Give to the Red Cross, unless your name is Romney

[Jarlaxle]

Indeed

For the Left, only from the gov't
means anything

Do you travel by air? Can we kill the FAA and the ATC service that your captain relies upon, right in the middle of your next flight?

I'm mean, if we are going to save the tax payer some money, then let's just get rid of all Federal Government spending whatsoever. Let's return all that money back to the tax payer, post haste.

Including the Military. Why on earth do we need to spend tax payer money on the development of things like the F-22 Raptor, as just one example, when we can make Defense a State controlled matter? Or, better yet - let's Privatize Defense.

We've already privatized control of the money supply back in 1913, and you can easily see how well that's worked out for us.

Unreal.

You need a hug. And by "hug", I mean "canvas straitjacket".

 

[Jarlaxle]

This thread does not deliver.

Much the same way that Romney, fails to deliver his own State:

A 20+ pip spread in Massachusetts. Speaks volumes.

Yes: that Massachusetts is inhabited by a vast number of cattle, who shuffle down to the polls, pull the lever for straight-ticket "D", then shuffle home to chew their cud. The state would be greatly improved by the application of carpet bombing.

 

[Jarlaxle]

And friends and neighbors manning food and clothing stations as those donations come in. Stories of those who still have a habitable dwelling opening up their homes so people can get a hot shower and be in out of the cold for awhile. They need lots and lots of canned good--those with the pull tops are best but they'll take anything. Our local Salvation Army reports truckloads de of clothing and blankets donated by folks here in Albuquerque delivered to Staten Island this morning.

Cash donations are good of course, but if you have a spare winter coat, a blanket or two to spare, get them to a good chairty who is shipping relief to the east.

My wife and I brought a load to the local SA place yesterday...three winter coats from us, a dozen more (two of them reflective safety-yellow) donated by the guys she works with, a big box of thermal socks, a copy-paper box of sweatshirts, another CP box of assorted canned food, and half a dozen manual can openers. When we parked, there were four guys shuttling stuff outside and loading it into a rental truck (the big 26' truck)...after a quick look at what we'd brought, they had us hand it right up to the guy actually packing the truck. The guy in there said as soon as the truck was full (he figured another hour or two), he would be driving it to Jersey himself.

My wife told him to swing by the place she works on his way...her boss said he will top off the fuel tanks for them.

 

[Foxfyre]

And friends and neighbors manning food and clothing stations as those donations come in. Stories of those who still have a habitable dwelling opening up their homes so people can get a hot shower and be in out of the cold for awhile. They need lots and lots of canned good--those with the pull tops are best but they'll take anything. Our local Salvation Army reports truckloads de of clothing and blankets donated by folks here in Albuquerque delivered to Staten Island this morning.

Cash donations are good of course, but if you have a spare winter coat, a blanket or two to spare, get them to a good chairty who is shipping relief to the east.

My wife and I brought a load to the local SA place yesterday...three winter coats from us, a dozen more (two of them reflective safety-yellow) donated by the guys she works with, a big box of thermal socks, a copy-paper box of sweatshirts, another CP box of assorted canned food, and half a dozen manual can openers. When we parked, there were four guys shuttling stuff outside and loading it into a rental truck (the big 26' truck)...after a quick look at what we'd brought, they had us hand it right up to the guy actually packing the truck. The guy in there said as soon as the truck was full (he figured another hour or two), he would be driving it to Jersey himself.

My wife told him to swing by the place she works on his way...her boss said he will top off the fuel tanks for them.

Sometimes the simplest things can make a huge difference, so don't think your meager donation won't help. It will.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The guy looked amazed when Liz said her boss would fuel the truck...that is serious coin. (Even starting with half a tank, it would be $200+.)

 

[Cecilie1200]

The guy looked amazed when Liz said her boss would fuel the truck...that is serious coin. (Even starting with half a tank, it would be $200+.)

But . . . but . . . wealthy, successful people are mean, greedy, stingy, and out to screw everyone over! I KNOW they are, because liberals told me so! How could this guy POSSIBLY want to make such a generous donation to help others?!

It's like everything the left ever told me about the world was a giant, steaming pile of crap, or something.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You might have an opinion and there is nothing wrong with having one. Just make sure they are grounded in fact. Right now, you are woefully short on facts.

You first.

In fact, you should make sure your facts are grounded in facts.

Calling you a conspiracy nut is a right wing talking point? Little full of yourself, aren't you?

If ignorance were a currency, you'd be financially independent by now.

You claim you are. Strangely enough, I don't believe you, despite your massive ignorance.

The point made very clearly, was that YOU are the fool, for not realizing that the entire world runs on conspiracies. Tossing a phrase around that you know nothing about, merely because you've heard the phrase used before to disparage someone asking legitimate questions, is a clear sign of someone who is really unable to think for themselves. There is a conspiracy going on right this very minute to turn YOU into an economic slave - were you aware of that conspiracy? Or, do you not believe that such a conspiracy exists?

Only conspiracy nuts with no brains think the world runs on conspiracies.

Buy the way, given that you are a conspiracy nut who obviously believes the government is covering up everything, why don't you think questions about what happened in Benghazi are legitimate? Do you have some kind of agenda? Are you actually part of the cover up? Is that why you try to deflect questions about it into how Bush covered up 9/11?

There are all kinds and manner of conspiracy going on out there. And, you didn't already know that fact? You can't be that naive, can you?

See my response to your previous drivel.

Here are some facts for you.

These are not facts. This is you pretending to be representing the facts. That's not factual - that's pretense.

Feel free to link to the CBO, or whoever you want, to prove my numbers were wrong.

My business (literally) is to know what's going on in the six (6) most developed economies of the world. I don't "pretend" this stuff on the Internet each day like you do. I actually grow capital as a direct result of this data that you pretend to understand and misrepresent on this forum.

Yet you claim I got the debt on 20 January 2012 wrong, and don't post a link to refute it. That makes me think your business is as real as your claim that the Air Force let you fly a plane before you graduated from flight school.

I've taken time off from work, merely to pay close attention and to be involved in the election of the next President. My job is not to be a Professional Forum Member with 1 million posts to me so-called "Internet Credit."

Yet you have posted an average of 26 posts a day, and quite a few of your posts have over 140 characters. In fact, they have over 140 words. You have also devoted quite a bit of time to personally attacking at least 3 separate people that have called you on your BS, and follow us around trying to prove you are smarter than us.

Since I actually have an idea how hard it is to run a multimillion dollar company, and how important it is to stay in touch with everything that is going on if your company actually has to track multiple economies, I just don't believe you.

I run a proprietary closed-end currency fund and make daily decisions about that fund, predicated on the economic analysis of some of the very same data you toss around here, as well as the technical market analysis data for which I developed the capturing technology.

Yet you still manage to find time to post.

So, when you post nonsense like this:



It makes me want to laugh out loud. Why? Because, you have no understanding of what you are passing off here as "informed." Your numbers for 2009, are flat out hallucinogenic.

Let me guess, you are about to trot out some made up numbers that have been debunked all over the internet.

First, real spending under Obama for 2009:

$2 billion for children’s health insurance.
$114 billion in stimulus spending.
$32 billion of the “omnibus” spending bill.
$2 billion for deposit insurance.
$31 billion in “supplemental” spending for the military and other purposes.
$2 billion in additional “Cash for Clunkers” funding.
$20 billion for GM and Chrysler bailouts.
-------------------------------

Total = $203 billion for 2009.

Sometimes I hate it when I am right.

I notice you didn't actually provide a link for your real spending. Is that because the page that has it is filled with comments debunking it, or did your official IE6 aide not show up for work today because he can't stand your drooling all over the keyboard?

Even Economist Daniel J. Mitchell, certainly not a "Liberal," puts Obama's 2009 spending at a much lower $140 billion. Either way you slice it, Obama accounted for no more than 4% to 5.8% of the 2009 carry over spending, depending on which number you want to use. So, LONG before Obama, took office, the deficit had already soared to trillions above the historical maximum. This was ALL due to Bush era policies, minus the 4% to 5.8% that Obama, added.

Source: CBO
Source: H.R. 1105 (Omnibus Appropriations Act)
Source: Library of Congress (2009 Appropriations Signed by President Obama)
Source: Economist Danial J. Mitchell

Oh neat, an actual source for your BS.

The problem is that the CBO scored the Omnibus Spending Act as adding 8.6% in spending above the baseline, and that is the number that actually counts, not the 4% of total spending. Then we get to add in the the boondoggles that Obama personally championed, which include both of his stimulus plans, and the wonderful cash for clunkers. Mitchel might not be a Democrat, but that doesn't make him right.

Second, real Carry Over Spending from Bush 43 into 2009:

$3.52 billion (minus the 4% to 5.8% that Obama, added.)

Source: CBO and OMB.

8.6% for one bill, but I am repeating myself.

Under Bush 43, we had an Annual 7% increase in Federal Spending for his four (4) years on office. Under Obama 44, the aggregate Annual Federal Spending is actually LOWER than 7% per year, for each fiscal year where the man was President. So, please - stop telling Right Wing Lies.

When you look at the total spending under each President since Dwight Eisenhower, you will note the following:

Average Annual Growth Rates by President:

3.2 Eisenhower
6.6% Kennedy
9.2% Johnson
10.4% Nixon
13.5% Carter
6.8% Reagan
5.4% Bush 41
3.5% Clinton
7.7% Bush 43
1.4% Obama

We have not had a President sitting in the Oval Office, that has spend less of the tax payers money than Barack Obama, since the 1950's.

Source: The Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch
Source: Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post
Source: Ezra Klein of The Washington Post

The biggest increase in the entire history of Federal Spending, came during the last two (2) years of the Bush 43 Administration and trillions spilled over into the Obama 44 Administration during the first year, 2009. In 2011 and 2012, Federal spending actually dropped under this President.

So, please, spare me the shallow interpretive analyses. I actually do this for a living. I have to know what's going on not just in our economy, but the economies of China, Germany, Japan and the United Kingdom, before I make decisions about how position my hard earn capital on a daily basis.

I can't afford to make mistakes in understanding this stuff, where our economy is, where other economies are, or what the net effect will be on currencies around the world. You might be able to play fast and loose with the data, but I don't have that luxury.

Since you are a big fan of Mitchell, lets see what he says about the Obama is the smallest spender in history claim. It turns out that he rates Obama as the send worst of the last 8 presidents, and puts his spending increasing at 7% after adjusting for inflation, defense spending, and TARP.

As you can see, this produces a remarkable result. All of a sudden, Obama drops from second to second-to-last. This is because there was a lot of TARP spending in Bush’s last fiscal year (FY2009), which created an artificially high benchmark. And then repayments by banks during Obama’s fiscal years counted as negative spending.
When you subtract out the big TARP spending surge, as well as the repayments, then Bush 43 doesn’t look quite as bad (though still worse than Carter and Clinton), while Obama takes a big fall.
In other words, Obama’s track record does show that he favors an expanding social welfare state. Outlays on those programs have jumped by 7.0 percent annually. And that’s after adjusting for inflation! Not as bad as Nixon, but that’s not saying much since he was one of America’s most statist presidents.
Allow me to conclude with some caveats. None of the tables perfectly captures what any president’s fiscal record. Even my first table may be wrong if you want to blame or credit presidents for the inflation that occurs on their watch. And there certainly are strong arguments that bailout spending and defense spending are affected by presidential policies rather than external events.

Mirror, Mirror, on the Wall, Which President Is the Biggest Spender of All? « International Liberty

Didn't I already point out you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are? Me, a guy that admits up front he only dabbles in economics, just trashed the world renowned expert on economies and trading that is richer than Romney.

Gotta love it.

If I played that game, I'd be flat broke and out of business.

That could explain why you have enough time to post on this board after, allegedly, lurking for months.

Just saying.

I realize this is "Silly Season" in politics, but your ability to write total non-sequitur nonsense is unmatched.

Expiring the Bush 43 tax cuts will ADD revenue to the Federal Government, not take revenue way. That only enhances the probability that the projections are actually maintained. Second, this country is going to have to wake up and realize that we cannot effectively pay for the interest on our long-term debt, given the current monetary policy and banking structure, that continually weakens the dollar both here at home and abroad on a built-in annual basis. So, what you are labeling incorrectly as the "biggest tax increase in middle class history," is simply not true under Obama's plan.

Didn't I say that? Are you know claiming that Obama does not intend to keep the tax cuts in place for the middle class and working poor? Or do you just think I am as stupid as you.

Under Obama's plan, the Middle Class taxes only go up a fraction when the Bush 43 tax cuts expire, leaving the remainder covered by those who make $250k per year or more. So, your conclusion is just flat out wrong.

My conclusion is that Obama is not going to hit the middle class and working poor with a $2 billion dollar a year tax increase. Do you have anything other than blather that proves he intends to raise taxes on everyone? Especially since he has consistently argued he wouldn't?

Here's what the President actually said:

Bob, I just need to comment on this. First of all, the sequester is not something that I proposed. It’s something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen. The budget that we’re talking about is not reducing our military spending. It’s maintaining it.

Yes, I know. He lied.

FACT: Obama

He's talking about bringing tax rates of those with annual incomes of $250k or more, in-line with the Clinton rate levels, but leaving Middle Class tax levels right about where they are now, with only a slight possible increase in some cases, depending on deductions. This allows him to accurately make the statement that sequestration will not happen on his watch.

Here are his actual statements 3 months ago:

Obama: It's Time To Let Tax Cuts For The Wealthiest Expire - YouTube

Funny, that is exactly what I said he said. Yet you say I don't use facts, I just use right wing talking points. Do they stop being right wing talking points when you repeat them?

Not according to the facts above. According to the facts, you are clearly wrong. Your analysis with nothing of the sort. You provided no analysis that was in anyway correct. You plucked numbers from thin air and made some obligatory comment that is dead wrong about $5 trillion being added to the national debt under Obama's policies and that is just flat out wrong as the data above shows. He did not add that much to the debt and that Republican Talking Point Lie has been debunked a very long time ago, yet you insisted on raising again in this thread.

I see, you call me a liar, then go out and find proof that what I said is true, and then declare yourself the winner of the debate.

I have to admit I have never seen that technique used before. Not quite sure how to refute myself here. so I will stick to saying the same thing I did before, you are wrong.

The facts are that the biggest spike in the history of our Republic for Federal Spending as a percentage of our GDP, came exactly as I stated above, under Bush 43. A huge portion of that spending spilled over into the Obama 44 presidency, and from that point forward, this President has had no choice but to spend money on trying to stimulate our economy AND save critical and structural components of our economy, namely our financial institutions and our auto industry.

That is NOT reckless spending and you need to stop telling that lie. That was spending that was necessary and every worthwhile economist knows this to be true. In addition, most of that spending will come back with interest to the Treasury Department as a good portion of it was not a Government Handout, as lied about by Republicans. The were essentially Federal Loans for all practical purposes and they do have to be repaid with interest to the American People. Billions have already come in from the Bank Bailout.

So, you need to spend more time making sure you understand these issues before posting about them so erratically.

Since I already debunked everything you just blathered in this post I will simply allow you to blather.

You are trying to use the Bay of Pigs to prove that a massive conspiracy is possible? Do you have any idea how big a disaster that was? Do you know that everyone in the world knows about it?

The Bay of Pigs? Who's talking about the Bay of Pigs?

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with that and everything to do with what you are now pretending does not exist. Are you trying to tell me that the document I posted is not real? Is that what you are hallucinating at this point? Is that the price you pay for living in denial?

The document is real and the questions you were asked about it are STILL unanswered. You don't dare answer the questions directly, do you? You know what happens when you answer the question directly, don't you? You have to admit that such Conspiracies are flat out real, don't you? And, that's why you came back to this thread with this weak response about the "Bay of Pigs," is it not?

The questions still stand about this document, if you have the courage to answer them. I doubt that you do. And, no - it has nothing to do with the Bay of Pigs. Read it carefully, and think again. Your assumption is that conspiracies do not exist. I've proving without question that in fact, they do exist.

Let me sum it up for you, I don't care.

Just to correct you, again, conspiracy nuts are the people, like you, that ignore reality, and think the world is controlled by space aliens who implant mind control devices that are invisible to X-rays in people's sinus cavities using anal probes.

I hold a Boeing 757 type rating that says otherwise. Period. You have no idea what you are talking about. I don't have so-called "Conspiracy Theory" to offer you, but I do have a lot of unanswered technical questions with regards to 911. The document I posted on this forum has a connection to 911 and you clearly miss that connection. What I now want to know is just how far does the rabbit hole go.

You have a Boeing 757 rating that says that aliens implant mind control devices using anal probes?

Those unanswered questions are related to these key topics:

- NTSB protocols for Crash Site Investigation.
- NTSB protocols for the release of FDR data.
- CONUS Air Defense Protocols. NORAD/ACC/NOCC integration.
- ARTCC active coverage for New Hampshire, New York and Virginia.
- ZNY & ZDC Sector Control active coverage (I want archived data).
- Boeing 757/767 flight performance envelope data (flight physics)
- Boeing 757/767 flight handling characteristics (throttle-thrust response in specific)
- Boeing 757/767 EFIS, FMC, IRU/ADC & LRU logs
- Barometric Pressure for KDCA between 0800 - 1000 local (history data)
- Cessna 172 flight performance data
- Cessna 172 flight handling characteristics
- FAA PTS requirements for PPL (Oral, Written, Flight)
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Shanksville.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Shanksville.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Pentagon.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Shanksville.
- Human remains DNA collection, chain of custody and documented protocols/procedures. (all sites)
- Human remains DNA lab analysis testing: RFLP/PCR/ETC typing and amplification data. (all sites)
- All FBI confiscated exterior video with focal points +/- 45-degrees L/R of Pentagon West between 0800 - 1000 local
- Names of all Non-Government employee First Responders: Pentagon and Shanksville
- Current location and access to ALL crash site debris recovery: New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.
- Names of all crash site debris recovery personnel (Official and Non-Official): New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.

If you think you are ready for the kind of discussion that the above would entail, I am both qualified and happy to accommodate you. Prepare yourself for a somewhat "technical" discussion where mathematics, biology, classical physics, flight physics, inorganic chemistry, U.S. air defense systems, air traffic control systems, turbine pilot proficiency, 757/767 flight performance, crash site investigations, civil (commercial) engineering and aeronautical engineering, will be discussed and referred to quite heavily.

We can start with the Flight Control System of the Boeing 757, its coupling to the FMS (Flight Management System) and its coupling to the Auto Pilot System. From there we have a discussion about the 75's LRU (Ling Replaceable Unit) design, purpose and function. After that, we can start talking about Ground and Satellite based Remote Piloting Systems - aka: Remote Control Flight Systems.

Whenever, you are ready to talk shop - let me know.

I already told you, I don't waste my intellect on conspiracies, i leave that for the crazy people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, it is called an opinion.

By the way, I think you are talking about the fallacy of presumption here. I have to admit I am simply guessing, but it seems like a reasonable conclusion given your complete inability to post coherently.

No. It's called a false presupposition exactly as I stated. You should spend more time with your head inside a book on English grammar and syntax. Unless you are ESL restricted. If that is the case, please accept my apologies. If that's not the case, then hit the books!

Last time I checked, FEMA has everything planned well in advance, usually years.

You are a piece of work. How the heck can FEMA "plan" anything for an historical atmospheric event? You post as if, nobody is going to ready your statement and wonder what the heck you are talking about.



Non-sequiture red herring. This has nothing to do with what triggered its reply.



Well, if he's not FEMA, then he's certainly not responsible for FEMA and all other previous posts you've made connecting him to FEMA's response makes you by definition circular, which would be the fifth (5th) time by my count that you have introduced circular logic in connection with some reply you have written to me.

Of course, he's FEMA. Any Mutant would know that.



The "only reason?" That's a pathetic admission. How about the fact that he did because the USWS projected the worst storm in U.S. history. That's seems like a darn good reason to me. Unreal.



Maybe you should try actually reading before replying. This falls clearly into FEMA's primary initial keys for relief. This was a slow moving storm. There were MANY other areas where FEMA assets could be engaged before anything could reasonably be done with respect to bringing in relief aid and supplies to Staten Island. Staten Island, was mostly under water and following the three (3) initial protocols made it very difficult to reach most of Staten Island, until the flood waters receded.

Second, FEMA personnel was in Staten Island on day one (check your facts), but there full-tilt relief could NOT get in to most areas that were still flooded and unsafe for personnel. You are doing what most people do when they confuse Victim Relief Operations with Search & Rescue Missions. S&R was being conducted in Staten Island, and many other sections where such operations were needed on day one. These people are not Omnipresent - they cannot be in all places at the same time. When one area presents an unacceptable risk for "Relief" workers (do not confuse that with S&R personnel) then they must engage other areas where that are accessible, or more accessible and wait until conditions change so that they can then access those areas that were once unreachable, or more difficult that other places to reach.

Stop trying to make a political point where there is none. The response to Sandy, is far superior to the response to Kat. Kat, was a total nightmare as far as FEMA's response is concerned, but even then there were plenty of areas after Kat hit, that were simply not ready for "Relief." Again, "Relief" is not S&R, which happens immediately and does not stop until everyone is safe.




I think that was a dumb comment and not worthy of a reply.




Hyper-partisan and hyper-cynical, that's your choice. I prefer to see things as they are, not as I would want them to be. You are intentionally adding what you wish to add to what the President did and what he said. The vast majority of Americans don't agree with your assessment. But, how you "feel" about what the President did, is indeed your opinion and you are entitled to have one. Whether that opinion is based in fact, or not - is clear. It is not.




Would you know a single fact if you saw one? All the crap that you feign to be real, is humorous. You've been demonstrated to be wrong and yet just like Romney, you blow right by it and pretend that nothing ever happened.




Then who are you throwing your vote away on anyway? For a guy who thinks of himself to be educated, you sure don't act like it. You've yet to learn that tossing your vote in the trash can, merely because you can't get all of what you want you want out of a candidate is foolish. You contribute absolutely nothing to the framework of our Republic and denigrate the concept of voting to make a difference.

Again, if you guy has no more chance of reaching the White House than you do, then what good is your vote?




I saw a flash poll on MSNBC and quoted that. The poll was taken the day after Sandy, cleared out. The graph that I posted here, shows what I could find on the question of how most people think about the Presidents response and it clearly shows a massive and overwhelmingly positive opinion.

If I took everything you posted without providing a link to it, I could claim you made-up number as well. So, give it break and do yourself a favor - start writing about things that actually do matter, instead of trying to harp on spelling errors and 92% vs 78%. The difference between those two numbers is moot, given the overwhelmingly high level of each. MSNBC, is going to be more Liberal, so their numbers reflect that. 78% is still amazingly high for any President on any type of question that could be asked. Romney's number was abysmal, whether you are supporting him or not.



Qantum Windbag, is indeed the perfect UID for someone as utterly clueless as you. You posted numbers on the debt that were more shallow than the water in your own toilet bowl, and you have the audacity to claim yourself to be a heavyweight?

You are hilariously funny, little kid.

Is that like you making up poll numbers, and then trying to pretend you didn't?

Still majoring in minors, I see. BTW, what did you study in College? And, what do you do for a living today?

Romney is making up poll numbers that show Obama is way ahead of where he is? Why would he do that?

When you can post a link that clearly explains what you are babbling about in this rendition of a non-sequitur, let me know.

And, by the way Einstein - I'm degreed in mathematics (applied), physics (subatomic emphasis) and aerospace science (aerodynamics). I hold Bachelors degrees in each discipline from Berkley, MIT and ERAU. So, remember that the next time you put foot in mouth.

You made up numbers, and got caught.

Admit it instead of trying to blame it on MSNBC.

 

[saveliberty]

No end to the made up life this loon 336thF15E leads huh? lol

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No end to the made up life this loon 336thF15E leads huh? lol

The man was flying multimillion dollar transports while he was in ROTC, I am surprised he is not an astronaut.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No end to the made up life this loon 336thF15E leads huh? lol

The man was flying multimillion dollar transports while he was in ROTC, I am surprised he is not an astronaut.

Well, now that you've mentioned it, he will have been.

 

[336thF15E]

Well since I think taxing people's labor is unjust I wouldn't take your route. I'm not sure what the solution is.

So, I suspect that if you are against taxing labor, you would derive the necessary revenues to pay for all non-discretionary spending through something equal to a Flat/Consumption Tax? If so, are you afraid that a Flat/ConsumptionTax will ultimately regress to a point where there is even more unfairness in resultant taxation laws.

I'd like to see the federal government completely stripped so that is basically only provides a defense (defense not offense), and then government functions such as courts and what not. That's it. I think you could reduce government to this minimalist state, keep the current tax rates for 2 years, pay off the debt, get rid of the income tax and put it in a small sales or consumption type tax that doesn't tax labor to fund the minimalist state in the future. Each state could do as their constituents think best in regard to crafting their form of government but I must say I like my federal plan at a state level too.

I agree that governmental discretionary and non-discretionary spending is way out of control. Frankly, I think we have simply lost our collective mind when it comes to managing money in general in this country. Based on your reasonable minded approach, I'm willing to sit down at the "Table of Reason" with you on the matter of taxation, to see if we can hammer out a solution that works for the common good of the country, while retaining individual rights up to the limit of the protection of Union.

Flat/Consumption Tax:

While the absolute cost that gets added to consumption remains equal, the impact (or, Felt Cost) to the consumer at the point of sale, won't be equal. The reason for that is the wealth distribution in society is inherently uneven and that is always going to be the case in the current economic and social paradigms that we have engineered for ourselves ever since before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. So, if we continue to maintain the Republic using the current socioeconomic model, there will always be a variable delta in the wealth distribution that will lead to inherent unfairness in net effect of the current taxation laws at the point of sale.

The conundrum here, is that the only way to make the Flat/Consumption Tax scheme fair across the board, would be to design a system that more evenly distributes wealth across the board. Then the true "consumption" component of the tax scheme is realized without the side-effect of being too unfair at a systemic level. Of course, this is simply impossible. It cannot be done. We can't maintain the same money based system where we exchange dollars for products and services on an individual basis, and evenly distribute wealth at the same time. That just won't work.

So, what we are really talking about is a complete paradigm shift away from "dollars for products" and to a system of "work for progress." There are several models out there that are classified by mainstream social science thinkers as being "Futuristic" and/or "Communal," but I think you get my point. A monetized system simply has inherent shortfalls when it comes to fairness, and extending that shortfall by unevenly weighting the burden of cost among those with less wealth and fewer means, only exacerbates an already strained "Felt Cost" reality.

So, I like the idea of reaching for a more fair taxation protocol, but I'm having real difficulty figuring out how to make it work without being overly regressive. If you come up with a good solution, let me know! My ears will always be wide open on the subject.


The Function of Government | Legislative:

I'm with you on this.

The question is how far do we go. I don't want see the people on the Atlantic Coast, or the Gulf Coast, or in the San Francisco Bay Area, or in the Southern California Valley, or in the Heartland, or the Midwest Agriculture Region, having deal with Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Earthquakes, Floods and Droughts, without adequate resources to deal with them appropriately. Similarly, I don't want to share the roads, streets and highways, with motorists driving OEM produced vehicles that are inherently unsafe due to shortcuts in production and manufacturing that were taken merely because there was inadequate oversight (regulation). Similarly, I don't want to step into my shower and suffer acid burn or toxic ingestion, merely because I was taking care of routine personal hygiene. Occasionally, I do get a headache from working too many hours typically. So, I don't want to be hospitalized merely because followed the dosing instructions on a bottle of pain reliever. And, this does not even scratch the tip of the iceberg.

There are many aspects of our daily lives that we simply take for granted, where the tax dollars we spent were used to provide a level of ubiquitous and seamless synergy, that enabled us to function throughout the day in such a way that seems effortless. That's part of the Societal Infrastructure (for lack of a better term) that we all enjoy and expect to be there. So, "stripping" government to its bare essentials is definitely something I am interesting in seeing come to fruition, but we need to make sure that we don't strip ourselves back to a 300 B.C. lifestyle.

I like the concept of turning Congressional members into National Managers, where "Legislation" is brought to a straight National vote. This would provide our nation with a degree of Legislative Load Balancing, and remove (or, greatly reduce) the dictatorial and/or plutocratic influence on the legislative process. Each state would still vote the same way they do now to select their Representative. However, those sent to Washington D.C., would take on the new role of National Manager. They would initiate legislation on our behalf, but the People would provide the Ratification Layer through a national vote. This truly pushes power and control more closer to the People and it gives the People real veto power. Those Citizens that elect not to participate in legislative ratification, can't then later complain about the outcome. This will also give the People, a much stronger and better sense of what it means to be a Citizen of the United States.


The Function of Government | Executive:

As far as the Executive branch of government goes, I favor a Semi-Swiss Model, or a Swiss-Reduction Model.

I would create a Tricameral Executive branch where Conservatives, Liberals and Independents/Centrists would simply use their existing Presidential primaries as the mechanism for electing their representative to Executive Office. So, by definition there would be a Republican President, Democrat President and Independent/Centrist President. Added to this, I would then amend the Constitution to require (mandate) that each fiscal year, the Executive branch submit to the newly structured Congress, a balanced budget. Guess what? With the new congressional form, the budget would eventually find its way to the People for Ratification. It would be a thing of beauty.

I love this idea quite frankly. In fact, I drool over it sometimes because I like it so much. It has so many benefits, that I won't be able to get to them all here. It forces (demands) each side of the Executive branch to hammer out a tonne of details that Congress now fights over all the time. Effectively, the American People would be electing their respective party's Negotiator in Chief.

Now, this would "grow" government ever so slightly, because you would then have to redesign the floor plan of the White House just a bit. You would need to bring in a top Architect who was very familiar with 18th century neoclassical form, to build-out two additional Oval Offices, each sharing the exact same Foyer and main entrance. So, the symbolically, all three Executives would enter their respective Oval Office, through the same (equal) portal within the White House. I really can't express how much I love this idea.

Of course, this would require an amendment to the Constitution to remove and replace the singular Executive, or individual election requirement, with a new Tricameral election process, but the work to get this done would be well worth it and very beneficial to the country long-term. It is highly likely that had we used this type of structure in the past, that our involvement in Vietnam, might never have happened. World War I and World War II, would have most likely seen our involvement (as they should). The Korean War, would have been averted as far as U.S. involvement is concerned. The Cold War would have most probably still been waged, but I think its duration would have been cut in half.

There would have been no Invasion of Panama and there also would have been no Operation Desert Storm. No occupation of Nicaragua and no El Salvador conflicts.

There would have been on 1953/54 Coup attempt in Iran, and therefore there would have been no Iranian hostages taken in 1979. There would have been no U.S. involvement in the Soviet/Afghan War in the 80's and as a direct result, there would have been no U.S. involvement with Osama Bin Laden. As a direct consequence of that, there would have been no September 11th, 2001, as there would have been no Al-Qaeda to blame it on. Logically, there would have been no illegal invasion of Iraq/Afghanistan.

The Tricameral institution alone would have saved somewhere in the neighborhood of 70,000 American lives alone (at least) and saved the American Tax Payer trillions of dollars in direct war debt. We would most likely be running budget surpluses right this very minute and have a very robust economy with a healthy jobs surplus to boot.

I'll say it again - we can solve our nation's problems, but we are going to have to start using our collect head to do it and a lot less political ideological dogma.

So, I am willing to negotiate, but at the end of the day, I need to actually see some progress.

 

[336thF15E]

I'm not foolish enough to think a plan like mine would ever pass or wouldn't lead to outright rioting. I still think it best from a civil liberty viewpoint (the first and most important lens to view government action IMO).

I bet the British thought the Founding Fathers were a bunch of drunken hilarious loons, too. To some degree they were right, but without their ability to think outside the box on matters related to governance, neither of us would be here right now dialogging on the Internet. So, never sell your own ideas short.

At least you are intellectually honest about what you believe in and willing to articulate your ideas in ways that are clear and understandable.

I like some of your ideas. I just have difficulty understanding how we make the consumption tax idea work given the money based society we live in and I don't see people giving up on the idea that money is what they work for, as opposed to working for the purpose of truly advancing human progress. So, in a money based world - if we are going to tax fairly, then we'll have to come up with a way that is lest regressive to a point of unequal "felt cost."

As far as shrinking government is concerned, I'm 100% with you in spirit - we need to do that. We just need to find a way to come together on the details - that's all.

You have some insight into what's wrong with the system and I appreciate your contribution.

 

[336thF15E]

I wish Romney would give a few million to feed those people. Come on Romney!

He can certainly afford it.

 

[Againsheila]

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Attacks Romney For Collecting Storm Supplies For Event - YouTube!

Romney wanted to give them food, they wanted money. They ALWAYS want money and very little of the cash you give them gets to those for whom it's intended. Did you know the blood you donate to the red cross is SOLD to hospitals? That during WWII they took up a collection here to provide coffee and refreshments for the soldiers overseas and then they CHARGED those soldiers for the refreshments the people here paid for? Their CEO makes $500,000 per year PLUS expenses. Their 9/11 campaign was such a disaster they were never able to provide any kind of proof of where all that money went. Only a fool would give to such an institution. Of course they want cash instead of food. It's much easier to steal the cash.

Last night at the theater, they took donations for the Red Cross, if I had known it was going to happen I would have suggested the Salvation Army instead. They really help people and their CEO isn't overpaid and given a life of luxury.

You'll notice the Salvation Army is happy for food, clothes, blankets, etc. They don't say, "give us cash instead".

 

[336thF15E]

I read your nonsense and scratched my head.

Apparently someone added about $5.6 Trillion to the National Debt while Obama was President without his knowledge or approval. Is that your point?

Figures don't lie, but liars can figure.

The reason you scratched your head, has everything to do with the brain washing you've endured over the past four (4) years with respect to what this President has actual done, and what he has not done.

If you actually read the figures (OMB/CBO), then you would know that he added $209 billion in 2009, with the remainder of the difference between when Bush 43 left office and the current national debt of today, being predominantly sourced in Bush 43 policies that lead to the biggest increase in national debt in U.S. history, at $3.5 trillion. That's a fact. The vast majority of the remainder of spending that Obama, did was compulsory spending, as a direct result of eight (8) when the entire economy was being neglected by George W. Bush.

I've already outlined the additional spending above and beyond what Bush 43 triggered ($3.5 trillion) and I've explained why that spending was necessary through 2010, 2011 and 2012. I have also explained that much of the "Federal Bailout Loans" in the banking industry have been repaid with interest and though we will not get back all the money spent in bailing out the auto industry due to its restructuring, we will get back the lion share of those loans.

This complaint about what Obama spent, is rather amusing to me in all honesty. Mitt Romney, clearly states that he would have "let Detroit fail" (then he flipped and took credit for saving the auto industry). He said that he would have not bailed out the banks (then he flipped and said that government has a role to play in securing the integrity of our largest financial institutions). So, we really don't know what Romney's policy would have been at all. But, we do know that any sane President, would have definitely spent money in an attempt to Stimulate an economy nearing Depression, prevent one of our biggest industries from collapsing, and preventing our entire financial industry from grinding to a complete halt permanently.

All of those things took a massive amount of money and all of those things were strategically necessary, as our recovering economy now proves. Without it, there would be no floor placed under the economy and GDP would be even worse than it is right now. Now, is that the path that you would have followed?

What would you have done different?
How would you have prevented the national debt from rising another $5 trillion?
Would you have failed to fund Omnibus?

Do you realize that just before Obama, took office that real GDP dipped to -8.0%? Were you aware of that fact? Do you realize U.S. Banks did everything but physically close their doors to borrowers during this period? Are you fully aware of what our liquidity status was back then and how cash simply stopped flowing to many parts of our economy? Are aware of the millions of people who lost there jobs before Obama, took the oath and how many more millions lost their jobs just in the first three (3) months after Obama, took office? It was over six (6) million people according to the BLS data. Foreclosures, had reached a ratio of 25% of originations and foreign capital was flying out of the country at a record rate. U.S. Tick Flows were down to an all time low and the Equity/Bond markets crashed under the weight of No Faith In the U.S. Economy.

We were on the verge of complete economic shutdown. Why? Because nobody was SPENDING MONEY. It takes money to make money - that's the way economics works. The key, is to manage Cash Flows, Money Supply and Debt. Somebody had to spend some money and a whole lot of it.

Where do you thing the jobs were going to come from? Were they supposed to magically appear at the snap of a finger? Somebody had to do something to at least TRY and stimulate the economy, just to keep the patient off life-support. Forget about making the patient healthy, this President was managing the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression, including two (2) wars that he found already in progress when he walked through into Oval Office for the first time.

Anybody that fails to understand these facts, is somebody who WANTS to live in total denial.

Get over the $5 trillion lie and let's do what is necessary to get this country back on its feet.

 

[336thF15E]

Romney gives a larger share of his income than Obama and Biden do combined.

In fact, on average conservatives give a larger share of their income to charitable organizations than liberals do.

Liberals want to be generous--with other people's money, not with their own.

I'm neither a Democrat, nor a Republican and I will be giving more than Romney/Ryan combined. So, how do you explain that? Exception to the rule?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Romney gives a larger share of his income than Obama and Biden do combined.

In fact, on average conservatives give a larger share of their income to charitable organizations than liberals do.

Liberals want to be generous--with other people's money, not with their own.

I'm neither a Democrat, nor a Republican and I will be giving more than Romney/Ryan combined. So, how do you explain that? Exception to the rule?

I am searching Mike's post diligently, and can't see a single place where he mentioned Republicans or Democrats, so before you demand how he "explain" your lack of political party affiliation - as though anyone but you gives a tin shit, anyway - perhaps YOU could explain what the hell it has to do with what he said.

Not that a kind person would expect a dunce who can't tell the difference between "dyer" and "dire" to know the difference between "Republican/Democrat" and "conservative/liberal", but no one has ever accused me of being particularly kind.

 

[336thF15E]

God and goddess, what an egomaniacal blowhard.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MW8ZYDLEl4]Mitt Romney - Add business experience to the Constitution? - YouTube[/ame]


I disagree with you 100%. Instead, he's a megalomaniac blow-hard and you are a total hypocrite.

As long as were talking about how successful Republicans are, you are happy. But, the moment someone comes along who is just as (if not far more) successful, and who happens to not carry the Republican water bucket, you have a problem with it.

That's hypocrisy defined.

 

[336thF15E]

You need a hug. And by "hug", I mean "canvas straitjacket".

As that the extent of your knowledge on the subject?

Some of you people are truly funny. You avoid rebutting the content with anything rational, in favor of pulling down your pants in full public view and making a total fool of yourself.