We either need term limits, or publicly financed elections. For the amount of money this country wastes, we should set aside like $10 billion dollars (barely a drop in the bucket) to allot to candidates seeking office and make them live within whatever the determined amount is.

If politicians didn't need to spend more than half their time raising money (which is what I have read from those on all sides) then the influence of lobbyists who fund those campaigns would tank.

Either way, without having to rely on the swarm of lobbyists for money our leaders would feel less beholden to them, and it would probably produce better legislation for the people of this country.

I have no doubt leaders from both parties would have been far more willing to drop the hammer on Wallstreet for the mess they made if they didn't know in the back of their mind they were going to need to hit them up to fund their re-election campaigns.

That is just one example, but a clear representation of the fact that the system as it stands is majorly flawed.

IggyPride00;545657 wrote:We either need term limits, or publicly financed elections. For the amount of money this country wastes, we should set aside like $10 billion dollars (barely a drop in the bucket) to alot to candidates seeking office and make them live within whatever the determined amount is.

If politicians didn't need to spend more than half their time raising money (which is what I have read from those on all sides) then the influence of lobbyists who fund those campaigns would tank.

Either way, without having to rely on the swarm of lobbyists for money our leaders would feel less beholden to them, and it would probably produce better legislation for the people of this country.

I have no doubt leaders from both parties would have been far more willing to drop the hammer on Wallstreet for the mess they made if they didn't know in the back of their mind they were going to need to hit them up to fund their re-election campaigns.

That is just one example, but a clear representation of the fact that the system as it stands is majorly flawed.

OOOO, that's a tough one right there. How do you distribute these funds?

jmog;545579 wrote:I agree with about everyone but the space one.

However, its time NASA was only doing space "science" and stop doing research on global warming (yes, NASA spends a ton on AGW) and other research that has zero to do with space exploration. I wouldn't cut NASA's budget, just make 100% of their budget go to space related activities.

The other thing I would mandate, is that the Medicare/Medicaid and SS have balanced "budgets" of their own. Right now the extra taxes we pay into these do not cover what is spent. Right now we only pay about 900 billion into SS/Medicare/Medicaid out of our checks, and the government spends $1.3 trillion. That needs fixed.

Then I most certainly would cut the defense budget by having a better defense contractor bid system, less protection for other countries, slowly get us out of the 2 wars, and realign our forces to protect our own borders through physical troops and intelligence.

What no one wants to talk about, is the fact that in order to really lower spending, you have to attack the "big 3" Defense, SS, and Medicare/Medicaid, they are the 3 biggest spenders in our budget.

I would be ok with tax increases if they come AFTER the budget has been balanced by cutting spending, then we can raise taxes some to actually pay DOWN some debt.

We differ on our opinions as to the legitimacy/effects of global warming but I agree that NASA should be focused on space exploration.

I know it's not much, but i believe that in order to qualify for welfare, you must pass a drug test. And by drug test, I mean everything. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, meth, cocaine, heroin, etc...

I don't see why we have to pay for your food, clothes, housing, cable, etc when you pay for your unnecessary items listed above.

Thunder70;545791 wrote:I know it's not much, but i believe that in order to qualify for welfare, you must pass a drug test. And by drug test, I mean everything. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, meth, cocaine, heroin, etc...

I don't see why we have to pay for your food, clothes, housing, cable, etc when you pay for your unnecessary items listed above.

Even though it isn't much in the grand scheme of things, it would set the tone of accountability.

Also, if these people need their vices that much, then they would have more incentive to get a job and have their own money to waste.

Thunder70;545791 wrote:I know it's not much, but i believe that in order to qualify for welfare, you must pass a drug test. And by drug test, I mean everything. Alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, meth, cocaine, heroin, etc...

I don't see why we have to pay for your food, clothes, housing, cable, etc when you pay for your unnecessary items listed above.

ManO'War;545796 wrote:Even though it isn't much in the grand scheme of things, it would set the tone of accountability.

Also, if these people need their vices that much, then they would have more incentive to get a job and have their own money to waste.

Agree with both of these. In school I've heard of kids all the time saying how they spend their welfare money. The other thing that gets me is how unresourceful they are. Instead of buying food from the grocery, they go out and spend $20 on takeout every night. And they don't (honestly) understand why they're "poor."

jmog;545576 wrote:You twisted the facts by insinuating that Obama lowered our taxes when the ONLY reason the total tax has went down is due to people making less money, not because of anything Obama has done since Bush.

No. I said people are paying less taxes. Some people are (even if they are in the same bracket) paying less. That is a fact. I cannot twist facts.

derek bomar;546855 wrote:No. I said people are paying less taxes. Some people are (even if they are in the same bracket) paying less. That is a fact. I cannot twist facts.

Please show me where someone who is making the exact same amount is paying less taxes under Obama than Bush...and please don't give me the efficient AC unit tax deduction. Tax credits/deductions where you have to buy something the government wants you to buy to get the deduction doesn't lower the total $ the person is spending since they had to spend money to get the deduction.

jmog;549598 wrote:Please show me where someone who is making the exact same amount is paying less taxes under Obama than Bush...and please don't give me the efficient AC unit tax deduction. Tax credits/deductions where you have to buy something the government wants you to buy to get the deduction doesn't lower the total $ the person is spending since they had to spend money to get the deduction.

Making work pay tax credit.? Also, the average tax rates under Bush aren't want they were when they ended - the tax cuts went into effect in 03...so the average tax rates under Bush for his total Presidency are higher than the first two years under BO...right?

jmog;549598 wrote:Please show me where someone who is making the exact same amount is paying less taxes under Obama than Bush...and please don't give me the efficient AC unit tax deduction. Tax credits/deductions where you have to buy something the government wants you to buy to get the deduction doesn't lower the total $ the person is spending since they had to spend money to get the deduction.

Do you agree that someone starting a business under Bush, Obama or Bugs Bunny for that matter would have to purchase capital assets to use within their trade or business? Under the Porkulus package a person starting a business could take a 50% depreciation deduction on those capital assets.

In most years in a capitalistic system there will be people starting businesses. In the years under BHO's pork package those persons acting under legitimate business reasons paid less tax.

Under Bush and BHO people were going to go to College. Under BHO's pork package, the expansion allows for more expenses that would have been purchased anyways to qualify under s529.

s179 was expanded to allow business to double the amount of capital expenditures they could expense and immediately deduct in the current year.....increasing the amount of consumption tax treatment in the code.

Plenty of taxpayers have paid less tax under BHO than they otherwise normally would have.

Well, according to the incoming chair of the House Armed Services Committee Rep. Buck McKeon (R-CA), defense budget is not going down.

“A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline,” McKeon said, arguing that cuts will have geopolitical consequences, “undermin[ing] our ability to project power, strengthen our adversaries and weaken our alliances.”

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/cut-the-defense-budget-over-my-cold-dead-gavel/
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/15/mckeon_defense_budgets_must_go_up_not_down

Interesting. Looks like other than some of Gates cuts, the defense budget may not go down that much. It will be interesting to see how this clashes with some members of the R party who want everything cut back.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss! Guess who got fooled again!

A defense budget in decline portends an America in decline

Well, BHO just got his ass kicked at G-20...half our power is economic.

Well, looks like the rift in the R party on Defense is starting to show:
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/11/16/coburn_to_mccain_cutting_defense_is_not_isolationist

Good. Let the republican party split, argue it out and readjust themselves. The same SHOULD happen to the democrat party. There needs to be a point where politicians start saying "now wait a minute".

Glad it's happening.

60% of the budget is entitlements, which makes necessary cuts difficult - i.e. a $3trillion budget is some $600M over revenues, and discretionary spending would be just $1.2trillion of that. So cutting discretionary spending in half only gets you to a balanced budget, and I think that would be diffiuclt to achieve. At the same time, I'm sure discretionary spending has also ballooned out of control in recent years. While the rest of the country is tightening the belt, govt headcount and salaries have been growing at an astronomical rate.

Although I do think a 25% cut in discretionary spending is definitely achievable. Cut entitlements another 15% and I think you are close to a balanced budget. Bump taxes maybe 2% and use that to start paying down debt. Call it a 30-yr plan to eliminate the debt. As that interest amount starts to decline, then you have more money to spend elsewhere. It's not a tough call - politicians have just gotten to use to pandering and buying votes. They worry about getting re-elected, the deficit will be someone else's problem years down the road (yet another problem as they aren't really doing anything to address what needs fixing now).

But, hey, when you can't afford what you're spending now why cut? NOOOOOOOO, let's tack on billions more in a healthcare program.

Don't know if anybody saw this. This is a neat "deficit puzzle" provided by the "New York Slimes." You get to choose how you could fix the deficit.

www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

According to the puzzle: I had a $128 Billion Surplus for 2015 and a 29 billion surplus through 2030

48% of the savings come from taxes
52% of the savings come from spending cuts.

Here's what I chose

- eliminate earmarks
-eliminate farm subsidies
-cut pay of civilian workers by 5 percent
-reduce federal workforce by 10 percent
-cut $250,000 government contractors
-other cuts to the federal government (these were cuts recommended in the Bowles-Simpson plan)

-Reduce nuclear arsenal and space spending
-Reduce military to pre-Iraq War size and further reduce troops in Asia and Europe (would cap U.S. Personnel in Europe and Asia to 100,000 personnel; 33% below what's planeed).

-"reduce noncombat military compensation and overhead"
-Reduce troops in Afghanistan and Iraq to 60,000 by 2015
-Increase Medicare eligibility age to 68
-raise SS retirement age to 70 gradually
-reduce ss benefits for those with high incomes

-return estate tax to clinton-era levels (First $1 million exempted from tax; indexed to inflation)
-President Obama's Capital Gains proposal (untaxed to this with AGI below $68,000...15% for everyone else...20% for those above $250,000)

-Keep all Bush Era tax rates for ordinary income (even those above 250,000)
-Subject incomes above $106,000 to payroll taxes

-Millionaire's tax on income above $1 million (when considering inflation, top brackets in the past were much higher than they are now)

-Bowles-Simpson "loopholes plan."; Reform subpart F, reduce Corporate rate to 28%

-Reduce mortgage interest deduction by converting it to a credit

-Carbon tax starting at $23 per ton of CO2 emitted.

It should be noted that there are economists out there who think concerns about the deficit should be secondary to concerns about unemployment and that reducing spending and/or raising taxes at this time would be improper as what is more important to our fiscal hopes is to have a stronger economy going forward.

Those concerns have been secondary for far too long. It's time to address them and a ground swell of support from the people just might bring it forward as a primary concern for those who wish to be reelected.

Con_Alma;562276 wrote:Those concerns have been secondary for far too long. It's time to address them and a ground swell of support from the people just might bring it forward as a primary concern for those who wish to be reelected.

Sure, I agree. But look what happens...Conservatives nowadays blame FDR for "prolonging the great depression" when it fact that may have been they case because he raised tax rates to astronomical levels to fund the war effort because of his classical treasury secretary not wanting to explode deficits...You know, back when people thought there might be something wrong with putting a war on the credit card...

Is "undermining our ability to project power" an increasingly obsolete concept in today's world? I believe so.

BoatShoes;562286 wrote:Sure, I agree. But look what happens...Conservatives nowadays blame FDR for "prolonging the great depression" when it fact that may have been they case because he raised tax rates to astronomical levels to fund the war effort because of his classical treasury secretary not wanting to explode deficits...You know, back when people thought there might be something wrong with putting a war on the credit card...

Today, here and now, irrelevant of party affiliation, I am hearing the people demand total expenditures be lowered. I see this expectation continuing.

More proof that you all got fooled this election.

GOP leader reaps $200 million
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112305580.html

Bigdogg;573813 wrote:More proof that you all got fooled this election.
GOP leader reaps $200 million
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112305580.html

Firstly, I'd like to know how it is not considered an earmark? How can it then be labeled?

Secondly:

Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., also got in on the bargain, adding measures benefiting their states to the black farmers-tribal royalty settlements. The two senators obtained almost $370 million for projects in their states to implement water settlements.

People may be getting fooled by Kyl, but there's STILL people getting fooled by democrats. It's not like ANYBODY, right or left, has room for being smug, bigdogg. Until you can show that the dems have straightened up their own actions, I wouldn't worry about any other political "enemies".

Going to be fun and set back and watch the meltdown!

To solve the deficit, the numbers add up - but not the votes
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/23/AR2010112306577.html?hpid=topnews