Timewaster's Guide Archive
General => Everything Else => Topic started by: Reaves on February 22, 2009, 01:19:34 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090221/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_budget)
As the article says, "a lofty goal". One I think is impossible. However, I am all for scaling government down. He says he wants to scale back spending and improve government efficiency by eliminating programs that don't work.
What do you guys think? Is it probable? Is it even possible? Are the ways he says he will do it effective or beneficial means?
-
Whether probable or possible, it is necessary.
That said, I don't see how he thinks he'll be able to do this while he goes throwing cash out left and right to subsidize this and that. This recent stimulus package includes a HUGE subsidy for Cobra—individuals and businesses who pay for their own health insurance gain nothing (including the self-employed), but individuals who have lost their jobs get a massive subsidy to their healthcare—often making it less expensive than healthcare for people who pay for their own.
Essentially it's a big money-sink for the government which does not help the economy at all, but which does help unemployed folks keep health insurance (in fact, it reduces one incentive they might have had to get back to work). With Obama passing these sorts of programs left and right, I don't see how he thinks he's going to be able to reduce the deficit.
-
We're unable to get health insurance that's not through Cobra. When we applied to plans that would have halved our costs, we got rejected for reasons of preexisting conditions. So it's either $710 per month for Cobra, or no health insurance at all. Seems to me any help for Cobra people is to help them pay for health insurance, not to help the economy. But last I heard, we fall outside the Cobra help window because we started on it in July. Arrgh.
However, this is hardly the Obama administration's last word on health insurance. It's just a stopgap to help people out of a job, not any kind of long-term solution. I'm interested to see what actually happens.
Obama is not the first government official to talk about saving money by eliminating inefficiency. Has anyone been able to do it before? Dunno, maybe if they hadn't tried, our government would be even more wasteful now than it is. It seems pretty hard to get the government to be very efficient just because it is so darn massive—and even a "small" government in the eyes of any major politician is still going to have to be huge because there are tons of people in this country.
He does seem serious about it, though, making it a point in his inaugural address to talk about eliminating programs that don't work.
-
yes, I am curious as to how this will line up with his other policies. Even if he succeeds in decreasing the deficit by more than $ 500 billion, it still doesn't match the money spent in the stimulus bill...
Also, I am curious where most of the money that will go towards the deficit is coming from. Bush's tax cuts for those making $250, ooo will expire in 2011, and Obama also says he wants to raise taxes on "the rich" (don't know where that starts, although he may have defined it somewhere else) by 4%, from 35% to 39%.
-
Where will he get the money? It's called tax increases. And if we think the economy is bad now, just wait until he does that.
-
while reducing the defecit is, naturally, a good thing, i don't know if right now is the opportune time to do so. But I'm not the one calling the shots, so we'll see.
-
Right now, the US goverment spends approximatley 10% of its revenues servicing the debt (i.e., on interest). It is critically important that we reduce the deficit and then debt as quickly as possible, before we end up spending higher and higher percentages on interest, and the government has to raise more and more taxes, or go deeper and deeper in debt, just to keep service the same.
-
Obama's proposed budget has a decificit of FOUR TIMES the previous RECORD. The man is going to ruin our country if he keeps this up:
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Obama_budget_calls_for_record_US_deficit?curid=121593
-
Yes, but how does it compare to previous years' deficits as a percentage of national GDP? (I don't know, and I'm going to bed so I'm not looking it up.) I think that's a more useful statistic than just the raw dollar amount.
Also if he quadruples it this year that makes it easy to cut it in half (compared to this year) within a few years like he wants to do, right? And you were wondering how he could pull it off.
-
Heh, yes, quadruple the deficit (or worse), and then cut it in half. Piece of cake!
-
I learned that one of the ways he is going to lower the deficit is by decreasing the amount those making over 250,000 get in tax returns...for CHARITY. He says the amount of money that charities are losing will be given back to them by the government.
...
So the charities are getting the same amount...the government is spending the same amount...and the rich people lose money. And that is if every dollar the government gives towards the charities actually make it to the charities, and none are spent on accounting etc.
Hooray for Robin Hood!
-
His plans are just starting to sound dumber and dumber by the minute.
-
Huzzah! For change!
Your's or mine?
-
To say that I'm not thrilled about Obama's current budget plan is a severe understatement. I read that over the next decade, the national debt will double under this plan. ...That...that couldn't possibly have any horrible ramifications...
I was hoping Obama would be smarter than this.
-
It's been worse.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e0/US_Federal_Debt%28gross%29.JPG/450px-US_Federal_Debt%28gross%29.JPG)
-
The thing is that in order to decrease the deficit we have to get rid of a lot of useless spending. In order to do that we need to terminate hundreds of ineffective programs that are currently running within the system.
The only problem is that in order to stop those programs we have to first spend money to eliminate them, which will save money in the long run.
On the charity issue. Many many rich people donate to charities only to have the government give them back a huge chunk of that money every year in their taxes. The goal here is to cut how much money these rich people get back and hope that they still make donations to charities and the government will instead use that money to make sure that charities still receive a similar amount of money to that which they had already been receiving. In the end (assuming that the wealthy don't just horde their money after the amount they get back is decreased) the government will actually save money by paying differences to charities rather than paying back to the rich.
About him "doubling" the deficit. Most of this is political propaganda. People who don't want him in office are going to use his "spend now to kill cost later" plans to make him look really bad.
I personally voted for Obama and have a lot of faith in him that he will come through with things and that he will put the country in a better position than it is now.
-
I haven't seen any evidence that the extra money spent is for eliminating programs. You're the first person I've seen say that, actually.
What I've heard is that it's Keynesian economics and the government will make it up later from increased tax revenues after we as a country stop collectively panicking.
I have also heard vague plans about eliminating programs (not in the context of the budget increase) but no details, and politicians have been promising for years to cut costs and eliminate waste. I'm still waiting. The presidential helicopter thing does seem like a good start, even if it's largely symbolic. It's a good symbol though.
-
I generally agree with Ookla. And Miyabi, Obama quadrupling the record deficit for this year is not simply "political propoganda". Obama's budget is way out of whack.
I couldn't tell you whether or not we're looking to double the national debt, but assuming we are, and assuming government income were to remain the same over the next four years (it may grow some, or even shrink some, depending on how the recession goes), we could be spending 20% of our taxes simply financing the the debt. At the moment, we spend approximately 10% of ALL government income on financing the national debt.
The more we spend financing the debt, the less money we have to spend on productive programs for Americans, and the higher we pay in taxes.
In my opinion, ANY deficit is not an option right now.
-
Since this budget is mostly a patched-up version of the budget that Bush wasn't going to sign last year, it probably doesn't represent Obama's real vision of a good budget. I think we'll see next year what he really wants, with a budget that's taken months to plan out and arrange the details. I'm guessing it's probably going to still be very Keynesian, but it may be better than this year's, which I guess we're stuck with since they're in a hurry to pass it.
-
I have a friend/coworker here (non-mormon) who forsees a complete finantial debacle due to Obama's finantial plans, which will lead to the country electing Romney 4 years from now because of the man's strong background in economics/finance.
I hope that bigger changes are in store for next year. It could be that it is too soon to drastically rehaul the system, so he had to make some (on the surface) unsound decisions in order to make his plans work next year.
I 'll wait and hope. (All I can do really)
-
I think its rather ironic that Obama says he will get rid of some programs that waste money and then a couple of weeks later signs a bill that authorizes federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells show little to no benefit over adult stem cells, but to appease the Michal J Foxes of the world who don't mind taking another life to better theirs. I'm sorry if this is a touchy issue but it really makes me angry that he undid all the pro-life laws that Bush put into action with just a couple swipes of his pen.
-
I think its rather ironic that Obama says he will get rid of some programs that waste money and then a couple of weeks later signs a bill that authorizes federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells show little to no benefit over adult stem cells, but to appease the Michal J Foxes of the world who don't mind taking another life to better theirs. I'm sorry if this is a touchy issue but it really makes me angry that he undid all the pro-life laws that Bush put into action with just a couple swipes of his pen.
Not to start up a debate about it, or say you're wrong or anything, but you do know that most of all stem cells used in embryonic stem cell testing are the by products of in vitro fertility treatments and procedures that are all ready done in the first place?
What this means: Almost all stem cell research comes from left over embryotic tissue from other procedures and experiments that are ALL READY being done, and have nothing barring and/or otherwise stopping them that gets either stored away long past its expectancy to even be viable to grow, or destroyed and disposed of anyways.
In other words: Stem cell research uses what is generally thrown away as garbage from other things, and has nothing to do with abortions. In fact, the most common procedure that produces it is making the proverbial "Test-tube baby". The left overs are what goes to stem cell research.
-
Not to start up a debate about it, or say you're wrong or anything, but you do know that most of all stem cells used in embryonic stem cell testing are the by products of in vitro fertility treatments and procedures that are all ready done in the first place?
What this means: Almost all stem cell research comes from left over embryotic tissue from other procedures and experiments that are ALL READY being done, and have nothing barring and/or otherwise stopping them that gets either stored away long past its expectancy to even be viable to grow, or destroyed and disposed of anyways.
In other words: Stem cell research uses what is generally thrown away as garbage from other things, and has nothing to do with abortions. In fact, the most common procedure that produces it is making the proverbial "Test-tube baby". The left overs are what goes to stem cell research.
I both agree and disagree with your statement. I know that some of these embryos are not viable for implantation, but some are. when they "create" these embryos they make too many so they can weed out the non-viable ones and they almost always have some left over. This is where some of the abortion debate comes in. wether a fertilized egg is considered a baby or not. most pro lifers say yes but the pro abortionists say no.
I personally say these fertilized eggs are babies and most are viable for implant. there are actually embryo adoption programs out there for left over embryos.
This issue can be debated very heatedly by both sides of the issue, however the life or non life of the embryo is not the only problem. The fact that we are or will be spending our tax dollars on something that has been proven not to work. There is a reason there is such a push to get federal funding, its because there are very few privet groups that are willing to spend their money on something that will not profit them.
-
well, i'm by no means arguing that for the most part (at least at this stage) it currently has really nothing to offer. Adult stem cells so far *have* proven quite better at being functional and easier to use. i don't know if this stems from the fact that research could be stunted on the embryonic side because of the debates and legislation and all, or if it just plain has nothing to offer. Only time will tell in this respect if it's allowed to continue.
I believe the pro side to this argument however is basically that. It's something like "Sure, it has pretty much nothing to offer...right *NOW*. Who's to say what the future holds?". There are alot of things that can be theorized they can be used for, which is why there's relevant interest in seeing research continue. What these are, i've no clue.
-
By that argument, should the government fund all programs that have potential to have some benefit, maybe? Or should we let scientists and doctors show a potential that is worth the investment? Should the government even get involved at all? It is a purely political and symbolic gesture to the Pro-Choice movement. It is a waste of our money.
Miyabi - Please forgive me if I sound condescending, but how on Earth does what you wrote make sense? People get tax breaks for giving to charity, which decreases the amount of aid the Government needs to give to people who need these charities (and they always get back less than what they give). Now we are going to reduce the money that is given back, then use that money to give to charities that receive less money because people get less money back? Do you see how that is foolish? Not only would people donate less, but the governments increased involvement would mean a percentage of the money that used to go to the charities would now support the additional Bureaucrats needed to "manage" this program. Government involvement is the problem. Obama is exactly what he was advertised to be; a socialist liberal who thinks the government should run everyone's life and control all the money. He says things should be fair, but what is fair about someone else deciding what you should do with your hard earned money? It amazes me that the repeated failures of this type of system do not deter the idealistic shut-ins who continue to push it. Our system works because it encourages progress, and encourages earning your way. If we take that away, we are screwed.
-
It is a purely political and symbolic gesture to the Pro-Choice movement. It is a waste of our money.
I wouldn't say that. Until very recently, embryonic stem cells were working much better at differentiating into various types of body cells than adult or spinal stem cells were. The push for allowing embryonic stem cells for purely scientific reasons had a lot of momentum which has persisted even though adult stem cell research has come a long way in the meantime. I believe Obama has made this decision for scientific reasons, even though his science may be a bit behind.
-
Miyabi - Please forgive me if I sound condescending, but how on Earth does what you wrote make sense? People get tax breaks for giving to charity, which decreases the amount of aid the Government needs to give to people who need these charities (and they always get back less than what they give). Now we are going to reduce the money that is given back, then use that money to give to charities that receive less money because people get less money back? Do you see how that is foolish? Not only would people donate less, but the governments increased involvement would mean a percentage of the money that used to go to the charities would now support the additional Bureaucrats needed to "manage" this program. Government involvement is the problem. Obama is exactly what he was advertised to be; a socialist liberal who thinks the government should run everyone's life and control all the money. He says things should be fair, but what is fair about someone else deciding what you should do with your hard earned money? It amazes me that the repeated failures of this type of system do not deter the idealistic shut-ins who continue to push it. Our system works because it encourages progress, and encourages earning your way. If we take that away, we are screwed.
In my American History class I read a fascinating original source document written by James Madison as President, in a letter to Congress, explaining why giving $15,000 (about 150,000 today) to French refugees fleeing the Revolution in their own country was unconstitional. I wonder what he would have said to welfare, health insurance, etc...as for government giving to charity he probably would have just laughed.
-
Or gotten angry. I think Jefferson would have been furious.
-
Ook, you are forgetting that the foremost scientist in Embryonic stem cell research turned out to be falsifying his research (he was a Korean doctor but I don't remember his name). Most of the promise relayed turned out to be fabricated. I work for a BioTech company, and we are willing to invest 10 to 15 years worth of R&D to bring just one drug to market (it often takes that long). Yet, we are not even touching stem cell research of any kind. Very few companies are, in fact. Why? Because it is about 50 years away. Believe me, if this was as promising as the proponents say, Biopharma companies would be pouring money into to try to reap the benefits of the miracle drugs that can allegedly be produced.
Now, with specific regard for embryonic stem cells. Has anyone stopped to consider what would be necessary if a breakthrough was discovered? The treatments may require huge numbers of embryos in order to maintain demand. Where are those going to come from? You can't clone the same group forever, so new lines would need to be established. Seeing that stem cells from other sources are 1) easier to come by 2)just as, if not more promising, and 3)Do not spark controversy and debate, then I stand by my belief that the reversal of the federal funding ban is a waste of money and a political ploy.
-
Darxbane - You aren't seeing the point. The point is, either way the money is being given back to the people. The point is that hopefully the people will keep giving to the charities, so we won't have to give as much back to the people. The only problem is the small amount that isn't given now because people stop because they won't get major tax breaks for it. If the people continue to give the same amount then the government doesn't have to push out as much money as it was before.
-
I fail to see how this helps ANY money get "given back to the people". Most of these decisions lately are going to end up costing us people (read tax-payers) more money in the form of higher taxes.
-
The government already pumps out a lot of money. This plan's goal is to decrease how much is sent out.
-
darxbane, the Korean fraud was about Hwang Woo-Suk faking cloning embryonic stem cells from adult DNA. That's not the same thing as most standard embryonic stem cell research.
Also, according to Wikipedia the cell lines don't run out because stem cells do not have a Hayflick limit.
Stem cells do not lead to drugs. Stem cells are a completely different type of treatment that is antithetical to drug companies' "get people on a drug that they have to pay for over and over again and then invent a slightly different drug that you say is better right when the patent on the old drug runs out" system.
As for it being 50 years off, I dunno...there are clinical trials already happening. 50 years is a long time.
I don't work in the industry and don't pretend to know all about it, but I think you're overstating it a bit.
-
The majority of Stem Cell research is being done by private companies. As competition in the field begins to grow it will speed up development and decrease prices for treatments.
That is just my speculation though.
-
The majority of stem cell research is being done by Universities, not private companies. Besides, since I feel the private sector does a better job funding money than the government, I'm not a big fan of them funding anything so broadly. Just google this subject and you will see that many research facilities are worried that Obama's lift on the ban is going to cause private investors to pull their money now that the Feds are involved, especially if their taxes will be going up. I have more on this, but will save it for another post.
Miyabi - I am seeing the point quite clearly. You are saying that people should give more to the government and keep giving the same amount away to charities. Why? They earned it, and the government certainly hasn't proven they can do better with it. Besides, rewarding people for being charitable saves the government much more money than they give back. The fact is that many people (especially those of average income) will not donate as much money to charities if Uncle Sam is picking their pocket. They will begin to expect the government to take care of it instead. People are already taxed seven different ways to Sunday, and unless your an Obama pick for a Cabinet seat, you have to actually pay them. Have you not yet realized that the more money you give the government, the more things you expect them to control, the less control you have over your life.
-
Where did I say that people were giving more to the government? I said the government is giving people who donate to charity less. Which won't hurt their pockets at all. I never said to give more to the government.
Also there is a lot being done in privatizing stem cell research.
-
About the charities... I don't really understand why anyone could think that taking choice and money away from the private sector and giving more money to the government, which is historically proven to be absolutely terrible at managing money, could be a good idea.
-
As the silly adage goes: "If you're democrat, you have no brain. If you're Republican, you have no heart."
-
I guess that makes me Dorothy or Toto because I'm Independent.....
-
As the silly adage goes: "If you're democrat, you have no brain. If you're Republican, you have no heart."
:(
I'm all for charities, believe me :D But I doubt they will be getting much more money than they were getting before...
Not only that but this takes some choice away from private citizens. The portion of the money that the government is using to give will not be given to the charity of their choice, but rather who Congress decides it should go to.
-
Exactly. Miyabi, by the government giving back less, they are keeping more, which means that more of our tax dollars are used by the government. By reducing charitable tax deductions, you are giving the government more money. Of course, if you want to discuss how the tax system in general should be simplified to prevent all of this foolishness, I am willing.
-
I personally believe that we need a libertarian government, but I also don't think that the majority of the people in this country couldn't deal with it. Too many people rely on the money they get from the government.
-
Hey, don't knock it 'til you've tried it.
-
Exactly. Miyabi, by the government giving back less, they are keeping more, which means that more of our tax dollars are used by the government. By reducing charitable tax deductions, you are giving the government more money. Of course, if you want to discuss how the tax system in general should be simplified to prevent all of this foolishness, I am willing.
By reducing how much is put out by the government now, we can reduce how much it takes in later. Eventually making it so that people can live their lives without having to rely on money being distributed by the government and thus, at some point in the future, we can significantly decrease the amount of power that the government has without causing large amounts of people to become homeless/lost/strongly effected by the decrease in power.
-
I fully support reducing government spending!
...which is exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing...
-
You can't just kill the spending. By cutting it off you would just be breaking old promises made as well as causing a lot of problems from organizations that are expecting the money.
If you spend now in the effort to later not have to put out that money then you can make progress towards finally being able to cut the spending.
EXAMPLE:
I personally think that we need to eliminate the Social Security program, but so many people have put money in they would be angry that they didn't get back from the government. Also many people would not know how to live without that money, causing many families, most importantly, children who don't deserve it, to become homeless. BUT if we started putting out money to these people now with the knowledge that now they get more than they were before and that it will only last for a while and then we will cut it off. Then we could focus on paying back to the other people who have already put into it. Eventually causing us to be able to eliminate the program.
-
You can't just kill the spending. By cutting it off you would just be breaking old promises made as well as causing a lot of problems from organizations that are expecting the money.
If you spend now in the effort to later not have to put out that money then you can make progress towards finally being able to cut the spending.
EXAMPLE:
I personally think that we need to eliminate the Social Security program, but so many people have put money in they would be angry that they didn't get back from the government. Also many people would not know how to live without that money, causing many families, most importantly, children who don't deserve it, to become homeless. BUT if we started putting out money to these people now with the knowledge that now they get more than they were before and that it will only last for a while and then we will cut it off. Then we could focus on paying back to the other people who have already put into it. Eventually causing us to be able to eliminate the program.
Miyabi, I could be taking your example out of context, but SS is mainly for retirement. Yes, there are survivor benefits, but most are given on a limited time frame anyway.
EDIT: Also disability benefits.
The problem with a lot of (or even just some of) these people is that they feel they deserve it. So no matter what happens they're gonna pretty mad if (when) the money stops coming in. And while some of these governmental programs actually help some people, they also hurt others. I've seen so much wasted potential flushed away because these individuals had no motivation to better themselves. Even if warning is given, many people will be in dire straights anyway. If they can't manage their money now why would they later? I'd much rather give someone a hand-up, not a hand-out.
-
I don't disagree, but you need to remember that Obama is significantly INCREASING spending.
-
Social Security is a retirement program. Only people who work for a certain number of years paying into the program specifically are able to collect benefits when they reach a certain age. The only people for whom it was a true handout were people who were already retired in 1935. They are now dead.
If you cut it off, millions of people who count on it because they paid into it all their lives will have no income and won't be able to eat and will die.
-
I know at least two dozen people who don't work and don't have disabilities who don't work who manage to get SSI every month. There are hundreds of thousands of people who do this.
-
Well, if that's happening (and those people are below age 65), then obviously the whole program is worthless and we should throw it out? Um, I don't think that's what it means. If people are abusing the system, what needs to happen is reform, not throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
(Note that we come back around to Obama's goals of eliminating waste in government programs.)
-
Just so everyone is clear, SSI (Supplemental Security Income) is not the same thing as Social Security retirement benefits, survivor benefits, or disability benefits. It's funded by general tax revenues rather than Social Security taxes. The confusion comes partly from the similarity of acronyms, and partly because SSI is administered by the Social Security Administration.
I agree that we have far too many, and too extensive, entitlement programs; I see this as the largest single reason for the growing national debt. However, as others have pointed out, it's very difficult to curtail a benefit once people come to believe that they have earned it, paid for it, and that it's been promised to them. They come to depend on it, they make other financial decisions in the expectation of it, and it is not fair to deprive them of it - especially without adequate warning.
Aside from fairness, the other reason we can't get rid of entitlement programs is that our country has a bit of the compassion shared by most developed nations. Few of us believe that our government ought to let people within its borders starve as a natural consequence of their own irresponsibility, laziness, or misfortune. This same compassion is also the reason we don't turn people away from emergency rooms due to their lack of money, or public schools due to their legal residency status. There is a certain minimum standard of living that we, as a society, wish to guarantee to everyone who lives here, regardless of whether their choices deserve it. In my opinion, this minimum standard shows no signs of disappearing, but rather, will keep increasing with each new congress and administration until the country declares bankruptcy.
-
While it's true that entitlement programs are a large part of our budget, they definitely aren't, as a whole, the most wasteful government spending programs around. They do need to be checked and changed to make them more accessible to those who need and less accessible to those taking advantage, and less important programs need to be dropped entirely to make room for more important programs...
However, $35.1 Billion were spent in 1998 on nuclear weapons related programs. I know that's kind of an old figure, but from what I understand it is not estimated to have gone down significantly and, in fact, may be going up. That includes $4 Billion just on upkeep. To give you an idea, we had "5,914 strategic warheads, approximately 1,000 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 3,000 reserve strategic and tactical warheads" in July 2007--900% the rest of the nuclear weapons in the world, excluding Russia who is under the same restrictions and has a comparable arsenal. That sounds like a lot of unnecessary spending to me.
In 2006, the US' military budget accounts for about 47% of world military spending. At least twelve out of the top fifteen runner-ups are considered American allies.
-
Unfortunately, even cutting defense will hurt many, as defense contracts make up a large portion of the manufacturing that is done in the U.S. Corporate taxes and greed have combined to make us unable to compete with other countries, so the work goes overseas. The Government allows inflated and unfair pricing in defense contracts because it is too dangerous to manufacture these items elsewhere. Now, if we were able to reduce payroll and corporate taxes (along with raising taxes on companies that produce overseas), jobs would come back to this country, and the defense contractors could migrate to other interests. We are stuck with our nuclear program for a while still, and you have to make sure that stuff stays in tip-top shape. We spend 46% of the world's military spending because we protect that much of the world, although I have no problem leaving some countries (and one city in California) to fend for themselves.
Social Security should be reformed, and it should definitely be removed from the appropriations committee's hands. The HAC votes every year to allocate Social Security benefits. Technically, they could stop doing it anytime they wanted to. Look it up, there is no actual program in place, like welfare or medicare, which would need a full house and senate vote to change. it is an appropriated fund, which is controlled at the committee level. There are plenty of other areas where spending can be curtailed.
Compassion or not, the government shouldn't be so involved in these decisions. We should be able to decide what to do with our money. My only give on this would be to tax outrageously unnecessary items (million dollar sportscars, diamond studded Ipods, etc). Sales taxes would get more money out of the rich than income taxes, as there will always be loopholes in any income tax system. However, if you buy it here, you pay the tax. If you buy in someplace else, you pay the equivalent import fee. A simplified tax system could cut down the cost of the IRS significantly, as well as reduce the number of Obama nominees tax cheats out there.
-
In 2006, the US' military budget accounts for about 47% of world military spending. At least twelve out of the top fifteen runner-ups are considered American allies.
While I do feel that we overspend on our military, I'd like to know where you got this figure; it feels wrong to me, given China's military budget these days.
-
The idea behind a democracy is that the government is us, darx. I know we're a republic, but even so, we spout out these ideals to the world about a government of the people for the people, but then go about saying we don't trust it? There's something inherently wrong with that. Perhaps instead of spending so much time telling other nations what government system is the correct choice for them, we should spend a little time becoming happy with our choice. If you can't trust a government which is supposed to represent you, that's not a system that needs to be spread.
I don't think our nuclear weapons program counts as "defense" at this point, or has for decades. And I don't understand why you think we are "stuck with it" for a while still. We have had more than enough nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent for decades. If we take the same amount of money (it would take less) that we spend on nuclear upkeep and used it for some nuclear disarmament, it would create American jobs where it destroys them, help our international standing, give us some power of negotiation in nuclear disarmament treaties, and encourage other nations to do the same. In addition, it would make our national nuclear arsenal bleed less money from us in the future, which opens up some of the federal budget to create national improvement jobs not only providing a temporary relief to unemployment levels, but also creating national infrastructure--nice roads, buildings, parks, etc.--which help reduce crime, gang activity, and drug use if done correctly. If you took half of the money used just on nuclear upkeep and applied it to in-nation jobs, you could create over 100,000 jobs at $20,000 a year--over the poverty level for a family of four with a single provider. That's not including taking money from nuclear weapon research, construction and transportation.
While I agree that a sales tax could be a useful tool in cutting the deficit, it isn't really a quick fix. To my understanding, a majority of less-than-legal tax scams are performed by large national and international corporations for whom sales tax is more or less irrelevant. This means that working with a different type of taxation wont circumnavigate this tax problem. For example, Wal-Mart skipped out on over $2.3 Billion in taxes in a single year (I believe it was 2006). That's $2.3 Billion taxpayers must make up. And lets be clear--republican or democrat is irrelevant to tax fraud. And it's hard to enforce taxes on items bought overseas, which simply encourages those with enough money to buy elsewhere and transport in while forcing the poor to buy items with an even higher sales tax.
We spend 44.4% of our budget on the military. If we really do protect 48% of the world (which we don't, we leave a large portion of the world to handle itself until it directly becomes an issue for our investments), perhaps we would spend more than 1.5% of our budget on diplomacy and needs abroad. You complain about the IRS' cost to run? Government Operations in their entirety only count for 6.9% of the budget--this includes paying every government position. Hell, education--in an era when Americans are flabbergasted as to why they are ninth among industrialized nations in high school graduates--only warrants 2.2% of our budget. We spend the same amount of money on the interest for our non-military debt than we do on all three of these aspects of our budget combined.
I got the figure from here: http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm. It cites the figure from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Obviously not an unbiased source, but at least the figure is cited. A comparable figure is found at http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending, which states, "The USA is responsible for 45 per cent of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, China, France, and Japan each with 4 to 5 per cent of the world share [in 2007]." In a later section a chart shows that in 2008 the US was 48% of world military spending.
-
My lack of trust in Governemnt finances is well founded and proven. Politicians are not financial experts, for the most part, and they don't have any real consequences hanging over their heads for mismanaging programs. It does not mean I find our system of Government less effective than other countries. In fact, my fear is that we are becoming more like thes other countries and forgetting what makes us unique. The country's steadily growing anathema for successful people is dangerous, and resorts to simple jealousy more than anything else. Do you really think these rich Liberals would be so quick to talk about tax increases if they didn't already know how to avoid them?
As for our military spending, yes, we could definitely curtail it, although the percentage of our GDP used for military spending is roughly between 4 and 7%, (which is historically low for the U.S., by the way). In fact, according to Wikipedia, the percentage of total GDP used by the U.S is about the same as China. We are spending more for the wars, but that will greatly decrease over the next couple of years. We also provide the UN with over 90% of the funds for their military, and do protect at least half the world. Ddespite your attempted rhetoric that we don't help others until it suits our interest, that seems pretty thin to me. We are deployed in several places where, if anything, it does little to help us directly.
You quote such rosey numbers, but 100,000 20k a year jobs will only help people barely scrape by, and that is only in areas outside of California and New England. You are also assuming that this money will actually be used for just that purpose, when it is much more likely that it will be significantly lower than that by the time it filters down. The feds will give extra money to the states, who will decrease their budgetary spending in that area and use the extra money for what they want, and the same thing happens at the city and town level. Despit this, let's just go with the military reduction theme. There is a big part of me that has no problem pulling back some of our troops from around the world, especially those areas that don't appreciate our support. Regardless, however, any money saved by military reduction should be used to reduce taxes on corporations that create jobs in the U.S. If we make it more appealing for companies to stay here than to go overseas, we will solve one of our biggest problems. You avoided that fact in your post, Gorgon. We are one of the world's biggest consumers of everything, if not the biggest, and yet we allow countries and businesses to operate at a lower standard and get little benefit other than tariff and sales taxes. We could get so much more if we allowed private industry to grow in the U.S. again. You completely avoided my point that military commerce is our most stable home-grown industry, because it can't really be moved overseas. In fact, it is one of the only industries that has not been affected by the economic downturn.
Cut the military a little bit. Cut foreign aid as well. Most of all, cut or redesign programs that don't work, including our antiquated, complex, and inefficient tax code. Your statement about Walmart proves my point, by the way.
-
The country's steadily growing anathema for successful people is dangerous, and resorts to simple jealousy more than anything else.
I like this phrase. It reminds me of people who refuse to eat or shop at "chains" - don't they understand that chains are simply local businesses that have done enough things right to be able to expand and reproduce?
-
To be fair, I never said that we would use the money that way, I said we could. And I think there are a lot of programs like that which would be better than the way we spend money right now.
Secondly, percentage of GDP is really pretty irrelevant when talking about the sheer amount we spend. We simply don't need to spend the amount of our budget (if military is only that percent of our GDP, then imagine how little education is).
You act like the government was the institution which acted on morally and economically shaky grounds and that is why we are in an economic crisis. It was individuals and companies acting irresponsibly, not the government, which has caused this issue. Lack of oversight, not too much oversight or irresponsible government, was the cause.
You act like Democrats/Liberals are the only people circumnavigating taxes via scams. It is a matter of wealth and morality, not a matter of political stance. It is attacks against groups of people without cause like this, an "us against them" mindset, that causes mass atrocities, national splits, etc. in a historical context. I would recommend you look at the individuals who are creating problems, rather than the groups they associate with. For example, I could claim that in the US Christians are the biggest cause of tax problems, the economic downturn, big government, and poor education. That statement would technically be correct. But being a Christian isn't what is causing these people to perform their jobs so poorly, just like being a liberal isn't the cause or even a correlated matter when concerning less-than-legal tax fraud.
Military commerce is as stable as it is because we continue to pump money into it. If we pumped that money into scientific and medical research, but only did so here in the US, that industry would become the equivalent.
We could and should put policies in place which would both encourage businesses to come here and encourage growing businesses (alternative energy, for example) with huge potential for economic power to grow. We shouldn't do this with disregard to morality (labor laws), the future (short-sighted policies economic or ecological), or our budget. Again, keep in mind businesses are the number one cause of the tax fraud your complaining about.
Businesses in themselves aren't to be avoided, but businesses which disregard morality or humanity in the creation of their products should--it isn't worth the trade off to have items cheaper. Wal-Mart isn't just some home-grown company which remains morally sound as they expand. Businesses are not people, even though we treat them like it in law. There are plenty of businesses, from the local level to the global level, which are perfectly acceptable corporations, but there are those that aren't.
What I'm trying to say is that blaming a single group of people, or discounting a government's value so rashly is unreasonable. If we truly have that little faith in a government, we should make it a priority to change the government to be more efficient and to reach a certain standard in every area. Also, keep in mind, no empire has maintained forever, and no civilization can keep grasp forever. If we continue to bullheadedly try to grab on to what made us great in the past, we will fall out of style like anything else does. If we look to how other nations are doing better than us in certain aspects and find out why, we can learn from them and put into place policies which can help us stay greater, longer via mindful evolution. If you think we are losing our greatness because of our willingness to do so, I don't think you understand the context of human history we are framed against.
-
I do think that government has acted on all sorts of morally and economically shaky grounds, and I'm quite displeased with most of the Republicans and the Democrats out there right now, including at least 2 I know are LDS.
Something to understand, Gorgon, is that a) America today has very, very little in common with America 200 years ago. While most people would agree that some of these changes have been good (such as universal suffrage), others are much more controversial.
From what I've read of History (and I've got a degree in it), all civilizations that crumbled did so because of one of three reasons (or a combination of them): 1. They were destroyed by a more powerful civilization. 2. They were destroyed by environmental factors which prevented them from living the way they had (drought, famine, cold spells, etc.). 3. They changed their way of administering their civilization (the Roman Empire is a prime example of this).
I've never read of a civilization fall from "remaining the same" if not by conquest or uncontrollable environmental factors (where, essentially, life can no longer be supported on the scale it was).
And, Thomas Jefferson did say that he believed that it's good for every country to have a revolution every century or so. I'm starting to wonder if he was right.
-
I obviously do not assume that only liberals are tax cheats, or get around taxes. However, I am pointing out the hippocrisy of a group who believe in wealth redistribution having a caveat that exempts themselves; the idea becomes nothing more than a tactic to assign blame to others rather than encourage personal growth and responsibility. Your comparison to Christians is ludicrous. since the vast majority of Americans are Christians, you can both condemn and praise everything done by them.
I don't understand your point about morality, especially when you so easily condone abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Are personal choices and Science exempt from this morality you speak of? Should only your version of morality apply? American labor and environmental laws are more strict than any of the countries where these jobs go to, and all countries with stricter laws have heavy government involvement in everyday life (take a real look at the civil liberties afforded the French and Germans, for example. There is no illegal search and seizure, no right to privacy, and it is quite difficult to compete with large businesses, which is why their economies have been stagnant for years.)
Jade Knight's comments are right on. It's only when a society gets so full of itself that it changes it core just to please the selfish and the self-righteous that declines begin.
You are absolutely right about people being responsible, but then you put blame on the government's lack of oversight right after defending them. Which is it? I don't believe the Government should be changed, I believe the people who are in government should be changed. All of them, if possible, right down to the town level. They are becoming royalty, and that can't happen. EVER.
-
The lack of ability to adapt is part of nearly every, if not every, societal collapse or loss of power in history. A major example of this is the Japanese closed nation policy (which essentially eliminated Japan from the world stage for 200 years) which removed Japan from the world stage as a major power (a role it well could have played). Inability to adapt to new problems causes a decline in power or collapse--social evolution holds true on the national scale.
My statement about Christians IS ludicrous, that's my point. You make a similar claim against a group of people (currently a majority of Americans, keep in mind). Those individuals are hypocritical. The group "Democrats" or even "Democrats in political positions" is an overstatement of the depth of this hypocrisy.
My point about morality was pertaining to corporations, and not the government itself. Somebody made the statement that corporate chains are just home-grown businesses which have earned the right to be larger, which is simply not always the case. As corporations grow bigger, they often cause direct and indirect damage to societies and individuals because of immorality in their actions. As far as these other issues of morality, while I feel we can probably all agree that taking a child and working her for eighteen hours a day or taking a worker and breaking his knees behind the factory for attempting to unionize is immoral, clearly there are some differences in opinion on issues such as stem-cell research or abortion choice--my stance on those are to not pass laws about them one way or the other, which I think is a perfectly reasonable stance. If we can't to a decent majority agree something is immoral, it seems right that it should not be specifically condoned or condemned by law. They do this by going to other nations, and to compete with those other nations I do not believe we should lighten our watch on moral actions of businesses--child labor laws, minimum wages, working conditions, minimal product standards, work-time laws (which are hardly enforced) shouldn't be reduced to encourage business attraction. If I was convinced lowering taxes within reason on certain aspects of corporate activity would dramatically raise the number of jobs in America, and thus raising general revenue and lower the one in seven unemployment rate, I would jump on that bandwagon. I'm not convinced this is a plausible scenerio, but I'm not convinced otherwise. I simply want to make sure corporations are treated in a way which maintains our moral standards, allows us to raise any standards which are currently at an unacceptable level, and not give corporations a tax-free ride while Americans make up that difference, unless the rate in jobs and average pay skyrockets to make the situation pull a net gain for the average American.
A lack of regulation allowed individuals to roam unchecked, generally through the actions of their corporations. All I would like to see is checks and balances among our corporations who, like it or not, are a larger part of the government than we are (thanks to lobbying, marketing, their grasp on the economic factor, the economic concerns of all social policy and how it affects corporate economy, etc.). They are also a larger part of the economy, which is supposed to be regulated, than the government itself as far as everyday activity is concerned. Because of this, I feel that keeping tabs on them is a good thing. I'm not talking about passing mountains of law, but having bodies in existence which could give warning when they are being run incompetently to everybody's loss is a good thing, I believe. Keep in mind, businesses are NOT people, and although they are treated as such in law, I believe it is possible to have a governmental system which treats businesses and financial operations under reasonable watch and regulatory law without assuming we must take away individual liberties to do so.
Your very statement about politicians becoming royalty states that you are unhappy with the system itself. In a system you can trust, this would not happen. Such an ideal system is probably unobtainable, but if the complete failure of this system is all the way down to the local level, it sure sounds like a problem with government structure to me. This means, if you feel so disgusted by the individuals who were elected and/or appointed, you should consider which aspects of the government allowed this to happen. A two-party system and individuals voting along party lines without thought to issues would be on that list. Then, instead of willing a regime change (removing a king and putting in a new Queen is still a monarchy, after all), you should probably consider supporting some sort of a system-wide alternative which you feel represents the spirit of democracy better. Considering replacing all the people is just as unrealistic, if not more unrealistic, than thinking about a better system anyway.
-
I think we are actually agreeing on many points, just at different angles. I don't have a problem with the entire system, in fact the fluid nature of our government is great. My problem is the common misconception that C0ngressional positions somehow report directly to Executive positions. The government is not run like a business, yet people believe it so. We get all puffy and amped up about Presidential and gubernatorial elections, but the House and Senat seats (especially at the state level) just seem to get glossed over. These people are the lawmakers. I find it to be no coincidence that the most polarized states also have the most corruption and the largest difficulties. Why? Because they don't realize that having 90% of your congressional members be from the same party, and have it remain that way for decades, is detrimental. Instead of trying to change this, they elect a Governor of the opposite party, thinking that will balance it out. Sometimes it does, but for the most part they are able to override any veto, and have no repercussions. This one part of the system is what concerns me. Congressmen/women should not be elected for life. It causes the very stagnation you are talking about. My problems with the Democratic party primarily come from what I have seen living in New England. Just look at this comparison: New Hampshire has long been voted one of the best states in which to live. No sales tax, no income tax. You pay fees for services when you need them. It has always been leaps and bounds ahead of Mass and RI in almost every way, and was traditionally a Red state (the only one in New England). However, over the last 10 years or so, a large influx of Massachusetts residents have moved to New Hampshire, mainly to flee the ridiculus housing prices and taxes in good old Taxachusetts. Changing states didn't change their political views, however, and New Hampshire has seen a dramatic shift to the left. Now, it could just be coincidence that the state has begun to lose ground in almost every category during this same period, but I doubt it. If you can find an example where the opposite had occurred, I would love to hear about it.
By the way, if you look more closely at societal collapses, you will see that it is much more the arrogance and lazyness of the people in that society that causes the collapse. They forget what made them great, and become entitled. Period.
Your Japan comment; America was the same way until the 20th century. We have become a world power now, and spend the most of any military. You find that to be a negative change, by your arguments. Japan was very close to being a world power, and I wager that, had Germany not started WW2 when it did, Japan would have had the time to take over most of the Far East before we did anything about it, and would have been a match to us. We got lucky, because they were spread too thin, and the German scientists who defected (Einstein anyone) helped us create the bomb that ended the war.
Lastly, the majority of Americans are not Democrats. In fact, it is practically equal. Just because 1% of the population voted for Obama over McCain means nothing. You need to look at the states that are consistently at the bottom of Education, Job growth, cost of living, crime rates, etc. Now, what party is consistently in control of these states? Why are states that consistently lean Democrat considerably less charitable than Red states? Why are the states with the strictes gun laws also the states with the highest crime? Obviously gun control doesn't curb the issue. In fact, states (like Florida) that have relaxed some of these laws have actually seen decreases in crime. Go figure! Talk about inflexibility. I would provide my issues with the Republican side, but I'd rather see them in a rebuttal.
-
I think we do agree on many issues from an opposite angle. I would entirely agree with you that this government has issues with the lifetime elect, especially considering to be elected you practically have to be upper class. I, however, have a problem with the structure of the government and I believe it needs to be reworked. I think a lot of the problems you see issues with are caused by greater factors than "liberal" against "conservative," and I think that statistics such as crime rate are so multidimensional that you can't, or can very rarely, pin their swaying one way or another on a single factor, such as gun control. You will also note that loosening gun control laws in a lot of ways can help reduce crime, but there are other ways to reduce crime as well. I fall somewhere in the middle on this issue, as I believe people should be allowed to own guns, but I have issue with concealed weapons (the carrying of concealed weapons may reduce crime, but at the risk of vigilantism, collateral damage, and a potential increase in spur-of-the-moment murder or assault). I also don't see the point in a person owning an RPG or anti-aircraft rifle, as this is not needed for recreation or for self protection, and if they are part of a collection ammunition does not need to be owned.
Canada does pretty well and they have only a handful of guns privately owned in their nation compared to the US. The has a much higher homicide rate and still has 50% of Canada's violent crime rate when ONLY considering aggravated assault, while Canada considers all categories of assault violent crimes. Also, I don't know how recently you're talking about Florida, but according to the Miami Herald Florida murder rate has been constantly driving up for years.
Also, the issue of gun-control having an impact on crime is weighted, as if you take away gun control laws, these are laws no longer being broken. It's just like if we legalized marijuana, crime rate would plummet (though to a much less extreme). It is interesting to consider the fact that BOTH controlling guns and loosening gun control have had similar effects in different times in different cultures given different circumstances.
This is all besides the point, however, because a much larger factor in our crime rates is our justice system. One of our largest growing industries are for-profit penitentiaries, and our method of punishment for crime is designed with, quite literally, to have one of the highest possible return to crime rates (in fact, as part of an experiment, students at some midwestern university were asked to design a prison system which had the highest possible return rate; nearly every design mimicked to startling degree our own system). If you want to reduce crime, the first step is destroying laws which are outdated, unreasonable, unfounded, or ineffective to prevent needless entry into the justice system (gun laws, illegalization of recreational drugs, etc. would be considered here) . The second step is rehabilitation rather than removal to prevent a life in crime after conviction. The third step is providing social institutions which are intended reduce poverty and pain, which will reduce gang and organized crime activity as well as "required" criminal activity in which the criminal feels trapped into the crime by necessity (whether or not this is true is irrelevant, if the individual feels it is true he or she will act as though it is true).
Most of the problems you are talking about, as far as the government is concerned, come from a bi-party polarization of votes (I will only vote Democrat or Republican). I do find it somewhat ironic that you complain about these problems while whole handedly attacking Democrats without a negative word for Republicans. This type of mentality, this alienation of one side over the other, is what causes a lifetime elect in "blue states" and "red states". If we had a poly-partied system or if our individuals were less inclined to vote only for one of our two parties (which is more or less impossible given the laws of polarization, especially in a mass and political situation) these would not be problems.
We agree that empires collapse from a sense of entitlement. This could be from forgetting what makes them great (and this is probably a factor). It is just as likely that a nation could gain a sense of entitlement from overemphasizing what has made them great in the past, providing a dwelling on glory days instead of an eye for the future. When things in the world change is when empires lose their dominance. I cannot think of a situation in which the world has stayed more or less stable but an empire began to collapse because it was changing too much. Besides, isn't the glory of human societies that we have the ability to recognize past patterns, think about future trends and use this information to run the great experiment to adapt and change over time as we see success or failure? Japan managed to have a comeback hundreds of years after it closed its doors, but this grasping at the past was the cause of a loss of power for a long time.
I feel like you keep trying to curb this issue to become a Republican vs Democrat argument, which is exactly what I'm trying to avoid. To your mind, I'm a liberal (and in many senses, I am a very large liberal). But in some ways I am conservative and I do not consider myself a Democrat, nor do I have any sense of loyalty to this party (which I see in many ways as a large failure, especially congressionally). Never should a conversation like this become one party against the other, but it should be about ideas which are untied to party lines so that each person, according to his or her own perspective can use his or her own ideas to add to the greater picture. The shades of gray are important.
Only two of the top ten while seven of the bottom ten ranked states in education voted red in the most recent election, according to this: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/edu_bes_edu_ind-education-best-educated-index
(list of which states are red and blue according to the wikipedia article on "Red states and Blue States")
Job growth largely has more to do with factors outside of democrat/republican bounds including rising industry, natural resources available, and the effects of economic downturn (for example, my state of Michigan is one of the worst states to be in because its industry has largely been left to car manufacturing, which was a decision of corporate interests rather than the government, which left these corporations to a large part unregulated. Efforts have been made to invite other industries in, such as the film industry, via certain methods such as tax exemptions and specialized schooling programs, but the efforts were made to an extent too late to help the state now--the effects of this will only be seen in five or ten years, if at all).
If you can find me a reliable statistic for non tax-deductible charity donations by state made by individuals rather than institutions, I would be interested to see it. I couldn't find one, though I briefly looked around.
-
I saved my criticisms on Republicans as part of my next post, which I stated. I have always had issues with the Right's stances on birth control, sex education, and some censorship beliefs. I do not consider myself a Republican. In fact, I would lean much more toward the libertarian overall, although I do believe that individual rights must be weighed against the rights of the many. I may bend these arguments toward party philosophies because those philosophies are what make the government run. I am just nitpicking particular stances, but they lend themselves to an overall thought process that I am trying to convey. I believe the Liberal and Conservative monnikers are outdated. Democrats aren't really liberal at all, actually. They have kept the same overall beliefs for 50+ years now, and Conservatives have been open to some change, so both sides are pretty much neutral now. A strong pro 2nd amendment view is considered conservative, but a strong Pro 1st amendment (speech and press anyway) view is considered liberal. Are they both not civil liberties? Here's a huge hippocrisy that drives me nuts about many conservatives: If you are to preach so strongly about God's will, and how heaven is such a wonderful place, why do you then go out of your way to keep someone alive who, if nature was truly allowed to take it's course, would be dead? I am not talking about euthanasia here, I am talking about just turning the machine off.
A single college study does not a true theory make. Let's go with this for a second, however. Did this study include the plethora of physical and educational advantages given to an inmate that are not available on the outside? Could it be that the attempts to reform inmates actually make prison life safer and better than life in regular society? There is no true punishment for most crimes, anymore. Do you honestly think the majority of people change who they are because someone is nice to them? We are waiting too long to do anything, and we are allowing reasons for behavior to become excuses for behavior. Criminals have more rights than victims. Law-abiding citizens must suffer because we do not want to risk "singling out" anyone. The good of the few are outweighing the good of the many. The weak and disenfranchised should be protected, but if you believe everyone's rights must be protected, then the majority's rights must be included in that protection.
Why do the donations have to be non-tax deductible, by the way? A donation is a donation. If the money comes directly from me instead of going through the Government first, why should the Gov still get that money as well? That's why charities are tax deductible. A non-profit, privately funded organization is much more effective than any government run program. Either way, though, I bet even non-tax deductible donations fall in favor of red states.
One other thing; a Poly-party system is not as rosey as you make it out to be, just ask Germany, Turkey, Pakistan, etc. Having no clear majority makes it difficult to get anything done, and the more different viewpoints you have, the more likely that will happen.
-
As for the prison issue, I would encourage you to read up on the modern incarceration system. There are benefits which exist that did not exist in previous times, but you need to keep in mind the idea behind incarceration shouldn't be vengeance or removal, it should be rehabilitation. If it was vengeance or removal, we may as well take punishment in physical means and save these people time out of their lives or remove all criminals from our society permanently. The needs of the many are aided in reducing inmates return to crime, which has been proven time and time again to be done the best through "progressive" (I dislike using the word in this way...) prison systems. Studies and real-world statistics also show rehabilitative programs are good tools for actual rehabilitation.
A single college study doesn't prove anything, and I'm not writing a thesis here (there are plenty out there)--I just thought it was an amusing addition to my statement which is an aid in demonstrating my stance. Also keep in mind that the incarceration system is different for white-collar criminals who can affect dozens, hundreds, thousands, or millions of people than it is for blue-collar criminals who often endanger nobody or a single person. I'm not encouraging their crime, or saying they were right to act in whatever way they did. I would just like to see a little more equality and a little more emphasis on an affective system rather than a system which "gives just desserts." I don't think that punishment should be the goal when dealing with anybody (from children to criminals), I feel that punishment should be the means to the end of prevention. Punishment for the sake of punishment doesn't help anybody but the emotionally vengeful, and in reality it doesn't help them in any way but to make them feel a little better temporarily.
Yeah, a multi-party system is barely a step up. But it is a step in the right direction and while all systems have their downfalls, at least a multi-party system allows more choices in the representation before general stagnation. It's better than having a bi-party system which every year becomes closer and closer to a monoparty system.
I don't consider tax-deductible donations a donation, I consider it a trade. From the viewpoint of the giver, often tax-deductible donations are getting rid of something unwanted (like a broken vehicle or old belongings) for as-good-as-cash credit. I'm not saying that they aren't doing something beneficial and that their contributions aren't important--I would rather see non tax deductible statistics, however, for a comparison like this.
-
The money you get back in deductions is much less than what you would get if you tried to sell it on ebay, and cash donations are certainly not 1:1. However, I would think it a logical assumption that an area with less people taking deductions for charity also have less people not taking the deductions.
While I agree that prisons should be used for rehab, there primary function should be a deterrent, a consequence that people do not want, and most definitely do not want more than once. TV should be almost non-existent, internet access coming in only, and only news and educational websites should be allowed. Prison life should suck, as that also acts as a deterrent, to a point. I agree with the inequality of certain crimes. Drug abuse in and of itself should not get you into a prison with murderers and violent criminals. White collar criminals are often treated too easily, and should have long-term restitutions set up for their victims instead of prison time (it is useless). Someone who gets rich by ruining other people's lives should have to work to restore those people's lifestyles to what it was before he or she came along. That could take a very long time, and would be much more effective in prevention, as that person would most likely never again be able to obtain significant wealth.
Finally, the party systems. A third party would be a nice change for us. There are many parties that currently exist, but none of them gain traction individually. The Libertarians are getting there, but they need to more clearly delineate themselves and their beliefs. We have had more than 2 parties in the past, but we always end up with two in the end. Also, every generation brings a unique viewpoint which often refreshes party philosophy. The Baby Boomers have been in charge for the past 30 years, and are beginning to pass the torch. We should encourage them to do so, especially in Congress.
-
Given the fact that our lives are now much global than local, the two-party system doesn't make sense any more. We really need to switch to proportional representation in this country. Unfortunately, both the Democrats and Republicans have a vested interest in not allowing any other parties to stand a chance, etc.
-
That's so very true. Another small change that might be good is changing the tax system. Here's the plan: :)
eliminate federal income tax. Instead divide the financial obligation for the federal budget evenly among the states, and require each state to in turn tax it's citizens to pay their share. If a state fails to meet their obligation withdraw federal aid to that state.
Alternatively, assign electoral votes and number of congressional districts on the basis of dollars of income tax collected.
As it stands communities that contribute very little to the federal budget, get the benefit of an inordinate amount of pork barrel spending.
-
There's a few problems with this: 1. You have the entity vs. population problem. Are you going to levy fees based on the Senate, or on the House of Representatives? Also, some areas are much larger than others, and more land may require more funds to take care of. 2. What about specially designated areas, such as national parks? These are not spread about evenly, but are federal mandates. 3. The last thing poor states want to do is cut their funding from rich states. This is one of the reasons the Kurds have never been able to establish their own state—they're sitting on a lot of oil, and the other Turks, Iraqis, etc., don't want them to run off with it. And so on and so forth.
So while I think it's a great idea in theory and all, it'd be really hard to execute.