What could POTUS do to make the economy more efficient? Reduce the size of government? Utilize the private sector?

[nevets88]

The Donald Trump for President is getting off-topic. You can continue the efficientizing the economy points here. If you can think of a better subject title than the spaghetti I made up, give me a better one and I'll change it. I'm not even sure I've summed up the discussion properly as I haven't read all the posts completely, but you get the point.

 

[Lihu]

Our government is far too big, and I'm a moderate not some fanatical libertarian.

@pumaAttack we'll probably need to carry on the discussion here.

[SavvySwede]

1. Reduce military spending (biggest piece of the pie)
2. Quit subsidizing already profitable businesses (oil, etc)
3. Reduce subsidies for commercial farms (they're supposed to be there for the little guy)
4. Universal healthcare (eliminating the insurance companies will make it cheaper for everyone and employers can use the money they're currently blowing on insurance to expand) 

Is any of this within the president's power? Well, not really. With a useless congress don't expect anything to happen. I am optimistic more incumbent's will be cleared out this season than usual.

[saevel25]

24 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

1. Reduce military spending (biggest piece of the pie)

1. First figure out how to do more with less, advance the military more efficiently and technologically. 

25 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

1. Universal healthcare (eliminating the insurance companies will make it cheaper for everyone and employers can use the money they're currently blowing on insurance to expand) 

I am still skeptical for this. Just the stories of other countries that have long wait times because the government just doesn't pay well to the doctors. With this country's shrinking doctor workforce and the piles of college debt they have. Throw in a system where the government shafts them by undercutting their costs will just further drive people out of the medical field. 

I rather see things like tort reform against stupid malpractice suits. Also, figure out a way to start getting this country into better shape and out from under the pharmaceuticals. 

If I was to support a universal healthcare it would be catastrophic care. Stuff like, you accidentally get shot. You end up in a car crash. You end up getting cancer. Things that can just devastate a whole family with debt. Things like routine check ups. If you negotiate with a doctor they are pretty good about working out a compromise on costs.

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Our government is far too big, and I'm a moderate not some fanatical libertarian.

@pumaAttack we'll probably need to carry on the discussion here.

I think things need to be done more on the state and local level. Let the states figure out what is best. Then it's more tailored towards the people who live there, who want it, who might not want something another state does. Obama copied the health care stuff from Massachusetts. Yet, that state voted and wanted it. Does that mean Ohio wants it. Does that mean Montana wants it. Let them figure out their own systems. 

Also, that is a good way to produce 50 different programs and see how they work. Incase something needs to actually be made federal now you have 50 case studies to go off of. 

Local first, State Second, Federal last. For me the local taxes should be the highest out of the all the ones you pay. That way you are putting your own money into programs where you actually live. 

[Patch]

Balancing the budget would be a good start. Then operate (mandatory)  the USA in the black.

Bring back some of the regulations that Reagan deregulated. 

Stop spending (wasting) money in foreign countries would also help. 

Do what ever it takes to get more Americans back to work. 

Pretty much making  his/her agenda "America First". 

 

[SavvySwede]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

1. First figure out how to do more with less, advance the military more efficiently and technologically.

Do we even really need to do more though? We already have 6 military bases in the UK. Do they really need our help?

12 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I am still skeptical for this. Just the stories of other countries that have long wait times because the government just doesn't pay well to the doctors. With this country's shrinking doctor workforce and the piles of college debt they have. Throw in a system where the government shafts them by undercutting their costs will just further drive people out of the medical field. 

I rather see things like tort reform against stupid malpractice suits. Also, figure out a way to start getting this country into better shape and out from under the pharmaceuticals.

But we don't have to go fully the other way and cheap out on care. When the medical insurance industry dies we just need to give the medical professional their fair share of it's carcass.

28 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Local first, State Second, Federal last. For me the local taxes should be the highest out of the all the ones you pay. That way you are putting your own money into programs where you actually live. 

Considering U.S towns are already becoming less diverse both racially and economically, I would see something like this ending up with even a higher disparity between quality of school districts and things like crime prevention.

[saevel25]

19 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

Considering U.S towns are already becoming less diverse both racially and economically, I would see something like this ending up with even a higher disparity between quality of school districts and things like crime prevention.

I think a lot of towns and cities would benefit from the federal level of taxes. If we invert the taxes. Lets say local gets 10-35% depending on bracket. States stay the same. Let's say the Feds get a flat rate of 6%.  If the average marginal tax rate is 15-17% that is an increase of 10-12% to a local budget. Now imagine what they can do with that money that isn't tied to stipulations by the Feds. When the Feds give you money they stipulate how it needs to be spent. Believe me, it includes a boat load of paperwork, documentation, jumping through hoops. 

Example, if the City of Dayton funds a roadway project ourselves we can stipulate exactly what items we want, make/modal. If we get state or federal money then we can't identify exact make/models we want. We have to spec out what we want and  hope the contractor picks the make/model we want. Yet if they find something close enough we have to take maybe an inferior product. 

Just having more local money gives the City of Dayton more leeway to get what we want. I can tell you we know more about what we need in terms of Traffic for the City of Dayton then the Fed do. 

 

 

 

[JonMA1]

2 hours ago, pumaAttack said:

 You got lucky in life.  

Not trying to pile on @pumaAttack, but unless @Fourputthas described his life, how can you possibly know what he's gone through?

Everyone of us who was born in a first world country is lucky. If you're saying it's  tougher to be born into poverty, I agree. But to assume every white male who is successful is so just from that is simply short-sighted.

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

That is absurd.

I think I know what you're saying. People who have a knack for making money will always do so regardless of the taxes. But there is a point where it just isn't logical. You and I are rich to many people. Are you ok paying higher taxes?

---

I think it's just too simplistic to say "all we have to do is tax the rich". Just as it's simplistic to say "all people have to do to achieve success is work harder".  And yet, politicians talk that crap and voters eat it up.

If I wanted to have more money and more stuff, all I would have had to do is stay single, not have kids and spend my whole life working. But I chose to be where I'm at and I'm ok with it. In some ways I feel like the luckiest person in the world (and not because  I'm white). Instead of more savings or more stuff, my wife and I decided to take on some of our children's college debt. Much of where we are all at is a result of choices we make.

When it comes down to it, it's not the end of the world for me to have less money, drive an older car, have a smaller house, and not be able to afford steak for dinner. I know plenty of people who have it far tougher than I do and are still happy to be alive.

Now there are crappy situations that are almost impossible to get out from under. The elderly who have to choose between medicine and food. A single parent without higher education or a skill who is in that situation through no fault of their own, etc. Folks who are honestly in dire need of help.  

Of all the crazy shit my tax dollars go towards, helping these people seems pretty easy to live with.

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, SavvySwede said:

1. Reduce military spending (biggest piece of the pie)
2. Quit subsidizing already profitable businesses (oil, etc)
3. Reduce subsidies for commercial farms (they're supposed to be there for the little guy)
4. Universal healthcare (eliminating the insurance companies will make it cheaper for everyone and employers can use the money they're currently blowing on insurance to expand) 

Is any of this within the president's power? Well, not really. With a useless congress don't expect anything to happen. I am optimistic more incumbent's will be cleared out this season than usual.

Agreed on points 1 and 2.

The farm subsidies might be an issue, as part of that is irrigation. It would kill farming in the United States. The alternative is to allow people to privately flood BLM lands to store enough water for any drought situation. Then it is possible to eliminate subsidies, but we would have to loosen the wildlife preservation laws somewhat.

Universal health care is a great concept, but the Obamacare just adds a layer on top of the existing insurance system. What you want is something like socialized medicine like in England or China. I don't know if this is possible to do in America.

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, SavvySwede said:

1. Reduce military spending (biggest piece of the pie)
2. Quit subsidizing already profitable businesses (oil, etc)
3. Reduce subsidies for commercial farms (they're supposed to be there for the little guy)
4. Universal healthcare (eliminating the insurance companies will make it cheaper for everyone and employers can use the money they're currently blowing on insurance to expand) 

Is any of this within the president's power? Well, not really. With a useless congress don't expect anything to happen. I am optimistic more incumbent's will be cleared out this season than usual.

Agreed on points 1 and 2.

The farm subsidies might be an issue, as part of that is irrigation. It would kill farming in the United States. The alternative is to allow people to privately flood BLM lands to store enough water for any drought situation. Then it is possible to eliminate subsidies, but we would have to loosen the wildlife preservation laws somewhat.

Universal health care is a great concept, but the Obamacare just adds a layer on top of the existing insurance system. What you want is something like socialized medicine like in England or China. I don't know if this is possible to do in America.

[SavvySwede]

3 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Agreed on points 1 and 2.

The farm subsidies might be an issue, as part of that is irrigation. It would kill farming in the United States. The alternative is to allow people to privately flood BLM lands to store enough water for any drought situation. Then it is possible to eliminate subsidies, but we would have to loosen the wildlife preservation laws somewhat.

I only wanted to reduce subsidies. Nowadays we have people buying large tracks of land in the midwest just so that the government can pay them to not farm it. You can essentially buy yourself a money printing machine. That and a lot of subsidies are just adding to the bottom line of commercial farmers instead of helping out family owned operations which was a big part of their original intention.

2 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Universal health care is a great concept, but the Obamacare just adds a layer on top of the existing insurance system. What you want is something like socialized medicine like in England or China. I don't know if this is possible to do in America.

That was what I meant by universal healthcare.

[Lihu]

2 minutes ago, SavvySwede said:

I only wanted to reduce subsidies. Nowadays we have people buying large tracks of land in the midwest just so that the government can pay them to not farm it. You can essentially buy yourself a money printing machine. That and a lot of subsidies are just adding to the bottom line of commercial farmers instead of helping out family owned operations which was a big part of their original intention.

That was what I meant by universal healthcare.

That's exactly the type of waste and fraud I would really like to see taken away.

[pumaAttack]

I should clarify, when I say "you" I am not talking to a poster directly. 

I mean nobody gets to this point in life because of hard work alone.  It takes luck, being born in the USA, and being given the opportunities to succeed.  There are millions of people who work harder than the most successful person but wasn't born into the right opportunity.   Being a white male gives you such an upper hand its ridiculous.  I am lucky to be where I am but I know its not because I worked harder than every one else.  I was fortunate enough to be given the chance to succeed and worked hard to make that work.

Because of this vast unbalance, I believe us, the fortunate, have a duty to help out our fellow citizens who didn't have those same chances I did.  Paying higher taxes to pay for Medicaid, Health care and other social programs is the least I can do.  I would never want those taxes reduced.  To assume that everyone who needs those aides is lazy is incredible offensive and unrealistic.

[Lihu]

6 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

I should clarify, when I say "you" I am not talking to a poster directly. 

I mean nobody gets to this point in life because of hard work alone.  It takes luck, being born in the USA, and being given the opportunities to succeed.  There are millions of people who work harder than the most successful person but wasn't born into the right opportunity.   Being a white male gives you such an upper hand its ridiculous.  I am lucky to be where I am but I know its not because I worked harder than every one else.  I was fortunate enough to be given the chance to succeed and worked hard to make that work.

Because of this vast unbalance, I believe us, the fortunate, have a duty to help out our fellow citizens who didn't have those same chances I did.  Paying higher taxes to pay for Medicaid, Health care and other social programs is the least I can do.  I would never want those taxes reduced.  To assume that everyone who needs those aides is lazy is incredible offensive and unrealistic.

I don't think it's a race based thing. In China*** the same thing goes for the rich versus poor. You could be born into a position to help you a lot more than your unlucky counterpart.

Having a higher salary, means you do pay more taxes and more medicare and SS payments. SS/Medicare are a fixed percentage up to the cap.

It's good to appreciate your position in life and want to continue to help others. Many conservative Christians feel the same way and do do many privately funded things to help others.

 

***Or anywhere else, this was just one example where everyone is the same race.

[pumaAttack]

Just now, Lihu said:

I don't think it's a race based thing. In China*** the same thing goes for the rich versus poor. You could be born into a position to help you a lot more than your unlucky counterpart.

***Or anywhere else, this was just one example where everyone is the same race.

In America, being white AND male is a huge advantage.  It's incredibly unfair but that is how the social system is set up.  I am not ignorant of those advantages given to me strictly because of traits I had no control over.  

 

[Lihu]

3 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

In America, being white AND male is a huge advantage.  It's incredibly unfair but that is how the social system is set up.  I am not ignorant of those advantages given to me strictly because of traits I had no control over.  

This is changing in part because of people like you voicing out the unfairness, but it is not a unique situation.

Yes, being white and male has been an advantage in America, but being part of the ruling class in China*** is much the same thing. They are born into that life. It's not really different, just the fact that in one case it is race/sex based and the other pure chance.

 

***or any other country with one race of people.

[newtogolf]

45 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

In America, being white AND male is a huge advantage.  It's incredibly unfair but that is how the social system is set up.  I am not ignorant of those advantages given to me strictly because of traits I had no control over.  

 

I'd argue where you were born has more to do with your opportunity than what color your skin is or what sex organs you were born with.  

Maybe you just haven't been exposed to white poverty.  Go visit some remote areas in this country and see how "lucky" those coal miners are or how privileged those that live in the mountains have it.  

Those who grow up in a city have little excuse for not getting an education and doing more with their life than being welfare recipients.  

I have no issue with taking care of those who can't take care of themselves but have no sympathy or desire to help those who choose to waste their lives on drugs, gangs, and lack of work ethic.   

[JonMA1]

1 hour ago, pumaAttack said:

In America, being white AND male is a huge advantage.  It's incredibly unfair but that is how the social system is set up.  I am not ignorant of those advantages given to me strictly because of traits I had no control over.  

 

I think that being born poor and being raised in a family where there is little encouragement to be the best you can be is a great disadvantage. But that environment can occur in a small-town, midwestern trailer park made up only of white folks as easy as it can occur in an inner-city neighborhood made up only of minorities. I have seen both first-hand.

If you're talking about Corporate America discriminating against African-Americans,  I don't know how much of a disadvantage that is, but I agree it's real. If you say it's huge, I'll take you at your word.

You're right, I am where I am in part because of luck (and where I'm at is nothing special). Not because I was born into money, but because of how I was raised. I have a few life experiences that both support your opinion and weaken it.

I might be less inclined to agree with the gender issue, but being African-American in this country brings challenges that few of us (who are not black) will ever know.

But it is not impossible to rise above it, just more difficult, IMO.

Edited March 10, 2016 by JonMA1
typo