Q. For Small Government Adherents

[ScienceRocks]

38 pages and not one rational, pragmatic, realistic response by any member of the New Right Wing.

Were you really interested in the suggestions or did you just want to just take potshots at people?

That is something fat people like you do.

 

[dblack]

Matthew on the other hand ...

 

[ScienceRocks]

38 pages and not one rational, pragmatic, realistic response by any member of the New Right Wing.

Were you really interested in the suggestions or did you just want to just take potshots at people?

Give the OP a break. Regardless of the intent, its prompted a lot of good suggestions. Worthwhile thread after all.

Yep, good discussion on just how stupid the argument for mindless small government really is! Your ideas died in 1787!

 

[Steinlight]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

 

[dblack]

38 pages and not one rational, pragmatic, realistic response by any member of the New Right Wing.

Were you really interested in the suggestions or did you just want to just take potshots at people?

Give the OP a break. Regardless of the intent, its prompted a lot of good suggestions. Worthwhile thread after all.

Yep, good discussion on just how stupid the argument for mindless small government really is! Your ideas died in 1787!

Don't pretend to know what my ideas are. Your reading comprehension warrants no such assumption.

 

[Steinlight]

About 40 billion is spent per year on DHS. Just think of the hundreds of billions that could could have saved over the last decade with this bloated and ineffective government bureaucracy. If you want to talk about cuts, how about abolishing DHS all together?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You're too skeptical.

I just know a half hearted venture when I see one. He uses these threads as a launching point to attack his political opponents. Nothing more. I appreciate your optimism, but there ain't no foolin'.

I bet even Wry learned a thing or two.

I very much doubt it.

 

[Steinlight]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Actually, without income tax, the Federal Government as of 2014 would have taken in over 1.6 trillion. So more than the 1997 budget.

2014 United States federal budget - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Pksimon2007]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

 

[Steinlight]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

I didn't mention a regressive tax anywhere in my post.

You should calm down and learn to read.

 

[TemplarKormac]

38 pages and not one rational, pragmatic, realistic response by any member of the New Right Wing.

Were you really interested in the suggestions or did you just want to just take potshots at people?

That is something fat people like you do.

Oooh, the fat jokes come out. You're serious aren't you? Well, at least the fat hasn't gone to my brain.

 

[Pksimon2007]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

I didn't mention a regressive tax anywhere in my post.

You should calm down and learn to read.

- The income tax is the only progressive tax we have.

So you mentioned getting rid of the only progressive tax, and claimed that the revenue from all the regressive taxes would be "sufficient".

So yes, when you mentioned $1.6 trillion in revenues, those were ALL from regressive taxes.

 

[hortysir]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Weren't you the one that said the rich only pay capital gains tax?
So abolishing the income tax shouldn't affect them.

 

[Steinlight]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

I didn't mention a regressive tax anywhere in my post.

You should calm down and learn to read.

- The income tax is the only progressive tax we have.

So you mentioned getting rid of the only progressive tax, and claimed that the revenue from all the regressive taxes would be "sufficient".

So yes, when you mentioned $1.6 trillion in revenues, those were ALL from regressive taxes.

That is simply incorrect in your claim. Both the Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax come to mind for taxes that aren't regressive.

You are being dishonest in your use of language. I don't support making all taxes regressive, or instituting a regressive tax in place of the income tax. I want no replacement. I just support removing the income tax, which is progressive. These are two different things.

 

[rightwinger]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Weren't you the one that said the rich only pay capital gains tax?
So abolishing the income tax shouldn't affect them.

Unlike the rest of us,the rich have more choice in how they take their income

Right now, capital gains rates are low, so they prefer taking income as a capital gain.

More reason to tax capital gains the same as any other income

 

[Pksimon2007]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Weren't you the one that said the rich only pay capital gains tax?
So abolishing the income tax shouldn't affect them.

- No, that wasn't me, but I don't understand your logic anyway. You seem to be creating a fallacious syllogism of the form:

All men are mortal
Socrates is mortal
Therefore Socrates is a man

 

[Pksimon2007]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

I didn't mention a regressive tax anywhere in my post.

You should calm down and learn to read.

- The income tax is the only progressive tax we have.

So you mentioned getting rid of the only progressive tax, and claimed that the revenue from all the regressive taxes would be "sufficient".

So yes, when you mentioned $1.6 trillion in revenues, those were ALL from regressive taxes.

That is simply incorrect in your claim. Both the Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax come to mind for taxes that aren't regressive.

You are being dishonest in your use of language. I don't support making all taxes regressive, or instituting a regressive tax in place of the income tax. I want no replacement. I just support removing the income tax, which is progressive. These are two different things.

- Capital gains taxes are barely progressive at all, and account for a small amount of the $1.6 trillion you mention - most of which are very much regressive, such as FICA.

 

[The Rabbi]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

You understand that Democrat policies to reverse Bush's have resulted in higher gaps between rich and poor, not lower, right?
Insanity is....

 

[hortysir]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Weren't you the one that said the rich only pay capital gains tax?
So abolishing the income tax shouldn't affect them.

Unlike the rest of us,the rich have more choice in how they take their income

Right now, capital gains rates are low, so they prefer taking income as a capital gain.

More reason to tax capital gains the same as any other income

Punish success

 

[bripat9643]

How would YOU shrink the Federal Government. Since you believe it will be a good thing, I must suppose you have thought of the cost-benefits and cost-deficits. Please include them with any cut you propose.

Thanks in advance for your thoughtful explanation.

Getting rid of the Income Tax would be a good start.

Even without the Income Tax, Federal revenue would be be about equivalent to 1997 levels, which was around 1.27 Trillion. I think a federal budget on just above a trillion dollars isn't radical. America seemed to be getting by fine in 1997, I think we could manage and this would be a good starting point. It isn't as though there was anarchy and poverty in the streets in the mid 90s.
It would be close to the same revenue PolitiFact

Perfect. Make all taxes regressive.

Why don't we just write the rich a check and send them the deeds to our homes? It would be a quicker path to the same place.

Weren't you the one that said the rich only pay capital gains tax?
So abolishing the income tax shouldn't affect them.

Unlike the rest of us,the rich have more choice in how they take their income

Right now, capital gains rates are low, so they prefer taking income as a capital gain.

More reason to tax capital gains the same as any other income

In order to "take income as a capital gain," you actually have to make a capital gain. If your stocks don't increase in value, then you haven't earned squat.