Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you misunderstood my question. I was asking for an example of your system working anywhere in the world successfully that is not based on a one trick pony like oil.
By the way, I'm from Montana and grew up with the effects of mine tailings from strip mining. It is a step I doubt you would want to take if it was near you.
strange, having met people from Montana recently, and was told they are in favor of oil shale mining and refining. also, my example worked fine until the 16th Amendment was passed.
strange, having met people from Montana recently, and was told they are in favor of oil shale mining and refining. also, my example worked fine until the 16th Amendment was passed.
Montana like all places has many opinions. I grew up in the Western section that had mine tailing problems in the rivers and superfund sites everywhere. So that is mine(and many others).
You do know they had income taxes based on a % of population for each state before they passed the 16th amendment right (first income tax was passed in 1861, 16th amendment was ratified in 1913)?
The 16th amendment just made the income tax fair for all states....
So your example I am going to disagree with as we had a system different then what you proposed before the 16th amendment.
And before 1861? We did have your system (back to 1817, before that it was a mess from being a new country) but it was riddled with debt and somewhat low growth. Over time, the deficit per year got worse and worse (and it easy to explain why; goes to the basis to why tarrifs fails).
I will finish I will say that our formation was to stop "taxation without representation" and not "no taxes." You are representated still (in theory).
Blames are warranted if you can provide a perspective to go with a claim. See the article linked above as it provides a perspective as of 2009 (Bush's last budget) which involved a $1.4 trillion in deficit. Then consider an economy that is in deep recession. Never have I noticed that federal receipts are higher during a recession and even if government spending were to be reduced (never been done in history to tackle debt, deficit, war and recession, and for good reasons), you can't simply go back 4-5 years with the flip of a switch. To think otherwise would be illogical and completely unrealistic.
Another perspective needed into this discussion is the fact that sum of federal receipts for 2009 was lower than that in 2005, indicating an economy in deep recession. So, even if federal outlays were driven back to 2005 levels, you would still have a substantial deficit spending. This, while ignoring the realities that it is simply not possible.
If we could turn the clock back to 2001, I would say the only way to keep the economy strong, debt low and deficits in check, would have been to...
1- not rely on massive tax cuts to fix the economy (created deficits)
2- not rely on interest rate cuts to continuously stimulate the economy (promoted easy credit, discouraged savings, contributing to the housing debacle)
3- not allow the biggest financial institutions to leverage at a ridiculously high 30-40:1 ratio. This promoted careless lending practices.
4- not allow FM/FM to bow to private lending practices with no questions asked
5- devise ways that would have helped retain jobs and helped job and wages growth (yes, unemployment rate was low but that was only because of the way it is computed)
6- Irresponsible war mongering and handling of. Wars may stimulate the economy a little (thanks to government spending increase) but in the longer term they always hurt the economy. And we could have put $1.5T spent to better use.
In other words, policies that would have promoted savings, an acceptance of responsibilities to pay off debt and strive to balance the budget, avoiding wars... the funny thing is, I consider all these quite conservative ideals, but not something you would see a typical conservative support.
The CBPP article also has a graph derived from CBO estimates, providing the best case scenario (but still considering an economic downturn) in absence of many of these issues. That best case scenario would have been more in-line with the trend that was true until about 1980, minor swings/deficits but not an exponential growth of debt and deficit, a track economic policies have driven America for about three decades now.
Keep the Bush tax cuts in place, and reduce the federal budget and all discretionary spending by 25%. Kill 0bamaCare, and reduce health care costs in a more realistic manner, end all new business by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Keep the Bush tax cuts in place, and reduce the federal budget and all discretionary spending by 25%. Kill 0bamaCare, and reduce health care costs in a more realistic manner, end all new business by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And you're going gaga over 25% cuts in discretionary spending. And want to remove any notion of savings with help from the health care reform.
Reality Check #2:
Largest piece of discretionary spending... Defense: $900B (about 58%)
25% cut on defense spending would reduce it to 675B. That is just the thing republicans/conservatives support, right? Yeah, right.
Reality Check #3:
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac... once again, blaming the victim. But, at the same time, I think FM/FM should just be allowed to fail and its shareholders eat dust. Then create proper federal entities to do the job that these institutions were originally meant to, not to satisfy share holders.
the most responsible thing to do would be to repeal the 16th Amendment, fire all IRS workers, do away with 95% of the federal budget and fire all those workers too.
time for all those federal employees to go out and get real jobs and stop leeching off of the american taxpayers.
This is what has repeatedly been refereed to in this thread as a clown response. Yes, let's have no one pay taxes and just fire all the government. Like that would ever happen or be remotely desirable. Move to Somalia if you want no government and tell us how that goes.
Keep the Bush tax cuts in place, and reduce the federal budget and all discretionary spending by 25%. Kill 0bamaCare, and reduce health care costs in a more realistic manner, end all new business by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
There you go, that is a start.
Reducing the descressionary budget by 25%, if that was even possible but assuming that it was and included a 25% cut to the military budget, then you'd total about $500 billion. A nice start to buy still $1 trillion a year short of the goal. What else do you cut if you refuse to raise taxes to a reasonable level (like say the level during the Clinton economic boom).
"Bush's tax cuts are the single largest part of the structural deficit"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin
This video from CNN is honest and straight talk about America's budget deficit, the reasons for it, and why it will never be balanced without tax increases.
It's like blaming me for your failure because I did not giving you something. Something you don't have, you can't use. Government spent money it didn't have.
Government itself is the single largest part of the structural deficit... the ONLY part.
The tax cut isn't part of anything. The funds are non existent.
the most responsible thing to do would be to repeal the 16th Amendment, fire all IRS workers, do away with 95% of the federal budget and fire all those workers too.
time for all those federal employees to go out and get real jobs and stop leeching off of the american taxpayers.
Indeed , I love these guys that act like, raising taxes is the only honest and decent thing to do but cuts.......come on lets be realistic! When they all agree to bring spending back to where it was , when Clinton was in office then I will consider doing the same with Taxes.
Both their power and money is derived from the people. Have you ever noticed, no matter how much you give them, it is NEVER enough?
Not quite accurate, but it's a widely held belief.
Pursuant to the organic documents that founded the governments in these united States, government has TWO jobs:
1. Secure rights, and
2. Govern those who consent.
The delegation of power was not general, but specific and limited in scope. In essence, if the government is not doing something specifically securing one's inalienable rights (endowed by one's Creator), then look to CONSENT.
For example, the Supreme court ruled that civic duties are not involuntary servitude (jury, militia, military service, etc). Ergo, they are VOLUNTARY - but few Americans know how and when they volunteered to be so obligated.
[Warning ! Your brain may melt if you read further...]
Contrary to popular belief, citizenship (and its attendant obligatory civic duties) cannot be imposed at birth, lest it be INVOLUNTARY servitude.
Do not believe me - go read the law - read the court cases.
People born within the boundaries of the United States of America, of American parents, are American NATIONALS. And they may CONSENT to exercise political liberty, as citizens, because the government extends that privilege (not right) to all American nationals.
Restating - all the obligations of citizens are based on consent. That you were unaware that there were "American nationals" who were NOT citizens, is a victory for the propaganda ministry.
In the 50 titles of U.S. code, 1992 edition, I found only ONE citation that explicitly mentioned "American nationals":
Title 8, U.S.Code, Sec 1502. Certificate of nationality issued by the Secretary of State for person not a naturalized citizen of the United States for use in proceedings of a foreign state.
The Secretary of State is authorized to issue, in his discretion and in accordance with rules and regulations prescribed by him, a certificate of nationality for any person not a naturalized citizen of the United States who presents satisfactory evidence that he is an American national and that such certificate is needed for use in judicial or administrative proceedings in a foreign state. Such certificate shall be solely for the use in the case for which it was issued and shall be transmitted by the Secretary of State through appropriate channels to the judicial or administrative officers of the foreign state in which it is to be used.
(BTW - an American national is not to be confused with a "U.S. national" as defined in Title 8.)
There's an earlier mention of Americans who are not citizens, in the Articles of Confederation, 1777.
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states,... shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
In case you were unaware, the definition for the militia (the folks obligated to train, fight and die - on command) was limited to able bodied male CITIZENS - not nationals. For only those who consented to be citizens could be so obligated.
What all this means is this - by their records, everything they're doing to YOU is by YOUR CONSENT. That's how they can appear to "violate" the USCON - because you've given consent - and they're happy to oblige you.
Politely ask them to explain when and where you gave consent, knowingly, willingly and intentionally. And if fraud was used to get your consent, you have grounds to object and nullify that presumption.
Imagine what would happen if 51% of Americans stopped volunteering to be obligated?
Uh oh... look at all those scurrying public servants and statesmen heading for countries that do not extradite to the USA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
