Not just here, but everyone seems to have something to say about who's running the show. The conservatives criticize Obama just like back when Bush was the president, the liberals criticized him.

I think we're all intelegent people, so I ask, rather than finger pointing...

You're the president...

You know the problems...

How would you fix them.. one by one? And no one line answers, and no answers like "send all the illegals back home" and "end the war" period... I can't see any president getting up on stage and say... "I'm going to fix health care by making all hopitals free... good night" and he leaves the room... no put some thought in it...

What would YOU ALL do different?

Great question. I don't have a solution yet but let me think on this. I hope you get many quality replies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

Great question. I don't have a solution yet but let me think on this. I hope you get many quality replies.

---

I plan to answer my own question too. But I need a day to think it over... it is after all, a loaded question... I've very curious and hopeful to hear from tomder and excon on this one...

Be specific . I have offered many of my ideas here on a variety of issues.You mention health care . Instinctively I know that spending and initial "investment " of $1.5 trillion to provide "free health care " is not a solution ;is not free ,nor will driving private insurers out of the market place reduce the costs.

Now we have had more than one lengthy and running threds specifically on health care where I have argued that fixing the gaps in the current system would preserve what is unarguably the best health care system in the world without completely dismantling it. But there are others who point to different nation's models as one they want to pursue.
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ns-324812.html

The problem now is that the President is doing essentially what you say we should not do... he intends to bum rush massive reforms into the general budget ;not only in health care ,but also energy ,environment , education, along with other pet projects he doesn't want debated .

If the opposition introduces alternatives he and some of the Dems like Pelosi and Reid plan to shut down debate and pass the budget with a parlamentary procedure called " budget reconciliation"... even though some major Democrat law makers opposed to the move.

“I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget 'reconciliation' process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health-care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.”SEN. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV)

“Well, look, I have said for weeks, I don't think it would be wise to use the reconciliation process to write major legislation, reform legislation. That's not what reconciliation was designed for. It was designed for purely deficit reduction.”SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND):

“It unnecessarily short circuits Congress' ability to more fully debate this complex and multi-faceted public policy issue.”SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D-ND)

“Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the Administration's stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.”
RECONCILIATION LETTER SIGNED BY:SENS. ROBERT BYRD (D-WV), EVAN BAYH (D-IN), ROBERT CASEY (D-PA), MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA), CARL LEVIN (D-MI), BLANCHE LINCOLN (D-AR), BEN NELSON (D-NE), & MARK PRYOR (D-AR)

So when you say :I can't see any president getting up on stage and say... "I'm going to fix health care by making all hopitals free... good night" and he leaves the room.....that is indeed exactly what he intends to essentially do unless members of his own party prevent it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If the opposition introduces alternatives he and some of the Dems like Pelosi and Reid plan to shut down debate and pass the budget with a parlamentary procedure called " budget reconciliation" ....even though some major Democrat law makers opposed to the move.

---

Hello andrew:

Maybe we'll be able to get on to other issues, but THIS one has to be dealt with NOW.

You'll notice that tom reminds you that there are Democrats who oppose this process. It's red herring.. What he doesn't want you to know is that the dufus passed the biggest tax cuts in history for the wealthiest of individuals using THIS process...

WHY did the dufus do that?? Because there were Republicans who opposed the tax cuts and wouldn't vote for them.

It IS interesting that Obama is going to use the SAME procedure to fix the problems, that CAUSED them in the first place. Ironic isn't it?

excon

At least Bush did it to allow taxpayers to keep more of their money, not rob them blind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

At least Bush did it to allow taxpayers to keep more of their money, not rob them blind.

---

Hello Steve:

I don't know when taxing the people to pay the country's bills became robbery. I guess when it comes out of YOUR pocket, it's robbery.

Plus, I would have thought Republicans were the responsible ones among us... But, nahhhh. They put on TWO wars, and decided to BORROW the money to pay for 'em instead of taxing the people... Maybe they thought the bill wouldn't ever come due... Maybe they were smoking good stuff too.

You don't really want to listen to people like that, do you?? People who think we can borrow our way to prosperity??

excon

The process was not being abused by the Congressional Republicans when they introduced tax cuts... but it would be if new programs are added to the budget .

I refer you to the 1st paragraph of the rule :

Created in a budget resolution in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process, the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution.
THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS

It was designed to restrain Congressional spending not to expand it.

Andrew,
Maybe we should put in a few more conditions for solutions.
1. No rehashing of what had been done in the past and how wrong it was.
2. No sarcastic quips
3. No complaining about how wrong you believe things are being handled now.

Don't complain, EXPLAIN
Explain how you would fix the problems. Don't tell us what you would not do, tell us what you would do.

From Tom...
be specific . I have offered many of my ideas here on a variety of issues.You mention health care . Instinctively I know that spending and initial "investment " of $1.5 trillion to provide "free health care " is not a solution ;is not free ,nor will driving private insurers out of the market place reduce the costs.

Refresh us on your many ideas. In this post you just said what was NOT a solution. Give us your solutions.

Quote:

---

I have argued that fixing the gaps in the current system would preserve what is unarguably the best health care system in the world without completely dismantling it.

---

Let's hear yours referee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

I don't know when taxing the people to pay the country's bills became robbery. I guess when it comes out of YOUR pocket, it's robbery.

Plus, I would have thought Republicans were the responsible ones among us... But, nahhhh. They put on TWO wars, and decided to BORROW the money to pay for 'em instead of taxing the people... Maybe they thought the bill wouldn't ever come due... Maybe they were smoking good stuff too.

---

The free spending GOP problem has already been acknowledged. So why make it worse?

Quote:

---

You don't really want to listen to people like that, do you?? People who think we can borrow our way to prosperity??

---

Um, not really. With these numbers I don't see how that's possible without soaking every taxpayer, which by the way, Obama has already acknowledged his much vaunted - nay, make that the centerpiece of hopenchange - tax cut for 95 percent of Americans is already out the window. Note how the media is still treating his "Making Work Pay" credit as a tax "cut" instead of a spending program.

Quote:

---

Refresh us on your many ideas.

---

In the posting I linked I made the following comment

Quote:

---

The problem the way I see it is that my employer is the gatekeeper. If insurance companies had to compete for my business then if I was unhappy with their coverage I would have a choice . I bet that if they had to compete they would find ways to reduce costs . as an example... they are allowed by the gvt. To write up administrative costs that they don't incure and they take advantage of it.

---

I also made this reply :

Quote:

---

Skell ,I began doing my research on your system. Like you said it is a two tiered unequal system. The people with the means have the option to supplement their health care and about a third of the people do so. Our system has it at 1/3 of the people already receiving public run medical care... so ours is already 2 tiered giving massive gvt. Help to select demographics.
I guess it is a matter of debate which system is better . Both are flawed .


Since I have never lived in a system that is run under a free market and consumer choice method ,then all I can advance is theory . The flaws of socialized and semi-socialized methods have already been demonstrated.

---

We've had this discussion before recently and I'll say basically the same thing I said then, I don't have the answers but Obama's plan is not it. Meanwhile, the GOP is rolling their alternative budget plan with the gloves off. I'm sure we'll hear the same things as before, they have no plans and even if they did they lost, so why should anyone listen to them?

Steve nice avatar

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:...31tdto_210.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I'm sure we'll hear the same things as before, they have no plans and even if they did they lost, so why should anyone listen to them?

---

Hello Steve:

You're not going to hear it from me. I listened. I even read. Here's some stuff from your link:

The principles in the Republican budget will sound familiar: “limits the federal budget from growing faster than the family budget,. provides universal access to health care and secures entitlements,. lowers taxes,. keeps energy and fuel costs low,. ends the bailouts and reforms the financial system,. keep the cost of living low.”

I considered the Republican plan. I digested it fully. It's a nice plan. It's familiar, like Politico said it would be.

This is what I think about it: Those ideas caused the present problem in the first place, and they don't fix anything that's broken. Therefore, nobody should listen further...

The Democrats should have their way with them.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

We've had this discussion before recently and I'll say basically the same thing I said then, I don't have the answers but Obama's plan is not it. Meanwhile, the GOP is rolling their alternative budget plan with the gloves off. I'm sure we'll hear the same things as before, they have no plans and even if they did they lost, so why should anyone listen to them?

---

Seems no one has the answers. To say what is NOT the answer doesn't help. I don't have any grand plans myself, just some common sense observations.

The words "bonus, golden parachute, and raise," should never be used in the same breath as lay offs, or bail out for troubled companies.

When I worked for big corporations I saw the top tier get richer and richer while the bottom tier, the worker bees get less and less. Layoffs for some and top mgmt. bonuses for others were going on at the same time. Of course it was all about making profits for the board of directors no matter what the cost to the "little people".
If layoffs are in order, maybe they could be prevented if the big wigs actually forsake their ridiculously high bonuses and divided it among the hard working bottom tier that are usually the first to go.

I also say that a salary reduction across the board should be emplemented before any one employee should be let go.

Less unemployment, less welfare.

So far, this is all I've come up with, but I'll continue brainstorming. I understand people wanting less gov. overseeing everything, but unfortunately, greed can often over rule fairness and doing what is right. In that case it needs to be mandated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

This is what I think about it: Those ideas caused the present problem in the first place, and they don't fix anything that's broken. Therefore, nobody should listen further....

The Democrats should have their way with them.

---

Well, all I read were the highlights in the article, so unlike you I can't judge it on its merits yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Steve nice avatar

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:...31tdto_210.jpg

---

Thanks, I should order the T-shirt but around here it would get more cheers than jeers. What's the point in showing it off if you can't annoy a liberal? :D

Quote:

---

I understand people wanting less gov. overseeing everything, but unfortunately, greed can often over rule fairness and doing what is right. In that case it needs to be mandated.

---

Quote:

---

And it is clear that when a tyrant arises, the position of popular leader is the sole root from which he springs....Once he takes over a docile mob, he does not restrain himself...he banishes and kills and drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the redistribution of land.... He is the one, then, who stirs up faction against the rich.

---

Socrates from Plato Republic

Okay Tom. Please translate into plain English.

Quote:

---

And it is clear that when a tyrant arises, the position of popular leader is the sole root from which he springs... Once he takes over a docile mob, he does not restrain himself... he banishes and kills and drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the redistribution of land... He is the one, then, who stirs up faction against the rich.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

Okay Tom. Please translate into plain English.

---

Quote:

---

And it is clear that when a tyrant arises, the position of popular leader is the sole root from which he springs... Once he takes over a docile mob, he does not restrain himself... he banishes and kills and drops hints about the cancellation of debts and the redistribution of land... He is the one, then, who stirs up faction against the rich.

---

Hello c:

I'll take a stab at it. Although, I'm sure tom will have a different view. It's his clip, after all.

It's Republican scare tactics, plain and simple. There's nothing new about them. They tried to scare you before the election, and they're trying to scare you now. Yesterday Obama was a socialist. Today he's a tyrant. Who knows what they'll call him tomorrow?

Be scared they say... Really scared..

Excon

On the ILLEGAL alien problem:

Enforce the laws already on the books.
We apparently need some workers from Mexico, especially at harvest time. I remember a time when those workers came here on a limited work permit. They were DOCUMENTED and could be kept track of.

Now the question becomes, do we REALLY want to send the ILLEGALS back or not? If we do, then that is not hard to do.

The Federal government does not have to know where they are.

We start by having a good information base available to state and local governments. When a person found to be in this country illegaly is arrested for ANYTHING, even if it's jaywalking, he should be immediately be sent back to his home country.

Then the feds get out of the way and allow communities to restrict housing to ONLY legal US citizens, or those here on valid visas.

Then, firms that knowingly hire illegals should pay fines high enough to discourage the practice.

Those from other countries desiring seasonal work could do as was done in years past.

This might not be a total solution, but it would go a long way toward it.

It seems though, that both liberals and big businesses want the illegals here.

The liberals want them to bolster their voter base, and the businesses want cheap labor.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Who knows what they'll call him tomorrow?

---

Why wait until tomorrow? Try authoritarian. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrewc24301

Not just here, but everyone seems to have something to say about who's running the show. The conservatives critisize Obama just like back when Bush was the president, the liberals critisized him.

I think we're all intelegent people, so I ask, rather than finger pointing...

You're the president....

You know the problems....

How would you fix them.. one by one? And no one line answers, and no answers like "send all the illegals back home" and "end the war" period... I can't see any president getting up on stage and say... "I'm going to fix health care by making all hopitals free... good night" and he leaves the room... no put some thought in it...

What would YOU ALL do different?

---

The first thing to do is to set an agenda of priorities.

Here's my agenda.

1) Economy
2) National security
3) Social policy.

In terms of the economy, we are faces with several different problems:
a) Decline in housing values,
b) Tightening of capital markets and credit
c) Massive loss of jobs in many sectors
d) Loss of consumer confidence
e) The possibility of massive inflation at the same time we are experiencing a recession (stagflation).
f) The continued existence of the factors that caused these problems.

All of these issues are tied to each other, and solving one helps solve the others.

I would allow companies that are failing, regardless of how big they are, go through a bankruptcy process. There are those who say that allowing such a thing to occur with companies like AIG or GM will destroy the economy. Not true.

Bankruptcy gives troubled companies a fighting chance to survive. It also makes sure that creditors get SOMETHING to at least partially repay their loans, rather than nothing. Companies withbad assets on their books will be allowed to restructure so that the bad assets can be properly valuated and sold in the market FOR WHATEVER THE MARKET WILL BEAR. That is a true "mark to market" and it is absolutely essential to getting past the mistrust that currently exists in the marketplace. Bankruptcy would allow companies that have bad contract agreements to renegotiate those agreements on more favorable terms. It would allow companies that are poorly run to be taken over by better management teams. In short, bankruptcy PROTECTS and HELPS the companies that are in trouble. It is, in fact, a bailout that does not rely on tax dollars to accomplish the goal of helping the companies.

I would lower taxes at all levels, both corporate and personal. I would put money back into the hands of people and companies. This would act (as it always has in the past) to stimulate retail sales, which in turn stimulates production and employment. It also increases the amount of taxes the government collects, because with more people working and businesses earning more from increased sales, more taxes are paid to the government, even though the rate at which people and businesses are taxes is lower than it was before.

I would attempt to implement the Fair Tax, which is a consumption tax. You pay taxes on what you use, not on what you earn, which is fairer than an income tax.

One thing I would stop doing is giving bailouts to companies. At this point we have too much debt, the government is printing money to cover the cost of the bailouts, and there's no end in sight. The bailouts have to stop. We must also decrease government spending to the barest minimums. Any spending on anything other than military, police, fire departments, courts, basic infrastructure, and the simple costs of running the government must be pared down. It is not the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth via welfare programs. It is not the government's responsibility to provide for higher education, which is a luxury item. It is not the government's job to provide health insurance. It is not the government's job to save the trees or the whales or the three-headed Mongolian newt. It is not the job of the government to make sure that everyone, no matter how poor, has a home or a TV. It is not the job of the government to pay for studies of grass, chipmuncks, toads, and goldfish. It is not the job of government to fix the problems of people who make bad decisions. The government's job is to provide a safe environment and opportunities in which to live and conduct business. It's job is to maintain an infrastructure so that we have freedom of movement, clean water, and electricity... although I believe that electricity is the responsibility of private providers. In short, anything that is not directly the government's responsibility should be cut to bare minimums.

I would also eliminate Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Community Reinvestment Act. If not for these institutions, whose entire purpose was to create an environment in which bad loans were made under threat of penalty if the lenders didn't make these loans, there never would have been a housing crisis, which is where this entire problem started.

So that would be my goals with regard to the economy.

On the issue of National Security, which to me includes border control and protection from military threats, here's what I would do. I would increase the military budget back up to the levels immediately after 9/11. I would fund programs that allow the military to recruit the brightest and the best, and arm them with the newest and the best gear. The Future Warrior program would be fully funded and fast-tracked to allow our ground troops to have the equipment and training they need to project the greatest amount of military force with the least effort and risk. I would also increase studies into psycho-analytics of war... what makes a good soldier great, what gives him the best advantages in terms of mental-preparedness, the psychological force-multipliers of war, what can we do to help the soldier who has been through the trauma of combat cope with a return to civilian life, etc. The psychology of war is essential to having the best and most prepared military in the world.

I would work to increase the pay for cops and firefighters. With lower government spending, we can afford to pay them better. (Teachers too, but I'll get to that later.) I wuld increase the standards and training for cops and law enforcement at all levels. We have no right to complain about cops doing what they are taught to do when they shoot someone "unnecessarily" in reaction to the events on the ground. If we want the cops to be better at their jobs, we need to train them better and give them better equipment to do their jobs, and we need to pay a salary that will draw the cream of the crop to be police officers. Ditto for firefighters.

I would work on civilian awareness programs. In Israel, the reason that most terrorism attempts fail (about 97% fail, but you only hear about the ones that succeed) is that soldiers, cops and civilians work together to prevent terrorism. Civilians are always aware of their surroundings, and many of them are armed. If they see something suspicious, they take action, either by sounding the alarm and informing the authorities or by taking direct action themselves. Civilian awareness of the threats around them is high, and so everybody keeps their eyes open. I believe that Americans should be the same way. It is hard for law enforcement and military to stop the threats this country faces every day. It is all the harder because sillyvilians either get in the way or actively act against law enforcement. I believe a nation-wide education campaign regarding methods that civillians can use to help law enforcement and military officials stop terrorism or other threats to safety, would be helpful in a global effort to stop terroris. NY City has a campaign called "If you see something, say something." The name pretty much says it all. I would increase that campaign to a nationwide level, but I would also include education on what people should be looking for... unguarded luggage, strange vehicles, strange people acting strangley, clothing that is not appropriate to the weather, etc. Such a campaign would be invaluable in creating a society that helps protect itself.

In terms of a social agenda, I would act in a conservative manner. I am pro-life, and that would be part of my agenda. I am pro-gun, and I would act to protect the 2nd Amendment. I would appoint conservative originalists to the courts and eliminate judicial fiat to the best of my abilities. I am pro-school voucher and pro-charter-schools. I would allow the creation of charter schools, initiate a nationwide school-voucher program, and increase choice and opportunities in education through high school. I would increase teacher pay. The good teachers have some of the hardest jobs on earth and they get paid bupkis. (I would fire the bad teachers.) However, I would eliminate tenure in the public school systems. Tenure is an excuse for mediocre teachers to get lifetime positions for which they are not suited and are unqualified. It is a system that breeds abuse, and I would work hard to end it. I would expand the education savings accounts to help parents pay for their kids' higher education (but I would not allow the government to pay for it themselves). I would initiate a nationwide personal health savings account program to help pay for direct medical costs and the costs of health insurance, and I would keep the government out of the medical system (with the exception of the VA system, which I would work to improve in terms of standards of care).

So that would be my agenda, give or take a few things. I've put a lot of thought into these ideas, and I think that every one of them would be an improvement over what we currently have, in terms of national growth and personal independence and responsibility. I've had a long time to think about this stuff.

Galveston, I am with you all the way with the alien situation.

My daughter is married to a Canadian and she is jumping through all kinds of hoops to get her "permanent resident" status approved. Until then, she can not work, can not take part in the socialized medicine, and I don't know what all else. This is the way it should be.

I don't understand how or why they get free medical. That is easy enough to fix. No card, no medical care. Go back home for it or go through the proper channels, or do without. Babies born in the US to illegal aliens should not automatically become US Citizens.

Are you trying to tell me that Illegal immigrants are voting??
How do they get a voters registration card?
Why do you believe the liberals are easy on them to get their vote? Please explain.

ETWolf, Lots of good ideas there. I agree with most of it. This statement bothers me though...

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

or by taking direct action themselves.

---

I don't mind training citizens on how to be good observers and to report what they observe. Taking direct action themselves is a very slippery slope. What if you are wrong. You going to shoot first and ask questions later. I say report what you see and let the professionals handle it.

The only other thing I disagree with is the prolife stance. Personally, I don't think I could have an abortion but it isn't anyone's decision but mine. I think it is ironic that conservatives that rant about keeping the gov out of our lives, fight to keep the gov in a woman's body. I say, if you don't believe in abortions, then don't have one.

Guns, okay have your guns, but don't complain about regulations. They are put in place to protect you. For people who qualify, there is no problem. If a person doesn't qualify, then they have no business getting a gun.

I agree with ET


On the economic issues, especially the Americans For Fair Taxation: Americans for Fair Taxation.

I do think the government's role in providing for the general welfare could expand in the area of basic science and research.

The reason I say this is that a dollar spent in education is worth much more than a dollar in healthcare. Also it is in technology and advancements that new jobs are created. Rather than bailing out failing businesses like GM, the government could fund research into things not yet here. For example, the internet - who would have thought of it being so pervasive back in the 1970s. Look how many jobs there are in information technology etc... We cannot compete on the world market with $1/hour jobs in such industries such as textiles. The jobs will come from the creation and applications of new or more advanced technology.





G&P

Quote:

---

I understand people wanting less gov. overseeing everything, but unfortunately, greed can often over rule fairness and doing what is right. In that case it needs to be mandated.

---

Explain to me why that isn't tyranny.
As far as my Socrates comment goes it was amply demonstrated when the gvt. Whipped up populist anger over AIG execs. To the point that email boxes were flooded with death threats and their brownshirts in ACORN organized a bus of protesters to intimidate AIG workers Connecticut Working Families | Vote your values. Vote Working Families.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

explain to me why that isn't tyranny.

---

Hello tom:

Ok. If the Bush trampling of the 4th Amendment along with the 1st, 5th and 6th, wasn't tryanny, then this isn't even close.

excon

Elliot is right about taxes. The overall size of gvt is too big so I would make provisions for every Dept in the executive branch to be subject to periodic review by Congress to evaluate it's utility . The goal would be the elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy with targeted goals of job elimination in the Federal Civil service system.

I would go back to the principle that education is a local responsibility . One of the 1st Federal Depts to be eliminated would be the Dept. of Education. I would use anti-trust laws if necessary to force competition into the school systems and to break the teacher's unions. I agree with Elliot in elimination of tenure ;paying teachers their value .

The balance of power has been warped by the judiciary. It can be fixed by elimination of lifetime appointments to the bench ;and a legislative 2/3 majority veto on judicial decisions. That would require a Constitutional amendment but it would be well worth it to go back to the concept of letting the people be the final arbiter .

Hello again, andrew:

If you listen to the righty's here, you'll hear politics as usual...

The PROBLEM is that we're facing an economic meltdown, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the Great Depression. These guys don't understand it, so they IGNORE it.

Oh, righty's UNDERSTAND the threat when a gun is aimed at us... Yup, they get that all right...

But, they don't quite get it when the enemy is the economy, and when they themselves are responsible for breaking it...

Talking about fixing a flat tire when the engine is blown up, doesn't work for cars, and it doesn't work for our country.

excon

Andrew you will also I'm sure note that this is response #33 ;that the "righties" have offered specific answers as you have requested .But you see none from the rest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

But you see none from the rest

---

Hello again,

It's true. That tom guy really keeps us on the straight and narrow... Here we go:

(1) Fix the economy.
a. reform health care
1. throw the insurance companies OUT, and make the gov the single payer.

b. reform energy
1. make it green, and make it an alternate to fossil fuel.

c. reform entitlements
1. They are growing faster than we can pay for them... We either need to raise SS and Medicare taxes, or lower services.

d. re-regulate
1. We must end the market tilt toward the rich.

(2) End the drug war.
1. That'll save JILLIONS, and go a long way toward making peace in the world.

(3) Rebuild the infrastructure.
1. We need roads and bridges to work.

(4) End the war's in Iraq and Afghanistan.
1. Duh!
2. It'll help make peace.

(5) Reform immigration.
1. We should stop trying to keep ourselves WHITE.

That'll be quite enough for a first term.

excon

Ex there is a fundamental problem with 1.(d)

The regulations are already in place. The regulators are the problem. There was a putsch conducted by banking interests that melded into the government at all levels in a revolving door method... and created the regulatory environment to favor themselves interests . Regulations were never relaxed ,they were created and expanded with the intent to be manipulated .

Robert Rubin, former chairman of Goldman Sachs, Treasury secretary under Clinton, and later chairman of Citigroup's executive committee. Henry Paulson, CEO of Goldman Sachs became Treasury secretary John Snow, left to become chairman of Cerberus Capital Management, a large private-equity firm that also Alan Greenspan, after leaving the Federal Reserve, became a consultant to Pimco,the biggest player in international bond markets. Jon Corzine, former Senator and now the governor of New Jersey was also a Goldman Sachs big wig .Boy wonder Tim Geithner protégé of Lawrence Summers,Robert Rubin and various Fed managers ,as well as the world bank is guarding the hen house now... so their interests are safe. GS is getting their fill of bailout money filtered through AIG .

They staffed the regulatory depts ;and with donations to lawmakers, created the regulations that the industry was ruled under ,and managed the oversight.

The narrative is wrong.It wasn't deregulation ;it was too much regulation created by an oligarchy of people who had the most to gain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The regulations are already in place. The regulators are the problem....... The narrative is wrong. It wasn't deregulation ;it was too much regulation created by an oligarchy of people who had the most to gain.

---

Hello again, tom:

That would be YOUR take. Mine, not surprisingly, is different. Ever hear the phrase "too big to fail"?? Do you want to know how that happened??

It could be said, and I'm saying it, that Senator Phil Gramm, Republican from Texas, started the deregulation that wound up causing this mess, when he authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act. It repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. For example, Citibank merged with Travelers Group, an insurance company, and in 1998 formed the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking and insurance underwriting services under brands including Smith-Barney, Shearson, Primerica and Travelers Insurance Corporation. This combination would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act by combining insurance and securities companies.

Bank of America and AIG are other examples of these abominations.

excon

Re : Glass-Steagall

The funny thing is that Countrywide , Washington Mutual, and IndyMac, all manage to have toxic mortgages without even having security business.
GS and Morgan Stanley had no banking divisions and yet they also got into trouble . None of their problems had anything to do with the repeal of Glass-Steagall .

You may not know this but Sen Carter Glass himself moved to repeal Glass-Steagall shortly after it was passed, claiming it was an overreaction to the crisis.

The fact is that the repeal of GSA rules had nothing to do with either the sub-prime fiasco or credit default swaps. GSA would not have prevented the creation of derivitives or their popularity as an investment... and of course the loosening of lending standards was due to regulatory MANDATE .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cozyk

ETWolf, Lots of good ideas there. I agree with most of it. This statement bothers me though...

I don't mind training citizens on how to be good observers and to report what they observe. Taking direct action themselves is a very slippery slope. What if you are wrong. You going to shoot first and ask questions later. I say report what you see and let the professionals handle it.

---

I understand your point. However, the fact is that community crime watch groups that are organized, trained, and have the ability to make citizens arrests are a great tool for stopping crime. Take a look at the Guardian Angels for example. Law enforcement in fourty-something states and 20-something countries work well with the Guardian Angels, who are trained as citizen watch groups and are well organized. They are also well-liked by the public.

Furthermore, there's an old saying: "When seconds count, the police are there in minutes." Cops CANNOT be everywhere. That's not a criticism, it's just a simple fact of logistics. There are x number of cops to cover y amount of territory, and the numbers never add up. A citizenry trained to take care of itself in self-defense is absolutely necessary to stop crime and terrorism. For example, the Salt Lake City Mall shooting (February 2007) resulted in 5 innocents being killed before the shooter was brought down by an armed off-duty police officer who happened to be shopping there. If not for that off-duty cop, (essentially, for the purpose of this post, an armed civillian) the shootings would have been much worse and resulted in many more deaths. An aware, well-trained and privately armed civilian population has a better chance at stopping crime and terrorism than a poorly armed, untrained, oblivious population.

Quote:

---

The only other thing I disagree with is the prolife stance. Personally, I don't think I could have an abortion but it isn't anyone's decision but mine. I think it is ironic that conservatives that rant about keeping the gov out of our lives, fight to keep the gov in a woman's body. I say, if you don't believe in abortions, then don't have one.

---

I say that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Let the people decide what their state's laws should be on abortion. Roe V. Wade was a case of legislation through Judicial fiat. The federal government is not supposed to have a say on this issue. Let the states decide.

And turning your argument back on itself, I find it interesting that those who claim to be "pro-choice" are only pro-choice on abortion. They never seem to be pro-choice on whether other people should own a gun, other people should keep the money they earn, which schools other people's children should go to, what prayers can be said in public, and what forms of art can be exhibitted in public buildings. "Stay out of my bedroom", apparently doesn't apply to "Stay out of my wallet" or "Stay out of my gun-rack".

And taking a slightly different argument, the same people who are most ardently in favor of abortion rights for women to kill unborn children also seem to be the ones most in favor of protecting the rights of murderers and rapists to live. It is okay to kill innocent, unborn, helpless babies, but adult murderers and rapists must be protected?

Quote:

---

Guns, okay have your guns, but don't complain about regulations. They are put in place to protect you. For people who qualify, there is no problem. If a person doesn't qualify, then they have no business getting a gun.

---

I have no problem with background checks. It's just smart to do background checks. However, the government has gone way beyond background checks, and is working very hard to make ALL guns illegal. They have labeled any long-gun that has a pistol-grip as an assault weapon, regardless of what the weapon itself is capable of. They have listed any weapon that can load 10 or more rounds as an assault weapon. There is a new bill in the works that says that any weapon that has ever been used by the military is automatically a "military weapon" and the fact that a weapon has a sport application doesn't mean that it is a "sport weapon". This is a catch-all rule that can be used to make ANY weapon illegal, and is a direct violation of the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

Interestingly enough, there is something of a history to the 2nd Amendment. Below are the various draft versions of the 2nd Amendment.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (FINAL VERSION)

For those who argue that the right to bear arms applies only to a militia group or someone serving in the military, the progression above makes it clear that that was NOT the intention of the Framers. They clearly intended the right to bear arms as a PERSONAL right regardless of military service, and that this personal right will have no law whatsoever that limits it. This includes, lecensure laws, purchase limitations, waiting periods, or limitations based on the weapons' "purpose". "Shall not be infringed" is a very clear statement.

Elliot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

I say that it is a state issue, not a federal one. Let the people decide what their state's laws should be on abortion. Roe V. Wade was a case of legislation through Judicial fiat. The federal government is not supposed to have a say on this issue. Let the states decide.

And taking a slightly different argument, the same people who are most ardently in favor of abortion rights for women to kill unborn children also seem to be the ones most in favor of protecting the rights of murderers and rapists to live. It is okay to kill innocent, unborn, helpless babies, but adult murderers and rapists must be protected?

---

Hello again, El:

When it comes to issues you don't believe in, you dismiss the relevance the Constitution has on those issues, and you call decisions to uphold the Constitution laws by fiat. But, when it comes to Constitutional rights you support, then you know the Constitution pretty good.

Constitutional rights cannot be taken away. They can't be left to the states to decide. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says so. According to Roe v Wade, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a Constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Like it or not, the Supreme Court said so, and no Supreme Court since has said otherwise.

Like it or not, fetus's don't have Constitutional rights. Convicted murders and rapists do.

Unlike yourself, I support the ENTIRE Constitution. I don't cherry pick. Yes, you're absolutely right about your Second Amendment rights.. It's just a shame you aren't an ardent supporter of the rest of them.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

That would be YOUR take. Mine, not surprisingly, is different. Ever hear the phrase "too big to fail"?? Do you want to know how that happened??

---

That's a BS statement that means "The unions or the executives give me big money donations, so I don't want them to fail". There is no such thing as too big to fail.

Quote:

---

It could be said, and I'm saying it, that Senator Phil Gramm, Republican from Texas, started the deregulation that wound up causing this mess, when he authored the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act. It repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up competition among banks, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited a bank from offering investment, commercial banking, and insurance services.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate. For example, Citibank merged with Travelers Group, an insurance company, and in 1998 formed the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking and insurance underwriting services under brands including Smith-Barney, Shearson, Primerica and Travelers Insurance Corporation. This combination would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act by combining insurance and securities companies.

Bank of America and AIG are other examples of these abominations.

Excon

---

Let's assume that Glass Steagall were still in place. So instead of JP Morgan Chase bundling mortgages and then selling derivatives based on those mortgages, Chase would have bundled the mortgages, and JP Morgan would have sold derivatives based on the mortgages. Either way, the product would still have existed, would still have failed and would still have caused the same problem. Glass-Steagall didn't prevent that from happening in the slightest. Ditto for AIG, Citigroup, B of A and any other financial conglomerate you can think of.

Just out of curiosity, how, exactly, did the repeal of Glass-Steagall cause the failure of GM, which is supposedly also too big to fail?

Come on, ex. You know that this argument is complete BS. There is no such thing as "too big to fail". This is a concept that the government came up with to justify sweeping regulatory change and control of industry. It's pure baloney.

The cause of this entire problem is sub-prime mortgages. Sub-prime mortgages would not exist except for the interference of the US government in forcing the banks to make those mortgage loans. Eliminate the regulation, and you eliminate the sub-prime mortgages. Eliminate the sub-prime mortgages, and you eliminate the problem at its root.

It's a simple fix. But it wouldn't allow the government all the control over our lives and businesses that it wants, so it won't even be considered. And we're just going to go through all this again in a few years, regardless of any regulations the government puts in place to try to stop it.

There's no such thing as "child proof" because children are too clever. There's no such thing as "idiot proof" because idiots are too smart.
And there's no such thing as "greed proof" because greedy people have lawyers that find loopholes in regulations designed to keep their greed "in check". Ergo, regulation doesn't work, and can't work to prevent this problem, because it can't eliminate the environment in which the problem is created.

But elimination of Fannie, Freddie and CRA eliminates the environment in which the problem exists, and thus the problem itself. DEREGULATION is the answer, not increased regulation that always causes unintended (or sometimes intended) consequences.