Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, lets say you have been given (for whatever reason you wish) absolute complete power, to one end. Fix the U.S. governments budget, and get the economy on track. What would you do, and what do you THINK your changes would impact in the country (perhaps even the world)



...should get interesting.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:So, lets say you have been given (for whatever reason you wish) absolute complete power, to one end. Fix the U.S. governments budget, and get the economy on track. What would you do, and what do you THINK your changes would impact in the country (perhaps even the world)



...should get interesting.

Do I dare poke this subject? Aw hell why not?!

First and Foremost, I eliminate the EPA. Their overreaching regulations have hamstrung all further resource exploration and usage. Same goes for the Department of the Interior. Both of their purposes have been contorted to the complete opposite of what they were created for and need to be shut down. In fact i would trim the departments down to the bare essentials.

Secondly, I remove all federal taxes (and the 16th Amendment) on income in every form and replace them with the FairTax. This would encourage all kinds of expansion in the private sector by making their investments tax free. All US monies being held internationally could be Re-Patriated with zero cost it's respective owners, foreign businesses would immediately consider relocating to the United States with our new 0% Corporate Income Tax and the economy would explode at a pace unseen in recorded history. The only form of revenue to the Government at this point would be a 23% National Sales tax on Retail items. Any money used on items considered necessities would be refunded on a monthly basis, this check is called the "Pre-Bate" it helps lower income families the most for if they buy only necessities, they would have zero net taxation. This would also rid the need for lobbyists as their respective corporations wouldn't need to lobby any politician for a special tax break. Any attempt at price hiking could easily be punished by simply not buying from that store, it puts absolute power in the hands of the consumer and citizen as it gives US the complete control over how much the Federal Government receives in revenue. This would not only force the politicians to live within their means, but it would also remove all forms of soft tyranny in this country.

Thirdly, I would arbitrarily overturn Wickard v. Filburn. This case has been the Pandora's box to the loss of liberty over the last 70 years. It allowed the government complete authority over commerce, whether it be lack of commerce or direct.

Fourthly, I would overturn Obamacare and eventually phase out Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. These programs are debt bombs that will explode in the next 10-15 years and it will be the doom of this nation if they are not deal with now. Obamacare gives the Government unprecedented Federal Authority to dictate that a person must buy a good or service. Regardless of their situation. Car Insurance is a bad argument as not everyone owns a car, nor chooses to drive one. This is a dangerous precedent that has terrible ramifications if it goes unchecked.

Fifthly, I would make voting tests a thing of reality. It doesn't matter who you are. If you cannot name your congressman, senators, governor, the Three Branches of Government and 4 supreme Court justices. You aren't involved enough to be voting. Stupid people have elected demagogue after demagogue because of catchy slogans and flowery language promising them the moon and the stars. FDR should be the proof of that.

Stormrider wrote:
The only form of revenue to the Government at this point would be a 23% National Sales tax on Retail items. Any money used on items considered necessities would be refunded on a monthly basis, this check is called the "Pre-Bate" it helps lower income families the most for if they buy only necessities, they would have zero net taxation. This would also rid the need for lobbyists as their respective corporations wouldn't need to lobby any politician for a special tax break.

Not really, no. Lobbyists would simply appeal to politicians for the products of their particular industry to be regarded as necessities.

Stormrider wrote:
Fifthly, I would make voting tests a thing of reality. It doesn't matter who you are. If you cannot name your congressman, senators, governor, the Three Branches of Government and 4 supreme Court justices. You aren't involved enough to be voting. Stupid people have elected demagogue after demagogue because of catchy slogans and flowery language promising them the moon and the stars. FDR should be the proof of that.

So you want to eliminate soft tyranny, by substituting a hard form of tyranny of the majority via the ability to decide what is on this particular test?

As for eliminating catchy slogans, and flowery language: that's all that politics is, it isn't going anywhere, and its always going to be an effective means of winning elections. After all, no one is going to sit through a speech by a politicians which amounts to a dissertation defense, and most people wouldn't be sufficiently knowledgeable to do so; regardless of whether or not they can name some elected and appointed officials.

I'm also wondering why you would call FDR a demagogue, considering he did, by accident and intent, basically everything he was stated to have been attempting to do.



Anyway, fixing the US budget is a relatively simple thing given absolute power. There are plenty of cuts to make, with the only real issue being political reality. Hell, if we're ignoring politics I could advocate the dissolution of Medicare/Medicaid, and the lowering of the retirement age to 50; where "retirement" entails public execution for the sin of growing old. I, of course, being the almighty economic dictator, am incapable of sin, and therefore will not only be allowed to live, but our military budget will be allocated for the sole purpose of ensuring I live forever.

A more interesting question is "How would you convince the opposition to go along with your plan?"

Anyway, fixing the budget: incremental reductions to the military, Medicaid, and discretionary budgets; Medicare as well if necessary. Again, it isn't very hard in terms of what needs to be done, the difficult part is convincing other people to go along with doing it.

I disagree.

Burn it to the ground and start again.

Return us to a natural and traditional pillaging based economy. Every spring we could pile on boats after the planting is done, and go reaving.

Return to the gold standard.

First thing first, it's important to realise that a recession doesn't mean everything is broken. The US is still among the richest nations in the world, per capita, and only bested by some smaller nations reliant on particularly profitable resources. When it comes to venture capital and bringing products to market, the US remains second to none.

To solve the long term budgeting issues, healthcare needs to be brought under control. The system you have right now is frankly terrible, costing more than twice as much as anyone else and delivering poorer results. Really, what's needed is a basic level of cover for everyone, there'd be waiting at the doctors and for non-essential healthcare, but it'd be a minimum level of care any private insurer would have to beat in order to attract business. These private insurers would then build their own packages of care, tailored to whatever the market demanded, because instead of going through business, they are selling straight to the private consumer, who in turn has real choice because the public option won't leave him bankrupt and needing treatment. The German model is really the ideal here, the US spends about $4,000 government dollars a year per capita on people's health, Germany spends about $200... and they get better results because their system is well constructed.

From there you could cut defence spending by half, maybe more if you can get commitments from other developed nations to grow their force projection capabilities, and that'd be a nice, healthy saving, about $350 billion a year.

Probably as a last step you could privatise retirement savings. Instead of taking in social security, you'd have that money move tax free into individual retirement accounts. This would provide healthy funds for future investment, offsetting the US savings drain, and it'd mean you'd no longer have the looming burdens of any demographic bulge.

Once that stuff is in place you could actually set about improving the lives of the average guy. Maybe a minimum wage that people can live on. Maybe more than two weeks holidays a year. All stuff that becomes possible once you get some sanity in your economic structures.

sebster wrote:
Probably as a last step you could privatise retirement savings. Instead of taking in social security, you'd have that money move tax free into individual retirement accounts. This would provide healthy funds for future investment, offsetting the US savings drain, and it'd mean you'd no longer have the looming burdens of any demographic bulge.

This was one idea, in a way that I also had. When FDR created Social Security, he intended it to support those who lost their private sector jobs, and thereby the real means to save for their own retirement, due to being called in to service for WW2 and then it would phase out as those people "phased out" as it were. What I would personally do, is keep federal, state and military employee "social security" in place, but eliminate it for those who did not serve their country in any way other than paying taxes.


I would also eliminate, and put an amendment into the constitution that would ban the creation of any laws or statutes against tobacco use. On the grand scheme of the federal income, i know that tobacco is not that huge a slice of our trillions of dollars that come in, BUT, due to lobbyists and liberal lawmaking, it is almost impossible to partake in what i consider a 1st amendment right. All the money that the feds put into tobacco research and legislation funding would go to other programs, because frankly people are going to smoke, regardless of what any label on a box, or some law says. Additionally, the laws that have been generated against tobacco, and the tobacco industry have had many detrimental effects on them, from the farmer all the way up to the execs (though, the execs dont feel these things near as much as the farmer or factory worker does).
Though, it should be noted that I would keep the taxes on tobacco products relatively unchanged, as we know that it IS pretty harmful to folks.

I'm also with Stormrider on getting rid of the EPA. I recently read an article on how "green energy" is killing us, and its killing itself. Did you know there are actually two types of nuclear reactors in use in 1st world developed nations? The ones you hear about are only the first type, with all of their nasty, harmful nuclear winter causing waste. The second type actually produces power using the same nuclear principles as the first, but the fuel is the waste rods from the first type... the spent fuel from this second type is actually such a small amount, that apparently the number of drums used to store it in, could be carried in a standard pickup truck per month (this is a rough guess as i forgot the actual number). Also, the wind farms that Americans are so against (looking at you Kennedy!) placing off the coast, they are all over Germany, and really, they are not all that noticeable, they have very little impact on the "beautiful skylines" because they are most often placed in less populated farmlands, where wind is much more predictable and prevalent.

@sebster, I think the problem isn't the system in the US, its more the BS thats involved. gak "diseases" like ADD, which were created to control nonexistent problems drive the profits of both doctors and pharmaceutical companies alike... Not to mention the cultural differences of Europe and the US. By that I mean, at least in Germany, there are markets every saturday, where most people park the car and walk a great deal, while doing their daily shopping. In the US, you have people driving in a Semi truck for half a block to Walmart to get their McDonald's fix. Restaraunts, by and large are not chain owned in Europe (or I haven't seen nearly as many chains of sit-down, family restaraunts here), again, unlike the states where every town has an Olive Garden, TGIFridays, Red Lobster, etc. which all leads to the obesity epidemic that the US is faced with now.

There's more that I would do as well, but only so much time to type at this point.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:So, lets say you have been given (for whatever reason you wish) absolute complete power, to one end. Fix the U.S. governments budget, and get the economy on track. What would you do, and what do you THINK your changes would impact in the country (perhaps even the world)



...should get interesting.

I would be this guy.



Its a simple matter. You don't have to be brilliant, merely rely on people's enlightened self interest. By enlightened self interest I'd put Congress in a big room. In the room is the cast from Ultimate Warrior. Every five minutes they get to see which ultimate warrior is most lethal.

We'd balance the budget in six minutes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bromsy wrote:Return us to a natural and traditional pillaging based economy. Every spring we could pile on boats after the planting is done, and go reaving.

Comanche trail is just down the road. Lets do this thing.

Pillaging? I am intrigued. Please. Tell me moar *sits down and smokes pipe*

LordofHats wrote:Pillaging? I am intrigued. Please. Tell me moar *sits down and smokes pipe*

We cut down all the trees in the immediate vicinity, butcher anything with bones/ivory to put horns in our helmet, mine all the iron from the hills to make weapons and nails to keep the trees together in some sort of boat-like appearance, then throw the boats in the water and wherever we land, butcher the local populace, throw all their (our) stuff on boats, and repeat the process until we decide to settle somewhere else/land back home/sink in the ocean.

Frazzled wrote:Its a simple matter. You don't have to be brilliant, merely rely on people's enlightened self interest. By enlightened self interest I'd put Congress in a big room. In the room is the cast from Ultimate Warrior. Every five minutes they get to see which ultimate warrior is most lethal.

We'd balance the budget in six minutes.

Eleven, at a minimum.

The first one to go would be either an (R) or (D). Half of them wouldn't get upset until the next one was from their own party, then they'd get serious.

My solution is simple: every division, agency, or branch of government gets a 10%, across-the-board budget reduction. If you can't perform your agency functions with that reduction, your agency gets terminated. If the problems aren't fixed, next year it's another 10%.

Not only do you get the benefit of actually reducing the cost of government (rather than just the growth), you also reduce the power of the government.

To add to Sebster, I've wondered for some time if "US military-industrial complex" so to speak is in desperate need of reworking. The prices of weapons development and production are absurd in some areas with European countries able to produce weapons of similar or higher sophistication at fractions of our costs. I've done no dedicated research into the subject but I find myself questioning how our next generation SPG can have poorer performance than the most recent German model, and cost 5x as much (the cost ending in the weapons suspension and us continuing to use the M109 Paladin, which is a fine platfrom and still serviceable, but a similar problem exists in our jet fighter and naval development programs).

I've always known we waste massive amounts of money on redundant and pointless projects and programs (either through pork barrel or general fiscal stupidity) but I also wonder how much money can be saved by restructuring production and development.

biccat wrote:My solution is simple: every division, agency, or branch of government gets a 10%, across-the-board budget reduction. If you can't perform your agency functions with that reduction, your agency gets terminated. If the problems aren't fixed, next year it's another 10%.

This is logical and how you would actually do a budget. However, its not nearly as entertaining.

sebster wrote:.

Probably as a last step you could privatise retirement savings. Instead of taking in social security, you'd have that money move tax free into individual retirement accounts. This would provide healthy funds for future investment, offsetting the US savings drain, and it'd mean you'd no longer have the looming burdens of any demographic bulge.

I like the idea of privatised retirement but how do you handle the dramitic economic downturns (market corrections or whatever you wish to call them) that our economy is prone to and it's impact on savings. It seems to me someone could either invest in stable slow growth funds or more aggressive and volatile funds much as they do now. In scenario 1, there would not be nearly enough to sustain through retirement, especially with inflation, or in scenario 2 each generation would have to hope they can time set their retirment at a beneficial time in the market which we know very few can do successfully.

thedude wrote:

sebster wrote:Probably as a last step you could privatise retirement savings. Instead of taking in social security, you'd have that money move tax free into individual retirement accounts. This would provide healthy funds for future investment, offsetting the US savings drain, and it'd mean you'd no longer have the looming burdens of any demographic bulge

I like the idea of privatised retirement but how do you handle the dramitic economic downturns (market corrections or whatever you wish to call them) that our economy is prone to and it's impact on savings. It seems to me someone could either invest in stable slow growth funds or more aggressive and volatile funds much as they do now. In scenario 1, there would not be nearly enough to sustain through retirement, especially with inflation, or in scenario 2 each generation would have to hope they can time set their retirment at a beneficial time in the market which we know very few can do successfully.

You invest in something like this.

In the near term it relies on higher risk, higher yield investments, taking advantage of long-term growth. For example, while the DJIA may move quite a bit in the short term (year-to-year), over several decades you can expect a decent growth. Eventually, as you get closer to retirement, investments move to more stable, lower return investments.

You really should have private retirement savings anyway. Don't expect social security to either (a) be available when you retire or (b) cover all of your expenses when you retire.

That certainly mitigates some of the risk (almost all of my retirement accounts are in these type of funds now). But my concern would be that this would simply limit exposure for some but there is still potential to have large chunks of your retirement depleted close enough to retirement to not have time to replenish the savings due to market down turns. Maybe as these types of funds have a little longer history we will see that is an unfounded concern. I just see this as essetianlly making the US retirement system a matter of the public playing the market which one of the first rules in investing is to not play the market or in other words to just ride it out but each generation will have a section of the population not able to 'ride it out' due to retirement.

- get out of costly foreign wars. Invest in smarter defense, and use it as defense, not offense.

- cancel any earmark spending. We don't need random bridges.

- increase top tax rates for people earning over 500,000 (inflation adjusted going forwards)/year, to 1950's levels. With no loopholes for how the money was earned.

- increase inheritance taxes to 50% for anything over 2 million (inflation adjusted going forwards). We don't need a nobility class in this country. Give it to your choice of charity before you die or the government afterwards.

- institute government work programs in exchange for unemployment benefits. We've got a crumbling infrastructure, and if you're collecting a government check, you can spend time filling potholes, painting bridges and the like.

- actually validate the claims of people asking for entitlements. You're collecting public funds and need them, fine. But not if you're driving a caddie and wearing designer threads.

- cut farm subsidies to farms owned by millionaire businessmen living in new york. If you're actually a small private farmer and can prove need, fine. If you're agri-business, you don't need a handout.

thedude wrote:

sebster wrote:.

Probably as a last step you could privatise retirement savings. Instead of taking in social security, you'd have that money move tax free into individual retirement accounts. This would provide healthy funds for future investment, offsetting the US savings drain, and it'd mean you'd no longer have the looming burdens of any demographic bulge.

I like the idea of privatised retirement but how do you handle the dramitic economic downturns (market corrections or whatever you wish to call them) that our economy is prone to and it's impact on savings. It seems to me someone could either invest in stable slow growth funds or more aggressive and volatile funds much as they do now. In scenario 1, there would not be nearly enough to sustain through retirement, especially with inflation, or in scenario 2 each generation would have to hope they can time set their retirment at a beneficial time in the market which we know very few can do successfully.

This is just me personally talking here, but thats what each corporation should be doing... When you are hired by, say.. Ford Motor Company, if you sign a certain line, then a small percentage of your check goes into a fund. This fund does what social security does now, gets you some money in retirement. This is why I had suggested keeping the military retirement plan as is, because most of us who do 20 years have done more than enough to earn some sort of retirement pay. The thing that's killing us, is the people who fail to plan for themselves and do do any retirement planning whatsoever, and depend solely on SS for all of their income.. hoping it'll "be enough"


I would finish off the small arms projects that the DoD are working on, get either the SCAR, or the XM8 (as they are vastly superior to the M-16 family), and save tons of money on repair parts ordered (this means its a high initial cost, but the return more than makes up for the initial loss) As for the defense budget, I would remove ALL contracts, put any and all forms of maintenance back into the hands of the soldiers/airmen/marines/seamen, etc. Contracts and contractors are where a huge percentage of our budget for defense go. While we're on defense, I would get rid of Border Patrol and Dept of Homeland Security. Both of those jobs can and should be done by either the military, or local police as situation dictates (honestly, the local PD should be checking my bags at the airport, not some glorified mall cop)

Since tobacco was already fixed (in my earlier post), I would also remove some of, if not alot of the red tape that surrounds people who have genuinely good ideas for small businesses, or business in general.

Theres also the issue of illegal immigration in this country, which I have another solution for. Welfare reforms, and deportation. If you have no job, and dont get a job on your own, you can work for us for your welfare check. This would include all the produce picking, and other jobs that "real americans dont want" This would fix some of the overcrowding issues of our prisons, which would see some of their own changes to make them cheaper and save money for all governments involved... Just like the Arizona warden who placed his inmates in large, army surplus tents, and made them do manual labor for all their food, etc... Well, get ready everyone else, its comin to you too! (we would also need to do something about those lengthy appeals processes for death row inmates, to free up some space as it were.. if nothing else, we could ship guys in for life who would get the death sentence to Texas, and speed everything up, assuming the crime was committed in a state where there is no death penalty)


We could also eliminate senator/representative pay. Most of the guys in Washington are quite well to do without a senatorial paycheck, so we'll free those funds up there as well.. Or if we have to pay them, we'll pay them E-1 to E-3 military pay, so they arent "working" for nothing.

Spend less save more.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:We could also eliminate senator/representative pay. Most of the guys in Washington are quite well to do without a senatorial paycheck, so we'll free those funds up there as well.. Or if we have to pay them, we'll pay them E-1 to E-3 military pay, so they arent "working" for nothing.

This will have the effect of discouraging those who can't afford it from serving. Millionaires will be the only ones who can afford to serve in the senate, which only exascerbates the problem of a "ruling class."

We should get rid of campaign funding limitations and include mandatory disclosure for all donors, regardless of amount, source, recipient, or purpose. This would make the political playing field more open to those who don't have a personal fortune to spend on running for office.

All technology is destroyed, back the medieval stage. Each state puts all their money in a big pot, in the form of gold coins called Thrones. The huge pot is put on top of a mountain, guarded by one man from each State. Then, a quarter is set aside, and the rest is evenly distributed between the States. Then, each State evenly distributes their money between the people. The people then spend two years gathering support, and eventually elect a Warlord. The Warlords of each State then lead their barbarian armies against all the other Warlords, eventually one is declared the winner after two years, and is elected the High King, who then uses the quarter set aside to rule the other Warlords. The process is repeated every 30 years, or after the current High King dies.

Altnertively we all get to pick either a purple sash or green sash from a barrel. he who picks purple leader sash is purple leader. He who picks green leader sash is green leader. Two colors fight until one side wins.

biccat wrote:
My solution is simple: every division, agency, or branch of government gets a 10%, across-the-board budget reduction. If you can't perform your agency functions with that reduction, your agency gets terminated. If the problems aren't fixed, next year it's another 10%.

That doesn't seem rational. If an agency cannot operate with a 10% budget reduction, then it does not follow that its function is not necessary. And, considering I'm assuming that you would be determining whether or not the agency in question is carrying out its appointed fucntion, it would seem simpler to just do away with the agencies you didn't like.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:To add to Sebster, I've wondered for some time if "US military-industrial complex" so to speak is in desperate need of reworking. The prices of weapons development and production are absurd in some areas with European countries able to produce weapons of similar or higher sophistication at fractions of our costs. I've done no dedicated research into the subject but I find myself questioning how our next generation SPG can have poorer performance than the most recent German model, and cost 5x as much (the cost ending in the weapons suspension and us continuing to use the M109 Paladin, which is a fine platfrom and still serviceable, but a similar problem exists in our jet fighter and naval development programs).

I've always known we waste massive amounts of money on redundant and pointless projects and programs (either through pork barrel or general fiscal stupidity) but I also wonder how much money can be saved by restructuring production and development.

From what I've seen, there's 3 fundamental differences between US procurement/R&D and the same process in Europe.

1: The US develops technologies which are intended to exceed present operational needs, and so focuses less on off the shelf systems than on ground-up research. They also develop systems which are designed to function in a uch broader set of operational situations.

2: The US defense industry is rife with former US military personnel, who are essentially paid to negotiate with their former peers on behalf of the contractor in question.

3: Defense spending in the US is both a matter of ideological, and fiscal concerns. Fiscal in the same sense it is in Europe, where state contracts mean money going into region X. Ideological in the sense that there are a lot of people in the US who really like the idea of having a huge military, meaning any cuts, even those in the name of efficiency, are often derided as being soft on defense. Compare this to Europe where overall defense spending is a relatively insignificant political issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I'm also with Stormrider on getting rid of the EPA. I recently read an article on how "green energy" is killing us, and its killing itself. Did you know there are actually two types of nuclear reactors in use in 1st world developed nations? The ones you hear about are only the first type, with all of their nasty, harmful nuclear winter causing waste. The second type actually produces power using the same nuclear principles as the first, but the fuel is the waste rods from the first type... the spent fuel from this second type is actually such a small amount, that apparently the number of drums used to store it in, could be carried in a standard pickup truck per month (this is a rough guess as i forgot the actual number). Also, the wind farms that Americans are so against (looking at you Kennedy!) placing off the coast, they are all over Germany, and really, they are not all that noticeable, they have very little impact on the "beautiful skylines" because they are most often placed in less populated farmlands, where wind is much more predictable and prevalent.

The problem with nuclear waste isn't necessarily the amount, though generating a significant percentage of US power from nuclear sources would massively increase the total waste per anum, but where to put it. There were plans to put it in Nevada at Yucca Mountain, but that was killed by the fact that Harry Reid and Obama share a political party. Until the Executive opposes that particular Senate seat, that plan will remain dead. Of course, once it does happen, it will go something like this:

Feds: "We own 80% of your state, and we're going to put whatever we want there."

Of course, now you also have all the political hurdles to nuclear power, thanks primarily to the whole Fukushima event. Hell, Merkel said she was shutting down all the German reactors, though it remains to be seen where she'll find the power to replace them.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
@sebster, I think the problem isn't the system in the US, its more the BS thats involved. gak "diseases" like ADD, which were created to control nonexistent problems drive the profits of both doctors and pharmaceutical companies alike.

Its always fun to listen to people who aren't medical professionals discuss the legitimacy of medical conditions.

This is just a very rough plan.

-Remove 90% of troops from outside of the country, primarily in countries like Libya where its not our business. Now the military costs a lot less!

-Increase taxes for the rich (top 10%) by 1.5%.

-Wait two years. Look, now we suddenly have a ton of money! Use it to pay off debt.

-Wait 3 years. Now look, we paid off our debt and have a ton of spare money! Use it in stimulus stuff, primarily giving the money to small businesses but also give it to some big ones too.

LoneLictor wrote:This is just a very rough plan.

-Remove 90% of troops from outside of the country, primarily in countries like Libya where its not our business. Now the military costs a lot less!

-Increase taxes for the rich (top 10%) by 1.5%.

-Wait two years. Look, now we suddenly have a ton of money! Use it to pay off debt.

-Wait 3 years. Now look, we paid off our debt and have a ton of spare money! Use it in stimulus stuff, primarily giving the money to small businesses but also give it to some big ones too.

Thats not enough to balance the budget. I doubt thats enough to pay for Obamacare, much less the current budget deficit.

EDIT: good start though. Now:
1. Push back and centralize the age of SS and Medicare to 70.
2. Regraduate.
make below $15M: 1% (everyone pays something!)
under $500M Clinton era rates
$500M to $1MM 45%
over $1MM 50%
cap gains at the same rate as personal or LLC. No deductions except charity.

2. Eliminate the departments of Education, cut the Agriculture, State, and Interior Departments by 50%. Eliminate the Department of Education and reduce the EPA by 50%.
3. Eliminate all corporate, and personal loopholes except charity (10%); and double declining depreciation for capex in the US. Raise the capital gains tax rate to the standard business tax rate. Eliminate LLCs. Raise import duties 50% unless they are in a free trade zone on the American continents.
4. Eliminate all subsidies.
5. Make Puerto Rico a state and tax those s.
6. Make drugs legal and tax those :bleeps.

Wouldn't it be easier simply to dissolve the US government and default on the national debt?

You can get a balanced budget in 10 minutes.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
My solution is simple: every division, agency, or branch of government gets a 10%, across-the-board budget reduction. If you can't perform your agency functions with that reduction, your agency gets terminated. If the problems aren't fixed, next year it's another 10%.

That doesn't seem rational. If an agency cannot operate with a 10% budget reduction, then it does not follow that its function is not necessary. And, considering I'm assuming that you would be determining whether or not the agency in question is carrying out its appointed fucntion, it would seem simpler to just do away with the agencies you didn't like.

Very few agencies are "necessary." In fact, apart from defense, IRS, and the three primary branches (president, congress, supreme court), most of those are unnecessary. Even the IRS and defense departments aren't strictly necessary.

However, I wouldn't be the one determining if they can carry out their function, it would be their decision. If you spend too much and run up a debt, your branch gets cut. If you run out of cash halfway through the year and come begging to Congress, you get cut.

Right now, the incentive for every agency is to spend as much of their budget as possible, promise to pay more, and beg from Congress for even more next year. This would change the balance, so the incentive is to save money.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Wouldn't it be easier simply to dissolve the US government and default on the national debt?

You can get a balanced budget in 10 minutes.

Easier to devalue the dollar and pay off the debt for a few pennies (today's money).

Kilkrazy wrote:Wouldn't it be easier simply to dissolve the US government and default on the national debt?

You can get a balanced budget in 10 minutes.

Time honored government tradition.