Constructive, realistic things the next president can do to help the country.

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Note: Let's not get caught up on calls to impeach President Bush in this thread. It only inflames and distracts from the topic, and moreover simply isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. Let's talk about realistic things the next President can accomplish.

1. Better, possibly more frequent use of the presidential veto.

According to the U.S. Constitution, Section 7:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

I consider the presidential veto to be one of the most important assets to the seat of power in the White House. Whether that President is working with a friendly Congress or not, the veto allows him/her to rein in excessive (or plain bad) bills from becoming law. The threat of a veto is usually enough to send Congress back to the drawing board to alter the proposed legislation.

President Bush's very lax use of the presidential veto during his two terms in power (10 to date, with 2 of those vetoes being overridden) is something I consider to be an enormous detractor to his legacy. Republican-controlled Congress or not, one of his principle responsibilities is to rein in Congress. Obviously, he hasn't been very active in this role.

List of United States presidential vetoes


2. Order the as-soon-as-possible closing of Guantanamo Bay by executive order.

I'm not normally one to say that people should care a whit about what people in other countries think of theirs. Too often the an advantage comes to another nation only at the expense of another, meaning that keeping other happy usually comes at a cost. Being a person who realizes that the security and prosperity of himself and those immediately around him necessarily comes first, I usually don't care much about the hurt feelings of the French, Danish, or Zambians.

Guantanamo Bay, however, transcends that.

From a high detainee count of 750+, more than 500 inmates have been freed over the last couple of years. While much has been made of a Pentagon report that says that 36 former detainees are "confirmed or suspected" of having returned to terrorism (source), an enormous number of those detained have so far displayed no connection to terrorism or organized military action against U.S. forces.

This, after years of solitary confinement without access to legal representation, repeated interrogation, and allegations of torture, sexual degradation, forced drugging and religious persecution. The stigma of G-Bay is such that the nations that these detainees were snatched up from often refuse to let them return (source). The lives of these men have been completely destroyed.

If you're curious about this topic and would like to hear from the ex-prisoners of the Guantanamo Bay detention facility themselves, I highly recommend a listen to the This American Life Episode 331: Habeas Schmabeas. Click the "Full Episode" link to listen online.
 

naddicott

Senior member
Jul 3, 2002
793
0
76
A couple things I think both candidates could do if they have the cohones once in power...

More Government transparency.

Let citizens who care enough to google have more visibility on what is going on in Congress and the White house. Give us the tools to quickly research earmarks and facts about frequency and quality of lobbying on said earmarks, and give our representatives an earful if they're not representing us as we'd like them to.

Legitimate state secrets can remain secret of course, but whether we agree with final decisions or not, it would be very nice for the public to have access to the same information inputs that the White House accessed on non-secret issues (eg. education / health care / tax reform) to come up with their final detailed policies. Give "executive privilege" a more constrained and sane scope.

Merit based appointments.

Please no more "political buddy" FEMA heads who have never managed any sort of emergency organization. Give people who have given a long career of service to their departments over multiple administrations a chance to manage government departments with some modicum of experience and competency.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Yllus, we don't agree on a lot, but that was a very good post on Guantanamo. Thanks for the link as well, good radio program.

Things I'd like to see from the next president:

- Broadly speaking, shift the representation from the wealthy few to the public. Implement policies to stop the redistribution of wealth to increase concentration at the top.

- Pursue a global strategy of how we can preserve global diversity of power among sovereign nations, and stop the constant competition for any one power to try to dominate.

- Take measures to end the notion of the 'Unitary executive' and ensure future presidents cannot try to become dictators again.

- Take *legitimate* corrective action on the Social Security and Medical care programs - not destroy them as Republicans want to.

- Decrease military spending, stop the development of destabilizing new weapons, pursue measures for no nation to develop them.

- Pursue alternative energy sources.

- Expose the Bush crimes and pursue appropriate prosecutions.

- Cut some spending, and increase other spending that strengthens the nation. Pursue the elimination of the deficit.

- Take steps to reduce the role of money in campaigns, and to end the legal status of corporations as legal persons for the purpose of constitutional protections.

- Take steps to educate the public on certain civic matters the right-wing noise machine has led many people not to understand, from civil rights to economic issues.

- Take steps to diversify the media ownership.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
It may not be 'realistic', but I think that we need to overhaul a lot of legacy policies. It seems like we do too much stuff simply because that's the way it has always been done. It would be great if the next president would just bite the bullet and reform what needs to be reformed. Sure, it may hurt for awhile, but I'd rather take a bullet in the leg now than a bullet in the head later.

One example would be the whole slew of welfare programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc...). These items alone take up over 50% of the entire budget. I think it's time to rethink our strategy and no one seems to want to do it.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
no crappy add-ons to bills, period

alternative energy initiatives

I'd put some troops in Africa, help build some real infrastructure, do some real nation building
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: XZeroII
It may not be 'realistic', but I think that we need to overhaul a lot of legacy policies. It seems like we do too much stuff simply because that's the way it has always been done. It would be great if the next president would just bite the bullet and reform what needs to be reformed. Sure, it may hurt for awhile, but I'd rather take a bullet in the leg now than a bullet in the head later.

One example would be the whole slew of welfare programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc...). These items alone take up over 50% of the entire budget. I think it's time to rethink our strategy and no one seems to want to do it.

Soylent Green? Logan's Run, perhaps?
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Cut military spending

Cut social spending

Cut government

That'd make me pretty happy. I'm tired of being the worlds police, I'm tired of paying for bums in this country and I'm tired of a nanny government.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: XZeroII
It may not be 'realistic', but I think that we need to overhaul a lot of legacy policies. It seems like we do too much stuff simply because that's the way it has always been done. It would be great if the next president would just bite the bullet and reform what needs to be reformed. Sure, it may hurt for awhile, but I'd rather take a bullet in the leg now than a bullet in the head later.

One example would be the whole slew of welfare programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc...). These items alone take up over 50% of the entire budget. I think it's time to rethink our strategy and no one seems to want to do it.

Soylent Green? Logan's Run, perhaps?

I most definitely did NOT say that we should abolish the programs and start killing people. Please stop trying to twist my words. I mearly said that these programs need to be reformed.
 

Cuda1447

Lifer
Jul 26, 2002
11,757
0
71
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Cut military spending

Cut social spending

Cut government

That'd make me pretty happy. I'm tired of being the worlds police, I'm tired of paying for bums in this country and I'm tired of a nanny government.

QFT. Smaller government FTW.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Cut military spending

Cut social spending

Cut government

That'd make me pretty happy. I'm tired of being the worlds police, I'm tired of paying for bums in this country and I'm tired of a nanny government.

Sounds like a great start....and cut my taxes too while they are at it (assuming that the deficit is still smaller after all tax and spending cuts are enacted).

Smaller government :thumbsup:


(but it's not going to happen until they spend theirselves into a hole)...
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: XZeroII
It may not be 'realistic', but I think that we need to overhaul a lot of legacy policies. It seems like we do too much stuff simply because that's the way it has always been done. It would be great if the next president would just bite the bullet and reform what needs to be reformed. Sure, it may hurt for awhile, but I'd rather take a bullet in the leg now than a bullet in the head later.

One example would be the whole slew of welfare programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc...). These items alone take up over 50% of the entire budget. I think it's time to rethink our strategy and no one seems to want to do it.

Soylent Green? Logan's Run, perhaps?

I most definitely did NOT say that we should abolish the programs and start killing people. Please stop trying to twist my words. I mearly said that these programs need to be reformed.

Which goes to show how the liberals cant even begin to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, theres abuse of the system. No no, everyone on those programs needs it!

Ridiculous.
 

thirtythree

Diamond Member
Aug 7, 2001
8,680
3
0
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Which goes to show how the liberals cant even begin to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, theres abuse of the system. No no, everyone on those programs needs it!

Ridiculous.

Out of curiosity, have any liberals ever said that?

EDIT: That there's absolutely no abuse of the system, I mean.
 

Harvey

Administrator<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
35,057
67
91
One of the most constructive things the next President can do is to have his Attorney General prosecute every member of the Bush administration involved in their treason, murder, torture, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It's constructive because right now, our credibility in the eyes of our own citizens and the world community is in the toilet, and pursuing and prosecuting the lying criminals who deceived us and the world to lead us into this mess is the only way to show the world that we are a nation of laws that can own up to our mistakes and deal with them through an open and fair system of justice.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: XZeroII
It may not be 'realistic', but I think that we need to overhaul a lot of legacy policies. It seems like we do too much stuff simply because that's the way it has always been done. It would be great if the next president would just bite the bullet and reform what needs to be reformed. Sure, it may hurt for awhile, but I'd rather take a bullet in the leg now than a bullet in the head later.

One example would be the whole slew of welfare programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc...). These items alone take up over 50% of the entire budget. I think it's time to rethink our strategy and no one seems to want to do it.

Soylent Green? Logan's Run, perhaps?

I most definitely did NOT say that we should abolish the programs and start killing people. Please stop trying to twist my words. I mearly said that these programs need to be reformed.

Which goes to show how the liberals cant even begin to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, theres abuse of the system. No no, everyone on those programs needs it!

Ridiculous.

There's a saying about this: don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

To xzeroii, I did not whatsoever 'twist your words'. Rather I made the point that the implication in your posts that we should 'cut' those programs leaves wide open the question of just how you would cut their cost without reducing their benefit, and pointing out that simply cutting them would increase the harm happening to people who get them now.

Before social security, 90% of the elderly lived in poverty. We could return to that.

In other words, you need to say how you would try for this change you advocate and either acknowledge and defend the harm or explain how to avoid it.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: XZeroII
It may not be 'realistic', but I think that we need to overhaul a lot of legacy policies. It seems like we do too much stuff simply because that's the way it has always been done. It would be great if the next president would just bite the bullet and reform what needs to be reformed. Sure, it may hurt for awhile, but I'd rather take a bullet in the leg now than a bullet in the head later.

One example would be the whole slew of welfare programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc...). These items alone take up over 50% of the entire budget. I think it's time to rethink our strategy and no one seems to want to do it.

Soylent Green? Logan's Run, perhaps?

I most definitely did NOT say that we should abolish the programs and start killing people. Please stop trying to twist my words. I mearly said that these programs need to be reformed.

Which goes to show how the liberals cant even begin to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, theres abuse of the system. No no, everyone on those programs needs it!

Ridiculous.

There's a saying about this: don't let perfect be the enemy of the good.

To xzeroii, I did not whatsoever 'twist your words'. Rather I made the point that the implication in your posts that we should 'cut' those programs leaves wide open the question of just how you would cut their cost without reducing their benefit, and pointing out that simply cutting them would increase the harm happening to people who get them now.

Before social security, 90% of the elderly lived in poverty. We could return to that.

In other words, you need to say how you would try for this change you advocate and either acknowledge and defend the harm or explain how to avoid it.

1. I never made the implication that those programs should be cut. Reform != Cut.
2. I would be more than happy to explain my position.
Social Security.
First, phase out Social Security. This would have to be done over time (research would have to be done to determine how long) until it is permenantly gone. This should be replaced with personal responsibility. SS is simply a retirement plan, and I believe that people should be responsible for their own finances. If they need assistance, there are plenty of options available including Family, Friends, Churches, Non-Profit Organizations. I'm sure that lots more options would open up once there is a market. So I would in fact cut this program altogether because I believe that it breeds financial irresponsibility. The gov't could use the hundreds of billions of dollars that they get now to fund free financial planning assistance to those who need it.

Welfare.
Welfare is a good concept, in theory. But we need to make sure that welfare is only there to help pick people up when they are down. There needs to be time limits on how long a person can be on welfare and rules need to be established for maintaining your status on welfare. For example, if you live in Detroit and you can't find a job after 2 years, then you need to move. During those two years, you should have been trying to learn additional skills that are in demand by going to school or by taking on an apprenticeship or by going to your local library. If you have 12 kids, then that's your own fault and no one said life was easy. Kids do not magically happen. Unless you are raped, you chose to have kids and the more kids you have, the harder life is. We need to use the money that we save on Welfare to educate people on how to live a balanced and productive life. This may include having classes that people go to at any age that teaches you how to balance your life and not make decisions that can harm you. This may even include one-on-one assistance to help people get their lives together and move up in the world.
Obviously this would be very difficult on the people who have already messed up their lives, but we need to begin teaching people early in life how to make good decisions and that is what I would like to replace welfare with...Education and lots of it for people of any age. Welfare would, again have to be phased out so it wouldn't be a 100% cut off, but eventually it would be gone.

Medicare/Medicaid
These two are basically insurance. I believe that the entire medial world needs to be uprooted. The problem is not that insurance is too expensive, it's that insurance companies are being charged a ton by doctors and hospitals so they have to keep premiums high in order to make a profit. We need to regulate prices for medical procedures so that there is incentive to innovate, but still keep prices affordable. If prices for doctor visits weren't so expensive to begin with, then the problem of not having insurance no longer becomes an issue! Obviously we can't expect the elderly and the disabled to maintain their own bills at all times, so that's where the gov't would step in and assist, but we need to bring down the cost of medicine in general.

There's more that I could go on about and even elaborate on these even more, but hopefully this gives you an idea of how we can help things. A lot of it has to do with EDUCATION. We need to teach people how to be responsible with their own lives. Learning should not stop after High School or College. It's a lifetime experience and we need to make sure that people are learning throughout their lives and that resources are avilable in case they need help.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Cut military spending

Cut social spending

Cut government

That'd make me pretty happy. I'm tired of being the worlds police, I'm tired of paying for bums in this country and I'm tired of a nanny government.

True. Cuts across the board, not necessarily "equal" cuts but everything needs cut in some way or another while some can be eliminated entirely since they are not Federal responsibilities.


*************************




Originally posted by: Craig234
In other words, you need to say how you would try for this change you advocate and either acknowledge and defend the harm or explain how to avoid it.

I'm sure he could just add "Take steps" to what he said....
 

SigArms08

Member
Apr 16, 2008
181
0
0
I wouldn't mind seeing some limitations on the amount of "offshoring" that a company can take advantage of. The more jobs that are shipped overseas, the less tax revenue that is generated, finding work becomes difficult for people of certain skill levels (thus adding to the issue/burdens of welfare and other similar social program).

With the internet, there are a host of professions that can be done overseas....even teaching (via webcam or something similiar, just have a two way TV system in a class with a teachers 'aid' in the classroom). Seems like it could really get out of control.

But, instead of investigating ways to approach this, there are instead discussions of limiting talk radio. WTF is wrong with politicians (both sides of the aisle)?
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
I would like to see a reduction of welfare benefits with an increase in New Deal style public works programs and an investement int he infrastructure. More jobs, better quality of life for a good win.
 

Cogman

Lifer
Sep 19, 2000
10,283
134
106
Veto any bill that involves the government spending more, on just about anything other then national debt.

A lot of promises are made by the president and for some reason we seem to think he can make a huge difference, the fact of the matter is, if the 200+ people in congress/senate suck, so does everything else.

Can we really say that the president is the be blamed/congratulated for making laws? Thats not his job. He can only pass it or stop it, nothing more.

I would like to see a reduction of welfare benefits with an increase in New Deal style public works programs and an investement int he infrastructure. More jobs, better quality of life for a good win.

This specifically is what I am referring to. The president cant cut welfare benefits, its not in his power. Congress can.
 

Brigandier

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2008
4,394
2
81
Originally posted by: Cogman

I would like to see a reduction of welfare benefits with an increase in New Deal style public works programs and an investement int he infrastructure. More jobs, better quality of life for a good win.

This specifically is what I am referring to. The president cant cut welfare benefits, its not in his power. Congress can.

He can set teh agenda, and if it is indeed Obama, he wll be the leader of the party and can change a lot if he is inclined to.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: XZeroII
1. I never made the implication that those programs should be cut. Reform != Cut.

I think that's exactly what you implied. Note I said implied, to leave you room to clarify.

It seems like we do too much stuff simply because that's the way it has always been done. It would be great if the next president would just bite the bullet and reform what needs to be reformed. Sure, it may hurt for awhile, but I'd rather take a bullet in the leg now than a bullet in the head later.

One example would be the whole slew of welfare programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc...). These items alone take up over 50% of the entire budget. I think it's time to rethink our strategy and no one seems to want to do it.

Note the bolded text - the last item is pretty black and white, when you say you are concerned that we spend too much - "over 50%" on those programs. The *clear* implication is that we need to spend less on them, i.e., cut them. The other bolded phrases are all consistent with that implication. You don't 'bite the bullet' that will 'hurt for a while' to simply improve things usually, that language is usually used for cuts.

Now, on to your clarification.

2. I would be more than happy to explain my position.
Social Security.
First, phase out Social Security.

Sorry for thinking you meant to cut SS at all.

This would have to be done over time (research would have to be done to determine how long) until it is permenantly gone. This should be replaced with personal responsibility.

Now that I'm talking to an ideologue - take your pick, 'libertarian', 'free market', 'laissez-faire', whatever - the chances for communicating have gone way down, but:

We tried your way before SS. You are implying that the people of the United States of America simply 'lacked personal responsibility' before 1935, and that's the only reason why we had 90% of the elderly living in terrible poverty (which had a lot to do with why the life spans were decades shorter back then). Why, now that people are 'responsible' - well, let's hope they are and if not, too bad - we can get rid of the program and return to those days.

SS is simply a retirement plan, and I believe that people should be responsible for their own finances. If they need assistance, there are plenty of options available including Family, Friends, Churches, Non-Profit Organizations. I'm sure that lots more options would open up once there is a market.

That's your ideology talking. I don't need to discuss with you on ideology, I just need to point out that *history* shows how poorly that worked. Very poorly.

So I would in fact cut this program altogether because I believe that it breeds financial irresponsibility.

Leave some of the kool-aid for others! And drink it, don't shoot it.

The gov't could use the hundreds of billions of dollars that they get now to fund free financial planning assistance to those who need it.

Why, that's all we need is financial planning. And let's replace medicine with healthcare planning! And food stamps with cooking classes!

Social Security is a complex topic, too complex for message board debates to do it justice, leaving it vulnerable to armchair experts 'fixing' it with ideas that are simple, and wrong.

There's a reason that experts created it, and a reason why it has worked so well. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well, you don't replace the car over a flat tire (unless you're Halliburton in Iraq on a cost-plus contract). Ronald Reagan gave Social Security a flat tire by setting the precedent for the baby boomer surplus fun to be spent instead of saved, and demographic changes gave it worn brakes, with increased longevity and baby boomers. So we make the *adjustments* to fix that, and it's good to drive.

And the party to do that is the Democratic party - and only some of them, not the DLC types. Not the Republicans who have wanted to destroy SS since it was created for the crass political reason that it's a permanent reminder to the elderly that the democrats did it, not them, and to let Wall Street get their mitts on the program and extort billions under the phony banner of 'privatization efficiency'.

I think, as I said in my post earlier, that some *corrections* are needed.

Welfare.
Welfare is a good concept, in theory. But we need to make sure that welfare is only there to help pick people up when they are down. There needs to be time limits on how long a person can be on welfare and rules need to be established for maintaining your status on welfare. For example, if you live in Detroit and you can't find a job after 2 years, then you need to move. During those two years, you should have been trying to learn additional skills that are in demand by going to school or by taking on an apprenticeship or by going to your local library. If you have 12 kids, then that's your own fault and no one said life was easy. Kids do not magically happen. Unless you are raped, you chose to have kids and the more kids you have, the harder life is. We need to use the money that we save on Welfare to educate people on how to live a balanced and productive life.

First welcome to the 1990's, when Clinton already put the limits on Welfare.

But I always love 'small-government' people when all they want to do is give all the people 'how to live your life' training.

I'm actually in favor of the sort of assistance you describe, but find it highly amusing, the contrast between the rhetoric and the approach.

The problem is not in offering such assistance, which helps, but rather in the unrealistic expectation that everyone should follow it well and screw them if they don't.

That's the sort of Ayn Randian, naive, undeveloped, ignorant, impractical and inhumane attitude that disqualifies such people from deserving any input into policy.

This may include having classes that people go to at any age that teaches you how to balance your life and not make decisions that can harm you. This may even include one-on-one assistance to help people get their lives together and move up in the world.
Obviously this would be very difficult on the people who have already messed up their lives, but we need to begin teaching people early in life how to make good decisions and that is what I would like to replace welfare with...Education and lots of it for people of any age. Welfare would, again have to be phased out so it wouldn't be a 100% cut off, but eventually it would be gone.

We're surprisingly close. I created a name for my approach, calling it "Enablement", in which the government provides *more* assistance to people - housing, food, transportation, clothing, job search, education, and personal coaching - because that intense investment can save the government a lot of money by the people becoming productive and paying taxes, AND it's good for the people; and like you, I agree it needs to have some limits that people need to progress, or lose most benefits eventually.

It's the only sensible approach IMO. Doing nothing is a problem, and giving aid that only provides bare necessities tends not to do that well either.

Medicare/Medicaid
These two are basically insurance. I believe that the entire medial world needs to be uprooted. The problem is not that insurance is too expensive, it's that insurance companies are being charged a ton by doctors and hospitals so they have to keep premiums high in order to make a profit.

I'm speaking to the ideologue again, who it appears to me gets info either from the air or from insurance company propaganda. Insurance companies gouge. It's a big problem.

We need to regulate prices for medical procedures so that there is incentive to innovate, but still keep prices affordable. If prices for doctor visits weren't so expensive to begin with, then the problem of not having insurance no longer becomes an issue! Obviously we can't expect the elderly and the disabled to maintain their own bills at all times, so that's where the gov't would step in and assist, but we need to bring down the cost of medicine in general.

The solution is universal healthcare, as proven in country after country, we're the last advanced nation not to have it.

There's more that I could go on about and even elaborate on these even more, but hopefully this gives you an idea of how we can help things. A lot of it has to do with EDUCATION. We need to teach people how to be responsible with their own lives. Learning should not stop after High School or College. It's a lifetime experience and we need to make sure that people are learning throughout their lives and that resources are avilable in case they need help.

That's part of it; but I'd like to see you make that work in the gilded age, when families had to work for the food to survive (and if sick or injured, they didn't), with the kids working, the days 12 or 16 hours, 6 days a week, living in a shanty, *because of the rules under which the system worked*. It took government action to change the rules, and fix things.

In other words, your idea is fine, but only in conjunction with other policies to keep labor strong enough, and other balancing policies, so that all share in the wealth produced.

That's not the case today. In the last 30 years, close to 100% of the gains have gone to the very top, with the bottom 80% getting 0% after inflation, the top 0.1% huge increases.

Education doesn't fix that, other than how to stop voting for the guy you want a beer with, who is a hired gun for the big money people, and for the guy who will fix the bad policies.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: XZeroII
1. I never made the implication that those programs should be cut. Reform != Cut.

I think that's exactly what you implied. Note I said implied, to leave you room to clarify.

It seems like we do too much stuff simply because that's the way it has always been done. It would be great if the next president would just bite the bullet and reform what needs to be reformed. Sure, it may hurt for awhile, but I'd rather take a bullet in the leg now than a bullet in the head later.

One example would be the whole slew of welfare programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc...). These items alone take up over 50% of the entire budget. I think it's time to rethink our strategy and no one seems to want to do it.

Note the bolded text - the last item is pretty black and white, when you say you are concerned that we spend too much - "over 50%" on those programs. The *clear* implication is that we need to spend less on them, i.e., cut them. The other bolded phrases are all consistent with that implication. You don't 'bite the bullet' that will 'hurt for a while' to simply improve things usually, that language is usually used for cuts.

Now, on to your clarification.

2. I would be more than happy to explain my position.
Social Security.
First, phase out Social Security.

Sorry for thinking you meant to cut SS at all.

This would have to be done over time (research would have to be done to determine how long) until it is permenantly gone. This should be replaced with personal responsibility.

Now that I'm talking to an ideologue - take your pick, 'libertarian', 'free market', 'laissez-faire', whatever - the chances for communicating have gone way down, but:

We tried your way before SS. You are implying that the people of the United States of America simply 'lacked personal responsibility' before 1935, and that's the only reason why we had 90% of the elderly living in terrible poverty (which had a lot to do with why the life spans were decades shorter back then). Why, now that people are 'responsible' - well, let's hope they are and if not, too bad - we can get rid of the program and return to those days.

SS is simply a retirement plan, and I believe that people should be responsible for their own finances. If they need assistance, there are plenty of options available including Family, Friends, Churches, Non-Profit Organizations. I'm sure that lots more options would open up once there is a market.

That's your ideology talking. I don't need to discuss with you on ideology, I just need to point out that *history* shows how poorly that worked. Very poorly.

So I would in fact cut this program altogether because I believe that it breeds financial irresponsibility.

Leave some of the kool-aid for others! And drink it, don't shoot it.

The gov't could use the hundreds of billions of dollars that they get now to fund free financial planning assistance to those who need it.

Why, that's all we need is financial planning. And let's replace medicine with healthcare planning! And food stamps with cooking classes!

Social Security is a complex topic, too complex for message board debates to do it justice, leaving it vulnerable to armchair experts 'fixing' it with ideas that are simple, and wrong.

There's a reason that experts created it, and a reason why it has worked so well. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well, you don't replace the car over a flat tire (unless you're Halliburton in Iraq on a cost-plus contract). Ronald Reagan gave Social Security a flat tire by setting the precedent for the baby boomer surplus fun to be spent instead of saved, and demographic changes gave it worn brakes, with increased longevity and baby boomers. So we make the *adjustments* to fix that, and it's good to drive.

And the party to do that is the Democratic party - and only some of them, not the DLC types. Not the Republicans who have wanted to destroy SS since it was created for the crass political reason that it's a permanent reminder to the elderly that the democrats did it, not them, and to let Wall Street get their mitts on the program and extort billions under the phony banner of 'privatization efficiency'.

I think, as I said in my post earlier, that some *corrections* are needed.

Welfare.
Welfare is a good concept, in theory. But we need to make sure that welfare is only there to help pick people up when they are down. There needs to be time limits on how long a person can be on welfare and rules need to be established for maintaining your status on welfare. For example, if you live in Detroit and you can't find a job after 2 years, then you need to move. During those two years, you should have been trying to learn additional skills that are in demand by going to school or by taking on an apprenticeship or by going to your local library. If you have 12 kids, then that's your own fault and no one said life was easy. Kids do not magically happen. Unless you are raped, you chose to have kids and the more kids you have, the harder life is. We need to use the money that we save on Welfare to educate people on how to live a balanced and productive life.

First welcome to the 1990's, when Clinton already put the limits on Welfare.

But I always love 'small-government' people when all they want to do is give all the people 'how to live your life' training.

I'm actually in favor of the sort of assistance you describe, but find it highly amusing, the contrast between the rhetoric and the approach.

The problem is not in offering such assistance, which helps, but rather in the unrealistic expectation that everyone should follow it well and screw them if they don't.

That's the sort of Ayn Randian, naive, undeveloped, ignorant, impractical and inhumane attitude that disqualifies such people from deserving any input into policy.

This may include having classes that people go to at any age that teaches you how to balance your life and not make decisions that can harm you. This may even include one-on-one assistance to help people get their lives together and move up in the world.
Obviously this would be very difficult on the people who have already messed up their lives, but we need to begin teaching people early in life how to make good decisions and that is what I would like to replace welfare with...Education and lots of it for people of any age. Welfare would, again have to be phased out so it wouldn't be a 100% cut off, but eventually it would be gone.

We're surprisingly close. I created a name for my approach, calling it "Enablement", in which the government provides *more* assistance to people - housing, food, transportation, clothing, job search, education, and personal coaching - because that intense investment can save the government a lot of money by the people becoming productive and paying taxes, AND it's good for the people; and like you, I agree it needs to have some limits that people need to progress, or lose most benefits eventually.

It's the only sensible approach IMO. Doing nothing is a problem, and giving aid that only provides bare necessities tends not to do that well either.

Medicare/Medicaid
These two are basically insurance. I believe that the entire medial world needs to be uprooted. The problem is not that insurance is too expensive, it's that insurance companies are being charged a ton by doctors and hospitals so they have to keep premiums high in order to make a profit.

I'm speaking to the ideologue again, who it appears to me gets info either from the air or from insurance company propaganda. Insurance companies gouge. It's a big problem.

We need to regulate prices for medical procedures so that there is incentive to innovate, but still keep prices affordable. If prices for doctor visits weren't so expensive to begin with, then the problem of not having insurance no longer becomes an issue! Obviously we can't expect the elderly and the disabled to maintain their own bills at all times, so that's where the gov't would step in and assist, but we need to bring down the cost of medicine in general.

The solution is universal healthcare, as proven in country after country, we're the last advanced nation not to have it.

There's more that I could go on about and even elaborate on these even more, but hopefully this gives you an idea of how we can help things. A lot of it has to do with EDUCATION. We need to teach people how to be responsible with their own lives. Learning should not stop after High School or College. It's a lifetime experience and we need to make sure that people are learning throughout their lives and that resources are avilable in case they need help.

That's part of it; but I'd like to see you make that work in the gilded age, when families had to work for the food to survive (and if sick or injured, they didn't), with the kids working, the days 12 or 16 hours, 6 days a week, living in a shanty, *because of the rules under which the system worked*. It took government action to change the rules, and fix things.

In other words, your idea is fine, but only in conjunction with other policies to keep labor strong enough, and other balancing policies, so that all share in the wealth produced.

That's not the case today. In the last 30 years, close to 100% of the gains have gone to the very top, with the bottom 80% getting 0% after inflation, the top 0.1% huge increases.

Education doesn't fix that, other than how to stop voting for the guy you want a beer with, who is a hired gun for the big money people, and for the guy who will fix the bad policies.

I definitely have to give you a thumbs up for your comments. I always enjoy a very good read from someone who put thought into what they say. Big kudos.

I only have to disagree with your Universal Healthcare system. You are not solving the problem. You are treating the symptoms but leaving the disease alone and it will only get worse. Universal Healthcare has most certainly not been proven in country after country. The problem is still there, you're just masking it. The problem is that it costs too much for medical treatment. Your solution is to pass the buck along to the government, who gets it's money from you and me. You're just masking where the money comes from. I am saying that we need to find a way to lower the cost of medical treatment to begin with. If it didn't cost me $100 to just see my doctor, then I wouldn't need heafty insurance to see him. So rather than providing massive insurance that costs tons of money, let's just lower these costs to begin with. Of course there is a fine line between lowering costs and stifling innovation so we need to be careful, but I think that it can be done.
 

Specop 007

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
9,454
0
0
Originally posted by: thirtythree
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Which goes to show how the liberals cant even begin to think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, theres abuse of the system. No no, everyone on those programs needs it!

Ridiculous.

Out of curiosity, have any liberals ever said that?

EDIT: That there's absolutely no abuse of the system, I mean.

Essentially yes.

They want to keep throwing money at the problem. More more more, spend spend spend. Never ever have I heard one of those damned dirty traitorous thieving Democrats say "We need to cut spending on social programs". Hell, they've never even wanted to halt spending at current levels.

Its ALL about supporting the bums, and robbing the rich to do it. The sad thing is, they can give no real reason to do this other then "It feels good".

No, no it doesnt. Maybe it feels good for you. Fine, YOU give your money. But dont STEAL it from me.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Specop 007
Cut military spending

Cut social spending

Cut government

That'd make me pretty happy. I'm tired of being the worlds police, I'm tired of paying for bums in this country and I'm tired of a nanny government.
I can agree with all of that, even the military spending cuts -- but those must be handled very carefully so that we do not leave ourselves weaker as a result.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Never ever have I heard one of those damned dirty traitorous thieving Democrats say "We need to cut spending on social programs"

maybe because social spending is there for a reason and cutting things like welfare, food stamps, etc would have disastrous consequences.