A plan to balance the Federal Budget by 2020

[can't sit still]

I mentioned earlier that GOV does NOT want efficiency. The private sector continually throws off jobs in the name of efficiency. GOV creates make-work jobs to absorb the extras. Also, these extras vote to fund more GOV. GOV has to be creative about creating jobs.
"The U.S. government has 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws, more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless and 80 programs for economic development."
"The agency found 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality; 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation; 47 for job training and employment; and 56 to help people understand finances,"
The article doesn't even mention the Dept. of Energy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

[Elderberry]

I mentioned earlier that GOV does NOT want efficiency. The private sector continually throws off jobs in the name of efficiency. GOV creates make-work jobs to absorb the extras. Also, these extras vote to fund more GOV. GOV has to be creative about creating jobs.
"The U.S. government has 15 different agencies overseeing food-safety laws, more than 20 separate programs to help the homeless and 80 programs for economic development."
"The agency found 82 federal programs to improve teacher quality; 80 to help disadvantaged people with transportation; 47 for job training and employment; and 56 to help people understand finances,"
The article doesn't even mention the Dept. of Energy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TopStories

You are spinning this like the article is some sort of expose; when in reality it is reporting on a study done by the GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE. This is actually old news, just told in a new light of the budget problems.

It is a false assumption on your part to say that the government does not want efficiency. Saying that they have political motivations that get in the way or that they might not be competent to do it would be a much more accurate assessment of the problem.

[Trishntek]

If they are so interested in efficiency, why is it a good thing to send our taxes to D.C. for education so they can digest funds and regurgitate whatever is left back to our local public schools? Is that not what our property taxes are supposed to do? Sounds like job creation for the sake of job creation to me.

[Elderberry]

If they are so interested in efficiency, why is it a good thing to send our taxes to D.C. for education so they can digest funds and regurgitate whatever is left back to our local public schools? Is that not what our property taxes are supposed to do? Sounds like job creation for the sake of job creation to me.

I have no problem with education being handled on a local level, as long as the curriculum is set at the federal level. We'll never be number one in the world with creation being taught as science.

[can't sit still]

"It is a false assumption on your part to say that the government does not want efficiency"
Wrong.
GOV wants jobs over everything else. The inefficiency is of course politically motivated but, it's inefficiency just the same. The fight on "base closures" was a good example.

[Elderberry]

"It is a false assumption on your part to say that the government does not want efficiency"
Wrong.
GOV wants jobs over everything else. The inefficiency is of course politically motivated but, it's inefficiency just the same. The fight on "base closures" was a good example.

Politics. Just like the two fighter plane engines the air force didn't want.

[Trishntek]

And just like the missile programs that were discontinued,,, but to prevent huge layoffs,,, the rocket motors are still being manufactured.

[Elderberry]

I hate the stupidity of that as much as you do,

[Elderberry]

I'm not a big fan of the tea baggers, but it was their votes in congress that got those engines cancelled. What I do like is that they mad the system work, in this case.

[ygmir]

see, and, that's one of the littany of things to appreciate about you, JK.
you can "cross lines" of ideology, if something is "right".

it also shows, (mostly), that any "group" can have redeeming qualities.

I agree........they save "us" money.
Yay for that.

I think, we could fix gov. in a real way, with one simple change to the election process:

you vote for congress/senate from another district.
If people in CA voted for the reps from MN, they'd tend to vote for the person who would do the best for "the country", instead of bringing "the pork" home with them.
It would take out the political power that comes with earmarks programs and such, that keeps powerful congresspersons in office.
And, the mix would change each election, so no "tit for tat" system could arrise.

[Elderberry]

Interesting approach, but I'm not so sure it would work. Are you telling me people in NV for instance would want people in CA voting for representatives that might be responsible for their gun laws?

Fix campaign financing...local people know the needs of their states and constituents, but they often put corporate interests ahead of those needs because that's who's paying for their campaign. Get the money out of politics is step number one.

[LLQchasm]

Fix campaign financing...local people know the needs of their states and constituents, but they often put corporate interests ahead of those needs because that's who's paying for their campaign. Get the money out of politics is step number one.

Yes. But it is unrealistic to expect campaign finance reform to ever happen. McCain sponsored a bill that got shot down a few years ago. They already have control and won't give it up short of blood being spilled.

[Elderberry]

Fix campaign financing...local people know the needs of their states and constituents, but they often put corporate interests ahead of those needs because that's who's paying for their campaign. Get the money out of politics is step number one.

Yes. But it is unrealistic to expect campaign finance reform to ever happen. McCain sponsored a bill that got shot down a few years ago. They already have control and won't give it up short of blood being spilled.

But it might be helped by the fact that Obama's campaign will cost over one BILLION dollars. Which means whoever challenges him will spend that or more. It's actually obscene.

I'm thinking we'll reach a critical mass on this short of bloodshed.

[can't sit still]

JK, I hope that you're not expecting rational thinking from GOV. Margaret Thatcher was proud of the fact that she closed a bunch of coal mines that weren't profitable. OK, sounds maybe reasonable. Now, 1 out of every 4 households in London has no wage earner.
"Dole claimants outnumber vacancies by five to one"
http://www.tuc.org.uk/social/tuc-18072-f0.cfm
"Two in five graduates end up on the dole"
http://www.inspiringinterns.com/blog/20 ... -the-dole/
Is it logical to put people out of work and then support them on the dole?

[Elderberry]

Yes. I am expecting rational thinking from our elected officials, which is why I continue to make sure my voice is heard and why I encourage everyone I talk with to do the same.

JK

[FIGJAM]

NEWS FLASH!!!!!!!!!


After ajusting for inflation, 2 plus 2 will now equal 3.

That is all.

[can't sit still]

Do you think that printing money to pay the bills is rational?
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/arch ... -necessary

[goathead]

get rid of all of the dedcutions.
tax us ALL at a rate to pay for what the goverments spends.

would give all of us a real incentive to pay attention to what the goverment spends.

[Elderberry]

get rid of all of the dedcutions.
tax us ALL at a rate to pay for what the goverments spends.

would give all of us a real incentive to pay attention to what the goverment spends.

I like that idea; but I'd like it better if the more you made the bigger percentage you'd pay. Now it seems like the middle class are carrying the biggest burden.

[ygmir]

get rid of all of the dedcutions.
tax us ALL at a rate to pay for what the goverments spends.

would give all of us a real incentive to pay attention to what the goverment spends.

I like that idea; but I'd like it better if the more you made the bigger percentage you'd pay. Now it seems like the middle class are carrying the biggest burden.

JK:
What's wrong with fair?
everyone pays the same percent.
I don't see why that's wrong.
People who make more, will pay more, etc.
But, to me, it makes it too subjective, to make a sliding scale.........who's going to draw the lines?
and, where do you draw the lines?
and, can the lines be moved?

To some, 50K per year is rich.
hell, 30K to some is rich.
To others, they just squeak by on 150K.
(U.S. standards.....if you want to do world standards......it'll go way down)

and, if you look at most of our politician/lawyers, well.............

fair is fair. All pay the same.
To me, it takes away the bitching, of who should pay what.

and, GH is dead on:
If, we paid more attention to what the ticks in gov. suck and spend, we might vote differently.

[Trishntek]

get rid of all of the dedcutions.
tax us ALL at a rate to pay for what the goverments spends.

would give all of us a real incentive to pay attention to what the goverment spends.

At this time,,, you could tax 100% of all that we EARN and it would not service what the government owes.

[Elderberry]

get rid of all of the dedcutions.
tax us ALL at a rate to pay for what the goverments spends.

would give all of us a real incentive to pay attention to what the goverment spends.

I like that idea; but I'd like it better if the more you made the bigger percentage you'd pay. Now it seems like the middle class are carrying the biggest burden.

JK:
What's wrong with fair?
everyone pays the same percent.
I don't see why that's wrong.
People who make more, will pay more, etc.
But, to me, it makes it too subjective, to make a sliding scale.........who's going to draw the lines?
and, where do you draw the lines?
and, can the lines be moved?

To some, 50K per year is rich.
hell, 30K to some is rich.
To others, they just squeak by on 150K.
(U.S. standards.....if you want to do world standards......it'll go way down)

and, if you look at most of our politician/lawyers, well.............

fair is fair. All pay the same.
To me, it takes away the bitching, of who should pay what.

and, GH is dead on:
If, we paid more attention to what the ticks in gov. suck and spend, we might vote differently.

That would be fair; sliding scale up to maybe a million or so. After that, a much larger percentage. There was a time when the highest tax bracket was 90%. But 50 or 60% of the billionaires earnings would be fair. Considering that people that have the capability of earning that kind of money will continue to replenish their wealth no matter what rate it's taxed at. Some of the richest people in the world are actually giving their money away to help the world to be a better place. How many billions of dollars can a person spend in a lifetime?

Ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or any of their friends that they have convinced to give away large portions of their wealth. I'm sure they can explain the principle of taxing their wealth better than I.

[ygmir]

I like that idea; but I'd like it better if the more you made the bigger percentage you'd pay. Now it seems like the middle class are carrying the biggest burden.

JK:
What's wrong with fair?
everyone pays the same percent.
I don't see why that's wrong.
People who make more, will pay more, etc.
But, to me, it makes it too subjective, to make a sliding scale.........who's going to draw the lines?
and, where do you draw the lines?
and, can the lines be moved?

To some, 50K per year is rich.
hell, 30K to some is rich.
To others, they just squeak by on 150K.
(U.S. standards.....if you want to do world standards......it'll go way down)

and, if you look at most of our politician/lawyers, well.............

fair is fair. All pay the same.
To me, it takes away the bitching, of who should pay what.

and, GH is dead on:
If, we paid more attention to what the ticks in gov. suck and spend, we might vote differently.

That would be fair; sliding scale up to maybe a million or so. After that, a much larger percentage. There was a time when the highest tax bracket was 90%. But 50 or 60% of the billionaires earnings would be fair. Considering that people that have the capability of earning that kind of money will continue to replenish their wealth no matter what rate it's taxed at. Some of the richest people in the world are actually giving their money away to help the world to be a better place. How many billions of dollars can a person spend in a lifetime?

Ask Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or any of their friends that they have convinced to give away large portions of their wealth. I'm sure they can explain the principle of taxing their wealth better than I.

well, that sort of plays to my position, I think:

make it fair, same rate for all.
Let the rich be altruistic (which, obviously, some will be), and give more, if they want, how they want, to whom they want.
I just don't like the "forced charity" taxes engender.

I just find it patently "unfair" to judge and draw arbitrary lines as to who's rich and who should pay more. And, to punish those who achieve.
As can be shown, if there is a need, folks will step up.
maybe let people donate pre-tax money, or something to promote charitable contributions.
I just like the idea, of being able to choose who I help, and, how.

[goathead]

get rid of all of the dedcutions.
tax us ALL at a rate to pay for what the goverments spends.

would give all of us a real incentive to pay attention to what the goverment spends.

I like that idea; but I'd like it better if the more you made the bigger percentage you'd pay. Now it seems like the middle class are carrying the biggest burden.

So you don't really believe in equality?
Yep, lets have some one else carry our load..

[goathead]

get rid of all of the dedcutions.
tax us ALL at a rate to pay for what the goverments spends.

would give all of us a real incentive to pay attention to what the goverment spends.

At this time,,, you could tax 100% of all that we EARN and it would not service what the government owes.

REALLY?







I bet if it started zapping everyone for 60/70% maybe some people would start paying more attention to what congress does.

[Trishntek]

get rid of all of the dedcutions.
tax us ALL at a rate to pay for what the goverments spends.

would give all of us a real incentive to pay attention to what the goverment spends.

At this time,,, you could tax 100% of all that we EARN and it would not service what the government owes.

REALLY?








I bet if it started zapping everyone for 60/70% maybe some people would start paying more attention to what congress does.

I do not argue what you say,,, and methinks true tax payers are already paying attention to what Congress spends. Problem is, half the adults in this country are NOT GAINFULLY EMPLOYED! Remember that unemployment only counts folks receiving an unemployment benefit. Believe me I understand disability issues,,, so please,,,, There are many MORE who have not been employed for years! Yet they get to vote,,,, and unfortunately,,,, they like to vote more money for themselves!

edit to add: That ZAPPING idea of yours,,,,, now I could get into that!

[Elderberry]

well, that sort of plays to my position, I think:

make it fair, same rate for all.
Let the rich be altruistic (which, obviously, some will be), and give more, if they want, how they want, to whom they want.
I just don't like the "forced charity" taxes engender.

I just find it patently "unfair" to judge and draw arbitrary lines as to who's rich and who should pay more. And, to punish those who achieve.
As can be shown, if there is a need, folks will step up.
maybe let people donate pre-tax money, or something to promote charitable contributions.
I just like the idea, of being able to choose who I help, and, how.

I submit that it is not unfair. The ultra rich are able to earn their money not only because of their entrepreneurial expertise, but the are also using more resources of the country than the working person. (Think government bail-outs here for one.) They use more resources from the land. (Think oil companies depleting and even destroying resources and possibly the planet itself.) Many of the rich actually make that money off the backs of the working class. (Think for-profit health care insurance conglomerates.) It is only because of the government system that they are able to enjoy the opportunity that they do. There have been others that have explained this concept much more elegantly (and obviously more convincingly) than I. But everyone should contribute back in proportion to what they earn if civilized society is to exist.

If people want to contribute over and above the required amount, so be it, but I certainly wouldn't depend on altruism to overcome greed when we are trying to balance the budget.

Many people in this country don't like the idea of taxing wealthy people because they imagine that when they become wealthy (achieve the American dream) they don't want to pay all their hard-earned money to the government to mismanage. The huge fallacy in that argument is that 1. For most, achieving that dream will never happen. (Think Joe the plumber here); 2. They have no true conception of how it is to actually have that kind of money, and how little paying higher taxes would actually impact their life-style.

It's ironic that the have-nots more strongly defend not taxing the wealthy than the wealthy do.

[Elderberry]

There are many MORE who have not been employed for years! Yet they get to vote,,,, and unfortunately,,,, they like to vote more money for themselves!

I don't have the statistics here to cite, but I would bet money that the large majority of those 'unemployed' people you speak of DO NOT VOTE and never have.

(However if you are thinking of some of the voter round-up and register operations, I'm not especially fond of them either. Just as I was not fond of lawyers being able to advertise on TV. I figured if a person was to uneducated about the legal process to find a lawyer on their own, maybe they shouldn't have access the the legal system. I have come to relax my position on this over the years though.)

[ygmir]

well, that sort of plays to my position, I think:

make it fair, same rate for all.
Let the rich be altruistic (which, obviously, some will be), and give more, if they want, how they want, to whom they want.
I just don't like the "forced charity" taxes engender.

I just find it patently "unfair" to judge and draw arbitrary lines as to who's rich and who should pay more. And, to punish those who achieve.
As can be shown, if there is a need, folks will step up.
maybe let people donate pre-tax money, or something to promote charitable contributions.
I just like the idea, of being able to choose who I help, and, how.

I submit that it is not unfair. The ultra rich are able to earn their money not only because of their entrepreneurial expertise, but the are also using more resources of the country than the working person. (Think government bail-outs here for one.) They use more resources from the land. (Think oil companies depleting and even destroying resources and possibly the planet itself.) Many of the rich actually make that money off the backs of the working class. (Think for-profit health care insurance conglomerates.) It is only because of the government system that they are able to enjoy the opportunity that they do. There have been others that have explained this concept much more elegantly (and obviously more convincingly) than I. But everyone should contribute back in proportion to what they earn if civilized society is to exist.

If people want to contribute over and above the required amount, so be it, but I certainly wouldn't depend on altruism to overcome greed when we are trying to balance the budget.

Many people in this country don't like the idea of taxing wealthy people because they imagine that when they become wealthy (achieve the American dream) they don't want to pay all their hard-earned money to the government to mismanage. The huge fallacy in that argument is that 1. For most, achieving that dream will never happen. (Think Joe the plumber here); 2. They have no true conception of how it is to actually have that kind of money, and how little paying higher taxes would actually impact their life-style.

It's ironic that the have-nots more strongly defend not taxing the wealthy than the wealthy do.

would it be accurate, to say, you feel "rich" and "ultra rich" people only get that way by cheating and being greedy and scamming the gov., depleting extra resources, etc.?

I just don't see, how, it's "fair", for someone to arbitrarily point at another, who's created more wealth, and, say: "you're rich, so, you have to pay more than I do, as a percentage". Ignoring the fact that, if they make more, as a total, they pay more with a flat rate anyway.
And, again, drawing these arbitrary lines as to levels of wealth.

I also, don't see, how, it's anyone business, to tell another, what lifestyle they should have, how much they should spend, and, what they "deserve" to keep of what they earn.

Now, if you want to describe your ideas as socialism, or communism, or, "re-distribution of wealth", because, "it's just not fair" that some have more success, than others.
Well, at least that is an accurate statement.
But, you seem to want to force some, to pay for charitable acts you (not specifically JK, but, anyone agreeing) deem necessary, and, accrue the political and social power from the folks receiving said largess. And, at the same time, villianize the very ones who are paying that bill.

I just don't see, how, anything buy a "flat tax" can be fair, unbiased, and, not subjective.

[goathead]

I submit that it is not unfair. The ultra rich are able to earn their money not only because of their entrepreneurial expertise, but the are also using more resources of the country than the working person. (Think government bail-outs here for one.) They use more resources from the land. (Think oil companies depleting and even destroying resources and possibly the planet itself.) Many of the rich actually make that money off the backs of the working class. (Think for-profit health care insurance conglomerates.) It is only because of the government system that they are able to enjoy the opportunity that they do. There have been others that have explained this concept much more elegantly (and obviously more convincingly) than I. But everyone should contribute back in proportion to what they earn if civilized society is to exist.

If people want to contribute over and above the required amount, so be it, but I certainly wouldn't depend on altruism to overcome greed when we are trying to balance the budget.

Many people in this country don't like the idea of taxing wealthy people because they imagine that when they become wealthy (achieve the American dream) they don't want to pay all their hard-earned money to the government to mismanage. The huge fallacy in that argument is that 1. For most, achieving that dream will never happen. (Think Joe the plumber here); 2. They have no true conception of how it is to actually have that kind of money, and how little paying higher taxes would actually impact their life-style.

It's ironic that the have-nots more strongly defend not taxing the wealthy than the wealthy do.

Old news JK, that is one of the reasons I would like to see all deductions eliminated.

For me it has nothing to do with 1, or 2.
If it did, would I be for eliminating all deductions?