View Full Version : How to fix this mess we're now in
craigepo
11-08-2012, 18:11
This president is bound and determined to spend us into oblivion. Too many of our elected federal politicians assist, by using taxpayer dollars to buy the people "stuff", indirectly buying votes. This is pain-free for both the payor and the payee---the only people losing are the hard-working taxpayers of this country.
When this country came into being, it necessarily ran large debts, due to fighting revolutionary wars, or buying huge chunks of land (the Louisiana Purchase). Fast-forward to today, we borrow money from China to purchase GM Stocks to bail the auto company out, then Obama gives that stock to union members in the rust belt, who then vote unanimously for Obama.
If our Constitution is inadequate as to any issue, it is to debt and deficit-spending. Countries in Europe (amazingly) have recently added to their Constitutions "debt brakes", which constitutionally forbid spending above a certain level of GDP. 49 of the 50 States of the United States have balanced-budget provisions (though a few states like Illinois and California refuse to follow theirs).
This election proves to me that we are not going to wind up with prudent politicians any time soon. Moreover, our voting populace is not going to become either smarter or more self-sacrificing quick enough to save this nation.
I agree with some that the GOP must find a way to bring in hispanic and women voters. However, in my humble opinion, the ONLY way out of our morass, and to ensure the existence of this great nation into the future, is to enact a Balanced Budget Amendment to the United States Constitution, or in the alternative, one of the debt-brakes like Germany.
A real bummer---the honest hard-working people of this nation are going to feel the hurt now, and they are going to feel the hurt later when it comes time to pay the piper. This guy just got reelected by a whole bunch of people with little-to-no skin in the game.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/266903-rep-king-promises-to-push-balanced-budget-amendment-next-year
The House's job now is to block everything they can until there is a budget for this country.
IL is a lost cause, we are basically bankrupt and the people voted out 7 republicans for 7 democrats to include Derrick Smith.
One of those Democratic wins in the statehouse was state Rep. Derrick Smith (D-Chicago), who won reelection in the state's heavily Democratic 10th legislative district despite being arrested on a felony bribery charge and subsequently expelled from the statehouse in a historic vote by his peers earlier this year. Unless Smith is convicted, he cannot be re-expelled for the same reason as the previous expulsion, per state law.
I am seriously considering relocation...however I don't think it's prudent to quit my job right now.
Roguish Lawyer
11-08-2012, 19:13
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
The Reaper
11-08-2012, 19:27
Can you dig it?
TR
“The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’
‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
ECUPirate09
11-08-2012, 19:46
So what would be some possible solutions to stop the bleeding? Stricter voting laws (own property, have a job, etc)?
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
Not that I wish to argue with a lawyer but you do know Tocqueville didn't say that?
However in 1951, Elmer T. Peterson wrote in The Daily Oklahoman, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
Regardless of who said it, it is still true!
Roguish Lawyer
11-08-2012, 19:51
Not that I wish to argue with a lawyer but you do know Tocqueville didn't say that?
However in 1951, Elmer T. Peterson wrote in The Daily Oklahoman, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."
Regardless of who said it, it is still true!
I have not read the book since college and, while I have it at home, I took the quote from a website not the book. So if you tell me he didn't say it, I believe you. :boohoo
I have not read the book since college and, while I have it at home, I took the quote from a website not the book. So if you tell me he didn't say it, I believe you. :boohoo
For those interested Alexis Tocqueville’s Democracy in America Vol I & II, it is free at Amazon for the Kindle edition.
I am making my kid read it for her English class (we home school, so I get to pick some of the reading assingments), she hate me!!!
Roguish Lawyer
11-08-2012, 20:26
I am making my kid read it for her English class (we home school, so I get to pick some of the reading assingments), she hate me!!!
You are a great American!
So to the original question of this thread...and yes I totally expect getting blasted on all sides with this!
Listen, first I am the probably the least educated among us and don’t really have the ability to express myself very well in written form but I do feel it is necessary to point out a few things that conservative and those RINO types may over look at times.
A political party that cannot defeat an incumbent president that spent 6 trillion dollars to get us to 8% unemployment, no budget passed in 3 years and many, many other out right failures AINT much of a political party. I do agree the Repubs had to fight the mainstream media but that just tells me their message just lacked a “fundamental truth” that could transcend even the most slanted of media outlets.
I feel that this time we must look to the Constitution as our guiding principle and see how to move forward. The Preamble to the Constitution states:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Why is that important? Many will in our line of work understand the “provide for the common defense” part but many Big R types will skip over the “promote the general Welfare” line. Now maybe the definition of welfare is the key but the book definition is
1) The health, happiness, and fortunes of a person or group.
2) Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need.
Now was that the definition in use back in the 1700’s? I don’t know but it seems to me the RINO/ultra conservative crowd is overlooking direct guidance in Constitution, Article 1 Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United State.
So wait, the founders wished to serve “the common defense” AND the “general welfare.” I mean those phrases appear both in the Constitution’s Preamble and in Article I, Section 8. To a non-Party guy like me, it seems the big R-party latched onto the defense part and the big Ds ensure our government “promotes the general Welfare”.
Until a political party actually embraces both of those parts in a way that focus on individual responsibilities AND liberties then the R’s and D’s will continue to patronize those that will continue the two-party deadlock!
As much as I was bummed out by the results of the election, I am not convinced that the other guy/party would do that much different “to form a more perfect Union” and “secure the blessings of liberty”. I am sure the time has come “for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another” and start with a new focus and resolve!
But what the hell do I know????
Radar Rider
11-08-2012, 21:06
I'm normally a "glass half-full" guy, but 2012 indicates to me the end. Empires rise and fall.
I look at the Roman Empire, France, Spain, Italy, England. All at one time were great and powerful. Hell, even Denmark and the Netherlands were powerful.
I once belived that the USA would change the historical paradigm. Ronald Reagan stated that "freedom and democracy will leave Marxism and Leninism on the ash heap of history." The Soviet Union fell, only to be succeeded by Putinism.
It happens. I'd prefer that the USA be the world's preeminent power, but I can't help but observe what appears to be inevitable. One man is helping to make it happen.
I believe that there is rapidly coming a time where one of our currently united (by contract) states (countries) will abolish it's ties with the rest of the states. I like to think of it as a divorce proceeding. The causes of this will be obvious to anyone with half a brain. Why in the hell would anyone ever pay their wife's lover's rent? Why would any wife pay for her husband's mistress' vacation? Once a state (or commonwealth) figures out that paying for welfare in Chicago or healthcare in L.A. is not in it's own self interest, that will be time to act. When Illinois, California, and New York all go broke, and they will sooner now rather than later, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, etc etc, are just simply going to not be a part of the union as it currently exists. When that finally happens, what will the federal clowns do? Will they order the US Army to enforce martial law? Will they send the FBI, ATF, etc to enforce some kind of tax policy? Well, that will be the crux, and will, I sincerely hope, lead to another Constitutional Congress to be formed, and we will re-wright the document, hopefully with more "user friendly" language that will course correct where the perversion-ist ideology of "democracy" / "fairness" / etc and return us to a Constitutional Republic. We are still here, and this problem will necessarily get worse before it will be fixed.
Just my .02
Back to playing my fiddle..................
Bubba,
I am kinda hoping Texas will go first!
I fear much of the damage has been done. One of the pundits on election night said something to the effect that, once these policies are in place, it is difficult, or impossible to reverse them.
The term being thrown around seems to be, "You can't beat Santa." Scary, but true. Once people have been given all of these freebies, taking them away would require sufficient shock to the system to make said freebies the lesser of two evils to give up out of necessity.
Once upon a time, I believe it may have been possible, however, too many folks in this country no longer care about America, or what we represent. Once they are finished taking their handouts, they will return to whence they came, or to wherever the next opportunity leads them. They have no stake or claim in this "melting pot" beyond what they can send back to their country of origin, feed their families with, or can claim freely without doing anything but understanding the system. This applies to every race, color, and creed here in America.
Our POTUS reflects our nation.
Once the office of the POTUS was an ideal, greater than the man who inherited the office. Once self-reliance, and sacrifice meant something. Once hard work, wealth and success were considered a barometer of achievement. Once being an American meant keeping your own identity, but also assimilating into the idea of the "American Dream," adding your own gifts into the mix along the way. As Reaper's quote noted, once these people held the majority, and held the other side in check.
Now our POTUS the MAN believes himself greater than the office. By all accounts he shows up late, or not at all. He attempts to impose his will regardless of Congress, the Consitution, or the Supreme Court. The man is nothing short of a modern day late-Roman Emperor, appeasing the mob with gifts of "food and sport." Oh, and "Obamaphones," lest I forget.
Reliance on government, expectations of handouts, and youth who seem to believe they are entitled to everything in life, simply because they were born is the norm. "Hard work" means waking up at 1030 and getting Starbucks.
Believing voters should be educated is "racist." Choosing a person to fulfill a quota over the best candidate for the job is "equal opportunity."
Over 93% and 71% respectively(last time I saw the numbers) of two minority ethnic groups voted one way. Can somebody please tell me the last time 93% of people could agree on anything substantial? Yet the MSM would have us believe that vote count has nothing to do with skin color, or policy, Obama was just the best man for the job. Then we have certain Republicans and pundits going with "we have to do more to improve our Latino vote." They seem to be fundamentally misreading the issue, much the way we are misreading the intentions of Islamic jihad.
Just like the credit card, 99% of people prefer more cash back. Simple advertising, gigantic ramifications. Beating Santa is hard.
That being said, those who are hard working, are going to continue to be. We will not give up on these ideals we hold so dear. We must, somehow, change the attitudes of our youth of all colors and creeds, teach them personal responsibility, and character. Hard work and success must be good things, goals to strive for. Then, and only then, will we have the possibility of digging ourselves out of this mess, cold hard reality must overtake perception.
I apologize for the rant. :boohoo
Radar Rider
11-08-2012, 21:30
Bubba,
I am kinda hoping Texas will go first!
Texas is a state with no state taxes. Can it absorb the refugees from the Blue states?
I like San Antonio.
For those interested Alexis Tocqueville’s Democracy in America Vol I & II, it is free at Amazon for the Kindle edition.
I am making my kid read it for her English class (we home school, so I get to pick some of the reading assingments), she hate me!!!
I think I'll have mine start too. That just mines I'll have to read them too.
The House of Representatives can always exercise their power to draft articles of impeachment like for, say, Benghazi.
Radar Rider
11-08-2012, 21:37
The House of Representatives can always exercise their power to draft articles of impeachment like for, say, Benghazi.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi laugh in derision at the very idea. Face it; we're fucked.
The House of Representatives can always exercise their power to draft articles of impeachment like for, say, Benghazi.
With today's day and time, a Sitting President will never be Impeached. As long as he is a Dem. MSM will back the DNC and what it wants in THEIR IO campaine. Sad, but I fell a true fact.
Texas is a state with no state taxes. Can it absorb the refugees from the Blue states?
I like San Antonio.
I would see many Texans happy to stop paying federal income tax and give it to the state of Texas…I believe Texas is still a Federal Tax payer and not a beneficiary of the Federal tax system.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/is-your-state-a-net-giver-or-taker-of-federal-taxes/
As for keeping people out of Texas, well we aren’t doing too good keeping out the Mexicans, not sure we will be able to do much better with the Okies!!
Ultimately I see a "blood-less" revolution of sorts. The scenario unfolds in my mind something along the lines of the "massively red states" in the south gets together threatens to leverage their control over economic sectors in their territory (such as petrol refining and control of the Mississippi Diver delta). This would enable them to "force" the feds to concede to their demands of returning to a Constitutional Republic. I am not as well read as I should be about the ending of the articles of confederation and the beginning of our current constitution, but if memory serves, the original purpose of the gathering was supposed to modify the current form of government but ultimately ended with them kicking the entire government to the curb and installing what we have today (well, what we are supposed to have today). A couple of hard lessons will need to be re-enforced through some pain in the "blood-less" portion of the revolution.............. Pain is the ultimate teaching tool.............. and the best way to develop character (in my opinion).........
I fear much of the damage has been done and was done many years ago. It didn't start with this current Administration too. The whole abortion "thing" and Roe v Wade Law will stay in place. Like someone posted, once these policies are in place they will be, difficult, or impossible to reverse them. Not that any party will be able to in the first place.
Ok lets have a State change it's laws. We have States passing their own laws that the Federal Goverment states are federal crimes pushiment under federal laws. But yet we have at least 15 to 20 states that have legalized "medical" Marijuana. Why, the main reason is for state income revenue. If I remember right three this election. Hell more than half of the states typically don't have some form of ID for the user.
I feel that if a Republican gets back in the seat of the POTUS or controls both House and Senate or best all Three. Which will be hard with the way the school and MSM and MTv are "teaching" "our" kids (American's Kids). Funny thing I have never really pushed my kids towards one of the parties, but my Daughter in a future Republican. At 11 years old she watched the first debate. Republicans better pass that for all federal elections a person MUST show a form of State issued ID to vote. This way people have THE TIME to get THEIR ID so they can vote. Unlike the Dems and MSM say it is to hard for poor people to get them. I could have had my Brother-n-Law vote for me while I was here in Afghanistan in NC. I think and feel this need to be changed. How about making a law that for a person to get the EBT cards they need to show proof, a ID, to obatin them. Wait, do they need that now?? Oh wait, that's but states agian.
Texas is a state with no state taxes.
Really? How about property taxes? My sister's house in Texas had 1/4 the value of our house in CA and they paid 3 times as much property tax. They have no state income tax.
Pat
Radar Rider
11-08-2012, 22:19
I do my taxes in early February every year. The numbers stagger me, but I just want to knock it out and pay my "fair share."
I'm out of share.
Radar Rider
11-08-2012, 22:21
Really? How about property taxes? My sister's house in Texas had 1/4 the value of our house in CA and they paid 3 times as much property tax. They have no state income tax.
Pat
That's my bad. I have a sister in Texas, too.
Really? How about property taxes? My sister's house in Texas had 1/4 the value of our house in CA and they paid 3 times as much property tax. They have no state income tax.
Pat
I have to ask my mother what her's is.
I have to ask my mother what her's is.
Remember, though, we had Prop. 13 which froze our taxes at the purchase price in 1985.
Pat
Once the office of the POTUS was an ideal, greater than the man who inherited the office. Once self-reliance, and sacrifice meant something. Once hard work, wealth and success were considered a barometer of achievement. Once being an American meant keeping your own identity, but also assimilating into the idea of the "American Dream," adding your own gifts into the mix along the way. As Reaper's quote noted, once these people held the majority, and held the other side in check.Exactly when did this interval occur in American history? (And where?)
Over 93% and 71% respectively(last time I saw the numbers) of two minority ethnic groups voted one way. Can somebody please tell me the last time 93% of people could agree on anything substantial? Yet the MSM would have us believe that vote count has nothing to do with skin color, or policy, [the president] was just the best man for the job. Then we have certain Republicans and pundits going with "we have to do more to improve our Latino vote." They seem to be fundamentally misreading the issue, much the way we are misreading the intentions of Islamic jihad.How much research on national elections have you done? Have you, for example, looked at presidential election results for 1900 in which 98.67% of voters agreed that they did not want a socialist or a populist to be POTUS? Or have you looked at the percentage of America voters who rejected the central tenets of the Free Soil Party and the Liberty Party in the late Antebellum period? (Or was that different because it was in the past and history only counts when you think it should?:rolleyes: In which case, how about the overwhelming rejection of the Green and Libertarian parties going back to 1988?)
Additional questions to make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. Is your issue that groups of Americans demonstrate political discipline at the polls or simply the fact that they happen to vote in ways which you disapprove? (That is, if blacks voted for GOP candidates like they once did, would you be bitching?)
And are you comparing Latinos to Jihadists?
That being said, those who are hard working, are going to continue to be. We will not give up on these ideals we hold so dear. We must, somehow, change the attitudes of our youth of all colors and creeds, teach them personal responsibility, and character. Hard work and success must be good things, goals to strive for. Then, and only then, will we have the possibility of digging ourselves out of this mess, cold hard reality must overtake perception.Is it your position that because certain minority groups have the nerve to vote in ways you disapprove that they're not hard working, that they don't have "character," that they don't believe in personal responsibility but they do believe in Santa Claus?
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi laugh in derision at the very idea. Face it; we're fucked.
Harry Reid only has something to say about the trial, not the impeachment. All the SotH needs is a majority to draft articles of impeachment. Nancy Pelosi wouldn't have anything to say about it.
GratefulCitizen
11-09-2012, 07:59
Ultimately I see a "blood-less" revolution of sorts. The scenario unfolds in my mind something along the lines of the "massively red states" in the south gets together threatens to leverage their control over economic sectors in their territory (such as petrol refining and control of the Mississippi Diver delta). This would enable them to "force" the feds to concede to their demands of returning to a Constitutional Republic. I am not as well read as I should be about the ending of the articles of confederation and the beginning of our current constitution, but if memory serves, the original purpose of the gathering was supposed to modify the current form of government but ultimately ended with them kicking the entire government to the curb and installing what we have today (well, what we are supposed to have today). A couple of hard lessons will need to be re-enforced through some pain in the "blood-less" portion of the revolution.............. Pain is the ultimate teaching tool.............. and the best way to develop character (in my opinion).........
The federal government is not the nation, nor is its authority absolute.
We have state governments, local governments, and the people.
The states gave the feds the finger on the Real ID act.
The feds yielded.
Some of us still live in Free America.
Arizona is ahead of the game.
Article 27, section 2 of the Arizona Constitution:
Health Insurance Freedom
A. To preserve the freedom of Arizonans to provide for their health care:
1. A law or rule shall not compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system. 2. A person or employer may pay directly for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for paying directly for lawful health care services. A health care provider may accept direct payment for lawful health care services and shall not be required to pay penalties or fines for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.
B. Subject to reasonable and necessary rules that do not substantially limit a person’s options, the purchas or sale of health insurance in private health care systems shall not be prohibited by law or rule.
C. This section does not:
1. Affect which health care services a health care provider or hospital is required to perform or provide. 2. Affect which health care services are permitted by law. 3. Prohibit care provided pursuant to Article XVII, Section 8 of this constitution or any statutes enacted by the legislature relating to worker’s compensation. 4. Affect laws or rules in effect as of January 1, 2009. 5. Affect the terms or conditions of any health care system to the extent that those terms and conditions do not have the effect of punishing a person or employer for paying directly for lawful health care services or a health care provider or hospital for accepting direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services.
D. For the purposes of this section:
1. “Compel” includes penalties or fines. 2. “Direct payment or pay directly” means payment for lawful health care services without a public or private third party, not including an employer, paying for any portion of the service. 3. “Health care system” means any public or private entity whose function or purpose is the management of, processing of, enrollment of individuals for or payment for, in full or in part, health care services or health care data or health care information for its participants. 4. “Lawful health care services” means any health-related service or treatment to the extent that the service or treatment is permitted or not prohibited by law or regulation that may be provided by persons or business otherwise permitted to offer such services. 5. “Penalties or fines” means any civil or criminal penalty or fine, tax, salary or wage withholding or surcharge or any named fee with a similar effect established by law or rule by a government established, created or controlled agency that is used to punish or discourage the exercise of rights protected under this section.
Pericles
11-09-2012, 14:53
So what would be some possible solutions to stop the bleeding? Stricter voting laws (own property, have a job, etc)?
In Starship Troopers, Heinlein posits a society in which only vets can vote. The concept being that those who have demonstrated the willingness to sacrifice themselves for society have the moral right to decide the future of the society by having the right to vote.
In Starship Troopers, Heinlein posits a society in which only vets can vote. The concept being that those who have demonstrated the willingness to sacrifice themselves for society have the moral right to decide the future of the society by having the right to vote.Yes, let's draw political guidance from a work of science fiction. (Never mind the fact that the GOP has hung its hat on the concept of equality before the rule of law and on returning to the best practices of the Early Republic. No worries. It is abundantly clear that no one reads works on American history any more. No one will notice that the founders, including some guy named George Washington, were especially concerned about the impact of professional soldiers on American political culture.)
Hell yes. I bet the GOP could get Jolene Blalock, Tricia Helfer, and Summer Glau--but probably not Jeri Ryan (what, too soon?*)--to put on their old costumes from their respective shows and make PSAs explaining the new laws.
_____________________________
* #TSBIYF
(1VB)compforce
11-09-2012, 18:10
In Starship Troopers, Heinlein posits a society in which only vets can vote.
That was the movie version. The only thing they got right was the quote "Service Means Citizenship". It could be any government service, not just military. That said, here are my keys to fixing the mess we are in:
Get rid of minimum wage. Let the free market sort itself out. This will eliminate the incentive for businesses to hire illegals and you'll be surprised at how many businesses would actually see wages go UP as they would be based on real value and the job market rather than having the mid-range earners take lower salaries to subsidize the difference between value and cost of that low wage employee.
Close the borders to new illegals and provide a path to citizenship for existing illegals. The path should be very stringently enforced and include at a minimum no felony or first degree misdemeanors while walking the path for 5-7 years. Income taxes reported and paid just as if the person were a citizen. Any infractions -instant deportation with only one appeal (max).
Get the federal government out of the private sector. Let the states and other businesses police their own community, they will do it aggressively and far better than the feds ever did.
Leave taxes alone (although I favor "fair tax" personally, it ain't gonna happen). Revenue can grow with the population, the key to fixing the deficit and debt issues are reduction in wasteful spending. There is so much waste fraud and abuse in the system that we could end up completely in the black within 5-10 years by simply eliminating a realistic portion of it.
Fix the welfare system to require a period of work to recharge the benefit. Clinton's law was a step in the right direction, but not nearly firm enough. Actually, I'm in favor of the Federal Government passing the entire requirement for means tested programs like welfare to the states. Let the state fund and implement social programs without federal guidelines or money.
Eliminate budget tricks from the National budget. This is a huge one. So many of the recent laws are evaluated on the principle of cost avoidance. Basically, they say "if we spend $100 now, we avoid this future cost of $200 and so we claim that the budget cuts $100" That's simply not true, they are using 100 real dollars to avoid 200 projected dollars and claiming the savings. Instead require any law that has spending provisions to be paid for 75% through real spending cuts or revenue increases and only a max of 25% can come from future cost avoidance. That would have killed Obamacare immediately, along with quite a few other social programs that are predicated on the thought that they are avoiding a projected cost.
edit: Oh yeah, and teach the CBO what a Laffer curve is
My .02
Eliminate budget tricks from the National budget. This is a huge one. So many of the recent laws are evaluated on the principle of cost avoidance. Basically, they say "if we spend $100 now, we avoid this future cost of $200 and so we claim that the budget cuts $100" That's simply not true, they are using 100 real dollars to avoid 200 projected dollars and claiming the savings.
My .02
That's a fiscal death knell.
(1VB)compforce
11-10-2012, 05:06
That's a fiscal death knell.
I'm taking your statement to mean that this would kill everything. Is that correct?
I may not have stated my position well. I'm not talking about completely eliminating cost avoidance as a factor, that would be ridiculous. I'm saying that they currently are completely funding bills through cost avoidance based on over-projection of those future costs. There needs to be real cost savings, measured against actual spend from previous years mixed with realistic projections for future costs. If you fund something completely based on guesses at the future costs you can "find" money everywhere that really never existed.
For example, If I did things the way congress does:
My roof has three loose shingles. I go out and get an estimate to replace the entire roof and am told that it will cost $2000. I don't negotiate or get other estimates, I just need a figure so I can save the money. I then run into a friend who says that he had the same exact issue and used a guy that patches roofs so I get an estimate on the patch of $100.
If I were Congress, I can say that if I replace those three loose shingles on the roof for $100, I can avoid paying for a new roof for $2000 saving $1900. Then I go buy a $1900 big screen TV using the money that I didn't spend on the roof.
There are several problems with doing things this way. First, if I shop around like I would in making a major purchase I may find someone that does a quality job for $1500 making the real cost avoidance $1400, not $1900. The other $500 in savings never really existed, but I still used it to buy the TV. Since I just took the one estimate at full value, my numbers are skewed from the beginning unless I got extremely lucky and got the best value on the first try.
Next, there is how I pay for it. If I already had all of the money to pay for the roof set aside in savings, that is fine. If I use guaranteed future income (such as part of my earnings) that I already had planned to use for the roof, that's fine too. A mix of the two is fine also. BUT, if I don't have either of those and FINANCE the TV through a loan or credit card because I didn't have to buy the roof, now I've borrowed money to pay for a TV based on cost avoidance even though I never had the actual money to pay for the roof. That's a budget trick. It's the primary way that Congress is paying for things and why our deficit and debt are out of control.
What I'm advocating is that cost avoidance be limited and require solid projections when evaluating how Congress pays for a spending bill. Maybe 75/25 isn't the right ratio, but we need to start somewhere. Forcing every bill to have real cost reduction, existing cash or actual revenue increase pay for the majority would automatically start us on a road to deficit reduction and better fiscal policies.
ZonieDiver
11-10-2012, 09:12
Social Security? Medicare? Medicaid? Defense?
Yes.
It cannot be done any other way.
Though I don't like everything in it, the Congressional Rs should immediately call for full passage and implementation of the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. It was Obama's baby, let HIM fight against it.
In the passage process, some of the recommendations can be modified or eliminated, but we have to start somewhere. Even if everything in it is fully implemented, we'll be better off than we are now, or will be in the coming years if we continue the path we are on.
(Notice: I didn't use "we" in this post.)
GratefulCitizen
11-10-2012, 18:10
Entitlement fixes are just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
It's too late.
Money (numbers in a ledger...) doesn't matter.
Supply and demand of actual services is what matters.
We have a large generation heading into old age which won't need stuff, they will need services provided by actual human beings.
Accounting tricks will not change the number of people needing services (demand) nor the number of people providing them (supply).
Retiree "A" and retiree "B" will bid against each other for the limited time of service provider "C", driving up prices.
Giving more money to retiree "A" and retiree "B" will not magically invent a service provider "D", it will just drive up prices.
If price controls or heavier taxes fall on service provider "C", there will be even less supply available to retirees "A" and "B".
You cannot repeal the law of supply and demand.
The ACA will make matters particularly bad when it comes to health care services.
A large older population will be without anyone to actually provide the "affordable" care to which they are "entitled".
Why aren't there sufficient people to care for the aging population?
They're dead -- killed in the womb -- 55 million of them (how many people voted for each candidate this election...).
While in Illinois, the POTUS voted to deny care to babies who survived abortions.
Helpless, they were left on the table to die.
If they'll do it to babies, what will be their attitude towards the "useless eaters" known as retirees?
Very soon, the helpless elderly will be left to die.
If Romney had been elected, he would have been inaugurated just before the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
The nation has chosen not to turn back from the current path.
The time of repentance has passed.
The time of judgement has arrived.
ZonieDiver
11-10-2012, 18:35
If Romney had been elected, he would have been inaugurated just before the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.
The nation has chosen not to turn back from the current path.
The time of repentance has passed.
The time of judgement has arrived.
Great! NOW you tell me.
I guess I just wasted all the $$ I spent on the 3 year extended warranty on my iPad!
MOO, if certain groups of Americans really want other groups of Americans to believe that they care about the lives of Americans, they need to do a better job of addressing the concerns of Americans who are actually alive rather than just propping aborted fetuses and the aged as objects in a doom-and-gloom "I told you so" narrative.
Otherwise, comments like the following[W]hat will be their attitude towards the "useless eaters" known as retirees?
Very soon, the helpless elderly will be left to die.
Stand in stark contrast to solutions like the following.
People will vote with their feet (provided they are allowed to leave a given State).
My $0.02.
GratefulCitizen
11-10-2012, 21:48
MOO, if certain groups of Americans really want other groups of Americans to believe that they care about the lives of Americans, they need to do a better job of addressing the concerns of Americans who are actually alive rather than just propping aborted fetuses and the aged as objects in a doom-and-gloom "I told you so" narrative.
This has been practiced all too often (sometimes with a sympathetic biting of the lower lip).
Have yet to see it yield useful results.
This is interesting.
Are they unable to address their own concerns?
However, if living, able-bodied Americans need their concerns addressed, I have this to offer:
COWBOY THE F*** UP AND DEAL WITH IT!
Whaddaya know. I do care.
How about that.
Dozer523
11-11-2012, 00:33
Why aren't there sufficient people to care for the aging population?
They're dead -- killed in the womb -- 55 million of them (how many people voted for each candidate this .
You get migraines, don't you? Pills don't help; doctors don't help, do they?
Stop thinkin like this and the headaches will stop. You'll be fine. Trust me.
Come on man. Read this silly-ass crap before you hit the post button. You might actually delete some of these odd ideas. If not, at least you can enjoy a good laugh. I do.
GratefulCitizen
11-12-2012, 08:01
You get migraines, don't you? Pills don't help; doctors don't help, do they?
Stop thinkin like this and the headaches will stop. You'll be fine. Trust me.
Come on man. Read this silly-ass crap before you hit the post button. You might actually delete some of these odd ideas. If not, at least you can enjoy a good laugh. I do.
The top half of my post was a explanation of actuarial realities.
The bottom half was opinion.
Concerning any upset about all this, why would I be upset?
Those of us born during the bottom of the demographic trough stand to benefit greatly from these actuarial realities.
The title of the thread is: "How to fix this mess we're now in".
The reality is: most people under the age of 50 aren't facing a mess.