Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 12:13 PM Mar 2013

So seriously how would you negotiate these polar opposites?

Our side:

A. No cuts to anything that directly helps people
B. Would like cuts to defense spending
C. Would like to raise taxes on the wealthy and close loopholes

Their side:

A. Want cuts on SS, Medicare, and entitlement - things that directly hurt people
B. Want to raise military spending
C. Want no new taxes on the wealthy and don't want to hurt fat cats by closing loopholes.
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So seriously how would you negotiate these polar opposites? (Original Post) Laura PourMeADrink Mar 2013 OP
So simple, so obvious, yet the RW gets their way 90% of the time. NYC_SKP Mar 2013 #1
Yes, that's exactly what I concluded ......the only way out of the impasse is to change Laura PourMeADrink Mar 2013 #3
Make all the spending cuts in Teabgger districts n/a doc03 Mar 2013 #2
I was looking at all the various funds that help people. dkf Mar 2013 #4
I agree...every candidate says this but not much usually happens. Maybe Laura PourMeADrink Mar 2013 #5
That is what bothers me. dkf Mar 2013 #6
i agree wholeheartedly. Some banks I have worked Laura PourMeADrink Mar 2013 #7
Hire a good divorce lawyer and seek an amicable seperation. Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #8
 

NYC_SKP

(68,644 posts)
1. So simple, so obvious, yet the RW gets their way 90% of the time.
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 12:15 PM
Mar 2013

We need to educate the voters, bring this to everyone's attention, and get the Rs and DINOs out of congress.

ASAFP!

K/R

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
3. Yes, that's exactly what I concluded ......the only way out of the impasse is to change
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 12:24 PM
Mar 2013

congress to hopefully a moderate group.

But, not too sure if I agree that they win. If you think about the big picture results of the sequester, we got cuts in military while only a very small percentage affecting entitlements (4%). Earlier, we got the very upper bracket of Bush's tax cuts reversed.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
4. I was looking at all the various funds that help people.
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 12:43 PM
Mar 2013

Is it really so efficient to be running all those funds separately?

Why can't we save money and make delivery of assistance much more efficient?

I think the problem is that so much is spent on the bureaucracy that not much goes to the people.

How does government even track what one person gets?

Once things are more efficient then maybe we can lower costs through attrition. This can work on both sides of the equation...assistance to people and defense.






 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
5. I agree...every candidate says this but not much usually happens. Maybe
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 01:09 PM
Mar 2013

in a perfect world we could start from ground zero and re-engineer. And, then reduce staff like you said, by attrition.

Perhaps our side should work at more intelligent and creative ideas to take to the table for reducing spending.

 

dkf

(37,305 posts)
6. That is what bothers me.
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 01:14 PM
Mar 2013

How does a person who needs assistance even navigate who handles these funds?

Instead think if there were a single point person who could instantly see it all including veterans benefits.

This is such a hit and miss operation. Ridiculous.

 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
7. i agree wholeheartedly. Some banks I have worked
Sun Mar 3, 2013, 01:40 PM
Mar 2013

at adopted the same approach to customer service - called "relationship managers" and they are the focal
point for all a customer's needs - small and large. But they are trained and knowledgeable on every
aspect of the bank's products and services.

If the government could do like you say and consolidate more, reduce staff by attrition, we could afford to create what
you say - a single point of contact.

I know this sounds very antiquated - but I have always thought that with the advent of fake news and information (i.e. Limbaugh et al and Fox) that our president should use public service announcements to educate the public. I can't tell you the last one I saw - but it would help counteract the fear. First one would be about how the health care act affects you.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So seriously how would yo...