Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-22-2010, 11:45 AM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,384,569 times
Reputation: 718

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregW View Post
Increase the size of government to employ the jobless. Pay for it by adding countervailing tariffs, increased taxes on off shored businesses and raising upper level taxes by 50+%.

Aside from this I would like to see Federal spending be evenly allocated so each state received as much as it contributed.

Sure hire all of those unemployed and give them government jobs? And just who is paying for this? Increasing tariffs merely saps consumption. Raising taxes on the "upper level taxes" whatever that means, will only drive those people to avoid the taxes.

You recepie is one that is cooking North Korea so how's that one working out for them? The old Soviet Union proved your type of government is a failure.

Private enterprise is the only way to move forward that benefits all people. This country was an economic boomtown in the 19th century right up until 1913 when the income tax, the Progressive movement, and leaders began to take over government. They have almost bankrupted this nation and it is time to realize Progressivism has failed and it is the free markets that will once again lift this nation to prosperity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2010, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Indianapolis, IN
914 posts, read 4,443,783 times
Reputation: 854
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
1. The words imply one thing, but in reality, say something much different.
Government is a consumer, not a producer of useful goods and services.
Government makes nothing but more government.
Government servants are rarely more efficient, frugal or capable when compared to the private sector.
You don't like having clean air and water? You don't like not having yellow fever? I won't argue that our government isn't too large- I think it is- but the federal government does provide some things to you.

For instance, given that the vast majority of pollution (pollution that creates major adverse health outcomes) is corporate created, I fail to see how the private sector is providing this service for us. Unless your argument is that you would rather have a respiratory disease than pay taxes. I suppose I couldn't fault you there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 12:23 PM
 
Location: NE CT
1,496 posts, read 3,384,569 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jillaceae View Post
You don't like having clean air and water? You don't like not having yellow fever? I won't argue that our government isn't too large- I think it is- but the federal government does provide some things to you.

For instance, given that the vast majority of pollution (pollution that creates major adverse health outcomes) is corporate created, I fail to see how the private sector is providing this service for us. Unless your argument is that you would rather have a respiratory disease than pay taxes. I suppose I couldn't fault you there.
Can you substaintiate that Corporations are the biggest polluters? What about automobile exhaust fumes? What about home chimeys? What about natural forest fires? Coal burning plants now have scrubbers and a gassification process that burns coal cleanly. We have trash to energy plants in the private sectors that burns trash and converts it to steam to make electricity. SCrubbers and gassification burns most of the pollutants that 30 years ago went into the atmosphere. This was not government innovation but private enterprise's answer to a growing demand from people, not government.

Private enterprise is greatly affected by Consumer Reports and Underwriters Labs. People pay attention to these companies that are far more neutral in thier findings than the government will be, since the government is run by politicians who take money for re-election to thier office from the same soruces they are controlling in big business and are firmly in bed with government politicians.

Divorce big business from the political machines and it would be a great first step in controlling big business since it would be the consumer that would direct the show against "big bad business" not the government who plays the phony role of referee in a scam that involves money. elections, and Corportism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 12:44 PM
 
4,151 posts, read 4,170,113 times
Reputation: 2075
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
What would you propose to cut, if you were faced with the decision to cut the budget by 90%?

Consider fiscal year 2009:
$3,518 Billions

Goal: $351 billions

Defense: 782 billions (23%)
Social Security : 678 billions (20%)
Medicare & Medicaid : 676 billions (19%)
"Other" Mandatory : 607 billions (17%)
"Other" Discretionary : 437 billions (12%)
Interest : 187 billions (5%)
TARP : 151 billions (4%)

Total receipts: $2,105 billions
Deficit : $1,413 billions

[Special note: Congress borrowed more than it paid in interest. In essence, it is paying bond holders with new investors' funds. This is what Bernie Madoff went to prison for doing.]

-------------
My politically incorrect suggestions:
_ Abolish Social Security / Entitlement system
[save $1,354 billions, 38% of the budget]
Problem : Social Security Taxes comprise 42% of the receipts.
[lose $891 billions]
_ Scale back Defense expenditures to "less than" China and Great Britain combined : $168 billions.
End all foreign military activities, close all bases, repatriate all personnel and material.
[save $614 billions, 17% of the budget. Total cuts = 55%]
_ Eliminate "Other" expenditures (I don't trust anything that large and obscure)
[save another $1044 billions, 30% of the budget. Total cuts = 85%]
_ Take back all TARP funds [4% savings. Total cuts = 89% - almost there!]
_ Abolish the national debt [5% savings. Total cuts = 94% !!!]

{Despite the fact that the 14th amendment,section 4 forbids questioning the validity of the public debt, it is mathematically impossible to repay. And thus, when law dictates an impossibility, the law is more than an @ss, and the politicians must be held accountable for their criminal behavior.}

Other repercussions to abolishing national socialism and the national debt:
[] Federal Reserve notes [see Title 12 USC Sec. 411] cease to have adequate collateral, and become unacceptable tender.
[] Laws empowered by the "State of Emergency" (Since 1933) would be expunged.
[] Laws empowered by "voluntary" enrollment into FICA / Social Security would be expunged.
[] Counterfeit fractional coin would no longer be tolerated (they are unconstitutional, despite the Coinage Act of 1965).
[] Bond holders would be financially ruined, as would any account holder whose accounts were only payable in "dollar bills" (no par value).

A wholesale resignation of Congress, followed by a flurry of private flights to countries that do not extradite may result.
I agreed with everything you said except on cutting social security. Social security is NOT an entitlement. It is our money. The government used it as it came in and now they tell us SS is in the red and BS like. If they didn't spend it, the money would be still there. We, who paid into it need to get it back. However, we need to need to change this system. We need the option for people to opt-out. It's 12.4% that we will never see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:03 PM
 
Location: NJ
240 posts, read 443,030 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto View Post
Hated it so much they included the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution... oh yeah that was in a parallel universe.
"Rather go to bed supperless than rise in debt." Ben Franklin

"If you would be wealthy, think of saving as well as getting." Ben Franklin

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned- this is the sum of good government." Thomas Jefferson

"No free government or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue." Patrick Henry

"I sincerely believe...that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." Thomas Jefferson

"I entertain a strong hope that the state of the national finances is now sufficiently matured to enable you to enter upon a systematic and effectual arrangement for the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt, according to the right which has been reserved to the Government. No measure can be more desirable, whether viewed with an eye to its intrinsic importance or to the general sentiment and wish of a nation."
George Washington

And my personal favorite quote from the writer Ambrose Bierce..."Debt is an ingenious substitute for the chain and whip of the slave driver."

Hey nice try, but thanks for playing! You can collect your consolation prize as you exit!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:06 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,179,016 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84 Camaro View Post
Cut Congress's salary. Avg congressional salary....$170,000. Why aren't every Congress person donating at least HALF of their salary to the poor and the unemployed right now?? There is no way these people should be able to vote themselves raises and great healt care plans and separate pension systems etc. Stop all that and make all of them work for $5,000 per year if they truly want to serve this country and its people!!!
170k isn't that much money for a lot of these guys. Many are already taking a pay cut to serve, and they must maintain two households.

Besides, cutting Congressional salaries wouldn't do squat for the debt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:09 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,687,243 times
Reputation: 9980
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
What would you propose to cut, if you were faced with the decision to cut the budget by 90%?

Consider fiscal year 2009:
$3,518 Billions

Goal: $351 billions

Defense: 782 billions (23%)
Social Security : 678 billions (20%)
Medicare & Medicaid : 676 billions (19%)
"Other" Mandatory : 607 billions (17%)
"Other" Discretionary : 437 billions (12%)
Interest : 187 billions (5%)
TARP : 151 billions (4%)

Total receipts: $2,105 billions
Deficit : $1,413 billions

[Special note: Congress borrowed more than it paid in interest. In essence, it is paying bond holders with new investors' funds. This is what Bernie Madoff went to prison for doing.]

-------------
My politically incorrect suggestions:
_ Abolish Social Security / Entitlement system
[save $1,354 billions, 38% of the budget]
Problem : Social Security Taxes comprise 42% of the receipts.
[lose $891 billions]
_ Scale back Defense expenditures to "less than" China and Great Britain combined : $168 billions.
End all foreign military activities, close all bases, repatriate all personnel and material.
[save $614 billions, 17% of the budget. Total cuts = 55%]
_ Eliminate "Other" expenditures (I don't trust anything that large and obscure)
[save another $1044 billions, 30% of the budget. Total cuts = 85%]
_ Take back all TARP funds [4% savings. Total cuts = 89% - almost there!]
_ Abolish the national debt [5% savings. Total cuts = 94% !!!]

{Despite the fact that the 14th amendment,section 4 forbids questioning the validity of the public debt, it is mathematically impossible to repay. And thus, when law dictates an impossibility, the law is more than an @ss, and the politicians must be held accountable for their criminal behavior.}

Other repercussions to abolishing national socialism and the national debt:
[] Federal Reserve notes [see Title 12 USC Sec. 411] cease to have adequate collateral, and become unacceptable tender.
[] Laws empowered by the "State of Emergency" (Since 1933) would be expunged.
[] Laws empowered by "voluntary" enrollment into FICA / Social Security would be expunged.
[] Counterfeit fractional coin would no longer be tolerated (they are unconstitutional, despite the Coinage Act of 1965).
[] Bond holders would be financially ruined, as would any account holder whose accounts were only payable in "dollar bills" (no par value).

A wholesale resignation of Congress, followed by a flurry of private flights to countries that do not extradite may result.
Who will feed the tens of millions you have just thrown into the streets for the sake of money
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:13 PM
 
Location: NJ
240 posts, read 443,030 times
Reputation: 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter View Post
170k isn't that much money for a lot of these guys. Many are already taking a pay cut to serve, and they must maintain two households.

Besides, cutting Congressional salaries wouldn't do squat for the debt.
Awwww they have to maintain two households? BS! They can live in military barracks and get their health care from Veterans hospitals in the DC area!!

$170,000 a year isn't a lot for they guys? Really? Then why don't they refuse their entire salary?? I bet $170,000 a year IS A LOT to most Americans!

I hope you don't vote because you seem to lack the ability to think!

I don't know if I've read a more idiotic post?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:22 PM
 
56,988 posts, read 35,179,016 times
Reputation: 18824
Quote:
Originally Posted by brien51 View Post
Sure hire all of those unemployed and give them government jobs? And just who is paying for this? Increasing tariffs merely saps consumption.
Really? The Chinese have fairly high tariffs and they consume everything under the sun.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2010, 01:38 PM
 
4,410 posts, read 6,136,452 times
Reputation: 2908
Quote:
Originally Posted by 84 Camaro View Post
Awwww they have to maintain two households? BS! They can live in military barracks and get their health care from Veterans hospitals in the DC area!!

$170,000 a year isn't a lot for they guys? Really? Then why don't they refuse their entire salary?? I bet $170,000 a year IS A LOT to most Americans!

I hope you don't vote because you seem to lack the ability to think!

I don't know if I've read a more idiotic post?
Well, I know I haven't read a more idiotic post than yours.

If you make the job of government representative any less desirable, no one will take the job. Forcing them to sleep on army cots and then subjecting them to the angry fools that are their constituents is not something I'd put into the job description, but feel free to run with your suggestion, see what kind of idiot takes the job.

They do have to maintain two households: one in DC, the other in their home state. Most would probably make more money in the private sector. $170K a year is not a lot for the responsibilities involved.

When you think about it, the role of a government representative is to take the responsibilities most of us want no part of. They accept all of the burden and get all of the blame. While I'll admit I think most politicians rank slightly above the level of car salesman, their job is necessary. Now if we could just get them to do it RIGHT.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:22 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top