Come together on what we can all agree on

I think we can all agree that the $16 trillion national debt is insane. We can all agree that trillion dollar annual deficits are insane. Most agree that congressional approval rating proves that congress and the senate are NOT doing their jobs. Pentagon waste is a problem. $600.00 toilet seats and $1000.00 coffee makers for the military is waste. Social Security hasn't added a dime to the $16 trillion debt. $4.00 a gallon gas makes everything more expensive and hurts the economy. Big oil profits are $100 billion every three months.Healthcare is way too expensive. CEO salaries are excessive. Greed is a huge problem. Special interests have way too much influence with congress. Welfare cuts should start with foreign aid to countries that are our enemies, not with our own people. AND WE CAN'T CREATE MORE PROBLEMS, WHILE TRYING TO FIX THESE PROBLEMS.

Cutting spending SHOULD be done. The tricky part is how and what to cut. Since the politicians aren't doing their jobs, cutting their pay in half should be at the top of the list for spending cuts, IMO. Can we agree on that?

Congress should not be like a bunch of union members that can't lose their jobs, no matter how bad a job they do. The American people should have a NO CONFIDENCE VOTE that dissolves a congress that doesn't do their job. They ALL should be replaced by governors of the states appointing their replacements until the next election. This is just one proposal for a solution to one problem.

THE BLAME GAME IS NOT A SOLUTION. If you have ideas for solutions to these problems, or other things we can all agree on, I'm interested in hearing them.

I would like to hear from reasonable people. Extremist nut jobs, take a hike.

 

I am behind you 100 percent. They should also have the same Health care that we have and they should have to work 25 years for a pension not one term. Then it should be social security like the rest of us.

 

That's a great idea to cut spending!

 

Notice how few care about coming together to fix this country. No wonder we have what we have. Welcome to the Divided States of America, where no one cares about anything but themselves.

 

What a Shame!

 

I agree 100% that the Federal debt is a major, if not THE major problem that we face, and future generations are going to have an increasingly difficult time to contend with.

The ONLY solution in my opinion is to cut Federal spending. And if the Federal government decides it needs to spend more, then it should raise taxes to produce the revenues immediately to eliminate the need to borrow and increase the debt. How many ongoing Federal spending programs would the voters allow if they had to pay the bill immediately?

 

I agree with you on that. But they need to quit wasting our money on bull shit crap. Feed and educate our hungry, get our people off the streets and then help out others countries if we the people want to. If they were to cut out the wasteful spending we could probable cut taxes for all.

 

That leaves us in the position of determining what we can agree on as being identified as wasteful, and even if we can accomplish that, could we get the government to agree with us?

 

Makes you wonder if we will figure it out before it is to late? We need to control our goverment not have it controlling us!

 

About all I can do is wish those of you who are younger than me the best of luck.

 

Why bash unions if you desire unity?

Equating Congress with unions seems a harsh assessment of unionism.

 

Unions, like the Cato Institute, are fair game. But what have you to offer that we might all agree on?

 

Let's try a case study in Michigan:

[source]

I agree with Mishel, that "strengthening collective bargaining and its important role in setting standards for all workers is a good place to start."

 

Equal pay for equal productivity?

 

^ According to executive paywatch:

The CEO of an S&P 500 Index company made, on average, 380 times the average wages of U.S. workers in 2011. [source]

Obviously, CEO's are not 380 times more productive than the average worker. So, productivity is not what's driving CEO pay; pay is not an accurate measure.

A better measure would be the "CEO to Worker Pay Gap." The measure would be used to reduce the gap. When the gap is reduced to a level predetermined by the people, to their satisfaction, and their interests, agreement by the people with 51% majority vote, can commence thereupon, to wit.

 

Depends on what you consider productivity.

Why this continual bickering over what others make?

What if you're in disagreement with the 51% majority? And the U.S. government is not a Democracy in the way you are describing Democracy, and that was intentional by the founders. Under our Constitution much more than a simple majority is required although the Federal government seems to have long ignored that, and maybe that's another reason for many of the problems that exist today.

Okay, we've identified another area in which we cannot all agree on, any other ideas? Maybe a better question might be "IS there anything at all that we can 'all' agree on?"

 

I'm just stating the facts. No need to get emotional.

And that's just wages, not wealth.

 

No emotion employed, simply asked a question.

Probably wages, stock options, and bonuses combined, but then they do have to pay taxes on their income, but are you trying to make a claim that reducing the wages of CEO's would result in increasing the average wages for workers in the U.S.?

Like I said, we're still looking for something we can all agree on, and apparently we need to look elsewhere.

How about this idea?
Each year government should pass a budget for the following year, and the tax tables should be adjusted to ensure that adequate revenue is collected to cover the budget, with any excess collected used to pay down the Federal debt and any shortfall required to be recovered in the following years budget and tax table adjustments? Essentially a balanced budget going forward.

 

Phony balony. Clinton left office with a $300 billion annual surplus and a balanced budget. Shrub and his REPUBLICAN congress and REPUBLICAN senate destroyed it all in less than six months. And ran up $6 trillion on the national debt. When Shrub left office the national debt had doubled, and the U.S. and global economies were in ruin. Obama has added $4 trillion to the debt, trying to bring the economy back with bailouts and stimulus packages. The cons have obstructed all efforts to bring back prosperity to this country. The only way to get a balanced budget now is doubling taxes on EVERYONE, and cutting ALL government subsidies to corporations, cutting ALL foreign aid, and cutting pentagon spending in half. NOT CUTTING BENEFITS to education, SS, welfare or healthcare. THAT ONLY CREATES A LOT MORE PROBLEMS, like high crime, homelessness, a skyrocketing prison population, and health pandemics. It costs $15k to keep a single mother and two kids on welfare. It costs $120k to keep them in prison. So you see, it only makes the problem worse.

 

The Federal debt increased each year under Clinton, and the last time during my lifetime that the Federal debt was reduced was when the $272,750,813,649.32 Federal debt held in 1956 was decreased to $270,527,171,896.43 in 1957 when Dwight Eisenhower, a Republican was President.

I believe you understated the cost of keeping a single mother and two kids on welfare, but regardless of what the true cost is, wouldn't it be better to find a way to get her off of welfare and capable of supporting herself and her two kids? And why is the Father not being held responsible for some if not all the costs of supporting the kids at least?

You could cut the costs of incarceration to the bone by putting Joe Arpaio in charge of the prison systems.

Personally, I think each State should take responsibility for many of the programs that are now funded by the Federal government, which would eliminate the middleman who has to be paid and the States could more easily be held accountable for their actions by their citizens than the Federal government can be.

Actually it might be a good learning experience if the Federal government would double everyones taxes for just one year, or even several years just to see how the people would respond. I think you would find a much different outcome than you seem to expect would occur.