Correct, but there are only 17 amendments after the Bill of Rights and 2 of those cancel out each other. Much of what the government does today is not covered by any of those amendments.

 

...that is a pretty big but. EPA for example. The Constitution was written when there wasn't even an industrial age. How could the writers foresee the pollution that resulted from the industrial revolution? Might they have included the EPA if they did foresee it or it was happening? I am all for streamlining and downsizing government wherever possible but we must be tactical also. Personally, I think the EPA is one department that we should keep in light of what is happening in our world.

I agree we have to cut spending, but I would suggest the biggest cut needs to be in the military how about this . . .

 

If you are still making 250,000.00 the recession has not had a huge impact, but I would go back to regular taxes on those making over 500,000.00 to start and see where that goes.

 

Means test Medicare. Require a premium for those who can pay.

Means test Social Security and raise the retirement age. People who are 60 and are not currently receiving SS will have to wait until they are 66. People who are under 60 will wait until they are 67 and those who are 55 and under will go until 68. (I do think you should figure out some exceptions for folks who do hard labor or other related jobs).

 

Cut defense spending to where it is only 3.5% of GDP as opposed to the 4.7 it is now OR make it only double the combined expenditures of the next 3 countries.

 

Lastly, means test corporate welfare - in other words, get rid of the loop-holes. The only incentives should be for jobs created.

 

We will end up with some form of means testing for SS. But plain and simple, means testing will mean that the people who paid the most into the system will get the least out of it. They have paid the most in taxes during their lives, they have paid the most into SS, and they have paid the most into medicare. It turns SS into another wealth reditribution welfare program.

 

I have no issue with holding Military spending at a percentage of GDP. But all government spending should be held to a percentage of GDP not just the military. No way the Fed needs to spend more than 20% of GDP. 18% is actually more where they should be.

 

How bout forcing the able bodied people to go out and earn a portion of their income. Just because you have a baby doesn't mean you can't work. I know in Germany, to get a medical card you have to work(yes they have universal healthcare but you have to work to get it, or be retired, or disabled). You may be getting subsidized but you are forced to go out and earn part of it. They basically say this is the support level we'll help you get there and believe that you will eventually surpass it, but you have to earn part of it or you'll eventually get nothing.

...that is a pretty big but. EPA for example. The Constitution was written when there wasn't even an industrial age. How could the writers foresee the pollution that resulted from the industrial revolution? Might they have included the EPA if they did foresee it or it was happening? I am all for streamlining and downsizing government wherever possible but we must be tactical also. Personally, I think the EPA is one department that we should keep in light of what is happening in our world.

 

You are correct that the framers would want something to be done about the environment.

 

However they abhored beuracracy. They would absolutly detest the EPA and the fact that a handful of people (who do not answer to the electorate) can dictate law the way the EPA does. They would concider the entire federal alphabet of groups EPA, HUD, FANNIE MAE, etc all to be an affront to the constitution. Putting so much power in the hands of so few people would scare them to death, and probably inspire them to revolt.

To suggest that we can run the country without having a deficit is just silly. You cannot reasonably run your house without a deficit, and the government is hardly a household. But you run a deficit if you have have a mortgage, or car payment. With the interest rates this low, this is a reasonable time to be borrowing money. One of the problem is that the job-creators are sitting on loads of cash and not creating jobs, even with their bush tax cuts, partly in fear of the republicans not doing anything about the debt ceiling and partly because they want to sit on the profits.

 

You cannot fight two wars without raising taxes and we have tried to do that. That is crazy. How do you fight wars and cut taxes like Bush did? Obama has not been strong enough to reverse that course, but he only has 1 of 2 paths, increase taxes or end the wars, but simply cutting spending - crazy.

 

You are partially correct. Most all of us do borrow and have debt, but that is not what deficit spending is. Deficit spending is when your income cannot cover your expenses plus your debt. I am expected to cover my expenses and my debt, I think I should be able to expect the Fed to do the same. If I can't cover mine I lose everything. If they can't cover their's they just raise the ceiling.

social security is really not in that bad of of shape, and it doesn't contribute to the debt, not really sure why it is in the discussion (i know I put it up there in a previous post but that is because everyone else is talking about it.) The problem is we take money out of the trust fund to pay other things.

 

It keeps being brought into the conversation at the national level by the left. We keep hearing how if we don't raise the debt ceiling, social security checks might not be able to be sent out because there's no money. So which is it?

social security is really not in that bad of of shape, and it doesn't contribute to the debt, not really sure why it is in the discussion (i know I put it up there in a previous post but that is because everyone else is talking about it.) The problem is we take money out of the trust fund to pay other things.

 

I don't know how old you are, but by "we", I mean people my age. Last estimate I saw indicated Social Security would run dry by 2036. I will be 53 that year. I can't tell you how happy I'd be to find that I'd spent 30+ years paying for other people to retire.

To suggest that we can run the country without having a deficit is just silly. You cannot reasonably run your house without a deficit, and the government is hardly a household. But you run a deficit if you have have a mortgage, or car payment. With the interest rates this low, this is a reasonable time to be borrowing money. One of the problem is that the job-creators are sitting on loads of cash and not creating jobs, even with their bush tax cuts, partly in fear of the republicans not doing anything about the debt ceiling and partly because they want to sit on the profits.

 

You cannot fight two wars without raising taxes and we have tried to do that. That is crazy. How do you fight wars and cut taxes like Bush did? Obama has not been strong enough to reverse that course, but he only has 1 of 2 paths, increase taxes or end the wars, but simply cutting spending - crazy.

 

That's just plain silly, people, and governments, run all the time without deficits.

That's just plain silly, people, and governments, run all the time without deficits.

 

I should have used the word debt.

This isn't an Obama issue. This stuff was going to happen no matter who the President is.

 

Once again to fix this problem you need one thing TERM LIMITS on Congress.

 

This current situation is nothing more than an Election move by both parties.

 

I am with the Bourbon Party and I am sick of Government. No matter what Government decides to do I plan to drink my Bourbon and trash every idea that either side comes up with.

 

I say lets shut down the federal government.

social security is really not in that bad of of shape, and it doesn't contribute to the debt, not really sure why it is in the discussion (i know I put it up there in a previous post but that is because everyone else is talking about it.) The problem is we take money out of the trust fund to pay other things.

 

Then how come Obama threatened not to send out checks after Aug. 2. If then money for SS is there how does not coming to an agreement on the debt limit have any effect on it?

This isn't an Obama issue. This stuff was going to happen no matter who the President is.

 

Once again to fix this problem you need one thing TERM LIMITS on Congress.

 

This current situation is nothing more than an Election move by both parties.

 

I am with the Bourbon Party and I am sick of Government. No matter what Government decides to do I plan to drink my Bourbon and trash every idea that either side comes up with.

 

I say lets shut down the federal government.

 

I have gotten to the point where I am 100% in agreement with term limits. I don't care how good a job someone has done the problem you run into is that eventually the majority of lifers become stagnant and care more about the next election than they do actually tackling problems. This is why I am all for a 2 term limit on senators and 5 term limit on house members.

I should have used the word debt.

Just as silly. People, governments, and companies can and do survive without debt. To say you cannot reasonably run a household without debt is an ignorant statement.

Then how come Obama threatened not to send out checks after Aug. 2. If then money for SS is there how does not coming to an agreement on the debt limit have any effect on it?

 

The "Elephant in the Corner" of unfunded obligations. Close your eyes and it will go away. I don't think the recipients will take an IOU over cash next month.