bank secrets

[--Pete]

Hi,

We spend more than we collect in revenue, and now, we always will.

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.

You might say, "Raise taxes", but that has shown to be a way to cut jobs and reduce revenues.

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.

If we keep things simple, we don't need to argue about whether twinkies and viagra should be taxed or not.

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.

If your State does not serve you well, then vote the bums out of office and choose better public servants.

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.

The places with more people need their revenue to take care of their own people.

The cost of some services (schools) scales with the population. The cost of others (roads) doesn't.

South Dakota needs an interstate highway why? Leaving quickly?

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:

To preserve establishment clause of the Constitution.

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

Heck, the most popular vehicle for the ultra rich is to start a non-profit charitable foundation with your heirs in charge of the disbursements. They of course draw large salaries, and may not ever disperse any funds to charity.

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

You would more than make up for the loss of corporate tax with the revenue from the increase in GDP.

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.

We need to get out of the mind set that serving as a representative of the people is a career. You can be a career public servant if you like, but your salary increases will come by raising the standard of living for everyone.

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? 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?

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.

Our best and brightest grads need to be dynamic contributors to the economy, not feeding at the trough of government.

Yeah, we sure don't want people of Jefferson's, of Madison's, of Hamilton's, of Lincoln's potential to be in government.

Look at our politicians, look at the mess the USA is in, and tell me you need an IQ greater than 100 to do what they have done.

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)

Campaigns need to be shorter, not run over a 4 year period. Candidates need to communicate what their ideas are, rather than continuously drag down their opponents. I don't think it should take a billion dollars to run for President.

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."

Fair to me, means that you get what you pay for, and you only pay for what you get.

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.

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.

--Pete