Where is the US economy headed?

I don't have any problem with belt tightening on the home front to reduce the deficit so long as we tighten the belt even tighter on the federal spending side.

Actually, you only pay taxes on the taxable income.

If you can reduce your gross income by deductions, which is what happened in the 1970s, the top earners could make their taxable income zero.

First, I would reduce the size of government by 1/4 across the board. That includes staffing for all levels of government (yes, even air traffic controllers and regulatory agencies) in all three branches.

I would very much like Congress to not deal with much of what they find the time to deal with. I'd much rather they were simply too busy dealing with the Critical Affairs of the Nation and had no time whatsoever to deal with social issues.

Second, I would get the hell out of Iraq!!

Third, hmmm... let me think about it for more than 30 seconds and I'll come up with a third one.

JPB wrote:

First, I would reduce the size of government by 1/4 across the board. That includes staffing for all levels of government (yes, even air traffic controllers and regulatory agencies) in all three branches.

Is there no concern that these agencies won't be able to do their job with 1/4 less people?

I believe that the job should be defined by the limited amount of manpower available to do it, not by making government larger in order to accommodate an ever increasing (non-critical) scope.

At a federal level? I don't think it's that hard at all. Run the treasury, regulate commerce, maintain the military, help with the interstate infrastructure, ensure a viable postal service, and let the states and local communities deal with just about everything else.

We give (and now expect) much too much from our federal government, cyclo. We're spoiled. We whine about paying taxes (unless it's someone else who is going to be paying them) and then whine even louder when someone asks how we're going to pay for whatever it is we want.

Why do you pretend that State and Local communities will deal with the issues we face any cheaper than the Feds do? It looks like your plan is mostly to transfer your tax dollars away from a central entity to a local one - but not to lower the actual amount of money it takes to deal with issues.

I think that a large part of this debate boils down to whether one thinks that those who run into problems or difficulties in life should have any safety net at all, or any assistance at all - or that it should be survival of the fittest, and **** the next guy if he can't keep up. We have made a determination at the national level that we don't want to live in a society in which people are just trampled and left behind.... and that costs money.

Cycloptichorn

Latinos for SB 1070Posted by Darla, ADMIN / National Director on July 22, 2010 at 5:13pm in We Stand with Arizona SB1070
Back to We Stand with Arizona SB1070 Discussions
Great News! DD

Latinos for SB 1070


From Fox News: “The Arizona Latino Republican Association will become the first Hispanic organization in the country to actively oppose the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona’s new
immigration law. Larry Klayman, founder of Freedom Watch, Inc., said he
will be joined by ALRA Chairman Jesse Hernandez and members of the
Phoenix Law Enforcement Association at an announcement Thursday morning
in Phoenix.”

Speaking of racial profiling. The media has by and large profiled all Latinos — Hispanics — as poor people who support the liberal policies of the Democratic Party.

Not everyone is going along with the welfare state that Democrats offer. Legal refuges from Cuba are ardently independent and fiercely capitalistic. They have seen the fulfillment
of the Democratic Party wet dream in action.

No thanks, comrade.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why do you pretend that State and Local communities will deal with the issues we face any cheaper than the Feds do? It looks like your plan is mostly to transfer your tax dollars away from a central entity to a local one - but not to lower the actual amount of money it takes to deal with issues.

I think transferring them to the local entities will reduce the actual amount of it takes to deal with the issues. One financial advantage of centralizing a process is ostensibly to reduce overhead. I don't buy it in the case of our government. I think if people get to see and feel how their tax dollars are being spent then they'll make smarter choices on what they want to raise taxes for. Ok... maybe not California, but I believe in balanced budgets too. No unfunded programs allowed!

And who better to take care of those with problems and difficulties than his neighbors and others in his community/state?

Federal programs make those folks invisible as people. Maybe some prefer it that way, but I still think we can take care of each other much better on a local/state level than a federal one.