General discussion

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #2167524

    Budget shortfalls – Local, State, and Federal – what to do?

    Locked

    by maxwell edison ·

    Any number of cities and states are going to the feds for their own bailout. New York is talking about an 18% tax increase. Why don’t these idiots see the ONLY viable solution?

    Cut spending ? drastically, immediately, and permanently.

    [i] [b]We interrupt this message for a minor rant:[/i][/b]

    Silly me, I know why. Because people ALSO have their hands out (and/or heads in).

    Don’t believe the nonsense about government employees earning less than their private counterparts – not true.

    Don’t believe that all people who are on the government dole are homeless, helpless, or otherwise [i]needy[/i] – not true.

    Don?t believe the demagoguery of those who try to convince people that government is needed to solve individual problems ? not true.

    Don?t believe that the role of government is to take care of people from womb to tomb ? not true.

    Don’t believe the hype that government must [i]invest[/i] in one industry or the other to [i]create jobs[/i] or otherwise [i]encourage[/i] development – not true.

    Don’t believe the [i]man-caused[/i] global warming and/or climate change crap – not true.

    For twenty friggin? years the global warming scare-mongers have been predicting ever-increasing environmental disaster, but we?re no closer to seeing truth to their predictions than we were twenty years ago. For those same twenty years, I, and people like me, have been predicting a financial disaster if we continue on the path of runaway government spending and dependency, and each and every year, we?ve SEEN evidence that we?ve been inching closer and closer to that inevitable end. Each and every year we?ve seen evidence that we?re closing-in on the prediction that a system of too much government dependency will eventually collapse under the weight of its own obligations.

    We’re going to he11 in a handbag, and too many people are still jumping into the handbag, while too few (like me) are trying to hold it back from falling any further. When will people wake up? Stop turning to the people (big government) who’ve caused the problems – dismiss them.

    [i]We now return to your regularly scheduled discussion.[/i]

All Comments

  • Author
    Replies
    • #2972697

      I think your rant went slightly off-track, Max.

      by neilb@uk ·

      In reply to Budget shortfalls – Local, State, and Federal – what to do?

      But a fine rant, nonetheless…

      🙂

      You know, we can have financial AND climate melt-down together. Now, won’t that be fun?

      • #2972673

        Is there more or less violence

        by jdclyde ·

        In reply to I think your rant went slightly off-track, Max.

        in a time of financial crisis?

        More or less crime when more people find themselves “poor”?

        More or less disease when more people find themselves “poor”?

        • #2972656

          If you want a sensible answer

          by neilb@uk ·

          In reply to Is there more or less violence

          Then I reckon that I don’t know.

          I’ve seen it reported by a Criminology expert that crime rates in the US have gone up in every recession since the 1950s but there could be so many other factors.

          But that’s where you are.

          I’ll look around.

          🙂

          I guess that there’s less stuff to nick during a recession…

        • #2972646

          Just two daze ago

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to If you want a sensible answer

          I was going to the local market I always shop at, just in time to see the owner almost get run over by the shoplifter that he followed out of the store. He was alright, but only because he did a head-long dive to get out of the way.

          People are getting desperate. If people don’t start seeing the handouts they thought Obama was going to be throwing around, I have a feeling it is going to get ugly.

          In Michigan they are looking to change the the way they tax fuel, from a set per gallon, to a percentage of the price to raise more money for infrastructure updates. As my company supplies materials for the updates, paying a little more now just might keep me in a job.

          Life is full of compromise, huh?

        • #2972644

          The era of entitlement

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Just two daze ago

          People have a sense of entitlement – entitled to have that which is someone else’s. Whether they take it outright, or vote for a government broker to do it for them, it’s the same sense of entitlement.

          The sense of entitlement has over taken individual responsibility as the underlying principle for too many people – and it’s a notion advanced by our elected officials in their quest to get elected.

        • #2972622

          It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to The era of entitlement

          that make me the most disgusted, followed closely by the growing masses of undeserving lowlifes that are out to get something for nothing.

          I have nothing but contempt….

          “but it isn’t fair that through all of your hard work you have amassed so much while these people who have done nothing with their miserable lives have so little”.

          Oh wait, they leave out the parts of people actually EARNING something via their efforts…….

        • #2972585

          A hypothetical question

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          I can build a road for 30 million. After ten years, I will have to repave it at a cost of 2 million, and will have to repeat this every seven years thereafter.

          Or I can build it with different materials for $50 million, not have to repave it for 20 years at cost of 4 million every 20 years.

          Which should I choose? Taxpayers will save more in the long run with the latter, but at the cost of pavement industry jobs, so most governments pick the former option, essentially “creating” work that doesn’t need to be.

          There are a lot more people on the public dole than you think. Some of them don’t even know it!

        • #2985842

          very true, Tony

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          of course, it’s odd.

          The taxpaying middle class will complain about lower income people getting big tax breaks, however they have no problem with taking tax breaks themselves (like writing off donations, medical expense, etc).

          Of course, everyone gets a big hand-out nowadays…and don’t realize it.

          Libraries
          Roads
          Schools
          Police protection
          Fire service
          Health services
          Communicable disease prevention and control

          Since (according to the Treasury Dept) the top 10% of taxpayers pay some 2/3 of taxes in this country, then it stands to reason that anyone under that top 10% is getting 2/3 of their public services as a handout from someone else.

          If we just had a flat tax in this country, things would be a WHOLE lot easier…the IRS would be 90% smaller…and doing your taxes would not be a major task.

        • #2985653

          Not a flat tax…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          a ‘per capita’ tax!

        • #2985648

          as an income tax

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          i think the flat tax is fairer. everyone pays the same percentage of their income.

          no loopholes.
          minimal deductions.
          no b/s

          that’s what our tax system needs.

        • #2985640

          I don’t like the income tax.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          It penalizes success, and reduces opportunity.

          Taking away from one person to give to another is wrong. How would you like it if you were forced to give up one of your arms to someone who lost both of theirs?

        • #2985583

          Charity deductions are a good thing

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          As in most cases, a much higher percentage of money donated actually does some good as compared to if government were to try to do the same thing.

          Government has more waste and corruption.

        • #2986031

          maybe i’m just dense or something, Tony

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [b][i]It penalizes success, and reduces opportunity. [/i][/b]

          If I make $20,000 and pay 10% ($2,000), and you make $200,000 and pay 10% ($20,000)…how is that penalizing you anymore than me?

          I just don’t get your point. If we both pay the same percentage, then we are both taxed evenly. No bias, no b.s.

        • #2986027

          Charity deductions are good?

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          So, you should get a tax rebate for how much you give? Doesn’t that cut the amount of tax revenues the government has to do things like…build schools…build libraries…etc?

          How is giving a $1,000 donation to Salvation Army for a write-off any better than making sure a child is educated?

          If a person needs clothing or food, a neighbor or relative or anyone can give them that.

          You can’t just go and give them Spanish lessons and teach them algebra and give them textbooks.

          Seems to me our system would be better off with a flat tax. Drop that down to like 10% or 15% for everyone. Then, take away all the loopholes. Give extremely limited deductions for things like extensive, out-of-pocket healthcare expense. Then, reduce the bureaucracy at the IRS by about 80%.

          Just imagine you get your W-2, and if you made $50,000 in a year, you pay $5,000. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a tax refund that takes 5 minutes to prepare and sign, and wouldn’t take weeks of IRS processing to catch cheaters and what not?

          You’d pay less tax, you’d have less headaches, your government would have less expense, and things would work more efficiently.

          I back a flat rate income tax. But, I know it’ll never happen in my lifetime. Too many aristocrats and corporations have the ear of politicians, and manage to work getting the breaks they need to get large-scale refunds/write-offs.

        • #2964833

          Well jck

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          Sorry I missed this before…

          [i]If I make $20,000 and pay 10% ($2,000), and you make $200,000 and pay 10% ($20,000)…how is that penalizing you anymore than me?[/i]

          Obviously I am being charged $18,000 more than you are.

          Does it cost the government more to provide a sidewalk for me to walk on than it does for a sidewalk for you to walk on? Does it cost them more to keep a fire department staffed to protect my home or yours?

          Why should I pay more (in your example 10 times as much) for the same service? Should I also be forced to pay ten times as much for a car wash or a haircut, or morning coffee and bagel?

          If so, what would be the point of working harder (or at all for that matter)?

        • #2964802

          so you think it’s fair that…

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          the more you make…the less you should pay of your money percentage wise?

          That’s simply ridiculous.

          I make $5M a year and should only pay $2,000.

          Right…that’s REAL fair.

          [i]Obviously I am being charged $18,000 more than you are.[/i]

          And you are making $180,000 more too.

          [i]Does it cost the government more to provide a sidewalk for me to walk on than it does for a sidewalk for you to walk on? Does it cost them more to keep a fire department staffed to protect my home or yours?[/i]

          Actually, it probably does. More affluent people live in areas with higher cost of living, and therefore workers in those areas have to be paid more. So, it probably does cost them more to provide for you both sidewalks, streets, fire, police, government services such as traffic lights, etc.

          [i]Why should I pay more (in your example 10 times as much) for the same service? Should I also be forced to pay ten times as much for a car wash or a haircut, or morning coffee and bagel?[/i]

          haircuts, coffee, car washes and bagels are optional…unless you want no police or paved roads?

          [i]If so, what would be the point of working harder (or at all for that matter)?[/i]

          Well, why don’t we just set the rate at a flat dollar amount…say…everyone in the USA pays $50,000. Oh wait. Some people don’t make $50,000 a year.

          I am sure you understand what the word “percent” means and the latin that it derives from. I don’t need to explain that to you, I hope.

          The fact is that if you pay $.10 on every dollar you earn, so should every other worker.

          As well, I find your statement of:

          [b][i]If so, what would be the point of working harder (or at all for that matter)?[/i][/b]

          to be quite obtuse.

          You are implying that you work any harder than someone who doesn’t aspire to climb the ladder for a huge paycheck.

          There are a LOT of hard working people who just want to have the same job and never be a supervisor, manager, director, administrator or executive.

          Your career goals are not those of everyone else…nor should they be.

          And, your tax system would punish those who HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE whether or not to be ladder climbers. Your tax proposition would foster even worse backstabbing to get at that bigger paycheck, and would take away the right for a person to stay in a job they love out of need to make more sooner to get away from a higher percentage of their income going to the government.

          The proposition that all workers pay a flat amount no matter what their income is preferential to the wealthy, and would be restrict the working man and woman from working their way up to improving their life financially.

          Or, do you advocate oppressing the poor and engorging the pockets of the rich?

          I don’t see how a flat amount of income tax is so fair and a flat percentage is not.

          Haven’t you even advocated percentage sales/usage taxes? why not just pay a one time sales tax every year? I mean, you spend what you can afford. why not just say “everyone pays $500 in sales tax no matter what.”

          Can you see my point? a flat amount tax would do nothing more than give another break to the already wealthy while overburdening the poor because…face it…$2000 of income tax to someone making $22,000 a year as a secretary or courier or janitor is a back breaker and would break a lot of people.

          Therefore, everyone should get taxed the same percent on each dollar earned.

          Otherwise, you’re going to have even worse welfare in this country than you do now…and we’ll probably end up with social economic class division like Mexico in 25 years.

        • #2964789

          you have really perverted the idea of “fair”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          So,if you go out to eat, by your own perverted and distorted idea of what is “fair”, you should be charged based upon your income bracket?

          And yes, charities do more for people in need that your beloved welfare state does. Get the money directly to the people that do the most good instead of getting chewed up on red tape and waste.

          “fair” in the true sense would be everyone has to pay for access equally, as we are all “created equal”, right? How does over 40% of all humans in the US paying NOTHING equate to “fair”?

          If I put in more effort to make more, why should I be punished?

          Good thing your emotional nonsense has no rational defense.

        • #2964753

          oh that’s rich

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i][b]you have really perverted the idea of “fair”[/b][/i]

          do i? let’s take a logical look at your argument

          [i] So,if you go out to eat, by your own perverted and distorted idea of what is “fair”, you should be charged based upon your income bracket?[/i]

          No…never said that, great misinterpreter.

          But, economic factors [b]do cause[/b] the necessity for increased wages in areas. And whether in government or private enterprise, that drives up [b]cost[/b].

          That’s why if you webt to NYC to eat at Rosie O’Grady’s (like I did in 2002), a nice meal would cost you $35…where as I could get the same quality meal in FL in Tampa for about $15-20.

          And case in point on wage cost: when I was up in NJ staying with my father when he was working there for the government, people at McDonalds were making as much as $9 an hour to start near Princeton…[b]$9[/b]…to flip burgers!

          Are you telling me that Princeton college student burger flippers are any more qualified than people in my hometown in Oklahoma who were making $4.25?

          And again, you’re comparing optional things (dinners) to necessary services (such as fire and police and roads maintenance)…or maybe you want to be an isolationist and move to Idaho and bust rock and put gravel on your own road and have your own police force…to save a buck??? :^0

          [i] And yes, charities do more for people in need that your beloved welfare state does. Get the money directly to the people that do the most good instead of getting chewed up on red tape and waste.[/i]

          American Red Cross after Katrina – more than $300M of donations unaccounted for out of about $2B donated in a 2006 report…16% loss…real efficient

          Dozens of “charities” that take donations to help families of fallen firefighters, police officers, military, etc…often take 90% of donations in “administrative costs”…outstanding, right?

          Disabled Veterans Association: Spent $.92 out of every $1.00 on…administration and advertising and fundraising…fabulous getting those donations to needy veterans!

          There are a hundred stories out there…all the same…so, I don’t think most charities are any more efficient than the government…and the ones that are usually don’t end up being able to do the mass assistance that government can.

          [i] “fair” in the true sense would be everyone has to pay for access equally, as we are all “created equal”, right? How does over 40% of all humans in the US paying NOTHING equate to “fair”?[/i]

          Paying for access equally?

          So someone who has no car has to pay money toward roads? How is that fair?

          BTW, you should look at who is not paying anything…and, don’t just look at the immediate charge due to income level taken from their pay.

          Also, take a look at tax breaks that corps and companies get and see which companies actually get huge windfalls from participating in programs and what not. You’d be shocked at how many companies make a profit from their tax statement because of write-offs and tax credits.

          The poor are not the only ones not paying anything. Hell, even Warren Buffet complained that it wasn’t fair that he pays about half of what his employees did in taxes in 2006. He was paying 17.7% and his secretary paid 30%.

          If you’re poor and only make $14,000 a year working at the feed store…and it costs $13,500 to live a year…it’s right to take $4,000 of your money in taxes and starve you?

          Validate that train of thought for me, please? I guess it’s his fault he didn’t have the ability to go to college or the athleticism of Deion Sanders to get a huge paycheck.

          Yep. It’s always the poor guy’s fault.

          BTW…nice rose-colored glasses ya got on :^0

          [i] Good thing your emotional nonsense has no rational defense.[/i]

          It’s not emotion. It’s fact.

          If you want real fair in charging tax…if I make a buck…and you make a buck…we both pay the same percentage of tax on that buck to support that “equal access” you claim you want so bad.

          Otherwise what are you gonna do…go make homeless people pay for the grate they sleep on at night in an alley?

          Again…your ideology has no logic…and obtuse. Get a grip. Understand more than what exists inside your little bubble.

          And if you want isolationism and backward thinking, rather than being a part of plan other than how much goes in your wallet or belly…go to the Middle East. The majority of them wanna be all to themselves too. You’d fit right in.

        • #2964743

          you confuse “legislated compassion” with “fair”

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          It is compassionate to allow over half our LEGAL citizens to pay nothing in taxes, not “fair”. Get it?

          People that don’t own cars still benefit from the roads for buses, emergency vehicles, and the transportation of all goods to market. Not to complex an idea, is that?

          Are there many people that should be publicly executed? Of course there are. From the murderers to the con-artists, and yes, they get into the charity business as well. Anyone with half a clue will look into any charitable organization before giving and NEVER give to anyone calling for money, including the policemens fund and other BS like that. They hire hellimarketers to get the donations, and it these groups that get the 85% slice of the pie.

          So, someone paying out a higher dollar amount isn’t doing their fair share than ANYONE paying a lower dollar amount? It is dishonest to claim “fair” as validation to take more from one person than another, just because they earned more, and then turn around and say it is “fair” that half the nation pays NOTHING.

        • #2964739

          i still don’t get how you think…

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]It is compassionate to allow over half our LEGAL citizens to pay nothing in taxes, not “fair”. Get it?[/i]

          You said 40% last time, now it’s over half.

          [i]People that don’t own cars still benefit from the roads for buses, emergency vehicles, and the transportation of all goods to market. Not to complex an idea, is that?[/i]

          I can show you 100,000s of people a day in Manhattan who never use a street other than to walk at a cross walk.

          And now, you wanna charge the person for the use of the road by police and fire? how does that fit into the “use tax” system?

          [i]Are there many people that should be publicly executed? Of course there are. From the murderers to the con-artists, and yes, they get into the charity business as well. Anyone with half a clue will look into any charitable organization before giving and NEVER give to anyone calling for money, including the policemens fund and other BS like that. They hire hellimarketers to get the donations, and it these groups that get the 85% slice of the pie.[/i]

          So…government should be abolished even tho it’s accountable to the American public. But, scam charities can go on establishing for eternity under various names without any accountability? Just because “you should know better”?

          [i]So, someone paying out a higher dollar amount isn’t doing their fair share than ANYONE paying a lower dollar amount? It is dishonest to claim “fair” as validation to take more from one person than another, just because they earned more, and then turn around and say it is “fair” that half the nation pays NOTHING.[/i]

          What isn’t fair is saying that “because I make more than you, I should not have to pay as high of a percent as a poor guy.

          Do people who make more use more public resources?

          Yes.

          They drive more.
          They travel more.
          They utilize public services more.
          They often have more maintenance of their facilities.

        • #2964732

          Would it be fair if

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          you went to an open house, and heard the realtor tell someone else that the asking price for the house was $185,000… then when she got to you she told you the asking price was $750,000?

          [i]so you think it’s fair that…
          the more you make…the less you should pay of your money percentage wise?[/i]

          Yes, perfectly fair. One man, one vote, one dollar of taxes.

          [i][u]Obviously I am being charged $18,000 more than you are.[/u]

          And you are making $180,000 more too. [/i]

          Because I am WORKING harder than you are!

          [i]Actually, it probably does. More affluent people live in areas with higher cost of living, and therefore workers in those areas have to be paid more. So, it probably does cost them more to provide for you both sidewalks, streets, fire, police, government services such as traffic lights, etc.[/i]

          Sorry, my next-door neighbor makes over five times what I do, and the city recently replaced the sidewalks…. charged us the same amount.

          [i]haircuts, coffee, car washes and bagels are optional…unless you want no police or paved roads?[/i]

          Roads can be taxed per use. Vehicle weight per distance times some amount. Someone who drives twice as far should pay twice as much. Someone with a heavier vehicle should pay more. Of course, business will include this in the cost of what they deliver.

          [i]As well, I find your statement of:

          If so, what would be the point of working harder (or at all for that matter)?

          to be quite obtuse. [/i]

          It’s not obtuse, it’s how wealth is created (you do believe that creating wealth is a good thing don’t you?).

          [i]You are implying that you work any harder than someone who doesn’t aspire to climb the ladder for a huge paycheck. [/i]

          No, I’m implying that the logger who cuts down 20 trees a day should be paid twice as much as the logger who cuts down 10 trees a day, but that he shouldn’t have to pay any more for the same public services simply because he decided to work harder.

          [i]Or, do you advocate oppressing the poor and engorging the pockets of the rich?[/i]

          I advocate letting the wealthy do what they obviously know how to do… make more money! They’ll either buy stuff, or hire people, or invest it with other people who will, and the result will be more and better opportunities for all of us.

          [i]I don’t see how a flat amount of income tax is so fair and a flat percentage is not.[/i]

          I know…

          [i]Haven’t you even advocated percentage sales/usage taxes?[/i]

          Sure, as a [/b]replacement[/b] for the income tax. With the first $xxx (whatever poverty level is for your particular family unit) of consumption tax free. That way nobody is taxed for necessities (it is assumed that at poverty level, 100% would go to necessities, so there’s no need to make judgments about what is and is not a necessity, and this would rid us of those who would try to lobby for their product to be declared ‘necessary’), and only optional spending is taxed. You’re not taxed on what you earn, but what you spend to excess. It’s completely voluntary (Don’t want to pay taxes, don’t consume wastefully). And even drug dealers and others in the financial underground would pay it when they bought something. It would cost nothing to implement, as the collection mechanism is already in place (it’s called a cash register). This kind of tax doesn’t punish working and earning money and creating wealth, it punishes excessive consumption. Do YOU see the difference?

          [i]Otherwise, you’re going to have even worse welfare in this country than you do now…[/i]

          Cut them all off. Including the banks, auto companies, farmers, etc., etc. If they are worthy, they will find benefactors without having the taxpayers forced to pay for it. If they can’t survive, they shouldn’t!

        • #2964695

          would it…

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]Would it be fair if you went to an open house, and heard the realtor tell someone else that the asking price for the house was $185,000… then when she got to you she told you the asking price was $750,000?[/i]

          Sure…if the market demands it…right? Let the wealthy get wealthy?

          Or better yet…am I not allowed to sell to my friend or relative cheaper than someone else? Sure I am. That’s my right.

          Depending on the circumstance…it is very fair…don’t you agree? Let someone make all they can by charging whatever they can get? Getting wealthy off someone if it’s legal is fair…right?

          Or are you going to say it’s okay to be prohibitive toward those becoming wealthy now?

          [i]Yes, perfectly fair. One man, one vote, one dollar of taxes.[/i]

          Yes…one man…one job…one dollar earned…10 percent paid…just like the guy who earned a dollar in the office next to him.

          Or are you saying it’s okay now to take a higher percentage of someone’s pay because of their income level? See…now you’re keeping the poor from becoming wealthy, and placing more of the burden on them by inordinately taxing more of their gross income.

          [i]Because I am WORKING harder than you are![/i]

          again…you associate pay with working hard.

          go work in a coal mine, or logging, or working on a ranch…you will learn what “WORKING harder” is.

          And yes, I’ve worked on a ranch…so I know.

          [i]Sorry, my next-door neighbor makes over five times what I do, and the city recently replaced the sidewalks…. charged us the same amount.[/i]

          I guess you just don’t work hard enough, do you? Otherwise, you’d make as much as them.

          [i]Roads can be taxed per use. Vehicle weight per distance times some amount. Someone who drives twice as far should pay twice as much. Someone with a heavier vehicle should pay more. Of course, business will include this in the cost of what they deliver.[/i]

          Where did this taxing everyone the same go? You think income should only have a flat amount paid on it for everyone, yet you’ll punish someone who drives a truck for a living? What about his right to get wealthy?

          And…what about that wealthy person’s right to buy that car and drive it as much as they want?

          You should charge them both a flat rate no matter how many trips they make.

          And, the weight of his vehicle shouldn’t matter…after all…how much money you make doesn’t matter…so why should vehicle weight. Fair, flat amount of all taxes across the board. Remember? Otherwise, you’re punishing someone for being able to spend more.

          [i]It’s not obtuse, it’s how wealth is created (you do believe that creating wealth is a good thing don’t you?).[/i]

          Creating wealthy [b]can[/b] be good. Of course, is the way to create wealth by not paying your fair share of the burden?

          How is it fair that, according to your system, Warren Buffet would pay the same as a janitor in taxes…yet, Warren Buffet has more police protection because of his notariety…he uses roads more and has more personal cars than a janitor which tears the roads up more…etc.

          Basically, your system does not promote the establishment and growth of wealth to everyone.

          Your system implements class separation and only allowing the wealthy to grow wealthier, and keeping the working class working in piss-poor paying jobs from which they have miniscule or zero change to make it anywhere in life.

          You simply want a system that would perpetuate your becoming wealthy, not everyone’s opportunity as you claim.

          [i]No, I’m implying that the logger who cuts down 20 trees a day should be paid twice as much as the logger who cuts down 10 trees a day, but that he shouldn’t have to pay any more for the same public services simply because he decided to work harder.[/i]

          Nah, you even said it above: you make more because you’re working harder than me. Two times you’ve said it.

          And, I guarantee that you don’t work doubly as hard as me. Or, are you working 90-100 hour weeks at your office? Then going home and studying and reading 10-20 hours a week more in your field?

          You must be superman.

          [i]I advocate letting the wealthy do what they obviously know how to do… make more money! They’ll either buy stuff, or hire people, or invest it with other people who will, and the result will be more and better opportunities for all of us.[/i]

          Oh really? Is Rick Wagoner hiring people? Bill Gates? Jerry Yang? Mark Cuban? Larry Ellison? T. Boone Pickens? Lamar Hunt? Augustus Busch?

          Your ideology is very flawed. The wealthy do not invest in others…they invest in SELF. And, you see their hiring people as pure honor and some estute effort to providing opportunity…

          When the realism is, very VERY few wealthy businessman hire anyone who is not going to provide or facilitate the provision of substantial cost savings or profit increase.

          You act like that’s some kind of profound act. I know high school students who know that much about making money. Give me a break.

          You don’t find many businessmen who take decades to grow a company like Sam Walton did, much less a man of his wealth that actually gives a $hit about their employees.

          [i]Sure, as a replacement for the income tax. With the first $xxx (whatever poverty level is for your particular family unit) of consumption tax free. [/i]

          Wait…hold on. What happened to WORKING HARD for what you get? Those people should work harder. It’s their fault they’re poor…not mine…right?

          They should pay the same tax as me. I’m not responsible because they’re poor and I’m not.

          YOU are keeping me from becoming wealthy by letting them out of their tax!

          [i]That way nobody is taxed for necessities (it is assumed that at poverty level, 100% would go to necessities, so there’s no need to make judgments about what is and is not a necessity, and this would rid us of those who would try to lobby for their product to be declared ‘necessary’), and only optional spending is taxed. You’re not taxed on what you earn, but what you spend to excess. It’s completely voluntary (Don’t want to pay taxes, don’t consume wastefully). And even drug dealers and others in the financial underground would pay it when they bought something. It would cost nothing to implement, as the collection mechanism is already in place (it’s called a cash register). This kind of tax doesn’t punish working and earning money and creating wealth, it punishes excessive consumption. Do YOU see the difference?[/i]

          One big problem with your ideology:

          What about the parent who doesn’t feed their child properly…in effort to afford beer and cigarettes?

          Are you going to police every parent in the country now to enforce that “not spending wastefully” to include people who don’t necessarily starve but are not feeding their children right to indulge their “bad habits”?

          [i]Cut them all off. Including the banks, auto companies, farmers, etc., etc. If they are worthy, they will find benefactors without having the taxpayers forced to pay for it. If they can’t survive, they shouldn’t![/i]

          Well if you lose your job, I hope you get refused for any help from your co-workers and that you have no one to help you.

          I’ve been through losing my job in the tech downturn in 2001 2 months before 9/11, not having money, having to cash in all my retirements to pay my bills, losing 60% of my investments to the tech downturn.

          I guess you’re gonna blame all that on me, huh? I didn’t work hard enough, yet I made enough money for my company in 5 months to pay for my salary and benefits and that of 3 other people in my company.

          Just one other thing, Tony:

          For someone who is professed to wanting to eliminate all this government waste….

          You sure do advocate plans that would require a TON of oversight, law making, enforcement, and establishment of more bureaucracy.

        • #2964680

          And THAT’s the problem

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]you associate pay with working hard.[/i]

          Too many people [b]don’t![/b]

          They think they should get simply because they want, and if they can’t afford it, they should get anyway, and someone else should be forced to pay for it.

          [i]What about the parent who doesn’t feed their child properly…in effort to afford beer and cigarettes?[/i]

          What about them? It has nothing to do with how we’re taxed.

          [i]Are you going to police every parent in the country now to enforce that “not spending wastefully” to include people who don’t necessarily starve but are not feeding their children right to indulge their “bad habits”?[/i]

          Do we do so now?

          [i]Well if you lose your job, I hope you get refused for any help from your co-workers and that you have no one to help you.[/i]

          People would help me if they could, because I have helped them. If they can’t, oh well, I’ll just die then. No biggie… thousands do it every day. I’ll not IMPOSE myself on another though.

          [i]or someone who is professed to wanting to eliminate all this government waste….

          You sure do advocate plans that would require a TON of oversight, law making, enforcement, and establishment of more bureaucracy.[/i]

          What are you talking about? The entire IRS could be eliminated. You pay your tax at the cash register. It takes no more people to collect a 30% tax than it does to collect 4%. As for road use, you can pay it when you renew your license plates.

        • #2978751

          just doesn’t make sense

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]Too many people don’t!

          They think they should get simply because they want, and if they can’t afford it, they should get anyway, and someone else should be forced to pay for it.[/i]

          Considering the majority of Americans work for a living in this country (have some sort of pay for employment income according to the Bureau of Labor statistics), I’d say that most people in our country [b]do[/b] work for what they have.

          So, most Americans are working…and, you’d probably find that the majority of welfare people don’t sit on their ass and beg and slouch like you have proposed.

          [i]What about them? It has nothing to do with how we’re taxed.[/i]

          It had nothing to do with taxes. It had to do with the point that you brought up about giving lowest income people a total break on tax for being below “poverty line” so that they could get “necessities” to live.

          And then in previous statements, you turn 180 and say everyone should pay the same flat amount and that it’s not the responsibility of others to pay for the poor because it’s not their fault.

          Two different policies there.

          [b]Do we do so now?[/b]

          Yeah, and we do a piss poor job of it. I know first hand.

          My sister was one of those parents who’d buy cigarettes and beer for her and her part-time drunk/part-time druggie husband. Me and my parents paid for lunches, clothes, dance lessons, cheerleading, field trips, etc., for my niece. I was more of a father to my niece than anyone has ever been.

          My sister took assistance for a while when my niece was very young. What money she did have, she bought cigarettes then sponged off Mom and Dad and rarely did anything with and for my niece. IMHO, the government should have taken her away from my sister and given her to my parents or myself.

          It’s a wonder my niece still loves her mother.

          [i]People would help me if they could, because I have helped them. If they can’t, oh well, I’ll just die then. No biggie… thousands do it every day. I’ll not IMPOSE myself on another though.[/i]

          Well there ya go. Anyone who needs a hand up to get out of a situation they couldn’t avoid is imposing themselves.

          Guess CA will have a lot of imposers with all the layoffs coming down the line with Yahoo and other companies getting ready to reduce their ranks.

          Are you hoping they all die so they don’t impose themselves on you?

          [i]What are you talking about? The entire IRS could be eliminated. You pay your tax at the cash register. It takes no more people to collect a 30% tax than it does to collect 4%. As for road use, you can pay it when you renew your license plates.[/i]

          Actually, replacing income tax with national sales tax would only make the bureaucracy worse. The IRS only has to check, at most, quarterly returns for business.

          Can you imagine having to check, when running an audit, the daily receipt roll for every register of a business such as Wal-Mart location?

          Payroll is the responsibility of the employer to summarize, as well as a sales tax would increase the amount of detailed, reportable data by probably 50 fold.

          If you make a flat percentage income tax with no loopholes and extremely limited deductions, it would simplify the process more than anything and the IRS would practically become an employer of maybe 100 people at most.

          Oh yeah…and, there’d be a lot less tax attorneys and accountants.

        • #2978628

          Not quite

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]So, most Americans are working…and, you’d probably find that the majority of welfare people don’t sit on their ass and beg and slouch like you have proposed.[/i]

          I wasn’t even talking about welfare, I was talking about people wanting more than they could afford and thinking someone else should get it for them.

          [i]It had nothing to do with taxes. It had to do with the point that you brought up about giving lowest income people a total break on tax for being below “poverty line” so that they could get “necessities” to live.

          And then in previous statements, you turn 180 and say everyone should pay the same flat amount and that it’s not the responsibility of others to pay for the poor because it’s not their fault.

          Two different policies there.[/i]

          Just a little clarification… Everybody would get that tax break on THAT portion. It would not be fair to tax one person for necessities and not another. So, everybody pays the same for poverty level spending (zero!) and everybody who spends more than that has a choice of whether and how much to spend… and thus whether and how much taxes they pay. It’s not like income tax, which is forced out of you, this is completely voluntary.

          [i]Yeah, and we do a piss poor job of it. I know first hand.
          [/i]

          Me too, unfortunately…. in my case (my ex-wife’s niece actually), the social services have NOT been doing her right, nor her kids… We’ve been fighting the system for the better part of six years now…

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=201127&messageID=2096147

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-12844-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=239397&messageID=2330860

          [i]Well there ya go. Anyone who needs a hand up to get out of a situation they couldn’t avoid is imposing themselves.[/i]

          Asking for help is not imposing… Holding a gun to someone’s head in order to obtain it, however, is!

          [i]Actually, replacing income tax with national sales tax would only make the bureaucracy worse. The IRS only has to check, at most, quarterly returns for business.[/i]

          Oops, did you forget the 80 million plus individual returns?

          [i]Can you imagine having to check, when running an audit, the daily receipt roll for every register of a business such as Wal-Mart location?[/i]

          How do they do audits on sales tax receipts now? Only the amount would be different!

          [i]Payroll is the responsibility of the employer to summarize, as well as a sales tax would increase the amount of detailed, reportable data by probably 50 fold.[/i]

          That’s the other part of it. No payroll tax, no corporate tax, thus no paying someone to figure out deductions and loopholes, thus lower consumer prices.

          [i]Oh yeah…and, there’d be a lot less tax attorneys and accountants[/i]

          Yes, and??? 🙂

        • #2980050

          just some points… to clarify why

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          why i see my ideology as more sound….

          [b][i] So, most Americans are working…and, you’d probably find that the majority of welfare people don’t sit on their ass and beg and slouch like you have proposed.[/i]

          I wasn’t even talking about welfare, I was talking about people wanting more than they could afford and thinking someone else should get it for them.[/b]

          Well, there’s one easy way to stop banks from giving people more than they can afford: regulate it properly.

          Look at what banks did once the current administration reduced funding and the ranks at the departments that oversaw those functions: banks went wild stretching their loaning to the umpteen limit of the law they could…and essentially…wrecked the financial standing of our country.

          We don’t have to have government [b]operate[/b] business, but to [b]oversee[/b] it. It is, after all, the basic premise of our government to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people”, correct?

          [b][i] It had nothing to do with taxes. It had to do with the point that you brought up about giving lowest income people a total break on tax for being below “poverty line” so that they could get “necessities” to live.

          And then in previous statements, you turn 180 and say everyone should pay the same flat amount and that it’s not the responsibility of others to pay for the poor because it’s not their fault.

          Two different policies there.[/i]

          Just a little clarification… Everybody would get that tax break on THAT portion. It would not be fair to tax one person for necessities and not another. So, everybody pays the same for poverty level spending (zero!) and everybody who spends more than that has a choice of whether and how much to spend… and thus whether and how much taxes they pay. It’s not like income tax, which is forced out of you, this is completely voluntary.[/b]

          Exactly my point. On one hand, you advocated only doing a flat amount of tax for EVERYONE. Then, you turn around and add the loophole for the impoverished. Yet in your own statements, you say it is the responsibility of the poor to work their way out and not for anyone else to “have the gun held to” them to provide for the anyone.

          Giving the poor a full exemption (because they are at or below poverty line, and no one else) essentially forces government to shift the money that they don’t pay onto others.

          So, your loophole now does what you say you don’t advocate.

          [b][i] Yeah, and we do a piss poor job of it. I know first hand.[/i]

          Me too, unfortunately…. in my case (my ex-wife’s niece actually), the social services have NOT been doing her right, nor her kids… We’ve been fighting the system for the better part of six years now…

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=201127&messageID=2096147

          http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-12844-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=239397&messageID=2330860

          [/b]

          That blows.

          [b][i] Well there ya go. Anyone who needs a hand up to get out of a situation they couldn’t avoid is imposing themselves.[/i]

          Asking for help is not imposing… Holding a gun to someone’s head in order to obtain it, however, is![/b]

          No one holds any gun to your head. If you really were so against it, you could move somewhere to a country with a more likeable tax structure for you…like Singapore.

          [b][i] Actually, replacing income tax with national sales tax would only make the bureaucracy worse. The IRS only has to check, at most, quarterly returns for business.[/i]

          Oops, did you forget the 80 million plus individual returns?[/b]

          Nope. I didn’t.

          And it’s more like 100M out of 144M employed who are required to file.

          BTW..what is worse:

          Changing the tax code to the way I propose, making a flat (say for ease) 10% income tax. All you do is shift the decimal 1 place to the left for the tax required. Then, you have no loopholes. You maintain 2 deductions: First time you buy a home, your closing and moving costs are deductible. Then, an exemption for anyone who has out-of-pocket medical care costs that total more than 15% of their net income then they are required to pay no tax.

          You no longer give deductions for how many kids you can pop out. That eliminates the benefit to welfare people to keep poppin out babies.

          You no longer give deductions for making a home office/business. Government can’t be in business, then government doesn’t give you back money for making business purchases.

          OK…now:

          1 page tax form

          6 lines-
          Line 1 Total earned income
          Line 2 Estimated tax paid during year (line 1 divided by 10)
          Line 3 Did you have over medical expenses over 15 percent of net income ((line 1 – line 2) * .15)? If yes, then = Line 1
          Line 4 What are your first time home purchase expenses?
          Line 5 Total taxes due = (lesser of ((Line 1 – line 3)*.10) or ((Line 1 – Line 4)*.10)) – Line 2
          Line 6 Tax to be paid/refunded: If line 5 is positive, you owe. If line 5 is negative, you are refunded.

          Any high school kid could work at the IRS and check that kinda form. Anyone with a basic education can do that tax form. You could process 40 an hour or maybe even more.

          Now, imagine all 31M+ LLCs, partnerships, corps, sub-s corps and sole proprietorships that existed in the USA in 2007…who file receipts for taxation. In an audit, you would have to go through all of their receipts. Not just daily summaries, but transactional sometimes.

          Now which is most probable to get thicker more involved?

          Auditing 10,000s of retail outlet’s receipt records for compliance on taxes to prevent sales tax fraud?

          Or auditing someone’s paycheck stub(s)/W2s vs a 6 line tax submission?

          I ask you to think about that.

          [b][i] Can you imagine having to check, when running an audit, the daily receipt roll for every register of a business such as Wal-Mart location?[/i]

          How do they do audits on sales tax receipts now? Only the amount would be different![/b]

          Here’s the difference:

          When you submit your personal tax return, you submit amounts that must match what your employer(s) report as well.

          A business can, when reporting sales taxes, “cook the books” because they report both what they are paying in quarterly and annual.

          If the IRS has to check a business for tax fraud, then they have to go back, get inventory records, purchasing records, and sales records, determine each days sales, etc etc. It becomes a much bigger mess, because the IRS has to do all the work.

          In the case of a personal income audit, the IRS can go back to the employer and see if the records were misreported or falsified by the submitter.

          Now see why sales tax would be more complex?

          [b][i] Payroll is the responsibility of the employer to summarize, as well as a sales tax would increase the amount of detailed, reportable data by probably 50 fold.[/i]

          That’s the other part of it. No payroll tax, no corporate tax, thus no paying someone to figure out deductions and loopholes, thus lower consumer prices.[/b]

          I’ve always said…flat percent income tax…no loopholes…extremely limited deductions/exemptions. I outlined my concept above for clarification.

          [b][i] Oh yeah…and, there’d be a lot less tax attorneys and accountants[/i]

          Yes, and??? 🙂 [/b]

          It’d be more people holding guns to your head! Get ya some kevlar!!! :^0

        • #2980004

          Then perhaps

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]Well, there’s one easy way to stop banks from giving people more than they can afford: regulate it properly.[/i]

          the government shouldn’t have [b]ordered[/b] banks to loan money to people who couldn’t afford payments.

          [i]Then, you turn around and add the loophole for the impoverished.[/i]

          It’s not a loophole if EVERYBODY gets it. Even Warren Buffet would not pay tax on poverty level consumption.

          [i]No one holds any gun to your head.[/i]

          It was figurative… I know people who have had all of their assets seized and are now in prison for not ‘donating’.

          [i] If you really were so against it, you could move somewhere to a country with a more likeable tax structure for you…like Singapore.[/i]

          And those who invented this crap could have moved somewhere else as well. But they didn’t… they changed this country from a place of liberty to a place of slavery. A consumption tax would change that from being forced to a voluntary system.

          [i]1 page tax form[/i]

          as opposed to NO tax form?

          [i]A business can, when reporting sales taxes, “cook the books” because they report both what they are paying in quarterly and annual.[/i]

          They can do that now, and there’s already a mechanism in place to investigate… as I said, only the numbers are different.

          [i]If the IRS has to check a business for tax fraud[/i]

          Nope. The IRS no longer exists. The STATE collects the money the same way they currently do (though there are a few states who don’t have a sales tax… they would have to create a collection mechanism), keeps their cut (and possibly the city’s cut if applicable), and gives the fed their cut (there’s already a mechanism in place for that too).

          The other part of this is that because businesses will no longer be paying taxes, they can reduce their prices (by an average of 22%). This will be almost exactly offset by the 30% sales tax, but since the consumer would no longer be paying income tax, he’ll be that much ahead, and everyone would be tax exempt from the first $xx,xxx of spending. This will spur buying, spur employment, and make our products more competitive on foreign markets. (and since the government buys stuff… lots of it, and since businesses include their tax in the cost of the stuff they sell to the government, the government will save money too!) With higher employment fewer social services would be needed, and that savings could go toward retiring the country’s debt.

          In addition I think that the lion’s share of the tax money should stay in the state, and most programs should be funded at the state level… Because of the multiple levels of bureaucracy both in the collection and in the disbursement of tax money, it currently costs almost $400 to provide a needy family with $100 worth of groceries. We CAN do better.

        • #2979992

          still not getting the idea

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [b][i]Well, there’s one easy way to stop banks from giving people more than they can afford: regulate it properly.[/i]

          the government shouldn’t have ordered banks to loan money to people who couldn’t afford payments.[/b]

          the government never [b]ordered[/b]. they set guidelines. the fair housing acts were made to be guidelines for income requirements along with down payment amounts, etnicity, etc.

          banks went to the nth degree in loaning all that money. you didn’t see federal regulators and prosecutors in banks ordering branch managers to approve loans.

          it was the finance industry’s greed and using every legal means to loan money to people [b]THEY[/b] knew were unable to pay that caused all this. not a federal mandate.

          [b][i]Then, you turn around and add the loophole for the impoverished.[/i]

          It’s not a loophole if EVERYBODY gets it. Even Warren Buffet would not pay tax on poverty level consumption.[/b]

          hmm…everyone gets it…but, only the really poor get absolution from the responsibility.

          [b][i]No one holds any gun to your head.[/i]

          It was figurative… I know people who have had all of their assets seized and are now in prison for not ‘donating’.[/b]

          LMAO…yeah…and, i know guys who were put in prison for “protecting the family interest” too.

          What’s your point? Law was broke. Punishment carried out. Wah!

          [b][i]If you really were so against it, you could move somewhere to a country with a more likeable tax structure for you…like Singapore.[/i]

          And those who invented this crap could have moved somewhere else as well. But they didn’t… they changed this country from a place of liberty to a place of slavery. A consumption tax would change that from being forced to a voluntary system.[/b]

          Slavery? Yeah right. I don’t see anyone standing over you with a shovel handle or whip. You get paid good money. You don’t live in a shack. No one rapes your wife at night.

          You’re no slave in any sense.

          Seems to me, you’re spoiled is all, and think that your buck earned should be more valuable than other peoples’ and you should get to keep it.

          [b][i]1 page tax form[/i]

          as opposed to NO tax form?[/b]

          If you made all tax sales based, there would be a LOT more tax forms. Think about it…

          “Please summarize amounts expended for purchases into these categories…”

          vs my 6 line, one page form.

          government would find ways to make your new sales tax idea so skewed it wouldn’t even be funny.

          [b][i]A business can, when reporting sales taxes, “cook the books” because they report both what they are paying in quarterly and annual.[/i]

          They can do that now, and there’s already a mechanism in place to investigate… as I said, only the numbers are different.[/b]

          if you make the sales tax the only thing…it [b]will[/b] get more complex and the IRS (or whatever agency they create to handle the mass changes to sales tax) will expand massively.

          [b][i]If the IRS has to check a business for tax fraud[/i]

          Nope. The IRS no longer exists. The STATE collects the money the same way they currently do (though there are a few states who don’t have a sales tax… they would have to create a collection mechanism), keeps their cut (and possibly the city’s cut if applicable), and gives the fed their cut (there’s already a mechanism in place for that too).

          The other part of this is that because businesses will no longer be paying taxes, they can reduce their prices (by an average of 22%). This will be almost exactly offset by the 30% sales tax, but since the consumer would no longer be paying income tax, he’ll be that much ahead, and everyone would be tax exempt from the first $xx,xxx of spending. This will spur buying, spur employment, and make our products more competitive on foreign markets. (and since the government buys stuff… lots of it, and since businesses include their tax in the cost of the stuff they sell to the government, the government will save money too!) With higher employment fewer social services would be needed, and that savings could go toward retiring the country’s debt.

          In addition I think that the lion’s share of the tax money should stay in the state, and most programs should be funded at the state level… Because of the multiple levels of bureaucracy both in the collection and in the disbursement of tax money, it currently costs almost $400 to provide a needy family with $100 worth of groceries. We CAN do better.[/b]

          And again as I said above. It will get more complex. The feds will be pushing more responsibility on states…taxes go up…more bureaucracy…

          getting the picture yet?

          Oh btw…exempting people from the first $x,xxx of purchases…doesn’t ensure they get “necessities”. it just ensures you’re giving the poor a free ride, which is a principle you espouse to hate.

          As for providing for the needy…

          I thought it was their job to get themselves out of the hole?

          Work harder, starving single mother of 3 with 2 jobs!!! :^0

          I just don’t see the sales tax thing working. Plus, your supposition of giving the states the right to control sales tax proceed distribution…is like saying…

          “even tho the current President of the company does a half decent job, we’re gonna hand it off to 50 VPs who we have no idea how well they’ll do.”

          Plus…you just increased bureaucracy…all states have to create their own departments to do what the Feds do now with project funding decisions.

          wtg…grow that monster

          Plus, you just pointed out why your plan will never be put in place.

          The federal government can not mandate that a state establish law or agency within their jurisdiction of law and function. States’ Rights.

          OOPS! 😉

        • #2979885

          Apparently…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]you didn’t see federal regulators and prosecutors in banks ordering branch managers to approve loans.[/i]

          … you haven’t been paying attention to the news.

          [u][/i]Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat ?red-lining,? a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. ?No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,? warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. ?For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.?

          The Clinton-Reno threat of ?vigorous enforcement? pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. ?Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn?t have been getting mortgage loans.? [/i][/u]”

          http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=36048

          [i]hmm…everyone gets it…but, only the really poor get absolution from the responsibility.[/i]

          Anybody can choose to not spend above poverty level, and thus avoid the “responsibility”. Of course, if you do that, your money is going to be in a bank for others to use, so it will help the economy anyway.

          [i]If you made all tax sales based, there would be a LOT more tax forms. Think about it…

          “Please summarize amounts expended for purchases into these categories…”[/i]

          What? There would be no such thing!!! When you buy a new item costing $1.00, you will be charged $1.30 at the register. End of story. The only information the government needs is the makeup of your household, in order to prebate the tax on poverty-level spending.

          [i]whatever agency they create to handle the mass changes to sales tax)[/i]

          They will use the same agency, with the same number of employees, that they use now. The only difference is they will be collecting three dimes instead of four (or five or six or whatever) pennies. Do you really think it takes more people to count to 30 than it does to count to 4?

          [i]Oh btw…exempting people from the first $x,xxx of purchases…doesn’t ensure they get “necessities”.[/i]

          If they don’t, they’ll soon be dead… unless, of course, you mistrust the government to come to the right value for xx,xxx.

          [i]As for providing for the needy…

          I thought it was their job to get themselves out of the hole?

          Work harder, starving single mother of 3 with 2 jobs!!![/i]

          I would rather reduce the need than increase support. More money in your pocket equals more buying stuff, which means more people hired to make stuff which means fewer people in need.

          [i]”even tho the current President of the company does a half decent job, we’re gonna hand it off to 50 VPs who we have no idea how well they’ll do.”[/i]

          They did it just fine until 1913! And it’s actually state legislatures… Who, by the way, are constitutionally required to [b]balance[/b] their state budgets 🙂

          [i]Plus…you just increased bureaucracy…all states have to create their own departments to do what the Feds do now with project funding decisions.[/i]

          Uh… the states [b]already have[/b] these departments… to decide what to do with all that “federal money” they’re getting! All I’m doing is cutting out some of the middlemen!

          [i]Plus, you just pointed out why your plan will never be put in place.

          The federal government can not mandate that a state establish law or agency within their jurisdiction of law and function. States’ Rights.[/i]

          That’s not why… The real reason is that it will take the control away from the lobbyists and politicians and put it directly in the hands of the people, who will be able to really vote… with their wallets!

        • #2980851

          yep…

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [b][i]you didn’t see federal regulators and prosecutors in banks ordering branch managers to approve loans.[/i]

          … you haven’t been paying attention to the news.

          Under the Clinton administration, federal regulators began using the act to combat ?red-lining,? a practice by which banks loaned money to some communities but not to others, based on economic status. ?No loan is exempt, no bank is immune,? warned then-Attorney General Janet Reno. ?For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement.?

          The Clinton-Reno threat of ?vigorous enforcement? pushed banks to make the now infamous loans that many blame for the current meltdown, Richman said. ?Banks, in order to not get in trouble with the regulators, had to make loans to people who shouldn?t have been getting mortgage loans.? ”

          http://www.cnsnews.com/public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=36048
          [/b]

          ROFLMAO. Dude. Get real. You think their enforcement of pushing banks to lend money to places like families in Compton and other minority neighborhoods over a decade ago caused what the banks did in the past 5 years?

          It was the disestablishment of parts of the process and responsible departments by the current presidential administration that allowed banks not only to free-wheel, but to lend money to the nth degree of the edge of what was legal under the regulations.

          And in some cases, mortgage lenders even broke the law in falsifying the amount of income put on applications to get them approved. Are you going to blame the government for that too?

          [b][i]hmm…everyone gets it…but, only the really poor get absolution from the responsibility.[/i]

          Anybody can choose to not spend above poverty level, and thus avoid the “responsibility”. Of course, if you do that, your money is going to be in a bank for others to use, so it will help the economy anyway.[/b]

          Really?

          I dare you to only spend the apportioned amount of your income for that which is poverty level for one year then. I want to see if you can make your house payment, car payment, whatever you have.

          It’s not a choice. You made the obligation. Prove it to me now that it’s your choice whether to spend only poverty level available funds.

          Anyone can do it. Right?

          [b][i]If you made all tax sales based, there would be a LOT more tax forms. Think about it…

          “Please summarize amounts expended for purchases into these categories…”[/i]

          What? There would be no such thing!!! When you buy a new item costing $1.00, you will be charged $1.30 at the register. End of story. The only information the government needs is the makeup of your household, in order to prebate the tax on poverty-level spending.[/b]

          Maybe in your dreamland it’d work that way. But, let’s see. What does your sales tax at a PERCENTAGE do?

          Whenever cost of product goes up, so does the expenditure of sales tax by the consumer, thusly putting your American constituent’s livelihood at: the mercy of the free market, capitalistic economy.

          So when that box of Toasty-Os generic cereal in the cash saver supermarket goes up 20%…the cost of your poor person’s cereal goes up 26%.

          I guess feeding your family is something that should be based on a corp’s need for more cash…rather than what they spend being planned year to year based on pay?

          Way to go. You must be a Bush supporter. He just got done doing 3 years of letting the oil companies screw us.

          [b][i]whatever agency they create to handle the mass changes to sales tax)[/i]

          They will use the same agency, with the same number of employees, that they use now. The only difference is they will be collecting three dimes instead of four (or five or six or whatever) pennies. Do you really think it takes more people to count to 30 than it does to count to 4?[/b]

          I know that if you reformed income tax as I have suggested, versus creating a whole new barrage of fights for an added sales tax…you will create a new bureaucracy totally to manage that, while still having to maintain the IRS (or what’s left of it) that will handle income taxes through the end of their cycle.

          Plus, the IRS would probably take control of the income tax stuff…since…they aren’t the Income Tax Collector Service, but the Internal Revenue Service…meaning they’d account for all taxes.

          I still say it’d take more processors and auditors to do your sales tax and the reform that would come with it, rather than simplifying income tax code as I have presented.

          Maybe I’ll find a think tank that will go about comparing needs, etc., required by such changes on both our parts. They might find it interesting enough to do as a project of interest rather than pay-to-research service.

          [b][i]Oh btw…exempting people from the first $x,xxx of purchases…doesn’t ensure they get “necessities”.[/i]

          If they don’t, they’ll soon be dead… unless, of course, you mistrust the government to come to the right value for xx,xxx.[/b]

          To be honest, the government can’t. Even their estimations of cost-of-living are off. My father working in NJ proved that, as he had to live in squallor conditions because rent on a slum apartment with a public bathroom/showers was almost $1000 a month over 15 years ago.

          So no, I don’t trust them.

          [b][i]As for providing for the needy…

          I thought it was their job to get themselves out of the hole?

          Work harder, starving single mother of 3 with 2 jobs!!![/i]

          I would rather reduce the need than increase support. More money in your pocket equals more buying stuff, which means more people hired to make stuff which means fewer people in need.[/b]

          BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

          More money in my pocket = more expense under your sales tax.

          And, you’re essentially just shifting the entry point of where it goes in the government.

          [b][i]”even tho the current President of the company does a half decent job, we’re gonna hand it off to 50 VPs who we have no idea how well they’ll do.”[/i]

          They did it just fine until 1913! And it’s actually state legislatures… Who, by the way, are constitutionally required to balance their state budgets :)[/b]

          Actually, not all states are.

          [i][u]What is meant by a balanced budget is not as certain as it may seem intuitively. Even the number of states that must balance their budgets can be disputed, depending on the way the requirement is defined. Although the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) traditionally says that 49 states must balance their budgets, it would be more precise to say that 49 states have at least a limited statutory or constitutional requirement of a balanced budget.[/u][/i]

          -National Conference of State Legislatures

          http://www.ncsl.org/programs/fiscal/balbuda.htm

          [b][i]Plus…you just increased bureaucracy…all states have to create their own departments to do what the Feds do now with project funding decisions.[/i]

          Uh… the states already have these departments… to decide what to do with all that “federal money” they’re getting! All I’m doing is cutting out some of the middlemen![/b]

          Er…yeah…and states will STILL have an income tax…cause…guess what!!!

          THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN NOT STOP A STATE FROM COLLECTING INCOME TAXES AT THE STATE LEVEL.

          You think all states are gonna stop taking income tax because the federal government takes more sales tax.

          You are really reaching. States will be greedy til they can’t be. Always have been, always will.

          Hence, you’re gonna grow the bureaucracy and expenditures at the state level, and essentially increase state taxes on everyone.

          Nice job, Mr. President.

          [b][i]Plus, you just pointed out why your plan will never be put in place.

          The federal government can not mandate that a state establish law or agency within their jurisdiction of law and function. States’ Rights.[/i]

          That’s not why… The real reason is that it will take the control away from the lobbyists and politicians and put it directly in the hands of the people, who will be able to really vote… with their wallets![/b]

          You think lobbyists don’t exist at the state level?

          Go to Austin TX and watch the oil lobbyists that are in there every day.

          They’re also in the state capital in Oklahoma City too. I know. 3 Governors have been personal friends of my parents, and I’ve been friends with 1 of them myself.

          Really. Just because you like a tax doesn’t mean it’s the best for the system, or it would get implemented how you want.

          Have a good weekend. I’m going to get drunk now. Happy New year.

        • #2980840

          There was more than one cause

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]You think their enforcement of pushing banks to lend money to places like families in Compton and other minority neighborhoods over a decade ago caused what the banks did in the past 5 years?[/i]

          But it wasn’t mine, nor yours. The government partly made them the way they are, so I don’t trust them to fix it, and the banks themselves were partly to blame. Giving them our money is only going to reward them for their bad behaviors… which is why I was opposed to any bailouts.

          [i] I want to see if you can make your house payment, car payment, whatever you have.[/i]

          My “house payment, car payment, whatever you have” wouldn’t exist if I didn’t have the money to pay for them.

          [i]It’s not a choice. You made the obligation. Prove it to me now that it’s your choice whether to spend only poverty level available funds. [/i]

          I did nearly that for almost 20 years to save up to buy my home. I lived on about a third of my income, which wasn’t much over poverty level (still isn’t for that matter), and banked the rest until the time was right. It wasn’t the best… we had a four room apartment and a 10 year old car.. but we didn’t “need” for anything.

          [i]And, you’re essentially just shifting the entry point of where it goes in the government.[/i]

          Shifting them BACK, dude. Businesses have been doing it for DECADES (getting YOU to pay THEIR taxes).

          [i]You think all states are gonna stop taking income tax because the federal government takes more sales tax.[/i]

          I think they will do what they think will work best for their state.

          [i]You think lobbyists don’t exist at the state level?[/i]

          Yes, but they don’t make Ohioans pay to put new libraries in California. State government is easier to make accountable.

          [i] Happy New year. [/i]

          Peace and prosperity to you and yours… Stay safe.

        • #2979656

          causes

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [b][i]You think their enforcement of pushing banks to lend money to places like families in Compton and other minority neighborhoods over a decade ago caused what the banks did in the past 5 years?[/i]

          But it wasn’t mine, nor yours. The government partly made them the way they are, so I don’t trust them to fix it, and the banks themselves were partly to blame. Giving them our money is only going to reward them for their bad behaviors… which is why I was opposed to any bailouts.[/b]

          I will try to put this another way.

          Sure, the system was ripe and ready to be taken advantage of by anyone. Absolutely true. It was flawed. It always is. Humanity is flawed, so to expect otherwise is ascinine.

          However, blaming government for establishing a policy and building the framework around it to support it, only 4-6 years later for that framework which oversees it to be minimalized is not the responsibility of “government” per se.

          It is the responsibility of those who had poor vision and judgement to not realize what their actions would do within a system, and their stupidity for taking those actions without further review of possible effect or later review to determine if it had positive effects.

          I can’t blame congress, the supreme court, or even the Bush administration for what the banks did. The banks took advantage of a situation. However, the Bush administration (and the then Republican led houses of Congress) did reduce staffing and organizations (by order or pushing adjusted budgets to compensate for Iraq/Afghanistan operations funding) which led to a system not working as it should.

          The best way I can put it like this:

          When someone commits a murder, who do you blame?

          The man who made the gun
          The man who sold the gun
          The man who pulled the trigger

          I can’t blame anyone in government for the banks/lenders actions, but I can blame those who are responsible for contributing to the ability for such follies and mishaps to occur.

          Of course, the shuttle program is another prime example. Cut the budget at NASA because it’s “not necessary” spending. Then when astronauts die, they get their money back for 5-8 years.

          [b][i]I want to see if you can make your house payment, car payment, whatever you have.[/i]

          My “house payment, car payment, whatever you have” wouldn’t exist if I didn’t have the money to pay for them.[/b]

          And, you might come to a time when you can’t pay for them…right? I’ve been there. I saved for 6 years. Was building a nice retirement. 2001..tech crash…got laid off. In 5 months (between decline in account values, having to cash in and pay penalties, and no jobs around cause of 9/11), I basically spent almost all that money. $10,000s. It sucks. Hope you’re never pushed to the curb in that environment so that your director and project manager can keep their jobs.

          [b][i]It’s not a choice. You made the obligation. Prove it to me now that it’s your choice whether to spend only poverty level available funds.[/i]

          I did nearly that for almost 20 years to save up to buy my home. I lived on about a third of my income, which wasn’t much over poverty level (still isn’t for that matter), and banked the rest until the time was right. It wasn’t the best… we had a four room apartment and a 10 year old car.. but we didn’t “need” for anything.[/b]

          you’re a rareity then.

          btw, my house is 25 years old and my car is 10 years old.

          [b][i]And, you’re essentially just shifting the entry point of where it goes in the government.[/i]

          Shifting them BACK, dude. Businesses have been doing it for DECADES (getting YOU to pay THEIR taxes).[/b]

          Yeah, in certain cases.

          Of course if you make business handle all the taxing and processing…guess what that causes when they have to hire more people?

          You guessed it. They’ll make a buck off of it by raising prices.

          That means, your consumers get less for their money cause of more…bureaucracy…or is that the right term for use in private enterprise too?

          [b][i]You think all states are gonna stop taking income tax because the federal government takes more sales tax.[/i]

          I think they will do what they think will work best for their state.[/b]

          Remember the drinking age law thing? The feds passed legislation to coerce states like Wyoming to complying with their wants by withholding federal roads money.

          That’s what they’ll do with taxes too, under your ideology. Guaranteed. States doing what is “best” for them means…taking in all that extra money for as long as they can. Which means, money isn’t back in the hands of people…but in GOVERNMENT.

          [b][i]You think lobbyists don’t exist at the state level?[/i]

          Yes, but they don’t make Ohioans pay to put new libraries in California. State government is easier to make accountable.[/b]

          Trust me. CA and NY and TX tax money has been paying for things in OH more than vice versa. Are you ready for $hittier roads and services in your state, cause you want to close up the system and make each state its own little duchy?

          [b][i]Happy New year.[/i]

          Peace and prosperity to you and yours… Stay safe.[/b]

          Thanks. Was a crappy NYE. Hope the weekend is better…for everyone.

          Going home early. I’m not feeling well.

          Take care.

        • #2979608

          No business has ever paid taxes.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]”Shifting them BACK, dude. Businesses have been doing it for DECADES (getting YOU to pay THEIR taxes).”

          Yeah, in certain cases.[/i]

          It’s a business expense, like utilities… it gets passed on to the consumer.

          [i]Of course if you make business handle all the taxing and processing…guess what that causes when they have to hire more people?[/i]

          The only businesses who would be collecting are RETAIL, and they already do. Business to business sales would be exempt (as they are now in every state I know of). Remember, we’re only taxing consumption.

          [i]You guessed it. They’ll make a buck off of it by raising prices.[/i]

          They could be doing it now…. How do you know that they are accurately reflecting their tax in their product cost? Because if they don’t, they’ll be taking a chance that their competitor will under-cut them… and if you’re thinking price-fixing… there are already laws to address that.

          [i]Remember the drinking age law thing? The feds passed legislation to coerce states like Wyoming to complying with their wants by withholding federal roads money.[/i]

          Yep. They did the same thing in the 70s to make 55 the national speed limit.

          [i]That’s what they’ll do with taxes too, under your ideology. Guaranteed. States doing what is “best” for them means…taking in all that extra money for as long as they can. Which means, money isn’t back in the hands of people…but in GOVERNMENT.[/i]

          That happens regardless of the method of taxation.

          [i]Trust me. CA and NY and TX tax money has been paying for things in OH more than vice versa. Are you ready for $hittier roads and services in your state, cause you want to close up the system and make each state its own little duchy?[/i]

          Not what I meant… there are no lobbyists in Ohio lobbying Ohio lawmakers to increase funding for California libraries, or vice-versa. And yes, Ohioans should absolutely pay for Ohio roads, and Californians should pay for California roads.

        • #2979561

          jck and TtT – and on it goes

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          I’ve resisted chiming in. The best jck and I could possibly hope for is to agreeably agree to disagree. But that’s actually part of the problem – we can’t. When it comes to the amount of government control over personal lives, it’s not really possible to simply agree to disagree – because one’s preference is actually forced upon another. jck wants to force his view of big government on me; and I want to force my notion of taking greater personal responsibility on people like jck (or those for whom he presumes to speak).

          Reaching into one’s own pocket to be charitable towards those one deems needy is indeed a noble thing to do. But reaching into another person’s pocket to do it is another matter entirely. And there’s absolutely nothing noble about it. Moreover, one might define [i]needy[/i] differently. Not only that, but there’s something about being an enabler that’s quite distasteful to me. America has become the land of enablers, dependents, and co-dependents. Gone are the days of individualism and taking personal responsibility.

          Consider this. There’s no way in hell that the likes of James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, et al could ever get elected today. And that’s a very sad commentary. The way they define(d) the role of government is the exact opposite of the government we have today. To many people buy and sell votes with the fruits of another’s labor as the payoff. To see government today, Jefferson would call for a revolution, Madison would write the proclamation, and Washington would volunteer to lead the charge.

          The size, scope, influence, and control of government in personal (and business) lives of Americans SHOULD be reduced by at least 50 percent over the next 25-50 years. We need to wean people off their dependency on government, and in some cases, cut them off cold-turkey. Government needs to spend less and tax less. Anyone who disagrees is, in my opinion, contributing to the financial and moral demise of the United States, and would be on the opposite side of the revolutionary battlefield from Jefferson, Madison, Washington – and Edison (Maxwell, that is).

          I’ve read all those back-and-forth disagreements between TtT and jck. The answer is simple. Keep backing up and checking your premise. When you go back far enough to find a premise on which you can both agree, build from there. My premise – read Madison, Jefferson and Washington when it comes to defining the role of government, and build from there.

        • #2989328

          the basic differences

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          Tony:

          You think that business is to be trusted, and that the wealthy will distribute their wealth in a way that will benefit all people.

          Neither is realistic. Business does only what is best for business with its power and money, often in collusion with one another.

          The wealthy only spend what doesn’t diminish their wealth detrimentally and/or increases personal interest (e.g.- getting fame/recognition to bolster self worth).

          To trust either to do right a significant amount of the time is a myopic view of what will happen and/or fix the country.

          If you give the people jobs to work and make money rather than giving that money to the wealthy, low and middle income people are more likely to spend it and put it back into the economy rather than what most wealthy people do which is to bank it somewhere in the Caymans or Switzerland.

          So…what would really be better for the economy: more disposable income for the masses, or giving it to the wealthy and trusting them not to pigeon-hole it?

          Max:

          Your view that shrinking government and giving people more personal control is idealistic, but rather askew.

          It is proven that humans are inherently flawed. We are all imperfect.

          To give individuals or business more freedom to “do as they wish” (both fiscally as well as with liberties) would amount to pandemonium.

          Look at Teddy Roosevelt’s views of releasing capitalism to be more free, and you’ll see a prediction of circumstance which has eerily mirrored what happened now with a) the home market, and b) the car industry. Both are in a mess primarily because the businesses driving them took no measures to be reasonable and conservative with their operations or plans for the future.

          To have trusted car makers to have adjusted their manufacturing to meet future demands was silly. They were out to bleed the SUV market dry. Then when it dried up and they were not ready, they came crying with their hand out.

          IMHO, we should have let them fall. Let Michigan deal with what Florida has dealt with now for 3 years in the housing market and economic market. 100,000s of homes for sale, 10,000s of people losing their jobs and homes and unable to feed themselves (and tons of people leaving the state to go find work).

          Also I would say that your view of decreasing government by 50% is akin to the misnomer down here in Florida with budget cuts being 10% across the board in many counties being the solution.

          In an environment where the market is down, people are losing their jobs and becoming more desperate for money…is it REALLY a good idea to decrease law enforcement staff by 10% because everyone is doing it?

          Simply put, I have always agreed with you that the inefficiencies need to be taken out. Where I feel we differ is that: you think [b]any[/b] inefficiency is bad and should be removed like a gimp limb, whereas i believe that there will always be some nominal inefficiency because humans have to plan, communicate, broker, etc.

          As well, I see that you also presume to align yourself with the forefathers in their plans for America.

          Well, I also know that Jefferson, Madison, and Washington lived in the 18th and 19th century. That was a very different time. You had no gasoline, electricity, telephones, etc., and they didn’t have the issues that we must deal with today.

          Basic principles of government may always hold true, however their implementation and function must differ from those of 200 years ago to compensate for the modern times, society, and public good.

          If I were going to clean up government, I’d do two things off the bat:

          1) Flat percent income tax (as has been explained above), which provides for the continuing function of government and would reduce the IRS by an extraordinary amount (I would guess around 80% of their budget).

          2) Eliminate the welfare system as we know it, and make it “workfare”. Unless you are physically unable to perform any job, you would not have welfare or SSI to provide for you.

          e.g.- If you are in a wheelchair, quadruplegic, and have limited use of your upper body, you can still answer phones and use speech recognition software to take notes or type with apparatus. And anyone who would not work that was able to do something to earn a check…would be cut off cold turkey. Starvation is a great motivator for someone to get off their arse and work. The amount of people you would not have to pay due to lazyarseness in the first 6 months alone would save $100Ms.

          And as for those who would break the law and go to prison? Prison work would be even harder, and have less pay. Make it tougher in prison than in the real world. That would inspire people to stay out of prison, rather than go for the free ride.

          And as well, you always address keeping government out of “personal” lives.

          If you were to argue government needs to stay out of my house and what I watch on TV or listen to on radio… I would totally agree so long that the content is not illegal.

          However, government is established to serve people. Part of that service is to ensure that their rights and liberties are protected…not only from the government itself, but also by those citizens who would do wrongly to them.

          Hence, government must be an “overseer” of all in order to ensure that those who would do wrong are kept from doing wrong to others as much as possible.

          Otherwise, you can look forward to a state of anarchy. And, I simply don’t think that is what Jefferson, Madison, or Washington proposed having for themselves and their posterity.

        • #2989295

          Not exactly, JCK

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]You think that business is to be trusted, and that the wealthy will distribute their wealth in a way that will benefit all people.[/i]

          I think that, regardless of trust, the wealthy will do what’s in their best interest, and if we let them do that, it will benefit all.

          [i]If you give the people jobs to work[/i]

          To what end? Making a product or service that nobody wants? Are you going to force consumers to buy it? And where are these magic jobs supposed to come from? Or are you talking about Obama’s plan to make up 600,000 new government jobs? Doing what? Digging holes and filling them back up? More bean counters and paper pushers? Make-work?

          [i]So…what would really be better for the economy: more disposable income for the masses, or giving it to the wealthy and trusting them not to pigeon-hole it?[/i]

          Wealth is like a human body, it doesn’t grow and thrive unless it is fed and exercised. Most wealthy people KNOW that. I trust that they’re going to do what’s going to grow their wealth, and that is to invest in the thing that will make that happen… opportunity. And that investment will have the side effect of creating opportunities for others. Ride the wave, don’t swim against it.

          [i]Both are in a mess primarily because the businesses driving them took no measures to be reasonable and conservative with their operations or plans for the future.[/i]

          Businesses fail all the time due to mismanagement. Do we bail them ALL out? Why not? Is one failing business’s employees better than another’s? Bush was wrong, Obama was wrong. Every politician who supported these bailouts was wrong. All they’re doing is to let the mis-managers off the hook (You know… those wealthy people whom you don’t trust!).

          I cannot fathom the reason behind your mindset. I was born. I had no say in where. I do not see any moral or ethical theory that should obligate me to anyone else (other than not violating their rights), or even to society.

        • #2989281

          more

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]I think that, regardless of trust, the wealthy will do what’s in their best interest, and if we let them do that, it will benefit all.[/i]

          Please tell me how the hundreds of millions of dollars that the IRS and Treasury Department has traced to off-shore banks that never have never had taxes paid on it does any American any good?

          Do you really think it was the non-wealthy who did that?

          I beg to differ. The wealthy do not do what is good for all. They do what either maintains their way of living that increasingly becomes more opulent, gives them more notariety, or gives them a bigger tax break.

          [i]To what end? Making a product or service that nobody wants? Are you going to force consumers to buy it? And where are these magic jobs supposed to come from? Or are you talking about Obama’s plan to make up 600,000 new government jobs? Doing what? Digging holes and filling them back up? More bean counters and paper pushers? Make-work?[/i]

          McDonalds
          7-11
          Burger King
          cleaning government buildings
          working on road crews

          and yeah…digging holes. there is NOTHING wrong with a person working to EARN what they get.

          And there are a LOT of jobs out there which Americans on the welfare system could be performing instead of hiring illegal aliens.

          [i]Wealth is like a human body, it doesn’t grow and thrive unless it is fed and exercised. Most wealthy people KNOW that. I trust that they’re going to do what’s going to grow their wealth, and that is to invest in the thing that will make that happen… opportunity. And that investment will have the side effect of creating opportunities for others. Ride the wave, don’t swim against it.[/i]

          Indeed. Invest in what will make it grow faster.

          Put their money in Cayman accounts that pay 11% returns or a international money fund in Germany that is giving back 15% now as the dollar’s value has risen against the British Pound, rather than a stock that returns 7% or a CD that pays 2.85%.

          That really helps Americans, doesn’t it?

          [i]Businesses fail all the time due to mismanagement. Do we bail them ALL out? Why not? Is one failing business’s employees better than another’s? Bush was wrong, Obama was wrong. Every politician who supported these bailouts was wrong. All they’re doing is to let the mis-managers off the hook (You know… those wealthy people whom you don’t trust!).[/i]

          I agree. If they were going to bailout those companies, then the first term of conditions should have been: anyone above department manger gets the ax. They will not be allowed to run it into the ground again.

          [i]I cannot fathom the reason behind your mindset. I was born. I had no say in where. I do not see any moral or ethical theory that should obligate me to anyone else (other than not violating their rights), or even to society.[/i]

          My mindset? It’s this:

          You trust business? I don’t. I say business’ function is to EARN their money like a worker does. Hence, it makes sense to me to put the money into the hands of the working public. You don’t give it away. The people earn it doing something… anything… that contributes to the public good and society.

          You trust the wealthy? I don’t. Just like I don’t trust a coke dealer to live down the block from me and not try and commit crimes. People, in general, do what is a) easiest and b) gets them the most. A lot of people who can get away with things do. They don’t do what is best for those around them and their community. It’s the “me first” attitude that became so prevalent with the “me generation”.

          I believe that community will give to those their money who provide them the best service. That fosters competition, innovation, and growth of quality.

          Nothing about giving the wealthy more will inspire that kind of advancement. It simply pads their nest egg more and advances their standard of living.

          As for moral and ethical, you are bound to everyone in this country by your citizenship. You have an obligation to country and home and family and neighbor to be decent and upstanding and work with everyone to make the country a better place. It’s called patriotism. It’s called commmunity. It’s called being an American. Or would you not feed a hungry neighbor? Or help an elderly neighbor with lifting groceries from their car? No moral or ethical ties? I hope I am just misunderstanding you.

          You say you have no tie to anyone?

          Then what makes you want to give to the wealthy and not anyone else to grow more wealth and advancement. Are you saying that no one else besides the wealthy can do that?

          Sounds to me like in your world of ideology, the English crown and their charges would still be running things here and we’d all still be peasant colonists.

          All because the establishment is to be more trusted than the common working man.

          And as well…you indeed had no choice where you were born.

          But as a working adult, you CHOSE to stay here. There are other countries in the world you could have gone to with different models of society and economics.

          You made a choice to stay here. No one forced you.

        • #2986857

          Hundreds of millions?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          a drop in the bucket… less than one hundredth of one percent of the problem. Even the 50 billion that Madoff made off with isn’t a significant factor. Part of the problem is (you touched on it, but just barely) the me generation. They had to have things they couldn’t afford.

          Tough $hit. If they can’t afford their house payment, or their car payment, or ANY outstanding debt at all and the piper comes calling, that’s just too bad! They don’t have the right to go after those of us who were responsible consumers in order to pay for it. They had the highlife till the bottom fell out and now they think they have the right to drain the lives of those who had mediocre to start with so that they can continue to live high on the hog? HELL NO! There’s a mechanism in place… it’s called bankruptcy. Whether your a person or a business. Use it, then start over. If you have any work ethic… any gumption at all, you’ll make it. If not, you don’t deserve to.

          [i]Indeed. Invest in what will make it grow faster.

          Put their money in Cayman accounts that pay 11% returns or a international money fund in Germany that is giving back 15% now as the dollar’s value has risen against the British Pound, rather than a stock that returns 7% or a CD that pays 2.85%.

          That really helps Americans, doesn’t it?[/i]

          You can blame our government for that. You DO know that 44% of what you earn on average goes to various taxes, and that another 22% goes to pay the taxes that businesses embed in the cost of their products, don’t you? Frankly, I’m surprised that thousands of times more money and jobs haven’t left the country…. but this thing is far from over, and it may happen yet…

          [i]My mindset? It’s this:

          You trust business? I don’t. I say business’ function is to EARN their money like a worker does. Hence, it makes sense to me to put the money into the hands of the working public. You don’t give it away. The people earn it doing something… anything… that contributes to the public good and society.[/i]

          Anything??? So the city hires two guys. One digs holes in the park, and the other one goes right behind him and fills them up. Public good? Besides, don’t we have enough morons in government?

          [i]They don’t do what is best for those around them and their community. It’s the “me first” attitude that became so prevalent with the “me generation”.[/i]

          What’s good for me IS good for my family, and my community, so there’s really nothing wrong with “me first” as long as it’s not violating the rights of others.

          [i]there is NOTHING wrong with a person working to EARN what they get.[/i]

          Nothing at all, as long as all parties are agreeable to the arrangement. Do you propose to force companies to hire people that they don’t need? And what, they have to raise the price of their product (or take a little from each of the other employees)? Or maybe they should just be allowed to go to your house whenever they want and wash your car and your dog, then demand payment for their “work”.

          [i]And there are a LOT of jobs out there which Americans on the welfare system could be performing instead of hiring illegal aliens.[/i]

          If they wanted to, they would. Illegal aliens are just a scapegoat for the problems caused by the minimum wage laws. I give them a lot of credit… at least they’re willing to show up and work, and they don’t have the attitude that someone owes them something simply because they exist. This is the government’s fault too…

          [i]I believe that community will give to those their money who provide them the best service.[/i]

          Which will make them… WEALTHY!

          [i]Then what makes you want to give to the wealthy and not anyone else to grow more wealth and advancement. [/i]

          I don’t want to “give” to anyone except friends, neighbors, family (some of them anyway… ) and a couple of charitable causes of MY choosing. I am, however, willing to exchange some of my labor to someone who wants it for some of their money (which they obviously value less than they do my labor or why would they be willing to part with it?). What I do not have the right to do is force my labor on someone who doesn’t want it, or to demand some of their property.

          It’s like this: Suppose I have a goat and you have five chickens. Now let us assume that the going exchange rate is 5 chickens equals one goat. So I want chickens, but you DON’T need or want any goats. Do I have the right to force you to trade your chickens for my goat? Do I have the right to take any of your chickens without giving you anything?

          [i] Are you saying that no one else besides the wealthy can do that?[/i]

          No, the “soon to be” wealthy can also do it (pssst… They’re the ones the wealthy usually invest in).

          [i]And as well…you indeed had no choice where you were born.

          But as a working adult, you CHOSE to stay here. There are other countries in the world you could have gone to with different models of society and economics.[/i]

          None as close to the ideal as this one…

          Besides, I want to stick around… I have a feeling a BIG opportunity for a new business is about to open up… scraping socialist and communist corpses by the millions from the pavement… Who knows… maybe I’ll sell franchises. I’d better think of a name and register it right away.

        • #2986691

          responses

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]Hundreds of millions?
          a drop in the bucket… less than one hundredth of one percent of the problem. Even the 50 billion that Madoff made off with isn’t a significant factor. Part of the problem is (you touched on it, but just barely) the me generation. They had to have things they couldn’t afford.[/i]

          Hm…$50B…drop in the bucket? you have a different sense of opulence than i do. i’ll take that drop in the bucket anyday and pay 35% on it.

          [i] Tough $hit. If they can’t afford their house payment, or their car payment, or ANY outstanding debt at all and the piper comes calling, that’s just too bad! They don’t have the right to go after those of us who were responsible consumers in order to pay for it. They had the highlife till the bottom fell out and now they think they have the right to drain the lives of those who had mediocre to start with so that they can continue to live high on the hog? HELL NO! There’s a mechanism in place… it’s called bankruptcy. Whether your a person or a business. Use it, then start over. If you have any work ethic… any gumption at all, you’ll make it. If not, you don’t deserve to.[/i]

          Screw that. Wagoner and GM and all those others…shouldn’t be allowed to declare bankruptcy. I think they should be forced to sell out/liquidate. It’s obvious that they, as businessmen, failed to properly evaluate and anticipate the market trend for at least 3 years as gas prices rose. They did not significantly align their product offering to include a pertinent amount of gas efficient vehicles that would meet consumer need in a market where gas prices went from $1.60 to $4.00 a gallon in a period from 2004-2008. A 2.5 times per unit increase in 4 years. Good businessmen would see it happening, and move their business model to accommodate that trend. However, they didn’t. So, they just were negligent. Not a victim of a poor market.

          It would be like me running a computer business, and still trying to sell Athlon XP 1.6GHz computers with 2GB of RAM to run Vista on. My product isn’t what consumers need for today’s situation, and now that I can’t sell I want the government to give me $250,000 so I can keep my business running?

          Give me a break. Let them fail.

          [b][i] Indeed. Invest in what will make it grow faster.

          Put their money in Cayman accounts that pay 11% returns or a international money fund in Germany that is giving back 15% now as the dollar’s value has risen against the British Pound, rather than a stock that returns 7% or a CD that pays 2.85%.

          That really helps Americans, doesn’t it?[/i]

          You can blame our government for that. You DO know that 44% of what you earn on average goes to various taxes, and that another 22% goes to pay the taxes that businesses embed in the cost of their products, don’t you? Frankly, I’m surprised that thousands of times more money and jobs haven’t left the country…. but this thing is far from over, and it may happen yet…[/b]

          I bet it’s higher than that. But I’ll go with your numbers.

          [b][i] My mindset? It’s this:

          You trust business? I don’t. I say business’ function is to EARN their money like a worker does. Hence, it makes sense to me to put the money into the hands of the working public. You don’t give it away. The people earn it doing something… anything… that contributes to the public good and society.[/i]

          Anything??? So the city hires two guys. One digs holes in the park, and the other one goes right behind him and fills them up. Public good? Besides, don’t we have enough morons in government?[/b]

          Oh yes, great analogy. That would really contribute to the public good.

          I see you read my statement fully.

          Just remember…the greatest time of development in our country was during/after the great depression when things like the WPA, CCC, etc., were established to build bridges, roads, dams, etc.

          Maybe it’s time we put Americans to work making America better again?

          [b][i] They don’t do what is best for those around them and their community. It’s the “me first” attitude that became so prevalent with the “me generation”.[/i]

          What’s good for me IS good for my family, and my community, so there’s really nothing wrong with “me first” as long as it’s not violating the rights of others.[/b]

          Good for your family? Maybe. Is buying a new car good for your family if your other car isn’t run down and not malfunctioning? Not necessarily.

          Is buying that less fuel-efficient vehicle just because it’s what you wanted…good for your community. Probably not.

          [b][i] there is NOTHING wrong with a person working to EARN what they get.[/i]

          Nothing at all, as long as all parties are agreeable to the arrangement. Do you propose to force companies to hire people that they don’t need? And what, they have to raise the price of their product (or take a little from each of the other employees)? Or maybe they should just be allowed to go to your house whenever they want and wash your car and your dog, then demand payment for their “work”.[/b]

          I don’t propose to force a company to do anything when it comes to labor. Never have.

          But putting money in the hands of corporate America or the wealthy, you are guaranteed they are going to pigeon-hole part of it, rather than sink that back into the economy/regular Americans.

          If the money is put into establishing new jobs:

          1) regular people get paid, pay taxes, spend their money on essentials and other sundry of optional goods and services
          2) that spending makes need for more jobs, because of demand for service and manufacture and movement of goods
          3) companies benefit SO LONG AS they do the best job and earn that money

          [b][i] And there are a LOT of jobs out there which Americans on the welfare system could be performing instead of hiring illegal aliens.[/i]

          If they wanted to, they would. Illegal aliens are just a scapegoat for the problems caused by the minimum wage laws. I give them a lot of credit… at least they’re willing to show up and work, and they don’t have the attitude that someone owes them something simply because they exist. This is the government’s fault too…[/b]

          Oh yeah, they don’t have that attitude.

          That’s why California has been $1Bs in the hole because of:

          a) their roads
          b) their welfare system that is overloaded with illegal aliens claiming benefits. It’s not the aliens fault for taking all that money, right?

          [b][i] I believe that community will give to those their money who provide them the best service.[/i]

          Which will make them… WEALTHY![/b]

          Oh yes. If you are guaranteed wealth. Of course. How silly of me. But, what if they are a small business and not already wealthy???? They can’t get wealthy!!! lmao

          [b][i] Then what makes you want to give to the wealthy and not anyone else to grow more wealth and advancement.[/i]

          I don’t want to “give” to anyone except friends, neighbors, family (some of them anyway… ) and a couple of charitable causes of MY choosing. I am, however, willing to exchange some of my labor to someone who wants it for some of their money (which they obviously value less than they do my labor or why would they be willing to part with it?). What I do not have the right to do is force my labor on someone who doesn’t want it, or to demand some of their property.

          It’s like this: Suppose I have a goat and you have five chickens. Now let us assume that the going exchange rate is 5 chickens equals one goat. So I want chickens, but you DON’T need or want any goats. Do I have the right to force you to trade your chickens for my goat? Do I have the right to take any of your chickens without giving you anything?[/b]

          Nope, but you also don’t have the right to tell me I can’t be wealthy because I’m already not…and because I don’t have a wealthy person to invest in me.

          But, you did that…didn’t you?

          [b][i] Are you saying that no one else besides the wealthy can do that?[/i]

          No, the “soon to be” wealthy can also do it (pssst… They’re the ones the wealthy usually invest in).[/b]

          I guess Sam Walton never existed then.

          [b][i] And as well…you indeed had no choice where you were born.

          But as a working adult, you CHOSE to stay here. There are other countries in the world you could have gone to with different models of society and economics.[/i]

          None as close to the ideal as this one…

          Besides, I want to stick around… I have a feeling a BIG opportunity for a new business is about to open up… scraping socialist and communist corpses by the millions from the pavement… Who knows… maybe I’ll sell franchises. I’d better think of a name and register it right away.[/b]

          Well, I’m staking myself in the computer hardware setup/maintenance business and the software development business.

          I’m setting up the LLC now. I’m not getting any wealthy peoples’ money to do it, and I am going to use contacts to get my services in places and drum up enough business in the next year to live on so that I can stop working for anyone else but myself.

          Of course according to your ethos, I will fail because I’m not already wealthy and don’t have a wealthy investor.

          I couldn’t make it just because I’ll work hard and invest in myself, now can I?

        • #2986585

          You would…

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [i]I couldn’t make it just because I’ll work hard and invest in myself, now can I?[/i]

          be better off doing that than sitting back begging to be bailed out… Even if you initially fail! That’s the problem… so many people think that failure must be avoided at all costs…. when in fact it is the best teacher you’ll ever have.

        • #2986572

          I will

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [b][i] I couldn’t make it just because I’ll work hard and invest in myself, now can I?[/i]

          You would…
          be better off doing that than sitting back begging to be bailed out… Even if you initially fail! That’s the problem… so many people think that failure must be avoided at all costs…. when in fact it is the best teacher you’ll ever have. [/b]

          Well:

          1) I don’t need a bailout. I pay my bills as it is easily.
          2) Failure teaches lessons, but is not always a teacher that is necessary to be a success.

          I learned from my parents and older relatives and their stories of how they did things. They taught me a lot.

          You don’t have to fall off your bike to learn to be a great rider. It is incentive not to fall off that way again if it hurts ya, but it does not make you any better at steering or pedalling or squeezing a brake.

          So if things go right, my software will be finished by April/May and I’ll try to get it in as many offices as I can by August by word of mouth and referral fees to professionals who sell it to their constituency.

          In the meantime, I’m going to start doing more regular PC repair/parts sales work at night.

          I am going to start banking up money for at least a move out of this state, if not total retirement by late winter 2010 if the software endeavor goes totally right.

        • #2987298

          Good luck

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          in your endeavor.

          [i]I am going to start banking up money for at least a move out of this state, if not total retirement by late winter 2010[/i]

          I’m shooting for April 30th of that year… 478 more days 🙂

        • #2987290

          ty n gl 2 u 2 (geek type lol)

          by jck ·

          In reply to It is the people that FEED that entitlement

          [b]Good luck
          in your endeavor.
          [/b]
          Thanks.

          [b][i] I am going to start banking up money for at least a move out of this state, if not total retirement by late winter 2010[/i]

          I’m shooting for April 30th of that year… 478 more days 🙂
          [/b]

          Good luck on your retirement too. That’s sweet.

          All goes well, I will have my 5 year min in the State of FL retirement system and will just leave my pension money in there til I’m 65 (25 more years) to grow and grow. It’s been pulling about 9% a year, so maybe it’ll grow faster now that fuel prices are back to normal. I’ll have a nice nestegg, and get a little pension from them.

          Of course by 2010, I hope to have made all or most of my first million. That’s my goal. Place my software in 100-300 offices at an average install price of $5000 (software, installation, hardware setup, etc) per setup.

          Then annual maintenance packs would sell for varying levels too. About 15-30% of the package price.

          I got a call last night from another computer guy who is getting me into a meeting Thursday night of computer businesses that network.

          This is my foot in the door. Hopefully it all works well. I’m ready to work for me, and retire before I’m 45. 🙂

      • #2972663

        Nothing like a fine rant to start the morning. However. . . . .

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to I think your rant went slightly off-track, Max.

        ….. I didn’t go off-track at all. The [i]government spending[/i] and unnecessary [i]government meddling[/i] in the name of global warming and/or climate change is part of the problem; it will CAUSE the financial meltdown to happen sooner; it’s one factor in the larger equation. I could have gone on and on – the Social Security debacle, Medicare, pork barrel spending, and so on. If I listed everything, I’d still be ranting.

        I’ve maintained all along, Neil, that private [i]solutions[/i] should be pursued to solve the alleged global warming and/or climate change [i]crisis[/i]. Keep government out of it, and don’t infringe on individual choice and liberty, and whether or not the claim is true would be a moot point.

        To suggest that government solutions are the only solutions is another thing that is just not true. Anything (well, almost anything) the government can do, the private sector can do better – with the possible exception of invading other nations and toppling foreign governments.

        • #2985137

          are you really sure about that?

          by jck ·

          In reply to Nothing like a fine rant to start the morning. However. . . . .

          [b][i]The government spending and unnecessary government meddling in the name of global warming and/or climate change is part of the problem; it will CAUSE the financial meltdown to happen sooner; it’s one factor in the larger equation.[/i][/b]

          If you’re a proponent of private enterprise being allowed to flourish, won’t opening new markets for business (such as alternative fuel cars, new alternative fuels for those cars, new alternative power generation unit types, etc) [i][b][u]allow[/u][/b][/i] business to prosper rather than fail?

          If those new technologies cost more, that will get passed onto the consumer. How does that negatively impact “the market”?

          I don’t get where you insist that alternative, cleaner will cause market meltdown.

          In my opinion, it will drive new business and further capital ventures and create more new jobs.

          Oh…and how does this link to government spending?

          The United States Government is the largest funder of private corporation research in the country.

          Otherwise, your assertion that private solutions would be even farther out than they are now with government sponsorship of finding those solutions.

          Think Chrysler or GM is going to research anything right now without a bailout?

          And, I would only agree with you that private can do it right…when the right people are running it…just like government.

          Otherwise, it ends up like our auto industry is…in the $hi++er.

        • #2989270

          Updated depression description from Wired.com

          by dr dij ·

          In reply to are you really sure about that?

          This article is hilarious (and maybe will come to be?)

          the Great Depression of 1929 updated for 2010
          http://www.wired.com/techbiz/people/magazine/17-01/pl_brown

    • #2972636

      The Canadian example

      by jamesrl ·

      In reply to Budget shortfalls – Local, State, and Federal – what to do?

      Yeah, yeah, I’m going to catch some grief from some of you on this, I don’t care.

      In Canada we had similar issues with ballooning deficits, from both Liberal and Conservative governments, till the mid 90s.

      Then the federal government finally went into action (I will give the Liberals credit, they were running the show). The size of the federal government was cut by about 10% in a two year period. Programs were cut, staff was laid off and transfers to the provinces were decreased.

      Fortunately the economy was picking up at that time, so the impact on those laid off was less.

      The provinces then had to go through a similar exercise of belt tightening. They downloaded some of their costs to the cities. The province of Ontario passed a law that cities could not go into long term debt.

      The Canadian Federal Government went into surplus in 1996 and has been in surplus till now. Most of the provinces have been in surplus for the past few years.

      Since then both personal and corporate taxes were cut. Some of the long term debt has been paid down, and as a result, the interest costs have gone down to (the less you owe, the more competitive the rate).

      We will probably run a deficit this year, but we will be investing in infrastructure – roads bridges etc., and that may pay off in the long run (and will be cheaper to build now then during a boom).

      The lesson is that there is a ripple effect – good management on the federal side lead to improvements on the provinces part. And little surpluses, and good management, can lead to bigger surpluses.

      In other words, the hardest part is turning the ship, once its headed in the right direction things get easier.

      Ontario lowered welfare rates. We had protestors and complaints, but people did move off of welfare, and poverty didn’t take a dramatic leap. It isn’t easy for someone on welfare, but I would argue, it isn’t supposed to be. There must be an incentive to work if you can.

      Our banks were well regulated and we didn’t have the crazy credit situations of the US, Britain and other places (Iceland). So we haven’t had to do much to help banks. Some lost some money in the US markets but less than their normal profit, so they will survive without help (as it should be). We inevitably will help the auto industry because if the US does and we don’t, jobs will go south.

      I will also suggest its hard to keep the cuts permanent. Every time the government announced a surplus over the past few years, there has been a growing line up of people asking for their favorite project to be funded.

      So disaster can be averted, but it takes political will. I don’t want the US to fail, how could I wish that on anyone, and besides, the US is Canada’s best customer, if you fail so do we.

      Good luck to you.

      James

      • #2972628

        James – I agree with that solution

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to The Canadian example

        Government, on all levels, federal, state, and local, from the top down, issue a mandate to ALL departments – cut your budget by 10 percent over the next one year. If you (the department head) can’t do it, or suggest you can’t do it, you’re fired.

        And after the first year, consider doing it again, perhaps 5 percent each and every year for the next ten.

        • #2972606

          Some Suggestions

          by bfilmfan ·

          In reply to James – I agree with that solution

          I don’t think you could cut all Federal programs by 60% within 10 years, especially factoring in the military (unless we aren’t counting the active duty service members as part of the government).

          One of the recommendations that I would like to see is an IMMEDIATE FREEZE to ALL Federal budgets at 2008 appropriation levels for 10 years. All surplas taxes collected would go directly to paying down the national debt.

          Just cutting the size of the government is not going to work, as it appears that we are headed into a deflationary recession (also known as a depression) and I can see the government having to spend money on infrastructure projects to prevent tax and food riots in the streets.

          One of the largest problems that I have seen is the multi-national congolmerates all begging for handouts (welfare) from the taxpayers when they continue to exist as trans-global entities and are in fact landless nations unto themselves with no sense of responsibility to any government anywhere.

          I believe in capitalism. You make bad decisions, you have to file bankruptcy. You don’t get to ask the taxpayers for a handout. I do think it is very funny that the laws that Congrees drafted after the financial industry screamed about bankruptcy laws are now biting them in the arse.

          My honest opinion is that NO country that doesn’t have a manufacturing or resource-based economy can anticipate financial security or freedom and liberty for the citizens.

          I think it is time to start asking a lot of really hard questions in this country and some people are not going to like my answers.

          No, you are not entitled to a handout.

          No, you are not entitled to call yourself American company when you haven’t paid any taxes in a decade and make all your products overseas.

          No, you are not entitled to special consideration because of the colors of your skin, where you were born, what God you do or do not pray to or the gender of the person you are sleeping with.

          Each and everyone of us should have the same rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Sadly, that requires a sense of responsibility and it is always easier to just blame someone else for your problems.

        • #2972602

          Accountability in government?? Is that a joke??

          by notsochiguy ·

          In reply to James – I agree with that solution

          Here is how they decided to reduce costs this winter in Chicago (disclaimer—I only work here; moved out of the city 5 years back):

          Don’t plow/salt any side streets (well, not exactly…they won’t do it on overtime pay, and the main roads/highways must be done first…so in essence, the stuff will melt before someone gets to it)

          Estimated savings per storm: $500,000

          Of course, now the city is facing a multitude of lawsuits (and this is after just two storms) concerning the inability to plow/salt and the injuries that occurred as a result. So, all of those savings will end up in the red, due to legal fees; if not outright payments.

          How the people in Chicago continue to vote King Daley and his feudal lords into office is baffling. If the US government really wants to remove a dictator from office, they should feel welcome to visit the Windy City at any time!!

        • #2985161

          a little simplistic, perhaps?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to James – I agree with that solution

          Like the already conscientious water user, a blanket 10% cut would hurt the services that are already being stretched pretty thin.

          I would prioritize each government service, and perhaps cut the lower priority ones more than the higher priority ones. An extra fireman might be more valuable than a couple of extra park grass mowers.

          We can also look for and eliminate redundancy. Why are barbers and beauticians regulated by different state agencies, for example? Why do the various state agencies have their own IT departments? Why does ANY federal agency that has a counterpart in every state even exist? (EPA, NEA, who would miss them?)

        • #2984990

          How it worked in Canada

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to a little simplistic, perhaps?

          Give each department 6 months to come up with proposals to cut their department’s expenses by 10%. If they can’t, replace the department head. They should come to the minister at the end of 6 months with a list of programs, prioritized for the block.

          James

        • #2985797

          I understand the concept.

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to How it worked in Canada

          I just don’t agree that a flat percentage is appropriate.

          Use your family as an example. If you had to cut 10%, would you cut it evenly from all aspects of your life, or might you cut some things more than others?

        • #2985684

          I think that EVERY department. . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I understand the concept.

          …..could cut 10 percent by eliminating only waste and fraud.

        • #2985660

          How do you KNOW?

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I think that EVERY department. . . . .

          Do you really want to cut one fire truck out of every ten, and one fireman out of every ten, and one police car out of every ten, and one policeman out of every ten, and one emergency squad out of every ten…

          … while leaving nine park caretakers out of every ten, and nine tourist information employees out of every ten?

          Would you really like to hear “We’re sorry sir, but the reason we couldn’t respond to your emergency quickly was because we had to keep 9 guys to mow the grass in the park and 9 people to assist the tourists that we don’t have.”?

          I know that there’s a lot of waste in government… and that 10%… or maybe even 30 or 40% could be cut… [b]out of the total[/b]… but to simply send a blind man in with a pair of scissors is irresponsible.

          If I were running the city, I might, for example, suggest cutting 5% of the police and fire budgets, and 50% of the parks and tourism budgets.

        • #2985650

          good point, tony

          by jck ·

          In reply to I think that EVERY department. . . . .

          Which is more important…

          keeping the park flowers all watered?

          or police making sure it’s safe to use?

          I agree with your point, as well as make one other:

          With the economy in the crapper and as many people out of work and desperate for money…some people are likely to commit crimes to get money.

          Is now a time in our country we want to cut police and fire budgets?

          If you ever become President, can I be Ambassador to Ireland…please, Tony? 😀 :^0

        • #2985629

          A 10 percent cut doesn’t mean

          by road-dog ·

          In reply to I think that EVERY department. . . . .

          One firetruck out of 10
          one cop out of 10

          If one looks at overhead, there is ALWAYS spending that could be cut whilst not adversely impacting services.

          For instance, administrative overhead and capital expenditures. Private industry defers spending on new systems in a bad economy. Why should government be immune to that?

        • #2985608

          Tony – my reply

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I think that EVERY department. . . . .

        • #2986129

          I see, and agree

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to I think that EVERY department. . . . .

          I was getting hung up on an overly restrictive definition of “department”.

          My “department” has already reduced their budget by almost 20% in just the last year (for one of my contributions, you should see the server cabinet I built out of an old Mitel box and some scrap lumber 🙂 ). Unfortunately, it was merely transferred to other departments, so no savings by the taxpayer is being realized.

        • #2985672

          In the end..

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to I understand the concept.

          …The department head presents the options and the minister decides. They may have to go back to the whole cabinet for a decision on something contentious. There may be some areas that are cut more some less, but everyone is held accountable to try for 10% or risk their position.

          But at the end of the day, government departments run a multitude of programs, not all of which are indespensible.

          The other choice is to re-engineer your processes so you can provide the same services with fewer people. One of the ways Canada leads the world is eGovernment initiatives. You can do just about anything online that you can do in person. The process for applying for a passport is much quicker if you fill i the blanks online and come down to the office with your picture.

          This isn’t news now, but Canada has been working hard at it for years, and it does require fewer people than the manual methods.

          James

        • #2985649

          That’s what I was getting at

          by tonythetiger ·

          In reply to In the end..

          [i]But at the end of the day, government departments run a multitude of programs, not all of which are indespensible.[/i]

          The dispensable can be cut more than the indispensable ones.

          [i]This isn’t news now, but Canada has been working hard at it for years, and it does require fewer people than the manual methods.[/i]

          Just curious, what happened to those deemed “no longer required”? Does the union allow for their dismissal, or do they get to stand around watching the computer work until retirement?

        • #2985637

          The 1995 reduction was 16.7%

          by jamesrl ·

          In reply to In the end..

          Thats the number of employees who no longer had a job.

          – some of them retired early with a sweetner.
          – some of them volunteered and got generous severence
          – some of them waited and were laid off and got a modest severence

          The layoffs happened over the course of a few years.

          And also importantly, the federal government slashed the transfers to the provinces (who also help fund the cities). That forced them to reprioritise as well.

          Both governments tend to hire contractors now for short projects, instead of permanent staff.

          James

        • #2985687

          Simplistic, yes – Unrealistic, absolutely not

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to a little simplistic, perhaps?

          For argument’s sake, let’s consider only the federal government. (Although I submit that state and local could do the same.)

          Consider this. Would you, ten years ago, have been willing to suggest that the federal government is too big, too imposing, and spends too much money, and that it could be reduced in both size and scope? I believe you would answer yes to that question. I know I would have (and did).

          Then consider this. Ten years ago the federal government spent about half as much as it will this current fiscal year.

          Therefore, I ask you this. If federal spending can double in ten years, then why couldn’t it be cut in half in ten years – especially if it was too big ten years ago?

          The government spends $10,000 for every person in the United States. Ten years ago we were appalled that the government spent $5,000 for each and every person in the United States.

          The size and scope of the federal government could be cut in half in ten years time – if the will to do it actually existed.

          Social Security is the biggest problem.

    • #2987546

      Why the US will go down in flames

      by dr dij ·

      In reply to Budget shortfalls – Local, State, and Federal – what to do?

      Because, unlike Canada, which managed to reign in spending, we have:
      1) a national ego about huge projects that we MUST spend on. This includes projects such as billion dollar planes, aircraft carriers, nuke waste storage facilities that won’t be finished till 2017 and will be full soon as it opens. Expensive bridges everywhere, woops, forgot that they require expensive upkeep, will hide that from this year’s budget! Roads, levies, handouts to cities simply because they are broke. Handouts to pretty much anything greedy senators can come up with. Vast military (half the budget) and vast entitlements (the other half of the budget). Must please people who whine that THEIR PROJECT CAN’T BE CUT! Funding for every disease under the sun. No one’s disease can be seen as less important than any other disease regardless if it kills one person or a million. THey all deserve to piggy at the public trough because they are TRUE BELIEVERS in the Money Fairy! It all comes from nowhere without hurting ANYONE!

      Damn the fact that we are OUT OF MONEY! The Chinese and Japanese will lend us hundreds of billions! The rest can be conjured up by the Mythical Magical Mystical Money Fairy by creating it in the Fed. Instead of uniting and creating an effective global police force (I know how much conservatives hate and don’t trust the UN) we instead take it on ourselves to fund this. And we have too much of an ego to ask countries it is helping to defray some of the costs. And endless money to corrupt govts in developing nations who keep the money rather than use it. Money recently to Georgia country went instead to ritzy hotel for example!

      2) related individual piggy egos: they think they deserve any handouts they can get. outrageous pensions for public employees when private companies largely are eliminating pensions in favor of 401k type plans. get medicare, medicaid since it is cheaper than paying for your kids health plan. Free stadiums for everyone! Must please the masses with roman colliseum like spectacles! the drunken idiots might destroy something otherwise! Free money for team and stadium owners! Free universities! Free this or that! And when some a**h*** does a tasteless ‘art’ piece in a public art museum mocking religion, instead of asking why is this piece there, (freedom of expression) we should instead be asking, ‘why is public money funding art when there are starving people?’
      List goes on and on of people wanting handouts, e.g. disability so they can fake a back problem and go hunting all day or get their relative here from other countries because they can retire on social security or welfare for alot more than they’d get in that other country.

      • #2987529

        Not suggesting Canada is perfect.

        by jamesrl ·

        In reply to Why the US will go down in flames

        We were in worse shape debt wise (percentage of GDP)in the 90s than the US at the same time (but better than the US today). And you are correct that we don’t have the megaprojects, the military aid to Israel, the level of agricultural subsidies. And we didn’t spend much on shroing up the banks, since they are in the best shape in the G8.

        But we will likely see the conservative government put out about $30 billion in stimulus (plunging us into debt, after 13 years of surpluses) into things like roads, bridges etc. This to keep themselves in power in a minority government.

        And some things come back to bite us. Militarily we don’t spend a lot, but we make bad investments. We sold our Chinooks some time ago, but now we find we need the lift capacity in Afghanistan, and we are buying used ones. We bought some used subs that Britain mothballed and had a fire on the trip home to Canada. We discovered our tanks didn’t have sufficient air conditioning for Afganistan so we had to buy new ones. We cancelled a helicopeter program (shipboard and search/rescue), paid a billion in penalties, spent millions keeping the old ones flying and ended up paying more for less for new ones.

        But at least we don’t have the porkbarrelling that happens in the US. In Canada, if you vote against your party on a money bill you can be disciplined or in the exteme kicked out of the party(if its a confidence vote) so individuals don’t have the leverage that congresscritters do.

        I think both countries have issues with welfare and handouts, don’t know which place is worse.

        James

      • #2987517

        I agree (Perhaps I should stop there!)

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Why the US will go down in flames

        I can’t really disagree with anything in your message, and with most of it I’m in total agreement. (Why, then, do we so often disagree?)

        On the budget, however, although your numbers are close, the following is a more accurate breakdown:

        Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid require twice as much spending as the defense spending – it’s not 50-50. Together they’re close to 70 percent. Interest on the debt is around 15 percent. 5 percent, or so, is discretionary spending (much of which goes to defense), and the remaining 10 percent goes to everything else.

        http://www.federalbudget.com/

        But any deficit is off-budget – and it’s huge.

        Obama stated today (or yesterday) that trillion dollar deficits are likely to continue for years to come. (So much for [i]change[/i].)

        But there’s no doubt, we’re going to hell in a handbag, and there’s no friggin’ way for a person to get off.

        Reading jck’s messages, and I simply shake my head in disbelief that he’s actually in favor of continuing runaway government growth.

    • #2987644

      More perky economic news

      by dr dij ·

      In reply to Budget shortfalls – Local, State, and Federal – what to do?

      Run for the hills? Buy missile silo or cave home for the coming apocalypse?
      Start your own organic farming commune?
      (or cult with 58 wives in a remote area?)

      From foreignpolicy magazine,
      not the same economists who figured out a year after it started we are in a recession (and will figure out a year from now it is actually a depression)

      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4590

      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4591

      And to top off the gloomy news, was watching that show on history channel about various cultures’ predictions of 2012 as the end of the world.

      Yet even (disgraced I think) evangelist ted haggard admitted that every generation has thought it would be the last..

      Certainly has been the end of my employment for a while. Tho I’m working on that. Let’s see.. Anti-Christ? That could be a rewarding job.. I’m not super religious, so far a fit. I’ve ticked off a few who actually believe in ID on these forums. Check.. Unite the world’s peoples, get everyone to like me to begin with, so far OK philosophically but need to insert miracle here to actually get it done, might need some help with that.

      Then become evil? got me there. despite wanting to strangle the occasional kid (who doesn’t, as immortalized by Homer Simpson). As I’m getting to the edge of becoming an ‘old geezer’, with ‘grumpy old guy rants’ (See, I kind of agree with Max’s rants at times) I actually am now liking all kinds of people of all cultures and religions. Anthony Bourdain in the Columbia slums, or in Saudi Arabia or Brazil (exception if those same people are trying to kill me despite not knowing me, in name of fanaticism or just mal-adjusted evil genius, or burgle my house). Even now like old people who are in my garden clubs. They actually DO THINGS other than mindlessly chat on cell phones while crossing the street against walk signals or listen to iPods all day or complain about old people having values that require work or complain that people don’t like them clogging up the internet home segments with video servers.

      And I admit, there was a TR rant where I opposed implanting RFID indentity chips in the human body like they are doing with pet shop dogs now. I think that would be required as an anti-christ to crush the globe’s people (woops, I mean unite them) under an iron fist.

      Of course, as a good politician, I could simply say “I’ve changed my mind about the issue” and flip-flop? Nowadays, people are suspicious of those in govt who actually have integrity. Witness Illinois voters whose elected governors have a 50% chance of going to jail for corruption.

      Nahh, I have a thing for keeping people liking me without lying to them. I admit, I’d be happier retiring to run a botanic arboretum or organic farm. I mean I AM in California, aren’t we all expected to roller blade, wear sandals all day and have a patch of ‘East african Rice’ (ahem) hidden in the back yard?.. Ok then that would leave open an Anti-Anti-Christ leader – like the rebel faction leaders on Earth Final Conflict or V series. Sounds alot more exiting than becoming a new age Hitler..

      Oh well.. on the optomistic side, I’m sure that at least some of us will survive whatever the future throws at us. Good time to join that tribe in the moutains of Columbia that sees itself as cartakers of mother earth.

Viewing 3 reply threads