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