A plan to balance the Federal Budget by 2020

[Elderberry]

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.

No, your first assumption would not be fair. I said noting about cheating or scamming.

What is fair and unbiased needs to be determined by society as a whole. We either take care of everyone or live each man for himself. It's a moral decision which might have to be subjective.

We spend lots of money on ramps and handicapped access. Is this fair to those who are not handicapped? Or maybe we should just abort those fetuses before they are born so that they do not present a burden on society? Sometimes what is "fair" to society might not be "fair" to all individually.

If I were being selfish, it would be easy for me to say fuck society, what's mine is mine and fuck you if you can't afford a place to live or something to eat. (I've held that view for many of my earlier years.)

[ygmir]

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.

No, your first assumption would not be fair. I said noting about cheating or scamming.

I guess I took a lot of this to imply that. If I'm wrong, sorry.

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.

What is fair and unbiased needs to be determined by society as a whole. We either take care of everyone or live each man for himself. It's a moral decision which might have to be subjective.

so true, and, very subjective. IE: "Take care of everyone"........and what that entails.


We spend lots of money on ramps and handicapped access. Is this fair to those who are not handicapped? Or maybe we should just abort those fetuses before they are born so that they do not present a burden on society? Sometimes what is "fair" to society might not be "fair" to all individually.

If I were being selfish, it would be easy for me to say fuck society, what's mine is mine and fuck you if you can't afford a place to live or something to eat. (I've held that view for many of my earlier years.)

As it always seems, there is gray area, between the extremes of black and white. We need to find that spot, that may not be good, but, is tolerable, for all. Or, at least, most.

I just don't like a lot of what and how the gov. does it.
And, how they use the forced charity, to justify their own existence, and garner power and votes to themselves, by playing Robin Hood.

[goathead]

If your taking deductions, everyone else if having to foot your bills..

Why should we have to pay for some ones else's choice to have kids, buy a home, start a business, give to what ever charitable org...

Why should you get a tax deduction for it?

If your smart enough and have the balls to make a living day trading why should you be taxed at a higher rate? If your stupid enough to have your balls whacked day trading why should you be able to write it off?

Why do public service people have, hmmmm government pensions?
We have Social Security, don't like it, SAVE your own fucking money then... like the rest of us.

Why is there a ceiling on dollars that are subject to SS?

Why am I such a cranky asshole sometimes?

[Elderberry]

As it always seems, there is gray area, between the extremes of black and white. We need to find that spot, that may not be good, but, is tolerable, for all. Or, at least, most.

I just don't like a lot of what and how the gov. does it.
And, how they use the forced charity, to justify their own existence, and garner power and votes to themselves, by playing Robin Hood.

I agree.

Not liking what and how the gov. does things is a recurring theme to your arguments, and I think we can just assume that moving forward. But understand that is not an answer or a solution to the problem. I am also not happy with how government does many things, but there are other things I think they do a better job than anyone else could do. As long as all people do is complain about government, government will be free to go on doing all the things that voters hate, and that's what they count on. How do you think the republicans won so many seats in the last election?

Here's an interesting concept. Let's just start with Obama, but you can pick any president. He won with a good majority of votes, and the dems won the house and senate. He had a mandate from the people. He should have been allowed four years to do all of the things he campaigned on in the election without any obstruction from the losing side.

At least this way, after four years, voters would have a chance to evaluate the job of the party in power and make an INTELLIGENT decision as to whether to vote them out or keep them for another four years.

But as long as there is obstructionism and people always trying to fight the party that was ELECTED to rule by a majority of the people, nothing constructive will ever happen.

(And if you don't believe he had a mandate, then you also can't believe that when the republicans won the House that they had any mandate from the people either.)

[Elderberry]

If your taking deductions, everyone else if having to foot your bills..

Why should we have to pay for some ones else's choice to have kids, buy a home, start a business, give to what ever charitable org...

Why should you get a tax deduction for it?

If your smart enough and have the balls to make a living day trading why should you be taxed at a higher rate? If your stupid enough to have your balls whacked day trading why should you be able to write it off?

Why do public service people have, hmmmm government pensions?
We have Social Security, don't like it, SAVE your own fucking money then... like the rest of us.

Why is there a ceiling on dollars that are subject to SS?

Why am I such a cranky asshole sometimes?

I've been really enjoying your posts lately. You made several good points here, but I just want to comment on one.

The problem with day trading or options or futures and making a ton (or losing a ton) of money, is that it adds nothing to the economy. In fact, it just removes wealth from the economy. It is nothing more than gambling and should not even be legal. IMHO.

This is a new phenomenon; as it used to be to become wealthy you had to provide a product or at least a service to earn your money. There was always balance.

But with the new creative investment products, nothing is contributed back to building the economy, it is just sucking money out of the economy to enrich the few.

[ygmir]

As it always seems, there is gray area, between the extremes of black and white. We need to find that spot, that may not be good, but, is tolerable, for all. Or, at least, most.

I just don't like a lot of what and how the gov. does it.
And, how they use the forced charity, to justify their own existence, and garner power and votes to themselves, by playing Robin Hood.

I agree.

Not liking what and how the gov. does things is a recurring theme to your arguments, and I think we can just assume that moving forward. But understand that is not an answer or a solution to the problem. I am also not happy with how government does many things, but there are other things I think they do a better job than anyone else could do. As long as all people do is complain about government, government will be free to go on doing all the things that voters hate, and that's what they count on. How do you think the republicans won so many seats in the last election?

Here's an interesting concept. Let's just start with Obama, but you can pick any president. He won with a good majority of votes, and the dems won the house and senate. He had a mandate from the people. He should have been allowed four years to do all of the things he campaigned on in the election without any obstruction from the losing side.

At least this way, after four years, voters would have a chance to evaluate the job of the party in power and make an INTELLIGENT decision as to whether to vote them out or keep them for another four years.

But as long as there is obstructionism and people always trying to fight the party that was ELECTED to rule by a majority of the people, nothing constructive will ever happen.

(And if you don't believe he had a mandate, then you also can't believe that when the republicans won the House that they had any mandate from the people either.)

but, why should it take four years, to see if the person or party in power is screwing up?

Obama had congress, and still didn't do what he promised, or most of it anyway.
And, if folks decided, he's going the wrong way, they have that 2 year window, to take congress away.
The problem, I see, with 4 years unfettered rule, is, if they're a total asshat (which, we know have been, and will be elected), they can go a long way down the wrong path in that amount of time.

I see, part of the way gov. is set up, is to make it hard to do much of anything.........and, to me, that's good.
The only time I see gov. not screwing something up, is, when they do nothing, or are on recess.

Both parties obstruct, both are corrupt.
IMHO

[Elderberry]

but, why should it take four years, to see if the person or party in power is screwing up?

Obama had congress, and still didn't do what he promised, or most of it anyway.
And, if folks decided, he's going the wrong way, they have that 2 year window, to take congress away.
The problem, I see, with 4 years unfettered rule, is, if they're a total asshat (which, we know have been, and will be elected), they can go a long way down the wrong path in that amount of time.

I see, part of the way gov. is set up, is to make it hard to do much of anything.........and, to me, that's good.
The only time I see gov. not screwing something up, is, when they do nothing, or are on recess.

Both parties obstruct, both are corrupt.
IMHO

It should take four years because it's a big ship and it takes awhile to turn it in any direction. Four years is no time at all in the whole scheme of things.

Eight years is all he has totally, should you like the first four.

Then, you either vote for another person of the same party if you are happy with the results or you vote for the alternative.

And I don't agree with the first part of what I bolded.
The second part is what I am talking about eliminating--both the obstruction and corruption.

[can't sit still]

A vid on the "debt road trip"
http://dailybail.com/home/the-national- ... faint.html

[Trishntek]

but, why should it take four years, to see if the person or party in power is screwing up?

Obama had congress, and still didn't do what he promised, or most of it anyway.
And, if folks decided, he's going the wrong way, they have that 2 year window, to take congress away.
The problem, I see, with 4 years unfettered rule, is, if they're a total asshat (which, we know have been, and will be elected), they can go a long way down the wrong path in that amount of time.

I see, part of the way gov. is set up, is to make it hard to do much of anything.........and, to me, that's good.
The only time I see gov. not screwing something up, is, when they do nothing, or are on recess.

Both parties obstruct, both are corrupt.
IMHO

It should take four years because it's a big ship and it takes awhile to turn it in any direction. Four years is no time at all in the whole scheme of things.

Eight years is all he has totally, should you like the first four.

Then, you either vote for another person of the same party if you are happy with the results or you vote for the alternative.

And I don't agree with the first part of what I bolded.
The second part is what I am talking about eliminating--both the obstruction and corruption.

One huge problem with this thinking is if given an unfettered 4 years and irreparable damage is done, there is no going back. Even some of the health care bill has elements which, once enacted, have no mechanism for repeal.

Plus, when regulations by the executive bureaucracy is implemented without the accountability of elections, unintended consequences are passed onto future generations without consequence to elected officials.

Also, consider judicial appointees, federal prosecutors, foreign ambassadors etc. If the will of the people is not heard every two years, there is a four year disconnect with "We the People" which leads to more government, more tyranny and less liberty.

It is the nature of government, no matter how "good willed" it may be to accomplish its mission by increasing control, applying more force and manipulating the dialog of ideas.

[Elderberry]

Here's a budget plan that has gotten very little press (I haven't seen it mentioned even once on TV, not even on MSNBC), but I really like it. It's only 12 pages (so it wont over tax your brain to take the time to actually read it) and it's titled "The People's Budget". It would have the budget balanced by 2021 and not do it on the backs of the working people and middle class or the poor.

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm ... ntree=5,70

The CPC proposal:

• Eliminates the deficits and creates a surplus by 2021
• Puts America back to work with a “Make it in Americaâ€

[can't sit still]

JK, they have really worked on their plan. They have specifics. It would be great to see it implemented.

[Elderberry]

JK, they have really worked on their plan. They have specifics. It would be great to see it implemented.

Fat chance, I don't think it's even being considered.

[can't sit still]

Talk about role-reversal ?? I'm usually the one shooting holes in ideas. I didn't say a single negative thing about your post.
It is important to be flexible in one's thinking. Consider what Hazlit said.
"As for the "fetish of full employment," as Henry Hazlitt so eloquently explains in his classic, Economics in One Lesson:

"The progress of civilization has meant the reduction of employment, not its increase. It is because we have become increasingly wealthy as a nation that we have been able virtually to eliminate child labor, to remove the necessity of work for many of the aged and to make it [financially] unnecessary for millions of women to take jobs.

"The real question," continued Hazlitt, writing in 1946, "is not how many millions of jobs there will be in America ten years from now, but how much shall we produce, and what, in consequence, will be our standard of living?"

America is hell-bent on fulfilling the Marxist-Hegelian doctrines. DEMANDING full employment. Suppose we demand full support rather than full employment? Look at all the machines doing production. There is little use or possibility for full employment. GOV is trying to supply gazillions of make-work jobs to keep us all working. Suppose the paradigm is changed. suppose GOV works to provide support rather than jobs.

Texas university just spent $ 1billion of their $ 15 billion to buy gold. Harvard has even more money. The CAFR reports show that GOV entities have over $ 350 trillion in holdings. Hundreds of $ trillions that have been pulled away from productive people. Many, many $ trillions in corporate bonds. It isn't that the wealth just isn't there.

In the name of keeping some people super-wealthy and keeping people working, all the wealth has been put aside. This wealth is mostly in paper. ALL of this paper will BURN. This paper wealth can only be redeemed and vitiated by commerce and consumption. Only commerce produces wealth and taxes. Productivity is worthless without consumption.

After the paper burns, the various power-groups will thrash around trying to find a way to stay in control while still withholding the wealth that results from the hand of man and machine. They will FAIL.
They will have to surrender control or live in a world of destitution and destruction. The destruction will eventually catch up to them. They aren't hard to find.
If the PTB allow things to get too bad, people will have nothing. People who have nothing have nothing to lose.
Eventually a more equitable system will be implemented. This will occur after destruction forces the hands of those pulling the strings. There are various scenarios posited;
http://www.thedailybell.com/2015/Catast ... pared.html
This is a post from someone who has an immensely deep understanding of financial movements. http://fofoa.blogspot.com/ The post is on hyperinflation. He calls for a return to a meritocracy.
Some people expect a neo-feudalism. I don't really know what to expect. It will depend to a great degree on how much violence is produced. Argentina had very muted violence after their meltdown. They got terminally screwed.
Violence or the threat of violence is generally the only thing that brings real change. The people with taxing-power never relinquish it willfully.

[Donna Matrix]

MY PLAN:

Make everything voluntary. You don't have to participate if you don't want to.

Let the liar-politicians pass whatever they want, but a person has to sign up for it or it leaves them alone.

STOP THE COERCION!

[Elderberry]

According to this article, the national debt is a good thing. It's an interesting read. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... &aid=24516

[Elderberry]

MY PLAN:

Make everything voluntary. You don't have to participate if you don't want to.

Let the liar-politicians pass whatever they want, but a person has to sign up for it or it leaves them alone.

STOP THE COERCION!

Vacuous, at best.

I suggest you stick to costume making.

[ygmir]

MY PLAN:

Make everything voluntary. You don't have to participate if you don't want to.

Let the liar-politicians pass whatever they want, but a person has to sign up for it or it leaves them alone.

STOP THE COERCION!

would that include:

"if you don't sign up, and participate, you don't get the benefit"?

and, there's still certain things we need a fed gov for, like military, border control, international trade oversight, some road/infrastructure.

[goathead]

I've been really enjoying your posts lately. You made several good points here, but I just want to comment on one.

The problem with day trading or options or futures and making a ton (or losing a ton) of money, is that it adds nothing to the economy. In fact, it just removes wealth from the economy. It is nothing more than gambling and should not even be legal. IMHO.

This is a new phenomenon; as it used to be to become wealthy you had to provide a product or at least a service to earn your money. There was always balance.

But with the new creative investment products, nothing is contributed back to building the economy, it is just sucking money out of the economy to enrich the few.

But then the same has been said about stock trading in general for years.
Just a new spin on an old game from I can see. Tech has made it more assessable to the public is all.

If they make money, it's income, tax it. if they lose money, they have no income to tax. BUT don't allow for a deduction for the lose. There is no reason the rest of us should have to be burdened with their loss.

[ygmir]

something I can't quite understand:

how, is money, made in any fashion, taken "out" of the economy?
Unless it is burned?

people spend the money they make.
Or, they save it, to spend later.
and, if saved in banks, becomes capital for loans and such.
or, they gamble in stocks, etc.
if they lose it, someone else gets it, and (see above), or, if they make more, (see above).
and, stocks and such also create capital for expansion, etc, of business.

yes, money gets moved around, distributed unevenly, created and used by some more than others.
But, I don't see how people say it's "taken out".

[thisisthatwhichis]

Why do they hide behind the term "Progressive"? Let's be honest, it's Socialism.

Instead of more taxes, why don't they start with: less waste of what they already get?

Other than removing all the loopholes and Corporate credits (that allow them to pay nothing), I say let's start with cutting a lot of wasteful spending. Then maybe we can figure a good percentage rate that works for all. Picking and choosing how wealth gets distributed, only gives more power to the leaders of Gov. and removes it from the people..... That's Socialism.

[ygmir]

I'm with ya there, TITWI!!!

I'm a "flat taxer".......and, along with it "no deficit spending"-er.

here's money (some say, if applied evenly across the board, it'd be under 10%) congress.

That's it. don't run out, or, the first cut is your wage and benefit package, and retirement.

[thisisthatwhichis]

Yea, I've liked the flat-tax idea also. It's just prolly never gonna happen. It would give the people back more power.

I don't know.... I didn't like the idea of bailing out the Banks with public money, and I don't like the idea of bailing out the Gov. with more public money (that neither seems to know how to properly manage).

[Ugly Dougly]

how, is money, made in any fashion, taken "out" of the economy?
Unless it is burned?

I assume that they mean that it's spent in another country, or invested in a offshore bank or whatever.

But like it or not, we have a global economy. AFAIK it's not realistic to assume that money, goods or jobs can be kept inside the US economy indefinitely.

[Elderberry]

I've been really enjoying your posts lately. You made several good points here, but I just want to comment on one.

The problem with day trading or options or futures and making a ton (or losing a ton) of money, is that it adds nothing to the economy. In fact, it just removes wealth from the economy. It is nothing more than gambling and should not even be legal. IMHO.

This is a new phenomenon; as it used to be to become wealthy you had to provide a product or at least a service to earn your money. There was always balance.

But with the new creative investment products, nothing is contributed back to building the economy, it is just sucking money out of the economy to enrich the few.

But then the same has been said about stock trading in general for years.
Just a new spin on an old game from I can see. Tech has made it more assessable to the public is all.

If they make money, it's income, tax it. if they lose money, they have no income to tax. BUT don't allow for a deduction for the lose. There is no reason the rest of us should have to be burdened with their loss.

Not a bad idea on the surface, however as this sort of trading is basically gambling, just the fact that the bets are placed artificially inflates or deflates the true value of the market; which can have devastating effects on the economy which taxing gains and preventing deductions of loses would not ever be able to cover.

For example, people are blaming the high gas prices on not drilling in the gulf, the situation in the middle east, demand from China and other such things, when in reality, the prices are moving upward now primarily because of the speculating by the markets. Other than that, there is no other reason I am aware of to actually and factually explain it. (though I could be wrong and always enjoy being corrected when I am.)

[Elderberry]

Why do they hide behind the term "Progressive"? Let's be honest, it's Socialism.

Instead of more taxes, why don't they start with: less waste of what they already get?

Other than removing all the loopholes and Corporate credits (that allow them to pay nothing), I say let's start with cutting a lot of wasteful spending. Then maybe we can figure a good percentage rate that works for all. Picking and choosing how wealth gets distributed, only gives more power to the leaders of Gov. and removes it from the people..... That's Socialism.

Is your vision of a flat tax based on gross income of all money earned? If so, are you aware that it would actually raise taxes for most people earning less than $100,000.00?

[ygmir]

Why do they hide behind the term "Progressive"? Let's be honest, it's Socialism.

Instead of more taxes, why don't they start with: less waste of what they already get?

Other than removing all the loopholes and Corporate credits (that allow them to pay nothing), I say let's start with cutting a lot of wasteful spending. Then maybe we can figure a good percentage rate that works for all. Picking and choosing how wealth gets distributed, only gives more power to the leaders of Gov. and removes it from the people..... That's Socialism.

Is your vision of a flat tax based on gross income of all money earned? If so, are you aware that it would actually raise taxes for most people earning less than $100,000.00?

wouldn't that depend on the percentage said tax was?

[Elderberry]

Why do they hide behind the term "Progressive"? Let's be honest, it's Socialism.

Instead of more taxes, why don't they start with: less waste of what they already get?

Other than removing all the loopholes and Corporate credits (that allow them to pay nothing), I say let's start with cutting a lot of wasteful spending. Then maybe we can figure a good percentage rate that works for all. Picking and choosing how wealth gets distributed, only gives more power to the leaders of Gov. and removes it from the people..... That's Socialism.

Is your vision of a flat tax based on gross income of all money earned? If so, are you aware that it would actually raise taxes for most people earning less than $100,000.00?

wouldn't that depend on the percentage said tax was?

Isn't 10% the usual number being bandied about?

[ygmir]

Is your vision of a flat tax based on gross income of all money earned? If so, are you aware that it would actually raise taxes for most people earning less than $100,000.00?

wouldn't that depend on the percentage said tax was?

Isn't 10% the usual number being bandied about?

yes, some do bandy that number. I purposely left it out, though.
And, one might wonder, if a truly flat tax, on everyone, and every company, were just straight out "across the board", where the figure would end up?
I suppose, first, you'd need to have a baseline budget, to run the gov. then, decide where the rate would need to be, to meet that.
Give maybe 3 years, to fine tune it, then, lock it.

[thisisthatwhichis]

Yea, that % number couldn't be close to fair until you get all of the hands out of the cookie jar. But it would be nice to start somewhere.... slapping those hands, for one......

[Elderberry]

Flat tax on business in Los Angeles wasn't all that good of an idea, as I recall.