Let's solve the gummint's money problems for them

[wmw999 2,589]

We can come up with ideas. One rule, though -- you have to think at least two scenarios deep.

E.g, if the idea is "cut welfare," you have to decide what to do with the people who used to be on welfare. If the answer is "get jobs," then you have to say where those jobs are.

E.g. if the idea is to "repeal Obamacare," you have to say how you think the looming crisis in health care should be addressed (there is a looming crisis in health care -- all those fat diabetic people with heart trouble are getting older, and they're going to eat Medicare alive). So if you cut, you have to say where those people go for health care, and how that place covers their costs. If the answer is to just let them die, then say so, don't chicken out. It really might be the answer.

If you think that all subsidization of green energy should go away, then how should we address the fact that the price of oil will go up even more because of the now-increased demand.

If you say "eliminate the 80,000 secretary," then show what difference that is actually going to make (answer: about the same as the pennies you pick up will help your car note).

We get to gore each others' and our own oxen here, and say what the impact is to us.

Thoughts?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Thoughts?

no, I'll wait for to see those flip comments and bumper sticker tripe we've
already heard and ignore those

then I'll wait until someone puts out a genuine and well-meaning brainstorm and then shit all over it with flip comments, emotional appeal, and bumper sticker fodder

thanks, I'm very excited to see what's offered (())

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Bertt 0]

Rules ?? We don't need no stinking rules. But I'll play.
We need to grow the economy. One drag on the economy is frivolous lawsuits. Pass "loser pays" legislation that says the loser in a lawsuit pays the other side's legal expenses. That way, a plaintiff with a good case wins and the defendant pays, but if the plaintiff loses, the defendant isn't stuck with a mountain of legal fees. One effect of this would be to reduce medical expenses for defensive testing by docs who want to reduce exposure to malpractice suits. e.g. "My kid didn't get into college, so the doctor who delivered him must have done something wrong." "No, no", says the doctor. "I gave that kid an SAT test in the delivery room and he scored the same as every other newborn. He was fine when you took him home."

Build the Keystone XL pipeline. Create some jobs. Get oil from a place closer to home. Not using tar sands oil doesn't save the environment, because the Canadians will just sell the oil to China and the Chinese will burn it to power factories that make products for Wal-Mart.

OK, I'm done for now. Have a nice day.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[wmw999 2,589]

I'll reply to myself...
To attack both some of welfare and some of health care, we can provide the following:
1. in-home visits and care to patients who otherwise would be in nursing homes (this is way cheaper, and is actually done by Arizona using private contractors)
2. The visits and care are provided by people who were on welfare -- i.e. this particular program encourages that
3. The children of the people on welfare (welfare traditionally goes to single-parent families with children) are taken care of by other former welfare recipients, along with their own children.

What makes this possible? Medicare allowing in-home care reimbursement for things that it currently does not. Arizona seems to be doing pretty well with this kind of thing; they contracted their own care out a number of years ago and are happy with the results. The numbers I hears were $1800/mo to keep someone in their home, vs. $5000/mo to keep them in a nursing home. Big difference, and a higher quality of life. The Arizona program rewards the care managers for keeping their clients out of the hospital; this is a huge cost savings.

This won't address everything, but it's a structural reduction welfare & health care, hopefully. Yeah, there'll be people who abuse it, but if there are more who don't, and protections against gratuitous lawsuits, the net result should be not only lower costs, but also people who want to keep cooperating becuase it's in their immediate best interests.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Rules ?? We don't need no stinking rules. But I'll play.
We need to grow the economy. One drag on the economy is frivolous lawsuits. Pass "loser pays" legislation that says the loser in a lawsuit pays the other side's legal expenses. That way, a plaintiff with a good case wins and the defendant pays, but if the plaintiff loses, the defendant isn't stuck with a mountain of legal fees. One effect of this would be to reduce medical expenses for defensive testing by docs who want to reduce exposure to malpractice suits. e.g. "My kid didn't get into college, so the doctor who delivered him must have done something wrong." "No, no", says the doctor. "I gave that kid an SAT test in the delivery room and he scored the same as every other newborn. He was fine when you took him home."

Sorry. You've bought into the media campaign of the medical industry. The standard rule among most medical malpractice attorneys is this: "If you are healthy enough to call an attorney, you probably don't have a viable case." It costs so much to prosecute a case; the law is stacked in favor of the doctor in most states; the defense is so well funded; the returns are so low; that most attorneys have to wait for extremely clear malptractice and a dead or horribly crippled client before they can move.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

1. Exept in times of national emergency (such as war), POTUS, Senate, and Congress shall not be paid in any year the budget is not balanced.

2. Under no circumstances shall POTUS, Senate, or Congress receive raises so long as their is a public debt.

3. National emergencies shall be clearly identified by POTUS leading from the front and the first born child of every Senator and Congress member joining the military to enter the front lines. (This will also reduce the US habit of acting as world police and give a real kick to diplomatic efforts to avoid / end military conflicts)

Second order effects are that they will come up with alternate sources of income like PACs, so the ethics rules will have to be tightened up. Also, we might get rich people who don't really need the income, but we already get them, don't we?

Basically, I think the people we have are plenty smart enough to work it out. They just have NO motivation to do so. I recommend providing clear, bipartisan motivation.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[sfzombie 3]

hah! what a fucking joke! you act like it's never been done. there was an article in rolling stone(of all places) a couple of years ago that had a panel of retired congressmen who came together and in three days (!) worked out a budget that eliminated (!) the debt in 10 years! they said the reason it happened was they weren't hampered by parties or lobbyists. so come up with all the ideas you want, if you have time to waste on that, then more power to ya.

i am really not trying to sound mean or hurtful to you wendy, i respect your views and opinions. it's just that it's sickening to me that this kind of leadership should be allowed to go unchecked when there is obviously a solution.

http://kitswv.com

[billvon 3,119]

> Exept in times of national emergency (such as war), POTUS, Senate, and
>Congress shall not be paid in any year the budget is not balanced.

Feel good and worse than useless. Most of them don't need the money and it matters not a whit in terms of our overall budget. (And for those who DO need the money - they are now in the pocket of whoever pays them.)

>Under no circumstances shall POTUS, Senate, or Congress receive raises so long as
>their is a public debt.

See above.

> National emergencies shall be clearly identified by POTUS leading from the front

See above. Feel good that does nothing. (Probably worse than useless, as it guarantees him a photo op, thus making presidents who like war more likely to enter into it for the hero shots.)

Plus which, if we had a president who wanted a war but didn't want to get involved, then it would just be declared a "police action" rather than a "national emergency" - much the way we don't bother to declare war any more.

>and the first born child of every Senator and Congress member joining the military to
>enter the front lines.

Make it "mandatory draft for everyone whenever a military action is started" and that might work. That affects the people who really can make a difference - the voters.

[wmw999 2,589]

Oh, I know it's been done. I was just getting sick of all the "dem fault" "rep fault" "guns suck" "guns rule" back and forth in most of the threads, so I decided to start one of my own.

Andy Rooney once postulated a national board of "smart people" whose inputs would have to be formally considered and either countered or incorporated. Interesting thought.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[sfzombie 3]

i agree with you on this one, i'm tired of all the blame games also. there are two solutions to the problem. one involves a lot of people giving up a lot of conveniences, the other involves a lot of blood and carnage. i would opt for the former, but it would never work, too many people with too much money have things to say about that. and i fear the other wouldn't work too well either.

http://kitswv.com

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

i agree with you on this one, i'm tired of all the blame games also. there are two solutions to the problem. one involves a lot of people giving up a lot of conveniences, the other involves a lot of blood and carnage. i would opt for the former, but it would never work, too many people with too much money have things to say about that. and i fear the other wouldn't work too well either.

just another blame game comment there really

everybody has a stake in the game - whether it's personal assets, benefits, favored political status, 'conveniences' as you say or something more substantial, etc etc etc.

we're way beyond just giving up 'conveniences' for a few, it'll be substantial for all to dig out of the hole

it's not really the money that has the influence on the politicians, they already have money - it's power, and votes as well, and some might even has some type of idealism and good intentions - I doubt it, but anything is possible

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Bolas 5]

It's simple. Those not paying income taxes can no longer vote . No 1099, W-2, or the state/local equivalent means one can't vote in those elections.

That said, legalize drugs, prostitution, and gambling everywhere and tax them.

Eliminate corporate taxes as they just pass those on anyways. Eliminate all corporate welfare/incentives.

Increase individual income taxes on all.

Repeal EMTALA.

Evaluate all government agencies into three categories: profit center, self sustaining, general fund. General fund agencies will be evaluated for effectiveness and may be eliminated or merged into other agencies.

Cull the prison population,, nonviolent offenders get reduced sentences but fines, repeat violent offenders and those serving life are executed. Similar steps are taken for untreatable violent mental health patients.

Realize that many would be hurt or die, but our system is crashing because too many for too long have not contributed. Time to eliminate those that have no value and stop supporting those that don't support themselves.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[sfzombie 3]

+1000

http://kitswv.com

[93626392 0]

Quote

those serving life are executed. Similar steps are taken for untreatable violent mental health patients.

That is callous beyond belief. Seriously, where is your humanity?

And what about false imprisonment?

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

those serving life are executed. Similar steps are taken for untreatable violent mental health patients.

That is callous beyond belief. Seriously, where is your humanity?

And what about false imprisonment?

Where was theirs when committed their crime? What value to society do they serve? Why should we pay to keep them alive?

1 word: DNA. Additionally how many of those "falsely imprisoned" are totally innocent? Most likely they did something similar or worse that they weren't convicted of.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[richravizza 28]

The gummit has been growing @8.5% per yr.for the past 10+ years.It's more than Doubled in size.
The Working Class just Recieveda 2.5% pay reduction.We all have to"manage it"
All gummit MUST DO DA SAME(da sequesture).
A 2.5 % reduction from da 8.5% growth rate,leaves the gummit a 6.5%pay raise(OOPS)I meanGrowth.No Cuts have been made.
Small cuts of growth,@1% per yr. is management.
Economic growth will then tip the scale toward a sustainable future.

[sfzombie 3]

first of all, there was a lab in pa i think that said it had tainted over 35000 tests for dna (can't remember the right number, but it was a lot, look it up). 2d, while i agree with your arguments, the poster below you has it right. first, reduce the government employees salaries (starting with congress, then all the way down). then, a simple audit (when i say simple, it may take a year to complete) can trim the fat in federal government programs and agencies. a lot could be done if the government were run more like a corporation.

and how often has any of your representatives asked your opinion on anything? i propose a monthly ballot to be mailed or emailed to every registered voter. this should be addressed, with a comment section included. at least then when they ignore you, you have the option to think someone actually cared about what you have to say.

http://kitswv.com

[93626392 0]

Quote

Additionally how many of those "falsely imprisoned" are totally innocent? Most likely they did something similar or worse that they weren't convicted of.

LOL WAT? I don't think you've thought this through.

Let's try something else: let's say that your proposal regarding this mass extermination became law. Would you be prepared to be the person that pulls the trigger on these people?

It wouldn't be very efficient to line them all up against a wall though would it... it would be better to have some kind of mass-extermination mechanism, maybe gassing?

After all, the government says they're guilty.

[Skwrl 56]

Quote

Those not paying income taxes can no longer vote . No 1099, W-2, or the state/local equivalent means one can't vote in those elections.

Do you mean "if you don't file a return you don't vote" or that they have to no taxable income for federal purposes?

What if I only get Social Security payments? (Those aren't taxed if that's all my income.) If I have all of my income from municipal bonds, that's not taxed. Depending on how my disability payments are set up, those may not be taxed either. What if I use deductions and credits to reduce my net adjusted gross income to zero? The standard deduction and personal exemptions alone can eliminate federal income tax owed. For example, a married couple filing jointly with two children can earn $27,100 and reduce their federal tax liability to zero just by applying the standard deduction of $11,900 and personal exemptions of $3,800 each. That's not even counting any credits, such as the earned income tax credit, which could further reduce the tax bill. The 46% of Americans who paid no federal income tax in 2011 includes all of those examples.

Also, I pay other taxes, such as those levied on property, cigarettes, gas, liquor, payroll, Social Security, and state and local taxes...

By the way, check out the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Skwrl Productions - Wingsuit Photography

Northeast Bird School - Chief Logistics Guy and Video Dork

[Bolas 5]

If one is getting a 1099, W-2, or the state equivalent, they're contributing.

Besides, the IRS would be streamlined so all the deductions and loopholes would be eliminated.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[wmw999 2,589]

How about if you're raising a child who could legitimately be institutionalized (at far greater cost)? Does that count as contributing?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Bolas 5]

If the person was institutionalized, the caregivers could then work, possibly offsetting the higher costs.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.