STATE OF THE UNION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Foxfyre wrote:

...
I disagree with the President on more than one issue
...

I hope we can maintain enough interest long enough in this forum thread to discuss the president's and our own views, and our recommendations regarding -- in addition to terrorism, oil indepence, alternate energy, and taxes -- education policy, congressional & presidential & judiciary powers, wiretapping, disaster relief policy, tort reform, federal charity, retirement insurance, health insurance, immigration, trade tariffs, earmarking, line item vetoing, et cetera.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

...
I disagree with the President on more than one issue
...

I hope we can maintain enough interest long enough in this forum thread to discuss the president's and our own views, and our recommendations regarding -- in addition to terrorism, oil indepence, alternate energy, and taxes -- education policy, congressional & presidential & judiciary powers, wiretapping, disaster relief policy, tort reform, federal charity, retirement insurance, health insurance, immigration, trade tariffs, earmarking, line item vetoing, et cetera.

Well, I think I already have said so, but I'm on the record as supporting the President's initiatives to make the tax cuts permanent. I also think they don't go far enough.

In addition:'

Terrorism--I'm against it and all for the government listening in on anybody who might be a party to it. Executive, congressional, and judiciary powers fit in here as well as in other issues I would like to discuss.

Oil Dependence--I'm against it and all for the government figuring out a way to end it. Meanwhile I support drilling for oil anywhere they can find it. Alternate energy fits in here I think.

Education policy--I would like for the federal government to establish minimum standards agreeable to all public universities and then get out of the education business altogether.

Disaster relief. I think the federal government providing disaster insurance is appropriate but people should pay to get it; and it is reasonable to have a response team for major disasters exceeding local capabilities to deal with. I don't think the taxpayer should have to rescue people again and again and again who refuse to avail themselves of insurance while living in places in which disasters are a virtual certainty.

Tort reform--Yes!!!

Federal charity--No to doling out $$$ to curry favor.

Retirement--phase in private plans as can be practically done.

Health insurance--phase in private plans as can be practically done.

Immigration--one of the areas I am most peeved at the President.

Tariffs--one of the areas in which I am most conflicted but I am a staunch free trader.

Line item vetoing--I would rather see a law passed that the Congress had to vote up or down on every item instead of bundling bills together which allows them to hide huge chunks of pork. I like the idea of a line item veto that the President could nix a particular objectionable policy or program while not having to scuttle an entire bill to do it.

Earmarking--explain more.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

...
I'm on the record as supporting the President's initiatives to make the tax cuts permanent. I also think they don't go far enough.

In addition:'

Terrorism--I'm against it and all for the government listening in on anybody who might be a party to it. Executive, congressional, and judiciary powers fit in here as well as in other issues I would like to discuss.

Oil Dependence--I'm against it and all for the government figuring out a way to end it. Meanwhile I support drilling for oil anywhere they can find it. Alternate energy fits in here I think.

Education policy--I would like for the federal government to establish minimum standards agreeable to all public universities and then get out of the education business altogether.

Disaster relief. I think the federal government providing disaster insurance is appropriate but people should pay to get it; and it is reasonable to have a response team for major disasters exceeding local capabilities to deal with. I don't think the taxpayer should have to rescue people again and again and again who refuse to avail themselves of insurance while living in places in which disasters are a virtual certainty.

Tort reform--Yes!!!

Federal charity--No to doling out $$$ to curry favor.

Retirement--phase in private plans as can be practically done.

Health insurance--phase in private plans as can be practically done.

Immigration--one of the areas I am most peeved at the President.

Tariffs--one of the areas in which I am most conflicted but I am a staunch free trader.

Line item vetoing--I would rather see a law passed that the Congress had to vote up or down on every item instead of bundling bills together which allows them to hide huge chunks of pork. I like the idea of a line item veto that the President could nix a particular objectionable policy or program while not having to scuttle an entire bill to do it.

Earmarking--explain more.

In this post, I'll comment on Earmarking and Education.

Earmarking is a term used by Democrat and Republican members of Congress to refer to their process for inserting into major federal funding bills authorizations for additional federal funding for "special" local projects. The simplist way to describe this process is "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours." Members of Congress bargain -- without public debate -- with each other to get each other not to object to the insertion (i.e., earmark) of authorizations of "special" federal funding to buy local voter support.

I think earmarks constitute line items that must be individually vetoable by the President.

I think federal aid to education ought to be "privatized!" I'll explain.

No federal education aid should be paid directly to any government education function without individual student approval. To accomplish this, I think the GI Bill way of distributing funds to education institutions ought to be adopted for all federal aid to all education institutions. Yes! Adopt a 100% federal voucher system. Each student, whether primary or secondary or college or post graduate, would be assigned an annual federal voucher. When presented to a particular school such voucher would be cashable by the school for a specific amount of federal aid. The result would be that students and/or their parents or guardians -- not politicians -- would decide which schools would receive how much federal aid (i.e., how many vouchers). The net consequence would be that schools would compete for students instead of politician handouts. To compete effectively, the schools would have to satisfy their customers not just their employees.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

.

I disagree with the President on more than one issue, but I'm 100% with him on tax policy if he just stays the course or makes it even better.

Oh, me, too, except I think many of us are disappointed that lately the more money that comes in, the more they seem to want to spend!! Seems, at times, we're trying to outspend the Democrats.

It won't bother me, though, if the Dems want to campaign on raising taxes in '08 Smile

0 Replies

JustWonders wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
.

I disagree with the President on more than one issue, but I'm 100% with him on tax policy if he just stays the course or makes it even better.

Oh, me, too, except I think many of us are disappointed that lately the more money that comes in, the more they seem to want to spend!! Seems, at times, we're trying to outspend the Democrats.

It won't bother me, though, if the Dems want to campaign on raising taxes in '08

It has always been such that if you give Congress $10 to spend, they'll find a way to spend $15. So if you increase revenues to $15, they'll spend $20.

Now going back up there to Ican's explanation of earmarking--and thanks to him for that--it sounds exactly like what we used to call pork. Smile

The Prez has asked for a line item veto.

The problem with that is it makes him the bad guy on everything. Congress can pass any darn thing they want and make themselves look good to their constituents. Can they help it if the President vetoed the allocation?

I suggest the following course (though pigs will fly before we'll get it):

1. Congress has to vote up or down on each provision in a spending bill rather than than bundle it all into a New York City yellow pages size bill. That makes THEM have to own up to what they're passing. The Constitution does make Congress, not the President, responsible to pass a budget and spending allocations.

2. Give the President a line item veto for those policies or provisions he can cut out of an otherwise very good bill so the whole thing doesn't have to be scrapped to avoid one bad element.

0 Replies

I know for a fact that the Constitution and its amendments as adopted do not delegate the following powers to any branch of the government -- Congress, the President, or the Judiciary -- and therefore, by implication of its Article VI, any exercise of these powers by the government is a violation of the "supreme Law of the Land."

>>The power to adopt amendments to the Constitution

>>The power to fund the general education of the public

>>The power to make charitable distributions of public funds

>>The power to provide the public retirement insurance

>>The power to provide the public health insurance.

The legalization of any one or more of these powers requires a legally adopted amendment to the Constitution as specified in its Article V.

I would not agree to any such amendment.

But given the past illegal amendments of the Constitution by the Judiciary, what can Congress do even if it were willing to mitigate the damage done by these continuing violations?

Perhaps it could limit the ways government can give the illegal aid to members of the public. Laughing

0 Replies

Why, Ican, would you suggest that the Federal government fund education and not health care?

0 Replies

there's something illogical about this tax rejection mania. at least from the standpoint of the nation's solvency. may be great for a few citizens & corporations, however;

Quote:

Wednesday, November 16, 2005
USA Borrows $5 Billion Per Day In November

The USA has stepped up its borrowing massively in November. Data of the Bureau of the Public Debt shows that American Debt stood a $8.015 trillion at November 1 and has since risen $51 billion to the new record of $8.066 trillion by November 15. This amounts to $5.1 billion new debt for every working day. US debts had increased at a rate of $3 billion per day from January to October 2005. Something's getting out of hand here.

prudent investor

Quote:

The Debt To the Penny

Current Amount

02/07/2006 $8,201,608,558,623.45

Current
Month

02/06/2006 $8,197,590,334,157.11
02/03/2006 $8,195,544,127,376.07
02/02/2006 $8,198,626,872,332.20
02/01/2006 $8,183,138,191,456.56

Prior
Months

01/31/2006 $8,196,070,437,599.52
12/30/2005 $8,170,424,541,313.62
11/30/2005 $8,092,322,205,720.65
10/31/2005 $8,027,123,404,214.36

Prior Fiscal
Years

09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06
09/29/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00

SOURCE: BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

current debt to the penny

Quote:

Since 2000, the percentage of U.S. public debt owed to foreigners has doubled. As of July, foreigners held just over $2 trillion, or 44 percent, of federal public debt outstanding. Japan alone now holds more than $680 billion; China, $242 billion; United Kingdom, $160 billion; and Caribbean Banking Centers, $103 billion (U.S. Department of the Treasury).

the trumpet

i'm not qualified to get into all of the financial geek speak of the whole national debt thing.

but, when looking at these types of figure, it really isn't a pre-requisite, is it ?

being in the black is good. being in debt is bad.

you cannot spend without taking in cash first.

if you are spending more than you bring in, you must borrow for your overspending.

the lender then takes over your company, you no longer own it and he can choose to bully you and perhaps fire you.

or he could simply sell your debt to an even more hostile lender.

or he can forclose on your loan, take your building, throw you out and watch gleefully as you eat out of garbage cans, poop and sleep in an alley way before finally disappearing altogether.

so not paying taxes in a fair, even and measured way to support our way of life is bad how ???

0 Replies

The thing is though Dtom, it doesn't matter how much money the treasury takes in, they seem to spend more. Just today it was reported that revenues for the years since Bush's tax cut are up 62 billion per year over the comparable prior years. Reagan's tax cuts doubled treasury revenues but Congress spent triple. By your chart, even when the budget was presumably balanced and the deficit eliminated producing a 'surplus', the national debt continued to rise. So it was never really balanced was it?

So the sensible thing to me is to give Congress less money to spend and let the American public have more of it to spend. And by my calculations, that will mean a lot less public debt.

0 Replies

Quote:

Reagan's tax cuts doubled treasury revenues

Incorrect. It wasn't until Reagan raised taxes in 1984 that revenues began to rise as well.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

....give Congress less money to spend and let the American public have more of it to spend. And by my calculations, that will mean a lot less public debt.

wwwwhhhhaaaattttttt?!?!? Shocked

but the figures here are clear, aren't they ?

even with the tax cuts that are, by your definition, meant to give the government less cash to spend, the deficits are going up.

the government isn't spending less because of tax cuts. they are just borrowing from peter to pay paul.

and look who is the 2nd largest lender. the communist republic of china. doesn't that bother you ? can you not forsee a scenario, perhaps sooner than later, where being indebted to the roc could be not only a financial burden, but a political one as well ?

it already is. taiwan. the trade deficit. iran.

so what happens when the iran issue comes to a head and the usa and china are staring at each other from opposite sides of the fence ?

0 Replies

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
....give Congress less money to spend and let the American public have more of it to spend. And by my calculations, that will mean a lot less public debt.

wwwwhhhhaaaattttttt?!?!?

but the figures here are clear, aren't they ?

even with the tax cuts that are, by your definition, meant to give the government less cash to spend, the deficits are going up.

the government isn't spending less because of tax cuts. they are just borrowing from peter to pay paul.

and look who is the 2nd largest lender. the communist republic of china. doesn't that bother you ? can you not forsee a scenario, perhaps sooner than later, where being indebted to the roc could be not only a financial burden, but a political one as well ?

it already is. taiwan. the trade deficit. iran.

so what happens when the iran issue comes to a head and the usa and china are staring at each other from opposite sides of the fence ?

Trade deficits and revenues are separate issues, though both should at some point be discussed in this thread.

But look at your chart. During periods following massive tax increases, the national debt continued to grow unabated. During periods following substantial tax rate reductions (taxes are never really cut), revenues substantially increased, but the national debt continued to grow unabated.

It is not the tax rates or who gets taxed or the amount of taxes we collect or even the amount of the revenues coming in, but it is the amount of $$ that Congress spends that determines what the national debt will be.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Trade deficits and revenues are separate issues, ....

umm, no i can't agree when the situation is that the usa's largest debt holder is also the country we have the most disparity in trade with.

to me, it seems like a very serious situation.

But look at your chart. During periods following massive tax increases, the national debt continued to grow unabated. During periods following substantial tax rate reductions (taxes are never really cut), revenues substantially increased, but the national debt continued to grow unabated.

It is not the tax rates or who gets taxed or the amount of taxes we collect or even the amount of the revenues coming in, but it is the amount of $$ that Congress spends that determines what the national debt will be.

well, if we want to continue to enjoy the better life here in america; clean cities, educated citizens, the best infrastructure, a strong military and funding of the sciences, somebody has to pay for it, right ?

it's a big country, getting bigger all of the time with a population growth that is beyond control. it takes money and a hell of a lot of it.

even for this one expenditure... the wars in iraq = +/- 334 billion. it's reported that bush is going to ask for another 127 billion (this number could be off a couple of buck's either way) this session.

in effect, if you want america to continue to be the strong country that most of us have grown up in, and make it even better, there's gonna be taxes.

0 Replies

The government has constitutional responsibilities that do require taxes. I am not at all opposed to paying taxes necessary for the common defense or to promote the common welfare or to perform those necessary functions that cannot be done more efficiently and effectively by the private sector. You can't tell me that the government has to be the size it is to accomplish that.

I am not opposed to taxes, but I am also all for the private citizen keeping as much of the money s/he earns as possible. And as the President's tax policy is obviously generating massive federal revenues while we are enjoyed a great economy, I see no reason not to make the tax cuts permanent and look for other ways to help the citizens do even better.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Why, Ican, would you suggest that the Federal government fund education and not health care?

Because I am being inconsistent!

I blame my inconsistency on my dilemma. Should we try to do what's legal and make that work, or should we try to live with what's illegal and make that work? Rolling Eyes

Neither education or health care can be legally funded under the Constitution. But given that they are illegally funded, I seek ways to mitigate the damage such illegal funding does by looking for ways to make illegal funding achieve its alleged purpose. In the case of education, I think replacing all current federally funded education with a voucher system for education consumers will make education better, albeit not better than if the feds stayed the hell out of education all together. In the case of health care, I think a voucher system for health care consumers to allow them to purchase private health care insurance will make health care better, albeit not better than if the feds stayed the hell out of health care all together.

Believe me, I am open to rational argument about what would be better ways to solve the education and health care problems. I don't like my inconsistency any more than you do! Help!

0 Replies

There is no reasonable way to stop government funding of public education. Too many rural schools would have to close and/or not be able to teach American children properly without federal funding.

0 Replies

DTOM, I agree with Foxfyre. The only thing that will reduce or eliminate growth in federal debt is for Congress to spend less year to year instead of more year to year. Clearly, the reality is that even with an alleged balanced budget the national debt increases. Cutting spending on non-essentials is the only cure.

Remember the purpose of the Constitution and you will remember why it is critical that we obey its delegation of powers to the governement and not violate it with illegal spending.

While this so far has not been amended in accord with Article V of the Constitution, it has been amended by legislating federal judges:

Quote:

The Constitution of the United States of America
Effective as of March 4, 1789

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Yes, I am also very concerned about China becoming our largest creditor. The probable consequence of our continuing on this increasing debt course of ours is that China will start to control the USA economy any whichaway that suits them. What appears to suit them, does not suit me.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

There is no reasonable way to stop government funding of public education. Too many rural schools would have to close and/or not be able to teach American children properly without federal funding.

State and local voucher systems can do the job witout federal funding. State and local governments have before the advent of federal funding successfully funded both rural and urban schools.

Let's conserve what works!

0 Replies

I don't think vouchers will work in many rural areas where there is only one school that buses students from more than 20 miles away. They would certainly receive the short end of the stick.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Why, Ican, would you suggest that the Federal government fund education and not health care?

Because I am being inconsistent!

I blame my inconsistency on my dilemma. Should we try to do what's legal and make that work, or should we try to live with what's illegal and make that work?

Neither education or health care can be legally funded under the Constitution. But given that they are illegally funded, I seek ways to mitigate the damage such illegal funding does by looking for ways to make illegal funding achieve its alleged purpose. In the case of education, I think replacing all current federally funded education with a voucher system for education consumers will make education better, albeit not better than if the feds stayed the hell out of education all together. In the case of health care, I think a voucher system for health care consumers to allow them to purchase private health care insurance will make health care better, albeit not better than if the feds stayed the hell out of health care all together.

Believe me, I am open to rational argument about what would be better ways to solve the education and health care problems. I don't like my inconsistency any more than you do! Help!

Well I really didn't have a problem with your inconsistency though it did appear that you had one. Smile

I see where you're coming from, however, and it would seem that the President's stated policies from the beginning would at least in part address them.

McG points out that education vouchers may not be effective everywhere, but I don't see that as a reason not to use them. As most school funding is local and not federal, however, I think states and local school districts will have to be convinced of the benefits of forcing schools in competition with each other.

I think the idea of medical savings accounts is excellent and I think the individual, not the government, should be paying the medical bills. This will accomplish a great deal to require pharmaceutical companies to justify their charges, require hospitals to explain the $10 aspirin, and doctors to make a case for various tests they order. This, however, is going to require the tort reform part of the equation to relieve doctors and hospitals of liability if they don't over prescribe or over test or whatever to avoid lawsuits. Then we can hash out whether government insurance or private insurance is the way to go and how best to make that affordable.

The one thing I don't think we can shake is that medicine was much more affordable before the government became involved with it, and education was far superior to what we have after the feds started meddling with it. Is federal involvement the problem? Or were the problems inevitable?

And yes, I agree there is no consitutional provision for the federal government to be involved with either. I'm not entirely convinced it is illegal for it to be involved, however.

0 Replies

STATE OF THE UNION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know