Promoting Bi-Partisanship: Lets fix the deficit.

BoriquaSNK

BoriquaSNK

His Excellency BoriquaSNK,, The Ambassador of Appl
15 Year Member
Joined
May 9, 2003
Posts
4,705
Without resorting to finger pointing or Bush bashing (even if it is fucking fun), lets play a game. Serious posters only, how can we fix the U.S. deficit using the following Bush administration stipulations:

No new taxation or raising taxes.

No pulling troops out of Iraq or Afghanistan.

No scrapping of the Missile Defense System.

No abandonment of Bush' Social Security reform.

This isn't so easy is it? GO.

Here's my idea, dismantle 5000 ICBMs. After successfully disposing of them, we would save hundreds of millions in maintenance and security costs...and since the missile defense system is warding off any remaining Russian and Chinese threats we really don't need all of these nukes.

Secondly, removing the no bid contract stipulations from Iraqi reconstruction, by allowing foreign investment from non-coalition nations we can ease some of the financial and security burdens of existing contractors AND promote diplomatic healing.

Thirdly, removing troops from Japan. By closing our base in Nipponland we would all but force Koizumi and the diet to defend their own damned country, thus allowing for more flexible troop placement and less $$$ spent on maintaning useless military facilities there.
 
Loopz

Loopz

Formerly Punjab,
Joined
Aug 16, 2001
Posts
12,871
Need to add ending corporate welfare while you're at it.
 
EvilMike

EvilMike

Guerilla Warrior
20 Year Member
Joined
May 7, 2002
Posts
1,731
You assume the Missile Defense system will work.
 
S

SSS

neo retired
Joined
Sep 27, 2002
Posts
10,771
EvilMike said:
You assume the Missile Defense system will work.
Click to expand...

what was it again? A string of satellites that will shoot lasers at oncoming missles...
 
slerch666

slerch666

updyke,
Joined
May 23, 2002
Posts
8,984
I have an idea. We can solve world hunger at the same time, along with adding jobs to the economy.

What we do is instead of burying bodies, which eats up real estate, we sell them to 3rd world countries with hunger problems. Ethiopians want to eat? How about some MANwhich?

The way we create jobs is we build processing plants. This is where the meat is pulled from the bones and ground into some easily canned substance. We then send the bones to power plants to throw in the fires and create us some dirty ass electricity, less waste and less coal or nuclear fuel spent. The meat is then pre-cooked and canned. We then pack them onto crates and sell it to 3rd world countries for say, $1000 a pallet.

Not only can we solve some of our money issues, but we can feed the world as well!
 
BoriquaSNK

BoriquaSNK

His Excellency BoriquaSNK,, The Ambassador of Appl
15 Year Member
Joined
May 9, 2003
Posts
4,705
EvilMike said:
You assume the Missile Defense system will work.
Click to expand...


These aren't policies I agree with necessarily, these are the policies the administration has refused to budge on. So, fix the deficit based on what you have...

I hate everything the administration has done with the exception of the MDS...if it works it will mean the end of U.S. nuclear proliferation. The agency had trouble a month ago with a decoy failing to fire at (go figure) Ronald Reagan Launch pad in Alaska, but the actual weapons systems are a go in every other text.

We have MDS placements in Alaska, California, Rhode Island (i think), Florida, Australia, and soon they will be in the UK and Japan as soon as the contracts for AEGIS cruisers are negotiated.

The MDS system is a combination of Sattelites, Anti-ICBM missiles, EMPs, AEGIS cruisers, High Frequency Laser weapons, and countless ICBM decoy drones designed to confuse/disable/detonate oncoming nuclear weapons before they reach allied borders.
 
Mouse_Master

Mouse_Master

Support your local Sheriff, ,
Staff member
Joined
Aug 13, 2000
Posts
2,047
BoriquaSNK said:
Without resorting to finger pointing or Bush bashing (even if it is fucking fun), lets play a game. Serious posters only, how can we fix the U.S. deficit using the following Bush administration stipulations:

Here's my idea, dismantle 5000 ICBMs. After successfully disposing of them, we would save hundreds of millions in maintenance and security costs...and since the missile defense system is warding off any remaining Russian and Chinese threats we really don't need all of these nukes.
Click to expand...

I would be fearful to read the bill for the actual work of dismantling these missiles. It might cost as much to dismantle 5000 of them as it would cost to secure/maintain them over 10 years (or whatever lifespan they have). You would be amazed at the cleanup costs involved in closing down a military base, almost wonder how in the world they are 'saving' money from how much is spent in the process.

Thirdly, removing troops from Japan. By closing our base in Nipponland we would all but force Koizumi and the diet to defend their own damned country, thus allowing for more flexible troop placement and less $$$ spent on maintaning useless military facilities there.
Click to expand...

This we can not do, and while you are at it, why did you also not mention South Korea? Unfortunately, we basically crafted Japan's Constitution in such a way that we provide their protection, if I remember my history correctly. Japan can only have a small self defense force, and that is it. Actually, this is one of the primary reasons they have so much to invest in development, but they do pay us some money for our presence there, no clue how much.

While this is not under your guidelines for 'fixing' the problem, my opinion is we should eliminate the Federal Income tax, and switch to a flat tax to be be charged on buying good, much like VAT in other countries. That way, those who spend the big money, pay the taxes, those who save, are not really penalized. Its hard to say how such a change would work in the US, but it would be much more balanced than the tilting scale of the federal income tax structure.
 
I

IMTheWalrus

Pao Pao Cafe Waiter
Joined
Jul 7, 2003
Posts
1,780
Here's an idea. Stop giving tax exempt status to religious organizations that take in shitloads of money and buy gulfstreams with it. Religious groups take in tons of money and don't pay any tax at all. I hardly think that's fair. I'm an atheist, and I don't get any tax benefits because of my beliefs.

In fact, if the government doesn't get rid of tax exempt status for religion, how about we start some sort of bullshit Neo Geo religion and try to become tax exempt. We are a chosen people of sorts and we have no land for our own.
 
J

jethrek

,
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
The non-taxation of religious bodies is tied to their being unallowed to give political endorsements. I say just clamp down on those giving endorsements and let them be otherwise, the status has its virtues while they might not be obvious to everyone.

Ending corporation hand-outs would do miles to fix the deficit actually. If you look at how much money is given by state, local, and federal government for almost nothing in return, this is one area that could use a massive reworking.

Closing tax loopholes is another.

Another is more careful spending. So we can't touch missile defense and social reform?

Fine, that leaves us tons of room to work. We need a widescale review of the patent-generic system, and some new ideas really need to tomce to the table until it's too late.

Obviously, though, these are just preliminary ideas.
 
I

IMTheWalrus

Pao Pao Cafe Waiter
Joined
Jul 7, 2003
Posts
1,780
Religious organizations not giving political endorsements is a joke. They practically do it already. There's no mystery regarding who the Christian coalition wants as president. In fact, one of the chairpeople (or some high up person) headed Bush's southeastern campaign.

I cite a violation. So now we can collect back taxes of a gazillion bajillion dollars
 
bokmeow

bokmeow

Ned's Ninja Academy Dropout
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Posts
11,314
IMTheWalrus said:
Religious organizations not giving political endorsements is a joke. They practically do it already. There's no mystery regarding who the Christian coalition wants as president. In fact, one of the chairpeople (or some high up person) headed Bush's southeastern campaign.

I cite a violation. So now we can collect back taxes of a gazillion bajillion dollars
Click to expand...

I wish I had the congratulation letter to President George W. Bush on his reelection from Bob Jones University president still archived on my computer. If that wasn't an outright political endorsement, I don't know what is.
 
galfordo

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
Mouse_Master said:
While this is not under your guidelines for 'fixing' the problem, my opinion is we should eliminate the Federal Income tax, and switch to a flat tax to be be charged on buying good, much like VAT in other countries. That way, those who spend the big money, pay the taxes, those who save, are not really penalized. Its hard to say how such a change would work in the US, but it would be much more balanced than the tilting scale of the federal income tax structure.
Click to expand...


IMTheWalrus said:
Here's an idea. Stop giving tax exempt status to religious organizations that take in shitloads of money and buy gulfstreams with it. Religious groups take in tons of money and don't pay any tax at all. I hardly think that's fair. I'm an atheist, and I don't get any tax benefits because of my beliefs.

In fact, if the government doesn't get rid of tax exempt status for religion, how about we start some sort of bullshit Neo Geo religion and try to become tax exempt. We are a chosen people of sorts and we have no land for our own.
Click to expand...


I thought both of these suggestions were particularly well-thought out. Tax emexption is effectively federal aid, which should not be given to religious organizations, I think that's pretty straight-forward. Separation of church and state is a good concept, IMO.

The flat tax idea is a particularly nice one because tax on purchases is something almost nobody can really avoid. I think it would also greatly simplify the system, and would make cheating on your taxes a much more difficult proposition.
 
J

jethrek

,
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
galfordo said:
I thought both of these suggestions were particularly well-thought out. Tax emexption is effectively federal aid, which should not be given to religious organizations, I think that's pretty straight-forward. Separation of church and state is a good concept, IMO.

The flat tax idea is a particularly nice one because tax on purchases is something almost nobody can really avoid. I think it would also greatly simplify the system, and would make cheating on your taxes a much more difficult proposition.
Click to expand...

Surely you jest!

1. It's easier to evade than income taxes.

2, It would place tax burden on buyers, encouraging them to spend less.

Dramatically raising the consumer-end taxes would bring the economy t a grinding halt! We're talking to supplenment a 30% buying tax!

Surely, you see how this will kill all demand for goods.

How about a flat income-social security tax in which the rich don't get penalized just for being rich, but also get no loopholes and can't dodge SS tax. We'd be better of eliminating sales taxes and supplementing with this kind of system.

Remember: a sales tax only affects money being spent. You would effectively drastically reduce the rich's taxes by an incredible amount with them simply investing money, putting all of the burden on the poor.

No sales tax = great incentive to spend every dime you have. That money will then be hit by plenty of taxes on out-going.
 
galfordo

galfordo

Analinguist of the Year
15 Year Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2003
Posts
18,418
jethrek said:
Surely you jest!

1. It's easier to evade than income taxes.

2, It would place tax burden on buyers, encouraging them to spend less.

Dramatically raising the consumer-end taxes would bring the economy t a grinding halt! We're talking to supplenment a 30% buying tax!

Surely, you see how this will kill all demand for goods.
Click to expand...

That's definitely a concern, but I just don't see people drastically changing their spending habits, especially the rich. If they've got the money, I think they'll spend it to get what they want.

jethrek said:
How about a flat income-social security tax in which the rich don't get penalized just for being rich, but also get no loopholes and can't dodge SS tax. We'd be better of eliminating sales taxes and supplementing with this kind of system.
Click to expand...

So what does this entail? Everyone puts an equal amount into social security or what? How does this work exactly?
 
J

jethrek

,
Joined
Feb 4, 2001
Posts
4,209
galfordo said:
That's definitely a concern, but I just don't see people drastically changing their spending habits, especially the rich. If they've got the money, I think they'll spend it to get what they want.
Click to expand...

The rich invest tons of their money now. The poor have non to spend. When you think about it, the rate at which money moves (economic strength) is determined by two factors:

1. How much the poor can spend

2. How much the rich feel like spending.

Hence, a spending tax cuts what the poor can spend, and makes the rich more cautious, even if they have more money. Limiting the money they have will actually affect their spending habits less, since what's going to be taken is already taken, and the poor will still max out their checks- and they dodge spending taxes less.

It's like how luxury taxes never work. Tax yachts in the U.S. rich people buy them elsewhere. Simple fact.

The rich can dodge spending taxes and the poor can't. The IRs gets us all, as much as we may hate it for it.

galfordo said:
So what does this entail? Everyone puts an equal amount into social security or what? How does this work exactly?
Click to expand...

Basically how it works now, minus the loopholes that a company owner can use (which are many) to pay zero into it. Equal percent for taxes, zero loopholes. It'd definitely cut down corruption, and it's streamline business costs to everyone but the accounting sector (which is half converted to computers anyway. large companies can already run on 2 person tax accounting teams, so I don't think it'd cut many jobs there)
 
J

JHendrix

Jello Pudding Pop, Y'know? Like that whole Bill C
Joined
Jun 27, 2001
Posts
9,436
EvilMike said:
You assume the Missile Defense system will work.
Click to expand...

It does and has for 20+ years. All we're doing is expanding the area of coverage from a fleet of ships to an entire country.

It is working and there have been far more successful tests than you've heard about (not secret stuff, just stuff that doesn't make the news). But of course they have one bad test in Alaska and it gets picked up because the critics of the program are always looking for a way to paint it in a bad light.

Sorry, not really aimed at you, just that MDS is a pet issue of mine.
 
norton9478

norton9478

So Many Posts
No Time
For Games.
20 Year Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Posts
34,075
JHendrix said:
It does and has for 20+ years. All we're doing is expanding the area of coverage from a fleet of ships to an entire country.

It is working and there have been far more successful tests than you've heard about (not secret stuff, just stuff that doesn't make the news). But of course they have one bad test in Alaska and it gets picked up because the critics of the program are always looking for a way to paint it in a bad light.

Sorry, not really aimed at you, just that MDS is a pet issue of mine.
Click to expand...

Just like all of those patriot missles that won us the fist gulf war right?
 
BIG BEAR

BIG BEAR

SHOCKbox Developer,
20 Year Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2001
Posts
8,431
IMTheWalrus said:
Here's an idea. Stop giving tax exempt status to religious organizations that take in shitloads of money and buy gulfstreams with it. Religious groups take in tons of money and don't pay any tax at all. I hardly think that's fair. I'm an atheist, and I don't get any tax benefits because of my beliefs.

In fact, if the government doesn't get rid of tax exempt status for religion, how about we start some sort of bullshit Neo Geo religion and try to become tax exempt. We are a chosen people of sorts and we have no land for our own.
Click to expand...
You run a church full of atheist??
What is your belief as an atheist?? Curious to know what qualifies one as being an atheist.
Oh and in regards to the deficit... JUST PRINT MORE MONEY since it's backed by nothing these days.
-BB
 
I

IMTheWalrus

Pao Pao Cafe Waiter
Joined
Jul 7, 2003
Posts
1,780
First of all, it's impossible to know if SDI really works unless we are actually attacked and we intercept the missile. Current tests are not all inclusive.

Second of all, there have been many failures of the system.

The fact is that nobody really knows whether it works or not, it really depends on who you ask. Engineers from Lockheed say it works (surprise surprise) but some scientists and military experts say it doesn't.
 
I

IMTheWalrus

Pao Pao Cafe Waiter
Joined
Jul 7, 2003
Posts
1,780
BIG BEAR said:
You run a church full of atheist??
What is your belief as an atheist?? Curious to know what qualifies one as being an atheist.
Oh and in regards to the deficit... JUST PRINT MORE MONEY since it's backed by nothing these days.
-BB
Click to expand...

You're missing the point. Belief should not qualify a group to not have to pay taxes. I don't believe in God as far as all the organized religions have put it, yet I receive no tax benefits from it. My point was that if I got a group together, called ourselves The Athiest Club, got a building, and met every week to discuss our beliefs, I wouldn't get shit for tax relief.

Not to mention the fact that it's basically the government sanctioning religion.

Printing more money doesn't mean anything. The value would go down if you printed more. A lot of things aren't backed by anything, but that doesn't make them worthless. Baseball cards or other collectibles have no backing in gold, but people seem to find worth from them.

Tell you what, if you think that money isn't worth anything, I'll take it off your hands. :glee:
 
BoriquaSNK

BoriquaSNK

His Excellency BoriquaSNK,, The Ambassador of Appl
15 Year Member
Joined
May 9, 2003
Posts
4,705
IMTheWalrus said:
First of all, it's impossible to know if SDI really works unless we are actually attacked and we intercept the missile. Current tests are not all inclusive.

Second of all, there have been many failures of the system.

The fact is that nobody really knows whether it works or not, it really depends on who you ask. Engineers from Lockheed say it works (surprise surprise) but some scientists and military experts say it doesn't.
Click to expand...

It works, the radar can detect items as small as a golfball. The weapons systems are all topnotch...there hasn't been a single weapons failure yet, all of the test failures have resulted from the decoys failing to deploy or deploying incorrectly.

As per the flat-tax, 15% of Steve Balmer's salary won't send him home hungry, but 15% of a single mother in Philly's salary is a different story. The system would work if we had a living wage and free healthcare...but alas we do not.

This we can not do, and while you are at it, why did you also not mention South Korea? Unfortunately, we basically crafted Japan's Constitution in such a way that we provide their protection, if I remember my history correctly. Japan can only have a small self defense force, and that is it. Actually, this is one of the primary reasons they have so much to invest in development, but they do pay us some money for our presence there, no clue how much.
Click to expand...

We actually can, see Japan was given full sovereignity over its constitution in the 70's, and Clinton was especially vocal about reinstating a Japanese army with offensive capability. Removing troops from south Korea is impossible given the situation with Il Juche (zing), but a new Japanese Army would be yet another thorn in the side of Kim Jong Il. The Diet could ammend the constitution again, just as they did to supply peace keepers to afghanistan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top