How to Fix Politics in Washington D.C.

[GammaEta67]

Both Sides:

1. Admit that the system is broken.
2. Admit that the legitimate interests of the American people are not being served.
3. Admit that the legitimate needs of the American people are not being met.
4. Admit that domestic energy production is a strategic and economic imperative.
5. Admit that domestic economic growth is a strategic and economic imperative.

Republicans:

1. Admit that sexual orientation is not a legitimate area of government regulation.
2. Admit that America can no longer afford to act as policeman of the world.
3. Admit that America must withdraw our military forces from around the world.
4. Admit that American foreign military engagement must be limited in terms of frequency and duration.
5. Admit that American health care is outrageously expensive and largely unnecessary.

Democrats:

1. Admit that the rights of human beings are superior to other species.
2. Admit that a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy is not unlimited.
3. Admit that a conscious and viable unborn child has protectable human rights.
4. Admit that the American educational system is hopelessly flawed and in need of complete overhaul.
5. Admit that personal health is largely a matter of personal responsibility.

[JG]

Where is the Republican compromise on abortion, Gamma? You conveniently left that out.

For that matter, where is the compromise on spending and taxes?

Dems must admit that we cannot afford to continue the massive entitlement programs we currently have, and spending MUST be cut, significantly.

Republicans must admit that we have to raise taxes, and on everybody, to be solvent in the long run.

[GammaEta67]

Originally Posted by JG

Where is the Republican compromise on abortion, Gamma? You conveniently left that out.

Republicans are wrong in trying to legislate sexuality. Democrats are wrong in trying to legislate the murder of unborn children. One to three months grace period for abortions, maybe. After that, the child is probably conscious and viable and the mother should probably lose her right to kill it.

For that matter, where is the compromise on spending and taxes?

The largest part of the government bureaucracy in Washington needs to be dismantled, and our overseas military presence needs to be eliminated. Hundreds of billions of dollars in annual savings there alone. Hundreds of more billions saved by eliminating unnecessary health care and wasteful education spending. Otherwise new energy programs stimulating the economy and huge new revenue streams from royalties on federal lands will be sufficient to balance the budget without new taxes.

Dems must admit that we cannot afford to continue the massive entitlement programs we currently have, and spending MUST be cut, significantly.

Not true. See above.

Republicans must admit that we have to raise taxes, and on everybody, to be solvent in the long run.

Not true. See above.

[JG]

You can't call it "murder of unborn children" and expect any compromise. A reasonable compromise would be if the fetus is viable, no abortion, unless there are extreme circumstances such as the mother's life is in jeopardy or if the fetus is hopelessly deformed and won't survive.

You really think we can keep SS, Medicare, and Medicaid as is, and not have to raise taxes? The math doesn't work, man.

[GammaEta67]

Originally Posted by JG

You can't call it "murder of unborn children" and expect any compromise. A reasonable compromise would be if the fetus is viable, no abortion, unless there are extreme circumstances such as the mother's life is in jeopardy or if the fetus is hopelessly deformed and won't survive.

I agree with those qualifications, but if the child is conscious it is no longer merely a fetus. It is a human being.

You really think we can keep SS, Medicare, and Medicaid as is, and not have to raise taxes?

Yes. The massive reduction in unnecessary health care expenses as well as the huge growth in our economy will permit it.

The math doesn't work, man.

Not true. See above.

[JG]

You might be surprised, but I would agree on that condition of abortion.

WRT the budget, the problem is, your savings on health care et al take time, a lot of it. We don't have that. We need to pay the bills right now. In the long run, maybe we can achieve some of the savings you speak of. But it's not a magic bullet that gets the budget close to balance this year, or next.

[GetHooked]

Originally Posted by JG

Where is the Republican compromise on abortion, Gamma? You conveniently left that out.

For that matter, where is the compromise on spending and taxes?

Dems must admit that we cannot afford to continue the massive entitlement programs we currently have, and spending MUST be cut, significantly.

Republicans must admit that we have to raise taxes, and on everybody, to be solvent in the long run.

Don't think Republicans would object to higher taxes if the money wasn't wasted paying for one stupid social program after another. Propping people up that refuse to help themselves is getting old.

[Bitterwhiteguy]

Originally Posted by GetHooked

Don't think Republicans would object to higher taxes if the money wasn't wasted paying for one stupid social program after another.

Their signature on Grover Norquist's pledge would say otherwise.

[Burnt Orange]

Originally Posted by GetHooked

Don't think Republicans would object to higher taxes if the money wasn't wasted paying for one stupid social program after another. Propping people up that refuse to help themselves is getting old.

What part of our spending gives you heartburn? Here you go I will attach an image below. Tell me what you would cut.

[GetHooked]

Originally Posted by Burnt Orange

What part of our spending gives you heartburn? Here you go I will attach an image below. Tell me what you would cut.

Start with the purple one.

[Burnt Orange]

Originally Posted by GetHooked

Start with the purple one.

Ok The purple one it is.

The purple one is 14% of total budget. That is about $350. Our current revenues with Bush Tax cuts is about $2.3T. So we are way off. But anyway, lets go with the purple one first.

Here are all the safety net programs. Which one would you cut, and by how much? Would you cut them altogether or would make reductions in them? If so how much would you reduce each?

$ 77.4 Negative Income tax- Earned income tax credit (EITC) and child tax credit
Cash is paid to working families who pay no income tax.
$ 70.4 SNAP - Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program
Formally food stamp program. Debit cards are distributed to the poor to buy food.
$ 58.7 Housing Assistance – HUD housing programs
Includes rent vouchers, public housing and community development programs.
$ 47.7 SSI - Supplemental Security Income
Cash is paid to disabled, blind or seniors over 65 years of age.
$ 33.9 Pell Grants
Grants are made to students to help pay for college tuition, room and board.
$ 17.5 TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Cash is paid to support low-income families and move them from welfare to work.
$ 16.5 Child Nutrition
School lunch, breakfast and after school food programs.
$ 10.9 Head Start
Preschool programs.
$ 7.6 Job Training
Various programs for job training and employment support for adults, youth and seniors
$ 6.5 WIC - Women, Infants and Children.
Food program for pregnant women and children up to five years old.
$ 5.8 Child Care
Child care and after school programs.
$ 4.6 LIHEAP - Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program
Support for heating or cooling a residential dwelling.

[Bitterwhiteguy]

[JG]

And capital flowing to opportunity in one place in Alaska is going to be enough to jump start the entire economy, Gamma?

[GammaEta67]

Originally Posted by JG

And capital flowing to opportunity in one place in Alaska is going to be enough to jump start the entire economy, Gamma?

You asked where the money was coming from. The answer is private industry. I repeat. Get the federal government out of the way, and the economy will jump start itself.

[radhorn2]

Gamma, while I don't include JG in this category, the vast majority of the left either doesn't understand or has little faith in the free market's ability to provide more benefits to more people than all of the state based economic schemes ever devised. And they continue to do so despite years of economic history proving the superiority of free market capitalism over collectivist stewardship of the economy.

[GammaEta67]

Originally Posted by radhorn2

Gamma, while I don't include JG in this category, the vast majority of the left either doesn't understand or has little faith in the free market's ability to provide more benefits to more people than all of the state based economic schemes ever devised. And they continue to do so despite years of economic history proving the superiority of free market capitalism over collectivist stewardship of the economy.

And JG doesn't think that way?

[Burnt Orange]

Originally Posted by radhorn2

Gamma, while I don't include JG in this category, the vast majority of the left either doesn't understand or has little faith in the free market's ability to provide more benefits to more people than all of the state based economic schemes ever devised. And they continue to do so despite years of economic history proving the superiority of free market capitalism over collectivist stewardship of the economy.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion. As much as you would like to believe otherwise, most liberal left I talk to do not want to remove markets entirely and replace it with a government run program. That does not even make sense.
But here's deal. You start off with this argument that most if not all of the left believes that. After that argument, you then state that years of economic history has proven otherwise.

Those two statements exemplify why we cannot reach a consensus in congress. You have already reached the conclusion that the the other side is a bunch of idiots. At that point agreeing with anything they say becomes very difficult.

We cannot come to a point where we have consensus in this forum. Even when there is nothing at stake...

[Burnt Orange]

Originally Posted by radhorn2

Gamma, while I don't include JG in this category, the vast majority of the left either doesn't understand or has little faith in the free market's ability to provide more benefits to more people than all of the state based economic schemes ever devised. And they continue to do so despite years of economic history proving the superiority of free market capitalism over collectivist stewardship of the economy.

The questions that conservatives and liberals must ask is not whether markets can price correctly. The question that must be asked is whether market outcomes are acceptable.

Markets are not magical. They create rational outcomes by meeting willing buyers with willing sellers.

Take health insurance for example. If I were to take 100 26 year olds with no previous health issues, group them into a pool and charge to insure them, the market would likely price that at fairly low levels. That is a rational outcome.

While at the same time if I take a pool of 100 85 year olds and charge to insure them. My market price will very likely be much much higher than what I was willing to charge those 26 year olds. This is also a rational outcome.

Question is whether you like or dislike rational outcomes.

[ShoTym]

Originally Posted by radhorn2

Gamma, while I don't include JG in this category, the vast majority of the left either doesn't understand or has little faith in the free market's ability to provide more benefits to more people than all of the state based economic schemes ever devised. And they continue to do so despite years of economic history proving the superiority of free market capitalism over collectivist stewardship of the economy.

Really? Didn't the free market take jobs overseas to increase profits? The free market is not concerned with providing benefits to people. It's concerned with making profits. If that means slashing pay, decreasing quality, shipping jobs overseas, then that's what history has shown will be done. The free market is not about making a decent amount of money, it's about making as much money as you can by any means necessary.

I still haven't had anybody explain to me why it's necessary to become a billionaire. I could live a very comfortable yet modest life on one payment of $10mil. That's me, my family, my inlaws, and some of my close friends. That's a fraction of what some people make in a year. Why? Why have we become so greedy with no concern for anybody but ourselves.

[Burnt Orange]

I am hearing a lot of people talk about this subsidy or that subsidy. Why we want one over the other and so on so forth.

Here's a radical idea. Lets subsidize the one resource that we are very rich in. Our people.

Lets do this. Eliminate all industrial subsidies and use that money to improve our math and science scores. make higher education free and eliminate any bottle necks that do not allow legitimate contenders from getting a good education.

Create more endowments and more public colleges like the University of Texas. Improve research funding to public schools.

These are all self terminating subsidies that creates a population that is more intelligent than the one before.

Lets give our future generation the ability to solve the problems we face today.

If we have to saddle them with debt, lets give them the ability to deal with it.