|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 15, 2014 0:30:55 GMT
An increase from 10 percent to 29 percent would be even worse for me--in fact, almost triple my current marginal tax rate! When the term, "isolationism," is used in its strictest sense, it is probably distinguishable from "non-interventionism"--the former sometimes carries with it a protectionist element (sometimes described, euphemistically, as "fair trade"), which the latter does not--but I believe that today's "non-interventionists" are simply the isolationists of an earlier era, re-branded. If The Wealthy (for whom I have no envy) are able to avoid taxes--legally--then I have no moral problem whatsoever with that. And I thoroughly disagree with those on the left who declare that it is wealthy Americans' "patriotic duty" to pay as much in taxes as they possibly can. (It is very difficult for me to imagine the original patriots--those fighting against Britain for our independence in the 1770s and early 1780s--demanding higher taxes.) And what is the significance, exactly, of your assertion that "over 99% of all enterprise expansion (that creates jobs) is funded by the enterprise from profits (including borrowing against future projected profits)"? Even if this is correct (and I do not know if this is the case, or not), what is the point?
Do you have more than $50,000 in gross income annually? If not then under my proposal you would have a ZERO income tax obligation. The 2013 tax rate of 29% rate would only have applied above the $50,000 exemption level. You would not reach a tax burden of 10% of gross income until you had over $75,000 in gross income. At $75,000 of income a 29% tax rate would impose a $7,250 tax or a 9.7% tax rate on gross income.
I have no envy of the wealthy either and I merely propose that everyone should have the same tax rate imposed above an income level that will provide for the basic expenditures and comfort of the person (ergo my tax exemption level of $50,000/yr for an average household). It didn't make sense to me that when I had about $121K in gross income I paid a higher income tax rate than Mitt Romney in 2011 (note: I only use Romney because I know what he paid in taxes in 2011) when he had over $22 million in gross income. For 2011 my total federal tax burden relative to income was over 28% while Mitt Romney's was about 14%. Why should I have double the tax rate imposed on my income when compared to someone earning over 180-times my income?
As for expansion of enterprise being funded from profits it contradicts the belief that (external) investments fund enterprise that has long been the arguing point for the Capital Gains tax loophole. External investmentd do not significantly fund either the creation or the expansion of enterprise in the United States. In fact if we abolished publically held corporations completely (not something I advocate) it would not adversely affect the economy all that much because publically held corporations only represent about 5% of all enterprises in America and predominately these enterprises would still have existed and expanded as privately held "corporations" (e.g. LLC's) or partnerships instead.
The Boeing Company, for example, could have grown to it's present size based solely upon profits realized from sales historically. It didn't really need to publically sell shares in the enterprise to accomplish that growth historically. This is not to say that "public corporations" don't offer another means of expanding enterprise but it is a limited funding mechanism that still depends upon sales of goods and services as the primary source of income for a viable enterprise.
I believe you did, in a prior post, note the $50,000 annual exemption; but I had forgotten about it. (No, my total gross income is not greater than $50k per year.) It sounds good (in pure theory, anyway) to close all tax "loopholes"; but that is all too often a mere appeal to envy, in my opinion. Either that, or a desire to increase the federal government's annual net revenues (with regard to which, I thoroughly agree with former President Reagan's desire to "starve the beast"; but to do so consistent with a balanced budget).
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 15, 2014 13:15:51 GMT
I believe you did, in a prior post, note the $50,000 annual exemption; but I had forgotten about it. (No, my total gross income is not greater than $50k per year.) It sounds good (in pure theory, anyway) to close all tax "loopholes"; but that is all too often a mere appeal to envy, in my opinion. Either that, or a desire to increase the federal government's annual net revenues (with regard to which, I thoroughly agree with former President Reagan's desire to "starve the beast"; but to do so consistent with a balanced budget).
The problem I often encounter is that there are those that would claim my proposal is based upon envy of the wealthy but that is not the case at all. It is exclusively about fair taxation where all of the loopholes are basically closed. Yes, many of those with very high incomes would pay more in taxes but others would not. For example a CEO of a major corporation with a salary of $5 million/yr would be in a 39.6% income tax bracket because their income is "earned" income and they would see a significant drop in their tax rate. An investor with $5 million/yr that is probably paying less than 15% under the capital gains tax loophole on "unearned" income would see their tax rate increase.
My proposition is simply that a "dollar is a dollar" and all dollars should be subjected to the same tax rates and provisions.
As long as there is deficit spending it is impossible to "starve the beast" and refusal to fund the authorized expenditures always results in deficit spending. The only way pragmatically to reduce the spending is to address "problems" that necessitate much of the spending and to also eliminate unnecessary spending by requiring the taxpayers to actually pay for the full cost of government.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 15, 2014 18:20:27 GMT
I believe you did, in a prior post, note the $50,000 annual exemption; but I had forgotten about it. (No, my total gross income is not greater than $50k per year.) It sounds good (in pure theory, anyway) to close all tax "loopholes"; but that is all too often a mere appeal to envy, in my opinion. Either that, or a desire to increase the federal government's annual net revenues (with regard to which, I thoroughly agree with former President Reagan's desire to "starve the beast"; but to do so consistent with a balanced budget).
The problem I often encounter is that there are those that would claim my proposal is based upon envy of the wealthy but that is not the case at all. It is exclusively about fair taxation where all of the loopholes are basically closed. Yes, many of those with very high incomes would pay more in taxes but others would not. For example a CEO of a major corporation with a salary of $5 million/yr would be in a 39.6% income tax bracket because their income is "earned" income and they would see a significant drop in their tax rate. An investor with $5 million/yr that is probably paying less than 15% under the capital gains tax loophole on "unearned" income would see their tax rate increase.
My proposition is simply that a "dollar is a dollar" and all dollars should be subjected to the same tax rates and provisions.
As long as there is deficit spending it is impossible to "starve the beast" and refusal to fund the authorized expenditures always results in deficit spending. The only way pragmatically to reduce the spending is to address "problems" that necessitate much of the spending and to also eliminate unnecessary spending by requiring the taxpayers to actually pay for the full cost of government.
I agree with your observation that " s long as there is deficit spending it will be impossible to 'starve the beast'"; but that seems almost tautological, as deficit spending is, just by definition, a way of circumventing any income limits. (It is as if an individual receives $50,000 per year, after taxes, in income; yet spends $70,000 per year, year after year, after year.)
My own proposal would be as follows:
(1) Enact a Balanced Budget Amendment. And enforce it strictly (just as almost every state does).
(2) Do not raise taxes on any American--even by one dollar.
(3) Do not make any cuts to the defense budget (unless it is the proverbial--and often amorphous--"waste, fraud, and abuse").
(4) Begin the (quite arduous) task of paying off the federal deficit.
(5) Make whatever cuts (or outright eliminations) of social programs may be necessary in order to ensure that the first four points, above, are entirely satisfied.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 16, 2014 12:59:11 GMT
I agree with your observation that " s long as there is deficit spending it will be impossible to 'starve the beast'"; but that seems almost tautological, as deficit spending is, just by definition, a way of circumventing any income limits. (It is as if an individual receives $50,000 per year, after taxes, in income; yet spends $70,000 per year, year after year, after year.)
My own proposal would be as follows:
(1) Enact a Balanced Budget Amendment. And enforce it strictly (just as almost every state does).
(2) Do not raise taxes on any American--even by one dollar.
(3) Do not make any cuts to the defense budget (unless it is the proverbial--and often amorphous--"waste, fraud, and abuse").
(4) Begin the (quite arduous) task of paying off the federal deficit.
(5) Make whatever cuts (or outright eliminations) of social programs may be necessary in order to ensure that the first four points, above, are entirely satisfied.
Here's the problems with your proposals.
1. Every "balanced budget amendment" I've read is so porous that none of them prevents deficit spending. It can also be noted that every state borrows and has outstanding debt. States issue "bonds" all of the time and that borrowing is no different than US Treasury notes that fund the deficit spending of the United States. It is a myth that the States don't engage in deficit spending.
2. What you propose by not increasing the taxes on anyone is that unfair taxation should be continued. Remember that "investors" are the beneficiaries of crony capitalism today with a substantially lower tax burden relative to income than working Americans. Why do you support crony capitalism is the real question I would ask.
3. The position that no cuts should be made to the US military budget itself demands "wasteful spending" as technology allows us to maintain and even improve the operational capability of the US military at a much lower cost. For example a single F-35 can operationally replace an entire squadron of F-18's so even with the high cost of an F-35 it can reduce the overall military expenditures. One B-2 bomber with a single arial refueling tanker replaced 100 aircraft that were required for the same mission capability. Why would we not emply techology to reduce the costs of the US military? Spending money simply for the sake of spending money makes no sense whatsoever.
4. If we don't increase tax revenues there's no revenue to pay down the national debt.
5. You're addressing a symptom of a problem as opposed to addressing the problem with your proposal. To reduce "welfare spending" we need to address the problem that creates it. Welfare spending mitigates the effects of poverty so we need to reduce poverty if we want to reduce the necessity to mitigate it's effects. That was a primary reason behind my "privatization" of Social Security because, over time, it dramatically reduces poverty in the United States. That would ulitmately reduce the necessity for welfare assistance and it would bring tens of millions of households out of poverty over time. The ultimate key to reducing welfare assistance, both public and private, is to reduce poverty.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 16, 2014 18:02:09 GMT
I agree with your observation that " s long as there is deficit spending it will be impossible to 'starve the beast'"; but that seems almost tautological, as deficit spending is, just by definition, a way of circumventing any income limits. (It is as if an individual receives $50,000 per year, after taxes, in income; yet spends $70,000 per year, year after year, after year.)
My own proposal would be as follows:
(1) Enact a Balanced Budget Amendment. And enforce it strictly (just as almost every state does).
(2) Do not raise taxes on any American--even by one dollar.
(3) Do not make any cuts to the defense budget (unless it is the proverbial--and often amorphous--"waste, fraud, and abuse").
(4) Begin the (quite arduous) task of paying off the federal deficit.
(5) Make whatever cuts (or outright eliminations) of social programs may be necessary in order to ensure that the first four points, above, are entirely satisfied.
Here's the problems with your proposals.
1. Every "balanced budget amendment" I've read is so porous that none of them prevents deficit spending. It can also be noted that every state borrows and has outstanding debt. States issue "bonds" all of the time and that borrowing is no different than US Treasury notes that fund the deficit spending of the United States. It is a myth that the States don't engage in deficit spending.
2. What you propose by not increasing the taxes on anyone is that unfair taxation should be continued. Remember that "investors" are the beneficiaries of crony capitalism today with a substantially lower tax burden relative to income than working Americans. Why do you support crony capitalism is the real question I would ask.
3. The position that no cuts should be made to the US military budget itself demands "wasteful spending" as technology allows us to maintain and even improve the operational capability of the US military at a much lower cost. For example a single F-35 can operationally replace an entire squadron of F-18's so even with the high cost of an F-35 it can reduce the overall military expenditures. One B-2 bomber with a single arial refueling tanker replaced 100 aircraft that were required for the same mission capability. Why would we not emply techology to reduce the costs of the US military? Spending money simply for the sake of spending money makes no sense whatsoever.
4. If we don't increase tax revenues there's no revenue to pay down the national debt.
5. You're addressing a symptom of a problem as opposed to addressing the problem with your proposal. To reduce "welfare spending" we need to address the problem that creates it. Welfare spending mitigates the effects of poverty so we need to reduce poverty if we want to reduce the necessity to mitigate it's effects. That was a primary reason behind my "privatization" of Social Security because, over time, it dramatically reduces poverty in the United States. That would ulitmately reduce the necessity for welfare assistance and it would bring tens of millions of households out of poverty over time. The ultimate key to reducing welfare assistance, both public and private, is to reduce poverty.
I can better speak for my home state (Tennessee) than I can for your own state (Washington); and I can certify that there is no deficit spending done here. In fact, it is entirely proscribed by the state constitution. (If every incarnation of the BBA is quite "pourous," that makes for a very good argument for our improving it--not for scrapping the idea altogether.) What is fundamentally "unfair" about our declining to increase taxes on anyone? (If you believe that the effective tax rate for low-to-middle-income Americans is greater than it is for The Rich, that is a very good argument for lowering the former--not for increasing the latter.) If America is to remain a military superpower--and if it is to be capable (easily) of defeating, militarily, any conceivable combination of enemies in a conventional war--it simply cannot cut back substantially on military spending, and hope for gains in mere "efficiency" to make up the difference. Yes, we can pay down the national debt without the necessity of increasing revenues to the federal government; it just cannot be done within the context of a (continuing) Benefactor State...
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 17, 2014 2:19:50 GMT
What is fundamentally "unfair" about our declining to increase taxes on anyone? (If you believe that the effective tax rate for low-to-middle-income Americans is greater than it is for The Rich, that is a very good argument for lowering the former--not for increasing the latter.)
I suggest that you run some numbers because your's don't add up. I'm going to have to "mix and match" some numbers but I think you'll get the picture.
The mandatory Social Security and Medicare spending for 2015 is projected to be about $1.4 trillion and that is "fully funded" based upon revenue from current and prior FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes but it accounts for almost 1/2 of all current federal revenue from all forms of taxation that totals about $3 trillion for 2014. That leaves only about $1.6 trillion for all other expenditures that has to be funded from basically income taxes.
We also have the interest on the national debt that is a mandatory expenditure and for 2014 it will be about $355 billion.
The DOD and VA (a related cost of national defense) are about $600 billion for 2014 leaving only $1 trillion in all other forms of spending that have to be paid for with general taxation (i.e. income taxes).
Unfortunately we didn't collect enough in general tax revenue for 2014 and it's projected we'll have about a $500 billion deficit so we're already short of revenue.
Add it all together and the total outlays for Social Security/Medicare, DOD (and VA) spending, and the interest on the debt alone equals about $2 trillion and we were short on "general" revenues of about $500 billon with our roughly $3 trillion in total revenue for 2014 and spending of roughly $3.5 trillion.
Now, basically keep that in mind (but you don't have to remember the actual numbers) and address the following.
I have to use some much older information but it will provide you with some scope of the problem although it won't be exact. It will still reveal the fundamental problem nonetheless. Please note that the chart reflects 2009 rates that were less than current rates but it still works as an example.
As you will notice from the revenue sources from income taxes and I want you to look over at the far right that shows the revenue generated from the Capital Gains Tax. Today average Capital Gains tax is less than 15% and the top 0.1% (i.e. 1/1000) that are all very high income investors only pay an average of 17% and not the 20% maximum tax rate. Those are "Today's" rates and not the 2009 rates.
Now, using the chart, imagine that every tax bracket above 17% is cut to 17% or less and then just try to imagine how much federal income tax revenue would be lost. We're already $1/2 trillion in the hole for 2014 because of the lack of revenue and if we cut rates and revenues by that much we couldn't even afford to fund the interest on the national debt of about $355 billion plus the $600 billion US military (DOD & VA) costs. Social Security/Medicare would be paid because it's a separate tax revenue source but every other federal operation and expenditure would be completely unfunded.
The $500 billion we spend on social programs, even if we cut it all, wouldn't make a dent in off-setting the loss of revenue.
It would also be catastrophic to the economy to cut the welfare spending because every one of those welfare dollars is funding private enterprises like markets, utility companies, apartment rents, etc. and we'd have 30 million homeless Americans within months of those cuts without any means of helping them. Private charities wouldn't be able to help 1/100th of the people that would require assistance in America. People would lose their jobs once they lost their apartments and became homeless creating an even greater catastrophy.
There is no way on earth that we can cut taxes to below the rates that investors pay on Capital Gains taxes. Hell, investors don't have any tax obligation at all until their net income is over $70,000/yr on long term investments. We'd lose all of those in the 10% and 15% earned income tax brackets completely if they were to pay the same as investors on the same income and they provide the primary source of general tax revenue to the federal government. Simply look at the chart from 2009 and virtually all of the tax revenues from earned income would be lost if we lowered the earned income tax rates to the Capital Gains tax rates.
The more I think about this the more insane the proposition is because it would completely shut down the federal government and would be catastrophic to the nation.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 17, 2014 3:01:50 GMT
If every incarnation of the BBA is quite "pourous," that makes for a very good argument for our improving it--not for scrapping the idea altogether.
The problem, as I see it, is that the federal government has to be agile financially to deal with emergencies and that requires flexibility in spending. All Balanced Budget Amendments require a super-majority to authorize deficit spending.
A small minority can easily engages in obstructionism when emergencies arise. Think about that during a time of war where funding is needed immediately and even though the war has been authorized a small minority can block the funding because it drives a deficit. Soldiers could easily die in such a case and many members of Congress really don't give a damn. Think about a natural disaster like a hurricane. Once agian a small minority could block funding to address the emergency and people would die. Once again there are members of Congress that really don't care if their actions result in people dying.
On the other hand it wouldn't prevent deficit spending either because Congress would agree to deficit spending based upon a super-majority vote on other budgetary issues.
We also have a problem with budgetary projection revenue shortfalls as well as over-budget programs that still require the funding. These all need to be dealt with and a super-majority requirement makes Congress virtually unfunctional in such cases.
Basically you end up with some cases where government will not function during emergencies and will deficit spend at other times.
I can't think of any pragmatic solution where a small group couldn't act as obstructionists or where deficit spending won't be authorized.
Remember one other simple fact. Not all deficit spending is bad. Only unrepaid borrowing is bad. You and I both know that because we use credit cards but we also repay the borrowing immediately. As long as the loan is repaid in full it's not necessarily a bad thing. It is the unrepaid borrowing that is the problem.
There is actually a far better way to keep federal deficit spending in check and that is returning to species coinage. Simply require the use of species coinage (gold and silver) to purchase US Treasury securities. Of course that requires re-visiting and completely replacing the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 but that is actually doable and a hell of a lot easier than an amendment to the US Constitution that will never pragmatically receive the 3/4ths majority of the States for ratification.
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 17, 2014 3:15:15 GMT
If America is to remain a military superpower--and if it is to be capable (easily) of defeating, militarily, any conceivable combination of enemies in a conventional war--it simply cannot cut back substantially on military spending, and hope for gains in mere "efficiency" to make up the difference.
Having worked in high technology aerospace for decades I can only say that you can't imagine how much technology can accomplish. As I noted just one B-2 bomber with a single arial tanker replaces an entire wing of B-52 (or B-1B) bombers plus all of their support aircraft and personnel. It cuts the manpower requirement alone by 90% and yet the B-2 still has superior mission capability when compared to all of the aircraft it replaces. And the B-2 is obsolete already as unmanned stealth bombers are already in development from what I've heard through the grapevine.
In 40 years there will be no need for soldiers at all because robotic soldiers are going to be far smarter and far more capable than amy person could ever be. The "Rise of the Machines" is real although the science fiction stories like I-Robot and Terminator are not..... or probably are not real.
BTW We can defeat any combination of nations currently but only in defense of our nation. We would never be able to invade a country like China or Russia and defeat them no matter how large or powerful our military could become. We barely survived in Iraq facing about 40,000 militia members and if the Shi'ite militias had not unilaterally decided to stop fighting we would have still lost even when we bought off the Sunni Militias. In 2007 we were losing that war completely even with all of our military might. There's one hell of a difference between waging a war of national defense and an offensive war. There's over a billion Chinese and they could literally march 15 abreast past machine guns and never run of out people for us to kill. They reproduce faster than that.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 17, 2014 18:29:57 GMT
What is fundamentally "unfair" about our declining to increase taxes on anyone? (If you believe that the effective tax rate for low-to-middle-income Americans is greater than it is for The Rich, that is a very good argument for lowering the former--not for increasing the latter.)
I suggest that you run some numbers because your's don't add up. I'm going to have to "mix and match" some numbers but I think you'll get the picture.
The mandatory Social Security and Medicare spending for 2015 is projected to be about $1.4 trillion and that is "fully funded" based upon revenue from current and prior FICA/Payroll/Self-employment taxes but it accounts for almost 1/2 of all current federal revenue from all forms of taxation that totals about $3 trillion for 2014. That leaves only about $1.6 trillion for all other expenditures that has to be funded from basically income taxes.
We also have the interest on the national debt that is a mandatory expenditure and for 2014 it will be about $355 billion.
The DOD and VA (a related cost of national defense) are about $600 billion for 2014 leaving only $1 trillion in all other forms of spending that have to be paid for with general taxation (i.e. income taxes).
Unfortunately we didn't collect enough in general tax revenue for 2014 and it's projected we'll have about a $500 billion deficit so we're already short of revenue.
Add it all together and the total outlays for Social Security/Medicare, DOD (and VA) spending, and the interest on the debt alone equals about $2 trillion and we were short on "general" revenues of about $500 billon with our roughly $3 trillion in total revenue for 2014 and spending of roughly $3.5 trillion.
Now, basically keep that in mind (but you don't have to remember the actual numbers) and address the following.
I have to use some much older information but it will provide you with some scope of the problem although it won't be exact. It will still reveal the fundamental problem nonetheless. Please note that the chart reflects 2009 rates that were less than current rates but it still works as an example.
As you will notice from the revenue sources from income taxes and I want you to look over at the far right that shows the revenue generated from the Capital Gains Tax. Today average Capital Gains tax is less than 15% and the top 0.1% (i.e. 1/1000) that are all very high income investors only pay an average of 17% and not the 20% maximum tax rate. Those are "Today's" rates and not the 2009 rates.
Now, using the chart, imagine that every tax bracket above 17% is cut to 17% or less and then just try to imagine how much federal income tax revenue would be lost. We're already $1/2 trillion in the hole for 2014 because of the lack of revenue and if we cut rates and revenues by that much we couldn't even afford to fund the interest on the national debt of about $355 billion plus the $600 billion US military (DOD & VA) costs. Social Security/Medicare would be paid because it's a separate tax revenue source but every other federal operation and expenditure would be completely unfunded.
The $500 billion we spend on social programs, even if we cut it all, wouldn't make a dent in off-setting the loss of revenue.
It would also be catastrophic to the economy to cut the welfare spending because every one of those welfare dollars is funding private enterprises like markets, utility companies, apartment rents, etc. and we'd have 30 million homeless Americans within months of those cuts without any means of helping them. Private charities wouldn't be able to help 1/100th of the people that would require assistance in America. People would lose their jobs once they lost their apartments and became homeless creating an even greater catastrophy.
There is no way on earth that we can cut taxes to below the rates that investors pay on Capital Gains taxes. Hell, investors don't have any tax obligation at all until their net income is over $70,000/yr on long term investments. We'd lose all of those in the 10% and 15% earned income tax brackets completely if they were to pay the same as investors on the same income and they provide the primary source of general tax revenue to the federal government. Simply look at the chart from 2009 and virtually all of the tax revenues from earned income would be lost if we lowered the earned income tax rates to the Capital Gains tax rates.
The more I think about this the more insane the proposition is because it would completely shut down the federal government and would be catastrophic to the nation.
The situation that existed in America in 1914 (as opposed to 2014)--or even just prior to the New Deal era of the 1930s--was certainly not one in which the federal government was "complete shut down." Or even partially shut down. To assert that federal tax revenue would be "lost" under other circumstances is necessarily to imply that all American citizens' money is, first and foremost, the federal government's money; and that the federal government simply grants American citizens the privilege of keeping a certain portion of that money, for their own needs and desires. But to assert the primacy of the federal government is, I believe, to get things precisely backwards. You are certainly correct as regarding the oppressive nature of the national debt; which is exactly why I wish to pay if off, over time. (Politicians from both major parties have steadily run up the national debt, as it is in the interest of career politicians to promise as many goodies as possible, without the need of actually paying for them.) If we were to pay off the national debt (which, admittedly, could not be accomplished quickly), and return the government to its basic functions (rather than acting as a gigantic Redistribution Machine), I believe that it would have sufficient revenue to get its job done. Certainly, it did 100 years ago. (Note: There is a problem with the image that you supplied: When I click on it, I receive the same message that it shows prior to doing so: "Sorry. This person moved or deleted this image.")
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 17, 2014 18:51:09 GMT
If every incarnation of the BBA is quite "pourous," that makes for a very good argument for our improving it--not for scrapping the idea altogether.
The problem, as I see it, is that the federal government has to be agile financially to deal with emergencies and that requires flexibility in spending. All Balanced Budget Amendments require a super-majority to authorize deficit spending.
A small minority can easily engages in obstructionism when emergencies arise. Think about that during a time of war where funding is needed immediately and even though the war has been authorized a small minority can block the funding because it drives a deficit. Soldiers could easily die in such a case and many members of Congress really don't give a damn. Think about a natural disaster like a hurricane. Once agian a small minority could block funding to address the emergency and people would die. Once again there are members of Congress that really don't care if their actions result in people dying.
On the other hand it wouldn't prevent deficit spending either because Congress would agree to deficit spending based upon a super-majority vote on other budgetary issues.
We also have a problem with budgetary projection revenue shortfalls as well as over-budget programs that still require the funding. These all need to be dealt with and a super-majority requirement makes Congress virtually unfunctional in such cases.
Basically you end up with some cases where government will not function during emergencies and will deficit spend at other times.
I can't think of any pragmatic solution where a small group couldn't act as obstructionists or where deficit spending won't be authorized.
Remember one other simple fact. Not all deficit spending is bad. Only unrepaid borrowing is bad. You and I both know that because we use credit cards but we also repay the borrowing immediately. As long as the loan is repaid in full it's not necessarily a bad thing. It is the unrepaid borrowing that is the problem.
There is actually a far better way to keep federal deficit spending in check and that is returning to species coinage. Simply require the use of species coinage (gold and silver) to purchase US Treasury securities. Of course that requires re-visiting and completely replacing the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 but that is actually doable and a hell of a lot easier than an amendment to the US Constitution that will never pragmatically receive the 3/4ths majority of the States for ratification.
A supermajority requirement (I believe it is two-thirds of both chambers of Congress, in every proposal that I have seen) would surely not result in Americans "dying" because of Congress' "obstructionism" (which, I believe, is just another way of trashing Those Mean Old Republicans). I simply cannot imagine that, in case of war, over one-third of either chamber of Congress would vote against authorization of the necessary expenditures. And I am not quite sure why you might believe that a balanced-budget amendment will "never" receive ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures--especially considering that almost all of the 50 states have similar measures, either in their respective state constitutions or in legislation that has been passed. And our merely paying off the debt would not be a total solution--although it would certainly be much better than our not doing so. As regarding your analogy: I have never paid even one cent in interest on any of my credit cards--no exceptions--and I intend to keep it that way. But how might the federal government ever be able to secure a loan from another country at a zero-interest rate, even if that loan were eventually repaid in full? And I believe that a BBA would, indeed, curb deficit spending. Can you really imagine that a two-thirds supermajority in both chambers of Congress would vote to authorize deficit spending--especially in the era of the Tea Party? As you know, I am in favor of our returning to the gold standard, and thereby putting an end to the current standard of fiat money.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 17, 2014 19:08:36 GMT
If America is to remain a military superpower--and if it is to be capable (easily) of defeating, militarily, any conceivable combination of enemies in a conventional war--it simply cannot cut back substantially on military spending, and hope for gains in mere "efficiency" to make up the difference.
Having worked in high technology aerospace for decades I can only say that you can't imagine how much technology can accomplish. As I noted just one B-2 bomber with a single arial tanker replaces an entire wing of B-52 (or B-1B) bombers plus all of their support aircraft and personnel. It cuts the manpower requirement alone by 90% and yet the B-2 still has superior mission capability when compared to all of the aircraft it replaces. And the B-2 is obsolete already as unmanned stealth bombers are already in development from what I've heard through the grapevine.
In 40 years there will be no need for soldiers at all because robotic soldiers are going to be far smarter and far more capable than amy person could ever be. The "Rise of the Machines" is real although the science fiction stories like I-Robot and Terminator are not..... or probably are not real.
BTW We can defeat any combination of nations currently but only in defense of our nation. We would never be able to invade a country like China or Russia and defeat them no matter how large or powerful our military could become. We barely survived in Iraq facing about 40,000 militia members and if the Shi'ite militias had not unilaterally decided to stop fighting we would have still lost even when we bought off the Sunni Militias. In 2007 we were losing that war completely even with all of our military might. There's one hell of a difference between waging a war of national defense and an offensive war. There's over a billion Chinese and they could literally march 15 abreast past machine guns and never run of out people for us to kill. They reproduce faster than that.
Actually, the Chinese do not now reproduce nearly so quickly as you appear to suppose, given the country's "One-Child" policy--which, for the record, has resulted in the infanticide of enormous quantities of female children (since girls are valued far less than boys are in that culture). We stopped "losing" the Iraq War after the "surge" that was so vociferously opposed by the left in America. But now--after America has withdrawn--it appears that ISIS (or whatever it prefers to term itself now) has reversed our victory. If robots are destined to replace humans as combat personnel (as you claim), the only conceivable purpose of war would be to destroy the other side's infrastructure--who would shed a tear for a disabled or destroyed robot?--and that is an utter nightmare, in my opinion. (For instance, an EMP blast--which is to say, a nuclear explosion detonated in the atmosphere, rather than on the ground--could easily fry everyone's computers, televisions, microwaves, and--worst of all--banking systems, over a very large portion of America. So you would be able to make purchases only with cash--no checks and no credit cards, since no one, including your bank or credit union, would know how much money you have in your checking account.) And do you really believe that America's (downsized) military could defeat "any combination of nations currently" in a military conflict? That it could go to war against, say, the combined militaries of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela in 2014, and emerge victorious? (I would like very much to believe that it could; but I would also like to believe in the Easter Bunny.)
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 18, 2014 12:22:46 GMT
The situation that existed in America in 1914 (as opposed to 2014)--or even just prior to the New Deal era of the 1930s--was certainly not one in which the federal government was "complete shut down." Or even partially shut down. To assert that federal tax revenue would be "lost" under other circumstances is necessarily to imply that all American citizens' money is, first and foremost, the federal government's money; and that the federal government simply grants American citizens the privilege of keeping a certain portion of that money, for their own needs and desires. But to assert the primacy of the federal government is, I believe, to get things precisely backwards. You are certainly correct as regarding the oppressive nature of the national debt; which is exactly why I wish to pay if off, over time. (Politicians from both major parties have steadily run up the national debt, as it is in the interest of career politicians to promise as many goodies as possible, without the need of actually paying for them.) If we were to pay off the national debt (which, admittedly, could not be accomplished quickly), and return the government to its basic functions (rather than acting as a gigantic Redistribution Machine), I believe that it would have sufficient revenue to get its job done. Certainly, it did 100 years ago. (Note: There is a problem with the image that you supplied: When I click on it, I receive the same message that it shows prior to doing so: "Sorry. This person moved or deleted this image.")
I don't have a clue about what happened to the image I provided. I'll try to summarize it. All federal general tax revenue (income taxes) from those currently in the 10% and 15% tax brackets would be lost because the "Capital Gains" tax rates for these income tax levels is ZERO. Earned income tax rates that are currently above 15% would be slashed by about 50% to a top rate of about 17% (the average tax rate for the top 0.1% for investors). Basically federal general tax revenues would drop to about 10%-15% of current revenue based upon a WAG (wild ass guess) on my part. That wouldn't even fund the US military today.
It was interesting that you brought up 1914 as a reference because I looked up defense spending for 1914 and it was $400 million for the United States. Based upon inflation that spending would be $9.5 billion today. Are you possibly suggesting that we slash the DOD budget to only $9.5 billion so we can return to how the government funding was accomplished in 1914 before the income tax?
The fact is we can't return to "the past" because we're not living in the past. In 1914 the United States was still predominately an agrarian society of small family farms throughout most of the nation. We didn't have interstate highways and, in fact, had very few paved roads at all. Electricity was more of a novelty in most places and we certainly weren't a world power by any definition.
We must deal with the "here and now" and work from that in a pragmatic and responsible manner. There is much that can be done to reduce the "welfare state" that you dispise and I address that in my tax policies. Like you I seek to reduce the financial burden of "welfare" but I look at in the context of being a burden on society regardless of whether it's funded by government or private charities. The problem is the poverty that drives the necessity for the welfare assistance so I attack the poverty with pragmatic and responsible ways of increasing both individual and generational wealth based upon mandatory investment programs under "privatized" Social Security.
The problem is that is a very slow process that will take generations to accomplish.
One of the problems I've noticed, and that a recent study confirmed, is that most "conservatives" don't believe actual poverty exists to the extent it really does exist. They believe "most poor people" have more than enough income and simply waste it on frivilous purchases and bad spending decisions. They don't have any factual information to back up this belief (and they generally reject scientific studies) so it is really an unsupported opinion. Unfortunately based upon every actual study I've read that isn't really the case according to economists and the problem is worsening by the day. More and more Americans are slipping into poverty every year and it's not projected to get any better.
Reducing poverty is the key to reducing the welfare state and we need to be taking responsible and pragmatic steps to accomplish that. Ignoring the poverty and/or simply believing it doesn't exist is not going to reduce the necessity for welfare assistance in the United States.
To address a couple of other issues you mentioned in other posts.
In 2007 it was not the "surge" that resulted in the turn around in Iraq. In August of 2007 Muqtada al-Sadr unilaterally ordered a six-month standdown of his Mahdi army to provide a break for the newly US military anointed Shi'ite government as al-Sadr was a Shi'ite cleric. At the sametime the US military had brokered a deal with the Sunni militias to basically "buy them off" with billions of dollars of US taxpayer money. The US would never have defeated either the Shi'ite Mahdi army or the Sunni militias anymore than we were never able to defeat the Viet Cong in Vietnam even without the NVA involvement in that conflict. No military force can overcome the determined resistance of the people of a nation which is why revolutions are so successful historically.
Yes, the US can defeat any attack and attempted invasion by any group of nations today. If we were to address a possible coalition of Russia, China, Iran, and N Korea then were addressing their complete incapacity to launch a naval operation against the United States. Just one of our carrier task forces could defeat the combined naval forces of all of these countries and we have a dozen naval task forces.
As I also noted we can't realistically defeat any of them by invading them including Iran. The USSR, when it was still a world military power, couldn't even defeat the Afghanis and was eventurally forced to withdraw and Iran alone is much stronger than Afghanistan. We could certianly oppress the People subjecting them to absolutely tyranny but we couldn't defeat them.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 18, 2014 23:22:37 GMT
The situation that existed in America in 1914 (as opposed to 2014)--or even just prior to the New Deal era of the 1930s--was certainly not one in which the federal government was "complete shut down." Or even partially shut down. To assert that federal tax revenue would be "lost" under other circumstances is necessarily to imply that all American citizens' money is, first and foremost, the federal government's money; and that the federal government simply grants American citizens the privilege of keeping a certain portion of that money, for their own needs and desires. But to assert the primacy of the federal government is, I believe, to get things precisely backwards. You are certainly correct as regarding the oppressive nature of the national debt; which is exactly why I wish to pay if off, over time. (Politicians from both major parties have steadily run up the national debt, as it is in the interest of career politicians to promise as many goodies as possible, without the need of actually paying for them.) If we were to pay off the national debt (which, admittedly, could not be accomplished quickly), and return the government to its basic functions (rather than acting as a gigantic Redistribution Machine), I believe that it would have sufficient revenue to get its job done. Certainly, it did 100 years ago. (Note: There is a problem with the image that you supplied: When I click on it, I receive the same message that it shows prior to doing so: "Sorry. This person moved or deleted this image.")
I don't have a clue about what happened to the image I provided. I'll try to summarize it. All federal general tax revenue (income taxes) from those currently in the 10% and 15% tax brackets would be lost because the "Capital Gains" tax rates for these income tax levels is ZERO. Earned income tax rates that are currently above 15% would be slashed by about 50% to a top rate of about 17% (the average tax rate for the top 0.1% for investors). Basically federal general tax revenues would drop to about 10%-15% of current revenue based upon a WAG (wild ass guess) on my part. That wouldn't even fund the US military today.
It was interesting that you brought up 1914 as a reference because I looked up defense spending for 1914 and it was $400 million for the United States. Based upon inflation that spending would be $9.5 billion today. Are you possibly suggesting that we slash the DOD budget to only $9.5 billion so we can return to how the government funding was accomplished in 1914 before the income tax?
The fact is we can't return to "the past" because we're not living in the past. In 1914 the United States was still predominately an agrarian society of small family farms throughout most of the nation. We didn't have interstate highways and, in fact, had very few paved roads at all. Electricity was more of a novelty in most places and we certainly weren't a world power by any definition.
We must deal with the "here and now" and work from that in a pragmatic and responsible manner. There is much that can be done to reduce the "welfare state" that you dispise and I address that in my tax policies. Like you I seek to reduce the financial burden of "welfare" but I look at in the context of being a burden on society regardless of whether it's funded by government or private charities. The problem is the poverty that drives the necessity for the welfare assistance so I attack the poverty with pragmatic and responsible ways of increasing both individual and generational wealth based upon mandatory investment programs under "privatized" Social Security.
The problem is that is a very slow process that will take generations to accomplish.
One of the problems I've noticed, and that a recent study confirmed, is that most "conservatives" don't believe actual poverty exists to the extent it really does exist. They believe "most poor people" have more than enough income and simply waste it on frivilous purchases and bad spending decisions. They don't have any factual information to back up this belief (and they generally reject scientific studies) so it is really an unsupported opinion. Unfortunately based upon every actual study I've read that isn't really the case according to economists and the problem is worsening by the day. More and more Americans are slipping into poverty every year and it's not projected to get any better.
Reducing poverty is the key to reducing the welfare state and we need to be taking responsible and pragmatic steps to accomplish that. Ignoring the poverty and/or simply believing it doesn't exist is not going to reduce the necessity for welfare assistance in the United States.
To address a couple of other issues you mentioned in other posts.
In 2007 it was not the "surge" that resulted in the turn around in Iraq. In August of 2007 Muqtada al-Sadr unilaterally ordered a six-month standdown of his Mahdi army to provide a break for the newly US military anointed Shi'ite government as al-Sadr was a Shi'ite cleric. At the sametime the US military had brokered a deal with the Sunni militias to basically "buy them off" with billions of dollars of US taxpayer money. The US would never have defeated either the Shi'ite Mahdi army or the Sunni militias anymore than we were never able to defeat the Viet Cong in Vietnam even without the NVA involvement in that conflict. No military force can overcome the determined resistance of the people of a nation which is why revolutions are so successful historically.
Yes, the US can defeat any attack and attempted invasion by any group of nations today. If we were to address a possible coalition of Russia, China, Iran, and N Korea then were addressing their complete incapacity to launch a naval operation against the United States. Just one of our carrier task forces could defeat the combined naval forces of all of these countries and we have a dozen naval task forces.
As I also noted we can't realistically defeat any of them by invading them including Iran. The USSR, when it was still a world military power, couldn't even defeat the Afghanis and was eventurally forced to withdraw and Iran alone is much stronger than Afghanistan. We could certianly oppress the People subjecting them to absolutely tyranny but we couldn't defeat them.
No, I certainly would not suggest slashing our total federal budget to a mere $9.5 billion. I do not believe that would be necessary (or even prudent) in order to balance the budget, and begin paying off the national debt. I do believe that many Americans who live in poverty (by American standards; it would be seen as wealth by the standards of some nations) purchase non-necessities--no, not the proverbial "welfare Cadillac"--that, if eschewed, might leave more money for the purchase of more important items (such as, say, healthcare insurance). Do you really believe that the surge was unimportant to America's victory in Iraq? If so, please supply some information to that effect from a neutral source. You spoke glowingly of America's "naval" capabilities against a combination of foes. How about our army? Or our air force? Do you believe that these could defeat the combined armies (or air forces) of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela?
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 19, 2014 9:36:20 GMT
No, I certainly would not suggest slashing our total federal budget to a mere $9.5 billion. I do not believe that would be necessary (or even prudent) in order to balance the budget, and begin paying off the national debt. I do believe that many Americans who live in poverty (by American standards; it would be seen as wealth by the standards of some nations) purchase non-necessities--no, not the proverbial "welfare Cadillac"--that, if eschewed, might leave more money for the purchase of more important items (such as, say, healthcare insurance). Do you really believe that the surge was unimportant to America's victory in Iraq? If so, please supply some information to that effect from a neutral source. You spoke glowingly of America's "naval" capabilities against a combination of foes. How about our army? Or our air force? Do you believe that these could defeat the combined armies (or air forces) of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela?
The $9.5 billion only related to DOD spending and not the entire US budget of 1914 (in today's dollars) but the point is the same. Many like to call for the repeal of the 16th Amendment stating we didn't need it before so we don't really need it today but the facts are different because we're not living in 1914 America anymore.
I would suggest we have a lot of expenditures in America that aren't expenditures in other countries. We often compare income levels between nations when talking about "poverty" but fail to account for expenditures. For example property taxes on real estate in other nations are often all but non-existant but a "poor" person in the US is paying property taxes when they pay their rent. People often don't pay for water in poor countries but it can average over $100/mo in many parts of the US. A smart phone or computer isn't required by the poor in many countries but a person can't find a job in the US without one these days.
What I'd choose not to do is to try and outguess those with advanced degrees in economics that work full time professionally in determining what "poverty" is in the United States by offering my "unsupported" opinion on whether people are living in poverty or not. Sorry but I just don't have the professional credentials to argue with the experts on poverty in the United States. You might have the professional knowledge and expertise to argue with them but I don't. So, for example, when they tell me 40 million households require food assistance based upon the SNAP criteria based upon family income/size I believe that 40 million households actually require that assistance.
As for the surge in Iraq all it really provided was more targets for the members of the Iraqi militias. Remember that a guerrilla military force is opportunistic and doesn't take on the opponents military strength but instead attacks it's weakness. If a battalion is moved into an area a guerrilla military force will attack the platoons sent out on patrol and not the battalion. The Sunni and Shi'ite militias were not going to go head-to-head with the US military at any time and instead was constantly attacking our weaknesses in Iraq. They didn't take on an M1-A1 Abrams tank but instead attacked convoys of trucks that weren't escorted by tanks or armored vehicles. They used roadside bombs and mines as opposed to direct military encounters. Everything they did was about attacking our weakness and there are always different weaknesses to exploit by a guerrilla military force that can literally fade into the background at anytime and go undetected. It was the decisions by both the Shi'ite and Sunni militias, each for different reasons, to stop fighting that resulted in the decreased resistance and those decisions had nothing whatsoever to do with how many US troops were in Iraq.
It depends on where a ground war was to take place as to whether the US Army could defeat the organized military (not militia guerrilla forces) of any other country. Can we defeat Russia in Russia? Hell no. We couldn't even defeat Iran in Iran. As noted we didn't defeat the Iraqi militias and we sure has hell haven't defeated the militias of the Taliban in Afghanistan either. We can defend our nation against any enemy but we cannot defeat the people of other nations on their home turf.
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 19, 2014 19:02:12 GMT
No, I certainly would not suggest slashing our total federal budget to a mere $9.5 billion. I do not believe that would be necessary (or even prudent) in order to balance the budget, and begin paying off the national debt. I do believe that many Americans who live in poverty (by American standards; it would be seen as wealth by the standards of some nations) purchase non-necessities--no, not the proverbial "welfare Cadillac"--that, if eschewed, might leave more money for the purchase of more important items (such as, say, healthcare insurance). Do you really believe that the surge was unimportant to America's victory in Iraq? If so, please supply some information to that effect from a neutral source. You spoke glowingly of America's "naval" capabilities against a combination of foes. How about our army? Or our air force? Do you believe that these could defeat the combined armies (or air forces) of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and Venezuela?
The $9.5 billion only related to DOD spending and not the entire US budget of 1914 (in today's dollars) but the point is the same. Many like to call for the repeal of the 16th Amendment stating we didn't need it before so we don't really need it today but the facts are different because we're not living in 1914 America anymore.
I would suggest we have a lot of expenditures in America that aren't expenditures in other countries. We often compare income levels between nations when talking about "poverty" but fail to account for expenditures. For example property taxes on real estate in other nations are often all but non-existant but a "poor" person in the US is paying property taxes when they pay their rent. People often don't pay for water in poor countries but it can average over $100/mo in many parts of the US. A smart phone or computer isn't required by the poor in many countries but a person can't find a job in the US without one these days.
What I'd choose not to do is to try and outguess those with advanced degrees in economics that work full time professionally in determining what "poverty" is in the United States by offering my "unsupported" opinion on whether people are living in poverty or not. Sorry but I just don't have the professional credentials to argue with the experts on poverty in the United States. You might have the professional knowledge and expertise to argue with them but I don't. So, for example, when they tell me 40 million households require food assistance based upon the SNAP criteria based upon family income/size I believe that 40 million households actually require that assistance.
As for the surge in Iraq all it really provided was more targets for the members of the Iraqi militias. Remember that a guerrilla military force is opportunistic and doesn't take on the opponents military strength but instead attacks it's weakness. If a battalion is moved into an area a guerrilla military force will attack the platoons sent out on patrol and not the battalion. The Sunni and Shi'ite militias were not going to go head-to-head with the US military at any time and instead was constantly attacking our weaknesses in Iraq. They didn't take on an M1-A1 Abrams tank but instead attacked convoys of trucks that weren't escorted by tanks or armored vehicles. They used roadside bombs and mines as opposed to direct military encounters. Everything they did was about attacking our weakness and there are always different weaknesses to exploit by a guerrilla military force that can literally fade into the background at anytime and go undetected. It was the decisions by both the Shi'ite and Sunni militias, each for different reasons, to stop fighting that resulted in the decreased resistance and those decisions had nothing whatsoever to do with how many US troops were in Iraq.
It depends on where a ground war was to take place as to whether the US Army could defeat the organized military (not militia guerrilla forces) of any other country. Can we defeat Russia in Russia? Hell no. We couldn't even defeat Iran in Iran. As noted we didn't defeat the Iraqi militias and we sure has hell haven't defeated the militias of the Taliban in Afghanistan either. We can defend our nation against any enemy but we cannot defeat the people of other nations on their home turf.
I would certainly hope that any future war against Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and/or Venezuela would not be fought on America's "home turf." (Thankfully, America has not had to fight on American soil for almost 150 years now; and it has not had to fight another nation on America's soil for about 200 years. I would prefer to keep it that way.) Actually, I do not have a "smart phone"--just a 1990s-style flip phone--and I did not have a smart phone during my working lifetime (which concluded in 2005). I am not really sure why that should be considered a modern necessity. Yes, I would very much like to see the Sixteenth Amendment repealed (which, in the wake of WWI, was imposed to collect revenue through an income tax). (Oh, in 1914--which I mentioned previously--the top marginal rate was a mere one percent. That was reserved for the very wealthiest Americans--those earning over $500,000 per year--which was quite a lot of money 100 years ago.) Oh, here is a link to an article on the "surge" in Iraq, and the effect of the so-called "Anbar Awakening": www.e-ir.info/2014/07/12/coalition-victory-in-iraq-as-a-result-of-the-surge-and-anbar-awakening/
|
|