How to fix this mess we're now in

[Pericles]

Originally Posted by ECUPirate09

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.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Pericles

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]

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

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by (1VB)compforce

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]

Originally Posted by Dusty

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]

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]

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]

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!

[Sigaba]

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

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

[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.

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

People will vote with their feet (provided they are allowed to leave a given State).

My $0.02.

[GratefulCitizen]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

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]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

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]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

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.