|
DesideriScuri -> RE: “You should get one of your friends to screw your daughter straight” (5/2/2012 1:10:54 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Mupainurpleasure
oh no need I am familar with the numbers cant blame a guy for trying. The growth is still far slower than under W unless you include census
All numbers gleaned from the BLS.gov website.
2001: Average Government employment (Civilian, non-Farm employment monthly number average) 21.12M
2008: 22.507M (1.387M increase)
2011: 22.105M (302M decrease)
Local Government #'s:
2001: 13.451M
2008: 14.569M (1.118M increase)
2011: 14.165M (0.404M decrease)
State Government #'s:
2001 4.906M
2008 5.176M (270k increase)
2011 5.082M (94k decrease)
Federal Government #'s:
2001 2.763M
2008 2.762M (1k decrease)
2011 2.858M (96k increase)
Who do you think has the greatest impact on every business at once? Locals? Nope. State? More than locals, but nope. Federal? Absolutely. But, at the Federal level, do you think it's the USPS that is the cause of concern? Me either. So, further raping of the BLS site gives us these numbers:
USPS #'s
2001 873k
2008 748k (125k drop)
2011 632k (116k drop)
Federal, no USPS #'s:
2001 1.890M
2008 2.014M (124k increase)
2011 2.225M (211k increase)
quote:
I like your sinature by the way. I also believe only the truly need y shoulds get social safety net support but believe the term truly is redundant. needy is needy.
Glad you like my signature. Are there people who get social safety net support that don't truly need it? Yes. Yes, there are. Why? Is it because the government officials in charge of deciding who gets support are involved in some sort of scheme to bilk government? Maybe, but I highly doubt it. Most likely, there are people out there scamming government by making themselves look needy when they truly are not. A drug dealer could have zero income to report, but that does not mean he has any monetary needs that aren't being met.
quote:
Although I am not for a conservative or liberal take on the constitution I am very strongly opposed to the type of activism that throws out a long established precendence as in citizens united.
I'm not saying this is the case, but if an activist court ruled for decades made rulings that were "activist" rulings, would you support rulings that ran counter to those precedents? I know I would. Lucky for us, precedent means little when the precedent is determined to be counter to the Constitution.
quote:
I also think that case by instructing the group bringing the challenge to come back with a new argument the next term speaks to a desire to rule a certain way rtehr than judge legal arguments. It and the abortion ruling are the 2nd and third most activist decuions in my lifetime. We will all pay the price those corporate doantions arent given freely they are an investment with an expected return in favorable treatment. When unlimited money flows we can expect we will se ethe same type of bought and paid for goverment thast existed before laws wer epassed to stop it.
The most activist has to be Bush vs Gore where the court stepped in and overturned state law and did so while making a statement it was to hbave no precedence which is ridiculous. If it has no mprecedence as law they had no right. That isnt partisan. The court makes rulings on laws not events. In that case they ruled on an event just some thoughts on activism and the courts and the misconception many have all activism is liberal
i supprt limited govderment as well. it's a broad term. Are there parts of goverment you would eliminate? Myself I think the medicare advantage program, corporate welfare programs ( three times citizen welfare costs) and farm subsidies on farm s s,maller than a certain acreage and larger than a certain acreage so we stop paying subsidies on a Lawyers ten acres and Monsantos 2000k and return to the idea of supoorting family farms... That would be my start... seee, lierals dont like all goverment or think all of it a good. Those are just handouts to the unneedy not thetruly needy. It';'s like the inasane tobacco subsidies in Va given to farmers with net worths of 800k a few years ago. Wealthy people dont need a handout only the needy need a hand up
Dept of Education. All Farm subsidies. While I have the axe out, all subsidies. Might need to get the chainsaw to rid the IRS tax code of all loopholes. Hell, while we're at it, delete the IRS and institute the Flat Tax. Drastically slash the Defense budget (bring all the troops home; close our foreign bases; stop playing World cop for everyone else). Fannie and Freddie. There are a whole slew of financial changes I would make.
quote:
Consumption is tricky. have you read how high rates would have to be to replace the Income tax or how regressive it would be in terms of poercentasge of income paid?? We already have a regressive system form what I understand that system would be a huge cut in high end rates that are already lower than middle class rates and a huge increase in the rate the poor and middle class pay
Rates would probably have to be 23%, but I'd even go 25% and keep food exemptions, like we have now. The more you spend, the more tax you pay. Spend less, pay less in taxes. Get paid under the table? Consumption taxes still apply.
|
|
|
|
