well klyph it wouldnt have been a problem if they didnt extend unemployment benefits for 2 fucking years.
proposed Super Congress
- Thread starter Briansol
- Start date
- Replies 54
- Views 2K
We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms
If the whole idea was to truly eliminate pork, wouldn't a constitutional amendment stating that 'congressional bills can only be amended if the amendment is specifically related to the bill' suffice? A legit super congress would take a constitutional amendment anyway. No, it's just a power grab under the guise of eliminating pork.
Also: Silverchild for B's Vice President.
Also: Silverchild for B's Vice President.
Last edited:
Capt. Orygun
Win the Day
eff that, I'm not running on a ticket below a guy with 1/5th my political acumen, who do yo take me for, Joe Biden? ...No offense B
well done 
Naw, i disagree with too many things from Cam to have him run with me. not happening.
The problem with the tax code IS the tax code.
It's really that simple. By eliminating it, it eliminates all the loop holes.
a 10% national sales tax will solve everything.
2% to local, 4% to state, 4% to fed
If a state doesn't want or need to collect, they can bypass those 2 or 4%'s, but won't be able to impose any of the following either, so should:
no federal income tax
no state income tax
no cap gains tax
no excise tax
no alcohol/cigareete/gasoline/etc taxes beyond the 10%. A good is a good.
no need for towns/states/etc to offer 'tax credits' to business, as there's nothing in the first place.
no residential property tax
no nothing that is a tax on money or property, just on purchased goods and services.
a VAT on imports is a bad idea IMO..... at least for now. Since there's still nothing made here, all it will do is empty our pockets to pay more for the same items currently available for cheaper, and still not bring industry back as no one will be buying in the first place.
A gov't start needs to change that... something like the X prize format. First one to make X wins $100million, etc. Without it, it's the chicken and the egg circle.
Farm subsidies need to stop/be reformed. Farming corn is not profitable . Yet, it's the #1 crop because the govt pays out for every hectare harvested. The rest of farming is barely profitable either. It's become too corporate and the little guy who actually grows real food can't compete. As a result, our food costs are currently fairly low. But, it's shit food. The corn isn't even edible by humans in most cases.
Eat beef raised on free range grass vs corn-fed, and you'll tell the difference right away.
That's a problem. And with the removal of excess corn, we can return our food to being good and healthy again as it trickles down. I don't even want to get into corn syrup here...
The rich will pay more, due to their lifestyle choices (ie, payless $10 vs uber $40,000 shoes) taxed at the same 10%. The rich will pay more in tax based off the goods of choice.
Items like bread.milk, eggs, etc that are not currently taxed can still be exempt.
And the only ones who are really against this are the democracks, because they say it's regressive... because a family of 5 making 40k currently gets money back from the IRS above what they paid out for simply having kids every year.
When an average item only goes up a few bucks (figure most places have a 6-8% sales tax already), it will be of little impact to the middle class.
And, finally, we get to tax the bar tenders, the hookers, the drug dealers, the corporate big wig with off shore accounts, and everyone else who has been scamming the income tax system since it was invented.
A common rebuttal is this will push for more under the table jobs. And you're right-- it will. But even with that scale of jobs written off as a loss, the system will still rake in more money than anything we have now, all without killing any one group of people who actually work for their money, even if its above 200,00 a year.
There are a few other downfalls.. -h&r block will no longer exist as it won't be needed... cpa's will become obsolete for everything but the basics of payroll or purchase order/etc management.
But that short term loss is worth the long tern gain of revenue stream and reduction in fraud levels.
The problem with the tax code IS the tax code.
It's really that simple. By eliminating it, it eliminates all the loop holes.
a 10% national sales tax will solve everything.
2% to local, 4% to state, 4% to fed
If a state doesn't want or need to collect, they can bypass those 2 or 4%'s, but won't be able to impose any of the following either, so should:
no federal income tax
no state income tax
no cap gains tax
no excise tax
no alcohol/cigareete/gasoline/etc taxes beyond the 10%. A good is a good.
no need for towns/states/etc to offer 'tax credits' to business, as there's nothing in the first place.
no residential property tax
no nothing that is a tax on money or property, just on purchased goods and services.
a VAT on imports is a bad idea IMO..... at least for now. Since there's still nothing made here, all it will do is empty our pockets to pay more for the same items currently available for cheaper, and still not bring industry back as no one will be buying in the first place.
A gov't start needs to change that... something like the X prize format. First one to make X wins $100million, etc. Without it, it's the chicken and the egg circle.
Farm subsidies need to stop/be reformed. Farming corn is not profitable . Yet, it's the #1 crop because the govt pays out for every hectare harvested. The rest of farming is barely profitable either. It's become too corporate and the little guy who actually grows real food can't compete. As a result, our food costs are currently fairly low. But, it's shit food. The corn isn't even edible by humans in most cases.
Eat beef raised on free range grass vs corn-fed, and you'll tell the difference right away.
That's a problem. And with the removal of excess corn, we can return our food to being good and healthy again as it trickles down. I don't even want to get into corn syrup here...
The rich will pay more, due to their lifestyle choices (ie, payless $10 vs uber $40,000 shoes) taxed at the same 10%. The rich will pay more in tax based off the goods of choice.
Items like bread.milk, eggs, etc that are not currently taxed can still be exempt.
And the only ones who are really against this are the democracks, because they say it's regressive... because a family of 5 making 40k currently gets money back from the IRS above what they paid out for simply having kids every year.
When an average item only goes up a few bucks (figure most places have a 6-8% sales tax already), it will be of little impact to the middle class.
And, finally, we get to tax the bar tenders, the hookers, the drug dealers, the corporate big wig with off shore accounts, and everyone else who has been scamming the income tax system since it was invented.
A common rebuttal is this will push for more under the table jobs. And you're right-- it will. But even with that scale of jobs written off as a loss, the system will still rake in more money than anything we have now, all without killing any one group of people who actually work for their money, even if its above 200,00 a year.
There are a few other downfalls.. -h&r block will no longer exist as it won't be needed... cpa's will become obsolete for everything but the basics of payroll or purchase order/etc management.
But that short term loss is worth the long tern gain of revenue stream and reduction in fraud levels.
Cashizslick
!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!
Capt. Orygun
Win the Day
I am actually in favor of a flat tax, with small increases at certain income levels, and exceptions for things like unprepared foods, children's clothing in the month of August, college text books, etc.
Taxes do not just raise revenue, they prohibit action. Taxing income and capital gains prohibits earning and investment, taxing people at the cash register limits over consumption. The tax increases I mentioned before were an idea for how we could address the debt problem in using the current tax system.
As taxes prohibit actions, using a tariff on imported good is the best way to move American jobs back to America. B is correct that we do not produce enough products domestically to do this, and this is why the tariff should start small and increase annually. Companies, seeing the coming increases, will domesticate production even faster for the tax incentives, before the rate gets too high.
Taxes do not just raise revenue, they prohibit action. Taxing income and capital gains prohibits earning and investment, taxing people at the cash register limits over consumption. The tax increases I mentioned before were an idea for how we could address the debt problem in using the current tax system.
As taxes prohibit actions, using a tariff on imported good is the best way to move American jobs back to America. B is correct that we do not produce enough products domestically to do this, and this is why the tariff should start small and increase annually. Companies, seeing the coming increases, will domesticate production even faster for the tax incentives, before the rate gets too high.
Since WWII we haven't had this large of a revenue depletion vs spending ever. Revenue needs to go up. Spending needs to go down. THAT's the bottom line.
You can be like every fucking corporation that is "posting record profits" by firing everyone and reducing costs, and putting out less product, or you can grow and take care of your members. American Citizens pay something like 45% of the taxes taken in each year. We also have had these huge stimulus and defense spending packages over the last decade we're fucked on interest on.
TARP worked out ok, besides the loopholes, and the minimal returns, but it worked out. OK. Hopefully we don't need a TARP II because for some reason I think the market is going to double dip if enough speculators speculate that it will and then create another oracle effect like they've been doing with fucking oil killing commodities.
You can be like every fucking corporation that is "posting record profits" by firing everyone and reducing costs, and putting out less product, or you can grow and take care of your members. American Citizens pay something like 45% of the taxes taken in each year. We also have had these huge stimulus and defense spending packages over the last decade we're fucked on interest on.
TARP worked out ok, besides the loopholes, and the minimal returns, but it worked out. OK. Hopefully we don't need a TARP II because for some reason I think the market is going to double dip if enough speculators speculate that it will and then create another oracle effect like they've been doing with fucking oil killing commodities.
UNDR8D
...has a job!
Fixed...Otherwise, that is a blatant falsehood. Imposing tariffs on imported goods is the best way to FORCE foreign ingenuity and stifle American ingenuity.
Just look at what happened to steel. When we imposed a tariff on imported (Japanese) steel, American companies became complacent, believing they had a clear marketplace advantage.
Meanwhile, the Japanese discovered and perfected new techniques that allowed them to produce better and cheaper steel, rendering the tariff obsolete.
The so-called rust belt knows this story all too well. What we really need is a BAN on any goods manufactured more than 50% foreign. That would force a lot of jobs back to America.
Last edited:
And if you do that, china, japan, maylasia, and every other country that relies on us to import their crap to make a living will bomb us within a week when their economy based on our imports becomes a thing of the past.
The only one who will profit will be ebay from the goods already here.
Samsung TV! Made in Tawian! $20,000! FREE SHIPPING!
The only one who will profit will be ebay from the goods already here.
Samsung TV! Made in Tawian! $20,000! FREE SHIPPING!
Capt. Orygun
Win the Day
Negative, on several fronts.
Japan has a very limited military, and since WWII has relied on us to protect them from China. Sino/Japanese relations are only slightly warmer than the Palestinians and the Israelites and the history is just as long. The Japanese won't turn on us regardless of the situation because we ARE their military.
China is trickier, but a look at their military industrial complex will tell you they have no designs on a conquest of the Americas. Their missile defense, Navy, and 80% of their Air Force are Vietnam era at best. They keep a small collection of top of the line MIG aircraft, and a ton of ICBMs and if you ask anyone who knows anything about IR they will tell you that is a defensive/deterrent posture. MAD is still very much alive and well, this is why we fight proxy wars and we keep our hands off anyone with nukes.
Consider the amount of shit we get from North Korea and Turkey, any other country would have been sacked and rebuilt by now, yet we tolerate them and its a funny thing, both of those countries have nukes! China will not bomb us because they know we will bomb back and vice versa. Every major war since the end of the back plague has been about gain and NOBODY gains in a nuclear exchange.
You need to read this book, it was one of my favorite IR reads.
Amazon.com: The Use of Force: Military Power and International Politics (9780742556706): Robert J. Art, Kenneth N. Waltz: Books
In regards to Malaysia: if you think they would ever attack us you are officially worse at IR than Sarah Palin dude...
Capt. Orygun
Win the Day
We just aren't going to agree and frankly I don't know how to say this without sounding like an ass-hat, but you need to read up on your IR. I am going to disengage here before I begin arguing on the internet. The world is full of opinionated people who haven't done their homework.
You have the right to your own opinions, just not your own reality.
Edit: On second thought, it isn't fair to leave you without an explination
What you fail see, is that the global economic status-quo has already produced an embargo against us, an embargo on production.
Your solution is to simply gut taxes and continue to consume but you fail to see a key element of trade relations: A country that spends but does not produce is liquidating its wealth, and if you don't believe me go read up on the UK's economic situation this time a century ago. It's the same story, only now we are playing the role of the UK and China is playing the role of America. In 1911 England was losing production to America and was trying to maintain the position of its currency as the global reserve... do you want to take a guess how that story ended?
Service economies do now grow, they slow attrition. Look at the Housing Bubble of 2007, the Tech Bubble of 2001, or the Manufacturing Bubble of 1991: In each case the economy went belly up because people caught on that while a lot of money was changing hands, not a whole lot of wealth was being produced on a global economy level.
If I produce and sell you a candy bar, and you sell it to your friend, and he sells it to his friend, our collective economy remains flat with one dollar and one candy bar (consider this metaphor as the housing bubble where we built and sold houses to ourselves). It is only when you sell that candy bar to the kids down the street that your economy actually builds wealth.
All this to say its a zero-sum game and we need to start selling candy to the kids down the street.
You have the right to your own opinions, just not your own reality.
Edit: On second thought, it isn't fair to leave you without an explination
What you fail see, is that the global economic status-quo has already produced an embargo against us, an embargo on production.
Your solution is to simply gut taxes and continue to consume but you fail to see a key element of trade relations: A country that spends but does not produce is liquidating its wealth, and if you don't believe me go read up on the UK's economic situation this time a century ago. It's the same story, only now we are playing the role of the UK and China is playing the role of America. In 1911 England was losing production to America and was trying to maintain the position of its currency as the global reserve... do you want to take a guess how that story ended?
Service economies do now grow, they slow attrition. Look at the Housing Bubble of 2007, the Tech Bubble of 2001, or the Manufacturing Bubble of 1991: In each case the economy went belly up because people caught on that while a lot of money was changing hands, not a whole lot of wealth was being produced on a global economy level.
If I produce and sell you a candy bar, and you sell it to your friend, and he sells it to his friend, our collective economy remains flat with one dollar and one candy bar (consider this metaphor as the housing bubble where we built and sold houses to ourselves). It is only when you sell that candy bar to the kids down the street that your economy actually builds wealth.
All this to say its a zero-sum game and we need to start selling candy to the kids down the street.
Last edited:
I don't get how this country works.
Most businesses in the last 8 years grew way faster then they ever have before and then popped and chit pulled back.
Businesses either laid off people, cut back pay across the board from owners down to the toilet bowl cleaners, and moved to smaller buildings, they made chit happen to stay in business.
This chit happens to the gov and got forbids if anyone takes a pay cut or gets fired.
It wont happen, so rather then fix the problem like any other company in the world, they need to figure out a way to make it work with magic money.
Most businesses in the last 8 years grew way faster then they ever have before and then popped and chit pulled back.
Businesses either laid off people, cut back pay across the board from owners down to the toilet bowl cleaners, and moved to smaller buildings, they made chit happen to stay in business.
This chit happens to the gov and got forbids if anyone takes a pay cut or gets fired.
It wont happen, so rather then fix the problem like any other company in the world, they need to figure out a way to make it work with magic money.
Capt. Orygun
Win the Day
In regards to the private sector, that's why the term bubble is used. People use the wrong words to describe what is happening: "My house decreased in value by 30%!" No it didn't, it was never worth what you purchased it for to begin with. That's why it's called a "bubble," it's 99% air and 1% substance. This is why Twain referred to the economic boom after the civil war, which basically ran until the great depression, as the "gilded age." Gilding is the process of overlaying a thin coat of gold over wood, and to the laymen it appears to be solid gold, yet it is not. Same thing happened with the 2001 tech bubble, etc. It looks better than it is and the second we get wise to it, pop!
As for the government refusing to shrink, this is perhaps one of the strongest arguments for stopping small government before it gets big. There is always resistance to the reduction of social structures. There was an amazing book written in the 1970's by a social psychologist, I don't remember the name, but it basically hypothesized that culture (I would argue to include government) is a construct that is designed to help us forget about out own mortality. Consider religion and nationalism: both ideas advance a theory that there is life, or at least that your life work will continue, after death.
They have done some amazing studies on it. In Arizona they took some 50 judges and divided them randomly. The test group was shown a series of reminders of their own death, over and over, the control group was not. Then, each group was asked to set bail in the case of a woman arrested for prostitution. The group who had been reminded of their death set a bail that was on average $400 higher than the control group (as prostitution challenges our mainstream culture). All this to say that people are protective of what they define as their culture and government is a part of that. It is far easier to keep it from getting to large and corrupt than to undo it. The founders understood this and this is why we have single member districts with plurality voting, it was thought to prevent corruption better than parliamentary system which is far more party based and thus subject to "good ole boys clubs." But now I'm rambling.
Cashizslick
!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!i!
We are at a point where both Keynesian and Classical theory hasnt solved 100% of the problems in any economy.
IF we want to fix things, we should look at Brazil and how they rehabilitated their economy.
IF we want to fix things, we should look at Brazil and how they rehabilitated their economy.
