What job experience would you like to see in a Presidential candidate?

[Amarok]

Throwing religious connotations onto something non religious is bullshit and Missionary work isn't about compassion it's about spreading religious absurdity in the guise of compassion and has lead to all kinds of awful bullshit .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

No sama, I specifically am not pimping for any religious beliefs. I did not state any religious beliefs in my wanted qualification, and clarified my use of missionary to mean any type of missionary work.

LOL

[Pat Mustard]

Somebody with a lifetime record of public service, and no ties to major corporations or rich people.

The first so that I know they'll work for the phblic good, the second so I know they're not corrupt.

I know way more poor people who are corrupt as fuck than I do rich ones.....

If you're working in public life and you've got ties to msjor corporations or rich people (as in, they've given you money or equivalent or jobs or the promise of future jobs) then you're corrupted before you begin anything.

And poor people are rarely more corrupt than rich people, because they have neither the money or power to corrupt others or sell.

---

I think a someone with a top secret military clearance, who;s worked in areas of finance and technology, done a stint as a drill instructor and a coach for an organized school sport. A personal history of philanthropy, missionary work, or voluntary community service would help. Mainly I agree with a lot of the points made: someone who can think for themselves, understands dealing with difficult people, understands self-sacrifice, can pick a tem that rounds out his faults, shows community buy in and compassion, has a tested character background, integrity and general honesty.

If I saw a candidate that ran a smear campaign on himself to admit his faults, but not on the other candidates, then debates well on important policies and explained how we could overcome his own faults, and then dismantles the opponents arguments logically and honestly I think I'd actually check myself into a hospital for fear of delusions. I don't think I could accept that there is integrity in politics, it's almost axiomatically negative at that scale/scope, IMO.

Bolded should be an automatic disqalifier (unless they've only ever worked at a low level). Given what finance is and does, no way should anybody in that area be even trusted (most of them should've been in the oubliette after 2008).

[Amarok]

I know way more poor people who are corrupt as fuck than I do rich ones

So what ?

---

Frankly I reject the concept of a universal leader . I think a leaders qualities should fit the state of the era their in power .

[tackattack]

@Nomad I meant someone who can show they’re able to balance a budget and generate wealth. I wouldcaveat that with calls for transparency, honesty and not taking advantage of others solely for personal gain.

[The Grand Nudger]

IDK that budgeting and "wealth creation" are actually relevant to good governance. Look at where that's got us so far. Good governance seems to be an issue of creating circumstance..not wealth, and letting better qualified people figure out how to pay for whatever that entails.

The wealth and balanced budget sets have given us massive debt and poverty while simultaneously failing to create advantageous circumstance. It's almost as if they have no fucking clue how to do this.......

[Pat Mustard]

@Nomad I meant someone who can show they’re able to balance a budget and generate wealth. I wouldcaveat that with calls for transparency, honesty and not taking advantage of others solely for personal gain.

Balanced budgets are the last thing a country needs. In good times the money coming in will be more than going out, in bad times governments should use deficit spending to mind the poorest and stimulate growth.

At all times debt should be used to fund infrastructure projects. But debt is rarely a problem for governments if return on investment is greater than one to one. For projects governments should involve themselces in, eg education, health, infrastructure, public transport, environment management roi is always better than one to one, often returning more than €10 for each one spent long term.

The biggest problem with modern macroeconomis is that it assumes state debt is like household debt, and therefore has a low ceiling of utility. It doesn't, and even less so when the state prints its own specie and that is generally trusted.

---

IDK that budgeting and "wealth creation" are actually relevant to good governance. Look at where that's got us so far.  Good governance seems to be an issue of creating circumstance..not wealth, and letting better qualified people figure out how to pay for whatever that entails.  

The wealth and balanced budget sets have given us massive debt and poverty while simultaneously failing to create advantageous circumstance.  It's almost as if they have no fucking clue how to do this.......

Balanced budget laws have one goal, to cut state spending so that there are only two options for necessary projects, either go without or get in private companies. In the las 100 years there has not been one public good or service delivered by privite companies which wasn't far worse and far more costly than the state doing the same job (and I include stuff like electricity &heating in this). Letting the job go undone is a worse outcome yet.

[The Grand Nudger]

Step one. Balloon the deficit.
Step two. Tax breaks for billionaires..check under your seats!
Step three.  Find that we're surprisingly low on money for no discernible reason?
Step four.  Push granny off a cliff (bonus points if you can blame it on the other guy).
Step five.  Profit.

[Yonadav]

@Nomad I meant someone who can show they’re able to balance a budget and generate wealth. I wouldcaveat that with calls for transparency, honesty and not taking advantage of others solely for personal gain.

Balanced budgets are the last thing a country needs.  In good times the money coming in will be more than going out, in bad times governments should use deficit spending to mind the poorest and stimulate growth.

At all times debt should be used to fund infrastructure projects.  But debt is rarely a problem for governments if return on investment is greater than one to one.  For projects governments should involve themselces in, eg education, health, infrastructure, public transport, environment management roi is always better than one to one, often returning more than €10 for each one spent long term.

The biggest problem with modern macroeconomis is that it assumes state debt is like household debt, and therefore has a low ceiling of utility.  It doesn't, and even less so when the state prints its own specie and that is generally trusted.

---

IDK that budgeting and "wealth creation" are actually relevant to good governance. Look at where that's got us so far.  Good governance seems to be an issue of creating circumstance..not wealth, and letting better qualified people figure out how to pay for whatever that entails.  

The wealth and balanced budget sets have given us massive debt and poverty while simultaneously failing to create advantageous circumstance.  It's almost as if they have no fucking clue how to do this.......

Balanced budget laws have one goal, to cut state spending so that there are only two options for necessary projects, either go without or get in private companies.  In the las 100 years there has not been one public good or service delivered by privite companies which wasn't far worse and far more costly than the state doing the same job (and I include stuff like electricity &heating in this).  Letting the job go undone is a worse outcome yet.

Your post reads like you were scanning an article about Modern Monetary Theory while smoking pot. I loved that bit about the 'biggest problem with modern macroeconomics is that it assumes that state debt is like household debt'. No, that's not the biggest problem. It's just a common misconception. If there is a 'biggest problem' with our current theory of economics, it is probably its dependence on continuous growth. One of the biggest problems with massive state debt is that during periods of low growth, the massive debt becomes the primary source of income for the very wealthy. So in a period of slow growth with high state debt, workers must be taxed heavily to pay interest on the debt to the wealthy. You end up with something like the French Second Estate or the British Aristocracy. So growth is the only thing standing between us and feudalism. 

I am not saying that deficit spending is bad. I'm just saying that it is pretty silly to have such a casual attitude toward it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ever read Doughnut Economics, by chance?