Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
Just heard some "official" of the Tea Party bunch saying that they were responsible for the cleaning of the house and that the Republicans will need go along with them!
She was saying there would be no compromise to their agenda!
Now, I'm thinking...LOL, they don't have a clue yet. The Republicans can keep any motion for any bill they make on the bottom of the pile, keep them from being on any committee, basically keep anyone out of the loop and basically impotent with regard to any other compromised bill. That's in the House.
If anything comes out of the House, it will likely be shot down in the Senate, and if it does get to the President, it can be vetoed.
Just saying, to walk in the door singing that they have a mandate of the people (which they don't) and that there will be no compromise doesn't sound like the best way to start the new day.
Looks like problems already between the Tea Party and the Republicans....now does all that look to you?
Real Estate Investor · Phoenix, AZ · Member since 2009 · 1k+ posts · 1k+ votes
15y
Mike, I legally immigrated but do not find illegal immigration upsetting. Having said that, I need to clarify that I was not trying to turn this into a debate on immigration but merely pointing out that the California Republicans lost the Latino vote by fighting this battle and the party runs the risk of doing the same thing in other states that have a high Latino population. This does not portend well for Republicans in many states that have been reliably Republican.
Regarding social security, I am afraid I would like to see it completely eliminated and not just cut. I do not see any reason for the government to be involved in non-governmental things such as people's savings, pensions, health care, education, postal service, etc. I prefer free and competitive markets wherever possible and it is a stretch to suggest that savings and investments are not suitable for the private sector.
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
15y
See, that's the misguided business conservative preaching that is taken in by many people....cut FDIC in half, you have absolutely no idea what the effect of that would be, and it goes to show that nothing was learned during the Bush years in slacking off regulatory policies, especially in banking.....what kind of mess are we living in now???? Had FDIC been rippinhg bankers and SEC ripping Wall Street apart as they should have, we wouldn't be in the current mess, pretty simple to see that!
Mocho talk, but no substance in reality.
It's not that Dems try to break business so much as business tries to get away with soooo much in the first place, called greed, and if we had the business attitudes and morale compass say of 1985, while the people would still be getting screwed over, the main thrust of such business would not be to cheat a dollar out of people and let them eat cake!
I remember a local hospital here giving treatment to citizens based on what they could afford to pay. Even as a non-profit, they grew having a half block facility to taking up 10 square blocks. Today, it's a meat market, gouging patients and insurance companies, having subsidiary health companies and over charging for services and discounting the charge if it's paid in cash, and the if not paid, the larger amount is turned over to their collection company.
Corporate mentality today is nothing short of ruthless compared to 25 years ago. Just name any major corporation that isn't deceiving in advertising and contracts, actually there use to be laws against many of the tactics used today, but that has changed in the great transfer of wealth and power, IMO. And, no one on this site is in the top two per cent, can't understand why so many defend billionaires, you might have a dream, but while might bust the million mark, probably alot, my money says none of you will bust a billion, not in real estate, too much control over the industry......evidence, look to how the banks influence what you can and can't do, how HUD and Fannie places restriction on you....if there is big money on the table, no individual is going to walk away with it.....so do a little at a time and keep at it, IMO, make very good money, but if you want to make millions, go to wall street or go into banking!
So, the reality of it is, everyone should be making some compromises...
And yes, there are many who are willing to drive the country into bankruptcy to get the end game.....do you think the CEO of any large corporation will personally suffer if the country goes bust? Heck, No!
LOL, it's the poor slobs standing out there with signs and going to rallies who will feel the pinch that they brought upon themselves by the division caused....when you're trying to pay your mortgage, I'll be sitting in my paid off home....but for the sake of the country, you better find ways to work together.
If anyone thinks that the Bush years' real estate explosion was due to deregulation, they're out of their mind. Banks were required BY LAW to lend to people who couldn't afford the homes. Then, Fannie and Freddie, two government sponsored entities, ate up the paper like it was prime. If Fannie and Freddie weren't there to buy, and the laws weren't there to require banks to lend, most of those loans would've never been made.
The problem is that we live in a society that lacks any basic understanding of personal responsibility with no respect for ourselves, our wallets, or our vote. Only recently did the savings rate go positive, and credit card balances finally drop. But even still, we buy $400 billion more stuff from overseas than we sell.
The problems in Washington are quite simple: we spend too much on everything. We spend $700 billion on defense, have entitlement programs that drain more than half the budget, and despite record low interest rates, a national debt that sucks $250 billion out of the Federal coffers each and every year.
Want to solve the problem? Slash defense spending to $100 billion a year. Net savings is $600 billion and we'd still spend more than any other country on the planet.
Wipe out every single department. Every. Last. Department. Those that are worth keeping will be replicated at the state level.
Keep medicare and social security as they stand, since we've already built a generation that depends on them. Raise the retirement age for anyone under 50.
Kill off the tax code, replace it with a flat tax rates. No deductions, no credits, just tax rates. The tax code and its limitless credits manipulate decisions we make every day, and is only a burden on the economy.
Absolutely no VAT tax either, that's just another way to tax again your post-tax savings. (And you thought your Roth IRA was safe ;) )
I trust only one "Tea Party" candidate, and that is Rand Paul. Marco Rubio and Co. are jokes, future spend heavy politicians when the GOP takes the presidency.
People say I'm extreme, that the ideas above are crazy. But, if we followed them, we'd see a budget deficit of less than $100 billion a year, an amount that would be easily replaced by growth caused by tax code reform. Reforming and reducing regulations would only make the situation better.
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
15y
Not to hijack the thread, lol, but I'd like to see the money out of politics. Hundreds of millions are needed for TV ads.
The airways are "owned" by the public, regulated by the FCC and every TV station must apply for license for designated frequencies. I'd like to see the stations earn the right to use the airways, by providing a set number of hours of political ads...FREE.
There would be some problems, viable canidates would have to be qualified, say by political party or by signatures obtained in a local area for them to be qualified for ads. While we have seen that it's possible to lose when some try to buy the office, if ad budgets were capped, for everyone, they wouldn't need to take the money.
This will never happen. It's how corporations buy the canidate and TV stations make millions every two and four years.
Compromise is something we know about in real estate. If someone is pricing a home at 100K in a very limited market and the seller must sell, you might have offered 80K five years ago, today, you offer 60K and expect the seller to at least meet you half way!
Same thing has happened in politics too.
Over the years the mean of the right has moved further to the right. While there extreme left is still pretty nwell where they have been (they never have made headway really, some real nuts) the mean left has moved right. I'm talking from the 50s to now. But the last election, the right took a giant step to the right and now asks that the country at least meet them half way, which means there is a big step to the right for that to be accomplished.....probably won't work. Baby steps and more time is needed to make changes.
President Obama put everyone in shock with healthcare, huge change in a few months, way too big of a step in too short of a period of time. While there are very good achievements in the health bill (I know everyone would agree there (except for 10%)) there are other aspects that need to be changed or just repealed, So, will there be compromise or will both side dig in?
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
15y
Good points, I have to agree that shutting down all the agencies completly would cause havoc. So, what do you think about closing the Department of Education. Put the adminstration at the state level? Say, putting the adminstration of schools back to where they wer in the 1920s. No funds allocated by the feds, the feds can't hand out money and not adminster the funding. Would state increase income taxes orproperty taxes? Say you went to Northwestern and moved to Texas and wanted to attend Texas A&M, could you, would all the credits be accepted or would you need to take many course over again, since education, even state schools is big business too.
Real Estate Investor · the villages, FL · Member since 2008 · 5k+ posts · 3k+ votes
15y
TC- sent you a pm about honolulu. On thread, I'd suggest NOT to compromise. Rebubs are always the idiots that do that. No compromise when dems had full control- weren't even invited to the table. Rich
Investor · Sarasota, FL · Member since 2008 · 17k+ posts · 17k+ votes
15y
Rand Paul today said that Congress should be cutting military spending (along with lots of other cuts)...hopefully that's something that the Tea Party won't compromise on...
Investor, Entrepreneur, Educator · Springfield, MO · Member since 2009 · 21k+ posts · 12k+ votes
15y
Tom, I didn't look it up, but thought DOE was long before that, you might be correct, but when I was in highschool..60s, there was a national level of education, the only poijnt is, no department, no one to watch the purse, no money.
Jason, having been in the military (retired) I would agree with slashing the defense budget, hundreds of millions wasted that I know of and probably more I was neve exposed to! I would not support limitations of troop pay, benefits or VA care, but would go after the waste in the VA.
All branches of government are grossly wasteful, there is an attitude that it's the government and they print the money, it's not my money, so spend, spend, spend and toss it out!
Military training is another area that can't be cut, but who gets trained for what and why can be addressed. Lots of training is done only to retrain the same person in a few months for another job, it's poor administrative planning, IMO
Good points, I have to agree that shutting down all the agencies completly would cause havoc. So, what do you think about closing the Department of Education. Put the adminstration at the state level? Say, putting the adminstration of schools back to where they wer in the 1920s. No funds allocated by the feds, the feds can't hand out money and not adminster the funding. Would state increase income taxes orproperty taxes? Say you went to Northwestern and moved to Texas and wanted to attend Texas A&M, could you, would all the credits be accepted or would you need to take many course over again, since education, even state schools is big business too.
The burden would necessarily be passed on to the states, because frankly, most states have similar fiscal issues. Two for one! Besides, less waste at the Federal level means more to use at the state level, and any time we can localize something, I'm all for it. Then again, I live in a state (Indiana) that actually has it together.
But let's not act like because its called the "Department of Education" that it actually serves the purpose of educating. The DoE just creates policies and enforces them at the national level, and hands out student loans.
Student loans have been a popular issue since "Oh my God! Without student loans we'll have stupid kids!!!" No, without student loans we won't have as many art, fashion, and teaching students wasting tax dollars. Nor will we have people rushing into $50,000 a year schools. Sorry, but there is a point where education is no longer a good investment.
Blanket national policies, though, aren't always good policy. Look at the "No Child Left Behind Act." We didn't work harder to help students jump over the hurdle, we just lowered the hurdles. :(
In fact, since the creation of the DoE, literacy rates have actually dropped. :lol: Why we need another layer of bureaucrats to determine where, how, and why each dollar is spent is beyond me.
I agree with you that military spending can be easily and drastically cut. We've let politicians brand waste as a necessity. The fact we have to borrow from another country to go to war is a national security matter all in its own.
We've got some big problems, but most are easily solved...if Congress has the cajones!