(02-12-2018 10:57 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 09:59 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(02-12-2018 06:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-11-2018 10:22 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  The core problem with our budget goes beyond our politicians, it's our people. We're so accustomed to the federal government being a part of our lives that a large proportion of our populace don't give a crap if they're heavily involved as long as they feel good; even the people who identify as 'fiscally conservative' in surveys mostly end up flipping when you ask them if they want to cut SS, Medicare, the military, etc. Politicians are SOBs, but unfortunately we've made it impossible for them to survive in DC if they ever laid a finger on any entitlement; only when we're willing to make cuts will they actually happen, and that won't occur until we're in dire straights and we're forced to.

A lot of this is because we haven't rethought our conceptual approach, just added more and more focused programs to address this problem or that problem, and the the debate centers on whether to spend more or less on each one.
I'm talking about a totally different conceptual approach. We put a safety net out there for everybody and that's it. We don't go trying to micromanage every individual situation, and we don't need the army of bureaucrats to administer them. You get $X from the government. If you need more than $X to live, you get a job. If you're happy living on $X, you don't. And $X is enough to keep you alive at a subsistence level, but you're still poor until you get that job. And when you get that job, or a promotion or a raise, that $X doesn't go away. So there's no "poverty trap" disincentive for you not to get the job, or promotion, or raise.
Winners under this approach: Poor people who don't want to stay poor, and taxpayers who have been paying the cost of the over bloated bureaucracies.
Losers: Poor people who have manipulated the system, and the bureaucrats who have enabled them.

I don't disagree by any means, but I have a lot less faith in the American electorate than you do. Some politicians could make a 'war on bureaucracy' theme work, like Reagan; nowadays I don't think anyone could, especially when we're so polarized that half the aisle in DC and in the public is willing to make a 180 on their 'principles' as long as it benefits their side.

I think the American electorate will do just fine if a logical plan is presented to them in good order. Ross Perot laid out a plan and presented it with PowerPoints, and with no organization to start with he got a pretty impressive share of the vote. Newt's Contract laid out a plan and led to the most successful election for republicans ever. Those are a couple of examples that are recent enough to give me optimism.

What I think is missing is the logical plan from either side. Right now republicans have no platform except cut taxes, put up trade and immigration barriers, and make us into a theocracy. Democrats are left with Trump is racist/misogynist/unstable/whatever and let's be socialist like Venezuela. Neither of those--other than the tax cuts--holds any appeal for me at all. Either party that could stop appealing solely to the 20-25% that is their hardcore base, and appeal instead to the 50-60% in the middle, would win big.

I think their general plan is to "grow" our way out of it over time because the pain of any other plan is too politically unpopular to work for any extended period of time. Theoretically you CAN grow your way out of the problem---but you still have to control spending growth. Frankly, Ive never felt our country had a revenue problem---we have always had a spending problem.

We could have grown our way out of debt under Reagan. Revenue doubled during his tenure---but for every extra dollar of income generated we spent $1.33. Cant grow your way out of debt that way.