227 posts
I know that taxing the hell out of small businesses is just about killing them up here. So requiring less taxes from them (maybe by creating fewer new Government jobs to offset this?) would allow them to hire more tax-paying employees.
I'm just guessing that for the same tax dollars that gives us one Government job, incentives might create more than one non-Government job and each one of those is a new tax payer (providing more tax dollars) as opposed to a Government employee who is actually a drain on our taxes.
I'm not against it and have to say it might or might not.
Government is just fucking out of control. I'm arguing for less government, and less government jobs. I know that sounds like a conservative stance, but government is so totally out of control, fucking large, that it really isn't a conservative stance today, imo.
Everyone in congress and the senate can suck shit balls.
I agree with the last part but who told you the other part.
In 2008 the U.S. governemnt took in over 5.5 trillion dollars. Thats twelve zeros.
$5,500,000,000,000
Think government is a little unable to control spending? Thats income taxes. That's a pretty considerable amount of funds to spend and add to our debt on top of that.
What do yo think should go to make things "smaller" and needing less tax $?
BINGEWOOD — May 05, 2010What do yo think should go to make things "smaller" and needing less tax $?
Hmm... how about, the interest on National Debt ( ;) ), Global War on Terror, Department of Homeland Security, Other Off-budget Discretionary Spending?
Certainly others should be smaller and I'm going to say all but one (so none will feel individually offended ;D ) could be run at FAR higher efficiency (remember when only 28% of HUD money actually went to good use? The rest was lost to "overhead!").
I'm not in favor of dropping Medicare, but here's a example of why I want less government involvement and less government period.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/medicare-fraud-costs-taxpayers-60-billion-year/story?id=10126555
Hookbender — May 05, 2010
In 2008 the U.S. governemnt took in over 5.5 trillion dollars. Thats twelve zeros.
$5,500,000,000,000
Think government is a little unable to control spending? Thats income taxes. That's a pretty considerable amount of funds to spend and add to our debt on top of that.
Actually, the budget for 2008 was 2.9 trillion, exactly half of what you said. And we took in 2.1 trillion in taxes, which sounds like a lot, except when you realize that our GDP in 2008 was 14 trillion, which works out to 6%.
I'm interested in where you got your numbers.
Hookbender — May 05, 2010I'm not in favor of dropping Medicare, but here's a example of why I want less government involvement and less government period.
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/medicare-fraud-costs-taxpayers-60-billion-year/story?id=10126555
You support medicaid, but you think less government would help lower the amount of fraud? I think it might be nice to spend $1 or $2 billion and eliminate $30 or $40 billion of that fraud. I doubt that reducing the amount of government is going to help anything.
The thing that would help us the most is the elimination of greed. Since that is not possible, we have to deal with government as the way to run our country and to keep people from trying to fuck everyone else.
A closer look at the GDP report from last week...
This encapsulates a lot of what I am seeing as well.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/05/closer-look-at-fridays-gdp-report.html
I think you guys just like to say "big government" as a pub buzzword. Everyone wants more efficiency and no fraud, It's like saying "I love babies!"...this is what all politicians do.
I know. I always love seeing these guys who want nothing more to be in big government, for a 6-year stretch, 3 or 4 times in a row, talking about how big and bad the government is. If you are so against it, why become a part of it? Reality is none of them get into politics to help people. They all get in so they can steer big government money towards their friends, meet bureaucrats who can help them make more money, and so they can swing a stick once in a while.
charger — May 05, 2010[quote author=Hookbender link=1272178696/100#104 date=1273031453]
In 2008 the U.S. governemnt took in over 5.5 trillion dollars. Thats twelve zeros.
$5,500,000,000,000
Think government is a little unable to control spending? Thats income taxes. That's a pretty considerable amount of funds to spend and add to our debt on top of that.
Actually, the budget for 2008 was 2.9 trillion, exactly half of what you said. And we took in 2.1 trillion in taxes, which sounds like a lot, except when you realize that our GDP in 2008 was 14 trillion, which works out to 6%.
I'm interested in where you got your numbers.
Holy shit that was messed up. I should have double checked my info. Your correct. My bad on that.!! I couldn't find the site I got the info on but during the search I did see your correct. Sorry about that!!!
So did gov just get half as "big" in your mind?
"You support medicaid, but you think less government would help lower the amount of fraud? I think it might be nice to spend $1 or $2 billion and eliminate $30 or $40 billion of that fraud. I doubt that reducing the amount of government is going to help anything."
Yes, I am in favor of medicaid. It helps tons of people. I thought about your next point also and it makes me see how fucking stupid our government is with our money. Why the fuck haven't they thought about trying that simple little experiment?
When you add a program run by the government they have to have people to run it, as you know. More departments etc. Government grows along with the cost of running the government meaning more taxes needed to cover it.
My point is simply this. Government kinda acts like Bush did in Iraq. Saddam has nukes, lets bomb and fuck up Iraq right now.....then later, holy shit, how do we get out of this mess? The governemnt comes up with good ideas and creates some good programs, but can't manage them worth a shit, as my example shows. This fraud, or fraud attempts, should have been considered or at least addressed years ago. Why let this shit go on and on is beyond me. I'm not down on the program, just the management of the programs.
Government proves it can't run shit daily. Look at the post office failure. Yet we keep letting them start and run all these programs knowing full well they are incompetent as fuck. Same shit with Bush. If you can't run a damn business, why the fuck can we expect him to run the country effectively?
BINGEWOOD — May 05, 2010So did gov just get half as "big" in your mind?
No. My incorrect figure was just closer to what government spends every year then to what they take in. ;D
Bush pushed a pub agenda and congress went with it with love, especially from the other pubs. Gov acted exactly like bush ie. they sent in the bombs.
Is it gov or americans gaming the system that you're mad at in your example.
and whats the Post Office failure...private companies getting into the mix?
Here's something I like that Obama's doing. Good start!!!!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-announces-new-effort-crack-down-waste-and-fraud
Hookbender — May 05, 2010
Government proves it can't run shit daily. Look at the post office failure. Yet we keep letting them start and run all these programs knowing full well they are incompetent as fuck. Same shit with Bush. If you can't run a damn business, why the fuck can we expect him to run the country effectively?
I don't agree with this part. I don't think the post office failed, I think we outgrew it.
The way I see it, there were a number of factors that contributed to the problems with the post office.
1) We decided to guarantee mail delivery to every person in the US. That, in itself, is a noble and worthy goal... when it was 1775.
2) Email.
3) Ebay.
So factor 1, guaranteed email, means we need a mail delivery staff that can handle 300 million people. That is a staggering amount of people to deliver to 6 days a week.
Factor 2 is email. With the massive rise in electronic communication, a very large portion of the need for the post has gone away. Who needs to write a letter and wait 3 or 4 days for it to reach your relatives across the country? Hell, you can chat with them live right now, or send an email and have it arrive in 30 milliseconds. With reduced demand comes reduced income.
Factor 3, is what I loosely call "ebay" though it's really the fact that you can buy anything and everything online. With the rise of online shopping, the need for mass package deliveries has increased exponentially. The post office was never well equipped for day-in day-out mass package delivery. UPS and FedEx could compete on price where the USPS really could not.
So factor 1 makes it cost a lot, factor 2 makes it need to not be used much and thus make less money, and factor 3 has made it much more viable for other companies to do the heavy lifting. Meanwhile, the post office struggles by, trying to let us send mail for 37 cents or whatever. I question the need for a nationwide postage system, but I don't believe it's a failure of government... the postal service did a fantastic job for over 200 years. But time marches on, and the things we needed 200 years ago don't mean so much now. There's not much else that has done so well in this country for 200 years...
BINGEWOOD — May 05, 2010Bush pushed a pub agenda and congress went with it with love, especially from the other pubs. Gov acted exactly like bush ie. they sent in the bombs.
Is it gov or americans gaming the system that you're mad at in your example.
and whats the Post Office failure...private companies getting into the mix?
Fair question! I'm not mad, just concerned. IMO, if your gonna start a program then you should have checks and balances built in. You should have a effective way to eliminate those who take advantage of the program. Some will still get away with shit. But 50 or 60 billion dollars we know about???? Thats just neglect and incompetence.
No clue in how to respond to the post office thing. I don't have a clue as to what your asking me?
Read the last post by charger.
But I'm guessing money would be spent to track down the fraud, mebee some more employees as well...what about the fraud/inside dealing/price gauging in mil buying? I mean if yer gunna set up a program...
BINGEWOOD — May 05, 2010Read the last post by charger.
I did. He may be right.
But I don't care about the past. I care about this.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/02/news/economy/usps/
Charger
"I don't agree with this part. I don't think the post office failed, I think we outgrew it. "
O.K., we outgrew it. It became a failure. And it's a governemnt run program that is now a failure. Whatever choice of word you care to use is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that it's failing big time. Government programs are littered with abuse that cost shit loads of money paid by tax payers. Thats the problem. No built in security that works at all. Maybe this thing with Obama will do some damage. But with 98 billion in fraud and the ecpected return from his effort being 2 billion in 3 years, if I read that right, much left on the table. But its a start!!!
A self-supporting government enterprise, the U.S. Postal Service is the only delivery service that reaches every address in the nation 150 million residences, businesses and Post Office boxes. The Postal Service receives no tax dollars. With 36,000 retail locations and the most frequently visited website in the federal government, the Postal Service relies on the sale of postage, products and services to pay for operating expenses. Named the Most Trusted Government Agency 5 consecutive years and the sixth Most Trusted Business in the nation by the Ponemon Institute, the Postal Service has annual revenue of more than $68 billion and delivers nearly half the worlds mail. If it were a private sector company, the U.S. Postal Service would rank 26th in the 2008 Fortune 500.
Did you read yer article?
the Postal Service relies on the sale of postage, products and services to pay for operating expenses.
And who picks up the tab when they lose billions of dollars? When the sale of those services and postage don't cover the tab?
BINGEWOOD — May 05, 2010Did you read yer article?
Well yeah. Here's more losses, from the article.
"USPS has already begun taking the axe to its budget. The agency made $6 billion in cuts last year, reducing its workforce by about 40,000 employees and chopping overtime hours, transportation costs and other expenses. Congress passed legislation allowing the organization to cut retiree health benefit payments by $4 billion."
"Despite those measures, the agency still expects a net loss of $7.8 billion in fiscal 2010. "
Seems the good ole governemnt stands in the way of modernizing the post office as well. Expanding into other markets. Fine job they do.
Fine job they did in 1970?
Hookbender — May 05, 2010[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1272178696/100#121 date=1273101909]Read the last post by charger.
I did. He may be right.
But I don't care about the past. I care about this.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/03/02/news/economy/usps/
Charger
"I don't agree with this part. I don't think the post office failed, I think we outgrew it. "
O.K., we outgrew it. It became a failure. And it's a governemnt run program that is now a failure. Whatever choice of word you care to use is fine, but it doesn't change the fact that it's failing big time. Government programs are littered with abuse that cost shit loads of money paid by tax payers. Thats the problem. No built in security that works at all. Maybe this thing with Obama will do some damage. But with 98 billion in fraud and the ecpected return from his effort being 2 billion in 3 years, if I read that right, much left on the table. But its a start!!!
Yeah, they are talking about eliminating Saturday delivery, and I think they probably should. And raise postage prices too.
But there is no denying that the USPS has been an unqualified success. I can't think of another business established in the 1790's, and used by every person in the country, that has been so incredibly successful. The fact is, it's been over 200 years, and now the postal service has become less relevant, and more costly to run. You have to realize that even a 10% drop off in mail is catastrophic to them... we stop sending letters, but the postal service still goes to every freaking residence... they just have to do it on a 10% smaller revenue stream. So they can raise postage prices, and they can cut down delivery days. That's really all they can do.
But it doesn't appear to be a failure of a government organization to me. In fact, it's pretty much a shining success. If your company stayed in business for even 50 years, no one could call you anything but an amazing success. Imagine being in business, and delivering your product to every person in the country, for
220 years. That's un-freakin-believable.
Would you be okay with them changing their standards? Not guaranteeing delivery to everyone in the country? If they did that, like UPS or Fed Ex, they could make a lot of headway. The problem is, they do guarantee delivery to everyone. It's not a matter of a systemic failure, it is 100% an issue of volume. The less mail we send, the more it costs them to reach everyone.
Would you be okay with going to a central depot to pick up your mail in your town? Or do you like having it delivered to your house?
I seriously am having a hard time finding any merit in your argument.
From your article:
The challenges hurting USPS's bottom line reflect a "macro change in society," Postmaster General Jack Potter said at a press conference Monday previewing the proposed changes. "All posts around the world are challenged, just as we are, by the diversion of hard copy to electronic medium."
And from an article linked from your article:
Mail use is in epic decline. It peaked in 2006 with 213 billion pieces of mail and the Postal Service projects it will fall to 170 billion in 2010. The Internet has presented a structural change in the way people communicate and do business (for example, the rise in online bill payments), but the recession has also eaten into profits since companies have been cutting back their direct-mail advertising budgets.
He doesn't care about the past, just less taxes. Dunno how much less taxes would be after the "major cuts" suggested here tho...
I LOVE BABIES!!!
charger — May 06, 2010Would you be okay with them changing their standards? Not guaranteeing delivery to everyone in the country? If they did that, like UPS or Fed Ex, they could make a lot of headway. The problem is, they do guarantee delivery to everyone. It's not a matter of a systemic failure, it is 100% an issue of volume. The less mail we send, the more it costs them to reach everyone.
Would you be okay with going to a central depot to pick up your mail in your town? Or do you like having it delivered to your house?
I seriously am having a hard time finding any merit in your argument.
Well, I see your point regardless of what you think about mine. I think, today, the postal service is another failed governemnt program. I think that government run anything usually bites the tax payer in the ass. I think we pay plenty of taxes for government to run what they need too without huge debts to other countries. I think government is to big and like everyone else today, they should be cutting back rather than expanding and trying to be everyone's, including business, bail out system.
I don't believe for a second that the fault of this mess we're in is Bush and the republicans fault alone. That doesn't mean anything other than what it says, by the way.
We don't agree on these issues, and more than likely we never will.
The end. ;D
privatize the postal service. would do wonders i bet
It's a shame they waited till this point to try to do something about it. When it's almost to late.
BINGEWOOD — May 06, 2010He doesn't care about the past, just less taxes. Dunno how much less taxes would be after the "major cuts" suggested here tho...
I LOVE BABIES!!!
Well, you don't have to worry about less taxes, ain't goona happen. And you and I, and probably everyone here, will be dead for years by the time they get this debt back in line. But hey, just let the government keep spending, keep growing and adding programs, adding to the debt and printing money....and watch where that leads. There is no lagit argument to defend these actions that I know of.
Why worry? The World's supposed to end in two and a half years anyway (the day before my birthday damn it! ;D ).
Two and a half, exactly? Hell, think I'll get a divorve and move to Thailand...have a little fun on the way out, ya know. ;D ;D
Just don't have Caradine levels of fun.
Did you see this shit?
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=dw-taylorarrest050610
how about this shit
Hookbender — May 07, 2010Did you see this shit?
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=dw-taylorarrest050610
That's just sad - could have had it all, but pissed it all away...
Now Greece fucking up Wall Street is a totally different situation!
13 billion share blunder to computer avalanche or just a lil shock test...
Hookbender — May 06, 2010[quote author=BINGEWOOD link=1272178696/125#134 date=1273115493]He doesn't care about the past, just less taxes. Dunno how much less taxes would be after the "major cuts" suggested here tho...
I LOVE BABIES!!!
Well, you don't have to worry about less taxes, ain't goona happen. And you and I, and probably everyone here, will be dead for years by the time they get this debt back in line. But hey, just let the government keep spending, keep growing and adding programs, adding to the debt and printing money....and watch where that leads. There is no lagit argument to defend these actions that I know of.
Maybe if you are not planning to live very long. We had much higher ratios of debt to GDP in the mid-40's, and brought it back down to manageable levels in 15-20 years.
Everyone always thinks this is the first time anything has happened.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Oh, your guess is 15 to 20 years. I feel so much better now. ;) Might tell Obama and company to quit spending right now if you want to be correct in your guess. ;D
"Since 1970, the U.S. Federal Government has run deficits for all but four years (1998-2001) contributing to a total debt of $12.7 trillion as of March 2010."
Now that's a cute figure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
No, I don't know much about this subject. But that is damn scary to me.
Interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
If you are worried by debt - the conclusion is don't let republicans back in power for 20 years.