Did that CUT hurt? How bout this one?, page 2

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 07:43 AM

link

reply to post by TWILITE22

Yeah, we could get rid of all the tax lawyers too! Now, the tax accountants could be transferred to real jobs like handling the paperwork for the new sales tax system. Also implementing a system where stock sales could receive the proper taxation.

See, this would slow down the stock market, property markets, all the markets. This would prevent speculators in the market as well, because everytime they go attempting to manipulate the market, they would have to pay a sales tax.

I have been thinking about this for awhile.

Just think, no more Gordon Gekkos.

yeahright

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:16 AM

link

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Good thread. Typifies why things aren't going to get better until we're really down a sink hole. The people with a vested interest in Big Government aren't going to go away quietly, and they're astute enough to spin a story to obfuscate the reality.

Advocating abolishing the Department of Education means you're anti-education? You've bought into the charade. How many people has the Department of Education educated since its inception in 1980? Here's a hint, it's less than one. Where is the constitutional authority for the federal government to even be involved in education? If anything should be a local matter, that's close to the top of my list. States can do a better job, and did. Anyone thrilled with the status of public education in this country? Try to get those pigs out of the trough and it's, "Oh, you hate the children!"

We sure can't afford doling it out to NPR and National Endowment for the Arts, either. See; this is what you do when you can't pay your bills - you quit spending on the unnecessary, superfluous things. It's high time we got back to basics and essentials. Private funding, donations, or whatever the private sector can come up with for funds should be utilized in lieu of taking the money forcibly extracted from taxpayers and sprinkling it around like we have it to blow. And yes, I donate to my local public tv station. And I love art as much as the next schlub. But the government has no business in the Arts business. But it's only $150 million, or so, right? It's the PRINCIPLE. The federal government does crap like this all the time and we let it happen.

It's a crying shame, and it's in a big way demonstrative of how we've arrived at this point. We aren't apparently going to learn that you can't dig your way out of a hole. Doing more of what got you into the hole isn't going to get you out of it. But everyone wants the other guys' programs cut. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of ways to cut costs. But we won't get concurrence on cutting even the most obviously superfluous.

Leading up to the election, any Republican candidate who was asked, "Okay, what would you cut? Specifics please". Those questions were met with, "I'd establish a Blue Ribbon panel to really study this issue and seek to ferret out waste, fraud and corruption bladeblahfreakinblah". Never specifics. Never. Because as a candidate, you can't afford to have your opponent cast you as anti-children or a Philistine art hater or something. "My opponent Bob Boberson doesn't want your children to have a school to go to and he hates church music". [Insert sound bite of candidate advocating cuts in specific federal programs].

Oh, a forced correction will happen. And it's going to be uglier than you can even imagine.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

negativenihil

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:30 AM

link

Time to make some cuts indeed.

Why not start with the 2 800lb gorillas that are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

I'm sure that cut could save the government quite a tidy sum. Pull out the troops and bring them home, ASAP. At this point i really couldn't care less about Iraq or Afghanistan descending into chaos.

We're just delaying the inevitable at this point.

BingeBob

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:34 AM

link

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by Syyth007

Added to the list. I will call it the elected officials wage and benefits reduction.

1-National Public Radio and Public TV
2-National Endowment for the Arts
3-US Military reduce bases in foreign countries by 90%. Redeploy one half to the Mexican border area. And build requisite bases necessary to redeploy to this region. Redeploy our bases so that we are protecting the US sovereign area and not other countries. Project power, but not globally. Non interventionism is the key.
4-IRS
5-Federal Reserve
6-National Education Agency
7-Administration Conference of the United States
8-Subsidies on oil and other energy
9-DEA
10-Elected officials wage and benefit reduction
(my adds)
11-BATFE
12-TSA
13-DHS

edit on 3-11-2010 by BingeBob because: clarification

saltheart foamfollower

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:41 AM

link

reply to post by yeahright

Yeah, I tried this before. It always comes down to the same thing. No one wants anything cut.

I was going to send this off the list in an email to my new workers that we have elected. Thought it might be a good idea to let them know what they were hired to do.

One thing is for certain, if they attempt to bailout California now, especially after electing pretty much every single one of the big government bureaucrats, I say pitchforks and torches.

I say let California go. Cut it off from the trunk like a dead branch.

Last thing I read on their pensions spooked me. A audit was done on the system and they said that the pensions are so under water that in just two years, the pensions are going to cost 5 times what the state takes in.

Talk about chaos, that whole state is going to burn. One of the peeps at another site was waiting to see til this election, if they would change the votes. He said he is beginning packing today.

saltheart foamfollower

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 08:59 AM

link

reply to post by BingeBob

1-National Public Radio and Public TV
2-National Endowment for the Arts
3-US Military reduce bases in foreign countries by 90%. Redeploy one half to the Mexican border area. And build requisite bases necessary to redeploy to this region. Redeploy our bases so that we are protecting the US sovereign area and not other countries. Project power, but not globally. Non interventionism is the key.
4-IRS
5-Federal Reserve
6-National Education Agency
7-Administration Conference of the United States
8-Subsidies on oil and other energy
9-DEA
10-Elected officials wage and benefit reduction
11-BATFE
12-TSA
13-DHS

Good additions. The first is an agency that is there to enforce laws on 3 legal items. WHY? They added the explosives so that they had one possibly unlawful component in the name.

Here is the thing I do not like about the felony restrictions they place on gun ownership. If they do not want the criminal to not have rights when they get out, why are they letting them out? What I am getting at here is, when someone does the time and is let out, they should get all rights back. Or just do not let them out. Just me though I suppose.

I would love to see the TSA gone. Worthless IMO. DHS the same thing. I mean the number of intelligence personnel is getting ridiculous. The last I heard it is over 1 million people. That is 1 in every 300 is a spook.

TALK ABOUT A SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY!

Time to go back to Federal agencies in regards to this. The FBI for domestic and the CIA for foreign. Keep them separate. Have to look into the NSA. Wondering why that is separate from the CIA. Why not have one dang agency for one specific job. Why have the myriad ABC divisions. It is too redundant. They are inefficient.

Also in this, the crap I have heard about the people they are hiring is CRAZY!

yeahright

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:09 AM

link

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
reply to post by yeahright

Yeah, I tried this before. It always comes down to the same thing. No one wants anything cut.

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I think more accurately, everyone wants someone else's stuff cut. It's like Congress. Everyone hates Congress, but the same goofs keep getting reelected. You see, it's the other Representatives and Senators who suck, not mine.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

saltheart foamfollower

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:15 AM

link

reply to post by yeahright

Yeah I know. I was actually getting a little miffed with O' Donnell on MSNBC when he had 4 Tea Party group leaders on. They were definitely not ready for the inquisition they received. But when they went into the what would you cut spiel, he asked exactly what is one thing you would cut. Now they answered very specific components, and then he started segueing into something else entirely.

Now these were just group leaders. Now the politicians would not call out ANYTHING anywhere. But they know the attack dogs that are on these shows. You say you want to look into something, the next thing that they are saying is that you want to cut funding for crippled, homeless, babies or something. These people are evil IMO.

Frustrating.

edit on 3-11-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)

atlasastro

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:22 AM

link

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower

1-National Public Radio and Public TV
2-National Endowment for the Arts
3-US Military reduce bases in foreign countries by 90%. Redeploy one half to the Mexican border area. And build requisite bases necessary to redeploy to this region. Redeploy our bases so that we are protecting the US sovereign area and not other countries. Project power, but not globally. Non interventionism is the key.
4-IRS
5-Federal Reserve
6-National Education Agency
7-Administration Conference of the United States
8-Subsidies on oil and other energy
9-DEA

Added your energy subsidies component.

O.K.

This is NOT a tax thread. If it was, I would tell you to shove your behavioral taxation ideas.

The tax leads to cuts. The tax is not on behavior, but on products the use of which create COSTS, that need to be CUT.

Can you point to a part of the Constitution that allows such a crazy thing anyway?

Its a tax, what part of the constitution disputes it.

Name something you do and I will tax that at 1 million percent, or I will tax you specifically at 100% of your income. See how that works. You call out subsidies in one breath and then call for specific taxation on something. See the hypocrisy?

I am asking for the same thing. Giving medical aid or funding to people who smoke and who are obese is subsidizing the health care of those people. It is the same thing my friend.

I can mention the things that I do that do not BURDEN the system with similar COSTS to the examples I used.
I ride a bicycle.
Tax that based on the cost to the system in the same manner as smoking and obesity?
OR
Remove any government funded aid I receive from a direct consequence of riding a bicycle.
Can you see what I mean?

$250 Million per day of taxes on cigarettes. That is $91.25 Billion per year. Where does that money go?

Who knows?
Probably into healthcare and government education and advertising about the dangers of smoking.

How bout not trying to control people.

Who said anything about control, they can do what they want, just don't expect taxpayers to foot the bill.

If you do not like the cost to medicare, how bout eliminating medicare?

I said that in relation to huge COSTS associated with certain activity.

You are addressing a symptom, not the problem.

The problem is that you need cuts.

That is why the Obama Care tax bill is over 2000 pages long. It is an aspirin for a thousand symptoms and nothing addresses the disease.

The disease in this instant are avoidable and costly activities that place a huge burden on the system.
I see what you mean though, I was just throwing in some curly ones. Like I said.

Drugs, now this is radical. How bout just eliminating all federal laws in regards to personal use of drugs. Let the state decide how it wants to handle that. I am all for it. Added to the list, the DEA. This has Consitutional authority by the way. There is precedent, if it took a Constitutional amendment to both prohibit and to reenact the legality of one drug, would it not require it for any drug?

I agree. The spending in these areas is huge, with little results.

Expand on your military contracting. How are we going to defend ourselves if we do not have any weapons?

Come on mate, be serious.
Do you actually know how many weapons you have already! All over the globe!
R and D is done by the military too.
What I really meant though, was private military contracts, like Xe/Blackwater.
It is huge dollars. Just a thought.

We would have to come up with some ideas on the multinationals. This is something I have wondered about. The Google fiasco is what you are talking about correct?
edit on 3-11-2010 by saltheart foamfollower because: (no reason given)

It is not just Google, and you are correct. But with those big co. you close one door and they find another.
Its a big Job ahead of you guys.

No easy fix, at all.
Just look at Europe.
Thanks for the reply.

saltheart foamfollower

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:33 AM

link

reply to post by atlasastro

Well, there was this little thing called the Tea Party awhile back in the Boston area, taxation on specific items was one of the things that really began the end of that tyrant.

I believe no items should be specifically targeted for extra taxation. What I meant by in the Consitution, there is references to equal under the law, apportionment and the like. Yes, taxation is lawful, if applied properly. If done unproperly, it is unlawful.

Yes it costs the government, but you are still treating the symptom, not the disease. You do not want to look at the disease though do you?

FlyersFan

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:35 AM

link

Originally posted by The Sword
Typical typical to suggest cutting NPR, public TV and the NEA.
Leave it up to the poorly-educated to attack education. LOL.

The NEA isn't about education. It's about lobbying for left wing agendas under the guise of 'education'. Leave it up to the poorly-educated (or blind left wing followers) to assume the NEA really is about education.

Maximus_Prime

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:38 AM

link

does this guy just call everyone a liberal. Funny when were all dead, who will care who whore which affiliation. Guess what there are more liberals than anyone else, the problem is your fascist killing machine aka the GOP takes its orders from Business like the popular post here..www.abovetopsecret.com... but go ahead and think or lack their of that Liberals are a problem.

The real problem is epic ignorance and epic greed. Don't forget there is not USA without US!

The military is the main problem, imagine a world where instead of investment in military might, there was investment in education might and cooperation. Funny how every other problem would suddenly have a solution.

BingeBob

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:41 AM

link

reply to post by Maximus_Prime

Go ahead...start a country where you have no military or an under funded one...We shall call your country WESTERN EUROPE 1930. There were alot of dead smart people there...

TWILITE22

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 09:59 AM

link

Originally posted by yeahright

The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

Good thread. Typifies why things aren't going to get better until we're really down a sink hole. The people with a vested interest in Big Government aren't going to go away quietly, and they're astute enough to spin a story to obfuscate the reality.

Advocating abolishing the Department of Education means you're anti-education? You've bought into the charade. How many people has the Department of Education educated since its inception in 1980? Here's a hint, it's less than one. Where is the constitutional authority for the federal government to even be involved in education? If anything should be a local matter, that's close to the top of my list. States can do a better job, and did. Anyone thrilled with the status of public education in this country? Try to get those pigs out of the trough and it's, "Oh, you hate the children!"

We sure can't afford doling it out to NPR and National Endowment for the Arts, either. See; this is what you do when you can't pay your bills - you quit spending on the unnecessary, superfluous things. It's high time we got back to basics and essentials. Private funding, donations, or whatever the private sector can come up with for funds should be utilized in lieu of taking the money forcibly extracted from taxpayers and sprinkling it around like we have it to blow. And yes, I donate to my local public tv station. And I love art as much as the next schlub. But the government has no business in the Arts business. But it's only $150 million, or so, right? It's the PRINCIPLE. The federal government does crap like this all the time and we let it happen.

It's a crying shame, and it's in a big way demonstrative of how we've arrived at this point. We aren't apparently going to learn that you can't dig your way out of a hole. Doing more of what got you into the hole isn't going to get you out of it. But everyone wants the other guys' programs cut. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of ways to cut costs. But we won't get concurrence on cutting even the most obviously superfluous.

Leading up to the election, any Republican candidate who was asked, "Okay, what would you cut? Specifics please". Those questions were met with, "I'd establish a Blue Ribbon panel to really study this issue and seek to ferret out waste, fraud and corruption bladeblahfreakinblah". Never specifics. Never. Because as a candidate, you can't afford to have your opponent cast you as anti-children or a Philistine art hater or something. "My opponent Bob Boberson doesn't want your children to have a school to go to and he hates church music". [Insert sound bite of candidate advocating cuts in specific federal programs].

Oh, a forced correction will happen. And it's going to be uglier than you can even imagine.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

I vote for you!!

BigTimeCheater

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 10:02 AM

link

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

Cut each and every expenditure not authorized by the Constitution.

No more entitlement programs.

No federal funding of education.

No NPR

No foreign aid

The list goes on and on.

sweetliberty

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 10:15 AM

link

reply to post by BigTimeCheater

I agree whole heartedly agree with this idea.
Star!

badgerprints

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 10:37 AM

link

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by saltheart foamfollower

I dont understand how the conservatives intent to tackle the deficit. Smaller government will give more power to the multi national corporations who will look for the cheapest labour rather than staying in America.

Now that's a laugh.
It's big government and "globalism" supported by government that has passed all of the laws made all of the new rules and crafted all of the loopholes that make the outsourcing of labor profitable for the big corporations.
Big government is the most inefficient, money wasting tax consuming drain on the economy next to military spending and social services. The bigger government is, the more taxes go to pay for it and there is no economic base or retun on the money spent.

Big government in Washington has, by the way, intentionally created our job loss situation intentionally by going along with globalism. This is not an opinion. It is a fact.

As far as tackling the deficit.......taxpayers want to know where the umpteen trillion went before their taxes pay it back. If it didn't go for support of the public services and infrastructure here in the US then it didn't go to the taxpayers. It went to the plans and projects of washington DC who do not represent the interests of the US taxpayer.

Balance the budget ? Sure. No problem. Just take back the trillions in wasted funds that were given away to everyone except the taxpayers who are expected to foot the bill.
We could start by backcharging the FED for all of the accrued interest that has been payed to them since their inception over the going rate. How about the trillions of dollars that have gone to dozens of countries in the last few decades in the form of foriegn aid funds, military support and material support? Yeah, I think we could recoup quite a bit like that. Next, we could backcharge for all of the pet projects and riders that politicians have put onto legislation in the past say...half century and get a major hunk of cash back. The politicians responsible can pay back a portion of it from their own deep pockets of ill gotten wealth. After all of that we can enforce a huge lobby tax. All lobbyist funds in the USA get taxed at 90% which goes directly to the deficit. All lobbyist benefits going to politicians also get taxed at 90%. This will still leave the politicians pretty well off and take a hunk out of the deficit.

Next would be a higher tax on all US based companies that export jobs. Then a tax on the products that they re-import to sell to Americans who don't have jobs because they have been exported.

Oh yes....we can get rid of this deficit. It won't take long. We just have to put the responsibility for the deficit where it belongs and it won't be so hard to get done.

The biggest part of reducing a budget is to stop the waste. Not to waste more but saddle the tax base with the responsibility.

Daughter2

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 10:41 AM

link

Why do you assume you need drastic cuts to get the economy back on track?

Remember the time with almost zero unemployment? Who was President? Clinton - and drastic cuts were NOT being made by the Feds.

Why shouldn’t we start by cutting out all bail outs. Or at the very least, look into (I’m mean really look into) the regulatory and anti-trust laws which failed to protect the economy.

If you read through the articles, people KNEW there were tech stock and housing bubbles. These bubbles combined with the war is what killed the economy - not a few measly grants for some paintings.

These cycles are just another way to transfer money from the poor/middle class to the elite rich.

Take immigration - the solution is not to point a machine gun at a family trying to immigrate from Mexico. The solution also isn’t to allow what’s happening now to continue because this just winds up harming American workers AND exploits illegal immigrants. There can be a more reasonable approach by letting a larger number in LEGALLY while at the same time ensuring wages and benefits are not eroded.

Stop focusing on the relatively small amount of social services - and focus and the core problems.

diablosdemon

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 12:04 PM

link

What exactly is your goal here? is it to raise the debt? well I am sorry but that will not be possible in our current system, why? Because our monetary system is backed by debt. By this I mean if you want to create a dollar through a loan with a bank, or the biggest bank (the fed) debt is automatically attached to that dollar. and it is always a little more then a dollar. so the more the economy grows the more the debt grows. and when it slows? people keep paying their debts, which means dollars are disappearing to their debts. and what is the inevitable end to this system? the collapse of the dollar. here is a nice little video of a financial expert schooling oil executives about this with a nice power point.

Mactire

posted on Nov, 3 2010 @ 12:10 PM

link

This entire thread is laughable. We're looking down the barrel at the longest stalemate in history. Two whole years of Jack & $h!t. The GOP controlling the House does nothing against the Democratically controlled Senate, and Vice Versa. Like another poster put "The President still controls the Veto. Look forward to another 2 years of non-progressiveness.

-There will be no Governmental cuts, as we are at war, and the time to cut back the Government or to cut funding to the military is not during a time of war. Look at all the flack that Bush got for sending ill equipped soldiers to Iraq. Obama doesn't want nor need that kind of negative image.

-There will be no media cut backs, as the media is owned and operated by the the people who own and operate our congress men and women.

The only way we're going to be able to buy our way out of this hole is to go to war with Iran and/or North Korea. I think the President's Advisors are strongly leaning towards a third World War. It worked twice before.