Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

How to fix the US National Debt

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
June 26, 2011 2:38:12 AM

There is a growing fear that the US will face an impending doom of the debt is not lowered.

Many economists and government accounting agencies are warning that the debt will hurt not only the US, but the market, global investments, resources, commodities, and other currencies tied to or in trade relations to the USD.

I would like a non partisan, individual-thinking approach on how we can fix this thing, because if the US goes; China, GB, Germany, Russia, Japan, and the rest of the world will face a greater depression than in 1929.


NOTE: No flames. Do not blame Bush, Obama, Regan or anyone else about this. Do not go 'too political' in your rhetoric. If it becomes too much, I give permission to Reynod to cease and desist this thread.


Thank You.

Dogman.

More about : fix national debt

June 27, 2011 2:04:18 PM

Cut costs, no new spending, and - unfortunately - moderate tax increases.

The problem is that all of our Congresscritters are talking about "reducing the deficit". That means we are still going into debt, just not as fast.
June 27, 2011 3:50:08 PM

Pass a balanced budget amendment at the federal level, and slash spending to meet it.

Scrap the dept.'s of education, energy, and the interior to save $$.

I don't agree with the tax increases. I think we should suspend the capital gains tax for 2 years, and cut it in half for another 5 years. Cut all taxes across the board especially the top marginal income tax rate.

This will instantly cause the economy to start growing and jobs being created which creates more tax payers, eventually increasing the revenue to the federal coffers to a surplus.

Use the surplus to begin actually paying down the debt.

This will involve growth which is naughty word to the greenie weenies.

These are common sense solutions that everyone knows will work as they have in the past. Unfortunately it will never happen because of politics and conflicting ideologies.
Related resources
June 27, 2011 6:55:21 PM

^ You do realize the Dept. of Education cut would send a bad signal to Americans...sure, we needs to spend less...how about getting out of Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan...ect. Start there we also do not need the government to do research and development. Let the private sector provide that for the military. Boeing has some good ideas...let them develop a few planes that will rival everyone else. Hey, will stimulate the economy!

Have the government on the other hand, supply tax breaks to small businesses who hire and other companies as well. Give support to infrastructure companies who repave America.

I do think we should raise taxes but very negligible...like 5%.
June 27, 2011 7:10:51 PM

Why do we need a federal deparment of (re)education when every state has their own dept's of educaiton? I mean, what does the federal one do that the states can't? How many children does the federal dept. of (re)education actually educate? zero, and with a budget of around $25-30 billion, that's some huge savings right there.

Boeing tried to open a new manufacturing plant in North Carolina that would have created hundreds of jobs and was shut down by the unions and their cronies in government.

It's costs a company thousands of dollars to hire just one person. If there is no job for that person to do, then NO company small or otherwise will hire for a meager tax break.

People that actually hire folks view the process completely different than the "wise ones" in government view it. That's becuase the wise ones never had to meet a payroll before.

Any, I mean any tax increase will only stifle the meager growth we are seeing in the economy. We are on the verge of a double dip recession. The dollar is continuing to be de-valued and the rest of the world is losing confidence in our currency. No, tax increases are a bad idea.....right now.

Businesses and companies make 5-10 year plans. If they cant count on their expenses being reasonably the same year to year then they are just gonna sit and not hire anyone. It's the uncertainy that is stifling growth.

The wise ones cant see this, or choose not to, becuase to them the US economy is a zero sum game and is static. It is not. It is quite dynamic always growing and shrinking. (remember the pizza analogy) Would you rather have 25% of a large, or 75% of a personal size pizza?
June 27, 2011 11:56:33 PM

Recall your forces from overseas.

Cuts to education are going to further damage your technological advancements.

Impose heavy import tariffs.

Start farming communes for the unemployed ... maybe some Kibbutz style accomodation in rural zones ... see North Korea for interest.

Sell off Hawai to pay down the debt ...

Halve all politicians wages.

Get rid of the local councils and have the states run these.

Kick out anyone who can't sing the National anthem.

Deport all political prisoners ... so you don't have to feed them.

Design a better pizza ... ??
June 27, 2011 11:57:33 PM

The US is starting to look like Greece from here ...
June 28, 2011 6:53:52 AM

Reynod said:


Sell off Hawai to pay down the debt ...



And Porto-Rico.



And if you burn Mexico (and mexicans), you could economize billion of dollars on border surveillance
June 28, 2011 9:44:41 AM

Gee the French are known to be rutheless and ambitious and good in the sack but I have a soft spot for the Mexicans ... because of Lily Saint ... well its a hard spot but you get my meaning.

The mexicans coming into the US are probably some of the hardest working blue collar workers they have ... and all under 200 lbs too ... some 2 for 1.

What is this porto-rico you speak of?? Was it a lost French colony?

June 28, 2011 12:35:29 PM

Like I said, and will say again, the federal dept. of education doesn't educate ANYONE! Every single state has its own dept. of education that makes policy for that state. No need for a giant, bloated, federal agency that wastes billions of $$ every year, and only provides a salary and benefits to thousands on the backs of the taxpayer and produces absolutley nothing.

I am starting to get on the 'bring all our troops home' band wagon though. That would save tons of cash. They have no proper mission under this adminstration. They are in harms way for no reason.
June 28, 2011 3:24:12 PM

You might want to leave the topic of education though ... or do some further investigation on its role ... we have a Federal Education dept here ... their role is important ... no they don't teach ... but they control spending to the states and drive the priorities for trg and ed ... pushing delivery into areas of need ... driving policy and research etc too.

A headless chook doesn't get far ... hmmm ...
June 28, 2011 3:29:20 PM

Well, our Federal dept.'s policies are being run by Bill Ayers.

If you don't know who he is: http://conservapedia.com/William_Ayers

The States should decide policy for themselves in their own depts. of education. We don't need the redundancy. Its a huge, bloated bureaucracy that's wastes billions.
June 30, 2011 3:41:24 PM

1) Reduce military spending to 2.5% - 3% of GDP (closing unnecessary bases, not giving contractors blank cheques anymore, etc...), saving the government over $200 billion a year and still leaving enough to own any other country on Earth for many years to come.

2) Getting a government regulated healthcare system. The government doesn't have to run the whole thing (it could be shared with corporations and the states), but has to regulate it (set price caps, making sure people aren't denied coverage, making sure insurers don't run away with all the money) and fund it (yes your taxes will go up by $100, but not having to pay a $400 insurance bill, of which $300 just went into the CEO's pockets, compensates for that). And oh yeah, make it mandatory for all politicians to subscribe to this system and this system alone (outlaw private healthcare for them).

3) Getting rid of the debt system: paying with credit cards and cheques is neither secure nor sustainable. Just pay with the money that's actually in your account right now, not the hypothetical money you think may be in it next month.

4) Fix loopholes that currently enable major corporations to get away with not paying billions in taxes.

5) Outlaw campaign contributions from businesses.

6) Fix the higher education system: people without millionaire parents should be able to go to college without it leaving them, or the government providing a scholarship (which should only be awarded for academic performances), with a $100.000+ debt. Then maybe doctors could be held to a salary cap more easily (see point 2).

7) Get rid of tax cuts for the rich: those tax cuts solving the current unemployment problem, while keeping government revenue the same, is a mathematical impossibility, so no, tax cuts won't get America out of debt, on the contrary.
June 30, 2011 5:42:25 PM

Gulli said:
1) Reduce military spending to 2.5% - 3% of GDP (closing unnecessary bases, not giving contractors blank cheques anymore, etc...), saving the government over $200 billion a year and still leaving enough to own any other country on Earth for many years to come.

2) Getting a government regulated healthcare system. The government doesn't have to run the whole thing (it could be shared with corporations and the states), but has to regulate it (set price caps, making sure people aren't denied coverage, making sure insurers don't run away with all the money) and fund it (yes your taxes will go up by $100, but not having to pay a $400 insurance bill, of which $300 just went into the CEO's pockets, compensates for that). And oh yeah, make it mandatory for all politicians to subscribe to this system and this system alone (outlaw private healthcare for them).

3) Getting rid of the debt system: paying with credit cards and cheques is neither secure nor sustainable. Just pay with the money that's actually in your account right now, not the hypothetical money you think may be in it next month.

4) Fix loopholes that currently enable major corporations to get away with not paying billions in taxes.

5) Outlaw campaign contributions from businesses.

6) Fix the higher education system: people without millionaire parents should be able to go to college without it leaving them, or the government providing a scholarship (which should only be awarded for academic performances), with a $100.000+ debt. Then maybe doctors could be held to a salary cap more easily (see point 2).

7) Get rid of tax cuts for the rich: those tax cuts solving the current unemployment problem, while keeping government revenue the same, is a mathematical impossibility, so no, tax cuts won't get America out of debt, on the contrary.



1. I agree, there is just as much waste and corruption as any other government agency. Trim the fat. Lean and mean I say.

2. Name one agency the government runs efficiently and under cost. Government already regulates the healthcare system which is a large part of the problem. Get the government the hell out of the way of private citizens and let the market set the price. Scratch ALL federal and state mandates on insurance companies and allow health insurance to be portable like car insurance. When you lose your job, you don't lose your car insurance do you?

3. Somewhat agree. You can operate with a certain amount of debt but what we are doing in government spending and our private lives is lunacy.

4. This is known as cronie capitalism and has expanded tenfold in the last century. GE paid no income tax in 2010. Jeff Immelt and Obama are buddy buddy. Coincidence? I agree. Enforce the damn laws you corrupt ass politicians!! Example: Obama spoke yesterday of the tax loophole for corporate or private jet owners. The tax loophole was in his own stimulus plan!!! He's the one that put the loophoole in place!! sheesh!

5. If you do this you must also outlaw campaign contributions from unions public and private.

6. Education is free at the library, ask Matt Damon. No seriously, education is a privilege not a right. You can get just a good, if not better, education at a community college for a fraction of the cost.

7. How does raising taxes on the so called "rich" solve unemployment? I've never been employed by a poor person, have you? No, raising taxes is the worst thing we can do. We should cut taxes, suspend the capital gains tax for a year or more, and then cut capital gains in half after that. This will raise revenue over time. Example: In just 3 years after the famous Bush tax cuts for the "rich", federal tax revenues went up $625 billion or 35% by 2006. Just 3 years. By 2007 federal tax revenues had risen by $784 billion. Grow the economy and you grow revenue is the lesson here.

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=8116&type=0
June 30, 2011 8:29:05 PM

@oldmangamer

No, government doesn't run things with 100% efficiency, but every other developed country on Earth is prove that in the end government is still more efficient than a corporation when it comes to things like healthcare and education (mind you, some countries leave the actual work to corporations, but these are legally bound to price caps and salary caps). The difference stems from the fact public healthcare has no shareholders demanding bigger profits every year and no CEO who wants a new private jet every six months. The only way healthcare and education can be profitable is by ripping people off and denying access to the poorer or weaker members of society. Btw. community colleges already heavily subsidized, that is the only reason they are still somewhat affordable (even though tuition has been rising faster than wages for many years, meaning even community colleges will become unaffordable in the future unless someone cleans out the system).

I did not say more taxes would solve unemployment, I said lower taxes (for the rich) would not solve it and I didn't call for tax increase but for the end of tax cuts which were supposed to be temporary and obviously have not solved unemployment during the past 8 years. The official unemployment stands at 13 million. The current tax cuts (those for the rich) cost $70 billion a year, so even if, after 8 years the rich decide to give 8 million of those 13 million people a job (resulting in the lowest unemployment rate since the 1950's) then these newly employed would, on average, have to pay $8.750 (which is the tax you pay over a $35.000 income, an unfeasible amount since most of the newly employed will be low wage workers) in federal taxes per year just to make up for the tax cut. So I wasn't kidding when I said it was a mathematical impossibility. The reason for this is that the richest few percent of the American population owns much more wealth than all other citizens combined. When Donald Trump gets a 1% tax cut he needs to hire dozens of people to make the tax cut worthwile for the government. Now obviously he won't do that (if he really needed that 1% to be able to hire people he wouldn't have a private jet and a $125 million house in Florida, if he didn't need that 1% then he could have hired those people before the tax cut, but apparently he doesn't think he needs them, meaning he won't hire them after the tax cut either).

Edit: you need to read your link: it says corporate tax income increased after the Bush tax cuts, while the growth in income tax of employees was much smaller (in fact less than the tax cuts themselves cost, unemployment did drop, but not by much and the worldwide economic recovery after the slump of 2001-2002 seems a much more obvious reason for this than American tax cuts). Statistics over a longer period show corporate tax income sharply decreasing around the year 2000 and pretty much rebounding after 2003. So it's not really net growth and can be explained by much more plausible reasons than the Bush tax cuts. In fact tax cuts don't really influence unempoyment: they don't make it worse but they don't make it better either, they just make the rich even richer.

Edit: there is now a group of 400 American billionaires who own more wealth than the poorer half of the American population (that's over 150 million people!) If that doesn't bring my point (tax cuts on the richest people are too damn expensive to ever earn back), then I don't know what will.
June 30, 2011 9:37:31 PM

You attempts at class warfare are feeble at best. Your hatred of the achievers and the successful is literally oozing from your pores.

I will dissect your post after dinner unless badge wants to have a go.
June 30, 2011 10:11:20 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
You attempts at class warfare are feeble at best.

I will dissect your post after dinner unless badge wants to have a go.


Call it what you want, it's the truth. The United States is the last developed nation on Earth not to have realized this, but it will, in the not too distant future when a critical mass is reached, when a high enough percentage of the population can no longer afford basic healthcare and education, even with a full time job, while corporations are reaping record profits and demanding even more tax cuts to finance their sweatshops in Asia. It will be kinda like Greece is today, only with different underlying causes.
June 30, 2011 10:20:05 PM

Currently, China's population is so large...it needs more money to fund its education system. Heck, China's going down the shyter too.
June 30, 2011 10:21:53 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:

I will dissect your post after dinner unless badge wants to have a go.


If he does,( or if any of you continue,) I will make sure Reynod bans you all...or I could get 4Ryan6 over here...he is not much fun to deal with.
June 30, 2011 10:33:14 PM

Basically,

An increase in the grand total of tax income, and everyone living with a few more potholes for a few years. This is putting it crudely of course, but is, in my common sense opinion, what needs to happen.

Cheers,
Warfart1
June 30, 2011 10:43:38 PM

dogman_1234 said:
If he does,( or if any of you continue,) I will make sure Reynod bans you all...or I could get 4Ryan6 over here...he is not much fun to deal with.



I am not allowed to respond? Did I not understand you correctly dog?
June 30, 2011 11:52:02 PM

dogman, Ryan's not a bad guy to talk to at all. None of the mods are, really. At least, they aren't when you're civil...

As for how to actually cut the debt as opposed to reducing the deficit, if any of us had a truly genuine idea how to actually do so, I doubt we'd be on this forum discussing it, would we? ;) 

I do feel our country over-extends itself into the rest of the world, and we've done so far too much for far too long. Whether it be politically, morally (or immorally), militarily, or otherwise, we need to wipe our own ass clean before we tell others how to do so. Let someone else take the frakkin reigns during a crisis. And don't gimme that "protect our interests" bullshit, either. We wouldn't have such immense foreign interests if we were actually taking care of business at home.

Also, the fact that the US went from being a tech-exporting country post-WWII to an agriculture-exporting one was a HUGE step backwards. If we're ever going to recover, we need to rebuild this nation's once mighty industry. Increasing taxes on imports would be a start, but we're already so profoundly dependent upon and indebted to countries with spurring industrial growth (like China) that it'll never get through Congress. I tend to think it might actually take another world war to get the mean machine rolling again.

As for healthcare, that whole debate is moot until as a nation (or as a people) we finally awaken from the "pill for an ill" corporate medicine cycle and realize that treating an illness isn't the same as curing it. Healthcare itself is corporate controlled on nearly every level. Why is 1 out of 4 commercials on TV about some damn drug? Because the drug companies can afford it - they make BILLIONS off their MILLIONS invested in advertising.

/soapbox
July 1, 2011 12:55:06 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
I am not allowed to respond? Did I not understand you correctly dog?


You are allowed. The fact you guys go on tirades and begin wars with others. I appreciate you commenting, but the stuff both cons and lib's spew on this forum is trash. So, stop it.

RazberyBandit said:
dogman, Ryan's not a bad guy to talk to at all. None of the mods are, really. At least, they aren't when you're civil...


You have never talked to Ryan have you? He is nice, just like the other mods...but he is more strict and harsher.

...civil, yeah...the whole point of my comment earlier.

July 1, 2011 1:12:45 AM

dogman_1234 said:
You are allowed. The fact you guys go on tirades and begin wars with others. I appreciate you commenting, but the stuff both cons and lib's spew on this forum is trash. So, stop it.



You have never talked to Ryan have you? He is nice, just like the other mods...but he is more strict and harsher.

...civil, yeah...the whole point of my comment earlier.



Please point out where the discourse in this thread has become uncivil. I can't find any. No one has called anyone names. No one has insulted anyone's family, heritage, nationality, ethnic background. So far, this thread is the epitome of civil discourse.

The rest of society should take notice.
July 1, 2011 1:29:01 AM

Actually, I've spoken with Ryan at length a few times. As for him being any more strict than others, eh... Maybe. But harsh? TGGA wins that showdown IMO. But at times all mods have to be strict, and sometimes a little harsh, too.

Ryan actually banned me, once, but we talked it over and he lifted it. Like I said, when you communicate in a civil manner, any possible prejudgments fade and a civil discussion can ensue.
July 1, 2011 1:58:37 AM

^ at least you can talk to him. :thumbs up:
July 1, 2011 2:00:02 AM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Please point out where the discourse in this thread has become uncivil. I can't find any. No one has called anyone names. No one has insulted anyone's family, heritage, nationality, ethnic background. So far, this thread is the epitome of civil discourse.

The rest of society should take notice.



"I will dissect your post after dinner unless badge wants to have a go."

Don't say it is not.
July 1, 2011 3:09:15 AM

It's not. look up "dissect". and badge is on his game sometimes. but he is old and sometimes loses his cool.

dont hate me badge. /o\
July 1, 2011 10:35:20 AM

dogman_1234 said:
Currently, China's population is so large...it needs more money to fund its education system. Heck, China's going down the shyter too.


As long as growth continues they can still afford a lot. They'll get into real problems when this generation of only children gets old and the country will subsequently age (but that's a problem every rich country has to deal with). Also, growing inequality and endemic corruption threaten "national harmony". China does have an advantage in that it doesn't have elections every two years: when the Chinese government (consisting of highly educated pragmatists, who don't waste time on denying evolution or climate change) wants stuff done it gets done. Of course the cost of this efficiency is less personal freedoms for the citizens, a fact they accept as long as things keep going well.
July 1, 2011 11:00:13 AM

I will not do a complete dissection, but I will get started.

Gulli said:
1) Reduce military spending to 2.5% - 3% of GDP ...

Good place to start would be NATO. Really expensive, big ticket items get all of the publicity, But the biggest item is manpower costs. Conflict mode has shifted from "heavy iron" (think armor) set piece battles to counter insurgency operations which are manpower intensive.

Gulli said:

2) Getting a government regulated healthcare system. ...

Like Obamacare, the 2,700 page bill that we had to pass to see what was in it? How is the explosion in government bureaucracy supposed to help contain costs?
http://www.house.gov/brady/pdf/Obamacare_Chart.pdf
Notice that the IRS is in there. What do they have to do with health care?
And why do Canadians with their "free" healthcare, come to the U.S.?

Gulli said:

3) Getting rid of the debt system: paying with credit cards and cheques is neither secure nor sustainable. Just pay with the money that's actually in your account right now, not the hypothetical money you think may be in it next month.

I just checked my wallet. I have two credit card and a debit/ATM card (not counting my corporate credit card). Total monthly balance carried over? $0. I have no problems managing my credit cards. And how are people supposed to pay for big ticket items like homes and cars? Yes, I know that that is part of what caused the recent financial implosion. And that had its roots in Carter's Community Reinvestment Act.

Gulli said:
4) Fix loopholes that currently enable major corporations to get away with not paying billions in taxes.

Not a bad idea as far as it goes. How about going to a sane corporate tax policy? US corporate rates are some of the highest in the world. A recent, simple example: checkout Gov. Moonbeam Brown (CA) verses amazon. He had the wonderful idea of taxing internet commerce of the companies that had a presence in California. He figured it would bring in $200 million. amazon decided they were not in business to be tax collectors for the state and pulled the plug on their California affiliate program. That will cost CA about $120 million in income taxes.

Gulli said:
5) Outlaw campaign contributions from businesses.

Sure, as long as we can outlaw campaign contributions from the unions.

Gulli said:
6) Fix the higher education system: people without millionaire parents should be able to go to college without it leaving them, or the government providing a scholarship (which should only be awarded for academic performances), with a $100.000+ debt. Then maybe doctors could be held to a salary cap more easily (see point 2).

Better idea: do away with the Dept. of Education. After all, it has worked so well in the last 30 years. (Look up the definition of insanity.) Salary caps? Please. :lol:  If we are going to do that, let's cap the salary of sports figures, lawyers, and our congresscritters.

Gulli said:
7) Get rid of tax cuts for the rich: those tax cuts solving the current unemployment problem, while keeping government revenue the same, is a mathematical impossibility, so no, tax cuts won't get America out of debt, on the contrary.

What is the dividing line between "rich" and the rest of us? If you set it at $1 million, you could do a 100% tax rate and it would only be a drop in the bucket. Do the research and run the numbers.

I leave it to badge to pick up the mantle.
July 1, 2011 12:26:28 PM

@Jsc

"If you set it at $1 million, you could do a 100% tax rate and it would only be a drop in the bucket. Do the research and run the numbers."

Maybe you should do the numbers yourself if you're thinking a 100% tax on millionaires would only be a drop in the bucket... I'll give you a hint: these millionaires and billionaires own more wealth than the rest of the population combined! A 100% tax on these people would probably triple government revenue.

"And why do Canadians with their "free" healthcare, come to the U.S.?"

Only the very rich do that, because they don't want to wait a week for a hip transplant, so instead they pay a couple of million bucks to have it done within two days in the US. Now of course a not-so-rich American would be glad with a one week waiting period, because in the US he would not get that hip transplant, ever, well unless he files for bankrupcy. Really, take it from someone who's experienced both government run healthcare and a government/corporate hybrid system: both are vastly superior when it comes to caring for the common man (everyone who can't afford a monthly $1200 premium), and a lot cheaper as well (even in terms of GDP). It's very tragic to hear people say America has the best healthcare in the world. No, it has among the best healthcare in the world, at least, for those who can afford it. It usually takes a relative filing for bankrupcy because of chemo or getting denied treatment after 20 years of paying exorbitant premiums for people to start believing that maybe there is some merit in what every other rich country is doing with healthcare. I hope for your sake your insurer doesn't screw you over one day and you won't have to learn this painful lesson when it's too late, but chances are that will happen. Playing fair is not profitable in healthcare or education. The corporations can choose to have 4 people each pay $250 for service (the right thing to do) or have 1 person pay $1000 for service (the profitable thing to do because this option requires less personnel). It's different from say the car industry because there are less vendors, there are no alternatives, there's no such thing as second hand healthcare or education, there's no difference in "models" and features and in the case of healthcare you really don't have a chocie: if you say no you die. Some people say the government should not force people to have healthcare, but it's not the government that forces you: it's nature giving you the "choice" to have healthcare or die.

"Salary caps? Please. If we are going to do that, let's cap the salary of sports figures, lawyers, and our congresscritters."

Sports figures and lawyers aren't paid for from tax dollars and congresscritters already have salary caps.

"US corporate rates are some of the highest in the world."

They are comparable to those of other rich countries and (this is a fact not many Americans know) in many European countries (and many others as well) corporations pay "social fees" for employees. These fees amount to hefty taxation but are not registered as "corporate tax". Corporations are far better off in the US then they are in other rich countries when it comes to tax, of course there are also many poor countries out there with which no rich country can or should compete because these countries are willing to practically turn their country into a giant sweatshop just to attract foreign investment.

"Better idea: do away with the Dept. of Education."

Sure, if you want people in Kansas to learn Adam and Eve walked with dinosaurs... But seriously, don't you think something may be wrong when even the tuition at community colleges is rising faster than wages are? You always hear people telling how they paid for college themselves, only that was 20 years ago (when tuition was much lower compared to minimum wage) and they followed a cheap and light curriculum (law, business), not an exact science or medicine. Other countries prevent universities from raising tuition without consent of the national parliament.

There are many things that are great about America but sometimes America has to be a bit less stubborn and accept the fact that sometimes it can learn a thing or two from other countries. You know, just like not waiting to abolish slavery, segregation and decriminalize homosexuality for decades after every other developed country did these things. A fitting comparison since healthcare is very serious business: every year many thousands of Americans die or have to move to a cardboard box under the bridge for the crime of falling ill and not making enough money to afford the exorbitant and ever faster rising insurance premiums, then again, even having such an insurance doesn't shield you completely: you can still get screwed and be denied treatment. The managers at insurance companies don't care: they get a bonus for every person they deny treatment.
July 1, 2011 1:30:32 PM

If all wealth was confiscated at 100% rate it would only fund the government's current budget for 1 year. But then, thats it. There is no more wealth and no more wealth creation after that.

There are only 8.4 million American households that claim assets of $1 million or greater out of a population of 330 million. And, do you think people are going to even remotely accept a 100% tax rate? Why work ?

You ARE engaging in class warfare, a classic tactic of socialists. It is not yours or anyone elses business how much money Donald Trump has or earns. It is none of your business how many vacation homes he has around the world. It is no ones business how many private jets he has. He is a private citizen. As long as he is conducting his affaris legally, and pays his taxes on time, it is no ones business.

Government run healthcare: If it works so well, why are folks in the U.K. pulling their own teeth with pliers because they can't get in to see a dentist? Why did a diabetic man die from trying to amputate his own legs? Government is not only not 100% efficient. It is wholly and inherintly inefficient in just about everything it does. It is NOT more efficient then a privately run business because there is no accountability in government. When a business screws up they lose customers and go out of business. When the government screws up, they print more money, increase taxes, and rachets up regulations on priavte citizens and business.

Price caps never work, never have. Does anyone remember the 1970's as the most recent example?

Over the decades, the accountability of the healthcare insurers has slowly been eroded away by government regulation. Starting in the 70's after the creation of HMOs, folks got it in their head that healthcare should be part of a compensation package as part of employment. As it exists today, the consumer now has very little choice. You can choose plan A for x amount or plan B or x amount. Typically its 90/10 or 80/20. As part of those so called options, I get 30 chiropractic visits which I don't need but still have to pay for. I get 25 mental health visits a year which I don't need but still have to pay for. One free pap smear a year that I don't need yet still have to pay for as part of the health insurance 'bundle'. We should be allowed to choose each individual benefit for ourselves. But again, that "choice" is not allowed because federal and state mandates.

This is the problem. A twenty something, healthy person only needs catastrophic care which would be very affordable if the federal and state mandates on insurers were lifted and we were allowed that choice.

Another problem is the annual enrollment for health benefits. Why are we locked in for a year? Car insurance is not like that. I can pick up a phone and change my car insurance company or coverage in minutes or even do it over the internet. You claim the insurers are only interested in profits. Profit is not a naughty word. Companies are profitable when they are successful. They are only successful when they make their customers happy. If the customer is not happy they go elsewhere. That's how it is supposed to work but becasue of the federal and state regulations on the insurers, we as consumers, don't have that choice.

Another problem is that insurers can not compete with each other over state lines. Again, becuase of federal and state mandates on the insurers. This stifles competition and artificially jacks up the price of health insurance.

Government regulation has removed consumer choice from the equation. That one reason prices are so high. Tell me, why does top floor lavish hotel room cost a $1000/night and a overnight stay in a hospital is $10,000 or more per night? Market forces. That is what has been steadily and deliberately removed from healthcare over the decades. Remember when doctor's used to make housecalls?

"I did not say more taxes would solve unemployment, I said lower taxes (for the rich) would not solve it and I didn't call for tax increase but for the end of tax cuts which were supposed to be temporary and obviously have not solved unemployment during the past 8 years."

I really don't know where you get this from. It's just not true. We had near full employment up until around 2007 when the housing bubble and financial collapse began to unravel. Traditionally, full employment is around 4-5% unemployment which we enjoyed throuout most of the last decade.

I reject your premise totally that tax cuts "cost" anything. All money and wealth does NOT belong to the government. Considering tax cuts a cost is just mind boggling newspeak. :pt1cable:  Government gets nothing unless people first earn it through their labor and then are taxed.

Try cutting spending, like the rest of us have to.

Let's put to rest another false notion. Corporate taxes. Corporations don't pay taxes. This is the biggest scam on the American people short of the Ponzi scheme known as social security. This notion comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of how a business operates. Corporations consider taxes a 'cost of doing business'. When ever a corporation incures a 'cost' they adjust their price scale on whatever goods and services they provide. So, who ends up paying the tax? WE DO! The consumer pays that tax. Corporation just pass the 'cost' on to us. So when the lefties are clamouring for higher corporate tax rates, they are calling for increased taxes on themselves and the average joe. Nice scam isn't it?

Let's put to rest another notion. Billionaires don't pay income taxes. Typically they earn through investing and then pay a capital gains. So raising the top marginal rate to even 100% would do nothing. Billionaires start businesses and which employ people. If you want to take away their wealth, then you are destroying job creation.

Again, I reject your premise that tax cuts cost something. It's not the government's money. Allowing people to keep what they earn is not a 'cost'.

The federal department of education's budget is $60 billion. That billion with a "B". Are you kidding me? Each state has their own dept. of education we don't need a federal redundancy. Where to people get the idea that people at the federal level are the smartest of the smart? It's lunacy.

Like other countries. hmmmm. You mean like Greece? Portugal? Spain? Italy? The EU in meltdown right now or haven't you noticed?

No, I think what we need is a return to the ideals that made us a prospering superpower. Freedom and capitalism, as well as a return to ethical business practices and ethics in government. I am NOT a fan of cronie capitalism. It should be prosecuted to full extent of the law when discovered.

cough cough, General Electric.
July 1, 2011 1:44:15 PM

"If all wealth was confiscated at 100% rate it would only fund the government's current budget for 1 year. But then, thats it. There is no more wealth and no more wealth creation after that.

And, do you think people are going to even remotely accept a 100% tax rate? Why work ?"

Did I say I would favor a 100% tax rate for anyone? No, so stop saying I did.

"Government run healthcare: If it works so well, why are folks in the U.K. pulling their own teeth with pliers because they can't get in to see a dentist?"

Are you talking about the UK or the Appalachians?

"There are only 8.4 million American households that claim assets of $1 million or greater out of a population of 330 million."

Yes, and those 8.4 million (people, not households) own more wealth than the other 322 million combined. Why is that so hard to believe?

"It is not yours or anyone elses business how much money Donald Trump has or earns. It is none of your business how many vacation homes he has around the world. It is no ones business how many private jets he has. He is a private citizen. As long as he is conducting his affaris legally, and pays his taxes on time, it is no ones business."

IF he would just pay his taxes, instead of claiming tax cuts.
July 1, 2011 1:45:50 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Well, our Federal dept.'s policies are being run by Bill Ayers.

If you don't know who he is: http://conservapedia.com/William_Ayers

The States should decide policy for themselves in their own depts. of education. We don't need the redundancy. Its a huge, bloated bureaucracy that's wastes billions.


Hey ... your public education system is bad enough.

Do you really want it to get worse?



July 1, 2011 1:51:59 PM

Reynod said:
Hey ... your public education system is bad enough.

Do you really want it to get worse?




It's actually pretty good in my state. Could it be better? Of course. The primary way of making it better would be to teach more critical thinking skills rather than only teaching how to pass any given test.

It's amazing watching a young person these days trying to solve a problem they've never encountered before. They're clueless.
July 1, 2011 1:53:51 PM

Gulli said:
"If all wealth was confiscated at 100% rate it would only fund the government's current budget for 1 year. But then, thats it. There is no more wealth and no more wealth creation after that.

And, do you think people are going to even remotely accept a 100% tax rate? Why work ?"

Did I say I would favor a 100% tax rate for anyone? No, so stop saying I did.

"Government run healthcare: If it works so well, why are folks in the U.K. pulling their own teeth with pliers because they can't get in to see a dentist?"

Are you talking about the UK or the Appalachians?

"There are only 8.4 million American households that claim assets of $1 million or greater out of a population of 330 million."

Yes, and those 8.4 million (people, not households) own more wealth than the other 322 million combined. Why is that so hard to believe?

"It is not yours or anyone elses business how much money Donald Trump has or earns. It is none of your business how many vacation homes he has around the world. It is no ones business how many private jets he has. He is a private citizen. As long as he is conducting his affaris legally, and pays his taxes on time, it is no ones business."

If he paid his taxes, instead of claiming tax cuts.



No, households. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7475023.ht...

You act like they didn't earn those millions. Millionaires do work you know.
July 1, 2011 2:06:21 PM



Ah yes, the dailymail, the UK's most trusted source of information (ever heard of a "tabloid"?). That story was debunked by the local NHS saying the man never approached one of their many offices in the region that could have helped him. On the other hand the third line of the story says: "Ian Boynton could not afford to go private for treatment", so even if the story were true, which it isn't, he wouldn't have gotten the service in the US either. The NHS would not be a good system for America however because it is so alien to most Americans, the Dutch or German systems would be better suited, both have corporations take care of the actual healthcare, but with stringent regulations. In Germany (and the UK and Canada as well) it is also possible to purchase private insurance, just like in the US, for those who can afford it, in the Netherlands one can purchase additional care on top of the universal plan. I have lived in the Netherlands for many years and have never heard of anyone being denied treatment, ever (and I know a lot of people with ilnesses and disabilities). Every hospital has MRI-scanners (which were invented in the UK!) and medical degrees obtained here are accredited in the US, so quality isn't lacking either. All that for only 2/3 of the cost.
July 1, 2011 2:13:48 PM

Gulli said:
Ah yes, the dailymail, the UK's most trusted source of information (ever heard of a "tabloid"?). That story was debunked by the local NHS saying the man never approached one of their many offices in the region that could have helped him. On the other hand the third line of the story says: "Ian Boynton could not afford to go private for treatment", so even if the story were true, which it isn't, he wouldn't have gotten the service in the US either. The NHS would not be a good system for America however because it is so alien to most Americans, the Dutch or German systems would be better suited, both have corporations take care of the actual healthcare, but with stringent regulations. In Germany (and the UK and Canada as well) it is also possible to purchase private insurance, just like in the US, for those who can afford it, in the Netherlands one can purchase additional care on top of the universal plan. I have lived in the Netherlands for many years and have never heard of anyone being denied treatment, ever (and I know a lot of people with ilnesses and disabilities). Every hospital has MRI-scanners (which were invented in the UK!) and medical degrees obtained here are accredited in the US, so quality isn't lacking either. All that for only 2/3 of the cost.


Proof?
July 1, 2011 2:15:35 PM

But most of the bourgeoisie simply prey on the poor and weak ... should anyone have that much when so many are starving?

Have you no human decency ...


heh heh ...
July 1, 2011 2:33:29 PM

^^ nice.

We have no idea how much Trump gives in charity either.

I remember the 2000 presidential race. The subject of charity came up between Cheney and Al Gore. IIRC, that year Cheney gave over 7 million in charity. Gore only have something like $30,000. And the lefties are always saying we should sacrifice more. sheesh!
July 1, 2011 2:34:14 PM

Or look at John Huntsmen Sr. He is giving all his wealth away and plans to die pennyless.
July 1, 2011 2:38:52 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
No, households. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/7475023.ht...

You act like they didn't earn those millions. Millionaires do work you know.


Alright, then households, your source says they own 56% of the wealth. Yes, some millionaires do work (many don't), but so does average Joe, and he has to pay taxes too. Every millionaire became a millionaire off the labor of others (millionaires like to forget this fact, but that doesn't make it less true), which is not to say they always exploit their workers (they don't have to be real employees: anyone that provides rich people with relatively cheap services counts): as long as they pay a fair wage the relationship is mutually beneficial. The millionaire and the worker need each other! Workers aren't sponging off your tax dollars: they are the one who offered their services for such a low price that allows you to make any profit at all! It is this fact that is often overlooked by the richer segments of society. What constitutes a fair wage? Well, it has to cover primary living expenses and then leave enough for the worker to enjoy a reasonable quality of life. Obviously healthcare is a primary living expense and obviously most of today's wages are not enough to cover it and leave anything left. This is true for most developed countries and it is a conscience choice to keep worker's wages low enough to compete with the rest of the world. Most developed countries prevent a violent revolution by compensating the workers in the form of benefits like cheap healthcare, paid from mostly the taxes of the rich. Alternatively they could increase wages up to the point that workers can purchase healthcare themselves. They have to do on or the other or the workers will become disgruntled because they feel exploited, that the relationship between them and their employers has become too one-sided. Either way, keeping the peace will cost the employers, be it in the form of wages or taxes. Other countries have shown that the second option is ultimately cheaper because services such as healthcare and education are cheaper when controlled by the government (this is not true of all sectors: I would hate the idea of the government running the car industry), simply because he government can keep prices down when private corporations would choose to squeeze as much out of people as possible (if employers decided to pay higher wages instead of taxes then private insurers would just up their premiums accordingly, causing workers to demand even higher wages and so on).
July 1, 2011 2:42:59 PM

Gulli yould you like a cardinal of economics position in my new ministry?

Mingo and I could do with good men like you.

Standard pay ... $10,000 per convert who tithes 5% to our cause.

July 1, 2011 2:43:42 PM

"We have no idea how much Trump gives in charity either."

That's right: we have no idea, he could be making all sorts of claims that aren't even true. Still, would you want the chances of you getting a scholarship depend on the current mood of the local rich instead of on your grades?
July 1, 2011 2:50:15 PM

It's called freedom of choice.

Forcibly confiscating someones property and giving it to another is immoral and wrong. What in the heck gives the Nancy Pelosis of the world the idea they have this right to do so?

It's a mindset that I reject. Along with the mindset that my neighbor is supposed to pay for my healthcare and well being via so called benefits.

You seem to agree with the parasite mindset. I don't. My parents taught me how to take care of myself.
July 1, 2011 2:56:55 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
It's called freedom of choice.

Forcibly confiscating someones property and giving it to another is immoral and wrong. What in the heck gives the Nancy Pelosis of the world the idea they have this right to do so?

It's a mindset that I reject. Along with the mindset that my neighbor is supposed to pay for my healthcare and well being via so called benefits.

You seem to agree with the parasite mindset. I don't. My parents taught me how to take care of myself.


Haven't you read my posts? Rich people only have property because poor people allow them to acquire it with comparatively little effort. Apart from the occasional gold miner who strikes big time every millionaire earns money through employees and even through the local grocery storekeeper who is so kind as to charge him the regular price even though he knows he can have the millionaire pay more than regular customers. When the emplyees and storekeepers find they can't afford basic necessities anymore (probably because the millionaire is driving up prices) they stop being kind and the millionaire has the choice to pay more or risk his employees quitting on him.

Sure, go ahead, make taxes voluntary, but don't be surprised when employers choosing not to pay will go bankrupt because workers don't want to work for them.


"You seem to agree with the parasite mindset. I don't. My parents taught me how to take care of myself."

Unless you live in a shack you built yourself, from wood you cut yourself, using a computer you built yourself running on power you supply yourself with solar panels you built yourself using materials you mined yourself, and so on, you have no idea how much you depend on others for everything, particularly on low wages for the workers who really built all the sh*t you buy in stores from clerks with low wages.
July 1, 2011 3:03:29 PM

No, charity is voluntary. Taxes are confiscatory.

I completely reject the premise of your argument that millionaires got that way on the "backs of the poor".

You obviously have never run a business or employed people.
July 1, 2011 3:07:49 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
No, charity is voluntary. Taxes are confiscatory.

I completely reject the premise of your argument that millionaires got that way on the "backs of the poor".

You obviously have never run a business or employed people.


It's not on the backs of the poor as long as there are fair wages involved, but you can't deny the rich depend on the poor to get rich, even when the relationship is mutually beneficial. The poor demanding the rich to pay taxes is therefore completely equivalent to them demanding higher wages, which they have every right to. If you'd rather they did just demand higher wages then that's your choice, but I've already explained why this will end up costing the corporations more than taxes.
July 1, 2011 3:13:13 PM

Gulli said:
It's not on the backs of the poor as long as there are fair wages involved, but you can't deny the rich depend on the poor to get rich, even when the relationship is mutually beneficial. The poor demanding the rich to pay taxes is therefore completely equivalent to them demanding higher wages, which they have every right to.



The class warfare you are engaging in is a load of tripe.

If the wage is not fair then the employee finds another job. That's called 'the free market'.

And, is there no middle class in your world? Are there only "the rich" and "the poor"?

If someone has a great idea or plan why shouldn't they benefit from it? In the mean time, they are providing jobs for people, and growing the economy.

These people should be held up in society and applauded, not vilified.
!