If you have any interest in seeing where our countries economy is heading you will want to read this. Jesse
I agree with this completely, and propose that the biggest programs that the taxes pay for be eliminated *immediately*! Absolutely ALL entitlement tax programs like social security and medicare should be cut off RIGHT NOW!
Then we can lower the taxes appropriately.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
Those who planned their lives around living like a fool on a holiday would be left to twist in the wind.
First a propaganda campaign must be used to vilify anyone who promoted wealth transfer. Give them the sort of treatment we have given communists in the 50's and gun owners for the last 35 years, register anyone with a history of wealth transfer advocacy.
Those people over 50 today will be designated victims of wealth transfer devils and will receive government pensions. Those people under 50 will be sent to cash flow re hab, and taught savings, investing, staying married, and maintaining relationships with relatives.
The side benefit is crime and mental illness will be drastically reduced. Charity would be left up to churches.
The USA would become the quality of life envy of the world.
Ah, not so. They will not receive any government money, because doing so would mean another TAX.
The name of the game (the original troll poster's game, that is) is to REDUCE TAXES. At all cost. So giving money to retirees is right out. They won't have to pay any taxes, but by the same token, won't get any money from the government.
I think that the folks who clamor for reduced taxes and less govenment interference in their lives come to a screeching halt when it is pointed out that this also means shutting off their water - if they are retired, that is. And most are.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
You can't put those addicted to barbiturates through cold turkey, or some will die. America needs to be more slowly weaned from the tit.
WOW!
Do you work for the government or what?
1st thing that comes to mind is shutting off a persons water, ending their social security benefits and or medicaid.I used to work for a large local government and they played this grandstand B.S. all the time when they had many things that could have been cut back or programs ended that were of little consequence to 99% of the population.
Biggest waste in government is NOT the programs themselves but the bureaucracy that grows to such large proporations that they consume more money than they distribute. Everybody in government has a personal assistant or a secretary, try to find that in private sector. (Just one expensive example!)
I always thought the lowest paid people that really did the actual work of the city were the people that should be taken care of because they did the necessary work that the government was supposed to provide. The guys that repair the streets, the gals that took your late water payments, the workers at the sewage treatment plant, etc and all the suits in the air-conditioned building that do nothing but shuffle paper and make power-point presentations of how wonderful our city is.
Stepping off soapbox.
Bart D. Hull snipped-for-privacy@inficad.com Tempe, Arizona
Check
Remove -nospam to reply via email.
jim rozen wrote:
Nope. Shut that stuff off right now. Those who can get a job, will do so. Those who cannot, will have to just quit spending money.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
I have no problem with then shutting off the water so long as I get my money back. But you and I know that that is not how it would work. The funds would be reallocated to a new social fund to assist those recently diagnosed with nowatersycosis and we would start all over again.
As Mr Hodges points out in his article, future generations will not achieve more economic potential and more individual freedom than prior generations under the current conditions. The cancer "more / big government" will continue to grow until it reaches a point of financial collapse or worse.
JLZ
Sounds good to me.
Dan
On Sun, 16 May 2004 15:15:18 -0700, "Bart D. Hull" vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email
Sorry? You are saying that _large_ private sector is not just about as bad as Govt in bureaucracy? Also, govt does not have....wait for my buggaboo...._sharegolders_ (or should not, except taxpayers).
Sharegolders make companies take more from you than they give back, and generate enormous inefficiencies in the running of the company. Sharegolders that _contribute_ to the runnning of a company are far outweighed by sharegolders that simply trade shares, which trading does not benefit the company's customers except in a very minor and inefficient way.
*******************************************************Sometimes in a workplace you find snot on the wall of the toilet cubicles. You feel "What sort of twisted child would do this?"....the internet seems full of them. It's very sad
Nope. That's now how entitlement programs work. There is no 'money to get back.' You were taxed, and that money went to other folks. There is no promise to pay, no trust fund. All that money you paid in is gone, and if you want to reduce taxes, then you will get no entitlement from the government.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
Nope - just injecting a dose of reality for folks who want to "make govenenment smaller" or "reduce taxes."
That sounds fine to me, but when one points out that this means ending all the entitlement programs forthwith, there's a great deal of packpedalling that happens.
I just like to watch that happen.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
On Sun, 16 May 2004 19:46:05 GMT, Clark Magnuson vaguely proposed a theory ......and in reply I say!: remove ns from my header address to reply via email
You compare the situation of a Communist to the situation of a gun owner? One's a belief. The other is a deed, and a fact. I also believe that gun owners have not bee hounded anything like Commies.
To me, a gun owner should be _at least_ as registerable as a car owner. In fact more so. At least cars have _some_ other use than killing something.
(NOTE: I do own a gun. I am not Communist)
*******************************************************Sometimes in a workplace you find snot on the wall of the toilet cubicles. You feel "What sort of twisted child would do this?"....the internet seems full of them. It's very sad
Or preferably just die.
Yep, that's just about the end result. If you decide that the government should be absolutely as *small* as possible, and taxes should be reduced to the barest minimum, then the conclusion is that the government should not be in the business of giving money to sick folks, widows and orphans.
Entitlement programs represent by far the largest tax burden on citizens, and I suggest that those folks who want to cut government and reduce taxes go after the big dragons first - cut right to the chase and eliminate those things that will reduce taxes the most.
Should citizens be taxed to provide:
housing medical care food
to those who cannot afford them? This is all a very interesting subject.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
There are ~ 30,000 gun laws in the United States counting federal and state laws. If you buy a gun a week and try building some rifles anything like what is covered by the '89 Bush Ban or the "94 Assault Weapons Ban, you will become, of necessity, a better expert on gun law than any cop I ever met. Machine some threads cut in the wrong place, and it is federal felony, which will take away one's remaining broken down gun rights.
The real test of the words, "in no way infringe" is long passed. We are living in a state of illegal persecution of gun owners.
You are correct Jim. I should have stated that I would prefer they cut off the water and then reduce the amount of taxes I pay.
"The name of the game (the original troll poster's game, that is) is to REDUCE TAXES."
Troll?, maybe. But I try to read this NG weekly and reply to comments here only as time permits and only when I happen across a topic that I believe beneficial.
I am a fabrication/welding shop foreman by day. Run an Electrical Contracting business with my son in-law on the evenings and weekends and in my spare time I fabricate a specialty hand tool for a local timber framing contractor in my home machine shop. My apologies if the time I spend here is a bother to you. Given the number of posts regarding this topic it appears as though some thought it beneficial. Regards, Jesse L Zufall
The problem is that SSBN is a government run Ponzi game. Some people are going to be hurt by it. The question is who. If you do it as Jim advocates, some of the retirees will be hurt. But the current retirees are the only ones that might get back more than they put it. So shutting it off cold turkey will cause less of a problem than trying to do it slowly.
Essentially you have a choice. Hurt those that are currently retired and those close to retirement, or hurt their sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters.
The only other possibility is some sort of transition to a system where the money is actually invested and grows. But the politics are such that no one ever does anything to fix the problem.
Dan
The problem is that SSBN is a government run Ponzi game. Some people are going to be hurt by it. The question is who. If you do it as Jim advocates, some of the retirees will be hurt. But the current retirees are the only ones that might get back more than they put it. So shutting it off cold turkey will cause less of a problem than trying to do it slowly.
Essentially you have a choice. Hurt those that are currently retired and those close to retirement, or hurt their sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters.
The only other possibility is some sort of transition to a system where the money is actually invested and grows. But the politics are such that no one ever does anything to fix the problem.
Dan
The problem is that SSBN is a government run Ponzi game. Some people are going to be hurt by it. The question is who. If you do it as Jim advocates, some of the retirees will be hurt. But the current retirees are the only ones that might get back more than they put it. So shutting it off cold turkey will cause less of a problem than trying to do it slowly.
Essentially you have a choice. Hurt those that are currently retired and those close to retirement, or hurt their sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters.
The only other possibility is some sort of transition to a system where the money is actually invested and grows. But the politics are such that no one ever does anything to fix the problem.
Dan
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.