Tactics to limit the Federal Government

[Samson]

In order to support any plan as Samson presents, it must be shown that it would generate the necessary revenue for needed government functions.

My contention is that it has been "putting the cart before the horse;" that "needed government functions" have been put before reasonable government revenue, which has gotten us into the problem of run-away government spending.

Why not put the horse before the cart?

Generate a reasonable revenue THEN determine which government functions are "needed?"

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Perhaps that's all we should give them, and like most families, they make do.

You make do with what you have, but only so much as what you have is sufficient.


In 1884, making do with what you had was impossible. That's why the Left had to reform society so the proletariat ('the working class' in modern parlance) could imporve their condition.


In order to support any plan as Samson presents, it must be shown that it would generate the necessary revenue for needed government functions.

The progressive movement was the biggest mistake our country ever took upon itself. Its going to get undone. We are determined to do that.

Osha, workers' rights, safety standards, wages that could feed one's family, child labour laws, the 40hr work week, womens' suffrage...


Ask anyone from a company town in the Ozarks what life was like before the unions stood up against the big corporations and demanded decent wages, safer working environments, medical leave...


The Red/Progressive/Liberal/Labour movement of the Left has been the best thing to ever happen for the lower classes. It was those who coopted the name while actually standing for a totalitarian oligarchy that restricts the liberties of the people for no reason other than their desire for power that fucked things up.

 

[slackjawed]

The concept sounds alright, but do you have the math to show 1k/per would be all we need for necessary government?

No.

But I'm pretty Goddamn sure that a Government Budget of $10,000/per/year ($3 Trillion/yr), which is somewhere between 25-33% of the average annual income of an American, is too ******* much.

Perhaps we could add this into the equation?

Annual Government Budget = # americans X 10% X the average american's income based on the census every 10 years?

A ten-percent tithe? Should suffice for anything we really need.


How would you structure the tax system to reflect this system? A 10% flat tax could be devastating for some of the working poor unless they are exempt. Now I'm no mathematician, but since we're dealing with an average, you'd have to have some kind of progressive tax to still raise that 10% once you exclude those at or below poverty, no?

What is the costof all goods and services bought and sold in the us?
Would 10% of that suffice.

It still comes back to "what do we want our government to do? Until that question is answered, there won't be a solution.
The current path we are on seems to be one of increasing government services constantly. We need to clearly define what we expect from our government before we can decide how much money we need to do it.

 

[Samson]

The concept sounds alright, but do you have the math to show 1k/per would be all we need for necessary government?

No.

But I'm pretty Goddamn sure that a Government Budget of $10,000/per/year ($3 Trillion/yr), which is somewhere between 25-33% of the average annual income of an American, is too ******* much.

Perhaps we could add this into the equation?

Annual Government Budget = # americans X 10% X the average american's income based on the census every 10 years?

A ten-percent tithe? Should suffice for anything we really need.


How would you structure the tax system to reflect this system? A 10% flat tax could be devastating for some of the working poor unless they are exempt. Now I'm no mathematician, but since we're dealing with an average, you'd have to have some kind of progressive tax to still raise that 10% once you exclude those at or below poverty, no?

I wouldn't change the tax system at all.

Anything that came in over-budget would be used to pay off debt, or add to a surplus "rainy day" fund.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

In order to support any plan as Samson presents, it must be shown that it would generate the necessary revenue for needed government functions.

My contention is that it has been "putting the cart before the horse;" that "needed government functions" have been put before reasonable government revenue, which has gotten us into the problem of run-away government spending.

Why not put the horse before the cart?

Generate a reasonable revenue THEN determine which government functions are "needed?"

Because you risk two things:

1) Not having enough money for necessary functions (eg: military, border security)

2) Give them the money and they'll find a way to 'need' it for something.

First we must establish the functions necessary then we are to determine how to fund and implement them. Did the Founding Fathers write the tax codes before the Preamble? Did they bicker over how much money the Senate would need to raise before first determine they needed a Senate and what duties it would perform? No! first we must determine what must be done, then how to do it and how to fund it.

 

[slackjawed]

You make do with what you have, but only so much as what you have is sufficient.


In 1884, making do with what you had was impossible. That's why the Left had to reform society so the proletariat ('the working class' in modern parlance) could imporve their condition.


In order to support any plan as Samson presents, it must be shown that it would generate the necessary revenue for needed government functions.

The progressive movement was the biggest mistake our country ever took upon itself. Its going to get undone. We are determined to do that.

Osha, workers' rights, safety standards, wages that could feed one's family, child labour laws, the 40hr work week, womens' suffrage...


Ask anyone from a company town in the Ozarks what life was like before the unions stood up against the big corporations and demanded decent wages, safer working environments, medical leave...


The Red/Progressive/Liberal/Labour movement of the Left has been the best thing to ever happen for the lower classes. It was those who coopted the name while actually standing for a totalitarian oligarchy that restricts the liberties of the people for no reason other than their desire for power that fucked things up.

Yes, a lot of those government programs achieved good things, great things. However, being on a path that constantly increases government size and services will do much more to limit liberties of the poor than Peabody Coal ever did......

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I wouldn't change the tax system at all.

You're serious? You'd keep this clusterfuck?

Anything that came in over-budget would be used to pay off debt, or add to a surplus "rainy day" fund.

I'm skeptical... Why I'd love to see that happen, I don't see that happening.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What is the costof all goods and services bought and sold in the us?

I don't know where to find that information.

Would 10% of that suffice.

Are you advocating a sales tax and no income tax?

It still comes back to "what do we want our government to do? Until that question is answered, there won't be a solution.

That's what I've been saying..

The current path we are on seems to be one of increasing government services constantly. We need to clearly define what we expect from our government before we can decide how much money we need to do it.

My point exactly...

 

[Avatar4321]

It seems to me that the best way to reign in the Federal Government is through state elected officials. If we can get Governors and Attorney Generals of the States who believe in States rights to challenge much of the Federal Government's abuses, we would have a much stronger check on the Federal Government.

We should still fight to get representatives in the Federal Government as well, but if we ignore the State governments we are defeating ourselves.

In effect, the Feds "bribe" state elected officials to do their bidding.

Unable to print money, states must maintain a budget, or actually raise taxes, OR RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING.

Some states, Wyoming for example, actually maintains a budget with little federal funding, and little taxation (having almost no population helps).

Other states, California, New York, Florida, are almost hopeless basket-cases even with massive federal funding

Most other states, Texas, Illinois, Ohio, are somewhere in between, but one thing is clear: They all rely heavily on Federal Funding, and the necessary expansion of Federal Debt.

If, at the state level, candidates could be elected on the basis of rejecting all federal funding, and raising state taxes to maintain reduced state services, then we can all begin drinking bubblr-up and eating rainbow stew.

LEADERSHIP at the Federal Level needs to say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH, and simply reduce the size and expense of the Federal Government.

If we have the right leaders is the right states, we dont have to have them in all the states to reign in the Federal Government. If some states are challenging Federal intrusions in Court, the rulings will be applied nationwide.

Of course, that depends on the Court unfortunately. But it does provide another weapon in the arsenal against the overreach of the Federal Government.

 

[Samson]

I wouldn't change the tax system at all.

You're serious? You'd keep this clusterfuck?

Anything that came in over-budget would be used to pay off debt, or add to a surplus "rainy day" fund.

I'm skeptical... Why I'd love to see that happen, I don't see that happening.

I'm not advocating changing the tax system because I don't see it as a priority. I agree its not perfect, but I think the primary focus must be on ONE thing: Dismantling the Enormous Monstrousity in DC.

 

[slackjawed]

What is the costof all goods and services bought and sold in the us?

I don't know where to find that information. lol, neither do I, but someone does.....

Would 10% of that suffice.

Are you advocating a sales tax and no income tax?

If it works, yes
It still comes back to "what do we want our government to do? Until that question is answered, there won't be a solution.

That's what I've been saying..

The current path we are on seems to be one of increasing government services constantly. We need to clearly define what we expect from our government before we can decide how much money we need to do it.

My point exactly...

yep, we do agree, on this anyway.

I don't think I am alone in my fear that if we, the people, don't do something, we won't have a country to save. It seems we can't depend on our so-called leaders to do anything.

 

[Avatar4321]

Would not the People electing their representatives better ensure that those chosen represented the people of that State than having them selected by legislators who may not represent the masses? Is that not the point of a (representative) democratic form of governance?

But Senators were not designed to represent the people of that State. They were designed to represent the State itself. They act as a check on both the Federal Government and the Tyranny of the Majority.

We are supposed to be a Republic. Not a Democracy.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The progressive movement was the biggest mistake our country ever took upon itself. Its going to get undone. We are determined to do that.

Osha, workers' rights, safety standards, wages that could feed one's family, child labour laws, the 40hr work week, womens' suffrage...


Ask anyone from a company town in the Ozarks what life was like before the unions stood up against the big corporations and demanded decent wages, safer working environments, medical leave...


The Red/Progressive/Liberal/Labour movement of the Left has been the best thing to ever happen for the lower classes. It was those who coopted the name while actually standing for a totalitarian oligarchy that restricts the liberties of the people for no reason other than their desire for power that fucked things up.

Yes, a lot of those government programs achieved good things, great things. However, being on a path that constantly increases government size and services will do much more to limit liberties of the poor than Peabody Coal ever did......

If you notice, most of the successes involved legislation rather than actual 'programs'. Safety standards, suffrage, and most of the rest of what social progressiveness is all about doesn't require any 'expenses' save for regulatory and law enforcement agencies already in existence.


Perhaps the problem is how best to streamline the matter? After all, surely we'd agree on the need for transparency in the market (that's market regulation), but the way we've been going about it is clearly a failure.


To be honest, I don't believe the US can ever truly succeed as a singular nation. We're twice the size of the EU and look at the problems they have. We can only succeed as a number of semi-antonymous States each handling most of their own affairs with a central governing body that handles only the essentials, such as the common defense, regulatory legislation for trade between the States, and working to help the States work together to develop infrastructure,. In other words, we must return to 'we united States' rather than 'the United States' which we have become.

Mole ruit sua... it collapses form its own bigness...

 

[Avatar4321]

A ten-percent tithe? Should suffice for anything we really need.


How would you structure the tax system to reflect this system? A 10% flat tax could be devastating for some of the working poor unless they are exempt. Now I'm no mathematician, but since we're dealing with an average, you'd have to have some kind of progressive tax to still raise that 10% once you exclude those at or below poverty, no?

Even the poor pay more than that in taxes now.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Would not the People electing their representatives better ensure that those chosen represented the people of that State than having them selected by legislators who may not represent the masses? Is that not the point of a (representative) democratic form of governance?

But Senators were not designed to represent the people of that State. They were designed to represent the State itself.

Is not the State merely the people and the machinations they put into place to run their own affairs?

We are supposed to be a Republic. Not a Democracy.

The republican form is of a democratic type.

I never proposed a unfettered direct democracy. I specifically said '(representative) democratic form of governance?'.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

A ten-percent tithe? Should suffice for anything we really need.


How would you structure the tax system to reflect this system? A 10% flat tax could be devastating for some of the working poor unless they are exempt. Now I'm no mathematician, but since we're dealing with an average, you'd have to have some kind of progressive tax to still raise that 10% once you exclude those at or below poverty, no?

Even the poor pay more than that in taxes now.

Source, please


I haven't looked at tax brackets for a long time

 

[slackjawed]

Osha, workers' rights, safety standards, wages that could feed one's family, child labour laws, the 40hr work week, womens' suffrage...


Ask anyone from a company town in the Ozarks what life was like before the unions stood up against the big corporations and demanded decent wages, safer working environments, medical leave...


The Red/Progressive/Liberal/Labour movement of the Left has been the best thing to ever happen for the lower classes. It was those who coopted the name while actually standing for a totalitarian oligarchy that restricts the liberties of the people for no reason other than their desire for power that fucked things up.

Yes, a lot of those government programs achieved good things, great things. However, being on a path that constantly increases government size and services will do much more to limit liberties of the poor than Peabody Coal ever did......

If you notice, most of the successes involved legislation rather than actual 'programs'. Safety standards, suffrage, and most of the rest of what social progressiveness is all about doesn't require any 'expenses' save for regulatory and law enforcement agencies already in existence.


Perhaps the problem is how best to streamline the matter? After all, surely we'd agree on the need for transparency in the market (that's market regulation), but the way we've been going about it is clearly a failure.


To be honest, I don't believe the US can ever truly succeed as a singular nation. We're twice the size of the EU and look at the problems they have. We can only succeed as a number of semi-antonymous States each handling most of their own affairs with a central governing body that handles only the essentials, such as the common defense, regulatory legislation for trade between the States, and working to help the States work together to develop infrastructure,. In other words, we must return to 'we united States' rather than 'the United States' which we have become.

Mole ruit sua... it collapses form its own bigness...

We have reached a point where the agencies already in existence are being overworked. Take for example the "war on drugs". We started with an existing group of police agencies, but quickly overworked them, then we got ourselves a DEA, and overworked them as well.
It still comes back to making a decision as a nation as to what we want our government to do. Maybe we can't afford to lock up all the potheads. maybe we can't afford to manage migratory birds like ducks at the federal level to the extent that we do.

You know, I like eagles, no problem with eagles. But where i work in the summer, the feds pay someone to watch each eagles nest 24/7 until the chicks leave the nest.
Do we need that?(just an example, please all the eagle lovers don't attack me)

 

[Avatar4321]

Source, please


I haven't looked at tax brackets for a long time

You are only factoring the income tax bracket. The Federal Government collects payroll taxes as well.

 

[slackjawed]

Oh, and 9 miles away from the lake, over on the rez, where they are allowed to kill eagles, they don't watch them at all.
yet the eagles are back, year after year.....

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Source, please


I haven't looked at tax brackets for a long time

You are only factoring the income tax bracket. The Federal Government collects payroll taxes as well.

Just show me the source.

The information must be out there somewhere.