February 2002

[Alaska Darin]

Link

 

Ah, where to begin...

 

Let's form a ficticious company. We'll call it "Wabistics." (Wabistics is, of course, a Sopranos reference).

 

Wabistics is getting their behind's kicked by their chief competitor, and now owe their creditors a good bit of money. They know that they need to do something, so their new CEO (Chris Moltesante) gets their 4 brightest minds together to solve the problem.

 

Expert #1: We need to raise prices 2.5%. We will make enough money to cover what we owe. Next problem.

 

Expert #2: We can't raise prices. We need to cut prices by at least 5%. That will allow us to increase market share and our production costs will fall on because they will be spread over a larger number of units. Expert #1 can't be more wrong.

 

Expert #3: We need to leave prices the way they are, as they are not the problem. We need to spend more money on infrastructure and effective advertising to become more efficient. If we do that, we'll save enough to pay our creditors.

 

Expert #4: Everyone who spoke before me is wrong. We need to cut spending. We have at least 10% too much overhead. If we trim that, it'll be more than enough to pay our creditors.

 

What does the Chairman do? Well, if he's smart, he does ALL 4. He raises or lowers prices where it makes sense to do so. He cuts the fat out of his organization. He takes the capital available and enhances productivity where he can get the most bang for his buck.

 

The problem all of us have with the current government is trying to pidgeon hole EVERY problem we have into one neat little solution. This rears it's ugly head in many ways, like blaming a Republican for cutting taxes or a Democrat for spending too much. This is where it gets interesting.

 

Wabistics started as a small company. When their latest CEO took over, the companies debt was around $100,000.00. When the new CEO took over, the company's debt was $10,000,000. The last CEO was a failure, for sure!

 

WRONG. That's the current media way of telling the story. What CNN (or whoever YOU hate) failed to tell you is when Mr Bompansaro (the old CEO took over), Wabistic's debt was 25% of their revenue. They had 5 employees. That $100,000 threatened their existance.

 

When Sal B. left Wabistics, the sales were over $200,000,000. There was $20,000,000 in cash on the balance sheet. There are 200 employees. The reason Wabistics doesn't pay the debt is there are significant financial penalties for early payoff. Sal Bompansaro did a great job.

 

The US Government's debt in 1946 was nearly 130% of the Gross Domestic Product. We'd just left WWII of course. Today it's somewhere around 40%.

 

In 1946, Federal Receipts were 19% of GDP, and the highest personal tax rate was 91% (Harry Truman was President). JFK cut the highest rate to 70% receipts maintained the 19% level. Reagan cut the highest rate all the way to 28% - again receipts maintained the 19% level of GDP. Bill Clinton raised the rate to nearly 40% - receipts ARE STILL 19%.

 

One of the points of contention around here has been who is responsible for the "Highest Tax Increase in US History." Some say Clinton - and they are right, if they are talking about the total amount of money collected. Some say Reagan, and they are ALSO RIGHT, if you use inflation adjusted constant dollars. (Tip of the cap to TPS for making me look that up). Of course, Reagan raised PAYROLL taxes, which pay for social programs, and Clinton raised INCOME taxes, which are generally used for discretionary spending (if there is any such thing).

 

Reagan did EXACTLY what Mr. Moltesante did for Wabistics. He raised prices where he thought they made sense, enraging conservatives and giving the liberals an easy political target.

 

Each time we dropped income tax rates, the economy took off within just a few years. Obviously it takes a little time for people to realize the savings, and then the effect ripples exponentially. It happened with Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Reagan. It'll happen again soon.

 

Despite the fact that these cuts in income taxes have been made, ONE percent of US households still pay 28.7% of the income tax burden for the country while gaining less than 14% of the wealth. The bottom 50% pay almost no income taxes whatsoever. This point is well established. The Conservatives on this board love to trumpet this fact - for they are right.

 

TPS often states that we should cut payroll taxes, and I agree with him. The bottom 50% of Americans pay a higher portion of taxation on their money than the top 1% when payroll taxes are factored in - despite the previous paragraph that states they pay NO INCOME TAX. Bob Kerrey (Senator from Nebraska) wrote an excellent article on this a couple of years ago. Just another reason to completely overhaul the tax code.

 

So why the deficit? Defense spending? Nope. Even during the Reagan Cold War buildup, defense spending was significanty lower precentage wise than during th Korean or Vietnam Wars. It is now (again, percentage wise) lower than at any time since the beginning of WWII.

 

The biggest difference in defense spending has been due to the "Peace Dividend" that we enjoy now as the world's only true Super Power. The GDP percentage was over 15% during Korea, about 12% during Vietnam, and slightly over 7% at it's peak during Reagan. We actually won the Cold War without combat, for ALOT less money - and without ONE AMERICAN LIFE LOST. Don't argue semantics on this one.

 

So where is the problem? ENTITLEMENTS.

 

In 1960 JFK is President. Mandatory spending (SS, MC2, etc) is less than HALF of discretionary spending. At the end of Ford's term the 2 are virtually identicle (recession). At the end of Carter's term, mandatory spending has taken off (another recession), easily outdistancing discretionary spending. Yet another recession hits in 1982, and AWAY WE GO.

 

The biggest challenge the government faces is making sure the economy grows as it did under Reagan and Clinton, while managing (and hopefully cutting), the amount of mandatory spending. How do we do it?

 

Let's go back to Wabistics. Take the con, Mr Moltesante.

 

1. RAISE PRICES. Not income tax rates. There are certainly other places - like the really rich not paying enough in payroll taxes. If we want to keep SS and MC2, we have no choice. I don't particularly like the programs, and wish they would go away, but I think I'd lose the majority in this one. This is just one example - I'm sure the rest of you could help find more.

 

2. CUT PRICES. Eliminate Capital Gains completely. Before one of you liberals loses a shirt, hear me out. Go to one of your local "business guy" gathering places, and ask them just ONE question: Are their deals not being done because of the current capital gaines rates? The answer you will get will be an emphatic yes. That is costing us more in high paying jobs than ANY tax will ever bring in.

 

There is money sitting in mature investments all over this country that would be used for entreprenurial ventures and creation, but sits earning small amounts of interest because of the HUGE capital gains tax. Cutting it a couple years ago was a start, but a very small one.

 

Greenspan has said a number of times that the best capital gains rate for the economy is ZERO. He was appointed under Reagan, continued under GHWB, fell asleep at the switch under Clinton, and is still hanging around today. I agree with him.

 

Everytime there is a hint of recession, the big companies in America get a big influx of cash from smart investors who know that is where to go to weather the storm. Somewhere north of 80 MILLION Americans are invested in the Market in some way. Let's help them out.

 

3. INCREASE SPENDING. In areas that benefit the economy, like roads, airports, and other infrastructure things. That internet was a mighty great invention, Al - let's use it. I'm not talking about grants to study the mating habits of Brazilian Rainforest Cockroaches or building more buildings with Robert Byrd's name on them. Pork has to go.

 

4. CUT SPENDING. Medicare costs are skyrocketing as the Boomers get older. In 1996 the costs were roughly half of Social Security. Experts say the 2 will be even by 2015 - and it ain't because SS is getting cheaper. By 2035 these same folks say these 2 programs will cost 15% of the GDP.

 

Remember a little while ago when I said that the government is averaging 19% of GDP in collections? Well if 2 programs cost 15%, that leaves 4% FOR EVERYTHING ELSE, including the Constitutionally mandated programs.

 

We need to change these programs dramatically. Stop paying the multi-millionares benefits they don't need. Fix the COLA adjustments to be realistic. Raise the current eligible age to a realistic number, and revisit that issue every 4 years.

 

Everyone whines about the tax code. Start over.

 

Social Security is 60 years old. Start over.

 

Medicare is over 30 years old. Start over.

 

Oversight is severely lacking.

 

The IRS has more employees than the FBI and US MARSHALL'S Service COMBINED. Get rid of them along with the tax code. One number I read had them costing over $.30 of every dollar they take in. Unreal. Start here.

 

The Federal civil service system is terrible. Congressional benefits are OBSCENE. Stop ignoring the elephants while stomping on the ants.

 

The economy MUST grow more rapidly than the government, or we are doomed to failure.

 

I compared 2001 US budget with the 1989 version a couple of days ago, and when you exclude the DOD, there were over 100,000 MORE Federal Employees on the books today. There were about 600,000 less in the DOD. The Peace Dividend is certainly real there.

 

Agree or disagree, bring it on. Please don't use party line arguments. Let's stick to facts and intellectual discussion.

 

BTW TPS, the government says that Social Security costs less than 2% to administrate. I don't agree, as that doesn't factor in the legions of accountants on the civilian side it takes to pay the bill, or the certainly HUGE amount of waste this behemoth is generating. When I see you I'll buy you a cold one anyway.

 

My favorite beer doesn't come in a 6 pack. It's an Ale brewed by the Trappist Monks in Belgium called Chimay Premium Reserve. It's about $9.00 for a wine sized bottle of this 9% alcohol content version of "Mother's Milk." Try it.

 

Thanks to TPS for getting me on this freaking tagent!!!

 

"When it absolutely, positively has to be DESTROYED overnight" - US Military Motto

[erynthered]

Link

 

Ah, where to begin...

 

Let's form a ficticious company. We'll call it "Wabistics." (Wabistics is, of course, a Sopranos reference).

 

Wabistics is getting their behind's kicked by their chief competitor, and now owe their creditors a good bit of money. They know that they need to do something, so their new CEO (Chris Moltesante) gets their 4 brightest minds together to solve the problem.

 

Expert #1: We need to raise prices 2.5%. We will make enough money to cover what we owe. Next problem.

 

Expert #2: We can't raise prices. We need to cut prices by at least 5%. That will allow us to increase market share and our production costs will fall on because they will be spread over a larger number of units. Expert #1 can't be more wrong.

 

Expert #3: We need to leave prices the way they are, as they are not the problem. We need to spend more money on infrastructure and effective advertising to become more efficient. If we do that, we'll save enough to pay our creditors.

 

Expert #4: Everyone who spoke before me is wrong. We need to cut spending. We have at least 10% too much overhead. If we trim that, it'll be more than enough to pay our creditors.

 

What does the Chairman do? Well, if he's smart, he does ALL 4. He raises or lowers prices where it makes sense to do so. He cuts the fat out of his organization. He takes the capital available and enhances productivity where he can get the most bang for his buck.

 

The problem all of us have with the current government is trying to pidgeon hole EVERY problem we have into one neat little solution. This rears it's ugly head in many ways, like blaming a Republican for cutting taxes or a Democrat for spending too much. This is where it gets interesting.

 

Wabistics started as a small company. When their latest CEO took over, the companies debt was around $100,000.00. When the new CEO took over, the company's debt was $10,000,000. The last CEO was a failure, for sure!

 

WRONG. That's the current media way of telling the story. What CNN (or whoever YOU hate) failed to tell you is when Mr Bompansaro (the old CEO took over), Wabistic's debt was 25% of their revenue. They had 5 employees. That $100,000 threatened their existance.

 

When Sal B. left Wabistics, the sales were over $200,000,000. There was $20,000,000 in cash on the balance sheet. There are 200 employees. The reason Wabistics doesn't pay the debt is there are significant financial penalties for early payoff. Sal Bompansaro did a great job.

 

The US Government's debt in 1946 was nearly 130% of the Gross Domestic Product. We'd just left WWII of course. Today it's somewhere around 40%.

 

In 1946, Federal Receipts were 19% of GDP, and the highest personal tax rate was 91% (Harry Truman was President). JFK cut the highest rate to 70% receipts maintained the 19% level. Reagan cut the highest rate all the way to 28% - again receipts maintained the 19% level of GDP. Bill Clinton raised the rate to nearly 40% - receipts ARE STILL 19%.

 

One of the points of contention around here has been who is responsible for the "Highest Tax Increase in US History." Some say Clinton - and they are right, if they are talking about the total amount of money collected. Some say Reagan, and they are ALSO RIGHT, if you use inflation adjusted constant dollars. (Tip of the cap to TPS for making me look that up). Of course, Reagan raised PAYROLL taxes, which pay for social programs, and Clinton raised INCOME taxes, which are generally used for discretionary spending (if there is any such thing).

 

Reagan did EXACTLY what Mr. Moltesante did for Wabistics. He raised prices where he thought they made sense, enraging conservatives and giving the liberals an easy political target.

 

Each time we dropped income tax rates, the economy took off within just a few years. Obviously it takes a little time for people to realize the savings, and then the effect ripples exponentially. It happened with Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Reagan. It'll happen again soon.

 

Despite the fact that these cuts in income taxes have been made, ONE percent of US households still pay 28.7% of the income tax burden for the country while gaining less than 14% of the wealth. The bottom 50% pay almost no income taxes whatsoever. This point is well established. The Conservatives on this board love to trumpet this fact - for they are right.

 

TPS often states that we should cut payroll taxes, and I agree with him. The bottom 50% of Americans pay a higher portion of taxation on their money than the top 1% when payroll taxes are factored in - despite the previous paragraph that states they pay NO INCOME TAX. Bob Kerrey (Senator from Nebraska) wrote an excellent article on this a couple of years ago. Just another reason to completely overhaul the tax code.

 

So why the deficit? Defense spending? Nope. Even during the Reagan Cold War buildup, defense spending was significanty lower precentage wise than during th Korean or Vietnam Wars. It is now (again, percentage wise) lower than at any time since the beginning of WWII.

 

The biggest difference in defense spending has been due to the "Peace Dividend" that we enjoy now as the world's only true Super Power. The GDP percentage was over 15% during Korea, about 12% during Vietnam, and slightly over 7% at it's peak during Reagan. We actually won the Cold War without combat, for ALOT less money - and without ONE AMERICAN LIFE LOST. Don't argue semantics on this one.

 

So where is the problem? ENTITLEMENTS.

 

In 1960 JFK is President. Mandatory spending (SS, MC2, etc) is less than HALF of discretionary spending. At the end of Ford's term the 2 are virtually identicle (recession). At the end of Carter's term, mandatory spending has taken off (another recession), easily outdistancing discretionary spending. Yet another recession hits in 1982, and AWAY WE GO.

 

The biggest challenge the government faces is making sure the economy grows as it did under Reagan and Clinton, while managing (and hopefully cutting), the amount of mandatory spending. How do we do it?

 

Let's go back to Wabistics. Take the con, Mr Moltesante.

 

1. RAISE PRICES. Not income tax rates. There are certainly other places - like the really rich not paying enough in payroll taxes. If we want to keep SS and MC2, we have no choice. I don't particularly like the programs, and wish they would go away, but I think I'd lose the majority in this one. This is just one example - I'm sure the rest of you could help find more.

 

2. CUT PRICES. Eliminate Capital Gains completely. Before one of you liberals loses a shirt, hear me out. Go to one of your local "business guy" gathering places, and ask them just ONE question: Are their deals not being done because of the current capital gaines rates? The answer you will get will be an emphatic yes. That is costing us more in high paying jobs than ANY tax will ever bring in.

 

There is money sitting in mature investments all over this country that would be used for entreprenurial ventures and creation, but sits earning small amounts of interest because of the HUGE capital gains tax. Cutting it a couple years ago was a start, but a very small one.

 

Greenspan has said a number of times that the best capital gains rate for the economy is ZERO. He was appointed under Reagan, continued under GHWB, fell asleep at the switch under Clinton, and is still hanging around today. I agree with him.

 

Everytime there is a hint of recession, the big companies in America get a big influx of cash from smart investors who know that is where to go to weather the storm. Somewhere north of 80 MILLION Americans are invested in the Market in some way. Let's help them out.

 

3. INCREASE SPENDING. In areas that benefit the economy, like roads, airports, and other infrastructure things. That internet was a mighty great invention, Al - let's use it. I'm not talking about grants to study the mating habits of Brazilian Rainforest Cockroaches or building more buildings with Robert Byrd's name on them. Pork has to go.

 

4. CUT SPENDING. Medicare costs are skyrocketing as the Boomers get older. In 1996 the costs were roughly half of Social Security. Experts say the 2 will be even by 2015 - and it ain't because SS is getting cheaper. By 2035 these same folks say these 2 programs will cost 15% of the GDP.

 

Remember a little while ago when I said that the government is averaging 19% of GDP in collections? Well if 2 programs cost 15%, that leaves 4% FOR EVERYTHING ELSE, including the Constitutionally mandated programs.

 

We need to change these programs dramatically. Stop paying the multi-millionares benefits they don't need. Fix the COLA adjustments to be realistic. Raise the current eligible age to a realistic number, and revisit that issue every 4 years.

 

Everyone whines about the tax code. Start over.

 

Social Security is 60 years old. Start over.

 

Medicare is over 30 years old. Start over.

 

Oversight is severely lacking.

 

The IRS has more employees than the FBI and US MARSHALL'S Service COMBINED. Get rid of them along with the tax code. One number I read had them costing over $.30 of every dollar they take in. Unreal. Start here.

 

The Federal civil service system is terrible. Congressional benefits are OBSCENE. Stop ignoring the elephants while stomping on the ants.

 

The economy MUST grow more rapidly than the government, or we are doomed to failure.

 

I compared 2001 US budget with the 1989 version a couple of days ago, and when you exclude the DOD, there were over 100,000 MORE Federal Employees on the books today. There were about 600,000 less in the DOD. The Peace Dividend is certainly real there.

 

Agree or disagree, bring it on. Please don't use party line arguments. Let's stick to facts and intellectual discussion.

 

BTW TPS, the government says that Social Security costs less than 2% to administrate. I don't agree, as that doesn't factor in the legions of accountants on the civilian side it takes to pay the bill, or the certainly HUGE amount of waste this behemoth is generating. When I see you I'll buy you a cold one anyway.

 

My favorite beer doesn't come in a 6 pack. It's an Ale brewed by the Trappist Monks in Belgium called Chimay Premium Reserve. It's about $9.00 for a wine sized bottle of this 9% alcohol content version of "Mother's Milk." Try it.

 

Thanks to TPS for getting me on this freaking tagent!!!

 

"When it absolutely, positively has to be DESTROYED overnight" - US Military Motto

235073[/snapback]

 

 

Nice post AD . I'll be waiting for Kordell77 and Rapid to, well........

[The Warden]

Nice post AD . I'll be waiting for Kordell77 and Rapid to, well........        

235159[/snapback]

 

I hope the next poster doesn't hit the "quote" button

 

It's been said so many times before - but the "Guvernator" in CA has also said it

 

"WE don't have a revenue problem - we have a spending problem!"

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The government would run far more effectively if it followed the simple maxim of tax less, spend less.

 

Of course, it's all a pipe dream. The crooks that run this country (Dim and Repub alike) are robbing each and every one of us blind. Eliminate income taxes. Eliminate Payroll taxes and capital gains taxes. Go with a flat sales and usage tax.

 

Cut all non-military spending in Half. Guess what? You do all that and the Federal Debt is gone in 10 years.

[IUBillsFan]

The government would run far more effectively if it followed the simple maxim of tax less, spend less.

 

Of course, it's all a pipe dream. The crooks that run this country (Dim and Repub alike) are robbing each and every one of us blind. Eliminate income taxes. Eliminate Payroll taxes and capital gains taxes. Go with a flat sales and usage tax.

 

Cut all non-military spending in Half. Guess what? You do all that and the Federal Debt is gone in 10 years.

235353[/snapback]

 

But then what would we do with all the out of work Politicians and gov't workers...

[John Adams]

All the way back to my Clancy the Dog days. And posts by Azalin too- a former foil. Nice. I never thought to use archive to look up TBD- use it a lot for work though.

[KD in CA]

But then what would we do with all the out of work Politicians and gov't workers...

235370[/snapback]

 

Outsource them to India to staff call centers.

[/dev/null]

Link

 

Ah, where to begin...

 

Let's form a ficticious company. We'll call it "Wabistics." (Wabistics is, of course, a Sopranos reference).

 

Wabistics is getting their behind's kicked by their chief competitor, and now owe their creditors a good bit of money. They know that they need to do something, so their new CEO (Chris Moltesante) gets their 4 brightest minds together to solve the problem.

 

Expert #1: We need to raise prices 2.5%. We will make enough money to cover what we owe. Next problem.

 

Expert #2: We can't raise prices. We need to cut prices by at least 5%. That will allow us to increase market share and our production costs will fall on because they will be spread over a larger number of units. Expert #1 can't be more wrong.

 

Expert #3: We need to leave prices the way they are, as they are not the problem. We need to spend more money on infrastructure and effective advertising to become more efficient. If we do that, we'll save enough to pay our creditors.

 

Expert #4: Everyone who spoke before me is wrong. We need to cut spending. We have at least 10% too much overhead. If we trim that, it'll be more than enough to pay our creditors.

 

What does the Chairman do? Well, if he's smart, he does ALL 4. He raises or lowers prices where it makes sense to do so. He cuts the fat out of his organization. He takes the capital available and enhances productivity where he can get the most bang for his buck.

 

The problem all of us have with the current government is trying to pidgeon hole EVERY problem we have into one neat little solution. This rears it's ugly head in many ways, like blaming a Republican for cutting taxes or a Democrat for spending too much. This is where it gets interesting.

 

Wabistics started as a small company. When their latest CEO took over, the companies debt was around $100,000.00. When the new CEO took over, the company's debt was $10,000,000. The last CEO was a failure, for sure!

 

WRONG. That's the current media way of telling the story. What CNN (or whoever YOU hate) failed to tell you is when Mr Bompansaro (the old CEO took over), Wabistic's debt was 25% of their revenue. They had 5 employees. That $100,000 threatened their existance.

 

When Sal B. left Wabistics, the sales were over $200,000,000. There was $20,000,000 in cash on the balance sheet. There are 200 employees. The reason Wabistics doesn't pay the debt is there are significant financial penalties for early payoff. Sal Bompansaro did a great job.

 

The US Government's debt in 1946 was nearly 130% of the Gross Domestic Product. We'd just left WWII of course. Today it's somewhere around 40%.

 

In 1946, Federal Receipts were 19% of GDP, and the highest personal tax rate was 91% (Harry Truman was President). JFK cut the highest rate to 70% receipts maintained the 19% level. Reagan cut the highest rate all the way to 28% - again receipts maintained the 19% level of GDP. Bill Clinton raised the rate to nearly 40% - receipts ARE STILL 19%.

 

One of the points of contention around here has been who is responsible for the "Highest Tax Increase in US History." Some say Clinton - and they are right, if they are talking about the total amount of money collected. Some say Reagan, and they are ALSO RIGHT, if you use inflation adjusted constant dollars. (Tip of the cap to TPS for making me look that up). Of course, Reagan raised PAYROLL taxes, which pay for social programs, and Clinton raised INCOME taxes, which are generally used for discretionary spending (if there is any such thing).

 

Reagan did EXACTLY what Mr. Moltesante did for Wabistics. He raised prices where he thought they made sense, enraging conservatives and giving the liberals an easy political target.

 

Each time we dropped income tax rates, the economy took off within just a few years. Obviously it takes a little time for people to realize the savings, and then the effect ripples exponentially. It happened with Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Reagan. It'll happen again soon.

 

Despite the fact that these cuts in income taxes have been made, ONE percent of US households still pay 28.7% of the income tax burden for the country while gaining less than 14% of the wealth. The bottom 50% pay almost no income taxes whatsoever. This point is well established. The Conservatives on this board love to trumpet this fact - for they are right.

 

TPS often states that we should cut payroll taxes, and I agree with him. The bottom 50% of Americans pay a higher portion of taxation on their money than the top 1% when payroll taxes are factored in - despite the previous paragraph that states they pay NO INCOME TAX. Bob Kerrey (Senator from Nebraska) wrote an excellent article on this a couple of years ago. Just another reason to completely overhaul the tax code.

 

So why the deficit? Defense spending? Nope. Even during the Reagan Cold War buildup, defense spending was significanty lower precentage wise than during th Korean or Vietnam Wars. It is now (again, percentage wise) lower than at any time since the beginning of WWII.

 

The biggest difference in defense spending has been due to the "Peace Dividend" that we enjoy now as the world's only true Super Power. The GDP percentage was over 15% during Korea, about 12% during Vietnam, and slightly over 7% at it's peak during Reagan. We actually won the Cold War without combat, for ALOT less money - and without ONE AMERICAN LIFE LOST. Don't argue semantics on this one.

 

So where is the problem? ENTITLEMENTS.

 

In 1960 JFK is President. Mandatory spending (SS, MC2, etc) is less than HALF of discretionary spending. At the end of Ford's term the 2 are virtually identicle (recession). At the end of Carter's term, mandatory spending has taken off (another recession), easily outdistancing discretionary spending. Yet another recession hits in 1982, and AWAY WE GO.

 

The biggest challenge the government faces is making sure the economy grows as it did under Reagan and Clinton, while managing (and hopefully cutting), the amount of mandatory spending. How do we do it?

 

Let's go back to Wabistics. Take the con, Mr Moltesante.

 

1. RAISE PRICES. Not income tax rates. There are certainly other places - like the really rich not paying enough in payroll taxes. If we want to keep SS and MC2, we have no choice. I don't particularly like the programs, and wish they would go away, but I think I'd lose the majority in this one. This is just one example - I'm sure the rest of you could help find more.

 

2. CUT PRICES. Eliminate Capital Gains completely. Before one of you liberals loses a shirt, hear me out. Go to one of your local "business guy" gathering places, and ask them just ONE question: Are their deals not being done because of the current capital gaines rates? The answer you will get will be an emphatic yes. That is costing us more in high paying jobs than ANY tax will ever bring in.

 

There is money sitting in mature investments all over this country that would be used for entreprenurial ventures and creation, but sits earning small amounts of interest because of the HUGE capital gains tax. Cutting it a couple years ago was a start, but a very small one.

 

Greenspan has said a number of times that the best capital gains rate for the economy is ZERO. He was appointed under Reagan, continued under GHWB, fell asleep at the switch under Clinton, and is still hanging around today. I agree with him.

 

Everytime there is a hint of recession, the big companies in America get a big influx of cash from smart investors who know that is where to go to weather the storm. Somewhere north of 80 MILLION Americans are invested in the Market in some way. Let's help them out.

 

3. INCREASE SPENDING. In areas that benefit the economy, like roads, airports, and other infrastructure things. That internet was a mighty great invention, Al - let's use it. I'm not talking about grants to study the mating habits of Brazilian Rainforest Cockroaches or building more buildings with Robert Byrd's name on them. Pork has to go.

 

4. CUT SPENDING. Medicare costs are skyrocketing as the Boomers get older. In 1996 the costs were roughly half of Social Security. Experts say the 2 will be even by 2015 - and it ain't because SS is getting cheaper. By 2035 these same folks say these 2 programs will cost 15% of the GDP.

 

Remember a little while ago when I said that the government is averaging 19% of GDP in collections? Well if 2 programs cost 15%, that leaves 4% FOR EVERYTHING ELSE, including the Constitutionally mandated programs.

 

We need to change these programs dramatically. Stop paying the multi-millionares benefits they don't need. Fix the COLA adjustments to be realistic. Raise the current eligible age to a realistic number, and revisit that issue every 4 years.

 

Everyone whines about the tax code. Start over.

 

Social Security is 60 years old. Start over.

 

Medicare is over 30 years old. Start over.

 

Oversight is severely lacking.

 

The IRS has more employees than the FBI and US MARSHALL'S Service COMBINED. Get rid of them along with the tax code. One number I read had them costing over $.30 of every dollar they take in. Unreal. Start here.

 

The Federal civil service system is terrible. Congressional benefits are OBSCENE. Stop ignoring the elephants while stomping on the ants.

 

The economy MUST grow more rapidly than the government, or we are doomed to failure.

 

I compared 2001 US budget with the 1989 version a couple of days ago, and when you exclude the DOD, there were over 100,000 MORE Federal Employees on the books today. There were about 600,000 less in the DOD. The Peace Dividend is certainly real there.

 

Agree or disagree, bring it on. Please don't use party line arguments. Let's stick to facts and intellectual discussion.

 

BTW TPS, the government says that Social Security costs less than 2% to administrate. I don't agree, as that doesn't factor in the legions of accountants on the civilian side it takes to pay the bill, or the certainly HUGE amount of waste this behemoth is generating. When I see you I'll buy you a cold one anyway.

 

My favorite beer doesn't come in a 6 pack. It's an Ale brewed by the Trappist Monks in Belgium called Chimay Premium Reserve. It's about $9.00 for a wine sized bottle of this 9% alcohol content version of "Mother's Milk." Try it.

 

Thanks to TPS for getting me on this freaking tagent!!!

 

"When it absolutely, positively has to be DESTROYED overnight" - US Military Motto

235073[/snapback]

 

cliffs notes please? microwave just dinged, gotta go get my hot pocket

[IUBillsFan]

Outsource them to India to staff call centers. 

235395[/snapback]

 

God I hate those call centers...I love when they try and tell you they are calling from the US

[TheMadCap]

THe main problem is that you could never get any of that passed through congress, as they are some of those profiting as we plummet.

[Alaska Darin]

THe main problem is that you could never get any of that passed through congress, as they are some of those profiting as we plummet.

241787[/snapback]

You ever been a WNY politician?

[Rich in Ohio]

I like the way back machine. Cartoons make me happy.

[Alaska Darin]

Note to self: Don't eat brownies when Rich offers them.

[KRC]

Note to self:  Don't eat brownies when Rich offers them.

241990[/snapback]

 

Well, his medication seems to be working.

[Rich in Ohio]

Well, his medication seems to be working.

241998[/snapback]

 

 

I guess that AD does not like people being nice and kind.

 

What a shame...

[KRC]

I guess that AD does not like people being nice and kind.

242268[/snapback]

 

He just doesn't tolerate idiots.

[Alaska Darin]

I guess that AD does not like people being nice and kind.

 

What a shame...

242268[/snapback]

Nah, I just recognize when someone's got an agenda...

[Rich in Ohio]

Nah, I just recognize when someone's got an agenda...

242494[/snapback]

 

 

Well the only agenda I have is make the world a better place to live.

 

I say we should all work hard to eliminate any form of debate or disagreement in our lives. I will work hard to make this dream of mine a reality.

 

Hate is a terrible thing, it uses up so much energy.