PDA

View Full Version : Could we solve the budget problem?



zelmo1234
12-17-2012, 09:17 PM
Someone earlier today asked me if I had any ideas on how to solve the budget and national debt issues? I do not remember who it was, Sorry

But I have some Ideas and if the elected officials in Washington would act like big boy and girls we could actually get something done?

I hope that all will approach this post with an open mind and some great suggestions, rather than poking holes, I am not the sharpest tack in the drawer and I am sure that everything can be improved.

I will post on 3 areas and will use a different post for each the areas are #1 a new and fair tax code #2 controling spending #3 reducing deficites and paying off the natinal debt

Some will have several posts and I do not have the time to cover all right now, so you will have to check back

First we have to acknowledge that there is a problem and what those problems are so in this post I will defin these as I see it.

#1 we are over 16 trillion in debt, somewhere around 22 - 24 trillion we become insolvent and the world banks will decide what we can spend money on

#2 The entitlement programs are driving this debt, but run away discressionary spending including the Military have much waste that could be trimmed.

#3 while we may be able to balance the budget with the current rates, substancially paying down the debt would require additional revenue for all

#4 what we are doing now is not working and to continue would be a disaster.

If I do this correctly nobody here will be happy with everything, as good policy usually does not please everyone. W!ish me luck

zelmo1234
12-17-2012, 09:30 PM
First congress and the President need a plan and the plan needs to be set in stone. To start any project you need goals.

We have somewhere in the area of a 1.5 trillion dollar deficite and to change the direction of spending and revenue (tax code) would take more than a few weeks.

These semi anual deadlines do not allow for meaningful change so they must be eliminated.

So first we would pass the President budget and taxation plan as written, with the following increase and conditions

#1 the debt ceiling would be raise to 21.5 trillion but require a 2/3's magority of the states to vote for another increase in the debt limit. (this would never happen so it would force politicians to balance a budget)

#2 the deficite would be cut by 1/3 every year, or the debt ceiling would be reduce by 500 billion automatically So the first year (this year) 1.5 trillion, 2014 1 trillion, 2015 667 billion 2016 445 billion ect.

This means that we would never actually reach the 21.5 trillion as teh expanding economy would lead to unexpected increases in revenue. thus lowering the deficites and leading to surpluses.

#3 each and every department would need to be looked at for savings, now sacred cows if you will.

#4 tax code reform must be accomplished in 1 year, or a balanced budget amendment would be sent to the states for radification? thus forcing the government to live within it's means.

These 4 steps would require congress and the president to act like grownups or be forced to make hard choices

zelmo1234
12-17-2012, 09:43 PM
The tax code we have not only is broken but is so complicated that we all spend hours and tons of money on accountants to keep from paying more than our fair share.

I would propose a progressive flat tax that would look something like this. Remember that each catigory would apply to all If I make a million and you make 20K I would pay the same as you on my first 20K

Next we have 47% of the people paying no federal income tax, it is impossible for 53% to support 47% so all will have skin in the game.

Also revenue is revenue, so FICA taxes would be abolished for everyone and it would just be taxes. Each and every worker pays 6% fo there income in FICA this would remain the same for all so my starting tax rate will be 6% No change from those not paying federal income tax.

$0 - $15K = 6%
15K - $35K = 8.5%
35K - $50K = 11%
50K - $100K = 15%
100k - $250K = 17.5%
250K - $ 1 million = 20%
1 million + = 25%

The only deduction that would be allowed is charitable donations and only up to 10% of income.

The reason for charity is, they are much more efficient at providing services and as services from the governmet would be reduces they will be needed.

Tax codw would apply to all, personal, business, capital gains.

Note

Anyone that works for wages and did not donate to charity could file their form in less than 5 minuts and would never owe, and never receive are refund.

The IRS could be reduce by 70% and preform 5 times as many inforcement actions as the taxation would be so simple. ( huge savings on the spending side)

KC
12-17-2012, 09:56 PM
The tax code we have not only is broken but is so complicated that we all spend hours and tons of money on accountants to keep from paying more than our fair share.

I would propose a progressive flat tax that would look something like this. Remember that each catigory would apply to all If I make a million and you make 20K I would pay the same as you on my first 20K

Next we have 47% of the people paying no federal income tax, it is impossible for 53% to support 47% so all will have skin in the game.

Also revenue is revenue, so FICA taxes would be abolished for everyone and it would just be taxes. Each and every worker pays 6% fo there income in FICA this would remain the same for all so my starting tax rate will be 6% No change from those not paying federal income tax.

$0 - $15K = 6%
15K - $35K = 8.5%
35K - $50K = 11%
50K - $100K = 15%
100k - $250K = 17.5%
250K - $ 1 million = 20%
1 million + = 25%

The only deduction that would be allowed is charitable donations and only up to 10% of income.

The reason for charity is, they are much more efficient at providing services and as services from the governmet would be reduces they will be needed.

Tax codw would apply to all, personal, business, capital gains.

Note

Anyone that works for wages and did not donate to charity could file their form in less than 5 minuts and would never owe, and never receive are refund.

The IRS could be reduce by 70% and preform 5 times as many inforcement actions as the taxation would be so simple. ( huge savings on the spending side)

Looks like you've put a lot of thought into this but how can a tax be both progressive and flat?

zelmo1234
12-17-2012, 10:03 PM
Next we have to start on spending cuts ther are some easy one's

Hiring freeze on all federal government departments except the FBI, and homeland security/boarder patrol could be taken over by the FBI and the military as we need to maintain our forces.

No ear mark spending each bill stand on it's own, while this would only save a small amount it would keep us from funding things like the cowboy poetry festival!

The first big cut would be the disaster that is call Obamacare! because this entitlment has yet to be inacted it would be easy to start over, and as the new tax code would kill the 200 + taxes in the bill it would need to be redone anyway.

Still people need help with rising healthcare costs, the following could be done at NO cost to the government.

#1 extend the age that parents can carry children to 26, young people rarely use insurance and insurance companeis do not have a problem with this.

#2 open insurance purchases across state lines causing compitition to increase dramatically.

#3 increase deductions (see edit on above post) for business providing insurnace for employees. (let companies deduct the cost of insurance)

#4 allow businesses and organizations to group together to increase buying power with insurance companies.

#5 TORT reform with slap back provisions doing away with ambulance chasers, and ungodly settlements.

These will cost the government almost nothing and would insure more people. Yes ther would be some un insured, but we would then know the number and could plan for that, instead of one size fits all.

SS and Medicare (we know that this is going broke so something must be done)

Means test seniors Those with income over 100K would recieve progressivly reduced benifits, those making over 250K would recieve nothing.

Allow workers less than 40 years old to set aside 3% of their income tax in private investment accounts, and 6% after they turn 55 and opt out of the SS medicare system.
They can keep the current system if they want to?

Raise the retirement age to 67.5 years.

Disability means that you are unable to work, not that you can't do what you once did, and just because you eat to much (ps I am fat) does not mean you do not have to work. Increase benifits for those that are truly disabled and for those that have a little hurt now and then, cowboy up because your gravey train just came to an end.

That should give you enough to chew on for tonight more to follow

zelmo1234
12-17-2012, 10:05 PM
Looks like you've put a lot of thought into this but how can a tax be both progressive and flat?

because for the amount that you make it is flat, but the more you make the higher the % but on every dollar amout it is the same for everyone.

I did have to edit the post that you qouted to include business deductions for healthcare, I forgot to put it in, but it would be needed.

KC
12-17-2012, 10:09 PM
because for the amount that you make it is flat, but the more you make the higher the % but on every dollar amout it is the same for everyone.

I see.


I did have to edit the post that you qouted to include business deductions for healthcare, I forgot to put it in, but it would be needed.

Why are business deductions for healthcare a good thing? Is employer based coverage a good idea?

zelmo1234
12-17-2012, 10:23 PM
I see.

I would say yes? the reason is #1 no government has been able to sustain national healthcare with out rationing, and limitations. Those limitations always cause docotrs to leave the profession and thus increase the time needed for treatment. #2 even with rationaing they still run huge deficites and we can not afford that, so puting it back onto the private sector would be the only possible way to provide coverage to the masses. One could make the case that if they goined a co-op individuals could pay themselves? if you did that you would switch the deduction from business to personel?

Why are business deductions for healthcare a good thing? Is employer based coverage a good idea?

KC
12-17-2012, 10:44 PM
I would say yes? the reason is #1 no government has been able to sustain national healthcare with out rationing, and limitations. Those limitations always cause docotrs to leave the profession and thus increase the time needed for treatment. #2 even with rationaing they still run huge deficites and we can not afford that, so puting it back onto the private sector would be the only possible way to provide coverage to the masses. One could make the case that if they goined a co-op individuals could pay themselves? if you did that you would switch the deduction from business to personel?

Well I'm not for income taxes actually, but as long as there are income taxes I think that there should be no tax deductions. Tax deductions are a way of shifting economic behavior from what people would do ordinarily. I think we should eliminate all incentives for employers so they stop offering health insurance and people start paying for their insurance out of pocket. When people are buying it on the open market based on their own preferences, many will opt for cheaper options that only cover risk, rather than covering things like check ups, which insurance shouldn't be covering in the first place.

Insurance is all about protect your wealth against risk, so people should be able to shop for an insurance plan that meets their individual needs. Employer based health care takes individual preferences out of the equation.

zelmo1234
12-17-2012, 10:47 PM
Well I'm not for income taxes actually, but as long as there are income taxes I think that there should be no tax deductions. Tax deductions are a way of shifting economic behavior from what people would do ordinarily. I think we should eliminate all incentives for employers so they stop offering health insurance and people start paying for their insurance out of pocket. When people are buying it on the open market based on their own preferences, many will opt for cheaper options that only cover risk, rather than covering things like check ups, which insurance shouldn't be covering in the first place.

Insurance is all about protect your wealth against risk, so people should be able to shop for an insurance plan that meets their individual needs. Employer based health care takes individual preferences out of the equation.

I could certainly agree with this I would have no problem shirting to a more personel responsibility position.

Still would like to maintain charitable donations, Again government waste such a high percentage in administration, that charities are an easy way to get more money to where it is needed

KC
12-17-2012, 10:54 PM
I could certainly agree with this I would have no problem shirting to a more personel responsibility position.

Still would like to maintain charitable donations, Again government waste such a high percentage in administration, that charities are an easy way to get more money to where it is needed

Deductions for charity also modify behavior imo. A person might spend more money toward private charities than they ought to in order to deduct more money from their taxes, so this shift's what would be the person's most rational decision. I think we should give people as much room to decide what to do with their money as possible.

Of course the government needs a source of revenue, so no matter what you are going to affect incentives., but I think a flat tax on consumption would be better than an income tax. That way paying taxes is fair, voluntary and based on a person's wealth, since they are in control of their personal spending. How much money a person contributes is totally based on how much of their money they decide to spend, and the rest of their money can be saved or invested.

zelmo1234
12-17-2012, 11:09 PM
Deductions for charity also modify behavior imo. A person might spend more money toward private charities than they ought to in order to deduct more money from their taxes, so this shift's what would be the person's most rational decision. I think we should give people as much room to decide what to do with their money as possible.

Of course the government needs a source of revenue, so no matter what you are going to affect incentives., but I think a flat tax on consumption would be better than an income tax. That way paying taxes is fair, voluntary and based on a person's wealth, since they are in control of their personal spending. How much money a person contributes is totally based on how much of their money they decide to spend, and the rest of their money can be saved or invested.

I thought about the sales tax but the only way you can make the numbers work is to tax food, and fuel and you are looking at a national tax in the 25 to 30 percent range. The burden on someone like myself is not a problem but for those of limited income it is a killer.

Once you take the nearly one trillion in interest payments that we make every year out with the smaller government you could make it much more manageable, and switch to a sales tax, and as I continue with my ideas you will see how I actually allow for that switch.

Washington has got us into are real pickle with this debt. And we need to get that paid down still.

But as far as deductions, If I conceed the healthcare deductions would you be willing to conceed the charitable. Here is my reasoning. #1 I would only allow for 10% of a deduction so if people got crazy it would only be the rich. Next if they paid that money to the government, only about 30% makes it to the intended cause. the government administration of the project eats up the rest.

By using charity and a little checking to detirmine how well they use their funds, one can find charities that only have administration costs of 15 to 20%

So if we are trying to help the homeless if you will and a well run charity has 1000 and the government has 1000 it is the difference between 750 and 300 dollars making it to the street

So I will give you healthcare and you give me charity?

roadmaster
12-17-2012, 11:25 PM
Disability means that you are unable to work, not that you can't do what you once did, and just because you eat to much (ps I am fat) does not mean you do not have to work. Increase benifits for those that are truly disabled and for those that have a little hurt now and then, cowboy up because your gravey train just came to an end.
Going after the elders is the last thing that should be on the table. Most of them have worked all their lives and paid in. Guess that's why I am an independent con. He wants to cut entitlements but going after the wrong ones. I have watched people get denied for SS that needed it. What they do is if a person can stand 10 minutes and sit 10 minutes then they have no case even if they are in major pain. It's rigged to deny the person. They could care less it you can only work a couple of hours a day, it just means you are employable. I once saw a man with cancer denied and finally won after his death. The Dr.s will tell you that you will have no problem getting on SS and they will sign it. Little do they know how the world really works even specialist.

KC
12-17-2012, 11:29 PM
I thought about the sales tax but the only way you can make the numbers work is to tax food, and fuel and you are looking at a national tax in the 25 to 30 percent range. The burden on someone like myself is not a problem but for those of limited income it is a killer.

Once you take the nearly one trillion in interest payments that we make every year out with the smaller government you could make it much more manageable, and switch to a sales tax, and as I continue with my ideas you will see how I actually allow for that switch.

Washington has got us into are real pickle with this debt. And we need to get that paid down still.

But as far as deductions, If I conceed the healthcare deductions would you be willing to conceed the charitable. Here is my reasoning. #1 I would only allow for 10% of a deduction so if people got crazy it would only be the rich. Next if they paid that money to the government, only about 30% makes it to the intended cause. the government administration of the project eats up the rest.

By using charity and a little checking to detirmine how well they use their funds, one can find charities that only have administration costs of 15 to 20%

So if we are trying to help the homeless if you will and a well run charity has 1000 and the government has 1000 it is the difference between 750 and 300 dollars making it to the street

So I will give you healthcare and you give me charity?

You make some good points, I'll concede that the incentive for charitable donations is better than social spending by the government. Ultimately I don't think the Federal government should be spending anything on social causes-- if social spending by governments is necessary I'd prefer the states were in charge of it.

roadmaster
12-17-2012, 11:42 PM
Many Children's hospitals from donations are able to treat and not turn down a child if they don't have the money by the contribution's of the Churches and others. Puts no burden on the parents. Why should we tax them? If you had a sick child in one of these you would appreciate the work they do.

KC
12-17-2012, 11:46 PM
Many Children's hospitals from donations are able to treat and not turn down a child if they don't have the money by the contribution's of the Churches and others. Puts no burden on the parents. Why should we tax them? If you had a sick child in one of these you would appreciate the work they do.

Oh of course they shouldn't be taxed. What I'm talking about instead is the elimination of tax deductions for donations people make. Instead, I think we should just eliminate or reduce income taxes all together and let people give more of their money to charities without any encouragement from the government.

roadmaster
12-18-2012, 12:09 AM
Oh of course they shouldn't be taxed. What I'm talking about instead is the elimination of tax deductions for donations people make. Instead, I think we should just eliminate or reduce income taxes all together and let people give more of their money to charities without any encouragement from the government.
It is a gift and you won't get money for money on your deductions. Just like if you bring in a lot to the Salvation Army, you can only claim but so much. It would be nice but they want their share, the government in whatever we do. I agree it would help people give more to worthy causes.

zelmo1234
12-18-2012, 12:16 AM
Going after the elders is the last thing that should be on the table. Most of them have worked all their lives and paid in. Guess that's why I am an independent con. He wants to cut entitlements but going after the wrong ones. I have watched people get denied for SS that needed it. What they do is if a person can stand 10 minutes and sit 10 minutes then they have no case even if they are in major pain. It's rigged to deny the person. They could care less it you can only work a couple of hours a day, it just means you are employable. I once saw a man with cancer denied and finally won after his death. The Dr.s will tell you that you will have no problem getting on SS and they will sign it. Little do they know how the world really works even specialist.

You will notice that I did make a very clear distinction. between those that need it and those that are scaming the system. did you know that being Obese can be a disability.

I have a person that I call one of my friends mis managed is Sugar on purpose until his health declined enough to get on disability. Now he is checking and medicating like he should and still does not work His real disability is that he is lazy.

You will notice that I decided to means test SS and while it is totally unfair people that have investment income over 250K when they retire must donate there SS so the people that need it can have it By the way this also would include myself, as I have been blessed when it comes to business.

We as a nation have mis managed spending and now very hard choices must be made or those that do need these programs will loose them.

Also I am a huge states right person, but one has to be reasonable, and the politicians in washington will not give up power.

zelmo1234
12-18-2012, 12:37 AM
Let the cutting begin.

I will leave Welfare reform for a later post and start with some easy ones.

First Cut all congressional staff and exenses by 25% End life time benifits for congress members

Calling all Czars you loose your jobs too.

Department of Education Your record for improving our children sucks close the department and pass 50% of that money on to the states to improve there educational system.

I love art as much as the next guy, but it must be privatly funded This too would be gone.

PBS Sorry but big bird can pay the bill so your gravey train is goid too.

Subsidies to Farming, Green Energy, and Fossil fuel energy Gone!

This should be one that all can add to what else can we cut that will not be missed

roadmaster
12-18-2012, 12:39 AM
Disability means that you are unable to work, not that you can't do what you once did, and just because you eat to much (ps I am fat) does not mean you do not have to work. Increase benifits for those that are truly disabled and for those that have a little hurt now and then, cowboy up because your gravey train just came to an end.
I agree, too many that are not truly disabled will play the system.

Peter1469
12-18-2012, 01:29 AM
I am for the Fair Tax. Yes it would be a national sales tax of about 23% at 2010 spending. But with no federal income tax and social security, medicare, etc, you are looking at a wash or perhaps a 1 percent increase. And of course if we cut government spending that could be reduced.

And a poor person could chose to buy a used car or home and avoid taxes on those large transactions.

Taxing income is counter-productive.

KC
12-18-2012, 03:34 AM
First Cut all congressional staff and exenses by 25% End life time benifits for congress members


I dislike the political system as much as the next guy but I don't think it's a good idea for memebers of Congress to lose their lifetime pay and benefits. Politicians already make some sweet deals for big interest groups with the knowledge that they too will soon be on the board for one of the big firms they did favors for. Taking away their benefits just makes the incentive even stronger to keep the cash flow coming after they leave Congress.

zelmo1234
12-18-2012, 08:14 AM
I dislike the political system as much as the next guy but I don't think it's a good idea for memebers of Congress to lose their lifetime pay and benefits. Politicians already make some sweet deals for big interest groups with the knowledge that they too will soon be on the board for one of the big firms they did favors for. Taking away their benefits just makes the incentive even stronger to keep the cash flow coming after they leave Congress.

Most og them are in office until they are nearly dead anyway the others that are voted out, are not that great anyway. Look and Senator Brown of Mass, he served the remainder of Teddy's term and was voted out, he is in his early 50's and we will be paying his families gold plated healthcare for the rest of his life.

Add to the fact that these guys are rich, if they were not rich when elected they are when they leave or soon after, to get the speinding under control, you will have to Cut benifits for the wealthy when it Comes to SS, rid the system in goth welfare and disability of the scamers, and the lower middle and middle class will be paying something in the for of income tax. If you do not cut those that make the laws as well, then you will get no agreement on the tough cuts that must be made. You could do something like for every year that they serve the earn 3 months of benifits after they retire or aree voted out? But life time benifits is a perk that they will need to learn to live without.

zelmo1234
12-18-2012, 08:24 AM
I am for the Fair Tax. Yes it would be a national sales tax of about 23% at 2010 spending. But with no federal income tax and social security, medicare, etc, you are looking at a wash or perhaps a 1 percent increase. And of course if we cut government spending that could be reduced.

And a poor person could chose to buy a used car or home and avoid taxes on those large transactions.

Taxing income is counter-productive.

I agree with everything that you say here, and you are correct that cutting spending would help, and of course they would be recieving more in there paychecks every week as well. But the cost of entitlments is rising even with reform we would have to keep comitments to most of the baby boomers, which means the spending will increase and will need cuts in other areas to help off set it. Economic growth would also help.

But unless you are willing to tax food, and remember that this tax to work is on everything, electric, gas, clothing, rent ect. And the less fortunate can not choose not to buy those things.

Trust me I will turn the system into a sales tax when it is under control but it will take decades tobring that spending under control.

Shen it is there and the debt is gone, and we have a balanced budget amendment, then it will be very easy to change over and then the economy will actually control the amount the government has to spend.

zelmo1234
12-18-2012, 08:50 AM
Just a few thing that might tic some people off,

Fannie and Fredie we have yet to see the end of your troubles, time for a Garage Sale, all assets of these massive organizations would be sold to banks at fair market value. They would be consolidate into one bank for the remainder of the pay of of toxic assets. It would be called Never Again.

As they will not be making any new loans they will need almost no staff, so cuts would be made there assisting in speeding up the process and cutting the losses. While we are at it, we will be getting outr of the Banking Business all together, and the Student loans will be returned to the private sector as well. And the Government while continuing the FDIC insurance would no longer have mortgage and student loan gaurentee's The banks will asses the risk and if you want to major in music history you will find that not many banks will be willing to pay your way. You will have to earn it the old fashion way, by working your way through collage.

The problem with this is that FAnnie and Freddie are a bottomless pit and when we actually find out how far they are gone, we will need to of set those losses or the debt limit would be hit right then

So it is time for the government to have a garage sale too? What to I mean, the government is the holder of some prime realestate and does thing to promote hireing. Some of this would need to change. And example in Fl and California we have military based and hundreds of thousands of acres on prime ocean front properties Highly developable. These properties would be sold and moved to areas on the NM, TX and California. The board patrol would be dramaticall cut as well as the some Cuts the the DEA and ATF. The national guard would take over much of the responsibility of boarder patrol and drug traffic across the boarders. They of course would need to be trained and they would only detain, the DEA and Boarder patrol wold in fact make the arrests.

Much of our government is clarical work, this does not need to be done from 9 to 5 So the federal offices would go to 2 shifts allowing the country to close and sell or lease about 20% of its current office space, not to mention all of the furnishings And it is high time that they try and conserve as well.

The remaining buildings would have pre programed thermostats and 78 in the summer and 65 in the winter sounds little but it saves about 50 million a year..

The next step is to increasse non tax revenue, how do you do this, you open new areas to responsible logging and exploration for natural gas and oil, including off shore and Anwar. You did away with energy subsidies this would off set those losses for the energy companies and they would then be paying more for leases and royalties to the govenment.

All federal employees would be subject to a 15% increase in the amount that they pay for there benifit package, and would be given a choice to ofset this cost with a less than gold plated coverabe option. There would be a hiring freeze as I stated and the actual size of the governmetn would be reduced by 25% through this process. The average govenment worker makes more than a private sector worker that is paying there salary and it is time for this to stop. If the Unions do not like the freeze and the new benifit packages, then layoffs would need to take place to offset the cost and that would be about 33% of the federal work force. Trust me the Unions do not want to loose 33% of there dues.

This should ofset the losses with fannie and freddie.

zelmo1234
12-18-2012, 09:11 AM
AH! Immigration reform? You will think that I am down right cruel after this one.

#1 it is as much of a problem for those that hire as it is for those that come here illegally. So inforcment needs to be hard and consistant.

Start with a 2500.00 fine for any business that is caught knowingly employing illegals, this fine would double for ever illegal that they employ. so if they had 3 it would be 2.5K for the first, 5K for the second and 10K for the third. It would also use a multiplyer for each time they were cought, so if it was the 5th time you were cought these amounts would be multiplies by 5

This makes the businesses the police agency and while they can be fooled with false documents they would do all the necessary checks before hiring.

This brings us to inforcement of the illegals that are cought here, how do you find them.

#1 background check for any imigrant seeking government assistance. yes this means sending there kids to school. medical, and welfare.
If you get a city or state that does not want to prefor theses checks great it is there right, they just give up their federal funding for the medicare and medicaid and public schooling. Not a problem.

If illegals are caught, the are detained for a background check and if they have no crimes, the place where they are working is fined, and they are given a work permit if and only if they agree to payrole deductions of a 5K fine. Now the business has a legal worker, and they are here legally.

If they have a criminal record they would be subject to deportation ASAP and ewould make the black list of those that are not allowed to legally immigrate. Those cought crossing the boarger illegally would be subject to 5 years in a work camp building that fence that we need and would not be allowed to innigrate illegally. Those caught human or drug smuggling would face the work camps for 25 years and no legal immigration.

Those that are here legally will be given photo ID's that clearly state that they can not vote, an Id program will be instituted with the free help of the democratic and republican and any other party that wishes to appear on federal election ballots and a photo ID law to vote would be passed.

Last but not least you know all of those jobs that American will not do, and all those IRS people that will not be needed. Some of them can staff an employment agency for businesses to request imigrant workers. These people would then look to the local unemployment and welfare system for able bodied workers first, and then to an exchange with workers wanting to legally come to this country.

Se future welfare reform. by the way, yes this is an amnesty program.

Peter1469
12-18-2012, 09:46 AM
A few points:

- Congress members get the same retirement as federal employees so long as they started after 1994. It is FERS.


- The Federal Reserve owns a sizable portion of our official debt. We should repudiate it. Cancel it out. And stop allowing the Fed to print bank notes. Have the Treasury print Greenbacks. At least they won't come with interest attached.

- Look at all of the unpaid loans owed to the US from the end of WWII until today. Balance the books. 1 for 1 cancellation of debt.

- And still the largest debt obligations are our entitlement programs. Those must be modernized and be made sustainable.

zelmo1234
12-18-2012, 09:54 AM
A few points:

- Congress members get the same retirement as federal employees so long as they started after 1994. It is FERS.


- The Federal Reserve owns a sizable portion of our official debt. We should repudiate it. Cancel it out. And stop allowing the Fed to print bank notes. Have the Treasury print Greenbacks. At least they won't come with interest attached.

- Look at all of the unpaid loans owed to the US from the end of WWII until today. Balance the books. 1 for 1 cancellation of debt.

- And still the largest debt obligations are our entitlement programs. Those must be modernized and be made sustainable.

Thanks I was not aware of that change. I like your Ida about the fed, but it is actully a private bank? and therfore we could not cancel the debt without destroying our credit rating even fruther, this would trigger higher interest, and make the payments on the debt double or triple.

Yes the end of the fed must happen but they must be paid off first. It is a long and winding road, But if the american people would take charge it can and I beleive will happen.

Peter1469
12-18-2012, 10:05 AM
Thanks I was not aware of that change. I like your Ida about the fed, but it is actully a private bank? and therfore we could not cancel the debt without destroying our credit rating even fruther, this would trigger higher interest, and make the payments on the debt double or triple.

Yes the end of the fed must happen but they must be paid off first. It is a long and winding road, But if the american people would take charge it can and I beleive will happen.

The debt that the Fed owns is ours. I seriously doubt that the credit agencies would much care if we canceled it, so long as we did pay the interest due. But ultimately we are bankrupt. Our credit rating will drop. On the other hand, if we had the Treasury print Greenbacks, interest is no longer relevant- at least for money creation purposes.

zelmo1234
12-18-2012, 08:12 PM
I know that this sounds funny as the fed only does business with the US govenment, and other banks but it would be shown as default, If we went into default we would be a junk bond status, This would raise the percentage we are paying on our debt from less than 1% to over 5% eating up nearly all of the revenue of the country just to pay China what we owe them.

We are in a pickle ther is no doubt and there is no magic bullet.