Can we start a bipartisan effort here?

[Winehole23]

I suspected as much, but without smilies humor and malice can be easily mistaken.

[EVAY]

mea culpa.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm in.


I would add that other dept. heads be told to look to Gate's example.
How much waste do you think might be in the Dept. of Agriculture? Hint a few years ago, an audit revealed something like 25 billion in unaccounted spending. It was spent...by somebody...for something...but who knows who or what?

I also think taxes, overall, are just too low...but I have a hard time getting behind a tax increase when so much is being wasted. It's almost counter-intuitive to continue to pour water into a bucket with no bottom.

[Winehole23]

Solid point, TB.

[Winehole23]

I would add that other dept. heads be told to look to Gate's example. How much waste do you think might be in the Dept. of Agriculture? Hint a few years ago, an audit revealed something like 25 billion in unaccounted spending. It was spent...by somebody...for something...but who knows who or what?

That's a lot of money, but it's small change compared to the 2.3 trillion dollars the Pentagon lost track of before the War on Terror commenced in earnest:

[boutons_deux]

"hoists the fortunes of his own party over that of his/her country has a screwed up sense of loyalty"

aka, Repugs who are prolonging/increasing the pain of unemployed Americans and America in general for political advantage in November.

[EVAY]

I'm in.


I would add that other dept. heads be told to look to Gate's example.
How much waste do you think might be in the Dept. of Agriculture? Hint a few years ago, an audit revealed something like 25 billion in unaccounted spending. It was spent...by somebody...for something...but who knows who or what?

I also think taxes, overall, are just too low...but I have a hard time getting behind a tax increase when so much is being wasted. It's almost counter-intuitive to continue to pour water into a bucket with no bottom.

See, I agree wholeheartedly with this, but the farmers and big agra are not motivated to support a politician who pledges to cut the agriculture budget unless somebody convinces them that they need to 'sacrifice' along with all other americans to get this thing done.

It would be nice to see a leader (of either party) who would have the stature and the guts to make the call to sacrifice and have people fall in line. Shortly after 9/11 it could have been done because the country was united. Since the Iraq war, not so much.

[boutons_deux]

"the farmers and big agra are not motivated to support a politician"

half false. The number of "farmers" is minuscule. The $$$Power of BigAgra/BigFood to suck in the farm/ethaonl/biodiesel subsidies by buying politicians FAR outweighs the votes a few farmers.

[EVAY]

"the farmers and big agra are not motivated to support a politician"

half false. The number of "farmers" is minuscule. The $$$Power of BigAgra/BigFood to suck in the farm/ethaonl/biodiesel subsidies by buying politicians FAR outweighs the votes a few farmers.

Fair enough...from a descendant of generations upon generations of small farmers.

[Wild Cobra]

1. Cuts in defense spending programs that are suggested by the current Secretary of Defense, Gates. These include outdated weapons programs and specific military expenditures that the pentagon no longer wants, but that members of both political parties continue because the defense contractors have cleverly put building programs in virtually every state in the union. Thus, to vote against the continued expenditure is to vote for unemployment in your own state.

Count me as one vote.

Yes, if your stated information is true.

2. Changes in en lement programs that will involve some form of means-testing for both medicare and medicaid, as well as social security payments.

Count me as one vote.

Medicaid is already means tested. Nobody who can afford better wants medicare. Although social security is treated like a tax, it is an insurance. It's not fair to make people pay into it, then tell them they make too much to collect any.

3. Elimination of the Bush tax cuts for earners making more than $500,000 per year in income. All other tax cuts continue.

Count me as one vote.

No. All tax payers should pay the same percentage.

How many votes could we get for each of these? In this combination, everybody's sacred cows get gored, at least a little bit. Can the folks on this forum agree that some compromise is necessary to get the deficits under control, and actually vote for something that they don't want to happen in order to save the economy?

Forget party ties and talking points. Can we get the votes?

Well, I'm only on board with the first one. Your second one is very leftist. The only fair taxes are those equally distributed. Equal suffrage. All tax payers should pay the same percentage. The rich pay enough more than the poor that way already. Simply eliminate all write-off. Make the tax code simple. The only way to make taxes non partisan is to make the poor pay some also. I would prefer everyone pay a strait 16% +/-(?) from the first dollar. Any increases or decreases the politicians promise affect everyone, else it is partisan and not fair. That way every time some politician wants to create another program, the poor also ask how much will it cost them. As it stands, the poor don't care how much more taxes increase, because they don't pay any.

No compromise is needed. Start by seeing what is needed and required by the cons ution, then scrutinize all other programs for reduction and/or elimination. Eliminate the entire Department of Education for starters. We Our children, without doubt, were better educated without it before it was formed. Means test all social programs that use tax payer dollars and require able bodied people to work at these jobs Americans don't want, else they cannot collect. Make it impossible for illegal residents to find employment, so they return home and stop draining our social system. Only allow emergency spending on illegal residents. Require do entation of a legal right to reside here for all other social benefits.

Back to taxes. I would be OK with giving the equivalent of Earned Income Credit, if everyone gets it equally. The taxes may have to be 18% rather than 16%, but it you require proof of legal residency, are 18 years or older, then send everyone a monthly check. Maybe about $300 per person monthly, indexed with inflation. This would eliminate most tax filing. All employers take out a strait percentage. All registered legal residents get a monthly check instead of writing off dependents and getting earned income credit or other tax credits. This can be altered by legislation, but the key is that all people are treated fair. This at the same time could function as your voter registration, and jury duty list.

[boutons_deux]

Same is true in Europe. 50%+ of Europe's budget is farm subsidies, but 1000s of farmers are suffering because the bulk of the subsidies go to BigAg or gets siphoned off into corruption without ever reaching the farmers.

[Winehole23]

It would be nice to see a leader (of either party) who would have the stature and the guts to make the call to sacrifice...

I recall:

...and have people fall in line.

Shortly after 9/11 it could have been done because the country was united.

, the whole damn world was on our side. We were all together and the whole world was with us. They hardly even ed when we threw out the Taliban.

And we effed it up monumentally. That's what pisses me off maybe most about the War in Iraq as an American: the missed opportunity.

Since the Iraq war, not so much.

Sadly, no. Ending our wars in South Asia could be a proximate cause of healing, supposing of course any end to war is actually being contemplated by our wise, benevolent and humane masters.

[Wild Cobra]

I could give an example that would say "Social Security Payments should not be paid out to citizens currently earning more than X amount". What is the X amount? I don't know. Maybe the same $500,000 that is suggested for those who could still afford to pay more in taxes in the middle of a recession.

Many rich people don't even qualify for SS, but the bare minimum if any, because they never paid in.

Why do you want to steal someone insurance benefits just because you think they make too much?

Social security was established as a 'safety net' for folks. If you are making X amount of money per year in your retirement, you don't need a safety net, so why take it?

Yet it was established as an insurance. You forget, the liberals who enacted it lied back then. Just like they do today.

[EVAY]

WC, I understand your point about everyone paying taxes, and I agree that there is some benefit to everyone having a stake in what gets spent. I would not be opposed to everyone paying in someportion of their income in taxes, but the problem is one of common sense, it seems to me.
Some folks in this country work very hard for very little money. Anypercentage of their income paid in taxes would just have to come back to them in rebates or social programs, so there is an argument to me made, I believe, for just not having them pay in the first place.

With respect to your suggestion regarding what gets cut, I respectfully disagree that "no compromise" is needed, for the specific reason that people interpret what the cons ution calls for very differently. That is, in my opinion, exactly why compromise is necessary.

Moreover, without compromise, nothing at all is gonna get done, and it seems to me that is how we got to this point in the first place.

[EVAY]

Many rich people don't even qualify for SS, but the bare minimum if any, because they never paid in.

Why do you want to steal someone insurance benefits just because you think they make too much?

Yet it was established as an insurance. You forget, the liberals who enacted it lied back then. Just like they do today.

I really regret that you seem unwilling to discuss the issue without resorting to accusations of moral failure (i.e. 'stealing").

BTW, I never said anyone who makes $500,000 per year "makes too much".

You have no idea how much I disagree with that statement. You are attributing sentiments and behaviors to me that I have not posited, would not agree with or participate in, and then using the erroneous assumptions to
attempt to discredit the suggestions.

Too bad.

[Wild Cobra]

That's a lot of money, but it's small change compared to the 2.3 trillion dollars the Pentagon lost track of before the War on Terror commenced in earnest:

That may or may not be significant. How may years is that over, and how much of it is for unpublished top secret black ops?

It definitely isn't over a one year period like I noticed so many think as I attempted a search. Too many leftist sites propagating this, clouding the information I seek.

[Wild Cobra]

Here's one I think we can all agree on.

Eliminate all corn subsidies.

[Wild Cobra]

I really regret that you seem unwilling to discuss the issue without resorting to accusations of moral failure (i.e. 'stealing").

BTW, I never said anyone who makes $500,000 per year "makes too much".

You have no idea how much I disagree with that statement. You are attributing sentiments and behaviors to me that I have not posited, would not agree with or participate in, and then using the erroneous assumptions to
attempt to discredit the suggestions.

Too bad.

Taxes and insurances are different. You are talking about means testing insurance.

[Winehole23]

That may or may not be significant.

To you, $2.3 T may or may not be significant. So noted.

Too many leftist sites propagating this, clouding the information I seek.

It hardly matter who cites the fact so much as whether or not is it true. Is it?

Do you disbelieve Don Rumsfeld, WC?

[Wild Cobra]

To you, $2.3 T may or may not be significant. So noted.
It hardly matter who cites the fact so much as whether or not is it true. Is it?

Do you disbelieve Don Rumsfeld, WC?

Yes, I believe him. However, the quote is not in full context. Was he talking about 5 years, 20 years, 50 years?

How much went to secret operations off the books?

Are you purposely missing my point that unless we have a time frame, and more facts, there is nothing to debate?

[Winehole23]

Are you purposely missing my point that unless we have a time frame, and more facts, there is nothing to debate?

I think the magnitude of the shortage makes all that moot. We differ on this.

[Wild Cobra]

I think the magnitude of the shortage makes all that moot. We differ on this.

We don't know what the shortfall is now, do we. Or when.

I agree, it's a large number. However, if it was the CIA's black ops funding over the last 30 years, I'm not so concerned.

More facts please, otherwise it's just trolling.

[Winehole23]

This is all a sidebar, WC. My curiosity is satisfied that there is significant waste in defense spending as elsewhere in government. If you need more facts to decide whether or not this is true, by all means avail yourself.

[Stringer_Bell]

Here's one I think we can all agree on.

Eliminate all corn subsidies.

I hate corn syrup, that . I'm sure there's nice people that work in the corn industry, but enough is enough. This country needs sugar!

2.3 trillion dollars unaccounted for is not just for Black-Ops. WTF kind if idiocy were they doing to lose that money off the books? Building secret weather machines? Earthquake machines? Presents to the Saudis?

[Wild Cobra]

2.3 trillion dollars unaccounted for is not just for Black-Ops. WTF kind if idiocy were they doing to lose that money off the books? Building secret weather machines? Earthquake machines? Presents to the Saudis?

Maybe the Clinton/Gore administration paid that much to prove AGW?