"What We Would Like to Hear"

[Boom_70]

Today's NYT Editorial pretty much rips all the candidates and lays out a good blue print for the issues that need to be debated over the next 7 months.

I would agree with the Times editors that Hillary and Obama have really gotten away from the issues and too much into personal attack.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06thu1.html?ref=opinion

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

These issues were all discussed, repeatedly, over the course of 20 debates.
As for Iraq, well, if the NYT had done due diligence when it mattered...

 

[poindexter]

This issue touches on what I have always thought.

I watch some very intelligent people on this board spend hours, days, months obsessing over these presidential candidates, and I think, "why?". Why do they do it? Our elected leaders don't come close to addressing the real problems that affect America.

I happen to dwell on the country's deficit. To me, there is no greater threat to America's future. There is not a candidate who addresses this issue in any serious way. Because serious means actually cutting spending. Our current president doesn't address the deficit except to grow it, and it doesn't produce anything more than crickets from any politician in the country.

It's hopeless, as far as I am concerned. Hillary, Obama, McCain, it doesn't matter. Same ****, different suit. It's all a game. We, the people, lose in the end.

 

[Boom_70]

This issue touches on what I have always thought.

I watch some very intelligent people on this board spend hours, days, months obsessing over these presidential candidates, and I think, "why?". Why do they do it? Our elected leaders don't come close to addressing the real problems that affect America.

I happen to dwell on the country's deficit. To me, there is no greater threat to America's future. There is not a candidate who addresses this issue in any serious way. Because serious means actually cutting spending. Our current president doesn't address the deficit except to grow it, and it doesn't produce anything more than crickets from any politician in the country.

It's hopeless, as far as I am concerned. Hillary, Obama, McCain, it doesn't matter. Same ****, different suit. It's all a game. We, the people, lose in the end.

Good Discussion point.Agree that it's underdiscussed. Most are surprised when they really look at Federal Budget in total. Where would you cut? Would you raise taxes? Here is 2006 Budget summary:

Estimated receipts for fiscal year 2006 are $2.2 trillion. This expected income is broken down by the following sources:

$966.9 billion (44.4%) - Individual income tax
$818.8 billion (37.6%) - Social Security and other payroll taxes
$220.3 billion (10.1%) - Corporate income tax
$75.6 billion (3.5%) - Excise taxes
$26.1 billion (1.2%) - Estate and gift taxes
$28.3 billion (1.3%) - Customs duties
$41.6 billion (1.9%) - Other

[edit] Total Spending
The President's budget for 2006 totals $2.7 trillion. This budget request is broken down by the following expenditures:

$544.8 billion (20.90%) - Social Security
$512.1 billion (18.00%) - Defense
$359.5 billion (13.79%) - Unemployment and welfare
$345.7 billion (13.26%) - Medicare
$268.4 billion (10.30%) - Medicaid and other health related
$211.1 billion (8.10%) - Interest on debt
$88.7 billion (3.40%) - Education and training
$70.7 billion (2.71%) - Transportation
$68.4 billion (2.62%) - Veterans' benefits
$43.1 billion (1.65%) - Administration of justice
$38.4 billion (1.47%) - Foreign affairs
$31.2 billion (1.20%) - Natural resources and environment
$26.0 billion (1.00%) - Agriculture
$24.0 billion (0.92%) - Science and technology
$19.1 billion (0.73%) - Community and regional development
$17.8 billion (0.68%) - General government
$23.4 billion - Energy

 

[poindexter]

Boom, I think the president's budgets have excluded the war in Iraq, so we have to suspend belief from the start.

Cuts:
Defense - no more World Police. No more bases in far flung lands. No more blackwater contracts. Reduce the missile systems.

Social security - grandma's getting less. Sorry. It's not fair that grandma has sucked out more funds than she came close to putting in, and it shouldn't be at the expense of the kids who are just being born, who are saddled with the debt.

Cut section 8 housing, cut benefits. It's tough. Too ****ing bad.

Reduce the deficit and retire the debt (yeah, right) and you just eliminated 8% of the country's expense.

Raise taxes, raise capital gains taxes, raise taxes on dividends. **** I am sick of propping up Wall Street. Raise that **** to ordinary income rates. **** you, Wall Street.

More later, I will be out sharpening my knife.

 

[alleyallen]

Boom, it can be tough, when looking at the budget as you presented, to say, here's where we need to make cuts.

It really has to be done at a much more detailed level, item by item, expenditure by expenditure. There was a great book called The Government Racket: Government Waste from A to Z that detailed numerous ways you could cut without really hurting the American people as a whole. Combine all those cuts and you could come really close to a balanced budget without touching anything else.

Of course, it was written prior to 9/11, so not everything is as relevant now, but the concept is still there.

And I say this as a liberal...we ABSOLUTELY have to cut spending. It's just cutting it in the right places that's the key.

 

[jboy]

Social security - grandma's getting less. Sorry. It's not fair that grandma has sucked out more funds than she came close to putting in, and it shouldn't be at the expense of the kids who are just being born, who are saddled with the debt.

Cut section 8 housing, cut benefits. It's tough. Too ****ing bad.

You're silly.

 

[Boom_70]

Boom, it can be tough, when looking at the budget as you presented, to say, here's where we need to make cuts.

It really has to be done at a much more detailed level, item by item, expenditure by expenditure. There was a great book called The Government Racket: Government Waste from A to Z that detailed numerous ways you could cut without really hurting the American people as a whole. Combine all those cuts and you could come really close to a balanced budget without touching anything else.

Of course, it was written prior to 9/11, so not everything is as relevant now, but the concept is still there.

And I say this as a liberal...we ABSOLUTELY have to cut spending. It's just cutting it in the right places that's the key.

When you look at budget in total it's always an interesting exercise. As far a spending the top 5 items make up 75% of overall expenditures.

I believe this is where most of cuts should come from. Below that line everything is a drop in the bucket. I would start by cuttting 100 bil out of defense.

 

[alleyallen]

Boom, it can be tough, when looking at the budget as you presented, to say, here's where we need to make cuts.

It really has to be done at a much more detailed level, item by item, expenditure by expenditure. There was a great book called The Government Racket: Government Waste from A to Z that detailed numerous ways you could cut without really hurting the American people as a whole. Combine all those cuts and you could come really close to a balanced budget without touching anything else.

Of course, it was written prior to 9/11, so not everything is as relevant now, but the concept is still there.

And I say this as a liberal...we ABSOLUTELY have to cut spending. It's just cutting it in the right places that's the key.

When you look at budget in total it's always an interesting exercise. As far a spending the top 5 items make up 75% of overall expenditures.

I believe this is where most of cuts should come from. Below that line everything is a drop in the bucket. I would start by cuttting 100 bil out of defense.

Again, I think the much better approach would be to look item by item and cut that way, instead of saying, ok, defense is going to lose $100 billion. This way you ensure the cuts are made on a much more intelligent level rather than the total slash and burn offered by some.

 

[jboy]

Do we really need an Air Force? In this day and age, what type of combat will we be in that we need an entire Air Force? Couldn't we add some numbers to the Navy pilots and have enough to do whatever missions we're doing now? Outside of an Independence Day-style attack from aliens, when would we need an full-scall air force?

Think of all the money we'd save on equipment and bases.

 

[alleyallen]

Do we really need an Air Force? In this day and age, what type of combat will we be in that we need an entire Air Force? Couldn't we add some numbers to the Navy pilots and have enough to do whatever missions we're doing now? Outside of an Independence Day-style attack from aliens, when would we need an full-scall air force?

Think of all the money we'd save on equipment and bases.

I understand the thinking here, but we actually do need an Air Force, separate from the Navy. The missions are so drastically different, and there's almost no way the Navy could support the heavy bombers the USAF employs.

 

[Boom_70]

Boom, it can be tough, when looking at the budget as you presented, to say, here's where we need to make cuts.

It really has to be done at a much more detailed level, item by item, expenditure by expenditure. There was a great book called The Government Racket: Government Waste from A to Z that detailed numerous ways you could cut without really hurting the American people as a whole. Combine all those cuts and you could come really close to a balanced budget without touching anything else.

Of course, it was written prior to 9/11, so not everything is as relevant now, but the concept is still there.

And I say this as a liberal...we ABSOLUTELY have to cut spending. It's just cutting it in the right places that's the key.

When you look at budget in total it's always an interesting exercise. As far a spending the top 5 items make up 75% of overall expenditures.

I believe this is where most of cuts should come from. Below that line everything is a drop in the bucket. I would start by cuttting 100 bil out of defense.

Again, I think the much better approach would be to look item by item and cut that way, instead of saying, ok, defense is going to lose $100 billion. This way you ensure the cuts are made on a much more intelligent level rather than the total slash and burn offered by some.

Agree it has to be done item by item. I was going with the quick study chat room cut.

I don't agree that deficit has to reduced by raising taxes. I think that it just will give govt more of our money to waste.

After cuts are made I would be more favorably disposed to tax increase.

 

[alleyallen]

On that, Boom, you and I absolutely agree. Leave taxes where they are for now and CUT SPENDING. Then, if there's room to spare, cut taxes accordingly.

 

[Batman]

The country's financial situation is one that nobody has really picked up and run with as a reason for getting out of Iraq. If Obama or Hillary were to pick up on that, they'd probably be able to win more than a few votes. Of course, those votes (and potential savings) would be given right back when any government-funded health care proposal is floated about.
There is plenty of defense spending that can be slashed. Why do we still need bases in Europe, especially if we end up leaving Iraq? As much as the EU is kicking our ass economically, I think they've sufficiently recovered from World War II that they can defend themselves. Leave Europe and the Balkan mess to them. I'd say keep the bases in Japan and Asia for now, though. North Korea and China are on the radar as potential threats that could flare up quickly.
And if I'm elected president in 2012, my idea for social security is...no more social security. Retire it within a decade. Anyone above a certain income line or below a certain age (55, maybe?) is ineligible. That gives people creeping up on retirement 10-15 years to start saving and ensures that those who are too old don't fall off the cliff. At the same time, you DO promote the hell out of things like IRAs that will turn people on to the idea of saving on their own. You can't help everyone, but you can do your best to teach people to help themselves.

One area we desperately need to increase spending in, however, is energy research. I'd even go so far as to offer a $1 billion prize to the person or company who comes up with a viable, clean, and preferably renewable alternative to fossil fuels. A billion dollars is a great incentive, but a relative drop in the bucket in government terms.

 

[Armchair_QB]

The country's financial situation is one that nobody has really picked up and run with as a reason for getting out of Iraq. If Obama or Hillary were to pick up on that, they'd probably be able to win more than a few votes. Of course, those votes (and potential savings) would be given right back when any government-funded health care proposal is floated about.
There is plenty of defense spending that can be slashed. Why do we still need bases in Europe, especially if we end up leaving Iraq? As much as the EU is kicking our ass economically, I think they've sufficiently recovered from World War II that they can defend themselves. Leave Europe and the Balkan mess to them. I'd say keep the bases in Japan and Asia for now, though. North Korea and China are on the radar as potential threats that could flare up quickly.
And if I'm elected president in 2012, my idea for social security is...no more social security. Retire it within a decade. Anyone above a certain income line or below a certain age (55, maybe?) is ineligible. That gives people creeping up on retirement 10-15 years to start saving and ensures that those who are too old don't fall off the cliff. At the same time, you DO promote the hell out of things like IRAs that will turn people on to the idea of saving on their own. You can't help everyone, but you can do your best to teach people to help themselves.

One area we desperately need to increase spending in, however, is energy research. I'd even go so far as to offer a $1 billion prize to the person or company who comes up with a viable, clean, and preferably renewable alternative to fossil fuels. A billion dollars is a great incentive, but a relative drop in the bucket in government terms.

So Mr. President since I won't be eligible for SS, when do I get my refund of the money I've paid in?

 

[Batman]

Do we really need an Air Force? In this day and age, what type of combat will we be in that we need an entire Air Force? Couldn't we add some numbers to the Navy pilots and have enough to do whatever missions we're doing now? Outside of an Independence Day-style attack from aliens, when would we need an full-scall air force?

Think of all the money we'd save on equipment and bases.

I understand the thinking here, but we actually do need an Air Force, separate from the Navy. The missions are so drastically different, and there's almost no way the Navy could support the heavy bombers the USAF employs.

Not to mention the Air Force's role in space and missile defense, satellite stuff, things like that.

 

[alleyallen]

The country's financial situation is one that nobody has really picked up and run with as a reason for getting out of Iraq. If Obama or Hillary were to pick up on that, they'd probably be able to win more than a few votes. Of course, those votes (and potential savings) would be given right back when any government-funded health care proposal is floated about.
There is plenty of defense spending that can be slashed. Why do we still need bases in Europe, especially if we end up leaving Iraq? As much as the EU is kicking our ass economically, I think they've sufficiently recovered from World War II that they can defend themselves. Leave Europe and the Balkan mess to them. I'd say keep the bases in Japan and Asia for now, though. North Korea and China are on the radar as potential threats that could flare up quickly.
And if I'm elected president in 2012, my idea for social security is...no more social security. Retire it within a decade. Anyone above a certain income line or below a certain age (55, maybe?) is ineligible. That gives people creeping up on retirement 10-15 years to start saving and ensures that those who are too old don't fall off the cliff. At the same time, you DO promote the hell out of things like IRAs that will turn people on to the idea of saving on their own. You can't help everyone, but you can do your best to teach people to help themselves.

One area we desperately need to increase spending in, however, is energy research. I'd even go so far as to offer a $1 billion prize to the person or company who comes up with a viable, clean, and preferably renewable alternative to fossil fuels. A billion dollars is a great incentive, but a relative drop in the bucket in government terms.

So Mr. President since I won't be eligible for SS, when do I get my refund of the money I've paid in?

You bring up a very good point on this. Let's run a hypothetical here: Social Security is halted after a specific date. If you were eligible by that date, you get the money you're supposed to. Everyone else? Tough noogies.

What kind of uprising (I don't mean armed, but political) would we see for those of us who HAVE paid into SS, essentially funding our parents and grandparents?

 

[alleyallen]

Do we really need an Air Force? In this day and age, what type of combat will we be in that we need an entire Air Force? Couldn't we add some numbers to the Navy pilots and have enough to do whatever missions we're doing now? Outside of an Independence Day-style attack from aliens, when would we need an full-scall air force?

Think of all the money we'd save on equipment and bases.

I understand the thinking here, but we actually do need an Air Force, separate from the Navy. The missions are so drastically different, and there's almost no way the Navy could support the heavy bombers the USAF employs.

Not to mention the Air Force's role in space and missile defense, satellite stuff, things like that.

That's the idea I was trying to get across. The missions are so incredibly different it simply wouldn't work.

 

[Armchair_QB]

The country's financial situation is one that nobody has really picked up and run with as a reason for getting out of Iraq. If Obama or Hillary were to pick up on that, they'd probably be able to win more than a few votes. Of course, those votes (and potential savings) would be given right back when any government-funded health care proposal is floated about.
There is plenty of defense spending that can be slashed. Why do we still need bases in Europe, especially if we end up leaving Iraq? As much as the EU is kicking our ass economically, I think they've sufficiently recovered from World War II that they can defend themselves. Leave Europe and the Balkan mess to them. I'd say keep the bases in Japan and Asia for now, though. North Korea and China are on the radar as potential threats that could flare up quickly.
And if I'm elected president in 2012, my idea for social security is...no more social security. Retire it within a decade. Anyone above a certain income line or below a certain age (55, maybe?) is ineligible. That gives people creeping up on retirement 10-15 years to start saving and ensures that those who are too old don't fall off the cliff. At the same time, you DO promote the hell out of things like IRAs that will turn people on to the idea of saving on their own. You can't help everyone, but you can do your best to teach people to help themselves.

One area we desperately need to increase spending in, however, is energy research. I'd even go so far as to offer a $1 billion prize to the person or company who comes up with a viable, clean, and preferably renewable alternative to fossil fuels. A billion dollars is a great incentive, but a relative drop in the bucket in government terms.

So Mr. President since I won't be eligible for SS, when do I get my refund of the money I've paid in?

You bring up a very good point on this. Let's run a hypothetical here: Social Security is halted after a specific date. If you were eligible by that date, you get the money you're supposed to. Everyone else? Tough noogies.

What kind of uprising (I don't mean armed, but political) would we see for those of us who HAVE paid into SS, essentially funding our parents and grandparents?

My guess is that if we went that route there also won't be enough money in the system to cover those who would be eligible either.

I'm not against blowing it up but my taxes better go down too.

 

[Batman]

The country's financial situation is one that nobody has really picked up and run with as a reason for getting out of Iraq. If Obama or Hillary were to pick up on that, they'd probably be able to win more than a few votes. Of course, those votes (and potential savings) would be given right back when any government-funded health care proposal is floated about.
There is plenty of defense spending that can be slashed. Why do we still need bases in Europe, especially if we end up leaving Iraq? As much as the EU is kicking our ass economically, I think they've sufficiently recovered from World War II that they can defend themselves. Leave Europe and the Balkan mess to them. I'd say keep the bases in Japan and Asia for now, though. North Korea and China are on the radar as potential threats that could flare up quickly.
And if I'm elected president in 2012, my idea for social security is...no more social security. Retire it within a decade. Anyone above a certain income line or below a certain age (55, maybe?) is ineligible. That gives people creeping up on retirement 10-15 years to start saving and ensures that those who are too old don't fall off the cliff. At the same time, you DO promote the hell out of things like IRAs that will turn people on to the idea of saving on their own. You can't help everyone, but you can do your best to teach people to help themselves.

One area we desperately need to increase spending in, however, is energy research. I'd even go so far as to offer a $1 billion prize to the person or company who comes up with a viable, clean, and preferably renewable alternative to fossil fuels. A billion dollars is a great incentive, but a relative drop in the bucket in government terms.

So Mr. President since I won't be eligible for SS, when do I get my refund of the money I've paid in?

What refund would you get now? It's a broken system and there's no easy way to fix it. The easiest solution is to sunset it.