You're the President... for 24 hours.

[wilfulton]

Meh, you want subtle, give the missus the time of her life: then when the victim returns to being his old self, he's going to go nuts trying to explain to her why he can't perform like he did that one night.

"But honey you know I don't do anal..."

"Oh but you did last night, and it was so wonderful..."

"OMFG...!"



I wouldn't try to fuck with national policy, just enjoy my 24 hrs in the hot seat, largely by causing some minor mischeif...

[The Yosemite Bear]

1. make sure that Bauer is no where near me. As in addian to causing the death of countless terrorists, that geneva convention ignoring war criminal tends to signifigantly reduce the life expectancy of any chief executive.

[2000AD]

I'd just go out and have a good time. Get really drunk, get some hookers, spend a lot of money, drunkanly insult a lot of influential people and make sure it's all public (at least till i'm too pissed to realise any diffrent)

Two birds with one stone. I have a really good time unitl i've passed out and Bush is disgraced.

[Sikon]

Try to start making a deal with China to accept and stop returning North Korean refugees crossing the border, paying them for far more than the expenses involved. If one starts negotiating for the deal in the 24-hour period, the U.S. government might not backtrack later since doing so would cause a diplomatic incident.

See if any unconventional carrot-and-stick combination might work with North Korea. Instead of demanding nuclear disarmanent, just try to get them to gradually follow the historical path of China away from total communism. Don't expect them to officially renounce communism but to start making subtle changes. They might see some proposals as both beneficial for their country and for themselves. Among many other measures, offer huge personal bribes for the N.K. dictator and other leaders. Let the initial deal offered be friendly, then supplement with lethal threats if it continues to be refused.

State that the government will give a $100 billion reward to the first company launching payloads to orbit for less than two orders of magnitude above fuel costs. Explain why such would finally make now a real Space Age as described at the bottom of this page. Probably such could not be legally binding with Congress not voting for it in a bill, but at least get it up for discussion.

Declare that the government should mail each American an annual report on spending changes, analogously to how a corporation reports to stockholders. People may or may not think the $1.9 trillion cumulative increase in federal spending between 2000 and 2005 provided as much benefit as it should relative to the $4.1 trillion combined annual pre-tax wages of all 145-million regular U.S. workers. But they should know.

Let the public evaluate the benefit of the $13000 per worker increase, judging the government benefit they receive compared to what it would have been if it remained at the levels of 5 to 6 years ago. Specifically, people could ask whether they noticed a benefit as great as what they receive from $13000 of their income, or whether nobody they know noticed even $1000 of benefit from the 2000 to 2005 changes. Voter ignorance is appalling.

Decide upon and take many more actions than the above examples alone...

Not much can actually be completed in 24 hours, but a lot can make the news and maybe start being considered. Even a single press conference with shocking proposals would stir up media coverage, putting issues in the public eye.

If the world hears that the U.S. is committed to something from the president, it will be harder for the government to subsequently backtrack without looking bad.

[tim31]

Declare that the government should mail each American an annual report on spending changes, analogously to how a corporation reports to stockholders.

Wouldn't that be sweet, actual accountablility. Tasmania's state Premier has spent a shitload of money since taking over from his former party leader(who stepped down about two months before dying of cancer) on such gems as upgrading racecourses(the horse kind), giving sponsorship money to his favorite football team(which is in another state, of course), and the best one, a $650K 'golden handshake' to get rid of a Governor(Queen's representative) who had caused nothing but trouble.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but it didn't deserve a thread of its own and I needed to vent.

[brianeyci]

Actual accountability shouldn't be focused on currying public favor with low taxes, but a very large civil service with a lot of auditors, comptrollers, accountants, lawyers and so on. If you do the cost thing or the ballot initiative thing it gets out of control because people are selfish. Why should I have to pay taxes for the local school board if I don't have children? Why should I have to pay taxes for healthcare if I'm healthy? And so on. A competent civil service is really the heart of government. Mob rule of the budget would just mean there would be no money for anything at all like in California. Better than staying in perpetual debt, but not that much better.

[jegs2]

Assume that tomorrow you suddenly find yourself waking up in the White House. You realize you're President Bush, yes the tool himself. There are no elections today, no scandals will break, no important decisions--unless you make them

Allow Rumsfeld to resign, then take a very long, refreshing nap.

[NecronLord]

Oookay.

As I'm not all that familiar with the mechanics of the presidency. What're the limits on Executive Orders, and who can I have arrested for knowing complicity in violations of the Eigth Amendment, and Treason (deciet of the US public and general lies for the express purpouse of warmongering)? I presume Article II Section 3, giving me power to create excecutive orders, to "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" can give me the power to put everyone whom I suspect of violating the spirit of the constitution and thier offices under indefinate abeyance?

Basically, can I get everyone from Bush to Cheny to Rumsfeld to the DCI and so on, dragged out and thrown in solitary until the Legislature decides what to do with them?

[The Yosemite Bear]

that makes teh saturday night massacare seem tame and benevelent in comparrison. you really are a necron

[tim31]

Actual accountability shouldn't be focused on currying public favor with low taxes...

That's not what I'm asking for. I just want them to be honest about what they're spending it on. I want them to be aware that it's not fucking play money, it's a govermental treasury.

[NecronLord]

That would actually be a little far fetched. Because when Bush wakes up in his cell, and starts behaving as he did the day before, they're probably going to assume it was a fit of madness. But I'm interested in whether or not it could be done legally.

Other, even more entertaining and showy options I've come up with include sending the army into CIA prisons and Gitmo, with orders to bring everyone - and that includes the guards and officers - there back for trial.

[brianeyci]

Actual accountability shouldn't be focused on currying public favor with low taxes...

That's not what I'm asking for. I just want them to be honest about what they're spending it on. I want them to be aware that it's not fucking play money, it's a govermental treasury.

Then you can do something like make it illegal to go into deficit. In fact that can be a campaign issue. "X is mortgaging our children's future. Each of you owe Y money and our children and our children's children will be paying for it. We will not go into deficit and we will maintain fiscal accountability." And so on. Staying in the black is a major campaign issue in Canada every election, I don't see why parties don't make a big deal of it in the US (or if you're in Tasmania, Tasmania).

If you sent everybody an item by item report of how much money is being spent for this or that, obviously people will point at this line and say, "I pay taxes for that, I don't want to pay for that" and parties will gravitate towards having the least number of lines and spending the least amount of money as possible on minority groups worth the least number of votes. People who want this information can get it already, people who are too lazy to get it shouldn't get it shoved down their throats because likely they aren't informed enough or pay attention to the details enough to know whether it's worth it. It would be spam mail to some people.

[NecronLord]

Actually, a good way might be to read one of his normal speeches, add some spectacular bushims, and then take questions. And as soon as someone mentions the house in one, shout 'I am the Congress!' in reply, and smash the autocue in an apparent fit of rage.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

...snip 'subtlety' ideas...

The only problem I see with that is that, basically, he *already* does this. The now several-year-old incident where he joked about the whole Iraq war ("Those WMD's have to be out there somewhere, right?") springs immediately to mind.

I think the subtle approach won't work because everyone who'd see what it really means already knows about it, and hates him for it. And the ones who still support him, I don't believe they have the intelligence to catch the subtlety, so no real positive effect is gained there.

The blatant approach, likewise, probably wouldn't work. The GOP/Faux spin-machine would be going full tilt to cover that unfortunate 24 hours up, and the 33% that still support him would believe *anything* they were told, thus, again, no real effect is made.

Myself, I wouldn't call any press conferences, or even make any public appearance. I'd spend the entire day going through GW's memories, and then mailing out hard evidence of every scandal, every broken law, etc., to as many news agencies, law enforcement agencies, foreign governments, etc. as possible. I'd finish the day by withdrawing several million in cash and having it Fed-ex'd to my real body, because I could really use the money right now.

The best part of this is that there's no publicized, immediate sign of GW's 24 hour 'loss of reason'. The mail wouldn't be acted upon for at least a day or two, so it would be that much harder for the spin-machine to blame it all on one single cause and try to shove it out of the way.

[Gil Hamilton]

Wouldn't alot of this stuff mentioned in this thread take longer than 24 hours to execute and/or get shut down by the Presidential Handlers? A President might be able to call a Press Conference in under a 24 hour period, but there is nothing to say that his handlers would let You-As-Him do anything publically stupid or that there was enough time to do anything important.

Maybe if you had a week, then you'd have something.

[NecronLord]

I'd assume you can get on the podium and rant - what're they going to do, drag you down? It'd be even more damaging to the regime if they have to haul you down and drag you out... If you're dragged away screaming and kicking and shouting 'you're fired you commie!'

[Uraniun235]

Then you can do something like make it illegal to go into deficit. In fact that can be a campaign issue. "X is mortgaging our children's future. Each of you owe Y money and our children and our children's children will be paying for it. We will not go into deficit and we will maintain fiscal accountability." And so on. Staying in the black is a major campaign issue in Canada every election, I don't see why parties don't make a big deal of it in the US (or if you're in Tasmania, Tasmania).

If you sent everybody an item by item report of how much money is being spent for this or that, obviously people will point at this line and say, "I pay taxes for that, I don't want to pay for that" and parties will gravitate towards having the least number of lines and spending the least amount of money as possible on minority groups worth the least number of votes. People who want this information can get it already, people who are too lazy to get it shouldn't get it shoved down their throats because likely they aren't informed enough or pay attention to the details enough to know whether it's worth it. It would be spam mail to some people.

Deficit spending does not curry ire in most Americans for two reasons:

1) Deficit spending usually trickles down to their state in some way (incumbent congressmen often tout the federal money they have brought to their district).

2) People do not percieve the negative impact of deficit spending on them or their loved ones, so therefore they do not care about it.

Besides which, deficit spending is not inherently evil. Taking out loans and mortgages is basically fiscal spending on a private/personal level, and there are times when it is appropriate to do so. Unfortunately, Congress has a horrible notion of responsible spending; funding allocation is done pretty much independently of how much they expect tax revenues to be.

[brianeyci]

I suppose you do not have any kind of equalization payments for have-not states. In Canada the have provinces have to give to the have nots to ensure equal standard of service across the country. Ontario Premiers don't brag about how much money they get from the Federal Government because they always get jackshit. We have to pay for PEI's MRI's. Only Ontario and Alberta are haves last time I checked. The other provinces get money through a mathematical formula (funny that).

Deficit spending is usually framed "we will not make our children and our children's children pay for our mistakes" and it works. Or even simpler. "We will not mortgage our children's future." Talking points like that usually work.

Don't worry you're safe. When the US is a facist dictatorship and your money's worthless I'll mail you one of my contact lenses so you can sneak across the border. You'll have to fight your way to the airport though but with all the guns around you shouldn't have any problems.

[GuppyShark]

Announce that the next presidential elections will be outsourced to the Australian Electoral Commission (with Howard's permission). Civil Service unions will complain but when do they not?

To the liberal media: "Now, more than ever, it's vital that the election results in our country be completely free of doubt. Democracy is what unites America, we should not accept anything but the best democracy in the world. This is why the current state-by-state system will be replaced with a unified, tested voting system that doesn't involve complicated machinery but instead clear, obvious practice. It may take a little longer to tally the votes, but at least we'll know they're accurate."

To the conservative media: "Our current electoral system is fraught with inconsistencies and loopholes. When people don't even have to show proof of ID, how can we be sure only tax-paying American citizens are voting? This is why the current state-by-state system will be replaced with a unified, tested voting system that doesn't involve complicated machinery but instead clear, obvious practice. It may take a little longer to tally the votes, but at least we'll know they're accurate."

[Enigma]

I'd start tranferring all of his money in to my bank account and hold a press conference and then strip myself naked and say that I fuck Taiwanese she-males.

[Uraniun235]

I suppose you do not have any kind of equalization payments for have-not states. In Canada the have provinces have to give to the have nots to ensure equal standard of service across the country. Ontario Premiers don't brag about how much money they get from the Federal Government because they always get jackshit. We have to pay for PEI's MRI's. Only Ontario and Alberta are haves last time I checked. The other provinces get money through a mathematical formula (funny that).

No, there's nothing like that that I know of; I'm pretty sure the federal government taxes the citizens directly, regardless of whether the state has a higher or lower GDP than it's neighbor.

The lack of a balancing mechanism is partially because such programs were never the original intent of the US federal government; the federal government was originally envisioned as a much more narrowly-defined body, with the individual states being far more autonomous. As such, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that "services" are spread equally among the states because such services were not even around when the government was created.

Deficit spending is usually framed "we will not make our children and our children's children pay for our mistakes" and it works. Or even simpler. "We will not mortgage our children's future." Talking points like that usually work.

Senator Liberal McProgressive votes no on an appropriations bill that includes funding for a billion dollars worth of pork-barrel projects... oh, and the money that goes towards feeding the troops. The honorable senator is smeared in the next election campaign with ads like "Senator McProgressive voted no on feeding our troops!"

As for outright banning deficit spending, that'd be a constitutional amendment (because if it was just any old law, then Congress could just turn around and repeal the law when they felt like it) which would require 2/3rds majority in both houses of Congress to even be put up for ratification, and how likely do you think that is?

Okay, technically, there's another way where the states call some goofy "constitutional convention", but that's a huge can of worms that scares the piss out of me.

Announce that the next presidential elections will be outsourced to the Australian Electoral Commission (with Howard's permission).

Hey, leave my state's vote-by-mail system alone.

[Yogi]

The problem with most of the things you can do, is that they can be fixed by Bush once he regains control of his body. However, what can't be fixed is a bullet to the skull. Or a hammer.

I'll try to get as many as I can. They probably wouldn't kill the President, but it'll take a while for him to talk himself out of the funny farm.

[brianeyci]

I suppose you do not have any kind of equalization payments for have-not states. In Canada the have provinces have to give to the have nots to ensure equal standard of service across the country. Ontario Premiers don't brag about how much money they get from the Federal Government because they always get jackshit. We have to pay for PEI's MRI's. Only Ontario and Alberta are haves last time I checked. The other provinces get money through a mathematical formula (funny that).

No, there's nothing like that that I know of; I'm pretty sure the federal government taxes the citizens directly, regardless of whether the state has a higher or lower GDP than it's neighbor.

The lack of a balancing mechanism is partially because such programs were never the original intent of the US federal government; the federal government was originally envisioned as a much more narrowly-defined body, with the individual states being far more autonomous. As such, there is no mechanism in place to ensure that "services" are spread equally among the states because such services were not even around when the government was created.

The Feds here tax no matter what, but some of the money is distributed back to the provinces. Yes it's redundant but it's the way it goes. Usually we end up with a slurpus, and depending on the time in the year the money can or cannot be used. Usually it's too late by the time they find out exactly how much the slurpus is and the money automatically goes to pay down the debt by law.

We finally got rid of the Brits in 1982 so I can understand the disparity in standard of service. But I don't agree on it. It's funny that Americans are supposed to be so nationalist but their system of government promotes gridlock and state autonomy. Besides, all it would take is Supreme Court rulings and semantic whoring. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Why surely that means people have to be healthy, and surely that means everybody has to be healthy. Our Constitution is supposed to be a "living document," it's so fucking strange that Americans treat it as set in stone. Living document is referred to whenever our SC has to make rulings on problems not predicted like gay marriage.

EDIT : Don't feel too bad about debt. It's only until recently that Canada started this "don't mortgage our children's future" bandwagon, and it was largely the work of one man.



But it's been going 8 years solid now so I hope it keeps going forever.

Senator Liberal McProgressive votes no on an appropriations bill that includes funding for a billion dollars worth of pork-barrel projects... oh, and the money that goes towards feeding the troops. The honorable senator is smeared in the next election campaign with ads like "Senator McProgressive voted no on feeding our troops!"

Ah, fucking riders, those should be illegal.

As for outright banning deficit spending, that'd be a constitutional amendment (because if it was just any old law, then Congress could just turn around and repeal the law when they felt like it) which would require 2/3rds majority in both houses of Congress to even be put up for ratification, and how likely do you think that is?

Okay, technically, there's another way where the states call some goofy "constitutional convention", but that's a huge can of worms that scares the piss out of me.

What you need is a hero, a real hero who can get a 2/3rds majority... what was it RI said a long time ago, a guy who saved the world from aliens twice, had three superbowl rings and won best actor or something like that.

[Morilore]

Anyone whose plans involve both ruining Bush and mailing yourself money, did you think about what might happen when someone follows that money trail and realizes that the President sent some dumbshit citizen millions of dollars the day he destroyed himself?

The problem with most of the things you can do, is that they can be fixed by Bush once he regains control of his body. However, what can't be fixed is a bullet to the skull. Or a hammer.

There's one thing he can't fix, at least not very well, and that's information release. Which is why I'd probably go the mail-the-paper-trail-for-everything-Bush-doesn't-want-accountability-for route, and add insulting comments about what documents x,y,z really mean in case the spineless media fails to connect the dots. I'd also try not to put my name on the letters. When the word gets out, one way or another the Administration would go apoplexic over "treasonous leaking of national security matters," but if they have George W. Bush's name on them it's much easier to call it a forgery, since all Bush has to do is vigorously deny that he sent them. If no one knows where they come from, Bush and co. would probably get more desparate.

[Uraniun235]

It's funny that Americans are supposed to be so nationalist but their system of government promotes gridlock and state autonomy.

It's largely a result of the disconnect between the intentions of the original authors of the Constitution and other prominent individuals of the late 18th century. The delegates from the different states wanted to make sure that they wouldn't be needlessly surrendering power to the federal government. At the same time, there were people calling for America to define itself apart from Britain and Europe, to create for itself a definite national image. The sentiment of nationalism was blatantly encouraged while federalist/anti-federalist debates and issues were still being slugged out by the politicians. Arguably, a big part of being an American is being a huge nationalist.

As for state autonomy, given the way the feds have treated my state lately, as well as the general fuckery of pissing away hundreds of billions of dollars on stupid military adventures and what-not, I'm all for more state autonomy and less federal government. Also, there are people who feel downright sentimental about Congressional gridlock.

Besides, all it would take is Supreme Court rulings and semantic whoring. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Why surely that means people have to be healthy, and surely that means everybody has to be healthy. Our Constitution is supposed to be a "living document," it's so fucking strange that Americans treat it as set in stone. Living document is referred to whenever our SC has to make rulings on problems not predicted like gay marriage.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes from the Declaration of Independence, which isn't a legal document; it's basically just a big "hey this is why we're separating from Britain".

The Constitution most certainly is a living document, given the contortions that are made to justify all manner of federal powers solely from the "shall have power to regulate interstate commerce" line. It's gotten so bad in that respect that we're about at the point where Congress can just about make any law it likes because anything anyone does could arguably have an impact on interstate commerce.

But let's consider the reluctance of the people to amend the constitution. I, for one, am very nervous about people treating constitutional amendment lightly. Because, Brian, what do you think would happen if people were more amenable to amending the constitution? What do you think would be the hot-button topic that people would want the federal government to have more power to do?

Ban deficit spending? Or ban abortion?
Ban hate speech? Or ban pornography?
Establish universal health care? Or tie the Social Security pension to the stock market?

Does preferring that the feds do as little as possible because I'm afraid they'll fuck things up even worse, rather than make them better, mean that America is broken? If so, then yeah, I'll say America's broken.

Anyone whose plans involve both ruining Bush and mailing yourself money, did you think about what might happen when someone follows that money trail and realizes that the President sent some dumbshit citizen millions of dollars the day he destroyed himself?

Fortunately, this isn't Star Trek, and nobody would believe the preposterous notion that someone used mind-control on the President.