World's smartest woman sticks foot in mouth.

#26
#26
Choice 4: Bring entitlement and gov't salary costs in line with comparable private enterprises, freeze gov't spending in real dollars, lower taxes to generate economic growth... and grow the economy to the point where we can afford the gov't spending we still have.

I would love to get rid of many entitlement programs but as an alternative they must be grown at a slower pace than the economy. That's the fundamental problem here. Uncle Sam has gotten too fat for the horse he's riding... he's starving his horse so he can over eat... and libs think the solution is to eat even more.

At some point, the horse throws him off or dies.
 
#27
#27
sjt18 said:
Choice 4: Bring entitlement and gov't salary costs in line with comparable private enterprises, freeze gov't spending in real dollars, lower taxes to generate economic growth... and grow the economy to the point where we can afford the gov't spending we still have.

I would love to get rid of many entitlement programs but as an alternative they must be grown at a slower pace than the economy. That's the fundamental problem here. Uncle Sam has gotten too fat for the horse he's riding... he's starving his horse so he can over eat... and libs think the solution is to eat even more.

At some point, the horse throws him off or dies.
Click to expand...


Other than that some deficit spending is occassionally called for, I am not that far from you on this.
 
#28
#28
just indexing social security to cpi rather than wage growth would save us billions a year.
 
#29
#29
lawgator1 said:
Other than that some deficit spending is occassionally called for, I am not that far from you on this.
Click to expand...

Only if the sum is zero over the economic cycle. That's the problem with statists'/socialistic/keynesian spending schemes. You bribe a voter once with tax dollars... you lose his vote if you don't keep doing it.
 
#30
#30
droski said:
just indexing social security to cpi rather than wage growth would save us billions a year.
Click to expand...

Won't work for two reasons. One, we're already in a serious hole. Two, the demographics are going to kill us.

The burden has to be spread across all of gov't and total growth needs to be less than economic growth on avg for many years. To start with, gov't salary budgetsshould be frozen, retirement plans made more reasonable, and benefits brought in line with the private sector. I am pro-military... but they're going to have to take their lumps too at a minimum on Senior NCO and Officer salaries.

You can reduce a labor budget by cutting headcount, nixing raises, or raising efficiencies... but it has to be done.

Recipients across the board need to share the burden and those who are riding the system need to be ferretted out.

When I really think about it... I do get pretty riled. When a private company hits hard times, bonuses are gone, raises stop, and people lose their jobs.

No matter how ineffective gov't employees are or how bad things get... they're insulated from the real world by self-serving politicians and unions.

IF more gov't action IS needed during economic bad times... then layoffs and pay freezes should come on the other end to pay their part of it.
 
Last edited:
#31
#31
i wasn't trying to suggest this would solve our problems, just help them. i also suggest raising the social security retirement age to at least 70.
 
#32
#32
lawgator1 said:
70% rate and "the rich" pay 18 % of total receipts.

28% rate and they pay over 30 %.

This means that the rich should logically be pounding on the doors demanding a huge tax hike on themsevles.

Wonder why they don't ....

Could it be that the math being used here doesn't add up?

Anybody? Bueller? Bueller?
Click to expand...

So you read my post??

Still not speaking??

:hi:
 
#33
#33
droski said:
i wasn't trying to suggest this would solve our problems, just help them. i also suggest raising the social security retirement age to at least 70.
Click to expand...

No question this has to happen. The cold hard fact is that many at that age now remain healthy enough to work... and we're going to need them.
 
#34
#34
sjt18 said:
Only if the sum is zero over the economic cycle. That's the problem with statists'/socialistic/keynesian spending schemes. You bribe a voter once with tax dollars... you lose his vote if you don't keep doing it.
Click to expand...
and both sides do it shamelessly ...

going to your other thread about an amicable separation, I think that another possibility is the election of a strong-willed president (dictatorial is hopefully too strong a word) who will say enough is enough ... somebody who, in the face of civil unrest, will say "You screwed your life up and you have no one to blame but yourself" ........ could be ugly
 
#35
#35
We just got a senate candidate lambasted for saying that people should have a fundamental right to associate with whoever they want... How far would the left let a conservative go down the road you suggest?
 
#36
#36
that's why I suggest it would have to be the president ... assuming that the majority of americans get fed up with paying the bills for the other half, one man might be able to get through ... but, you're right ... the MSM would blast him 24/7 if he ran on that platform .....
 
#37
#37
I actually disagree... in case you haven't read my diatribe about representation in Congress.

In short, I think we should have one Representative for every 200K or so people. It should be fixed at that number. IIRC, our population has increased 3 or 4 fold since the early 1900's... and Congress has had 435 members since around 1912.

We need enough representation close enough to the people that someone can run a successful campaign without a single donor from outside the district. A person should be able to win on a shoe leather budget.

The size of the Senate was designed to be fixed... however they were elected by state legislatures. That meant your route to influencing your US Senator was as short as calling your state rep or state senator. The popular election of Senators has effectively insulated them from the people and made them slaves to parties and large donors.

Doing these two things would fix our campaign finance problem and bring the sanity of mainstreet back to the capitol. A congress of "us" would be more likely to make this stand since each representative would be much more accountable to the people who voted for them.
 
#38
#38
A person should be able to win on a shoe leather budget.
Click to expand...
agree ... it's a huge obstacle for a joe the plumber type to overcome ....

agree about the changes you suggest too ....


the reason I say the president might be able to effect more substantive change is that DC seems to corrupt congressmen from both parties ... even when the R's had a majority in both houses and in the WH, they squandered it ... it would take a special person to stand his ground, but it might be more likely than expecting a majority of R's in the house/senate to stand their ground ....
 
#39
#39
Could we tax the drug runners coming across the border since we have no desire to stop em.
I assume that should fall under the higher bracket. Not sure tho.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#40
#40
Lookin at the BIG picture you would think it makes sense to lower taxes on businesses. With the though of amnesty and open borders on the table. Gonna need to produce more jobs for the future work force.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#41
#41
Government assistance, whatever form it is, should be temporary. 6-9 months tops. Then it gets cut off and you start over. It also should get cut off if you go to jail. Granted this would crush some families who have one parent that can't stay out of trouble. Sucks for them. People have to be held accountable for their actions. Kids can't help it if their parents are idiots, but parents have a responsibility to try their best to give their kids a better shot than they had. The incentive should be to get off your lazy butt and find a job, or go back to school and get some training. Generations of welfare recipients make me sick to my stomach because they know nothing different and most don't want any different. They are fine being parasites. And they make the most noise when something doesn't go their way. They live in housing projects, get free food, free money, free healthcare and free education. They also drive new cars and have more stuff than most working people. I see it every day. People drive up in a new Escalade and whip out their food stamp card or their medicaid card. Disgusting. While the person who works every day and pays for health insurance barely gets by in a used car and lives on a tight budget. I know, not all of the welfare recipients are this way, and likely not even a majority. But enough that it is visible to anyone who looks.
 
#42
#42
Daddy Gee said:
the reason I say the president might be able to effect more substantive change is that DC seems to corrupt congressmen from both parties ...
Click to expand...

I understand the attraction but the current problem is there is too much power concentrated in the hands of too few men who are too distant from their constituencies. I don't think you can ever hope to fix that by concentrating power in the hands of one man. If power is spread out enough, most of the rest will take care of itself.

It would be even better if state legislatures and governors would assert themselves in different areas like AZ has on immigration.

For instance, I would love to see a state demand the right to opt out of Social Security and challenge the Constitutional basis of it. There are many issues like that where states could really help get things on track.

The objective must always be to de-centralize power.
 
#43
#43
sjt18 said:
Only if the sum is zero over the economic cycle. That's the problem with statists'/socialistic/keynesian spending schemes. You bribe a voter once with tax dollars... you lose his vote if you don't keep doing it.
Click to expand...


Yup. The Democrats increase social spending and taxes on the top tier. The Republicans subsidize businesses and cut taxes on the top tier.

At least there is some predictable symmetry to it.


droski said:
i wasn't trying to suggest this would solve our problems, just help them. i also suggest raising the social security retirement age to at least 70.
Click to expand...


Seems inevitable.


Daddy Gee said:
and both sides do it shamelessly ...

going to your other thread about an amicable separation, I think that another possibility is the election of a strong-willed president (dictatorial is hopefully too strong a word) who will say enough is enough ... somebody who, in the face of civil unrest, will say "You screwed your life up and you have no one to blame but yourself" ........ could be ugly
Click to expand...


That's why we kick the can down the road instead of dealing with it. The irony is that, as the population ages and becomes more dependent on social security, the number of voters who would crush anyone who might have the nerve to say what has to be said goes up.


BeecherVol said:
Lookin at the BIG picture you would think it makes sense to lower taxes on businesses. With the though of amnesty and open borders on the table. Gonna need to produce more jobs for the future work force.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


You, sir, are a Democrat.

Republicans don't know how to handle this problem. No matter what choice they make, they piss off somebody they really need.
 
#45
#45
superdave... anything you subsidize you get more of... Agree with your point there. If a person is able bodied then they should not be eligible for anything but temporary benefits.

Another caveat to what you are saying is that the Great Society and War on Poverty programs began to subsidize illegitimacy while simultaneously we had the sexual revolution. Sexual "liberation" to the left meant being able to do what you want without being responsible... abortion and welfare became ways to avoid the consequences of poor choices.

On the demand of left wing elitists and intellectuals, we subsidized reckless behavior. Now we are paying the price for listening to them.

FTR, I do not believe gov't should try to foist morality on to people. I simply do not believe gov't should insulate people from the pain of poor choices. Moral Law exists. There is a cost to violating it as surely as there is a cost to violating the Law of Gravity by jumping off a building. Spreading the costs of violations of moral law simply dull/delay the pain.

It is like a leprosy to society. Much of the damage to a leper's skin occurs because nerve endings are numb. The whole body loses the use of a finger because the finger can't feel that it is being chewed off by a rat.
 
#46
#46
brings to mind the stories of the hobos during the great depression ... local families/organizations providing help for those that were truly needy ....
 
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
Yup. The Democrats increase social spending and taxes on the top tier. The Republicans subsidize businesses and cut taxes on the top tier.

At least there is some predictable symmetry to it.
Click to expand...
That's why I am generally libertarian. I think the R's do less harm but I am not in favor of subsidizing businesses either.

FTR, Dems are every bit as much into that game as R's. The most underreported stories of the last several months are that Obama got large donations from Goldman-Sachs and BP. Both apparently got some favorable regulatory treatment.

"Big Business" isn't anti-Dem or anti-Big Gov't. Big gov't helps big business avoid competition.


Republicans don't know how to handle this problem. No matter what choice they make, they piss off somebody they really need.
Click to expand...

I am a conservative/libertarian with absolute disdain for the country club/boardroom types that run the GOP and Democratic Parties.

However there is a very, very simple solution if anyone has the guts to do it.

Set up several Ellis Island type operations on the Mexican border sufficient to handle the volume of people crossing... make the price of trying to circumvent the system high.

On the other end, employers who knowingly or carelessly employ illegals and any gov't employee that extends benefits to them... should go to jail.

To get to that point, let companies sponsor workers who come forward. I actually agree in measure with a Democrat idea on this... make them pay a hefty fine (shared between the two) then make them legal.

I do not believe that someone who comes illegally should be able to become a citizen without returning to their home country and making application from there.
 
#48
#48
Daddy Gee said:
brings to mind the stories of the hobos during the great depression ... local families/organizations providing help for those that were truly needy ....
Click to expand...

Yes... and that system is self correcting. Someone who is just sorry... won't continue to get help.
 
#49
#49
2010-01-05-humor-motivation.jpg
 
#50
#50
sjt18 said:
That's why I am generally libertarian. I think the R's do less harm but I am not in favor of subsidizing businesses either.

FTR, Dems are every bit as much into that game as R's. The most underreported stories of the last several months are that Obama got large donations from Goldman-Sachs and BP. Both apparently got some favorable regulatory treatment.

"Big Business" isn't anti-Dem or anti-Big Gov't. Big gov't helps big business avoid competition.




I am a conservative/libertarian with absolute disdain for the country club/boardroom types that run the GOP and Democratic Parties.

However there is a very, very simple solution if anyone has the guts to do it.

Set up several Ellis Island type operations on the Mexican border sufficient to handle the volume of people crossing... make the price of trying to circumvent the system high.

On the other end, employers who knowingly or carelessly employ illegals and any gov't employee that extends benefits to them... should go to jail.

To get to that point, let companies sponsor workers who come forward. I actually agree in measure with a Democrat idea on this... make them pay a hefty fine (shared between the two) then make them legal.

I do not believe that someone who comes illegally should be able to become a citizen without returning to their home country and making application from there.
Click to expand...



I agree that big business is cozy with both parties and that is so because they play both ends of the street. I do think that, OVERALL, the Republicans are a little tighter with them than the Dems, but it is also true that it is an oversimplification that Dems are for the little guys, Repubs for the fat cats.

This is why, in my view, candidates tend to be beholden to one industry or another. For example, Cheney was very much an energy industry guy. John Edwards is in with the trial lawyers (and believe me, they are every much an industry as Ford and GM).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top