Now that most of us have voted, hopefully you also did some decent research before voting – to determine which candidate was most qualified to lead our country in the future.
In doing so, perhaps you saw plenty of exaggerations, lies, misinformation, personal attacks, and lots of uncalled for hype. And maybe you even checked out my recommendation to try those online quizzes – to see how well your political beliefs match each candidate’s beliefs. Have the events since the inauguration, surprised you in any way regarding these beliefs?
Were you able to identify any red flags in your research?
Here are my red flag findings (for now, limited to the no-plan flag with the economic plan). Many red flags were found, even from both parties. It’s annoying to see both parties continually blame each other for previous issues. For now, I will ignore covering the minor parties as they did not factor in the election results.
Red Flags
- If no real plan exists, on how to achieve the aim, that’s a red flag.
The plan for the economy
Trump Party: - This party’s economic plan has always been a major concern. Mr. Trump mentioned using tariffs – mainly as a way to stem the flow of illegal drugs entering the U.S. He also said it would be used to prevent illegal immigration, to punish those with unfair trade practices.
- Key details, on how to carry out tariffs, appeared to be missing. He didn’t exactly say who, when, how much, or even how it would benefit us if the targeted countries would, in turn, do the same to us. He also did not say how the lower and middle classes would benefit from these tariffs in the long run, as it would increase prices. Finally, he did not say how using tariffs would improve our relationships with foreign countries. I recently learned the Constitution says that only Congress is granted the power to use tariffs. The president can only use it for a wartime emergency. This explains why Mr. Trump is calling this a “war on drugs” even though Canada has very few illegal drugs.
- Isn’t it wiser to think these complex situations before rushing to execute tariffs with 3 countries? (Remember: “change is inevitable – improvement is an option”.)
- Isn’t it wiser to think these complex situations before rushing to execute tariffs with 3 countries? (Remember: “change is inevitable – improvement is an option”.)
- Key details, on how to carry out tariffs, appeared to be missing. He didn’t exactly say who, when, how much, or even how it would benefit us if the targeted countries would, in turn, do the same to us. He also did not say how the lower and middle classes would benefit from these tariffs in the long run, as it would increase prices. Finally, he did not say how using tariffs would improve our relationships with foreign countries. I recently learned the Constitution says that only Congress is granted the power to use tariffs. The president can only use it for a wartime emergency. This explains why Mr. Trump is calling this a “war on drugs” even though Canada has very few illegal drugs.
- He also mentioned reducing bureaucratic waste as a key way to improve the economy. While this part could be considered a noble aim, the real question is this.
- How do you define waste and eliminate it wisely without corrupting the government? This process requires a lot of thinking about all the details needed to carry it out.
- Also, how would this effort differ from previous administrations’ efforts to find and remove waste?
- Trump’s party seemed to rely on Elon Musk’s idea that, far into the future, society will eventually accrue a high universal basic income, eliminating poverty. This seemed out of reach for most people now. The details on how to achieve this idea were also missing. (I might be the one to blame for not researching this enough to see how this might work. I can research this deeper, to find out why he thinks this way.)
Biden/Kamala Party: - This party’s economic plan seemed more practical, comprehensive, and transparent. Both democratic candidates offered similar economic plans – particularly relief for the lower and middle classes – by taxing the richest more. This always made sense to me.
- Today people earning more than $176,000/year get a social security payroll tax cap of 6.2%. So if someone makes 10x that amount ($1,760,000) then the tax rate they pay caps at only 0.62% – in other words, these two earners would end up paying the same amount. Doesn’t this seem bizarre and unfair? Why is there even a fixed cap? I’d argue we should always increase the percent rate for wealthy earners getting even richer. Any other way could cause the middle class to disappear, causing even more of a bimodal society to develop – a real threat to our society.
- Today people earning more than $176,000/year get a social security payroll tax cap of 6.2%. So if someone makes 10x that amount ($1,760,000) then the tax rate they pay caps at only 0.62% – in other words, these two earners would end up paying the same amount. Doesn’t this seem bizarre and unfair? Why is there even a fixed cap? I’d argue we should always increase the percent rate for wealthy earners getting even richer. Any other way could cause the middle class to disappear, causing even more of a bimodal society to develop – a real threat to our society.
- From Both Parties:
However, (from both parties) we’ve also seen numerous economic plans over the years where policy makers in Congress would adjust their stock market portfolios just before Congress enforces the approved policy changes. This is considered insider trading. Nancy Pelosi, during her congressional run, may have had such a conflict of interest. She had many portfolio investments that helped her make millions – far greater than her normal congressional salary.- According to Beacon website: “Pelosi has been dogged by allegations that her husband, Paul Pelosi, trades stocks on inside information gleaned from her position in Congress. In March, Paul Pelosi exercised options to buy up to $5 million worth of Tesla stock as the speaker pushed for electric vehicle subsidies, the Washington Free Beacon reported. And in June, Paul Pelosi exercised call options to buy up to $5 million in the graphics card manufacturer Nvidia just weeks before the House considered a bill to provide more than $50 billion in subsidies to domestic semiconductor manufacturers.”
Many other members of Congress commit similar transactions where they violate the STOCK Act while serving in government. I think we should NOT allow any congressional representative to harbor any such kind of conflict of interest with stock ownership while working for Congress.
- According to Beacon website: “Pelosi has been dogged by allegations that her husband, Paul Pelosi, trades stocks on inside information gleaned from her position in Congress. In March, Paul Pelosi exercised options to buy up to $5 million worth of Tesla stock as the speaker pushed for electric vehicle subsidies, the Washington Free Beacon reported. And in June, Paul Pelosi exercised call options to buy up to $5 million in the graphics card manufacturer Nvidia just weeks before the House considered a bill to provide more than $50 billion in subsidies to domestic semiconductor manufacturers.”
Other flags to be covered:
- If no real data is provided to explain how to achieve the aim, then that’s a red flag.
- While it’s true that there are too many issues for a candidate to cover effectively, the candidate can still have clear aims for just the critical ones and data that shows how these aims can be achieved.
- Also, by keeping the change process as simple as possible, we can formulate a testable theory regarding the desired change and measure its impact – we can learn from it.
- If implementation details explaining how each aim is to be tackled are considered vague, then that’s also a red flag.
- Like the tariffs theory – if we keep it too vague on how we do the tariffs, we may be hurting only the wrong people – significantly.
- Why punish merchants and traders who have nothing to do with the flow of illegal drugs when we’re just trying to curb the illegal drug flow issue?
- If illegal immigration is the issue, how would a tariff stop this flow? I am guessing here – the aim is to get the other country to add more troops to secure the border.
- Like the tariffs theory – if we keep it too vague on how we do the tariffs, we may be hurting only the wrong people – significantly.
- If implementation details appear too unrealistic, then that’s a red flag.
- If it’s unrealistic then it’s just a hope. Hopes without a clear method to achieve them will remain mere hopes.
- Is the candidate’s view on the aim inconsistent over time? If so, that’s a red flag (unless the candidate’s view continually evolves due to a new scientific theory with solid data backing up the new theory).
- People need to know where a candidate stands. No one wants to follow a flaky leader.
- If the candidate’s source of information is not revealed or simply unknown, then it’s a red flag.
- People these days seek more transparency. But these days, way too much information bombards users. This sea of information causes them to drown, where they no longer can effectively identify these sources.
Characteristics of a good candidate
A good candidate should be transparent – one who helps people understand the prevailing theory for each aim, before doing the aim. The candidate explains what outcome(s) should, in theory, be expected. He/she listens to what the data might be trying to tell us whenever an unexpected event occurs. He/she then tries to figure out the best response. Unfortunately, today we live in an impatient age where we become suspicious of men who try to think and admire machines that think. This is also the golden age of silent discrimination.
A good candidate should also have clear inspirational visions on how the country can consistently develop better foreign policy relationships that can contribute to building long-term harmony within the United Nations Assembly.
Call me a dreamer – my thoughts in closing
In summary, while I reviewed only the economic plan, already I see signs we’re being duped. Lacking plan details and rushing to implement them as quickly as possible (instead of “ready aim fire” it’s “FIRE FIRE FIRE”), the blind falsely leading the people.
To fix that long-term, a good leader also offers optimistic visions and hopes to make the pie bigger for humanity (the only true tribe that matters). The aims should be futuristic and cooperative – it should inspire ALL Americans from ALL walks of life to pursue a dream for a better way of life together. If it isn’t inspiring us all from all sides – it’s not good enough. I like the vision of Mars for the future. It’s a start and we should build on this – to inspire and invite the human race to join us in living beyond the crowded little pebble world of Earth.
Finally, these dreams should include promoting greater equality in the world. More equality promotes more teamwork, which should, in turn, lead to greater levels of harmony. Simply making the whole pie bigger for all of us – isn’t enough. If we each get a bigger slice of the pie but still with the same dividing fractions, then there could be even more inequality issues. Those with the widest slices would have even more pie matter than others, increasing the weight differences. So as the whole pie gets bigger (or smaller), what’s also needed is to ensure the pie slices evolve to be more alike.
