RE: US federal budget

RE: US federal budget (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 2:04:15 PM)
I'm with you...I'd be all for bringing every man woman plane tank truck jeep ship...etc home. Keep up their readiness and keep the weapons up dated but stay out of other peoples business. It is one of the few radical actions I subscribe to…being an isolationist I am. Butch

jlf1961 -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 2:05:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: Women spend $217 per year on makeup, $417 on body care products, $1,069 on clothing, and $250 on shoes for a total of $1,953 per year LOL I dont have 1000 to spend on clothes a year.... I have spent 100 on shoes and that will be it. Taking averages and applying them to every female is... yet again... extremely sexist. Do not women apply judgements that would deal with only one male to the entire male population of the planet? I try very hard not to do so. Do you have to lower yourself to that level? Why not, I am only human, as much as I regret that particular genetic mistake. I am truly wondering at this point. As a joke, I could see it being funny.. even said so about something you posted. But, I realized you were not joking... which is extremely offensive. It is your choice to go there or not. You made that choice to go there. ~shrugs Own it. Actually I was joking. Playing off the numerous hgtv shows where couples are buying houses and the lady keeps harping on closet space.

DomKen -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 2:42:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Without the ability to deficit spend DomKen there would never be deficit spending or a need for it if a tax was authorized... or tax in conjunction with war bonds for instance...before a war was authorized. This could be done almost immediately with emergency sessions. But it would hold our congress directly responsible for each and every war along with the cost. The public would then decide directly through their votes if the war is to be continued. Butch War bonds are borrowing which would not be allowed if the budget has to be balanced.

kdsub -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 2:49:45 PM)
quote: War bonds are borrowing which would not be allowed if the budget has to be balanced Of course they can... the payment and interest will just need to be budgeted according to the bond specifications. It may need to be estimated but it can be done easy enough. Remember all is paid according to a war tax that is adjusted each year. Voters will always have the option to demand the war end by their votes when they have to pay directly. Butch

kdsub -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 2:51:11 PM)
My city issues bonds for projects all the time and has a balanced budget. I don't see the problem but no expert on bonds here that's for sure. Butch

DesideriScuri -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 3:04:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl We are speaking about those who lose their jobs as a result of downsizing the different departments. Pink slips are eligible for unemployment.. even at the federal level.. along with a host of other services. I see. So, if they aren't doing a job that is meaningful without Government contracts, take some fuckitol and don't stop those contracts! We can't have that!!! At some point, we'll be stopping those contracts and the people who aren't essential to the scaled down operations will be out of work. What is wrong with that? Unemployment is paid by....? Oh, that's right, employers pay unemployment insurance... This goes back to the whole idea that when you find yourself in a hole, one of the first things you do is stop digging.

tazzygirl -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 3:16:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl We are speaking about those who lose their jobs as a result of downsizing the different departments. Pink slips are eligible for unemployment.. even at the federal level.. along with a host of other services. I see. So, if they aren't doing a job that is meaningful without Government contracts, take some fuckitol and don't stop those contracts! We can't have that!!! At some point, we'll be stopping those contracts and the people who aren't essential to the scaled down operations will be out of work. What is wrong with that? Unemployment is paid by....? Oh, that's right, employers pay unemployment insurance... This goes back to the whole idea that when you find yourself in a hole, one of the first things you do is stop digging. Thats not what I said. I asked a question... its a simple question... one based upon other responses. If you want to be part of a discussion with me, you dont have to be belligerent. quote: Oh, that's right, employers pay unemployment insurance... For how long? I think Aylee posted some actual numbers of unemployment in her list.. and that got me to thinking about other areas. It would be a massive law off as I see it. I was curious to the extent people were thinking their proposals through.

jlf1961 -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 3:40:44 PM)
Forget the jokes, lets get serious here. There are 270,000,000 legal guns in the US. Say place a federal tax of $50 per gun every year. There are 243,023,485 privately owned automobiles in the US, say a $50 federal highway usage tax on each car per year. As it stands now, the only vehicles that pay any kind of federal highway usage tax is commercial vehicle. I am a smoker and I suggest the following. 62,000,000 packs of cigarettes are sold each year, I suggest a $2 federal tax at the register for each pack. The states are taxing the hell out of smokes at the register, why not the Feds? I may be wrong, but it appears that federal and state taxes are paid at the distributor, not at the register. Why not a $1 federal tax per six pack and the same per bottle of liquor and wine? Since the average american buys 9.4 liters of liquor a year, it wont be much but it would still add up. You might consider a $1 federal tax on every adult magazine sold. Just something to think about.

tazzygirl -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 3:53:09 PM)
I would have no issues with any of those. States where those products are grown/made would though.

jlf1961 -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 4:00:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I would have no issues with any of those. States where those products are grown/made would though. Look, those states are screaming because federal funding to the states is being cut and they cant make their damn budgets either. In other words, they can put up and collectively grow a pair, or ask the to have their states made Federal territories again. I aint sure the second is possible, but who cares. I am sick and tired of states complaining about not getting federal funding and the entire time they are cutting corporate taxes and other revenue sources that could help with the state budget.

DomKen -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 5:11:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: War bonds are borrowing which would not be allowed if the budget has to be balanced Of course they can... the payment and interest will just need to be budgeted according to the bond specifications. It may need to be estimated but it can be done easy enough. Remember all is paid according to a war tax that is adjusted each year. Voters will always have the option to demand the war end by their votes when they have to pay directly. Butch How is the budget in balance if more money is spent then collected? Either deficit spending is allowed or it isn't.

jlf1961 -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 5:15:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: War bonds are borrowing which would not be allowed if the budget has to be balanced Of course they can... the payment and interest will just need to be budgeted according to the bond specifications. It may need to be estimated but it can be done easy enough. Remember all is paid according to a war tax that is adjusted each year. Voters will always have the option to demand the war end by their votes when they have to pay directly. Butch How is the budget in balance if more money is spent then collected? Either deficit spending is allowed or it isn't. One more thing, cut senate and house pay by 50%

kdsub -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 5:27:13 PM)
quote: How is the budget in balance if more money is spent then collected? Either deficit spending is allowed or it isn't War bonds would be what we are talking about. If there were a war and we could not raise enough money quickly enough through a tax then war bonds could be issued. This debit would have a specific amount of return over a period of time. The next fiscal year the interest returned would need to be budgeted along with a budgeted amount funded by the new yearly war tax to cover the debit over the length of the bond. If the congress does not pass any of these tax increases to fund the war then we would withdraw. If it were a war for our survival I don't see a problem getting any tax rate required...do you? Butch

jlf1961 -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 5:30:36 PM)
Federal revenues for treasury and savings bonds seem to be unavailable, or I did not word the search right. I am curious as to how much it is though

kdsub -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 5:39:20 PM)
Let me give an example. My City wants to resurface all the main roads in town with new Asphaltic Concrete. They do not have the money in reserve to accomplish this. They decide to issue city bonds and raise the $400,000 needed for the project. With our finance department we calculate the total costs over the 20 year bond period. This money is divided over 20 years and a yearly amount needed to retire the bonds is put before the people in the form of a bond tax for road improvements. If the new tax is approved there is no problem keeping the balanced budget because the tax revenue is ear marked for bond retirement. The people make the choice and I believe this is the same way war funding should be managed. Butch

Aylee -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 5:43:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl I think Aylee posted some actual numbers of unemployment in her list.. and that got me to thinking about other areas. It would be a massive law off as I see it. I was curious to the extent people were thinking their proposals through. (No, I am not going back to find the question. This alludes to it and people can go look themselves.) One solution is central planning. Five Year Plans. Guaranteed jobs. Employment stability. Schumpeter ( http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Schumpeter.html )dealt with that a long time ago. So have many others. Central planning tends to fail for lack of information. We have not seen many examples of successful central planning command economies. Another is the “German Economic Miracle” phenomenon: remove restrictions on work and employment, remove most economic regulations, invite people to be ingenious, if you can think of something to hire someone to do, and that person is willing to do it, then go ahead. Yes, it’s more complicated than that, but that’s the core: unleash the engines of creativity. The result will be growth. Some of it will be brutal. It will be easy to find cases of exploitation, greed, sadistic bosses, racial discrimination, sexual harassment: there will be good reasons to to impose restrictions and regulations. But for pure economic growth, unrestricted capitalism works. One restriction I would impose on capitalism is size and market share. I would not allow monopolies and cartels. I would not allow the nation to have a Big Five banking system: it would be a lot more like “a not so big 100” along with a ferment of smaller local banks. The same would be true of many other industries: compete by providing more goods at lower prices, not by buying out your competitors.

jlf1961 -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 5:46:46 PM)
Re write the constitution so that three people are in charge of the budget, then put me, aylee and tazzy in charge. I can assure you a balanced budget every year with a surplus... but a lot of people will not like some of the cuts.

Aylee -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 5:48:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: War bonds are borrowing which would not be allowed if the budget has to be balanced Of course they can... the payment and interest will just need to be budgeted according to the bond specifications. It may need to be estimated but it can be done easy enough. Remember all is paid according to a war tax that is adjusted each year. Voters will always have the option to demand the war end by their votes when they have to pay directly. Butch How is the budget in balance if more money is spent then collected? Either deficit spending is allowed or it isn't. One more thing, cut senate and house pay by 50% No. Tie Representative pay, for instance, to that of an Army captain. Tie junior Senator pay to an Army major and senior Senator pay to a Colonel. Eliminate private retirement for the Congress, they all get Social Security like the rest of us, but they also get Veterans Administration health care. As an option, any congresscritter from a State with a Native American Reservation may opt to receive their care from the Bureau of Indian Affairs instead. (and if they can't un-{copulate} these agencies in short order, then they deserve the hellish "care" they get) For those who claim maintaining housing in district and D.C. (which was apparently not a consideration for former Sen. Lugar (R-IN)) I would suggest that there's on-base housing available at any number of facilities, and that security would be significantly better. (D.C. is . . . not crime-free)

jlf1961 -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 5:52:34 PM)
Uh, maybe pay them the equivalent in todays funds as a roman senator of the roman republic.... From what I can find out, they werent paid.

Aylee -> RE: US federal budget (1/6/2013 6:19:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 Uh, maybe pay them the equivalent in todays funds as a roman senator of the roman republic.... From what I can find out, they werent paid. Mostly I want to put it back to the days when it was a privilege and a bit of a burden to serve in congress...not the vast sea of perks and revolving doors it is now. (I'd say remove the a/c from most of the administrative buildings (both executive and legislative), but that would be a burden on the poor WG types trying to do their jobs honestly.) Too many folks mix 'payments earned or paid for' with 'promises made for votes.' On both sides of the legislature. . .

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875