One of the few things mentioned that is actually federal duty.
The Tariff Questions?
- Thread starter Ebiker33
- Start date
I'll run against you, first term:
- Immediate hiring freeze
- Seal the borders, enforce current immigration laws to see if they need modification.
- Cut all subsidies 25% each year.
- Announce first 3 Departments that will be eliminated; there is your pool if you need an eemolyee.
- Look at pieces of Departments that are still needed; reassign to different Department. Over a few years, reduce spending that will be disappearing; gives states time to change their tax structure to meet their responsibilities.
- Encourage Congress to implement flat tax. No deductions, no credits. You earned $XX,XXX salary and $X,XXX realized gains employer/bank gives you what is left after withholding your fair share (YY%)
- Handle other stuff that comes up.
- Start campaigning for 2nd term.
mschwett
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
the only way so “few” people spend a lot of money is by simply giving it to other people… which is the vast majority of federal spending. the only way you really significantly cut federal spending is by reducing or eliminating medicare, medicaid, social security, and maybe national defense. everyone who has ever seriously tried to attack this problem knows this, and that’s why nobody has made much progress. remember the newt gingrich era attempt to do the same thing?
the answer to the federal government deficit is not abolishing the IRS or laying off half of everyone who collects taxes or fees or makes rules, it’s delaying the onset of social security, reducing medicare and medicaid spending by transitioning to a national single payer system like pretty much every other developed country (and focusing on actual health and preventive care), and raising taxes on those who can afford it. everything else is smoke and mirrors - there simply isn’t enough discretionary spending to matter.
for the record, i don’t disagree that government can be very “inefficient.” but in part that’s because it’s not a business, it’s a social service. it’s a good idea for a federal government to owe money to its people up to a certain point (it creates a mutual benefit for continued existence and stability) but i do agree that it has gotten out of control and needs to be reined back.
DaveMatthews
Well-Known Member
Annex BC?
You'll never take me alive copper!!!
And, methinks you'd be better off the other way around...
These two are self funded and shouldn't be considered part of the trimable budget. If the self funding isn't improved, benefits should be cut, not supplemented w/ income tax $.
mschwett
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
do you think the people who are claiming to cut $2T from the federal budget know this? the ENTIRE discretionary budget (after social security, medicare/medicaid and a few smaller income security programs, pensions) is only $1.7t. half is defense. it’s just so patently stupid for anyone to claim they’re going to cut $2T when there isn’t even $2T in spending outside those “self funded” programs. why would you trust someone who makes claims like that?
Mr. Coffee
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- A Demented Corner of the North Cascades
The "self-funding" of Social Security and Medicare are mere accounting tricks and not reflective of objective reality.
When either of these programs take in more tax revenue than their expenses, they purchase T-bills with that surplus. When they have more expenses than revenues, they sell some of those T-bills. The net effect of all that is that all of the tax money is 100 percent fungible.
From a practical standpoint there isn't anywhere you can park the proceeds from such a system than in government debt.
When either of these programs take in more tax revenue than their expenses, they purchase T-bills with that surplus. When they have more expenses than revenues, they sell some of those T-bills. The net effect of all that is that all of the tax money is 100 percent fungible.
From a practical standpoint there isn't anywhere you can park the proceeds from such a system than in government debt.
I bet my Fidelity guy could offer a solution.
Mr. Coffee
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
- City
- A Demented Corner of the North Cascades
A guy named Marx beat him to it by 150 years.
If you had the government making investments in private securities how exactly would that work? Who would decide what securities to buy and which ones to sell? Who would decide when those were bought and sold? Also, if the securities are shares they come with voting rights, so the government would have votes and probably seats on the board.
You also get kind of stuck because that would be a very large portfolio. You'd obviously want transparency around its management. Except when you didn't want it -- e.g. because if you gave out advance information about your intentions to buy or sell certain classes of assets you'd make the markets go crazy. Well, crazier.
The whole idea is a demonstrably bad one. We have lots of experience in how well it works and all of it is ugly.
All ideas that one disagrees with are bad. It can be made to work. I choose Fidelity, because that's who I use, there are others. Fidelity manages $4.5T; the OASDI Trust fund is $2.8T. Yes there is a way.
Reference: https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-03/59727-Federal-Budget.pdf and Post #86
Let's make this easy:
Been fun, but other things to do! I got paid for creating solutions in the past.
Let's make this easy:
- Total revenues actually = 4.4 - 1.6 = 2.8T (can't count Payroll taxes, they only go for SS and Medicare)
- Total outlays actually =6.1 - 1.3 - .839 + .539 = 4.5T (outlays - SS - Medicare + diff between ss/medicare outlays and payroll taxes)
Been fun, but other things to do! I got paid for creating solutions in the past.
kevinmccune
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
nah,the president of less madison avenue bullshit.,(what! the poor people have parity again,of course a felony to own a functioning street sweeper.
kevinmccune
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
not bad,of course you probably wouldn't last 6 wks either.
kevinmccune
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
I would say a lot of us in the "Mid-Atlantic" are open to succession( the yanks want to go their own "Calvinist way anyhow)Annex BC?
You'll never take me alive copper!!!
And, methinks you'd be better off the other way around...
February
Active Member
- Region
- USA
Even though it is the season to put fair weather bikes away here in Michigan, I'm buying as many components and batteries as I can before cheeto hitler comes to power. I don't know why some one can't sit that imbecile down and explain tariffs to him, but good lord yes to anyone waiting to pull the trigger on a purchase, do not hesitate. If this mad man's tariff fetish becomes reality we are all screwed, buy now while you can. I'm poor, but there is a reason I'm dropping $300 on a pair of Moth Bars from France. They are made in Taiwan and were supposed to have a second run, almost a year ago. Chances are, if they are ever available again, during cheeto hitler's reign, they will cost an arm and a leg. BUY NOW IF YOU CAN.
mschwett
Well-Known Member
- Region
- USA
there are some signs that at least 2 or 3 senators will oppose things that are just beyond the pale, e.g. matt gaetz. i mean, wtf.
the question now is simply how bad things will get in the short term before the need for more change is obvious to at least another couple percent of americans in 7 states.
February
Active Member
- Region
- USA
Well, here is the good and the bad. The AP crunched the numbers and I'm happy to report, the young people under the age of 45 got out to vote, women got out to vote, non white people got out to vote and so too did white dudes for Harris. Even 3rd party voting was less than last election. So important facts for anyone who thinks we are going down the fascist rabbit hole"
Only half the people that could vote did vote. That means 25% of or citizenry are fascist at heart, or too stupid to understand they are a bunch of rubes. the other 75% of us are more or less sane, we just don't vote. Trump won by the same amount of votes he lost by last time. We knew the boomers(no offense to awesome boomers, I personally know many) were going to vote far right. It was my generation, ages 45 to 64 which includes old x's and young boomers, that turned the tide last election, for some reason those 6-8 million voters who got out and voted democratic last election, stayed home this election. Basically, we're going through Bernie Bros 2.0. We will survive this, just like we did last time. Real question for me is, not if, but when, we have president Vance, because the republicans in the senate don't fear trump anymore.
Only half the people that could vote did vote. That means 25% of or citizenry are fascist at heart, or too stupid to understand they are a bunch of rubes. the other 75% of us are more or less sane, we just don't vote. Trump won by the same amount of votes he lost by last time. We knew the boomers(no offense to awesome boomers, I personally know many) were going to vote far right. It was my generation, ages 45 to 64 which includes old x's and young boomers, that turned the tide last election, for some reason those 6-8 million voters who got out and voted democratic last election, stayed home this election. Basically, we're going through Bernie Bros 2.0. We will survive this, just like we did last time. Real question for me is, not if, but when, we have president Vance, because the republicans in the senate don't fear trump anymore.
Last edited:
February
Active Member
- Region
- USA
Agreed.
Similar threads
