bank secrets

[kandrathe]

The first half of that statement is true, but the second half is speculation. There is a lot that can be done to reduce government spending. And an economic recovery is entirely possible, even if it takes awhile, so revenues can increase. So to assume that the expenses will forever more be greater than the revenue is, I think, a bit extreme.

Ok, maybe if the whole thing crashes and the US somehow defaults on the debt, then we might get out from under it. But, before last falls borrowing spree, the US was about 12 trillion in debt and debt service ($575 billion) was exceeding 22.8% of tax revenue ($2.52 T). The current proposed budget takes spending(deficit) from $2.9 T to $5.158T by 2019 (and this assumes getting out of Iraq and quickly ending that little terrorist tiff we have in Afghanistan). It also assumes all this financial trouble we are having now is just a little bump in the road, and that the 2009 GDP, and forward will grow by more than 6% per year. Also it is assumed that during this time the projected revenue taxed by the government will grow from %17.7 to about 20% of GDP. Pipe dreams!

The reality is that 2009 revenues will be much lower than projected contracting by %4 or 5%, meaning that with the additional stimulus spending the debt will grow by another 25% to 30% bringing it to over $1.2 T in debt service per year now. If you don't cut anything or add anything different in 2009 you would add the debt service about $1.788 trillion in mandatory spending for social programs and $1.114 trillion in discretionary programs which gives us something just over a $4T US budget. That's right, by 2010, the debt service would be approaching 50% of our spending.

Remember that we collected $2.52 T in 2008, and we are likely to collect just $2.38T for 2009. So now we are adding 1.62 to 2 trillion to the debt every year until we "grow" out of deficit spending. I say we've passed the tipping point here and that the portion of debt added to the deficit each year is greater than our economy can grow and we've moved beyond any possible tax remedy. The options as I see it now are printing money (i.e. inflation), and raising taxes, and drastically reducing government spending. Or, we might try the Saddam approach and actually do as the US has been accused, seize the middle east oil fields. Which do you think will happen? Also, I'm using the governments numbers. If you look at a site like http://www.shadowstats.com/ you would get even more depressed.

Jester has already addressed this. Revenue is determined by the size of the pie and the fraction the government takes. The government has direct control of the fraction it takes since that is just the tax rate (modified by exceptions, etc.) But it only has indirect control over the size of the pie. Tax rate is only one factor there. There are many other factors, not the least of which is the overall outlook of the population.

Yes, although currently the government believes that if they borrow lots of money ($3T) and cast it upon the waters that it will buoy up this sinking ship.

True. However, if we keep things simple, we often keep things wrong. Newton is simpler than Einstein, but it doesn't make him more correct. It was Einstein who pointed out that we should "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." I think some of your ideas cross that 'too simple' line.

I wish economics were physics, and even though some economists like to pretend that economics is like physics it really is not. The only things they really have in common is chaos theory. In the case of government, it should be simple. So simple that someone with an IQ of 100 could understand it. When we make it complicated is when smart people start playing games with it, and turn the functions of government into a robbers den.

Not a valid argument for decentralization since exactly the same thing can be said about the federal government. And I don't think that the incumbent advantage is any less (and probably more) at the state level than it is at the federal. I think you are blaming the government for the failure of the people. As long as the majority of the population votes (if they vote at all) on the basis of party affiliation and name recognition, then I don't much care where the power lies, it will be misused. Since the majority lack the interest, the temperament, and (I'm beginning to suspect) the intelligence to inform themselves, I expect that the condition will not change. In Renaissance Florence, an opponent of democracy called it "a form of government where opinions are counted but not weighed." The charge still stands.

I agree, mostly, however my experience has been that democracy works really well the closer it gets to home. I can actually get in my car and attend every city council meeting, or go and visit with my council member or mayor most anytime I like. When election time comes around, a candidate can drive around over a few weeks and visit every home in their district and get the opinions and ideas of every person they represent. At the state level it is less so, but I still have access to my state congressional people, and I will get a personal reply from the governor on occasion. The federal level takes the stage to the level of Hollywood where once mortal stage actors think they are movie stars, and they literally live that life style. I want to bring back the notion of "servitude" to public service.

The cost of some services (schools) scales with the population. The cost of others (roads) doesn't. Never mind South Dakota (where an argument for 'connectivity' might be made), what about Hawaii? Actually, the whole interstate highway system was a bill of goods sold to the federal government by the trucking industry and the teamsters union. Proposed as a military highway system (in which purpose it fails, since the original requirements are inadequate for some modern military hardware) it caught the fancy of Eisenhower, then in office. It is one of the few decisions he made that I completely disagree with. But when Ahnold's army decides to leave California and conquer New York, it might finally justify its cost. :w00t:

The road system is a great example, because one size does not fit all. Even something simple like SSI, is a much different problem in NYC than it is in Polk, Iowa. Agriculture? nope. Housing? nope. The only things that work at the federal level are those things that should be at the federal level, like national defense, interstate commerce, negotiating trade and treaties. And, if we want to spend some money on promoting things like sciences, arts, or commerce, then choose some billions for discretionary spending on grants and "promotions".

So, in order to avoid giving religion preferential treatment, we should give it preferential treatment?

Sheesh! You atheists always remember the establishment clause, but forget the other part "or that prohibits the free exercise of religion"! :) To be fair, I did say establishment, when I also meant the free exercise part as well. I would say that putting a tax on church revenue inter-tangles church and state to the point of violating the 1st amendment. It is different because it was specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

First, put religion on the same basis as any other not for profit institution. Then do as you wish, if you can't see the need and benefit of such organizations. But destroying, or even severely hampering, groups such as the Red Cross, the ASPCA, the ACLU, the American Cancer Association, etc., because some groups take advantage of the non profit laws is, IMO, an extreme baby/bathwater move. A true simplistic solution that, maybe, could better be solved by something less simple -- possibly a few regulations and enforcement of same.

Since corporations pay no tax, how would it hurt them. They just need to play by the same rules as any other incorporated entity (non-individual).

I think I read that book. Something by Ludlum, isn't it? :whistling:

Actually, I didn't read that book and I'm not sure which one you are referring. I looked at the information on web sites of lawyers offering to handle estate tax issues.

Again, too simplistic. Corporations set up their headquarters and their other facilities on the basis of many factors, of which taxes is but one. If the taxes are very high, then they become the dominating factor. As they get lower, they become less important. While removing them completely does make them, by default, meaningless, that does not mean that it is necessary to do so.

True. There are other factors, like skilled work force and quality of life. My experience in working with executive management gives me some insight in how they think about costs and revenues. I've been involved in helping many corporations "leave" Minnesota due to the business hostile climate that exists in my state.

You propose a maximum total time for elected office, then you say that you can be a career public servant. Do you mean in civil service? Because they are not the ones who actually make the decisions that matter. Again, I fear you are seeing a simple (and wrong) solution to a complex problem. Do we really want our government to be run by amateurs, to get rid of our leaders just as they are developing the experience to do the job right?

Yes, I want government to be run by "The People" which to me means the average person. I don't want there to be a required set of knowledge to qualify for representing the people.

Do we really want our government to be run by amateurs, to get rid of our leaders just as they are developing the experience to do the job right? Is governing so simple that a person can learn it in a few days? And, if so, why do so many do it so poorly?

It happens that way now. Simplify government so that even the common man can do it.

Personally, I think the twenty-second (lame duck) amendment was a mistake. Most of the problem, as I see it, is the incumbent advantage. Another problem, again as I see it, is that elected officials are distracted from doing their jobs during the (ever lengthening) campaign season. Both those problems could be solved by making it illegal for a person holding a public office at any level) to run for another public office until the term for which he was elected has expired (e.g., no resigning a senate seat to run for president). That would mean that a person could not be reelected to the same office twice in a row. It would permit a person of ability to be an elected official for life (with gaps, of course). It would eliminate the incumbent advantage. Yeah, we sure don't want people of Jefferson's, of Madison's, of Hamilton's, of Lincoln's potential to be in government.

If you look at the founders, it was rare for anyone to be in "elected" office for more than 12 years. I have no problem with a person serving in government as an appointee, or as any other civil servant position.

So, since morons got us into the mess, we don't need anything better than a moron to get us out of it? "I think you better think it out again." B)

Again, you might say that the problem is that we don't have smart people. I would say, it is the combination of government that has grown too complicated with too many laws, an apathetic electorate, and a pack of self centered politicians grubbing for power and money.

Give the nation a better class of voters and you would probably get a better class of both politicians and campaigns. What *you* think does not matter to the politician who wants to be elected. What works does. As they say, "nothing succeeds like success."

I would say take the intangible incentives away from the "politician" and you will end up with a representative of the people. Because it takes a billion dollars to get elected to the presidency, is the reason we need to remove money interests from the process. Elections should not be contests between waring coalitions of the rich and powerful, and the corporate interests they represent. I would like to see the USA return to being a representative democracy.

So, insurance is not fair by your definition. You only pay a couple of hundred a year for your home fire insurance. If your house doesn't burn down, you don't get anything back for what you paid and if it does, you get back many times what you paid. The concept of spreading the risk fails your test of fairness, as does the concept of spreading the common costs.

Actually, funny you mention that. Where possible I try to self insure by keeping my own pile of reserve money in case of a catastrophe. I have insurance (by law I have to), but I set my deductibles at their highest point. I also have a rider liability policy that covers me from the lawsuit happy. When insurance is not voluntary, they call it extortion... unless the government does it. When the Teamsters spend your retirement pension, they are indicted. When the government does it, it is called creative accounting.

Or, perhaps, you need a less simple definition of 'get' than I've assumed here. Such as 'get' an educated population, 'get' a decent transportation system, 'get' good police, fire, emergency services. 'Get' all those, even if you personally 'get' none of them.

Yes, I was using the term loosely. I get marginally educated children, however at a premium expense. I get to use the roads with no expense beyond taxation. I have adequate police and fire protection and my garbage and recycling disappears every Wednesday morning (although I also pay the waste management company some money too). Also, when my neighbors lose their jobs, the State government steps in and helps them get re-employed and helps them keep their home and their families insured. These are not bad things. There is a level of reasonableness to living in a compassionate society, although at some point as we move toward socialist thinking, the society becomes more important than the individual.