With all that has been stated on this site about our differences, can we possibly find some common ground to build on? I believe we have some areas of common ground, but the differences lie in to what degree do we go to solve a situation.

 

I support help for people in need. Those who are physically or mentally disabled will always need help. For those who are able-bodied, help should be limited and temporary. During good economic times 26 weeks of unemployment compensation is enough, harder times may call for more, but 99+ is too much.

 

When it comes to the military, we should be 2nd to none. Yet, as with all organizations a tight rein much be placed on spending.

 

I believe that better oversight of spending would be an area of common ground for everyone. With better oversight and cutting of waste we could go a long way to cutting our budget woes. It would be difficult for our government is so large and watching over everything a big job.

 

These are just a few items to start with, I am sure there are many areas that we agree on the basic idea, but disagree on how to run the program.

I agree with much of what you say.

 

Too bad those in power and/or seeking power are blinded by the letters "D" and "R".

I do not wish to associate with known liberals.

 

I don't know. Can we?

With all that has been stated on this site about our differences, can we possibly find some common ground to build on? I believe we have some areas of common ground, but the differences lie in to what degree do we go to solve a situation.

 

I support help for people in need. Those who are physically or mentally disabled will always need help. For those who are able-bodied, help should be limited and temporary. During good economic times 26 weeks of unemployment compensation is enough, harder times may call for more, but 99+ is too much.

 

When it comes to the military, we should be 2nd to none. Yet, as with all organizations a tight rein much be placed on spending.

 

I believe that better oversight of spending would be an area of common ground for everyone. With better oversight and cutting of waste we could go a long way to cutting our budget woes. It would be difficult for our government is so large and watching over everything a big job.

 

These are just a few items to start with, I am sure there are many areas that we agree on the basic idea, but disagree on how to run the program.

I can get on board with those ideas, but the Devil is in the details and that is where most if not all disagreements come into play.

I agree with much of what you say.

 

Too bad those in power and/or seeking power are blinded by the letters "D" and "R".

 

As are many on here and everywhere else. A good example is the debt limit, when R's want to raise it the D's say it is irresponsible, then when the D's want to raise it the R's say it is irresponsible.

I don't know. Can we?

 

Agreed. When you make comments and posts like that, it's hard to take this thread's premise seriously IMO.

I really don't know anymore. The man who's opinion I value above all others (my father) accused me of being brainwashed by Fox News because of my opposition to Obamacare. That hurt yet I know he is a regular watcher of MSNBC so I know where his opinion came from.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

I can get on board with those ideas, but the Devil is in the details and that is where most if not all disagreements come into play.

 

As you say, the Devil is in the details. What programs can we agree on and then hammer out the details? I have already mentioned food stamps. How can we make adjustments to cut costs and still deliver help those in need? Does it mean that some on the upper end of earnings get cut? Better management of the program? Are there items that should not be allowed to be bought with this assistance? Which I do not know if there are still limitations or not.

Perhaps on political issues. On what are considered "morality issues." I don't think either side would ever consider it.

How about minimum wage? A number of studies show that the individuals who are helped the most by raising the minimum wage still live with their parents. Only 11% of those who are those who are considered in poverty would see raises. The studies show that increasing minimum wage has little effect on reducing poverty, while jobs are lost when the minimum wage is raised. The Southern Economic Journal published an article on these studies.

 

So other than being a feel good move, based on the studies, why would we raise the minimum wage?

I agree with what you say BBF. My personal opinion is that our legislators say the right things, but when it comes to making actual decisions it is politics as usual. Doing favors for those who put them in office and each other, with a huge dash of ego, seriously impairs the process.

 

Not sure what the answer is.

BWF, one plan I have heard and would like to see more details about it, is the 'penny plan'. Actually cutting spending by 1% each year for 6 years and the budget would be balanced. Simple example: 2014 budget $1.00 - 2015 budget $0.99 - 2016 budget $0.98 - etc. Not the base line budget where the 2014 budget is $1.00 - 2015 proposed budget is $1.05, they cut that to $1.03 and claim they cut they budget, when all they did was cut the proposed budget and are spending more money. Then depending on which group of voters they are talking to they can claim they cut the budget or they can claim they increased spending.

BWF, one plan I have heard and would like to see more details about it, is the 'penny plan'. Actually cutting spending by 1% each year for 6 years and the budget would be balanced. Simple example: 2014 budget $1.00 - 2015 budget $0.99 - 2016 budget $0.98 - etc. Not the base line budget where the 2014 budget is $1.00 - 2015 proposed budget is $1.05, they cut that to $1.03 and claim they cut they budget, when all they did was cut the proposed budget and are spending more money. Then depending on which group of voters they are talking to they can claim they cut the budget or they can claim they increased spending.

 

That plan does not appear to work at all.

 

Using 2012 actuals and 2018 outlooks here are some interesting line items.

 

HHS spending - 2012 $848B, 2018 (outlook) $1.153T

 

HHS (Medicare, AHCA (Obamacare), etc) is the largest element in 2018 consuming over $1 Trillion. Its increase from 2012 to 2018 is over $300B a year. Percentage wise is goes up 138%.

 

 

Treasury spending - 2012 $465B, 2018 (outlook) $811B

 

 

What drives future Treasury spending? Debt. Previous and current debt. The current deficits drive this number. In other words - the die is cast in this line item. It is set. No one. Repeat, no one, can affect this line item in the future. Well - maybe the Fed. But their intent to impact this line item in a manner that increase it - through 'easing'. i.e. they want their money - interest money. The Fed will drive up bond rates in the near future and probably negatively impact this line item even worse than CBO is outlooking it.

 

 

Before going any further here is a statistic - the two line items above make up 54% of the on-budget spending. 54%. They represent $650B in spending increase between 2012 and 2018. Military spending is 3rd and its budgets go down between 2012 and 2018. In fact when totaled up all the spending of all the other on-budget line items is projected by the CBO to go down by over $100B.

The Department of Labor and Department of Housing and Urban Development are project to take substantial funding decrease in the future by the CBO. So its interesting that these 'liberal' favorite line items get big axes in the future.

 

At the end of the day the big 3 are HHS, Treasury and Military. These make up 70% of the on-budget federal budget. Office of veterns affairs, which does increase its spending a lot between 2012 and 2018 makes the total 75%. This leaves everything else in the 25% slice of the budet - NASA, EPA, NSF, Parks (Interior), Education, Housing, SBA. etc. Between 2012 and 2018 these programs in total are already supposed to REDUCE $100B. So the CBO is already planning to steal Peter (the small programs) to pay Paul (Treasury, HHS).

 

Military is already projected to substantially decrease its spending. The ability to fight in two major theaters has already been sacrificed. Any further cuts would be completely reckless. That leaves HHS and Treasury. As noted above Treasury is untouchable. That leaves HHS - Medicare, Obamacare. Medicare was already the gash in the hull of this ship. Obamacare only opened up the gash even more.

 

Medicare has been the budget killer - plain and simple. Medicare, medicare, medicare. It is THE reason for the budget problem. Unlike the bulk of Social Security it is on-budget. And it has been under funded for a long time and AHCA just makes this characteristic worse.

 

Should we agree on common ground on the budget - yes. Lets start with the truth - Medicare and AHCA are not financially viable in the current structure.

 

It is real easy to understand when you realize the HHS spending is already greater than social security spending. Yet the main incoming funding designated for Medicare is only 1/4 that of Social

Security. Again, Medicare is and has been very underfunded.

 

Notice I do not say kill them, scrape them or eliminate them. Just admit - the financial model for them is completely broken. That is because it is. 'Entitlment spending' is code for HHS and Medicare spending. Lets quit using the code words and start talking about the real budget buster.

With all that has been stated on this site about our differences, can we possibly find some common ground to build on? I believe we have some areas of common ground, but the differences lie in to what degree do we go to solve a situation.

 

I support help for people in need. Those who are physically or mentally disabled will always need help. For those who are able-bodied, help should be limited and temporary. During good economic times 26 weeks of unemployment compensation is enough, harder times may call for more, but 99+ is too much.

 

When it comes to the military, we should be 2nd to none. Yet, as with all organizations a tight rein much be placed on spending.

 

I believe that better oversight of spending would be an area of common ground for everyone. With better oversight and cutting of waste we could go a long way to cutting our budget woes. It would be difficult for our government is so large and watching over everything a big job.

 

These are just a few items to start with, I am sure there are many areas that we agree on the basic idea, but disagree on how to run the program.

 

Are these reasonable starting points, probably? However, as has already been stated, it is how do you do this? The mistrust of many factions belief systems and name calling gets in the way by lies and innuendos by these factions (liberal and conservative) alike.

 

Your calling Obama a communist in a previous thread makes you seem unreasonable and closed minded. Like it or not it gets in the way of me valuing or tolerating anything else you might say. It works the other way to with me. Many disagree with Obama's policies on here, but most don't do name calling.

 

I do not agree with hardly anything Ted Cruz says or stands for, but I would be honored to sit down and discuss anything with a US Senator or a President or anyone really. Why we have gotten this divisive is most concerning to me? It isn't necessarily on the points you suggest, it is the collateral damage from unwillingness to reach across the political, religious, racial, socioeconomic, etc lines that is one of the causes IMO.

Are these reasonable starting points, probably? However, as has already been stated, it is how do you do this? The mistrust of many factions belief systems and name calling gets in the way by lies and innuendos by these factions (liberal and conservative) alike.

 

Your calling Obama a communist in a previous thread makes you seem unreasonable and closed minded. Like it or not it gets in the way of me valuing or tolerating anything else you might say. It works the other way to with me. Many disagree with Obama's policies on here, but most don't do name calling.

 

I do not agree with hardly anything Ted Cruz says or stands for, but I would be honored to sit down and discuss anything with a US Senator or a President or anyone really. Why we have gotten this divisive is most concerning to me? It isn't necessarily on the points you suggest, it is the collateral damage from unwillingness to reach across the political, religious, racial, socioeconomic, etc lines that is one of the causes IMO.

 

Sir I have listened and even was willing to compromise with liberals. But as the years went by I learned that liberals just want you give in to them and they call that compromise, they rarely, more likely never compromise. Once they get one thing they just want another. In comparing JFK, who was a liberal for his day, Obama is a socialist/communist.

 

If you have been watching the news you could not have missed the names that conservatives have been called by your liberal cohorts, which have been far worse than calling Obama a communist. Did you miss the one reporter who wanted to defecate in Palin's mouth? Sounds a lot worse than anything I have said.