I’m not going to go through the budget from my phone, but the first step is to stop adding more perpetual spending. That’s what BBB would have done. So at least the GOP+Manchin saved us from that.
Herschel Speaks
- Thread starter clemsontiger02
- Start date
I’m not going to go through the budget from my phone, but the first step is to stop adding more perpetual spending. That’s what BBB would have done. So at least the GOP+Manchin saved us from that.
You're right that the steps to rectify the problems that ail us will be very tricky to deal with without causing massive issues. In fact, due to the dishonesty of the media and hyper-partisan climate we live in, I'm not sure it's even possible. But... if given the opportunity, here's what I would suggest.
- Small increase in Medicare tax rate to help balance that out. It should be a separate line item in our budget and a neutral proposition. I'd love to get rid of it completely for something that would be far better but we can't do that right now.
- Small increase in SS tax rate and increase in salary horizon to generate more $$. We should individualize (Not privatize) SS for all workers under 30. Then we can figure out how to supplement lower income workers to help them keep an even playing field with their SS accounts.
- Removal of all separate pension and health benefits for members of Congress. They should be part of the VA plan while serving in Congress. If they want to have a 401k, that would be fine. Otherwise, they are treated just like everyone else.
- Dissolution of a number of departments in our government starting with Education. Public education is not a federal matter. It is a state matter and funding for education should be handled at the state level.
- Top down assessment of our military budget. Yes, we need to have the best military in the world but those who think it's done without tremendous waste and corruption are fooling themselves. We need an open, honest process for review of military expenses that won't damage our capability. Also, get rid of all the woke crap in our military. Their job is the kill the enemy and nothing more. This isn't a social experiment.
- We need a balanced budget amendment or something of the sort. We have to get control of our deficits. Doing the above would enhance funding in targeted areas that are out of control. The rest would come from not replacing retiring government workers in an effort to trim about 75% of the federal workforce. Far too many people working for the government.
- We need to get back on the Bretton Woods system. We need to abolish the Fed as we know it now. It is absurd to think a handful of people should have so much influence over the largest economy in the history of the world. No, no.... they are out!
- Once we deal with our deficit, we need an iron-clad short term sales tax to retire the national debt. This would have to be something we couldn't exploit or use for any other purpose. Once the debt is reduced to a certain level, the tax sunsets and we are done.
- All these other small, targeted tax increases combined with a reduction in the size and scope of government would allow us to lower income taxes even more. Also, every American should pay income taxes if one American pays income taxes. Even if it's a very small amount. We all should contribute.
I could go on and on but this would be the start at least.
A
anon_5e8aassgcbjz1
Guest
I really appreciate you taking the time to write all of this out, but I’m not sure this stuff even comes close to matching the levels of the deficit we have now.
Yes we can boost Medicare and SS taxes a bit. The budgets for those programs are measured in trillions. How much are you going to realistically be able to raise?
Getting rid of Congressional benefits is good morally but pocket change in the grand scheme of things.
There is absolutely waste in the military, but cuts there are going to have a bad knock-on effect. Defense spending has a stimulus effect. US military superiority goes hand in hand with US economic strength abroad.
Regarding a balance budget amendment, I think it’s prudent to allow the federal government to take on some measure of debt, so I disagree. We just need to control the extent of it much better.
Regarding Bretton Woods, having fiat currency is fine. We don’t need to go back to a gold standard by any stretch.
All in all I agree we need to raise taxes to some extent, but the bulk of the issue lies in reforming Social Security and Medicare, the latter probably accompanied by large scale changes to how health care operates in this country. Getting rid of the Department of Energy or the Department of Education isn’t going to do anything.
Many feel that most of the damaging legislation will come from the Right as witnessed by what's happening in Red states and their focus on culture wars issues and taking away rights that were considered settled law. With the Supreme Court on their side, there's no telling how far the Rs will go if given back power. That's what frightens much of the country more than Democratic bills. And laugh if you want but remember that BBB was "paid for"
If we can get Medicare taxes to cover the costs we're going to see a marked improvement in our deficit. If we can keep SS from going red in a big way we can make a big dent there. As rates rise, the interest on our debt is going to eclipse $1 trillion. Retiring most of our debt would almost entirely eliminate the deficit.
To your comment about the balanced budget amendment. I agree that some debt is good. The government isn't a household and debt can be utilized to improve our country in many ways. That's why I said something like that which would allow for some spending limitations over revenues. Obviously we'd need exceptions for things like Covid and times of war. We are entirely out of control right now. We need something that is more reasonable.
A lot of what I suggested would be peanuts relatively speaking. But as we move to shrink our government it will show a commitment to having a different way of living in this country. The counties that surround Washington DC are among the richest in America. That says a lot about what goes on in DC. That people like Pelosi, Grassley, etc. are in Washington in their 80's shows a lot about what goes on in DC. We need to end this crap.
Many feel that most of the damaging legislation will come from the Right as witnessed by what's happening in Red states and their focus on culture wars issues and taking away rights that were considered settled law. With the Supreme Court on their side, there's no telling how far the Rs will go if given back power. That's what frightens much of the country more than Democratic bills. And laugh if you want but remember that BBB was "paid for"
It was not paid for. Please tell me you don't honestly believe that. Just another lie by the Biden administration. Just like all the other administrations before his lie about things being "paid for" as you put it. It's never paid for. If something is deficit spending then it isn't paid for.
I'm not an economist but the CBO disagrees with you.
"Nevertheless, there is legitimate interest in how the bill would affect projected deficits. The short answer: in the first decade, it largely or completely covers its costs and, in the second, it produces roughly $2 trillion in net savings."
My post wasn't necessarily about BBB. My point was the damage that the Right will do with their attempts to take us back to the 19th century with their new Christofascist bent. These are not your dad's Republicans.
So in a few years when that hasn't happened will you be up for admitting you were wrong? Because you're so far off base from my perspective it's hard to know where to begin. I will certainly admit it if I am wrong.
You obviously haven't been paying attention.
Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals
If Republicans take back Congress in the midterms, GOP lawmakers are set to bring legislation that could ban abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
www.forbes.com
Clarence Thomas isn’t kidding — Harvard Gazette
Legal scholar Mary Ziegler sees “selective” history in SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and signs that other landmark protections are in jeopardy.
news.harvard.edu
don't forget wonderful places like Tennessee where courts are saying separate but equal is still okayYou obviously haven't been paying attention.
Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals
If Republicans take back Congress in the midterms, GOP lawmakers are set to bring legislation that could ban abortion as early as six weeks into a pregnancy.
Clarence Thomas isn’t kidding — Harvard Gazette
Legal scholar Mary Ziegler sees “selective” history in SCOTUS ruling overturning Roe v. Wade and signs that other landmark protections are in jeopardy.
That tweet is not factually accurate. Just FWIW. That isn't what the case was describing.
And as for what was linked by @dpic73 , if Mary Ziegler says it then it must be true. Even when it isn't, right? She is fundamentally misrepresenting the point Justice Thomas is making. As are most people on the left. She's a partisan activist, not a scholar as the article describes here.
There are Republicans who want to place a national ban on abortions after a certain point. It isn't a total ban on abortion just a threshold for when it's too late for an abortion. While I personally would favor that, it isn't what's best for the country.
Again, in all cases distortion, lies and hyperbole is all people can turn to. Why? Because the truth just isn't there.
yeah don't read the clickbait tweet, read the article. the issue is a taxpayer funded Christian foster home was discriminating based on the applicants' religion. there shouldn't be anything taxpayer funded that allowed for discrimination of any kind.
Yes, because the foster group exists on the basis of promoting Christianity. There are groups of other religions that do that as well. It's OK for a private group to promote Christianity in that way. That's not the same as what the tweet depicts the article as. Also, you could have linked the article instead of putting the tweet front and center. It's kinda obvious you were going for the same effect as falsely written tweet.
it's a TAXPAYER FUNDED group. there should be no TAXPAYER FUNDED groups that discriminate. it's literally the argument proponents of separate but equal made 120 years ago.
if a private organization wants to do that, fine - i'll think it's incredibly trashy and wrong, but it's their right to do that. anything receiving gov't money should not have that option
It's not trashy at all. If the same funds are available for groups of other religions and other groups then it's fine. As long as there is the availability to other groups. It's literally one of the reasons we have a first amendment. I'm sure we'll disagree but you are totally making this something it isn't. You should not be able to force people to violate religiously held beliefs in that way because they have existed for thousands of years.
congrats on making the same arguments that were made in 1896 during the Plessy v Ferguson trial by the pro-segregationists.
No that's not it at all. Guess the advanced citizenship thing is a bridge too far for you. Why is it that people on the left always have to leap so far? Such intellectually shallow and dishonest thought.
Pick your own article since you don't believe she can be objective simply because she doesn't share your politics - which you don't know by the way. https://law.ucdavis.edu/people/mary-ziegler
You know what he said and you know what he meant, whether you acknowledge it or not.
In his concurring opinion, Thomas — an appointee of President George H.W. Bush — wrote that the justices “should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell” — referring to three cases having to do with Americans’ fundamental privacy, due process and equal protection rights."
This wouldn't even be on the table without the dirty Republican tricks that enabled them to create this minority party, Christofascist court.
Try to understand what Justice Thomas is saying. Because these "rights" were created out of whole cloth by the court, they are very tenuous. They could be overturned at any time because the rulings were not in alignment with the correct Constitutional process. So even though it may be the will of the people, the people haven't done what they are supposed to to in order to enshrine these things. Much better the court toss on this out and allow the legislative process take place which would codify these things rather than relying on a flimsy, poorly considered court decision.
At some point, folks like you need to whip out your Constitution and read it. Come to understand the intended process the Founders had in mind when they ratified our founding document. Understand that over the decades as things came up the people of this nation amended the Constitution to make right the wrongs the Constitution didn't include. The problem is someone like yourself is totalitarian in your views. You don't feel the need to compromise or consider others. That's evident in your remarks about religion and faith of which you really don't understand the first thing.
You keep playing checkers and because of that you just don't understand chess. That's why you come here day after day posting this insane stuff to try and validate your insane opinion about people with whom you don't agree and know precious little about. It's so unfortunate that you choose this path. Had there been a Justice Thomas on the Court at the time of Roe v. Wade then the public will may have allowed abortion to be codified and then we wouldn't have the need to overturn such a poorly thought out decision in the first place. Just because SCOTUS says something isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean we can't put it there.
I know in your mind you're the smartest guy in the room and only you know best.
Easy for you to say it just needs to be codified when you know we don't have the votes in the Senate and likely won't for a long while.
Easy for you to say they are tenuous and should be tossed out when the impact of overturning these rights won't affect you.
Easy for you to say the opinions of people you don't agree with are insane because you believe your opinion matters more. Checkmate
Want to know where we're headed if your side gets it's way - just watch the below.
Those people are idiots. I would line up with you against them. So would most I know. Again I would urge you to try policing both sides because what you may not recognize is that these two extremes are giving rise to one another and we in the middle are the ones who will get squashed. Hence the reason I have been saying this forever. There aren't a lot of people like the ones that you just posted a link to. I say that because I don't know a single one and as you would attest, I'm a pretty conservative dude. I don't even know of a church like the one you just showed.
And you still don't understand it seems. A Court ruling doesn't make them rights. They need to be made law by the legislative branch. It's not about whether it affects me or not. It's about the correct process of making law and instilling things and the fabric of our nation. That's not the job of the Supreme Court. Just look at Dred Scott for an example of when the court tried to do that and how disastrous that was.
And btw those morons you linked terrify me too.
Last edited:
Great thoughts. The national debt is in runaway freight train mode at this time unfortunately i think. A huge crash is probably going to happen and then a reset coming afterwards. I think the global elite know this and there are competing plans on what to do. The great reset is part of one of the plans and they are attempting to achieve multiple other objectives while creating a new digital monetary system at the same time imo.
Last edited:
Reasonable, sane, well-thought opinions from two people on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
Sadly, there are too few reasonable takes like this on here. I can't tell if people on here are trolling or just completely nuts.
I honestly, think a nuanced approach is best and that all of your points should be considered as a matter that our reps should address. But that won't happen unfortunately without some real effort to toss away the poison. Trump called it the swamp, but he was projecting because he is worse than the swamp. Hyper partisanship is in the way of our success, we need partnership, compassion and compromise.
Its a big country but I think you are going to get some push back from many on some of these issues. Many libertarians talk about balancing the power to the states, which on some topics we can agree on, but you forget the constitutional ones. We cannot allow states to ruin our constitutionally declared rights.
In order to even to see progress on the actual real issues we all know exist, we have to hold the reps responsible. You know how we could do that? Unionize. Walk out of work, take away the means of production. Then they'd listen, or kill us, as they have before and white wash the history on it.
One example. The average life expectancy was 70 when Medicare was implemented. Meaning on average, government healthcare supported people for 5 years.
It’s now 77. 140% increase in the duration of government-paid healthcare. I would slowly - over a decade or so - raise the eligibility age for Medicare from 65 to 70.
Medicare is 13% of the federal budget. We have to address the big ticket items if we want to make meaningful progress.
We could also add a Medicare insurance premium. Waive it if people keep their BMI/body fat under a certain level, make their preventative annual doctor appointments and other key items that lead to lower healthcare spend. This goes along with my huge emphasis on personal responsibility and not making other people pay for your failures (ie not taking care of yourself).
Do you think implementing those systems would cost less or more than the ROI.
Love our democracy, but this is one of the weaknesses. A huge portion of the electorate is on the take from the government. Reeling in their free stuff is political suicide. So neither side can really address entitlements as a result. It’s why I’m so adamantly against any new entitlements - because once implemented, you can never get rid of them.
It should cost wayyyy less, but of course the government is wildly inefficient. We should do something similar for private insurance btw. People who don’t take care of themselves should 100% pay more for health insurance than those that do. Right now, healthy responsible people subsidize unhealthy fats. Just like bad drivers pay more for car insurance or people in at-risk areas pay more for homeowners insurance. This is just common sense.
