[POLL] - Liberals, how much is a "fair share?" - Taxes

[Uncensored2008]

If you don't like democracy, move.

You misspelled "kleptocracy," spunky...

 

[PMZ]

My question is why do people always say a flat tax isn't fair because the rich should pay more? If we're all paying 20% aren't the rich still paying more?

Yes. Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.

The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
The guy making a million would pay $100,000

You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.

No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill. No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time. Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded. No more paying evil governments not to attack us. And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.

The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.

I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.

What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.

What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.

How much will the military be cut?

What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?

I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.

To hard to do.

So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?

Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?

Your asking those questions of the aristocracy at Versailles. The answer will probably be let them eat cake.

 

[PMZ]

Yes. Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.

The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
The guy making a million would pay $100,000

You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.

No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill. No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time. Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded. No more paying evil governments not to attack us. And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.

The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.

I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.

What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.

What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.

How much will the military be cut?

What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?

I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.

To hard to do.

So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?

Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?

I want every federal government department eliminated that is not NECESSARY to secure our rights, to defend us, and/or to prevent the various states from doing violence to each other while functioning as one effective, cohesive nation.

The states now collect taxes for and pay out unemployment insurance. They certainly could take over the small portion of this that the federal government manages and thereby remove another expensive layer of government. The federal government sucks at least a third out of every dollar it collects just to feed the bloated bureaucracy. Leaving it with the states will give us a lot more bang for our tax dollars.

Leaving the money with the private sector gives us a chance to revive a stalled economy, provides almost infinite resources to expand the economy which results in more and better jobs, full employment, higher pay, and a better quality of life for all able and willing to take advantage of it. The GDP should be based on honest economic activity and not artificial numbers created by unnecessary government spending.

A dollar spent by the federal government will more often than not shrink the economy because it first takes money out of the economy either now or in the future, and the bureaucracy absorbs a great deal of it just to feed itself.

That is why private sector jobs are so much more beneficial to the economy than are government jobs--the private sector employee is expected to generate sufficient economic activity to pay his/her salary plus make a profit for his/her employer. The government workers salary must be withdrawn from the private sector and the employee is not required to produce economic activity in return for wages received. So a private sector dollar spent will multiply in the economy three or four times before the ripples level out. Government dollars not so much if at all.

That does not mean there are no necessary government jobs. We maintain a professional military so that the average citizen does not have to worry about that. It makes sense to pool our local resources to have shared police and fire protection, shared sewers and water systems,. etc. which, in the long run, saves us all money.

Find a country that does things that way and move. We'll help you pack.

 

[PMZ]

Yes. Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.

The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
The guy making a million would pay $100,000

You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.

No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill. No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time. Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded. No more paying evil governments not to attack us. And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.

The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.

I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.

What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.

What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.

How much will the military be cut?

What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?

I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.

To hard to do.

So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?

Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?

Just another set of bullshit deflections. This question of what to cut has been answered a million times in a million threads. What will out of work government workers do? Die or become productive.

Brownie's been upset since learning that 85% of Americans still have 15% of the wealth. Goddamm Communist plot it is. He won't rest until they're starving in the streets as God expects.

 

[PMZ]

Yes. Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.

The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
The guy making a million would pay $100,000

You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.

No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill. No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time. Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded. No more paying evil governments not to attack us. And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.

The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.

I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.

What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.

What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.

How much will the military be cut?

What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?

I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.

To hard to do.

So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?

Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?

You get a lot of benefits before you even cut spending.

Cutting taxes grows the economy, so the amount that needs to be made up is lower and deficits are lower as a percent of GDP.

Tax receipts also go up dramatically because people stop making decisions to reduce or evade taxes, so you collect more of what's owed.

Companies and individuals will also greatly reduce making economically inefficient decisions because taxes skews the playing field, contributing to the first two benefits.

Then, we should stop our foreign wars and cut military spending as well as reducing Federal payroll and getting rid of departments like energy and education that do nothing but harm the area they are responsible for.

But the biggest thing is that then what you do is just stop spending growth and the economy will grow faster as it's unencumbered and tax receipts will grow and wipe out the deficit completely. Then by holding spending in check we can reduce the debt, which will reduce interest payments.

Deficits grow on themselves, so do surpluses.

Conservative do as we say, not as we do.

 

[PMZ]

Money can be acquired in a variety of ways.

• 
  It can be earned. Earning money is usually a result of wits and work.
  
  It can be inherited.
  
  It can be stolen.
  
  It can be begged.
  
  And it can be looted.

Of these methods, the right seeks that the first be the primary method. As a result, the right advocates for small and limited government. Less government is an advantage to entrepreneurs. To those earning money through wits and work, the less interference the better. Just get out of the way and the producers will produce. This serves everyone, as more products and services are created, along with jobs.

The method the left advocates is looting. Looting requires government. The more government, the more that can be looted. Beggars and thieves can be bribed to do the bidding of the looters. As government grows, the looter class blossoms, while the productive class dwindles. Society suffers as there is less of everything for all but the looters. The gap between those who have and those who have not widens. Unrest and dissent grow, so authoritarian measures are introduced. Corruption becomes virtue, deceit is viewed as clever.

Support whom you will, but I support the producers.

Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.

 

[PMZ]

Money can be acquired in a variety of ways.

• 
  It can be earned. Earning money is usually a result of wits and work.
  
  It can be inherited.
  
  It can be stolen.
  
  It can be begged.
  
  And it can be looted.

Of these methods, the right seeks that the first be the primary method. As a result, the right advocates for small and limited government. Less government is an advantage to entrepreneurs. To those earning money through wits and work, the less interference the better. Just get out of the way and the producers will produce. This serves everyone, as more products and services are created, along with jobs.

The method the left advocates is looting. Looting requires government. The more government, the more that can be looted. Beggars and thieves can be bribed to do the bidding of the looters. As government grows, the looter class blossoms, while the productive class dwindles. Society suffers as there is less of everything for all but the looters. The gap between those who have and those who have not widens. Unrest and dissent grow, so authoritarian measures are introduced. Corruption becomes virtue, deceit is viewed as clever.

Support whom you will, but I support the producers.

''Support whom you will, but I support the producers.''

Ahhh, another liberal.

 

[PMZ]

If you don't like democracy, move.

You misspelled "kleptocracy," spunky...

This is not for me, it's for you. Move somewhere that doesn't make you all whiney.

It's called happiness. Try it.

 

[kaz]

If you don't like democracy, move.

You misspelled "kleptocracy," spunky...

This is not for me, it's for you. Move somewhere that doesn't make you all whiney.

It's called happiness. Try it.

Liberals sure are angry for happy people.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.

I have little concern as to his company - that is between him, the board of directors, and the stock holders.

My concern is with gutter scum like George Soros who loots an entire nation - crushing the Bank of England - or fuckwads like Obama who give license to Blue Cross and Kaiser to rob me at gun point - with the gun held by Stasi (IRS) agents. Or Goldman Sachs to lose trillions and then use taxpayer funds to rebuild while the majority lose homes, jobs, and lives.

 

[Uncensored2008]

''Support whom you will, but I support the producers.''

Ahhh, another liberal.

I am a liberal.

And you are a communist.

No new information here....

 

[kaz]

''Support whom you will, but I support the producers.''

Ahhh, another liberal.

I am a liberal.

And you are a communist.

No new information here....

Yes, they are not liberals, they are leftists. They don't know what a liberal is.

 

[Foxfyre]

Money can be acquired in a variety of ways.

• 
  It can be earned. Earning money is usually a result of wits and work.
  
  It can be inherited.
  
  It can be stolen.
  
  It can be begged.
  
  And it can be looted.

Of these methods, the right seeks that the first be the primary method. As a result, the right advocates for small and limited government. Less government is an advantage to entrepreneurs. To those earning money through wits and work, the less interference the better. Just get out of the way and the producers will produce. This serves everyone, as more products and services are created, along with jobs.

The method the left advocates is looting. Looting requires government. The more government, the more that can be looted. Beggars and thieves can be bribed to do the bidding of the looters. As government grows, the looter class blossoms, while the productive class dwindles. Society suffers as there is less of everything for all but the looters. The gap between those who have and those who have not widens. Unrest and dissent grow, so authoritarian measures are introduced. Corruption becomes virtue, deceit is viewed as clever.

Support whom you will, but I support the producers.

Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.

If it is his company to loot, what is that to me? I don't have to do business with him if I choose not to. He cannot force me to use his product or services or contribute to his wealth in any way. He doesn't cost me a dime or a moment's sleep.

The professional politicians elected to high office however, and the professional bureaucrats they appoint or hire, seem to be looting the public treasury at will, take whatever they want from us at figurative gunpoint, force us to use products or services they require us to have while they demonize anybody we send to Washington to do things better. And I have no choice or option about that while they methodically and without question take away my choices, options, opportunities, liberties, and diminish my personal wealth.

 

[PMZ]

Yes. Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.

The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
The guy making a million would pay $100,000

You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.

No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill. No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time. Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded. No more paying evil governments not to attack us. And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.

The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.

I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.

What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.

What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.

How much will the military be cut?

What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?

I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.

To hard to do.

So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?

Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?

I want every federal government department eliminated that is not NECESSARY to secure our rights, to defend us, and/or to prevent the various states from doing violence to each other while functioning as one effective, cohesive nation.

The states now collect taxes for and pay out unemployment insurance. They certainly could take over the small portion of this that the federal government manages and thereby remove another expensive layer of government. The federal government sucks at least a third out of every dollar it collects just to feed the bloated bureaucracy. Leaving it with the states will give us a lot more bang for our tax dollars.

Leaving the money with the private sector gives us a chance to revive a stalled economy, provides almost infinite resources to expand the economy which results in more and better jobs, full employment, higher pay, and a better quality of life for all able and willing to take advantage of it. The GDP should be based on honest economic activity and not artificial numbers created by unnecessary government spending.

A dollar spent by the federal government will more often than not shrink the economy because it first takes money out of the economy either now or in the future, and the bureaucracy absorbs a great deal of it just to feed itself.

That is why private sector jobs are so much more beneficial to the economy than are government jobs--the private sector employee is expected to generate sufficient economic activity to pay his/her salary plus make a profit for his/her employer. The government workers salary must be withdrawn from the private sector and the employee is not required to produce economic activity in return for wages received. So a private sector dollar spent will multiply in the economy three or four times before the ripples level out. Government dollars not so much if at all.

That does not mean there are no necessary government jobs. We maintain a professional military so that the average citizen does not have to worry about that. It makes sense to pool our local resources to have shared police and fire protection, shared sewers and water systems,. etc. which, in the long run, saves us all money.

What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it. Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.

 

[PMZ]

Yes. Though I want a 10% tax, not 20%.

The guy making $10,000 would pay $1,000.
The guy making $50,000 would pay $5,000
The guy making $100,000 would pay $10,000
The guy making a million would pay $100,000

You see I don't want a revenue neutral tax system. I want us to put the federal government on a crash diet and limit its spending to what it absolutely has to spend money on to secure and protect our rights and to allow the various states to function cohesively and effectively as one nation.

No more federal money to watch a shrimp run on a threadmill. No more federal millions to some green energy company that will go broke within a fairly short time. Any project that is worthy will find private funding; all others should not be funded. No more paying evil governments not to attack us. And return the responsibility for any charitable pursuits to the states and private charities where that has always belonged.

The statists of course will scream bloody murder, but if we do not do what we must to rein in an ever increasing, more intrusive, more expensive, more authoritarian almost totally self serving government, we will lose the country that the Founders gave us and will become something very different.

I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.

What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.

What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.

How much will the military be cut?

What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?

I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.

To hard to do.

So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?

Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?

Just another set of bullshit deflections. This question of what to cut has been answered a million times in a million threads. What will out of work government workers do? Die or become productive.

Same as business employees whose career was given to China or India in exchange for executive bonuses.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have asked this question of others. Never read an answer. But I bet you try. Here goes.

What departments do you want to cut and how many dollars will that save? What benefits programs do you want to cut ie, SSI, Medicare, SSDI and Government Retirement, how many dollars cut from those.

What will happen to the UE rate when tens of thousands of people lose their jobs. And how will the states provide UE to those areas with lots of government workers.

How much will the military be cut?

What will happen the GDP when government spending is subtracted from the totals?

I know that's a lot of hard questions. Must be why no one ever answers them.

To hard to do.

So when you have eliminated all these jobs and people can't find other work and you have stopped all this economic activity of the government and private contractors, when all this money is being "saved" by the government, what the hell happens then?

Isn't there something for the middle class in all this. The middle gets their jobs cut, their benes cut their expenses rise, etc etc. So where is the up side?

I want every federal government department eliminated that is not NECESSARY to secure our rights, to defend us, and/or to prevent the various states from doing violence to each other while functioning as one effective, cohesive nation.

The states now collect taxes for and pay out unemployment insurance. They certainly could take over the small portion of this that the federal government manages and thereby remove another expensive layer of government. The federal government sucks at least a third out of every dollar it collects just to feed the bloated bureaucracy. Leaving it with the states will give us a lot more bang for our tax dollars.

Leaving the money with the private sector gives us a chance to revive a stalled economy, provides almost infinite resources to expand the economy which results in more and better jobs, full employment, higher pay, and a better quality of life for all able and willing to take advantage of it. The GDP should be based on honest economic activity and not artificial numbers created by unnecessary government spending.

A dollar spent by the federal government will more often than not shrink the economy because it first takes money out of the economy either now or in the future, and the bureaucracy absorbs a great deal of it just to feed itself.

That is why private sector jobs are so much more beneficial to the economy than are government jobs--the private sector employee is expected to generate sufficient economic activity to pay his/her salary plus make a profit for his/her employer. The government workers salary must be withdrawn from the private sector and the employee is not required to produce economic activity in return for wages received. So a private sector dollar spent will multiply in the economy three or four times before the ripples level out. Government dollars not so much if at all.

That does not mean there are no necessary government jobs. We maintain a professional military so that the average citizen does not have to worry about that. It makes sense to pool our local resources to have shared police and fire protection, shared sewers and water systems,. etc. which, in the long run, saves us all money.

What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it. Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.

That's definitely the way Marx looked at it all right. However, every single place it has ever been tried it results in lowered production and sharply lowered standards of living for all. Why? Because only a very few people are driven to be productive when somebody else claims what they produce and there is no reward for skill, effort, creativity, innovation, or hard work. If the slackard dullard benefits as much as the highly productive worker, there won't be highly productive workers for long.

 

[RKMBrown]

Anyone can increase their wealth (aka net worth) any time they want.

The problem is that people think that their over 30 softball beer league ( or bowling, or fantasy football or whatever) is more important than increasing their net worth.

Why is that a problem? Oh yeah .. PMS thinks they should have more money because he does and if they don't have as much as he does it's because the "man" is keeping them down.

Why do you think that you want them to pay your taxes?

Poorer poor and richer rich is the bottom line of all tyrannies.

Why do you keep repeating the same questions? Do you think it sounds cool to draw up a straw-man about what you think other people think?

Define poor. The poor in this country have cell phones, flat screen TVs, a place to live, and all they want to eat. It's not like they are living like Obama's brother in the straw hut.

The poor not only don't pay taxes they collect checks. The people I'm talking about that need to pay their share of this government are the people that are not poor. The people below the 51% line and above the means tested poverty line.

That said, I don't want anyone to have to pay income taxes. IMO taxes should be voluntary, such as sales tax on non-food products and import duty taxes on all imports that are not otherwise readily available here in the states. Income tax is slavery. How many hundreds of times do I have to tell you this before it BURNS IN YOUR HEAD. Stop accusing me of wanting the very thing I keep railing for getting rid of you jerk.

 

[PMZ]

U

Show me a $30,000,000 per year CEO whose not looting his company.

I have little concern as to his company - that is between him, the board of directors, and the stock holders.

My concern is with gutter scum like George Soros who loots an entire nation - crushing the Bank of England - or fuckwads like Obama who give license to Blue Cross and Kaiser to rob me at gun point - with the gun held by Stasi (IRS) agents. Or Goldman Sachs to lose trillions and then use taxpayer funds to rebuild while the majority lose homes, jobs, and lives.

You don't think CEOs looting companies costs you?

Back to the 8th grade with you. Maybe when you get there you can start a Bernie Madoff fan club.

 

[Uncensored2008]

What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it. Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.

Really comrade?

So "workers" created the integrated circuits that let you spew your Marxist idiocy on the internet? "Workers" designed the networks and protocols to move the data? "workers" developed particle theories to build the hard disks to hold all the data?

You are but an ignorant baboon - without men of the mind, you would starve as you dig a hole, fill it in, and declare you have created wealth.....

 

[RKMBrown]

I want every federal government department eliminated that is not NECESSARY to secure our rights, to defend us, and/or to prevent the various states from doing violence to each other while functioning as one effective, cohesive nation.

The states now collect taxes for and pay out unemployment insurance. They certainly could take over the small portion of this that the federal government manages and thereby remove another expensive layer of government. The federal government sucks at least a third out of every dollar it collects just to feed the bloated bureaucracy. Leaving it with the states will give us a lot more bang for our tax dollars.

Leaving the money with the private sector gives us a chance to revive a stalled economy, provides almost infinite resources to expand the economy which results in more and better jobs, full employment, higher pay, and a better quality of life for all able and willing to take advantage of it. The GDP should be based on honest economic activity and not artificial numbers created by unnecessary government spending.

A dollar spent by the federal government will more often than not shrink the economy because it first takes money out of the economy either now or in the future, and the bureaucracy absorbs a great deal of it just to feed itself.

That is why private sector jobs are so much more beneficial to the economy than are government jobs--the private sector employee is expected to generate sufficient economic activity to pay his/her salary plus make a profit for his/her employer. The government workers salary must be withdrawn from the private sector and the employee is not required to produce economic activity in return for wages received. So a private sector dollar spent will multiply in the economy three or four times before the ripples level out. Government dollars not so much if at all.

That does not mean there are no necessary government jobs. We maintain a professional military so that the average citizen does not have to worry about that. It makes sense to pool our local resources to have shared police and fire protection, shared sewers and water systems,. etc. which, in the long run, saves us all money.

What we all have to divide up is what we all produce. It doesn't matter who owns the means of producing it. Workers create wealth for all of us regardless if the are using means owned by some of us or all of us.

That's definitely the way Marx looked at it all right. However, every single place it has ever been tried it results in lowered production and sharply lowered standards of living for all. Why? Because only a very few people are driven to be productive when somebody else claims what they produce and there is no reward for skill, effort, creativity, innovation, or hard work. If the slackard dullard benefits as much as the highly productive worker, there won't be highly productive workers for long.

Bingo. I'm done rowing the USS Titanic for these laggards, let the ship wallow and sink to the bottom as they burn the ship for firewood. I've got my own raft (Texas), screw the socialist states.