The B-1 is not the stealth bomber...The stealth bomber is the B-2.

The issue isn't money...it's a non-responsive, non-accountable government bureaucracy. The VA does not attract the best talent and, once it gets them on board, cannot get rid of non-performers. The entire system cries for reform and you would think both parties would join together in mixing the problem. Unfortunately, all they have done so far is point fingers and blame the other party. Instead of blaming Republicans and Democrats, I would suggest everyone write their elected officials and tell them you really don't care what caused the problem - just fix it! If they don't, refuse to v**e for them in November. Make sure they get the word. We owe it to our veterans to fix the system.

Let's see....the NSA is currently going through 3 billion (that's BILLION with a 'B') pieces of electronic communications a day. This is the same group that had information on Bin Laden and the World Trade Center (Sep 11) but couldn't "connect the dots" because there was just so much data. Geez, if that doesn't epitomize the mentality of big government, I don't know what does.

We'll agree to disagree. I can't support an entitlement for what I consider a d*****t and destructive life style.

Death panel was probably a poor choice of words. There will be guidelines established where age can dictate treatment. These guidelines could preclude (as an example) a heart pacemaker being installed in a 78 year old person who has a real zeal for life and a spirit much younger than his/her age. The guidelines would not allow it. This, again, is a private matter between a doctor and patient very similar to the a******n issue in my opinion. It is the doctor who should be the final decision maker, not a panel of government bureaucrats. The problem I have with most government programs is they have a "one size fits all" mentality. That is not the case when we are dealing with people. It is very similar to educational guidelines published by the federal Government. What is good for the schools in Pennsylvania may not be what is good for the schools in Texas. Government programs have too many "strings" attached. If there were a way (and I agree it would be difficult) to have general guidelines and then let the States execute the programs based on that particular State's needs, we would (again, in my opinion) have much more success. This is one of the reason that most conservative I know want to limit the role of the Federal Government to very specific roles (and those can be debated) and the rest should be left up to the States. Although we are one nation, the economic conditions, the business environments, even the people within those geographical regions are different and have some different values. Heck, we can't even agree on a common language, so we really believe we can agree on every doctor doing everything the same?

I continue to be amazed at how some people like to say “how conservatives” or “how liberals” think. I find myself disgusted at our tendency to “group” people and assume “they all think alike”. I would suggest nothing could be further from the t***h.
First of all, I am a conservative and have v**ed republican for over 35 years. I began adulthood as a Democrat, probably influenced by my parents as much as anything. It is also my opinion that the parties themselves changed over the years and are no longer the same as they were in the 1950s and 1960s.
I have been around long enough and travelled the world enough to realize that we live in a diverse world. Our two party system tends to group people into one of two molds. I would suggest that the average Democrat and average Republican does not agree with everything their party advocates.
What do I think we all share in common? First of all, I believe we all want a Government that works and is a good steward of taxpayer dollars. Most of my conservative friends are not opposed to helping those who need help – where we have issues is when we see the fraud, waste, and abuse in the system. I do believe that conservatives may see more fraud, waste and abuse than some of our liberal friends. A classic example is the “Obama Phone” program that has been going around on youtube. The reality is that this is a program started under the Bush administration and is not directly funded with taxpayer dollars out of the treasury, but by fees imposed by the telecommunication companies on other users. The fact these have become known as Obama Phones is interesting to me but no one seems to be willing to set the record straight. Again, just about every federal program has massive amounts of fraud, waste and abuse. The program itself is probably good for what was intended; however, execution of most federal programs is poor, and not cost effective. Do I think there are people who abuse the system? Absolutely. I also think there are people who need the system to survive. I am not against that; however, I am against the abuse and waste.
Another area where I get upset is when liberals say conservatives want to cut Social Security and Medicare. None of my conservative friends want to do this. We do want to preserve Social Security and Medicare for future generations. I think anyone who looks at the programs realistically realizes they cannot continue structured as they are today. Insofar as Social Security is concerned, most of us believe minor changes today can have significant impact on the future of the program. As an example, people today live longer than they did when the program was started. If you look at the actuary tables and compare them with benefits promised versus dollars paid into the program, today’s recipients will draw more than what they contributed. By changing the full retirement age by one year, we can make the program solvent. Also, but not paying benefits to non-citizens who have never contributed, we can also keep the program solvent for our children and grandchildren.
Medicare is a completely different animal in my opinion. I looked at the amount of dollars I have contributed to Medicare over my working life (and I was in what most would consider above average income), it will no way cover my medical expenses for the rest of my life. I was personally involved in an auto accident (not my fault) and my wife had rotator cuff surgery. The charges for these two events was more than I had contributed over my entire working career (please notice I stated what was charged, not what Medicare allowed or paid). The whole issue with Medicare (and Medicaid) is that we do not collect enough to pay for these programs as currently structured. The whole issue with Obamacare, again, in my opinion, is that it does nothing to reduce costs. The law was written by lobbyist and special interest groups (AMA, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies). It has good provisions (no pre-existing conditions, no dropping coverage when an individual gets ill, keeping children on their parents coverage until age 25, etc.). None of my conservative friends is opposed to Obamacare for that – what we oppose is that the cost is now forecast to be 3 times what POTUS told us, it is a tax (which we were told it was not), and it does nothing to reduce costs. That is why there is a fear there will be “death panels”, etc. The fact that we passed it so we would know what’s in it should be a red f**g to every American, not just conservatives.
A******n is another area where conservatives are accused of wanting to control women’s reproductive rights. Again, nothing could be further from the t***h with me and my conservative friends. Most of us believe that a******n is a very private matter between a woman, her family, her pastor, and her doctor. If a woman, her family, her pastor and her doctor agree to an a******n, who am I to pass judgment when I don’t know the details. These people have to live with the decision. The government has no business being involved in these decisions. Most of us believe a******n is wrong as a method of birth control and take issue with our tax dollars paying for it in these instances.
The last area I’ll comment on has to do with gay rights. Personally, I don’t care what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. That is between the individuals involved and as long as it is consensual, I could care less. I personally believe the gay lifestyle is destructive and d*****t, but as long as it is not pushed on me or my family, so be it. That is their choice, I just don’t agree with it. Gay marriage is not an issue of religious or civil authority as much as it is entitlement to taxpayer provided benefits. An example is gays in the military. If a gay military member contacts aids, is that now considered a service connected disability and is he/she entitled to disability pay for the rest of their lives? When a gay couple moves to a base, do they get the same consideration for base housing as a heterosexual couple for the limited available housing? There are other issues – these are just a couple. I don’t believe this makes me or my conservative friends “homophobes”. It just means we don’t agree with the lifestyle nor the government supporting it.
What about the 47% (and, by the way, I don’t know if the 47% is right or wrong and could care less) that so many people seem to think Conservatives don’t care about? Again, nothing could be further from the t***h. I do think most of us want everyone to have a stake in the action. Everyone should pay SOME income tax. People will say that 47% still pay payroll taxes, Medicare, and sales tax. Good, but they do not pay a single penny for the running of the Federal Government on a day to day basis. I think everyone (including the 47% ) should pay something and when Congress passes a new spending program, EVERYONE should have to pay something for it.
Finally, there are very few things I totally disagree with. What I do disagree with is the fact that none of my liberal friends can tell me how they are going to pay for the programs. If we had an unlimited amount of money, no sweat. Since we don’t, we are forced to prioritize. I do believe we have to pay as we go and should not pass the bill to our children and grandchildren. Just tell me how you’re going to pay for it.

I h**e to break your bubble, but the Brits had nationalized medicine before WW-II. In 1911 David Lloyd George introduced the National Insurance Act in which a small amount was deducted from an employees wage and in return they were entitled to free healthcare, however this scheme only applied to those in employment. You are correct in that the NHS was established after WW-II, I think it was actually in 1946.
Insofar as the people doing the Olympics is concerned, they are not reflective of most UK citizens. I spend a good deal of time in the UK as my company has business units there. I also ran a company in Suadi Arabia that employeed a large number of Britts, and I can tell you that their opinion reflected the opinion of those employees in the UK.
I also agree that it is cheaper to live in Southern Spain than in some other European countries - a significant reason is the tax rates of the higher costs countries. Personally, I think it sad that citizens of a country will not return to their own country because they can't afford to live there anymore.
I would suggest my description is more current than you might think. But I'm only going by what the people who use the system tell me, not what someone who think they know about it tell me.

The UK came out of WW-II with socialized medicine just as we came out with our system. It was easier to maintain it than to start all over. A couple of interesting things I've come across in my travels:
1. There are a lot of UK citizens who will not return to the UK to live because the tax burden is so high. They are buying homes in Southern Spain and other areas.
2. A little over 50% of a UK citizen's wages go to pay taxes, whether it be income taxes, value added taxes, etc.
3. The UK medical system is not responsive. You may wait 4-5 months to get an appointment with a cardiologist (as an example) unless you have other medical insurance or willing to pay cash.
Don't tell me how great UK socialized medicine is. I've been there, I've seen it, and you can have it.

I am reminded of a guest speaker's comments at War College when someone asked him a question about statistics. His reply was a classic. "Statistics are like a bikini on a woman. What they reveal is interesting; what they hide is vital."

Kentoid - I agree with 98% of what you say; however, I could not let this one go due the tremendous amount of confusion and the misperception over "Obama Phones". Federal dollars do not fund the program as I understand it. All cell phone users pay what is called a "Universal Line Fee" or something to that effect. Those dollars then go to fund the program. You and I are still paying for it, but it's not with our taxpayer dollars. The program also started under Bush, not Obama. See http://factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/. I'll go back into my hole. Hope you don't mind if I corrected this one statement. Take care, and I enjoy your posts.

Thank you. You are most kind. I have elected to drop out of any comments on this forum as I have seen far too much ugliness, false assertions, and outright lies being used to substantiate positions. I was called an i***t be someone who doesn't even know me, my background, my experiences, or qualifications, all of which I'll be happy to match with 98% of the people on this forum.

To me, it is all about the money. I believe in helping our less fortunate citizens - what I don't believe in is the fraud, waste and abuse that permeates our government and government programs. I think all of us, liberal or conservative, want a Government that works. How big that Government is is certain a matter of debate - regardless, if it doesn't work, it is too big. I find it difficult to believe people can advocate certain positions when they don't know where the money is today, what something would cost, and the impact it could have on the economy. We can't do everything - we have to prioritize. Some don't understand that.

I also believe Government is the least effective way of doing things and that Government at the Federal level should be reserved to those things that individuals, communities, and States cannot do. Examples are providing for the common defense, interstate commerce, and foreign affairs. We have made the church and community irrelevant in contributing to solving social ills as we've allowed the Government to step in and administer a "one size fits all" solution to our problems. We have also allowed Government to "demonize" our churches and religious institutions.

I live in Texas. Our problems are not the same as the problems in PA or NJ. I don't particularly care to have Washington dictate solutions for Texas nor use my money to pay for them.

I don't blame all our ills on Obama. I think that is giving him far too much credit as well as assuming he has power he does not have. I do not like most of his solutions; however, I firmly believe our real issues lie with the 535 people we have elected to Congress. It is the heighth of insanity for an institution to have a 14% approval rating while 96% of the incumbents are re-elected.

If people don't like what Bush and Obama have/are doing, they have to look no further than Congress. Congress is the checks and balances. They have the power of the purse. They are the ones responsible to ratify treaties. They have failed in their constitutional duties for years and I don't see it changing.

In the meantime, I'll just remain below the radar screen, read posts that others make, continue to read and research the facts (not Fox News or MSNBC or any of the other media). I try to go to the source documents (like the President's budget which hasn't been submitted for 2014) and do my own analysis.

I enjoy your posts. In my opinion, they are well thought out and make every attempt to be fact based.

Have a great day and thanks again.

I joined this forum a couple of days ago thinking it would be a place to have discussions and rational debate. Not sure I've ever witnessed as much ugliness to our fellow man as I have here. I've seen people call others i***ts and ignoramuses just because they don't agree with a particular point of view. Very, very ugly. I fear for this country when good people cannot come together for the common good (and no, my view is not always correct and neither are most of you). Some folks need to get off their pompus rear ends.
I wish you all the best because you will never get consensus.

Interesting that the last Republican Mayor was in 1962.

I'm with you, JudgeGlenda. BOTH sides are playing this for all the political chips they can collect. If you and I were facing a 2.5% cut, we would manage it within our household budget. This is noise level, yet they are crying doom and gloom. There are smart ways to do it - I believe they will take the cuts in the most painful areas possible just to try to gain political capital.

Not extending the Bush era tax cuts to individuals making over $250k or $450k would not have made a difference, in my opinion. The real issue on the revenue side of the house (again, in my opinion) is that not everyone has a stake in the action. We have a significant number of citizens in this country that pay no federal income tax (I don't know the exact number, but I do believe it is over 40%). Please note that I said Federal Income Tax - I realize they pay Payroll taxes (Social Security), Medicare, Sales Tax, etc. but social security and medicare is for their retirements and medical care during their senior years. The end result is they pay no taxes for the day to day running of the Federal Government (remember the discussion on discretionary vs mandatory spending) to include the defense of this nation. Why is this? Because of the tax credits and deductions written into the tax laws (most of which have special interest groups behind them). At the end of the tax year, many of our citizens get more money back than was actually withheld due to the way our tax laws are structured.
Some would say this is advocacy for taxing the poor. I would prefer to have someone on welfare have their welfare payment increased to cover the tax liability and then have them pay the tax at the end of the year rather than have no tax burden at all. This is a zero sum gain for the poor and the Government initially. What it does; however, is give them a stake in the action - ie - if Congress passes increased spending in the future, everyone's tax liability will increase to pay for it (again, not as much for the less fortunate as the more fortunate, but there would be an increase). This gives everyone in this country a stake in the action and would get everyone out of the mentality that not everyone is paying their fair share. We would also see people start to look at facts rather than emotion when dealing with our politicians and would force politicians to get rid of the fraud, waste, and abuse in the system. We tax unemployment benefits and social security benefits - shouldn't we tax all benefits? I think we all (regardless of what side of the aisle we might sit) want a Goverment that works and none of us likes what we see with the fraud, waste, and abuses in the system. Again, if everyone has a stake in action, I am of the opinion much of it would stop.
Finally, I think we have to realize that the real money is in the Middle Class. Anyone who truly believes we can tax our way out of this by only taxing the wealthy and corporations does not understand the scope of the problem. I would have preferred to see ALL the Bush tax cuts repealed rather than only those on those making over $250 or $450k/year (which it turned out to be). Even had ALL the Bush tax cuts been repealed, we would still have to raise addtional revenue and cut spending to get out of the hole our politicians have dug over the last 35 years.
Finally, if you look at entitlements and the growth of entitlements over the years, you will find that 20 years ago, entitlements consummed about 42% of the Federal Budget. Today they consume over 60% of the budget. No one wants to stop or cancel entitlements. But we must reform them if we are going to preserve a capitalist system and free market economy. Small changes today can make significant changes in the future. The longer we put them off, the more difficult they become and, as one of our posters has noted, we will be just like Greece (or similar - I never use the words "just like" or "always"). If we stay on our current course, it is estimated by CBO that entitlements will consume 80% of the federal budget in as little as 15 years (please don't hold me to the exact years or percentages as I'm going from memory and could be off slightly), but the point is still there.
We all want to preserve entitlements for our children, we all want a Government that works, and we all want a Government that is efficient. I would also say cost effective; however, I believe cost effectiveness may not be the right metric for national defense.
Again, one man's opinion.