Let's talk cuts

[J.T]

This admin spent some 3.1 trillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget) last year and I honestly don't see what we have to show for it. We need 2.2 Trillion to fix our infrastructure. That roughly 450 billion/year over the next five years. Obama said he wants to address infrastructure. It's not even debatable that we can't afford to keep going further into the red. We need at least 450 billion in spending cuts and/or new revenue just to address our infrastructure problems without making our budget problems worse. So let's talk budget and see what we can all come up with.

[J.T]

How about we kill the TSA? It's projected to cost about 8 Billion dollars next year, TSA agents have repeatedly failed testing of their effectiveness, and there's no reason to believe that private contractors couldn't do the job and follow the same guidelines we have in place for the TS.

Ending the subsidies for Amtrak is about 1.5 billion. There's simply no justification for these subsidies.

Stop paying companies to fly empty planes. (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/8595-federal-program-pays-airlines-to-fly-empty-planes) By ending the EAS program, we eliminate 200 million dollars in hard-to-justify spending

Eliminating the National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program (http://rsc.jordan.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Waste_Action_Alert--NationalOrganicCertificationCostShareProgram.pdf).
4.4 million/year

End this bologna (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/whaling/index.html).


The purpose of this program is to develop culturally based educational activities, internships, apprentice programs, and exchanges to assist Alaska Natives, native Hawaiians, and children and families living in Massachusetts linked by history and tradition to Alaska and Hawaii, and members of any federally recognized Indian tribe in Mississippi.



Seriously, why does this even exist? If individuals and families have an interest in their ancestries, that's wonderful. But there's no reason for the federal government to be involved.
8.7 million (http://www2.ed.gov/programs/whaling/funding.html)

Cut the NEA. Look, I love art. Well, some art. But I don't see why the federal government needs to be paying for plays and paintings, musical theatre, and the like all around the country. Sure, it's nice to have. But it's a luxury we simply can't afford right now, even if you think the federal government has any business being involved in such things.
155 million (the fy2009 busget, per wiki)

That's $9,867,100,000. to get things started.

We'll just call it 9.8 billion. While that's no chump change, we've got a ways to go. We need ideas here.

[gabosaurus]

I find it fascinating that, facing so many glaring needs in this country, neither side of the political aisle was to go near the subject of tax hikes. As I heard a pundit say once, how many limbs can you amputate before you kill the patient?

But OK, let's talk cuts. Starting with 35 percent of the military budget. Let's close unnecessary bases, cancel outdated weapons programs, eliminate all the useless and redundant "advisers" and "contractors" and prune the Pentagon hierarchy.
Eliminate subsidies to oil companies. This was a favorite of the Bush administration and fueled billions of dollars into their pockets.
Find the companies who export their labor to third world countries and charge them an import tax on the items they ship back in. Perhaps this would encourage more of them to return home and use American labor.

[fj1200]

I find it fascinating that, facing so many glaring needs in this country, neither side of the political aisle was to go near the subject of tax hikes. As I heard a pundit say once, how many limbs can you amputate before you kill the patient?

Well, if tax rates had an actual correlation to tax revenues... that might be worth talking about.

[ConHog]

I find it fascinating that, facing so many glaring needs in this country, neither side of the political aisle was to go near the subject of tax hikes. As I heard a pundit say once, how many limbs can you amputate before you kill the patient?

But OK, let's talk cuts. Starting with 35 percent of the military budget. Let's close unnecessary bases, cancel outdated weapons programs, eliminate all the useless and redundant "advisers" and "contractors" and prune the Pentagon hierarchy.
Eliminate subsidies to oil companies. This was a favorite of the Bush administration and fueled billions of dollars into their pockets.
Find the companies who export their labor to third world countries and charge them an import tax on the items they ship back in. Perhaps this would encourage more of them to return home and use American labor.

Ridiculous. Noway you could pare our military budget by a third and continue to protect our national interests. I'll grant that we do need to make some cuts, but 1/3 is stupid to suggest.

I notice you don't make mention of ANY cuts in entitlement programs. I suppose you're okay with cutting military benefits, but leave your SSI alone......

[J.T]

But OK, let's talk cuts. Starting with 35 percent of the military budget.

How, exactly, did you come up with that number?

[gabosaurus]

Ridiculous. Noway you could pare our military budget by a third and continue to protect our national interests. I'll grant that we do need to make some cuts, but 1/3 is stupid to suggest.

I notice you don't make mention of ANY cuts in entitlement programs. I suppose you're okay with cutting military benefits, but leave your SSI alone......

You would be surprised how much pure fat and pork there is in the military budget.

I don't think any cuts should be made in entitlement programs. If people have paid into a system for decades, they deserve to see a return.
But if ANY entitlements are cuts, then ALL should be cut equally. One person's pension should not be any more valuable than another's.

[ConHog]

You would be surprised how much pure fat and pork there is in the military budget.

I don't think any cuts should be made in entitlement programs. If people have paid into a system for decades, they deserve to see a return.
But if ANY entitlements are cuts, then ALL should be cut equally. One person's pension should not be any more valuable than another's.

You have just proven that you know nothing except a few talking points. I was career military, I know all about military spending, and in fact admitted that there could be some cutting, but 1/3 is just steupid and shows a complete lack of understanding about how our military operates.

Second of all, entitlements are NOT earned. They are welfare. NO ONE is entitled to welfare. The term entitlement is a misnomer. The fact that you think people are entitled to welfare and that no "entitlements" should be cut just shows me that you are brain dead.

Good evening, this discussion is over.

[J.T]

How, exactly, did you come up with that number?

We're not going to get an answer to that, are we?









Second of all, entitlements are NOT earned.
Some are. Some aren't.

1

a : the state or condition of being entitled (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitled) : right (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right)
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/entitlement

Or do you intend to say that military vets haven't earned the benefits to which they are entitled?

NO ONE is entitled to welfare.
So... VA benefits? Retirement plans promised per a contract offered a worker by a company who feels (s)he's worth scooping up?

Anyway, does anyone else have any ideas on where we can cut what or is everyone here saying that when the bitch about the budget they can't name anything they'd actually cut? Because all the pissing and moaning about the budget means jack shit if you can't point to actual changes (cuts and consolidations, mostly) you'd propose as a means of actually addressing the issue.

[KarlMarx]

d
Ridiculous. Noway you could pare our military budget by a third and continue to protect our national interests. I'll grant that we do need to make some cuts, but 1/3 is stupid to suggest.

I notice you don't make mention of ANY cuts in entitlement programs. I suppose you're okay with cutting military benefits, but leave your SSI alone......

DoD budget for FY 2010 (including Iraq and Afghanistan) = 670 Billion
The Federal Deficit = 1.5 Trillion

Assume that the entire DoD is eliminated.... you would still have a deficit of over 700 Billion.

Entitlements make up 40% of the entire federal budget.... seems like that's where you have to make cuts

[Nukeman]

You would be surprised how much pure fat and pork there is in the SCHOOL budget.

I don't think any cuts should be made in entitlement programs. If people have paid into a system for decades, they deserve to see a return.
But if ANY entitlements are cuts, then ALL should be cut equally. One person's pension should not be any more valuable than another's.

There I fixed it for you gabs..


Public K-12 education consumed $482 billion of public funds in 2006. Government spent $9,679 per student per year. At that rate it takes $125,827 to get a kid all the way from kindergarten through high school. Looked at another way, government spends $223,000 to run a classroom for nine months. Every household, whether they have school age children or not, paid an average compulsory tribute of $4,200 each, $350 per month to the system. Taxpayers regularly are asked to wring their hands over teachers' pay. Just how terrible is it? The National Education Association (NEA), a teachers' special interest group, says the average salary of classroom teachers in the 2006-2007 school year was $50,816. The NEA sidestepped the issue of benefits which can be quite generous. They vary from district to district. A typical teacher's paystub might include $5,400 of employer provided health insurance and an additional $5,500 employer contribution to the teacher's retirement account. That brings the teachers' compensation up to $61,716.

Teachers do not work a full year. Between 10 to 12 week long summer vacations, often a two-week Christmas Holiday break and another week of vacation in early spring, a typical teacher might work 183 days. Compare that to a private sector employee's typical work year of 241 days.
When one adjusts the teacher's pay packet for the shortened work year, it is comparable to earning $81,465 at a normal full-time job. Median household income in 2006 was $48,200. Teachers' paychecks look reasonably stout.



Yep LOTS of fat to be cut from there.... Just saying Gabs. You always point to the military yet you never look at your own back yard.....


You do realize we spend almost as much on education as we do the military each year

2431

[KarlMarx]

You would be surprised how much pure fat and pork there is in the military budget.

I don't think any cuts should be made in entitlement programs. If people have paid into a system for decades, they deserve to see a return.
But if ANY entitlements are cuts, then ALL should be cut equally. One person's pension should not be any more valuable than another's.

Are you talking about Social Security? If you are, then you misunderstand how it works. When you pay Social Security tax, that money isn't put into an account for you. That money is paid out to people who are already drawing Social Security. The reason why there is money in the Social Security Trust Fund is because for years the amount of payments have been less than the amount contributed. However, that is changing. As the Baby Boomers near retirement age, the amount of payments will exceed the amount coming in. Add to this that the Social Security Trust Fund has been raided since the Johnson Administration and one starts to see that there won't be enough money to pay for existing retirees unless you raise Social Security taxes to be over 1/2 of people's incomes. Social Security payments will have to be modified. Otherwise, the system will be unsustainable.

[ConHog]

Here's a few things I would do to help get our budget under control

1. Eliminate the Air Force. Sorry boys , but there is nothing the AF does that the Navy can't do in this day and age, but the reverse isn't true. No need to have two complete command structures and so forth.

2. Close all overseas military bases unless the host country is willing to foot the bill.

3. Eliminate the Pel Grant. If a kid wants the government to foot the bill for his/her college. No problem, agree to 1 year of civil service at a location of the government's choosing for each year of college and done and done. If you don't want to do that, pay for your own college.

4. Institute a hard and fast 2 year rule. From this point forward no one is eligible for more than 2 year of any kind of welfare within a 5 year period. Couple this with rigorous enforcement of fraud laws.

5. Dump the antiquated income tax and go with a federal sales tax that is applied at the consumer level. You buy it, you pay a tax on it, you buy it new overseas and bring it into this country, you pay taxes on it.

6. Utilize the National Guard to completely shut down our borders and THEN grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants residing in this country, giving them 30 days to get to an INS office and enroll in a program to get them headed towards citizenship. Said program to include a fine for each person. Any person who doesn't wish to enroll in said program has 30 days to leave the country. After that 60 days grace period any person caught in this country illegally will be deported within 24 hours of being detained.

7. Legalize marijuana - let's face it folks, marijuana is fairly benign and the laws against it are not doing much good, legalize it , tax it, and regulate it.

8. Rework social security so that anyone who has made $10M in income in the 10 years prior to retirement is simply not eligible to collect on social security. Yes I realize they have paid in, but you know what, let's be realistic those people simply don't need the money,, and they can afford to take this one for the team.

9. Send all Senators and Congressmen home and tell them to stay there. In this day and age there is absolutely, positively no need for them to travel back and forth between their home districts/states and DC. All business can be taken care of via secure web conferences.

10. Close the Post Office - End of on that one

Just for starters.

[DragonStryk72]

I find it fascinating that, facing so many glaring needs in this country, neither side of the political aisle was to go near the subject of tax hikes. As I heard a pundit say once, how many limbs can you amputate before you kill the patient?

But OK, let's talk cuts. Starting with 35 percent of the military budget. Let's close unnecessary bases, cancel outdated weapons programs, eliminate all the useless and redundant "advisers" and "contractors" and prune the Pentagon hierarchy.
Eliminate subsidies to oil companies. This was a favorite of the Bush administration and fueled billions of dollars into their pockets.
Find the companies who export their labor to third world countries and charge them an import tax on the items they ship back in. Perhaps this would encourage more of them to return home and use American labor.

How many times, gabs, how many times has this point been addressed? Hiking taxes with this government is like giving more booze to an already inebriated alcoholic. Do you understand? Further incoming revenue is only get allocated to more programs, so there is NO net gain. Cutting back is really the only option since our government can't seem to dig's it head from it's ass.

Do you even understand that we have the 2nd highest business taxes in the world? But hey, you're an overachiever apparently. Damn those businesses, they should come back here to have pay workers more than 40/hr in wages, and then pay their payroll taxes, and then get ridiculed anyway by you as "greedy, evil corporations" regardless of what they do.

[DragonStryk72]

This admin spent some 3.1 trillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget) last year and I honestly don't see what we have to show for it. We need 2.2 Trillion to fix our infrastructure. That roughly 450 billion/year over the next five years. Obama said he wants to address infrastructure. It's not even debatable that we can't afford to keep going further into the red. We need at least 450 billion in spending cuts and/or new revenue just to address our infrastructure problems without making our budget problems worse. So let's talk budget and see what we can all come up with.

1. Kill the DHS. Yup, its just glut, and really serves no purpose the FBI doesn't do. Put FEMA back where it was back when they did so well in the multiple hurricane scenario that slammed Florida, as opposed to the stripped down version that was shoehorned into DHS by the time Katrina hit.

2. Goodbye Federal department of Education. Our grades were better, and children far more prepared for life after high school before this albatross got tied to our necks. Let's just admit it was a collossal mistake, and move along.

3. Like ConHog, I favor a consumption based tax system. For the poor, who consumes little beyond necessities, they won't be getting their pay clipped before they even see it, and can hold onto their full paycheck, instead of paying into social security that they've now become dependent on, so that they can make enough to get by. For the rich, they will still get hit, since they buy luxury items and even general goods that are far pricier than anything the average citizen can afford.

4. Welfare benefits are contingent on passing a drug test, and yes, you will be checked up on.

5. I would alter slightly ConHog's statement on immigration: Allow families with adults of suitable age and health to join the full active military branch of their choice. This absolves the debt of their family, contingent upon completing at least four years of service, or other Honorable Discharge (Medical, i.e, or if killed in action). Amnesty is contingent upon passing a full criminal background check.

[ConHog]

1. Kill the DHS. Yup, its just glut, and really serves no purpose the FBI doesn't do. Put FEMA back where it was back when they did so well in the multiple hurricane scenario that slammed Florida, as opposed to the stripped down version that was shoehorned into DHS by the time Katrina hit.

2. Goodbye Federal department of Education. Our grades were better, and children far more prepared for life after high school before this albatross got tied to our necks. Let's just admit it was a collossal mistake, and move along.

3. Like ConHog, I favor a consumption based tax system. For the poor, who consumes little beyond necessities, they won't be getting their pay clipped before they even see it, and can hold onto their full paycheck, instead of paying into social security that they've now become dependent on, so that they can make enough to get by. For the rich, they will still get hit, since they buy luxury items and even general goods that are far pricier than anything the average citizen can afford.

4. Welfare benefits are contingent on passing a drug test, and yes, you will be checked up on.

5. I would alter slightly ConHog's statement on immigration: Allow families with adults of suitable age and health to join the full active military branch of their choice. This absolves the debt of their family, contingent upon completing at least four years of service, or other Honorable Discharge (Medical, i.e, or if killed in action). Amnesty is contingent upon passing a full criminal background check.

1. We could actually go further than that. Why do we need an ATF a DEA, an FBI, a DHS, etc etc etc? All of those should be folded into the FBI operating with ONE level of bureacracy rather than 8 or whatever. Just ridiculous. All it accomplishes is to allow some mid level dufuses to build their own private little fiefdom. I'd also add why do we have 4 different agencies who have satellites? Let NASA administer anything we have in space and be done with it.

2. I wouldn't do away with the DoE, but I would strip it down to being not much more than a set of national standards and distributor of federal funds.

3. I didn't say I'd get rid of social security, but I am amiable to discussing it.

4. If you're talking about military service in lieu of fines that I mentioned but giving amnesty to everyone that is here after the border's are shut down , I am fine with that. I don't believe deporting 12M is a realistic option though.

5. Absolutely. Also contingent on if you have another kid while on welfare you are disqualified from ever collecting again. (Barring rape or something similar of course)

[fj1200]

Do you even understand that we have the 2nd highest business taxes in the world?

I think we're highest now, Japan finally cut their's.

[gabosaurus]

Can't say that I disagree with anything ConHog had to say in his post. I think everything should be on the table.

[J.T]

Entitlements make up 40% of the entire federal budget.... seems like that's where you have to make cuts

What, exactly, do you propose?


[various figures regarding teacher bay and spending on schools]

What, exactly, do you propose be done at the federal level? Aren't those contracts negotiated at the district or state level? I have difficulty seeing congress agreeing to end federal funding of school districts and the states being able to pick up the slack. Other than encouraging more aggressive negotiations of contracts, what is there to be done?

Are you talking about Social Security? If you are, then you misunderstand how it works. When you pay Social Security tax, that money isn't put into an account for you. That money is paid out to people who are already drawing Social Security. The reason why there is money in the Social Security Trust Fund is because for years the amount of payments have been less than the amount contributed. However, that is changing. As the Baby Boomers near retirement age, the amount of payments will exceed the amount coming in. Add to this that the Social Security Trust Fund has been raided since the Johnson Administration and one starts to see that there won't be enough money to pay for existing retirees unless you raise Social Security taxes to be over 1/2 of people's incomes. Social Security payments will have to be modified. Otherwise, the system will be unsustainable.

How do we fix it, though? We can't break the contract we forced our seniors into and fail to pay out benefits owed. I suppose we could replace it with a 401(k)-style program or offer other options to people now entering into the workforce, but even if nobody else enters into the program, we're left with the question of how to pay the benefits due. Doing away with the program altogether would also pose several other problems, from being nearly impossible politically to how we'd ensure our nations working-class seniors and disabled persons would be cared for in the future). To do away with the program or make any substantial changes, this question will have to be addressed and we'll have to present a viable alternative to the people of this nation.

So... any ideas?



3. Eliminate the Pel Grant. If a kid wants the government to foot the bill for his/her college. No problem, agree to 1 year of civil service at a location of the government's choosing for each year of college and done and done.

How is that better than having them enter the work force and start paying taxes and being productive members of society?


[QUOTE]
5. Dump the antiquated income tax and go with a federal sales tax that is applied at the consumer level. You buy it, you pay a tax on it, you buy it new overseas and bring it into this country, you pay taxes on it.
So you want strong import tariffs? haven't you objected when I;ve advocated that in the past? Also, what if they buy it used overseas? You do realize, of course, that sales taxes are basically regressive taxes which most effect those struggling to get by, right?

6. Utilize the National Guard to completely shut down our borders and THEN grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants residing in this country, giving them 30 days to get to an INS office and enroll in a program to get them headed towards citizenship. Said program to include a fine for each person. Any person who doesn't wish to enroll in said program has 30 days to leave the country. After that 60 days grace period any person caught in this country illegally will be deported within 24 hours of being detained.

That sounds a lot like what they promised the last time amnesty was granted...


8. Rework social security so that anyone who has made $10M in income in the 10 years prior to retirement is simply not eligible to collect on social security. Yes I realize they have paid in, but you know what, let's be realistic those people simply don't need the money,, and they can afford to take this one for the team.
Why the $10mil figure? Any p[articular reason for it, or does it just strike you as a good number?



2. Goodbye Federal department of Education. Our grades were better, and children far more prepared for life after high school before this albatross got tied to our necks. Let's just admit it was a collossal mistake, and move along.

Other than sending money to schools (something that seems like it could be handled by a bill through congress) and setting standardized tests, what exactly does the DoE do with all the money we send their way? Nobody's ever been able to actually explain that to me when I've asked.

3. Like ConHog, I favor a consumption based tax system. For the poor, who consumes little beyond necessities, they won't be getting their pay clipped before they even see it, and can hold onto their full paycheck, instead of paying into social security that they've now become dependent on, so that they can make enough to get by. For the rich, they will still get hit, since they buy luxury items and even general goods that are far pricier than anything the average citizen can afford.
You say 'necessities'. What, other than food, would constitute a necessity and not be taxed? Has anyone crunched the numbers on what a system like the one you propose would mean in terms of (A) the effective tax rate payed by the various income brackets (B)revenue?

4. Welfare benefits are contingent on passing a drug test, and yes, you will be checked up on.
Frankly, I don't understand why that's not already a rule. I've seen good (effective and helpful) and bad (not helpful, wasteful) programs. The main difference is that good results are achieved when drug tests are randomly conducted and case managers follow up and demand proof one is actively seeking gainful employment or attending schooling/career training. I've never really understood how there's even an argument over this.

[SassyLady]

Anyway, does anyone else have any ideas on where we can cut what or is everyone here saying that when the bitch about the budget they can't name anything they'd actually cut? Because all the pissing and moaning about the budget means jack shit if you can't point to actual changes (cuts and consolidations, mostly) you'd propose as a means of actually addressing the issue.

Hey JT ... look at some of the programs that are funded through the NIH... I think a good majority of them can be eliminated.....start with just those that are related to sexual behavior.

[avatar4321]

I propose we end Baseline budgeting and go towards a real budget. We only spend the amount of money we take in instead of assuming that government will always grow and build in automatic growth every year.

We change the method we use to budget, IE using an accurate system instead of a bullcrap tactic for politicians to avoid doing their jobs, we will see cuts occur automatically.

[J.T]

I propose we end Baseline budgeting and go towards a real budget. We only spend the amount of money we take in

Would you make exceptions for (A) wartime spending (eg: the guys in Afghanistan inform Congress they're out of ammo and need bullets, the budget be damned) and/or (B) emergency spending (such as sending emergency aid to Florida or Texas after a major hurricane or LA after it gets leveled again by another earthquake) with a supermajority vote?

[avatar4321]

Would you make exceptions for (A) wartime spending (eg: the guys in Afghanistan inform Congress they're out of ammo and need bullets, the budget be damned) and/or (B) emergency spending (such as sending emergency aid to Florida or Texas after a major hurricane or LA after it gets leveled again by another earthquake) with a supermajority vote?

I see no reason why the military spending can't be cut while maintaining or even improving the military. I doubt any group is without corruption in it's budget.

However, I think military spending should be the first allocated. National defense is after all, one of the legitimate purposes of the Federal Government. Cut from the rest of the budget for military if needed before deciding whether we need to borrow.

As for the second, The Federal Government has no business in disaster relief. It has no authority to do so. Let's see the state and local communities take back their power as well as charities taking back theirs.

[J.T]

I see no reason why the military spending can't be cut while maintaining or even improving the military. I doubt any group is without corruption in it's budget.Allow me to rephrase. Would you include a exception that would allow congress, with a supermajority, to approve spending to arm our troops, or would a proposal like yours have cost us world war 2 the moment the cost of the war exceeded revenues? Would you allow us to go into the red to win a world war or would you demand our troops go without fuel, food, and ammo in the name of a balanced budget? Without such an exception, you're risking our national security if we ever face another world war coupled with an economic slowdown.



As for the second, The Federal Government has no business in disaster relief. It has no authority to do so.

What the hell is the point of even having a state, then, if we don't help eachother in times of crisis? As for authority, how the hell do you figure the general welfare clause doesn't cover making sure Americans don't die in droves following massive hurricanes, earthquakes, or other natural disasters?

I'll tell you what, if the constitution has a problem with America standing together and taking care of our people in times of crisis, then the constitution is wrong and I have no intention of being bound by the words of two-century-old corpses that say it's wrong for us to take to take care of our people following a natural disaster.

[DragonStryk72]

1. We could actually go further than that. Why do we need an ATF a DEA, an FBI, a DHS, etc etc etc? All of those should be folded into the FBI operating with ONE level of bureacracy rather than 8 or whatever. Just ridiculous. All it accomplishes is to allow some mid level dufuses to build their own private little fiefdom. I'd also add why do we have 4 different agencies who have satellites? Let NASA administer anything we have in space and be done with it.

2. I wouldn't do away with the DoE, but I would strip it down to being not much more than a set of national standards and distributor of federal funds.

3. I didn't say I'd get rid of social security, but I am amiable to discussing it.

4. If you're talking about military service in lieu of fines that I mentioned but giving amnesty to everyone that is here after the border's are shut down , I am fine with that. I don't believe deporting 12M is a realistic option though.

5. Absolutely. Also contingent on if you have another kid while on welfare you are disqualified from ever collecting again. (Barring rape or something similar of course)

1. True, and as well, the CIA and NSA perform pretty much the same function of intelligence gathering, so we could go ahead a put them together.

2. The problem is that the federal funds have become contingent upon all sorts of idiocy, such as new standardized tests that rob time from the teachers, forcing to just teach the tests.

3. I wasn't talking about SS, aside from the example I was using. With the income tax, money is snatched out of your paycheck before you even get to see it, even if you get a refund later, you're still getting you income held back now, and on top of that, you have to pay someone to get you money back for you. Far simpler is to tax consumption, as the poor consume little that isn't necessary for survival, and the rich would automatically put in more money simply by buying the more expensive items they already buy. A consumption tax, such as the Fair Tax, would also pretty much automatically cause a decrease in the number of people who need to rely on things such as food stamps and welfare, since they would be getting all of their income each month.

4. Basically, yeah. Since mass deportation is simply unfeasible, we can bolster our ranks significantly if even 1% of those 12 million illegals are military-ready. If you are willing to put your life on the line for this country, then I am more than willing to let you and your family stay here.

5. Actually, i'd really love to overhaul welfare entirely, since it is in no way built to actually get you off of it once you're there. It isn't just about consequences. I'll give an example from my own life: One of the guys at Labor Ready nearly lost his welfare benefits, why? Because he wasn't showing up 5 days a week to an employment class at 8 am, because at 3:30 am, he was sitting outside of Labor Ready 5 days a week to try and get at least some work, and drudge work at that. We are punishing the exact sort of behaviors in welfare recipients we should be rewarding.

[DragonStryk72]

Other than sending money to schools (something that seems like it could be handled by a bill through congress) and setting standardized tests, what exactly does the DoE do with all the money we send their way? Nobody's ever been able to actually explain that to me when I've asked.

That's because of the fact that they have little real oversight on how their money is spent. Likely, there are some worthwhile endeavors that they are paying into, such as better education for special needs children, etc., but there is also a lot of bloat there.

You say 'necessities'. What, other than food, would constitute a necessity and not be taxed? Has anyone crunched the numbers on what a system like the one you propose would mean in terms of (A) the effective tax rate payed by the various income brackets (B)revenue?

Aside from Food, I would say that basic toiletries (TP, soap, ie), and basic clothing (non-luxury) is probably the limits of what is a necessity, the things you have to have in order to get by decently. TVs, and other electronics obviously aren't. According to the Fair Tax, the tax would essentially a 23% tax on finished retail goods, but then, you're already paying that now, the taxes are just embedded in the cost of the product, as the various businesses pay taxes during its production.

The big benefit is the sheer efficiency of the system, as we could cut about 90% of the IRS since there would be no need for refunds, or most of the various forms and such that they process each year. As to how it effects the income brackets, the poor can get "around" the tax by doing the following: Stick to buying essentials, and buy bargain bin clothing and such, so that their taxation is extremely low, if at all. On the other side, the Rich would still be getting taxed a good deal more, since they obviously buy bigger more expensive items. The difference here is what is encouraged by the tax system: Saving.

No more Estate Tax, or Payroll Tax (let me tell you, you want to see some new employment, get rid of this one, the "pleasure of having you work for me" tax. it's costs an employer $70k a year to pay an employee $50k), or any of the other ways we've come up with to punish successful people.

Frankly, I don't understand why that's not already a rule. I've seen good (effective and helpful) and bad (not helpful, wasteful) programs. The main difference is that good results are achieved when drug tests are randomly conducted and case managers follow up and demand proof one is actively seeking gainful employment or attending schooling/career training. I've never really understood how there's even an argument over this.

Well, basically, the people who are arguing against it feel like welfare recipients are being persecuted by people, and in truth there is some truth to that accusation. The problem, however, is that there is also truth to the other side's argument, and so we need to alter the way do things so that our welfare programs help the people they are intended to help, and to get those people off of welfare as soon as we can, so that they can get on with their lives.

[J.T]

basic clothing (non-luxury)

How is that an enforceable standard?

According to the Fair Tax, the tax would essentially a 23% tax on finished retail goods, but then, you're already paying that now, the taxes are just embedded in the cost of the product, as the various businesses pay taxes during its production.

Do you have the numbers on this? Can you point to any nation using such a system so we can see for ourselves how it's worked elsewhere? Your sales pitch sounds great but that just makes me more skeptical (if something sounds to good to be true,...). I'd like numbers and a real-world example if you have them.

I'm definitely with you on payroll taxes (there's simply no logical reason for it) though I wonder just how much of an impact it could possible have on employment, especially in light of economic uncertainty and other factors.


The big benefit is the sheer efficiency of the system, as we could cut about 90% of the IRS
How did you reach this number?