What are the US problems that need to fixed in the next four years?

[lawrocket 3]

I wonder what people see as the key policy matters that are up for resolution in the next presidential term.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[SkyDekker 1,128]

A balanced budget with a focus on debt reduction.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

1. Fiscal Cliff/deficit
2. Iran
3. Unemployment (see item 1)

[billvon 2,402]

1) National debt.
2) Infrastructure.
2a) DC power transmission backbones
2b) Transit lines, handled by selling rights of way to private companies
3) Ending the war in Afghanistan.
4) Reducing the power of the Federal government.
5) Ending DOMA and amending the Patriot Act.
6) Downsizing the TSA and moving to private contractors for airport security.

[StreetScooby 5]

deficit and debt. Everything else is a distant second.

We are all engines of karma

[wmw999 2,124]

I like this list.

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)

[billvon 2,402]

>A complete ban on low strength beer

How un-American!

[kallend 1,632]

Fix the tax code.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

I think Bill’s got a pretty good list. I myself would put “national debt” up there but I think that the more direct question is “budget deficit.” And for that, the underlying issues are: (1) Medicare (budget issue number 1); (2) Social Security (Budget issue number 2); (3) Medicaid/ACA (gotta fix that, too); and (4) Defense. In that regard, addressing the Debt Commission would be a big priority.

I agree with bill that issue 2 is infrastructure. This means: (1) road and bridge maintenance; (2) water storage and delivery; and (3) power transmission (Bill made a hot call on HVDC backbone, though I’m less interested in government involvement with that).

No. 3 to me is foreign policy. Bill touched on it with “war in Afghanistan.” Mine is broader than that in terms of limiting foreign intervention.

My thoughts are subject to change as I see others putting stuff up there.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Fix the tax code.

I agree. That's part of the "deficit" issue. Fix the tax code by closing the loopholes and exemptions while lowering the top rates. Cap revenues 20% GDP now and then cap revenues at 15% GDP by 2020.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

I'm disgusted that nobody has mentioned dousing the bonfire of burning flags, defending the traditional family against queers (burning fags?) and stopping the flood of Canucks at the battlements. Before long we'll all wind up saying "aboot".

[wmw999 2,124]

I'd really kind of like to see an honest sunset commission go through the morass of federal entities.

Yeah, people are unhappy when that happens. But since the gummint is getting more and more complex over time, a little deliberate simplification might be in order.

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)

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

I'm disgusted that nobody has mentioned dousing the bonfire of burning flags, defending the traditional family against queers (burning fags?) and stopping the flood of Canucks at the battlements. Before long we'll all wind up saying "aboot".

How come you didn't mention stopping the spread of the Red Menace? You some kinda commie?!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Sunset Commission. Another thing Texas does well.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I'd really kind of like to see an honest sunset commission go through the morass of federal entities.

Let's start with a little intellectual honesty and re-name the Department of "Defense" the Department of Offense. Or they could just restore the name its precursor had prior to the late 1940's: the Department of War. At least then they called it what it was.

"Defense spending" indeed. Call it what it is.

[GQ_jumper 4]

Quote

1) National debt.
2) Infrastructure.
2a) DC power transmission backbones
2b) Transit lines, handled by selling rights of way to private companies
3) Ending the war in Afghanistan.
4) Reducing the power of the Federal government.
5) Ending DOMA and amending the Patriot Act.
6) Downsizing the TSA and moving to private contractors for airport security.

+1 on about two-thirds of those statements, although I will say that ending the last major military action we are engaged in could send the wrong message. We need to find a way to continue to project the image that we are still fighting. While low-intensity conflicts that receive little attention are going to be the most effective against the current threats to our national security the impression that they give is that we are not taking our threats seriously. We need to find ways to project our presence for the psychological impact that they have. Don't forget how emboldened AQ was after a decade of attacks against the US with little in the way of respsones.

Also agree with Kallend's statement about fixing our tax code. Stop basing our taxes around out-dated tax-rates intertwined with confusing deductions and loopholes. Either set the rates where they need to be and get rid of deductions or find a way to make a realistic version of the VAT or something along those lines.

And here is the big one, start making budget cuts that MATTER. The last round of budget cuts were little more than political fodder to win popularity points. Entitlement spending needs to be tackled in a realistic manner, streamline the systems and look for cost-saving measures so we can more effectively put money in the hands of those who need it.

And here is one more that is starting to get me fired up. Stop using the DoD as a scapegoat for spending. Is there a large amount of wasteful spending in the Pentagon? YES!!! Does that mean we have to chop budgets across the board? HELL NO.

I no longer have the budget to effectively train my detachment, I am watching my benefits dwindle, and Tricare has been used as a cost saving measure to the point that neither my soldiers nor my wife can get the medical care they need. My soldiers are unable to get medical appointments to treat their training injuries and my wife can't get in to see her primary provider because all dependents are being forced to see the docs on post to avoid Tricare having to pay civilian doctors so everyone on post is over-stretched.

In short, quit using our budget to win a popularity contest.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

[billvon 2,402]

>We need to find a way to continue to project the image that we are still fighting.

Why? Do you really think that peace will do more to harm us than help us? Must there be an eternal state of war (even if only in people's minds) to control the rest of the world?

>And here is the big one, start making budget cuts that MATTER.

Agreed there.

>And here is one more that is starting to get me fired up. Stop using the DoD as a
>scapegoat for spending. Is there a large amount of wasteful spending in the Pentagon?
>YES!!!

Agreed!

>Does that mean we have to chop budgets across the board? HELL NO.

Hell yes. Everyone feels the pain; no one gets a special exemption. A million special exemptions - in military spending, tax codes, entitlement spending, foreign aid - is where we got where we are today.

>I no longer have the budget to effectively train my detachment, I am watching my
>benefits dwindle, and Tricare has been used as a cost saving measure to the point that
>neither my soldiers nor my wife can get the medical care they need. My soldiers are
>unable to get medical appointments to treat their training injuries and my wife can't
>get in to see her primary provider because all dependents are being forced to see the
>docs on post to avoid Tricare having to pay civilian doctors so everyone on post is
>over-stretched.

That sucks, but that's exactly what's going to happen to the military and every other government employee out there. They are going to see a reduction in services and benefits.

The military will have to make some tough choices in the future. Cut the number of troops so the remainder can get benefits? Keep numbers the same, but have everyone feel more pain? Up to them, but we are past the point where we can say 'cut everything but the programs that help my part of the government.'

[ryoder 1,390]

Quote

1) National debt.
2) Infrastructure.
2a) DC power transmission backbones
2b) Transit lines, handled by selling rights of way to private companies
3) Ending the war in Afghanistan.
4) Reducing the power of the Federal government.
5) Ending DOMA and amending the Patriot Act.
6) Downsizing the TSA and moving to private contractors for airport security.

7) End the practice of blowing people up in foreign nations with drones.
8) Shut down Gitmo.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[champu 1]

Quote

>Does that mean we have to chop budgets across the board? HELL NO.

Hell yes. Everyone feels the pain; no one gets a special exemption. A million special exemptions - in military spending, tax codes, entitlement spending, foreign aid - is where we got where we are today.

There's a well-known saying that goes, "you can't give nine women one month to make a baby." There's a lesser-considered flipside to that, however, where you can't give half a women 18 months to make a baby either.

He's not suggesting that military spending not be chopped along with other non-military expenditures, he's saying don't cut budgets for military accounts across the board. You can always try to trim everything, sure, but you're not going to achieve 30/40/50% reductions like that.

You have to decide whole things you don't want anymore and just get rid of them completely. Everyone doesn't "feel the pain" when you ask the same of everyone but only give them half of what they need to get their job done, you just end up getting nothing done effectively.

[livendive 8]

Quote

I agree with bill that issue 2 is infrastructure. This means: (1) road and bridge maintenance; (2) water storage and delivery; and (3) power transmission (Bill made a hot call on HVDC backbone, though I’m less interested in government involvement with that).

A related article from someone I consider reasonably moderate and pretty sharp, Fareed Zakaria.

Edit to add: I'm also coming to agree with the premise of an infrastructure bank that loans money to projects involving public-private partnerships, but there also needs to be an understanding that while ROI is important, it is not the only relevant consideration.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 2,402]

>You have to decide whole things you don't want anymore and just get rid of them completely.

Agreed, and that's what I was trying (unsuccessfully I guess) to say above, Some aspects of the military are going to "feel the pain" as we cut the number of ships built, number of F-22's purchased etc. Some things will just get cut completely.

However what we CANNOT have is a repeat of the last ten years or so where we promise cuts then end up not cutting anything essential. We ARE going to have to cut things that military planners consider essential; the military is not made of 50% useless material/personnel and 50% essential services. Indeed, if you ask your typical planner he'll tell you how woefully underfunded the military is even today.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

End the practice of blowing people up in foreign nations with drones.

See, now that's one I'd keep. Aside from being comparatively cheap (for the affluent US), let's admit: it's fun! We are, after all, a nation of gamers.

Pass the Wii, please.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

1) National debt.
2) Infrastructure.
2a) DC power transmission backbones
2b) Transit lines, handled by selling rights of way to private companies
3) Ending the war in Afghanistan.
4) Reducing the power of the Federal government.
5) Ending DOMA and amending the Patriot Act.
6) Downsizing the TSA and moving to private contractors for airport security.

Interesting. I find nothing objectionable here. I would make some slight alteration in wording and priority, but otherwise tend to agree. Sadly, I don't think our current government can touch the infrastructure issue without exacerbating the debt issue. They just aren't willing to let go of those things they just shouldn't be meddling with and do their proper jobs. IMO

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.

[mirage62 0]

Bills right on, everything needs to be cut around 10% - what they cut out of there budget is there choice.

Here's a simple and perhaps polotically doable deficit reduction plan. And Obama could use his personality to sell it:

Raise taxes Top half that aren't paying now 2.5%
Bottom third that is paying 5% nexted third 8% top third 15%.

Companies that manage to get there taxes down to effective zero have a min defecit reduction tax of 5%

EVERY department of the goverment get's and across the board cut of 10% how they reach that cut while balancing there budget is up to them but this is a real budget cut from what they got last year. (not growth)

All budgets are tied to inflation index and raised only that amount the following year.

Here's the kicker, if the budget is changed at all, the "rules" of the above violated - the tax increases go away.

The entire program is fair - the rich pay more, a lot more and EVERYONE has some skin in the game. When the econmey gets better the additional taxes go toward lowering the defict.

The problem is that the "rich" don't trust the gov to spend the additional taxes raised to lower the defict.

Kevin Keenan is my hero, a double FUP, he does so much with so little

[davjohns 1]

There's that word again.

Those who make the most would pay the highest taxes in a flat tax environemnt. We have a sliding scale that ensures success is penalized at a greater rate than a flat tax would provide. You want to raise taxes on those who already pay the highest percentage and dollar amount. You describe that as 'fair'.

I'm not sure that penalizing success and calling it 'fair' is a good thing. Nope. Not sure at all...

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.