further questions from your potential constituent.



I'm glad I could answer all your questions.

Feel free to ask anymore if/when you have them.



posted on May, 1 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Even though I, and pretty much everyone else who has access to the
media, knew that Bush would veto the current bill that requires a
timetable, I have chosen to not stater my opinion on it until today,
the day he actually vetoed it.

The president of the United States represents the people of the United
States, and should therefore act accordingly to the wants of the majority
in issues like the war.

I believe that the current president is a disgrace to the office, and has
blatantly spit in the face of Democracy by vetoing this bill, simply because
he is an idiot who wants everything to be how he wants, regardless of
what the people think or want.


An idea that I've been considering, is seeking a Constitutional
amendment that basically asserts that the President, nor the Congress
can declare war, though both may initiate a public war vote, where-in the
public votes on whether they want to go to war, or cease being in a war.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   
How do you continue to plan on spreading lies about socialism, when you know it will not work, and when your big brother platform (INGSOC), will ultimately turn into a totalitarian state and you know it. Socialism is just going to turn our nation into Communism. What do you think about the skepticism about socialism and how do you intend to respond to it?



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
How do you continue to plan on spreading lies about socialism, when you know it will not work, and when your big brother platform (INGSOC), will ultimately turn into a totalitarian state and you know it.


Attacking other candidates is bad practice and against Campaign 07 T&C. I suggest you reconsider your blatently rude post.



posted on May, 2 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
How do you continue to plan on spreading lies about socialism, when you know it will not work, and when your big brother platform (INGSOC), will ultimately turn into a totalitarian state and you know it. Socialism is just going to turn our nation into Communism. What do you think about the skepticism about socialism and how do you intend to respond to it?


1. I have not spread any lies, I dislike lieing in general, and do not believe
the government should lie unless it means saving the life of others, such
as in witness protection programs.

2. I have no big-brother platform, and do no know what INGSOC even is.

3. I am trying to incite changes that would make it even more difficult for
a totalitarian state to even think about coming into existence.

4. Socialism and Communism are different things, just as Christianity and
Judaism are, and beyond that Communism is not as evil as people think,
though I personally do not advocate Communism.

5. I think that last question can be seen by my responses to JohnMike
, which make up at least 30% of my overall posts in this thread.



posted on May, 3 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by iori_komei

Originally posted by Maverickhunter
How do you continue to plan on spreading lies about socialism, when you know it will not work, and when your big brother platform (INGSOC), will ultimately turn into a totalitarian state and you know it. Socialism is just going to turn our nation into Communism. What do you think about the skepticism about socialism and how do you intend to respond to it?


1. I have not spread any lies, I dislike lieing in general, and do not believe
the government should lie unless it means saving the life of others, such
as in witness protection programs.

2. I have no big-brother platform, and do no know what INGSOC even is.

3. I am trying to incite changes that would make it even more difficult for
a totalitarian state to even think about coming into existence.

4. Socialism and Communism are different things, just as Christianity and
Judaism are, and beyond that Communism is not as evil as people think,
though I personally do not advocate Communism.

5. I think that last question can be seen by my responses to JohnMike
, which make up at least 30% of my overall posts in this thread.

NM

Okay I get the difference, now.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join