Speak Out: What is your "Top 5" list?

Replies (83)

• Good point. Maybe I should define givers - my definition. I'm sure there are many others.

  Givers - paying income tax.

  Takers - not working and on welfare of any kind excluding Social Security and medicare retirees who paid into the system.

  This could devolve into a splitting hairs on USDA farm grants, tax breaks, etc. but I was trying to simplify the point. I think many people who pay income tax are fed up and feel there is no way for them to affect change in this government. Not even in an election.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM

• By the way, I assume you work and pay taxes Spaniard. What would be your "top 5" demands of the federal government in a taxpayer revolt?

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 1:11 PM

• 1.) Remove the Federal Income Tax

  2.) Remove the Federal Reserve

  3.) Eliminate SNAP/Food Stamps and return to Monthly Commodities

  4.) Cut Foreign Aid by 75% to 85%

  5.) Return to TVA type of programs , citizens who are out of work or do not work , repair America's infra-structure in exchange for Housing , Medical Care , and Monthly Commodities

  Actually , the list is too long...

  -- Posted by Rick▪ on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 1:24 PM

• I thought the same thing Rick. 5 is tough.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 1:29 PM

• Who is John Galt?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 1:54 PM

• Never read the book - but my kids did read all of them. Didn't know "who is John Galt" until I just wikied it. Interesting.

  Is a "walk off of work" protest possible? Apparently no amount of debt will stop this government. The Constitution won't stop them. What else will?

  Maybe John Galt had it right!

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 2:01 PM

• Telling 16 million to come on in and ride the Obama bus to get some votes is the big problem. Giving away the country financially and morally to stay in office seems to be the big thing now.

  BTW I have noticed Atlas Shrugged has not been on any of the premium channels but you can count on anything anti conservative plays within a year. They are played often too.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 3:05 PM

• Who is John Galt?

  Ms. Galt's son☺

  -- Posted by Rick▪ on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 3:12 PM

• 5?? Just gonna add No. 6 to Ricks list:

  Term limits: One 6 year President

  One 6 year Senators and Representatives on an alternating basis.

  -- Posted by rocknroll on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 3:46 PM

• My list would be based on one thing, any federal dept or agency function that the states could do as well or better than the federal government should be eliminated. Too many duplications.

  -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 4:00 PM

• I'll take a stab at 5:

  1) Flat tax and cut IRS staff to minimum

  2) Balanced budget / deficit constitutional amendment

  3) All "welfare" (food stamps, wic, housing, child payments, unemployment, etc.) to be earned and worked for. NOTHING free. And a lifetime limit on amounts.

  4) Allow secession of states from the Union - like the Canadian provinces can do. The threat of it keeps the federal government in line.

  5) Term limits of some kind. The corruption in DC makes Rome look like Disney Land.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 4:32 PM

• 1. Revise the tax code to eliminate loopholes, limit deductions, reduce tax rates, count all income as income, and to increase total revenue.

  2. Reduce Social Security and Medicare long term deficits by adjusting payouts, eligibility ages and percentage deducted from payroll.

  3. Pass a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gerrymandering, redraw districts by independent agencies, and prohibit campaign contributions over $2000 by individual citizens only.

  4. Require that all lobbying of Congress be conducted in the home states of the members.

  5. Require a balanced budget and that all federal agencies utilize a zero-based budget system every 5 years.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 4:40 PM

• Common, I agree with 3 and 4.

  1 and 2 seem to be all about more money from citizens to government. I think I'm more about reduce spending so taxes can be reduced.

  States have enough power over the individual without bolstering the federal government's power through more revenue.

  -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 4:57 PM

• commonsensematters

  Some of yours are a good starting point too .

  Free speech is price-less

  -- Posted by Rick▪ on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 5:00 PM

• Good ideas,common. Re: 4, How about any ex-congressman cannot go from an elected position straight to a lobbying group. Sort of like most ex employees sign a no competition letter. Say,2-4 year grace period.

  -- Posted by rocknroll on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 5:00 PM

• yeah...like freakin' Emerson...go to work for the same folks who gave her campaign money...after she was elected

  -- Posted by Rick▪ on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 5:12 PM

• If there is a balanced budget amendment and a war breaks out but is not budgeted, what is the answer ? There should not be a need for a budget amendment. If 535 people who are supposed to be somewhat intelligent cannot do it on their own, they need to go.

  -- Posted by left turn on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 5:18 PM

• The USA Agriculture Dept. reports today that a child born in 2012 will cost $241,620 to raise until the age of 18 on the average , a 6% increase over 2011 .

  Is this the Government's fault or the voter's vault ? Is it the greedy business man's fault or the consumer's fault ?

  .............

  left turn

  Regarding your war and budget question , this was one of President Wilson's talking points for a Federal Income Tax , to keep WWI money tracked from domestic money .

  It's sort of obvious how this worked out . It should have been stopped and shut down after WWI .

  -- Posted by Rick▪ on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 5:51 PM

• Premium channels are publicly owned corporations who exist to maximize profit. If the demand for Atlas Shrugged was there, they would air it.

  -- Posted by Spaniard on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 6:05 PM

  But they don't survive with-out sponsors .

  Just ask Don Imus or Paula Deen....

  -- Posted by Rick▪ on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 6:25 PM

• Nil

  You got some good ones too , in my opinion .

  Talking can make progress , free speech is better then politics .

  -- Posted by Rick▪ on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 6:27 PM

• "Whack 95% of military spending. All we really need for national defense instead of international invading is a handful of ballistic missile subs loading with enough ICBMs to guarantee complete destruction for any large opponent that would dare to seriously threaten us and a well armed populace that makes it impossible to even consider invading or holding any US territory."

  And where would we have launched those nukes after 9/11/01?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 8:45 PM

• "Direct democracy. Cut out the middlemen and let every citizen have a voice in government by directly voting, or by selecting any other citizen to act as a proxy for their vote. Why have a corrupt politician representing you that you didn't even vote when modern communication allows everyone to represent themselves. Besides it would greatly cut down on lobbying, bribes and special interest bills, as it becomes WAY more expensive and difficult to buy millions of individual voters off rather than a dozen or two senators."

  Mob rule? No thank you! As the slogan says: democracy is three wolves and a sheep voting about what to have for dinner. We have already created the system whereby citizens can vote themselves checques from the treasury. Now you want to remove the ability of the minority who fill it from being able to stave off confiscation of their wealth. The Constitution specifies a republican form of government for a reason.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 8:51 PM

• "Revise the tax code to eliminate loopholes, limit deductions, reduce tax rates, count all income as income, and to increase total revenue.

  "Reduce Social Security and Medicare long term deficits by adjusting payouts, eligibility ages and percentage deducted from payroll."

  A flatter tax, lower rates, and entitlement cuts. There may yet be hope for you! Bravo!

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 8:54 PM

• "Pass a Constitutional amendment to prohibit gerrymandering, redraw districts by independent agencies, and prohibit campaign contributions over $2000 by individual citizens only."

  Does that include the court-ordered gerrymandering that has created and maintains certtain minority districts? What makes one think an independent commission can remain fair and unbiased, assuming it were even created that way? Who appoints it? How do you ensure its continued apolitical status? How do define "gerrymandering"?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 9:00 PM

• "Require that all lobbying of Congress be conducted in the home states of the members."

  How about just limit the power of the feddderal government such that lobbyists will have no need to lobby? Corporations won't pay for favours from a government that is powerless to grant them. Eliminating the corporate tax, for example, would eliminate the lobbying for favourable tax considerations such as tax breaks and tax credits.

  5. Require a balanced budget and that all federal agencies utilize a zero-based budget system every 5 years.

  Zero-based budgeting is a good idea, but what is the point of demanding the budget be balanced when the congress hasn't even felt obligated to pass a budget at all, balanced or not?

  As some have already noted, you can't maintain the balance in light of things such as wars and national emergencies. Also, entitlements, which are needs-driven rather than budget-driven, can only be estimated, not accurately budgeted. Thus, the budget balancing is a gimmick, never reflective of actual spending.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 9:10 PM

• "Iraq?"

  Maybe. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Afghanistan. Or Canada, since that is from where it was initially reported the hijackers gained access to the United States.

  How about Boston, since that is where the attacking planes were launched? Judging by the images after the marathon bombing, we have sent an occupying army there...

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 9:15 PM

• "How do define "gerrymandering"?"

  The creation and manipulation of districts to benefit one political party or another. Minority districts should also not be necessary as they are too often used to limit minority representation rather than enhance it. The absolute worst system is the current one in which the party in power does everything to ensure its control.

  A possible mechanism would be to encircle metropolitan areas and then split them into halves, or quarters, etc. to reach the desired population limit for each district.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 9:27 PM

• "The absolute worst system is the current one in which the party in power does everything to ensure its control."

  The party in power in the state does so. Given the fact that congressional control changes frequently, it would seem not to be successful, so I fail to see your point. If it occurs anywhere successfully, it is in the court-founded minority districts which are forbidden from being redistricted as long as the courts deem such gerrymandered districts to be needed.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 9:34 PM

• "...you can't maintain the balance in light of things such as wars and national emergencies."

  The simple answer is in the event of war, taxes must be raised to pay for it. For national emergencies, a savings account could be established. Entitlements can have payments adjusted to match funds available.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 9:36 PM

• "A possible mechanism would be to encircle metropolitan areas and then split them into halves, or quarters, etc. to reach the desired population limit for each district."

  Sounds like a backhanded form of gerrymandering.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 9:38 PM

• "...fact that congressional control changes frequently,..."

  If that were the case, there would be less of a problem. The establishment of "safe" disitrict is a problem. Court ordered minority districts appear to prevent states from diluting minority by splitting minority areas into several other districts.

  That is now causing problems for republicans where incumbants are more worried about primaries, than the general election. In more equal districting each party would have to appeal to all voters, not just the extreme elements of their own party.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 9:45 PM

• "...backhanded form of gerrymandering."

  Except that district boundaries would be on a random basis rather that to benefit only one party.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 9:47 PM

• "The simple answer is in the event of war, taxes must be raised to pay for it."

  Surely you jest! We cannot deploy our troops, or even raise them, until taxes are raised? We have to limit our response to that which has been funded?

  "For national emergencies, a savings account could be established."

  Many states have "Rainy Day Funds", which end up being raided by the states to pay for non-emergency spending, because politicians hate to see piles of unspent money sitting around when there are so many votes waiting to be bought. Also, what do you do when the size of the emergency exceeds the available funds?

  "Entitlements can have payments adjusted to match funds available."

  That runs entirely counter the definition of "entitlement".

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 9:47 PM

• "Except that district boundaries would be on a random basis rather that to benefit only one party."

  Random? I thought you had a board drawing them?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 9:49 PM

• "If that were the case, there would be less of a problem."

  It seems to me that there would never have been a change in Congress if your claims had any validity. As I recall, the Democrats had little problem with the system until they lost control of Congress in the 1990s, which they held consistently from 1955. And this, despite the permanently-Democratic districts created by court-ordered minority-rights districts.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 9:58 PM

• In no particular order

  1) Individual rights trump government rights.

  2) States rights trump federal rights.

  3) No government interference with regards to commerce between individual/business/country.(with exception of trade treaties.)

  4) Eliminate federal income & social security taxes.

  5) Military strictly for defense of the U.S. borders and the people therein.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Aug 14, 2013, at 10:00 PM

• "Military strictly for defense of the U.S. borders and the people therein."

  That's the purpose of the militia. The military is quite different. The Constitution mandates a Navy, and permits the calling up of armies to fight wars. The Marines are a part of the Navy, and serve as a 'ready force' during periods when no armies, or insufficient armies, are extant.

  The Air Force is kind of an anomaly. There was no such animal when the Constitution was drafted. Logically, the 'air lanes' are as critical as the sea lanes and need be kept open, but the Constitution does not provide for them. They came into being as part of the Army, but were broken off into their own branch when the Department of Defense replaced the old War Department, in 1948.

  Constitutionally, they should either be rolled into the Navy or the Constitution should be amended to permit their existence as a separate entity. But, given that we don't really follow the Constitution's requirement for maintaining armies only in times of war, it seems a bit nit-picky to hold the Air Force to a requirement we don't hold against the rest of the military.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 8:39 AM

• "...the Democrats had little problem with the system until they lost control of Congress..."

  I did not favor the system when democrats were in charge either. As for minorities, the districts should neither be "cracked" nor "stacked" but should be provided an opportunity to elect representative candidates

  - - - - - -

  "We cannot deploy our troops, or even raise them, until taxes are raised?"

  Of course we can. Military forces exist and there are both training and contingency funds in the budget for rapid response deployments in the event of an attack on us. If the nation decides to go to war, the nation should pay for it with higher taxes.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 10:43 AM

• Dang - there is a lot of agreement on here. It's getting kind of scary... :-) Not 100% agreement - but more.

  Is a national taxpayer strike (regardless of party) a fantasy? No one seems happy with this government. Are there 5 things that all taxpayers can agree on?

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 11:55 AM

• How many still go along with the slogan federalize to professionalize?

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 1:02 PM

• "Dang - there is a lot of agreement on here."

  Drop the endless rhetoric, you would notice folks fall somewhere in the middle of most issues rather than the polar ends.

  -- Posted by scheuwlfz on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 1:42 PM

• "The simple answer is in the event of war, taxes must be raised to pay for it. For national emergencies, a savings account could be established. "

  That worked well for Social Security.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 5:51 PM

• Of course we can. Military forces exist and there are both training and contingency funds in the budget for rapid response deployments in the event of an attack on us. If the nation decides to go to war, the nation should pay for it with higher taxes.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 10:43 AM

  Common,

  I have been reading the consistent.... should pay for it with higher taxes, should pay for it with higher taxes, should pay for it with higher taxes, over and over and over again. You certainly prove yourself the loyal liberal tax and spend Democrat.

  Do you have no other solution to America's problems.... like not spending so much and live within our means?

  Makes me question if you are paying any income taxes yourself and that you are not concerned with the burden you wish to place on others.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 6:05 PM

• Number one is Obamacare. That is going to cost us big time.

  The ease that someone can get on disability and not have anything wrong with them.

  Government wanting to take care of people from cradle to grave even if they don't want the help.

  A tax system that is so complicated even the IRS workers cant make sense of it.

  The ability to take half of my assets away from my kids after I have already paid taxes on it.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 6:36 PM

• "Do you have no other solution to America's problems...."

  As mentioned before, entitlements should reduced, eligibility ages increased, and deduction percentage can be increased slightly, and all of this is to put Socal Security and Medicare on a sound financial footing to pay its own way.

  Discretionary spending should be reduced and lowered further by zero-based budgeting, which would also reduce the size of government.

  The increase in taxes would be by eliminating loopholes, taxing all income at an equal rate and limiting deductions, and would be for the express purpose of reducing the deficit. When the deficit is under control and the budget balanced, then tax rates could be reduced.

  And certainly, if a future President wants to spend a trillion dollars on a war, then taxes should be raised to pay for it.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 8:44 PM

• "As mentioned before, entitlements should reduced, eligibility ages increased, and deduction percentage can be increased slightly, and all of this is to put Socal Security and Medicare on a sound financial footing to pay its own way."

  But when Romney brought this up the liberals blew a gasket. Democrats showed commercials of grandma being pushed over a cliff.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 9:06 PM

• Any increase in taxes used exclusively to reduce the deficit.

  Pipe dream. Any tax increase would go towards increased spending as it always has. That will never change as long as politicians exist.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 9:21 PM

• http://www.mediaite.com/tv/oreilly-defends-against-charges-of-racism-by-telling-...

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 9:23 PM

• Old John's gut says Sharpton and Oreilly are a lot alike.

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 9:39 PM

• "...this up the liberals blew a gasket."

  How so? It's been part of Simpson-Bowles all along. The objections may have been on privatization, which is a poor idea.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 10:12 PM

• privatization, which is a poor idea.

  And some Texans may disagree.

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 10:27 PM

• The poor idea is the objections to privatization.

  -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Aug 15, 2013, at 10:54 PM

• "It's been part of Simpson-Bowles all along."

  I haven't exactly seen Simpson-Bowles based legislation flowing from the liberals' pens. Nor I have I heard the President pushing for such legislation.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 6:35 AM

• "...and what good has it done?"

  You need to ask the workers that produce F-16 aircaft and M-1 tanks. Besides the money for this year has been almost all spent, in the US incidently.

  The next installment will be in April 2014. Also, mideast oil countries have given Egypt about $13 billion.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 8:37 AM

• "...Simpson-Bowles based legislation flowing from the liberals' pens."

  It's been there all along. As you recall, it included not only spending cuts, but also tax reform to increase income, resulting in a balanced approach to deficit reduction.

  As soon as the republicans go along with the whole program, it should go forward.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 8:40 AM

• "You need to ask the workers that produce F-16 aircaft and M-1 tanks. Besides the money for this year has been almost all spent, in the US incidently."

  The outcome would be the same if we built them for ourselves and just stockpiled them. Also, those F-16 jets and M-1 tanks wouldn't be turning against Coptic Christians (we hope!), and the Egyptians wouldn't be claiming we have their blood on our hands (maybe).

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 8:42 AM

• The point is they had a coup, a military coup, but we dare not call it a coup because the law requires a cessation of aid if there is one.

  The desire to keep the money flowing is hard to quell, even if it requires denying the reality of the situation.

  The Egyptians are turning agains the U.S., and leaning towards Russia, whom Mr. Obama has also alienated.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 8:48 AM

• "The outcome would be the same if we built them for ourselves and just stockpiled them."

  Except if we did only that, the cost of those weapons would not serve to counterbalance the billions of military aid going to Israel.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 8:52 AM

• "As soon as the republicans go along with the whole program, it should go forward."

  You're saying the Democrats are onboard with it? Where is your proof of that?

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/simpson-bowles-plan-rejected-house-vote...

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 8:54 AM

• "Except if we did only that, the cost of those weapons would not serve to counterbalance the billions of military aid going to Israel."

  What has the one to do with the other? What obligation do we have to provide arms to both sides of a conflict? What sense does that even make, given that we are constantly calling for peace talks in the region?

  Mr. Obama says of the Egyptian situation "We don't pick sides". From your post that is apparent. Methinks its time we did so.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 8:59 AM

• "Methinks its time we did so."

  Do republicans have a "favorite" side?

  After Mubarak's ouster, republicans said have free elections. By the way don't elect the Muslim brotherhood.

  Then Morsi gets deposed. Republicans then said why didn't you support Morsi?

  Then the military took over and the republicans said why didn't you call it a coup?

  Now there's major bloodshed, why are you supporting the military?

  Whose side should we be on?

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 9:08 AM

• "What has the one to do with the other?"

  We have been supporting Israel with military aid since before 1968. Since then we have used aid to Arab and other middle eastern countries, especially Egypt, to "prove" that we are somewhat impartial and not only for Israel and against all Muslims.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 9:14 AM

• "What obligation do we have to provide arms to both sides of a conflict? What sense does that even make, given that we are constantly calling for peace talks in the region?"

  Kind of reminds me of tying two cats tails together and hanging them over the clothesline. What do you suppose the cats are going to do?

  That should get some PITA minded person on my case blaming me for doing that.... which I never have by the way.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 9:23 AM

• "Then Morsi gets deposed. Republicans then said why didn't you support Morsi?"

  What Republicans are saying that?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 9:34 AM

• "Then the military took over and the republicans said why didn't you call it a coup?"

  Exactly. Look up the definition of 'coup'.

  The Muslim Brotherhood, by the way, is calling it a 'coup'.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 9:35 AM

• "Now there's major bloodshed, why are you supporting the military?"

  If it would be declared a coup, we wouldn't be supporting them, because aid would have been cut off. They would be free to shed blood, but not with our dollars.

  "Whose side should we be on?"

  The side of the United States. However, in light of the discussion of 'countering the billions given to Israel', I would say Israel's.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 9:38 AM

• If we're going to meddle, we at least need to be doing strategic meddling: pick that 'side' which seems to exhibit the greatest prospect for a stable, relatively peaceable Egypt. That would serve America's best interests in the long run, methinks.

  The current policy seems to be a sort of bloody version of "Survivor: Egypt". The winner gets $1.3 billion in foreign aid.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 9:45 AM

• So: to the original question posed by this thread: My top 5 list:

  1) Comply with the Constitution: Back when the Republicans first took Congress in 1995, it was proposed that any bill should state specifically what part of the Constitution authorizes it and how. That proposal fell flat, unfortunately. It was a good idea at the time, and it's a good idea now. If you can't justify your measure through the Constitution, it probably should not be passed at the federal level.

  Not every problem is a federal problem.

  2) Review all programmes for effectiveness and efficiency before enacting new ones.

  Many programmes that are supposed to be doing good are having unintended consequences that possibly outweigh the good that is supposed to be achieved. Plans to boost housing 'affordability' increase the cost of housing, making it less so. Plans to boost college attendance boost college costs, making them less affordable and burdening graduates with high levels of debt. Plans to advance education weaken achievement. Plans to help the poor remove incentive to succeed, and so on and so forth. Yet, the programmes go on and on and on, with no accountability. It's time to fix that.

  3) Cut waste. A tired cliché, but only because politicians have made it so. Every politician claims to be against waste, and yet there always seems to be billions in waste which they continue to claim can cut the deficit without harming programmes. If so, and if they are all against it, cut it.

  4) Render unto the states that which is the states', and unto the people that which is the peoples'.

  That probably means block grants to begin with, as the burden of taxation will have to be shifted gradually to permit the states to take care of their own. Let us once again become a united group of individual states, rather than merely an entity divided into states for whatever reason.

  5) Review our commitments at home and abroad.

  This is sort of a rehash of #2. Foreign committments, such as NATO, that have outlived their purpose need to be ended, not 'repurposed'. Foreign aid to nations needs to be dependent on actual achievement of a purpose, not a feeble effort to buy friendship. Military commitments need to be reviewed and revamped as the world situation evolves.

  Europe can surely afford its own defense now.

  Is our presence in Korea helping or hurting?

  What has worked in the Middle East, and what has failed?

  Do we need to be focusing more energy into Africa?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 10:02 AM

• "We are doing exactly that by continuing to support the secular military that has always been the real power in egypt."

  Then why the farce of elections?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 16, 2013, at 10:03 AM

• As I understand it, we supported Morsi because he was supposed to rein in the power of the military, being freely elected by the people. Now we are told thhe military is acting on behalf of the people by overthrowing Morsi in a coup we cannot call a coup. Meanwhile, hundreds are being killed by the military as it cracks down on the people who are protesting against the military coup that isn't a coup, and the crackdown is being done in the interest of the people.

  But we cannot cut off aid because we have American workers that depend on it...

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 17, 2013, at 8:03 AM

• Dang it, a couple hours of comedy we won't be seeing. What they are saying is they can't beat Hillary.

  -- Posted by left turn on Sat, Aug 17, 2013, at 11:13 AM

• Morsi was never going to have power over the militaty. Mubarak didn't. -- Posted by Spaniard on Sat, Aug 17, 2013, at 10:27 AM

  Really? Mubarak had no control over the military?

  =========================================

  The reason Obama is being criticized is this - he supported 100% the "arab spring" and as with many things he undertakes he was clueless what the result of his open and active deposing of Mubarak would do.

  Can't we hold him accountable for something? His naiveté in so many things - aka his lack of experience - is his biggest problem. Suddenly he flies around pushing the arab spring and next thing you know women and young girls are being denied basic rights and getting acid thrown on their face by the peaceful muslim brotherhood supporters.

  And please don't say "This is Bush's fault" or "Bush did it."

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Aug 17, 2013, at 11:23 AM

• This message brought to you by someone who started paying attention to US/Egypt policy around 2009. -- Posted by Spaniard on Sat, Aug 17, 2013, at 11:38 AM

  That response was brought to you by someone who hates criticism of Obama. Tell us again how you don't like Obama? You tried that once. It was a 2 day laugh fest. You support him, you own his failures. Deal with it bitter boy.

  Now back to the subject (of which you are obviously devoid of discussing in any detail):

  "The current dimensions of the U.S. relationship with Egypt were set by the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel, which President Jimmy Carter helped negotiate.".

  So Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush have worked with Sadat, Mubarak, etc. over the past several decades to bring them into the modern world in a peaceable manner and your guy - you know, the guy you voted for two times - in one fell swoop has actively pushed Egypt to this point.

  Fail.

  Next topic?

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Aug 17, 2013, at 1:18 PM

• -- Posted by *Rick** on Sat, Aug 17, 2013, at 1:48 PM

  I reckon you should read his posts about how he votes! :-)

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Aug 17, 2013, at 4:44 PM

• "Whiners"

  Doesn't sound like whining. It sounds like they are doing something about it.

  Would the Democrats let Fox News mediate their debates?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Aug 18, 2013, at 8:22 AM

• The majority of the American people main focus right now is the economy and not foreign affairs, they are focused on their wallets we been in this depression/recession since December of 2007 and the majority of the people are tired and fed up with it with stagnant wages for 12 years, unemployment, nothing being done in Washington by either party in order to move this country forward. We changed congress in 2006 and 2010 and still nothing is being done were stuck in the mud up to our axles.

  -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Mon, Aug 19, 2013, at 8:26 AM

• Can we say Rathergate?

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Aug 19, 2013, at 8:31 AM

• Differently? Where to start. No trick questions. By the way, I like your attitude. You've toned the sarcasm and nastiness down about 200 decibels.

  Differently...

  1-Not embrace the Arab Spring/Muslim Brotherhood so quickly in numerous public speeches including Egypt. Very rookie mistake that has cost many lives. Wait and see. Instead Obama endorsed the terrorists in a heartbeat.

  2-Continue the concerted effort of several previous presidents to pressure the Egyptian government to open up on civil rights in the country.

  3-Listen to Mubarak when he says directly to Obama "You don't understand the Egyptian culture and what would happen if I step down now". The Acorn attorney, once again, goes with his arrogance and tells Mubarak to step down interfering in Egypt's politics.

  Obama has shown major confusion and weakness in the world. He has encouraged our enemies and weakened our alliances. Egypt was a key ally. Our other allies that are left and doing all they can to help Egypt restore it's peaceful attitude before the Arab Spring. Obama has created a nasty mess and has blood on his incompetent hands.

  And that's just a start. There is much more damage Obama has done in the world re: peace and stability.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Aug 21, 2013, at 7:48 PM

• "Not embrace the Arab Spring..."

  In fairness, Mr. Bush predicted the "Arab Spring" to be a culmination of the overthrow of Saddam, in that other Arab nations would shake off their despotic leaders and embrace democracy once Iraq had done so. In that regard, he appears to have been correct, and I supported the "Arab Spring" as a positive sign.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 21, 2013, at 8:41 PM

• Did Mr. Bush predict that when he was president? Or as a comment in the last couple of years?

  I think that comment directed at Saddam Hussein might be a little different than pushing the same agenda against Hosni Mubarak. I haven't done the math or researched it but I could bet that the deaths and use of WMD's by Hussein on his people couldn't compare to anything in Egypt.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Aug 21, 2013, at 9:34 PM

• Bush: A Free Iraq Will Lead to a More Secure United States

  By Kathleen T. Rhem

  American Forces Press Service

  WASHINGTON, July 30, 2003 -- A free and democratic Iraq will show other countries in the region that "prosperity and dignity are found in representative government and free institutions," President Bush said at the White House this morning.

  "They are not found in tyranny, resentment and support for terrorism," Bush said during a press conference on a wide range of topics, including progress in the war on terrorism.

  In the long run, expanding democracy in the Middle East will bring about a more secure America. "As freedom advances, those societies will be less likely to produce ideologies of hatred and produce recruits for terror," the president said.

  http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=28652

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 22, 2013, at 6:53 AM

• President Bush On Fifth Anniversary of 9-11

  "In the first days after the 9/11 attacks I promised to use every element of national power to fight the terrorists, wherever we find them. One of the strongest weapons in our arsenal is the power of freedom. The terrorists fear freedom as much as they do our firepower. They are thrown into panic at the sight of an old man pulling the election lever, girls enrolling in schools, or families worshiping God in their own traditions. They know that given a choice, people will choose freedom over their extremist ideology. So their answer is to deny people this choice by raging against the forces of freedom and moderation. This struggle has been called a clash of civilizations. In truth, it is a struggle for civilization. We are fighting to maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations. And we're fighting for the possibility that good and decent people across the Middle East can raise up societies based on freedom and tolerance and personal dignity."

  http://uspolitics.about.com/od/speeches/a/9_11_bush_2.htm

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 22, 2013, at 6:59 AM

• So - just curious - would you equate Hussein/Iraq with Mubarak/Egypt re: freedom, tyranny and support of terrorism? I couldn't agree more that Iraq, Syria and Lebanon have heavy handed dictators and support terrorism. Just not sure that I'd put Jordan, Egypt, etc. in that same group.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Aug 22, 2013, at 7:59 AM