Wait wait wait…
St Edmund?
I think you’ve mistaken him for Boramir from Lord of the Rings…
What's more important?
-
I think it’s not a choice between more important, less important. Is it more important to eat food or breath? Well, you’ll die if you don’t breath and you’ll die if you don’t eat food. So I guess they’re BOTH important.
Currently we had a president who cut taxes which did increase revenue (we’ve had record tax funds into government just about every year) but he also increased spending. Now, not ALL of that increase was his fault. We were attacked and so we did get bi-partisan support to go to war. But some of it WAS his fault.
Now, we just had a study done, I think it was in Time Magazine but it could have been another publication, that basically said that if you give the rich a tax break they tend to spend more money in the public sector and it is the increased spending in the public sector that creates demand for products and services and increased demand drives the need to increase supply and thus creates jobs which reduces unemployment and eventually raises wages due to a decreased supply of people needing jobs.
I find this totally hilarious, because I believe there was a powerful politician who basically said the same thing in the 1980s that gave us the economic stimulus package that generated the economic utopia of the 1980s and 1990s. I wonder who that was. Can anyone remember? Was it Ted Kennedy or Jimmy Carter? Oh shoot, I just KNOW it has to be one of those guys…. Anyhoo, perhaps the solution to the problem is two fold:
1) Gut the Federal Government. If the US Constitution does not explicitly give responsibility for something to the US Government, then the US Government should cut all funding to that area and inform the states they will have to pick up the slack, somehow. This alone should cut the Government budget by at least 33% (since I believe the Military is in the 40-50% of the budget atm. I don’t have hard numbers on that, so don’t think it’s a coups if you come up with numbers that show my statement is wrong.)
2) Slash taxes. If number 1 is implemented, states will have to double, triple or even quadruple taxes (in the case of some states, this will mean they will have to start taxing) but this change should have less of an impact on the individual’s pocketbook. For one thing, it is MUCH cheaper for Illinois to run a program for Illinois then it is for the US Government to run a program for Illinois, primarily because the other 49 states are like children and will want the same program too if it’s being provided at the Federal level. That alone means it is 98% cheaper for Illinois to run the program then it is for Uncle Sam.
2a) Not to mention that states will be better equipped to tailor their program to their own needs and thus, the programs will be much more efficient at accomplishing the tasks that they are designed for. (Even more so if States are wise enough to apply the same procedure to themselves, allowing the counties to administer the programs instead of the state as a whole.)
2b) And, since no government body is good at anything, and if the Feds do not enforce a monopoly, this will allow private industry to supplement the failures of the states and maybe take over the program entirely at an even more efficient manner.
2c) And, since no government body is good at anything, but some are better then others, people who feel that their local government sucks, can move a short distance across the border to the neighboring government. For instance, if you live in Chicago it’s only a 30 minute drive to Wisconsin or Indiana. That gives you a choice of three nations in the alliance. If you live in Colorado you have a choice of eight nations in the alliance! Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona and New Mexico, depending on what part of Colorado you live in these may be more or less convenient then other states.
-
@Cmdr:
1) Gut the Federal Government.
2) Slash taxes.
2a) Not to mention that states will be better equipped to tailor their program to their own needs
2c) And, since no government body is good at anything, but some are better then others, people who feel that their local government sucks, can move a short distance across the border to the neighboring government.I’m with you 100%! on the above points. 100%.
Jenn for pres 2012!
-
If the government cuts spending, than they don’t need to tax as much. One leads to the other.
Sadly, “cutting spending” is not understood by most of our civic servants.
-
Wouldn’t it be completely hillarious if you gave Senator Joe Blow a budget for the year and he did what he normally does? You know, spend it in a few weeks and then come back for more and you told him “Heck no, you had your money, if you wasted it that’s your fault. I’m not giving you more money to save your can. However, I’ll gladly release a press report telling your constituents that you are now broke and will have to stay home for the rest of the year.”
Betcha it would take ONE year and senators would suddenly figure out how to hire and listen to accountants to keep their budgets on track without overages!
You never see Project Managers in the real world running out of money after only 8% of the project was completed. Well, you do, but they are normally FIRED.
You never see someone succeed in going to court and telling the Judge that they should not have their Car Repoed just because they missed the last 40 payments. (Illinois is currently 40 months behind on paying contractors for the state. According to ABC News a couple of months ago.)
-
@JWW:
The government reducing taxes or reducing spending?
I think it is more important to reduce spending and then once a surplus is realised for a length of time then reduce taxes but I am no economist.
Seems like the R party has had it backwards for quite some time now?
Well, if I were working in government, I wouldn’t want the programs I was in charge of or in head of to get reduced budgets. It would make me sad. It would make me feel like I had a smaller thingy than my neighbor.
Big huge glorious cost overruns - that’s what’s really important. Lets me hold my head up proud like a real Democrat. I’M in CHARGE. I command a budget worth TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS. What is this “spending oversight committee” you speak of? WORMS. THEY only have THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS for their budget. I am WAY more important.
-
As my high school economics teacher said, “If the government did things that where sensible, it would be called a corporation.”
-
@M36:
As my high school economics teacher said, “If the government did things that where sensible, it would be called a corporation.”
Amen.
Honestly, I know that you cannot run a government like a corporation. The only way to do it would be to strip the people of the power to elect their leaders and only appoint leaders based on merit. (This is why we have Public Administration, btw. Merit based people put in power to run the day to day operations and advise the elected leaders how to work best.)
But, common. If you run out of money, there should be a law that you cannot spend more! At least require the Congress to have a 2/3rds majority and get Presidential confirmation before any deficit spending! (That alone should take about a year, hopefully we’ll have a better solution before that gets passed!)
-
@Cmdr:
But, common. If you run out of money, there should be a law that you cannot spend more! At least require the Congress to have a 2/3rds majority and get Presidential confirmation before any deficit spending! (That alone should take about a year, hopefully we’ll have a better solution before that gets passed!)
Uh…Congress already has to approve the budget. But you knew that, right?
-
@Cmdr:
But, common. If you run out of money, there should be a law that you cannot spend more! At least require the Congress to have a 2/3rds majority and get Presidential confirmation before any deficit spending! (That alone should take about a year, hopefully we’ll have a better solution before that gets passed!)
Uh…Congress already has to approve the budget. But you knew that, right?
Yes, but what you did not notice is that I said they should need to get 2/3rds majority to approve spending BEYOND the money brought in and then get the President’s signature.
A budget is just a simple majority vote. However, that budge better balance right because they’ll need to find an extra 16 Senators and a lot more Congressmen to sign off on it if we need to take out a new loan!
-
The US Constitution specifically grants the power that ALL spending legislation originate in the House of Representatives. Not the Senate, not with the President… but the House of Representatives is given the primary “power of the purse”
-
And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.
if they want to spend the same, then they don’t need to go into the new laws. It is only a measure to prevent them from spending 40 billion dollars on a hammer and having nothing left to buy any nails with.
-
The Founding Fathers had a good idea…
Those closest to the people had to be the ones to authorize spending before anyone else was given a crack at it.If we had a responsible electorate, this would still work well.
-
@Cmdr:
And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.
if they get 2/3s they win. The executive then MUST sign. 2/3 surpasses vetoe didn’t you know?
-
@stuka:
@Cmdr:
And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.
if they get 2/3s they win. The executive then MUST sign. 2/3 surpasses vetoe didn’t you know?
Kinda the point, Stuka.
If they want to borrow money, they better have at least, let me say that again, A–-T L—E—A—S—T 67% of our elected leaders signing off on that deficit.
-
@stuka:
@Cmdr:
And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.
if they get 2/3s they win. The executive then MUST sign. 2/3 surpasses vetoe didn’t you know?
Actually, he still does not have to sign. It just becomes law without Presidential Signature.
-
@ncscswitch:
@stuka:
@Cmdr:
And I am saying we need to change it so that they have to get approval of 2/3rds of the legislature and consent of the executive to SPEND MORE THEN THEY HAVE.
if they get 2/3s they win. The executive then MUST sign. 2/3 surpasses vetoe didn’t you know?
Actually, he still does not have to sign. It just becomes law without Presidential Signature.
And if you look at my original proposal, you would see I said we need to change the constitution to require 2/3rds AND presidential signature. So yes, he WOULD have to sign, Switch.
-
I was referring to current law in order to clarify the present reality.
-
@ncscswitch:
I was referring to current law in order to clarify the present reality.
As long as you were not trying to correct my hope for NEW law because you misread me, I think we’re cool. :P
-
Hey I LIKE the idea that increases in spending require Super or 2/3 Majority to pass AND signature.
One of the main reason I vote Libertarian is that if a Libertarian wins it would force Congress to have to override Presidential Veto in order to spread pork.
Just realize Jen that your idea will never pass. It would require 2/3 of Congress to vote to give up their power. And sadly, that will NEVER happen.
Many view the Fair Tax as DOA because it would be a surrender of significant Congressional power, and Congress will never do that to itself. Your option would be about 2 levels of power loss beyond even that.
-
I know. The only way for Congress to make the necessary changes would be an over throw of the government (or a convincing threat of over throw) or to elect 400some odd members to the Congress (and Senate) with a moral center and a firm grip and understanding on ethics.
Since no politician can be elected to the county level or higher in this country that has EITHER of those two things (A or B or A+B) then it will NEVER happen.
Suggested Topics
