Susan's Place Logo

News:

According to Google Analytics 25,259,719 users made visits accounting for 140,758,117 Pageviews since December 2006

Main Menu

Obama wins a 2nd term! Hooray!

Started by Shawn Sunshine, November 06, 2012, 10:55:04 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shantel

Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 11:00:02 AM
The national debt is a problem. Currently we're spending close to $500 billion dollars a year to cover the interest on the debt, if inflation rears its ugly head that cost will skyrocket. I think $500 billion spent on debt instead of programs is a problem. When our kid's start paying it for us, it will be a travesty. This isn't fear mongering, it's reality.  As I said, I didn't like Bush either and he did cause part of this mess, I don't care how we got here. It's not being dealt with and it has to be.

Amen to that!
  •  

Heather

Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 12:20:51 PM
Well, I can come up with a few ways to save money off the top of my head. I know that some may seem harsh, but it's my opinion.

-If someone earns a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole, why not just give him/her the death penalty? It's not like the person is ever going back to society. Why not just make it so that he/she isn't a burden either?

Are they really costing that much money? What if you get convicted of a crime you did not commit? It does happen!
  •  

Shantel

Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 01:19:36 PM
7) Serious Tort reform. I've developed several medical malpractive programs for insurance companies. Many individual physicians pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in med mal insurance to protect themselves from lawsuits. We're paying for that. In addition, so much medicine is defensive medicine (doctors protecting themselves from possible lawsuit). Every producer of every product and service you buy pays for these similar costs and pass them onto you. We'd save a fortune, reduce the number of lawyers (no one can disagree with that!!?), and make everything we buy much cheaper.

Uh - sorry too much common sense involved in this approach, it will never fly past the idiots in Congress hon. Call me jaded but I think if a bottomless black hole opened up under DC we'd all be better off.
  •  

Shantel

Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 01:32:32 PM
Ya, unfortunately most of our elected leaders are lawyers!

I say scrap all ideas but one, this one .......... 1) create giant gaping hole under Washington DC and start over!     ;)

I posted this in another thread, this speech by Dr. Ben Carson is absolutely incredible, he discusses many of these ideas. The WSJ after watching this speech has called for him to run for POTUS. I'd vote for him.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/02/07/dr_benjamin_carson_addresses_national_prayer_breakfast_criticizes_obamacare.html

He's a definite keeper!
  •  

oZma

Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 11:00:02 AM
The national debt is a problem. Currently we're spending close to $500 billion dollars a year to cover the interest on the debt, if inflation rears its ugly head that cost will skyrocket. I think $500 billion spent on debt instead of programs is a problem. When our kid's start paying it for us, it will be a travesty...
personally.... I don't care who started it... it's a problem, stop pointing fingers


  •  

oZma

Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 12:20:51 PM
Well, I can come up with a few ways to save money off the top of my head. I know that some may seem harsh, but it's my opinion.

-If someone earns a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole, why not just give him/her the death penalty? It's not like the person is ever going back to society. Why not just make it so that he/she isn't a burden either?
-Let gays get married. We all know how expensive weddings can be, so if small businesses like caterers do well, then the govt can make more money.
-Switch to clean energy. The only reason its expensive now is because each individual has to provide solar panels for his/her home. If we switch to having clean power plants that distribute energy throughout communities, we would need far fewer solar panels/wind turbines, and it would be much less expensive since energy production methods were changed at the source.

Surprising how easy it is to save money. This is why we can't have split parties.  :-\

Oh, and thanks, ladies.  :)

I'll be OK with the capital punishment of these inmates as long as you pull the trigger :-).  I can't, as a human being, kill another unless in self defense... but its OK to outsource murder to someone else? no thanks... I'll never ask another person to do something I am unwilling to do myself

green energy doesn't exist... we waste so much oil on trying to make it mainstream but NOTHING is as efficient as oil... maybe someday, but right now, throwing money at companies like solyndra doesn't help - it's wasting capital that could be better spent somewhere else
  •  

Kevin Peña

Quote from: oZma on February 10, 2013, 03:51:39 PM
green energy doesn't exist... we waste so much oil on trying to make it mainstream but NOTHING is as efficient as oil... maybe someday, but right now, throwing money at companies like solyndra doesn't help - it's wasting capital that could be better spent somewhere else

Nothing is as efficient as oil? Combustion engines get an efficiency of 25%. Solar (~40%), nuclear (don't remember exact number), and hydroelectric (95%) are more efficient. Heck, even the human body has a 33% efficiency rate.

About taxation: If there are rich people who can afford to pay more taxes who are already paying 13% rates, i.e, less than the average Joe, why not ask them for a little more so the rest of the population can catch a break? It's simple logic. You don't ask someone to pay for something he/she can't afford. If your friend is a construction worker and wants 12 kids, you'd sure as heck tell him/her that doing so would be an awful idea.

I agree that finger-pointing is not going to solve problems, but you seem to be too anti-govt. Honestly, govt is necessary. The US govt needs fixing, but that doesn't mean that govt in and of itself is a bad idea.

I remember hearing someone say that if a neighborhood needed anything, people could get things done themselves. That's far from the truth. No group of individuals can afford what a country (govt) can.
  •  

oZma

LETS BALANCE THE BUDGET!

Central planners shriek that without big government, planes will crash, trains, parks, and Big Bird will disappear.  None of this is true.
Here are my (John Stossel's) cuts:

-Eliminate the Small Business Administration
-Repeal Davis-Bacon rules, under which the gov must pay fat union-set wages to workers on federal construction projects
-Eliminate foreign aid

I hear complaints already: All foreign aid? That would increase suffering! The small business administration? Some companies would never begin! Workers will suffer!  The arguments are specious, but people believe them, and the lobbyist against such cuts would be ferocious.  But they are absolutely necessary if we hope to have a future where the truly needs are helped.  So far I (John Stossel) have saved $37 billion. 

Uh-oh.  Cutting 37 billion barely touches the deficit.  We must cut more!

-Department of Education:  Kill it and we'd save $106.9 billion (CATO Institute's numbers at DownsizeGovernment.org).  We don't need a FEDERAL education department.  Spending 106.9 billion did nothing to improve learning.  Education is a state responsibility.
-Department of Housing and Urban Development: $60.8 billion more
-Who needs the Energy Department?  If wind or solar power is practical, private investors will rush to invest.  The joy of private investment is that if they waste billions on boondoggles like Solyndra, they waste their own money, not yours.  Private dollars, not the whims of political appointees, should determine energy investments.

Were up to $293.3 billion in cuts.  A good start, but our deficit, as i write this, is $1.4 trillion.  We must go further...

-Agriculture subsidies cost us $33 billion a year.  Get rid of them.  They raise food prices and distorts the economy.
-End the war on drugs.  It doesn't stop abuse and it turns out to be a subsidy for thugs.  $41 billion according to Jeffery Miron, Harvard Economist.
-Eliminate NASA, Fannie and Freddie, and the departments Commerce, Interior, and Labor (except 26 week unemployment)
-Privatize the Army Corps of Engineers, the TSA, USPS.  Lease the costal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  Eliminate federal flood insurance, the Corporation for National and Community Service, the FCC, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the National Endowment for the Humanities... but this still isn't enough...

To really attack the deficit we need to attack the "untouchable" parts.

-Social Security:  Catos's plan to raise the retirement age and index benefits to inflation would save $85.7 billion.  Heritage says cutting benefits for the richest retirees would save another $170 billion.  I'd (John Stossel) would like to save more by privatizing Social Security but my progressive friends would scream, so I'll leave it out.
-Medicare and Medicade: Did you know the Department of Health and Human Services runs four hundred different subsidy programs?  Lets use Cato's suggested cuts.  $44 billion.
-Defense: We currently spend $721 billion on defense.  That's about 1/5 of our budget.  We could cut $243 billion if we shrank the military to its mot important role: protecting us and our borders.  That's still twice of what China spends, the country with the next most expensive military.

That gives us $200 billion in SURPLUS!!  But we don't even need to cut that much.  We could grow our way out of debt if congress simply froze spending at today's levels.  That budget would balance by 2017.  If they limited it to 2% per year, they'd be balanced by 2020.  But they won't even do that?!


This was taken from John Stossel's (a libertarian on FOX business ~ don't hate ) book "No, They Can't.  Why Government Fails - But Individuals Succeed."  This book is one of the best I've ever read.  I challenge a statist/lefty/progressive/liberal to read this.  I really do because i DOUBT they will... most likely too afraid to realize their precious progressive ideas are bunk.

Direct all anti-Fox jargon to someone who cares. 
  •  

oZma

Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 06:15:34 PM
I am thoroughly impressed g inirl! There's an added plus  to your surplus projection, companies would start hiring again and revenue to the treasury would increase dramatically. Economics really isn't all that hard  ;D

not my projection... John Stossel's... and it's not really his either since he credits A LOT of people/groups in his book :-)
  •  

Kevin Peña

Reducing benefits of rich retirees is good. So's increasing taxes on the rich.

Eliminating NASA completely isn't a good idea. They receive less 1% of the US budget. You can eliminate planetary exploration, but there are practical space adventures like space mining. More resource supply means that they'll be less expensive.

Business owners don't think long-term, which is why they didn't convert to the much more efficient solar power. Energy department can stay, or we might never see power plants be converted to solar power. Converting power plants to solar energy instead of each individual building to solar power is much less expensive.

Letting states run education 100% has been proven to be a bad idea. If it weren't for federal intervention, quite a few states would still be teaching the Bible over real biology and abstinence would still be taught instead of practical sexual education such as using condoms, etc. Kids are going to be having sex. Might as well teach them to do it intelligently.

Before agricultural subsidies and other govt aid, farmers were in huge debt and in trouble. Those can stay.

USDHUD provides housing to people who would otherwise be homeless or in very inadequate housing. Heck, one of my friends would actually be living with a family of 5 in a studio apartment his family could barely afford (both parents working) if it weren't for the USDHUD.

Where exactly should the SS age be raised to?

I agree in cutting defense. The military doesn't need more than the 2,300 M1 Abram tanks it already has.

Stossel's proposed cuts are excessive and reckless. The debt doesn't need to be paid off in under 1 year as long as it gets paid off.  ::)
  •  

Devlyn

Real quick math indicates cuts like that would put hundreds of thousands of people on unemployment, but that isn't addressed.
  •  

Kevin Peña

Like I've said many times, govt isn't perfect, but it's necessary. I don't mind firing a bunch of politicians, just so long as the actual govt system remains intact. Stossel's plans to cut the govt's agencies down 100% is flawed.
  •  

oZma

Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 06:48:41 PM
Like I've said many times, govt isn't perfect, but it's necessary. I don't mind firing a bunch of politicians, just so long as the actual govt system remains intact. Stossel's plans to cut the govt's agencies down 100% is flawed.

reckless? maybe yes.  flawed? errr, I trust Stossel's team of editors and researchers over you... sorry, no offense

Quote from: Devlyn Marie on February 10, 2013, 06:43:03 PM
Real quick math indicates cuts like that would put hundreds of thousands of peopl bute on unemployment, but that isn't addressed.

well if any of those departments that are cut actually have a 'demand', a private equivalent may pop up?  also, I wouldn't think these things would happen overnight, but a slow process that doesn't put a bunch of people out of work overnight.

it's all speculation... it will never happen... but at least we know it can be possible :-) as difficult as it might be
  •  

oZma

Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 06:53:49 PM
The IRS is a good example of extremely bright and talented people who are spending their time ensuring people are being fair with their complicated tax obligations. Imagine if they were working in the private sector producing wealth and technological advancements? I believe we have too many people currently in nonproductive jobs.

gold star thinking
  •  

Kevin Peña

Private equivalents of govt. agencies would be a horrible idea.

Quote from: oZma on February 10, 2013, 06:54:17 PM
reckless? yes.  flawed? errr, I trust Stossel's team of editors and researchers over you... sorry, no offense

Guess who else had editors and researchers for their many attack ads: every single politician you claim are stupid and despicable.  ::)

Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 06:56:30 PM
Without government, we'd all be witnessing Mad Max and the Thunderdome... I agree with you. I do think there are some agencies that are for the most part... worthless. Cut them dramatically and streamline the others to be more efficient.

I agree that govt agencies can do with fewer politicians. However, "killing" them, as Stossel so elegantly puts it, would be disastrous.

As much as everyone despises the IRS, someone has to make sure people are paying their fair share in taxes.
  •  

Kayla

While we're talking budgets & deficits, the New York Times had an interesting article a few years ago in which you could fiddle around with some things and see the budget effects. So, have at it.

Something I found interesting by toggling the numbers, you could solve about 76% of the budget deficit (for 2015) and about 40% (for 2030) just by returning to Clinton era taxes. Deficits are a combination of revenue & expenditures and I don't think any idea that focuses entirely on one of these two areas is correct.

The deficit problem is far from impossible to solve, but I do think Stossel's ideas are extreme. Devlyn is right that it would leave several people unemployed and would cause a massive hit to our GDP (double dip recession anyone?). I think the right idea if one were to try to solve the problem would be to take a more Burkian approach, understand that the deficit came about organically. Don't gut half the government overnight. These programs exist for reasons. Instead take a more cautious approach, use a scalpel rather then a hatchet to make finer, more efficient cuts.

QuoteThe IRS is a good example of extremely bright and talented people who are spending their time ensuring people are being fair with their complicated tax obligations. Imagine if they were working in the private sector producing wealth and technological advancements? I believe we have too many people currently in nonproductive jobs.

This may be an example of the Burkian approach I listed. The IRS is a good investment on the government's part returning 3-4 times what Uncle Sam gives them. The money the IRS collects increases revenues and decreases the deficit.
  •  

oZma

Quote from: DianaP on February 10, 2013, 07:04:56 PM
Private equivalents of govt. agencies would be a horrible idea.

yes because USPS>UPS and FEMA>Red Cross?  :)

Quote
Guess who else had editors and researchers for their many attack ads: every single politician you claim are stupid and despicable.  ::)

not sure your point here.  you said Stossel's plan was 'flawed' ~ what does that have to do with attack ads?
  •  

oZma

Quote from: Kayla on February 10, 2013, 07:08:07 PM
While we're talking budgets & deficits, the New York Times had an interesting article a few years ago in which you could fiddle around with some things and see the budget effects. So, have at it.

Something I found interesting by toggling the numbers, you could solve about 76% of the budget deficit (for 2015) and about 40% (for 2030) just by returning to Clinton era taxes. Deficits are a combination of revenue & expenditures and I don't think any idea that focuses entirely on one of these two areas is correct.

The deficit problem is far from impossible to solve, but I do think Stossel's ideas are extreme. Devlyn is right that it would leave several people unemployed and would cause a massive hit to our GDP (double dip recession anyone?). I think the right idea if one were to try to solve the problem would be to take a more Burkian approach, understand that the deficit came about organically. Don't gut half the government overnight. These programs exist for reasons. Instead take a more cautious approach, use a scalpel rather then a hatchet to make finer, more efficient cuts.

This may be an example of the Burkian approach I listed. The IRS is a good investment on the government's part returning 3-4 times what Uncle Sam gives them. The money the IRS collects increases revenues and decreases the deficit.

i don't advocate cutting those things overnight... i just support the idea of cutting them

the only problem i have with the IRS is that if i don't support something like WAR and I don't want to support it so I decide to deduct that part from THEIR bill... i go to jail and if i try to resit... i could get shot!  i don't support aggressive violent coercion....
  •  

Kevin Peña

Quote from: oZma on February 10, 2013, 07:10:11 PM
yes because USPS>UPS and FEMA>Red Cross?  :)

not sure your point here.  you said Stossel's plan was 'flawed' ~ what does that have to do with attack ads?

1. Yes, govt agencies actually are better. Better funded, better equipped, more competent workers. 

2. My point is that editors and researchers were used by the exact people you don't like. Therefore, I wouldn't take what they say without looking into it. If you do, you'd realize that Stossel is wrong.
  •  

Kevin Peña

Quote from: kkut on February 10, 2013, 07:22:03 PM
Flat tax for income over X.

Bad idea. # of kids, caring for a sick family member, and other extenuating circumstances need to be considered.
  •