Declination of credit to Congress <g>

[Bob Noel]

Oh Hell no, they would simply send then into the SZ and most of us would never see them again.

And the downside?

 

[airbornejohnny]

And the downside?

Spin Zone isn't a bottomless pit?

 

[Florida Cracker]

Reducing the deficit is so easy that congress will never go for it. Politics is the art of lying so often that you lose touch with reality and that's where washington is on the subject of debt.

Here's the ugly truth, in this case. Spend a lot less than you take in (all revenue). Use all surplus to reduce debt.

Repeat until all debt is paid and then only spend about 90% of what you take in and create meaningful surplus to tap in case of actual emergency.

Actual emergency does not mean every time some lying politician wants to buy votes.

Devastating Tornadoes, Hurricanes, Earthquakes, Monstrous floods qualify but simply voting that the plight of 2" minnows in Oregon requires vast federal intervention, does not.

As for specifics: Index all forms of social welfare, starting with Medicare, Medicaid, SSI and all the other forms of vote buying for actual income available to spend and then reallocate appropriately.

Raising medicare and SSI age in to reflect both the mortality tables AND available revenue, is obvious and necessary.

The Dept of Agriculture is a beast that needs to be reduced by about 75%.

Overlapping of gov't agencies has to stop and all overlap must be defunded and those agencies closed.

DHS needs to go away along with Dept Of Ed and EPA and ATF and DEA and all the funding going to support the Muslim brotherhood and Arab Spring, abroad.

The huge white house corps of employees needs to be reduced to 1952 levels and hiding employees on other federal dept budgets, by the white house, has to stop.

Congress and the Senate, as well as all other federal agencies must live with the same tax and benefit laws that affect everyone else. No more special - anything - just because you work for uncle.

The idea to forgive college loan if you work for the gov't has to be killed.

Defense speeding has to be trimmed spending disciplines have to replace spending orgies.

Three wars is probably three too many.

Our national sources of energy have to be opened up for exploration and drilling, as well as mining and growing. Sending billions to Brazil and Mexico in aid to dependent socialists, is stupid.

All gov't agencies that were identified as serving no benefit to the citizens of the USA have to be closed down and forgotten. As I recall, that amounted to 22% of the federal budget, alone.

 

[Tom-D]

actually it is easier than that.

eliminate the income tax, and adjust the federal excise tax to include every thing except basic food items.

that will look like you helped the poor folks by eliminating the evil tax, but in reality it would widen the tax base by bringing every one into the tax base.

when the hooker on the street corner (who now pays nothing) buys a new dress she will pay. when bill gates buys off shore he gets to pay too. rich folks buy more they pay more, poor folks buy less they pay less. When the drug dealer buys a new car they pay too.

and of course a line item veto, and one who is not afraid to use it.

 

[weilke]

actually it is easier than that.

eliminate the income tax, and adjust the federal excise tax to include every thing except basic food items.

that will look like you helped the poor folks by eliminating the evil tax, but in reality it would widen the tax base by bringing every one into the tax base.

when the hooker on the street corner (who now pays nothing) buys a new dress she will pay. when bill gates buys off shore he gets to pay too. rich folks buy more they pay more, poor folks buy less they pay less. When the drug dealer buys a new car they pay too.

and of course a line item veto, and one who is not afraid to use it.

And who will pay for the algae in that system ?

 

[mantakos]

... when the hooker on the street corner (who now pays nothing) buys a new dress she will pay...

I have two problems with this argument.

The first is that it seems to push for a significant change based on secondary effects while ignoring primary effects. A sales tax will certainly make it more difficult for hookers to shelter themselves from taxation, but the primary problem we have is too much spending and too little revenue, and neither problem is really significantly impacted by a small underground economy of those who avoid income taxes. Meanwhile, in trade for getting hookers to pay more in taxes, we've significantly shifted the tax burden from high-income onto low-income.

But, wait, what was the problem again? Was the problem that the rich pay too much while the poor pay too little? Is that why we have a high deficit? Or is it just that some people would sure like to pay less in taxes, and if there's a current crisis in place that might help to push a dramatic change through, that might be a good opportunity? This is really the problem with the Ryan plan and some other conservative/libertarian proposals, they use "deficit" as an excuse to make dramatic change that doesn't actually impact the deficit, doesn't actually increase revenue, it just moves the burden around between people in a manner that is advantageous to the proponents.

In other words, it's: "the country has a big deficit, therefore I should pay less and that guy over there should pay more".

The other problem I have with this argument is that it uses the example of those in an underground economy (those who avoid paying income taxes) to justify a new system without acknowledging that the new system can be gotten around by an underground economy. I could just as easily hear an argument 50 years from now like: "we should consider an income-based tax system, that way everybody who avoids paying their taxes by buying goods out of the back of a truck will have their taxes deducted from their paycheck!"
-harry

 

[Tom-D]

And who will pay for the algae in that system ?

Why do you believe the government has to pay for any thing,

Algae should be grown in the private sector, not on the government tit.

All the government should do is free up the land necessary to get it growing.

 

[Tom-D]

I have two problems with this argument.

The first is that it seems to push for a significant change based on secondary effects while ignoring primary effects. A sales tax will certainly make it more difficult for hookers to shelter themselves from taxation, but the primary problem we have is too much spending and too little revenue, and neither problem is really significantly impacted by a small underground economy of those who avoid income taxes. Meanwhile, in trade for getting hookers to pay more in taxes, we've significantly shifted the tax burden from high-income onto low-income.

Very true I've never argued that we don't spend enough.

illegal trafficking will be the same in both tax systems, you will not be able to police the under ground economies in either.

But, wait, what was the problem again? Was the problem that the rich pay too much while the poor pay too little? Is that why we have a high deficit?

That is an invalad argument, simply because the rich will spend more thus pay more there is no shift in their tax amount, but it will bring into the tax base many who are now avoiding any tax by closing all the loop holes now provided in the income tax code. ( no code no loop holes)


Or is it just that some people would sure like to pay less in taxes, and if there's a current crisis in place that might help to push a dramatic change through, that might be a good opportunity? This is really the problem with the Ryan plan and some other conservative/libertarian proposals, they use "deficit" as an excuse to make dramatic change that doesn't actually impact the deficit, doesn't actually increase revenue, it just moves the burden around between people in a manner that is advantageous to the proponents.

Every one could pay less taxes if the spending was controlled and every one paid their fare share. I believe if you are protected by the constitution you should support it.

In other words, it's: "the country has a big deficit, therefore I should pay less and that guy over there should pay more".

that's not the case

The other problem I have with this argument is that it uses the example of those in an underground economy (those who avoid paying income taxes) to justify a new system without acknowledging that the new system can be gotten around by an underground economy. I could just as easily hear an argument 50 years from now like: "we should consider an income-based tax system, that way everybody who avoids paying their taxes by buying goods out of the back of a truck will have their taxes deducted from their paycheck!"
-harry

tax evasion is tax evasion in either system, it's always been there and always will be there.

 

[weilke]

Algae should be grown in the private sector, not on the government tit.

Agreed.

Plenty of algae seem to be growing on my backyard deck. Damn, need to mow the lawn...

All the government should do is free up the land necessary to get it growing.

IF we want to grow algae, the goverment should SELL the land at auction and use the revenue to pay down the debt.

(no, that is not my idea, that is what some economists smarter than me are proposing: Sell the national mall, sell the national parks to private operators sell those islands in Puget sound to canada ).

 

[mantakos]

...simply because the rich will spend more thus pay more there is no shift in their tax amount, but it will bring into the tax base many who are now avoiding any tax by closing all the loop holes now provided in the income tax code...

A shift from income-based taxation to consumption-based is going to shift the tax burden downwards, there's just no avoiding this. The less money you have, the greater portion of it goes to consumption.

Are you trying to say "everybody will pay about the same, but we'll draw in tax evaders, and thus generate new revenue without raising anybody's taxes?"

tax evasion is tax evasion in either system, it's always been there and always will be there.

But it sounds to me like you're trying to say "let's switch to this new system, one of its advantages is that there will be less tax evasion". You seem to be arguing that people who are currently tax evaders will now be included in this new system.
-harry

 

[Tom-D]

IF we want to grow algae, the government should SELL the land at auction and use the revenue to pay down the debt.

That would work too, almost, who has the money to buy any thing now? we need to get the unemployed back to work and a home stead act would do that.

(no, that is not my idea, that is what some economists smarter than me are proposing: Sell the national mall, sell the national parks to private operators sell those islands in Puget sound to canada ).

The national parks for the most part are not suited for algae growing, and I believe we should preserve them as they have been.

I'm suggesting the land now not used for anything, such as the 48.1 % of AZ that the governments owns, that are not a reservation, park, military base, or used for a different purpose, that amounts to 54,719 square miles or 68,947961 ac.

if we could get half that number to produce 22,000 gallons of algae oil using the vertical closed loop system, we could solve many of this countries problems.

the numbers for N.M. are 41.8 % of the state is owned by the government, the state size is 121,335 square miles. do the math.

 

[weilke]

The national parks for the most part are not suited for algae growing, and I believe we should preserve them as they have been.

Why ? They are dead meat. A dam accross the grand canyon, geothermal plants in yellowstone and wherever we can find gas and oil 'drill baby drill'. In libertarian capitalist paradise, there is no room for such quaint concepts as conservation .

 

[Tom-D]

Why ? They are dead meat. A dam across the grand canyon, geothermal plants in Yellowstone and wherever we can find gas and oil 'drill baby drill'. In libertarian capitalist paradise, there is no room for such quaint concepts as conservation .

You jerk my chain, right?