"re the Obama argument, I largely agree with what LB said. Obama was, at the very least, a good figurehead leader. He still is. I can't say the same of our current President, or, to a lesser extent, the one before Obama."

You're right Tangy, BUT I'd gladly have a beer with "W". I've come to believe the guy is truly a "good guy". Not overly intellectual or deep, sure, but dammit, he means well, and would be fun to hang with at a BBQ!

I wouldn't want to be in the presence of the current doofuss. I believe you're known by the company you keep!

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:18:00 AM (view original):
re the Obama argument, I largely agree with what LB said. Obama was, at the very least, a good figurehead leader. He still is. I can't say the same of our current President, or, to a lesser extent, the one before Obama.

Obama was intentionally divisive. He was probably the most divisive president we have had politically and racially prior to Trump. Bob is a smart man, but he was wrong about this.

Posted by laramiebob on 9/17/2018 11:42:00 AM (view original):
"re the Obama argument, I largely agree with what LB said. Obama was, at the very least, a good figurehead leader. He still is. I can't say the same of our current President, or, to a lesser extent, the one before Obama."

You're right Tangy, BUT I'd gladly have a beer with "W". I've come to believe the guy is truly a "good guy". Not overly intellectual or deep, sure, but dammit, he means well, and would be fun to hang with at a BBQ!

I wouldn't want to be in the presence of the current doofuss. I believe you're known by the company you keep!

This, I agree with. I think George W is a genuine guy. Terrible president, but great guy.

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/17/2018 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/17/2018 9:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/16/2018 10:33:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I would rather be bankrupt but have social programs rather than having a great economy with no healthcare, terrible education, and no welfare. Fortunately the two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, yes, we are bigger, but you can account for that by making it be on a % of GDP scale. For all your talk about BL not answering questions, you haven't answered a ton of mine.

Also also, states fending for themselves is a terrible idea. I don't want Kris Kobach having any more control than he already will. Don't torture me more.

I cannot answer your question as I don't know nor do I care to delve into the economies of France, UK, Germany, etc.

Our budget is not balanced. Entitltments account for the vast majority of the expenses. They need to be reduced/revamped. Since you don't care about the economy and have zero finance accumen. This discussion is pointless. If I open my fridge up to the neighborhood. Eventually I'll run out of money and my family will starve. It is a stupid way to live.

You probably don't understand what I wrote. So again. If your dad asks you..."how much should we allocate for our cell phone budget?" and you in turn respond with. "Let's see what cccp and his family spend and go by that %"....it is stupid. You need to balance your own budget and see what % you can or want to afford. Comparing the US to other countries on budget makes zero sense. Not sure why you don't understand that.

Here's a better analogy: Your family has an about even income with other households in your neighborhood, yet your family is starving and other families have plenty to eat. Well the solution would be to look at what other households are doing and take what is successful for them.

Your analogy fails because unlike cell phone budget, entitlements are a necessity and not a privilege. Defense spending is the privilege. Yes, I am open to entitlements cutting IF you can prove that it makes life better for all Americans, not just businesses and the uber rich. The best way to prove that is by looking at what other countries do and saying "X country does this, and they have the best healthcare in the world. Maybe we should do something like that too."

But you won't do that, because the best healthcare systems in the world spend a lot and are universal. It doesn't support your argument.

Fine. Maybe those families shop and go out once a month and I go out too frequently. In the end you have revenues and expenses and if your expenses are higher than your revenues you need to cut them. Why can you not comprehend that cutting the military budget will cost jobs? And if you cut it to ZERO, which you cannot the entitlements spend will still be too high. Defense is not a privelege. It is a critical component. We have the best healthcare systems in the world. What are you talking about?

I need someone else to weight in on this before I start using ad hominems again.

To clarify, I am not saying that a defense is a privilege, I meant it more in the excess that we spend. Another way to do things is to increase revenues (COUGH TAXES COUGH). I agree that we have a relatively good healthcare system with Obama, lots of flaws, but better than many. My point is that you are trying to prove that cutting entitlements is good for the country, and I am saying to win me over you have to prove that your plan is better for all Americans. One way to do that is look at other countries.

"Obama was intentionally divisive. He was probably the most divisive president we have had politically and racially prior to Trump. Bob is a smart man, but he was wrong about this."

I don't believe that Coach. I think a LOT of that perception came with the territory. Being the 1st anything has it's price.
Much less the 1st POTUS of color-----------when he wasn't even 100%, so NOT all the blacks thought he was black enough, NOR did they think he was agenda driven enough. Had HE done THAT, You'd have REALLY thought He was divisive. I just think you read that issue wrong, perhaps from the reflection of the region/society you live amongst. I can pretty much guarantee you that Obama wasn't all that divisive in places like (say) East Nashville, or Memphis! (Or Tonto Basin either really. The non racists had no problem with Obama in the WH, and the Fairly large population that DID would have had a problem with HIM moving next door! It didn't have anything to do with his being POTUS on EITHER side!

Posted by strikeout26 on 9/17/2018 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/17/2018 9:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/16/2018 10:33:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I would rather be bankrupt but have social programs rather than having a great economy with no healthcare, terrible education, and no welfare. Fortunately the two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, yes, we are bigger, but you can account for that by making it be on a % of GDP scale. For all your talk about BL not answering questions, you haven't answered a ton of mine.

Also also, states fending for themselves is a terrible idea. I don't want Kris Kobach having any more control than he already will. Don't torture me more.

I cannot answer your question as I don't know nor do I care to delve into the economies of France, UK, Germany, etc.

Our budget is not balanced. Entitltments account for the vast majority of the expenses. They need to be reduced/revamped. Since you don't care about the economy and have zero finance accumen. This discussion is pointless. If I open my fridge up to the neighborhood. Eventually I'll run out of money and my family will starve. It is a stupid way to live.

You probably don't understand what I wrote. So again. If your dad asks you..."how much should we allocate for our cell phone budget?" and you in turn respond with. "Let's see what cccp and his family spend and go by that %"....it is stupid. You need to balance your own budget and see what % you can or want to afford. Comparing the US to other countries on budget makes zero sense. Not sure why you don't understand that.

Here's a better analogy: Your family has an about even income with other households in your neighborhood, yet your family is starving and other families have plenty to eat. Well the solution would be to look at what other households are doing and take what is successful for them.

Your analogy fails because unlike cell phone budget, entitlements are a necessity and not a privilege. Defense spending is the privilege. Yes, I am open to entitlements cutting IF you can prove that it makes life better for all Americans, not just businesses and the uber rich. The best way to prove that is by looking at what other countries do and saying "X country does this, and they have the best healthcare in the world. Maybe we should do something like that too."

But you won't do that, because the best healthcare systems in the world spend a lot and are universal. It doesn't support your argument.

Tang, with all due respect, this may be the dumbest thing you've ever written. The military is not a necessity? Seriously? Entitlements are a necessity?

What you are essentially saying by this is that the country can't survive if a few people starve, but it will still exist if we get blasted off the face of the earth. I am all for protecting the indigent; however, I don't believe it's the government job, but the military is most definitely a necessity.

I meant the excess that we spend. Of course I still want a defense. You missed my point.

Entitlements are a necessity. Remember who you are talking to and what his priorities are.

Posted by strikeout26 on 9/17/2018 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:18:00 AM (view original):
re the Obama argument, I largely agree with what LB said. Obama was, at the very least, a good figurehead leader. He still is. I can't say the same of our current President, or, to a lesser extent, the one before Obama.

Obama was intentionally divisive. He was probably the most divisive president we have had politically and racially prior to Trump. Bob is a smart man, but he was wrong about this.

Examples?

On climate change, many Republicans supported action on climate change before 2008, and the general consensus was that climate change is a major problem in America. Post-2008, something magically changed. I don't think that that is on Obama. I blame McConnell and his flunkies for making cooperation impossible. Obama played a part as well.

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/17/2018 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/17/2018 9:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/16/2018 10:33:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I would rather be bankrupt but have social programs rather than having a great economy with no healthcare, terrible education, and no welfare. Fortunately the two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, yes, we are bigger, but you can account for that by making it be on a % of GDP scale. For all your talk about BL not answering questions, you haven't answered a ton of mine.

Also also, states fending for themselves is a terrible idea. I don't want Kris Kobach having any more control than he already will. Don't torture me more.

I cannot answer your question as I don't know nor do I care to delve into the economies of France, UK, Germany, etc.

Our budget is not balanced. Entitltments account for the vast majority of the expenses. They need to be reduced/revamped. Since you don't care about the economy and have zero finance accumen. This discussion is pointless. If I open my fridge up to the neighborhood. Eventually I'll run out of money and my family will starve. It is a stupid way to live.

You probably don't understand what I wrote. So again. If your dad asks you..."how much should we allocate for our cell phone budget?" and you in turn respond with. "Let's see what cccp and his family spend and go by that %"....it is stupid. You need to balance your own budget and see what % you can or want to afford. Comparing the US to other countries on budget makes zero sense. Not sure why you don't understand that.

Here's a better analogy: Your family has an about even income with other households in your neighborhood, yet your family is starving and other families have plenty to eat. Well the solution would be to look at what other households are doing and take what is successful for them.

Your analogy fails because unlike cell phone budget, entitlements are a necessity and not a privilege. Defense spending is the privilege. Yes, I am open to entitlements cutting IF you can prove that it makes life better for all Americans, not just businesses and the uber rich. The best way to prove that is by looking at what other countries do and saying "X country does this, and they have the best healthcare in the world. Maybe we should do something like that too."

But you won't do that, because the best healthcare systems in the world spend a lot and are universal. It doesn't support your argument.

Fine. Maybe those families shop and go out once a month and I go out too frequently. In the end you have revenues and expenses and if your expenses are higher than your revenues you need to cut them. Why can you not comprehend that cutting the military budget will cost jobs? And if you cut it to ZERO, which you cannot the entitlements spend will still be too high. Defense is not a privelege. It is a critical component. We have the best healthcare systems in the world. What are you talking about?

I need someone else to weight in on this before I start using ad hominems again.

To clarify, I am not saying that a defense is a privilege, I meant it more in the excess that we spend. Another way to do things is to increase revenues (COUGH TAXES COUGH). I agree that we have a relatively good healthcare system with Obama, lots of flaws, but better than many. My point is that you are trying to prove that cutting entitlements is good for the country, and I am saying to win me over you have to prove that your plan is better for all Americans. One way to do that is look at other countries.

Europe is F*CKED. China is awful. Japan has been bad for a white. What countries should we look at exactly? Are we not the world leader? We have the best healthcare in the world and it is not close.

I already told you:

#1) Raise the SS retirement age
#2) Investigate medicare and medicaid fraud and inefficiences.
#3) Alter how pharma companies provide meds to the elderly.

I can list more. Stop the darn spend less on the military rhetoric. It protects the country and creates a significant amount of jobs. Millions. And stop with the revenues. Our expenses are out of control.

"Entitlements are a necessity."

No they're not! They're encoded law, passed by our Congress. But they're NOT necessary. Any Gov't could decide to repeal/amend the LAW that authorizes the appropriation and spending of the money. Taking care of one's OWN, THAT"S a necessity. Breathing, eating, squat-ing, and Loving. Those are necessities.

Posted by laramiebob on 9/17/2018 11:49:00 AM (view original):
"Obama was intentionally divisive. He was probably the most divisive president we have had politically and racially prior to Trump. Bob is a smart man, but he was wrong about this."

I don't believe that Coach. I think a LOT of that perception came with the territory. Being the 1st anything has it's price.
Much less the 1st POTUS of color-----------when he wasn't even 100%, so NOT all the blacks thought he was black enough, NOR did they think he was agenda driven enough. Had HE done THAT, You'd have REALLY thought He was divisive. I just think you read that issue wrong, perhaps from the reflection of the region/society you live amongst. I can pretty much guarantee you that Obama wasn't all that divisive in places like (say) East Nashville, or Memphis! (Or Tonto Basin either really. The non racists had no problem with Obama in the WH, and the Fairly large population that DID would have had a problem with HIM moving next door! It didn't have anything to do with his being POTUS on EITHER side!

No, he constantly made derogatory comments regarding Republicans. He took jabs whenever the opportunity presented itself. As far as race, I feel that someone in his position should remain neutral until facts come out. He did not. He was a very divisive person. It's not like he tried to hide this. He made it obvious. He made no attempt to unite the country.

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/17/2018 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/17/2018 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/17/2018 9:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/16/2018 10:33:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I would rather be bankrupt but have social programs rather than having a great economy with no healthcare, terrible education, and no welfare. Fortunately the two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, yes, we are bigger, but you can account for that by making it be on a % of GDP scale. For all your talk about BL not answering questions, you haven't answered a ton of mine.

Also also, states fending for themselves is a terrible idea. I don't want Kris Kobach having any more control than he already will. Don't torture me more.

I cannot answer your question as I don't know nor do I care to delve into the economies of France, UK, Germany, etc.

Our budget is not balanced. Entitltments account for the vast majority of the expenses. They need to be reduced/revamped. Since you don't care about the economy and have zero finance accumen. This discussion is pointless. If I open my fridge up to the neighborhood. Eventually I'll run out of money and my family will starve. It is a stupid way to live.

You probably don't understand what I wrote. So again. If your dad asks you..."how much should we allocate for our cell phone budget?" and you in turn respond with. "Let's see what cccp and his family spend and go by that %"....it is stupid. You need to balance your own budget and see what % you can or want to afford. Comparing the US to other countries on budget makes zero sense. Not sure why you don't understand that.

Here's a better analogy: Your family has an about even income with other households in your neighborhood, yet your family is starving and other families have plenty to eat. Well the solution would be to look at what other households are doing and take what is successful for them.

Your analogy fails because unlike cell phone budget, entitlements are a necessity and not a privilege. Defense spending is the privilege. Yes, I am open to entitlements cutting IF you can prove that it makes life better for all Americans, not just businesses and the uber rich. The best way to prove that is by looking at what other countries do and saying "X country does this, and they have the best healthcare in the world. Maybe we should do something like that too."

But you won't do that, because the best healthcare systems in the world spend a lot and are universal. It doesn't support your argument.

Fine. Maybe those families shop and go out once a month and I go out too frequently. In the end you have revenues and expenses and if your expenses are higher than your revenues you need to cut them. Why can you not comprehend that cutting the military budget will cost jobs? And if you cut it to ZERO, which you cannot the entitlements spend will still be too high. Defense is not a privelege. It is a critical component. We have the best healthcare systems in the world. What are you talking about?

I need someone else to weight in on this before I start using ad hominems again.

To clarify, I am not saying that a defense is a privilege, I meant it more in the excess that we spend. Another way to do things is to increase revenues (COUGH TAXES COUGH). I agree that we have a relatively good healthcare system with Obama, lots of flaws, but better than many. My point is that you are trying to prove that cutting entitlements is good for the country, and I am saying to win me over you have to prove that your plan is better for all Americans. One way to do that is look at other countries.

Europe is F*CKED. China is awful. Japan has been bad for a white. What countries should we look at exactly? Are we not the world leader? We have the best healthcare in the world and it is not close.

I already told you:

#1) Raise the SS retirement age
#2) Investigate medicare and medicaid fraud and inefficiences.
#3) Alter how pharma companies provide meds to the elderly.

I can list more. Stop the darn spend less on the military rhetoric. It protects the country and creates a significant amount of jobs. Millions. And stop with the revenues. Our expenses are out of control.

Europe is not ******, in fact the best healthcare systems in the world are European. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

I don't see where you are getting the 'best healthcare in the world' argument.

Prove that your plan helps all Americans.

The military spend could be cut by 200 billion and do the same thing, far more than any other country. And if you want to balance the budget, increasing revenues is a very valid way of doing it.

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:48:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 9/17/2018 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/17/2018 9:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/16/2018 10:33:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I would rather be bankrupt but have social programs rather than having a great economy with no healthcare, terrible education, and no welfare. Fortunately the two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, yes, we are bigger, but you can account for that by making it be on a % of GDP scale. For all your talk about BL not answering questions, you haven't answered a ton of mine.

Also also, states fending for themselves is a terrible idea. I don't want Kris Kobach having any more control than he already will. Don't torture me more.

I cannot answer your question as I don't know nor do I care to delve into the economies of France, UK, Germany, etc.

Our budget is not balanced. Entitltments account for the vast majority of the expenses. They need to be reduced/revamped. Since you don't care about the economy and have zero finance accumen. This discussion is pointless. If I open my fridge up to the neighborhood. Eventually I'll run out of money and my family will starve. It is a stupid way to live.

You probably don't understand what I wrote. So again. If your dad asks you..."how much should we allocate for our cell phone budget?" and you in turn respond with. "Let's see what cccp and his family spend and go by that %"....it is stupid. You need to balance your own budget and see what % you can or want to afford. Comparing the US to other countries on budget makes zero sense. Not sure why you don't understand that.

Here's a better analogy: Your family has an about even income with other households in your neighborhood, yet your family is starving and other families have plenty to eat. Well the solution would be to look at what other households are doing and take what is successful for them.

Your analogy fails because unlike cell phone budget, entitlements are a necessity and not a privilege. Defense spending is the privilege. Yes, I am open to entitlements cutting IF you can prove that it makes life better for all Americans, not just businesses and the uber rich. The best way to prove that is by looking at what other countries do and saying "X country does this, and they have the best healthcare in the world. Maybe we should do something like that too."

But you won't do that, because the best healthcare systems in the world spend a lot and are universal. It doesn't support your argument.

Tang, with all due respect, this may be the dumbest thing you've ever written. The military is not a necessity? Seriously? Entitlements are a necessity?

What you are essentially saying by this is that the country can't survive if a few people starve, but it will still exist if we get blasted off the face of the earth. I am all for protecting the indigent; however, I don't believe it's the government job, but the military is most definitely a necessity.

I meant the excess that we spend. Of course I still want a defense. You missed my point.

Entitlements are a necessity. Remember who you are talking to and what his priorities are.

You said "defense spending is a priviledge." You said that. You have since clarified and I agree that waste in the military budget needs to be cut. I understand your views on entitlement spending. You rely on the government to save the poor.

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:50:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 9/17/2018 11:41:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:18:00 AM (view original):
re the Obama argument, I largely agree with what LB said. Obama was, at the very least, a good figurehead leader. He still is. I can't say the same of our current President, or, to a lesser extent, the one before Obama.

Obama was intentionally divisive. He was probably the most divisive president we have had politically and racially prior to Trump. Bob is a smart man, but he was wrong about this.

Examples?

On climate change, many Republicans supported action on climate change before 2008, and the general consensus was that climate change is a major problem in America. Post-2008, something magically changed. I don't think that that is on Obama. I blame McConnell and his flunkies for making cooperation impossible. Obama played a part as well.

He unleashed Biden who said Romney would put black people back in chains. In a July 2016 poll, nearly 70% of Americans agreed that race relations are generally bad, a level unseen since the 1992 Rodney King riots.

Economic indicators actually suggest that things worsened under Obama, among them: the largest wealth gap between blacks and whites since 1989 and record levels of black child poverty.

But the 2012 campaign vs. Mitt was brutal from Romney's treatment of his onetime pet dog to his high-school pranks to his income-tax rate, from the "war on women" to the "war on caterpillars," from "I like being able to fire people" to "I'm not concerned about the very poor," no potential controversy has been too petty, too rhetorically overblown or too out-of-context to be exploited to the hilt.

Posted by laramiebob on 9/17/2018 11:55:00 AM (view original):
"Entitlements are a necessity."

No they're not! They're encoded law, passed by our Congress. But they're NOT necessary. Any Gov't could decide to repeal/amend the LAW that authorizes the appropriation and spending of the money. Taking care of one's OWN, THAT"S a necessity. Breathing, eating, squat-ing, and Loving. Those are necessities.

Exactly!!!

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:54:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/17/2018 11:51:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:46:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/17/2018 11:39:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/17/2018 11:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 9/17/2018 9:05:00 AM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 9/16/2018 10:33:00 PM (view original):
Yes, I would rather be bankrupt but have social programs rather than having a great economy with no healthcare, terrible education, and no welfare. Fortunately the two things aren't mutually exclusive.

Also, yes, we are bigger, but you can account for that by making it be on a % of GDP scale. For all your talk about BL not answering questions, you haven't answered a ton of mine.

Also also, states fending for themselves is a terrible idea. I don't want Kris Kobach having any more control than he already will. Don't torture me more.

I cannot answer your question as I don't know nor do I care to delve into the economies of France, UK, Germany, etc.

Our budget is not balanced. Entitltments account for the vast majority of the expenses. They need to be reduced/revamped. Since you don't care about the economy and have zero finance accumen. This discussion is pointless. If I open my fridge up to the neighborhood. Eventually I'll run out of money and my family will starve. It is a stupid way to live.

You probably don't understand what I wrote. So again. If your dad asks you..."how much should we allocate for our cell phone budget?" and you in turn respond with. "Let's see what cccp and his family spend and go by that %"....it is stupid. You need to balance your own budget and see what % you can or want to afford. Comparing the US to other countries on budget makes zero sense. Not sure why you don't understand that.

Here's a better analogy: Your family has an about even income with other households in your neighborhood, yet your family is starving and other families have plenty to eat. Well the solution would be to look at what other households are doing and take what is successful for them.

Your analogy fails because unlike cell phone budget, entitlements are a necessity and not a privilege. Defense spending is the privilege. Yes, I am open to entitlements cutting IF you can prove that it makes life better for all Americans, not just businesses and the uber rich. The best way to prove that is by looking at what other countries do and saying "X country does this, and they have the best healthcare in the world. Maybe we should do something like that too."

But you won't do that, because the best healthcare systems in the world spend a lot and are universal. It doesn't support your argument.

Fine. Maybe those families shop and go out once a month and I go out too frequently. In the end you have revenues and expenses and if your expenses are higher than your revenues you need to cut them. Why can you not comprehend that cutting the military budget will cost jobs? And if you cut it to ZERO, which you cannot the entitlements spend will still be too high. Defense is not a privelege. It is a critical component. We have the best healthcare systems in the world. What are you talking about?

I need someone else to weight in on this before I start using ad hominems again.

To clarify, I am not saying that a defense is a privilege, I meant it more in the excess that we spend. Another way to do things is to increase revenues (COUGH TAXES COUGH). I agree that we have a relatively good healthcare system with Obama, lots of flaws, but better than many. My point is that you are trying to prove that cutting entitlements is good for the country, and I am saying to win me over you have to prove that your plan is better for all Americans. One way to do that is look at other countries.

Europe is F*CKED. China is awful. Japan has been bad for a white. What countries should we look at exactly? Are we not the world leader? We have the best healthcare in the world and it is not close.

I already told you:

#1) Raise the SS retirement age
#2) Investigate medicare and medicaid fraud and inefficiences.
#3) Alter how pharma companies provide meds to the elderly.

I can list more. Stop the darn spend less on the military rhetoric. It protects the country and creates a significant amount of jobs. Millions. And stop with the revenues. Our expenses are out of control.

Europe is not ******, in fact the best healthcare systems in the world are European. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf

I don't see where you are getting the 'best healthcare in the world' argument.

Prove that your plan helps all Americans.

The military spend could be cut by 200 billion and do the same thing, far more than any other country. And if you want to balance the budget, increasing revenues is a very valid way of doing it.

Tang, what percentage would you have to tax the 1% to balance the budget and where did your $200B number come from?