Bill Gates for President

We have already had No Child Left Behind unconstitutionally worsen the standard of living for those in the K-12 system to epidemic proportions. The last thing the United States needs is for Bill Gates' throw money at it policies to send suicide rate to new plateaus.

Bill Gates' private education policies disqualify him as a potential canadiate for the White House as far as his ability to improve the standard of living is concerned.

I think Donald Trump would be a better canadiate for office, only because he does not like to spend money in places where he should not spend it in the first place.

Sabot wrote:

Bill don't change ... carry on saving the world.

The Presidential stage is really to small, frankly he does more good by not being constrain by a nation border.

It is actually a federal border and not a national border, because the United States is a federation and not a nation. If the United States was a nation, the United States' government would be the state, like in France, instead of being separate from the several states, like the European Union.

Harlequin wrote:



Shining Arcanine wrote:I think Donald Trump would be a better canadiate for office, only because he does not like to spend money in places where he should not spend it in the first place.

He's also been bankrupt several times. Bush is doing that already to the U.S., don't need someone else to come in and do it.

Running a business is different than running a government. When you run a business and you run out of money, you go bankrupt; when you run a government and you run out of money, you raise taxes so you can spend more of other people's money. Furthermore, businessmen have a philosophy of "I am fisically responsible; therefore I am" while politicians have a philosophy of "I spend; therefore I am."

No matter how fiscially irresponsible previous presidents have been (e.g. FDR, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, President Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, President Bush Jr.) with their domestic policies, Donald Trump could not possibly be any worse than they were and who knows, if we are lucky, he will manage things with fiscial responsibility and a deep concern for the constitutionality of federal programs, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.

Harlequin wrote:



Shining Arcanine wrote:I think Donald Trump would be a better canadiate for office, only because he does not like to spend money in places where he should not spend it in the first place.

He's also been bankrupt several times. Bush is doing that already to the U.S., don't need someone else to come in and do it.

Running a business is different than running a government. When you run a business and you run out of money, you go bankrupt; when you run a government and you run out of money, you raise taxes so you can spend more of other people's money. Furthermore, businessmen have a philosophy of "I am fisically responsible; therefore I am" while politicians have a philosophy of "I spend; therefore I am."

No matter how fiscially irresponsible previous presidents have been (e.g. FDR, Harry Truman, Lyndon B. Johnson, President Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, President Bush Jr.) with their domestic policies, Donald Trump could not possibly be any worse than they were and who knows, if we are lucky, he will manage things with fiscial responsibility and a deep concern for the constitutionality of federal programs, like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan.

SecretSoftware wrote:



Shining Arcanine wrote: I think Donald Trump would be a better canadiate for office, only because he does not like to spend money in places where he should not spend it in the first place.

Your not serious are you? This guy spells trouble, and I think he is full of himself.

There is no one in politics who is qualified for the job and there has not been since Ronald Reagan. We have had three mediocre Presidents since then, and all of them were actively involved in politics prior to running for President. It makes much more sense to look elsewhere for our Presidential canadiates than to continue to search for them in a well that has gone dry. At least Mr. Trump says that he can get oil prices to go down:

http://donaldtrump.trumpuniversity.com/default.asp?item=97265

Who would know how to better do that than a seasoned businessman who understands the United States' economy and can you think of anyone more qualified? FDR and Ronald Reagan both had advice from outside the federal government. In FDR's case, it was from economists in the form of the Braintrust, while in Ronald Reagan's case, it was a bunch of businessmen in the form of the Private Sector Survey for Cost Control. Although only 1/3 of the more than two thousand recommendations made by the Private Sector Survey for Cost Control were implemented by Congress, Ronald Reagan had much better advice from the Private Sector Survey on Cost Control than FDR had from the Brain Trust, as while the Private Sector Survey on Cost Control cut costs, the Brain Trust established the core problems in the federal government that are presently misattributed to President Bush Junior, were glossed over during President Clinton's administration and were practically ignored during President Bush Senior's administration as a consequence of the Cold War.

If we are going to think of people who would do a good job of being President of the Federal Government, why not search for people among the businessmen that Ronald Reagan sought advice from in the first place?

Sabot wrote:



Shining Arcanine wrote: Sabot wrote: Bill don't change ... carry on saving the world. The Presidential stage is really to small, frankly he does more good by not being constrain by a nation border. It is actually a federal border and not a national border, because the United States is a federation and not a nation. If the United States was a nation, the United States' government would be the state, like in France, instead of being separate from the several states, like the European Union.

Sorry about that ... but I hope you know what I meant?

Yes I did.

blowdart wrote:



Shining Arcanine wrote: Running a business is different than running a government. When you run a business and you run out of money, you go bankrupt; when you run a government and you run out of money, you raise taxes so you can spend more of other people's money.

Or not, just deficit spend instead. Interesting you mentioned Clinton, didn't he run at a surplus at some stage?

Yes, by cutting defense spending, but not by resolving the trillions in dollars of debt that have accumulated since FDR's administration. There have been months where President Bush ran a budget surplus as well, but net yearly spending as a result of entitlement programs such as NCLB killed the surplus.