Donald Trump for president?

[acerimusdux]

2 hours ago, Lihu said:

The examples you posted are not representative of a standard economy.

For example, if you quoted a country like Switzerland, then they do a lot of banking and money transactions for wealthy.

Actually, I left Switzerland off, because their government is on the small side, with taxes and revenues at 32.8% of GDP, not much higher than the US would be if you included state and local.

 

2 hours ago, Lihu said:

A standard economy encompasses agriculture, mining, steel working, production, invention, services etc. You need everything to prosper.

The biggest outliers I see there are on the small side. Hong Kong (20.7%) and Singapore(15%), for example, both make the Forbes list and also are in the top 20 for prosperity. Those are the smallest governments at the top of those lists, but both are really just cities. Cities require a lot of infrastructure, but probably at less cost per capita.

 

1 hour ago, GolfLug said:

All I know is that it is easier said than done and in the least Trump could show a bit more respect to details. It smells and tastes awfully like cool-aid otherwise.  

Agree. I'd like to think Trump could be decent on these issues, but I went to his website, and he really doesn't discuss them. He only has 6 issues listed under Positions there, it's basically Healthcare, Trade, Veterans, Taxes, Guns, and Immigration. 

He's proposing the biggest tax cuts of anyone running, but hasn't really given much detail yet on the spending side.

 

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

The founding fathers were not at the helm of a 300 million person country...  You can't take their intentions and apply them to the modern world.  

 

 

Yes you can, the country was already one of the largest producers and growers in the world. That's why the British were so desperate to keep it.

 

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

You can have federal employees and not be a communist nation...  I am sorry, I missed the memo where it's bad that our government employees people and provides infrastructure.  

Yes, we can't have no federal government, just not this large.

 

2 minutes ago, acerimusdux said:

The biggest outliers I see there are on the small side. Hong Kong (20.7%) and Singapore(15%), for example, both make the Forbes list and also are in the top 20 for prosperity. Those are the smallest governments at the top of those lists, but both are really just cities. Cities require a lot of infrastructure, but probably at less cost per capita.

Without China these two city-states would not be able to survive. They are both large shipping ports.

[pumaAttack]

Just now, Lihu said:

 

Yes, we can't have no federal government, just not this large.

 

What would you cut?  Programs you don't care about?  Because for every program you don't care for/like/use there are millions of people who do.   And for programs you do like, there are millions that want to cut it.  

I really don't get why people care if the government is large.  How does that impact your daily life?

 

 

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, pumaAttack said:

What would you cut?  Programs you don't care about?  Because for every program you don't care for/like/use there are millions of people who do.   And for programs you do like, there are millions that want to cut it.  

I really don't get why people care if the government is large.  How does that impact your daily life?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

I have less money to spend on things I care about because I pay so many taxes.

[Big Lex]

3 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

What would you cut?  Programs you don't care about?  Because for every program you don't care for/like/use there are millions of people who do.   And for programs you do like, there are millions that want to cut it.  

I really don't get why people care if the government is large.  How does that impact your daily life?

 

 

I've always felt that these decisions should be easy. Cut everything. If revenue is 900 drachmas, and you have budgeted 990 drachmas in expenditures, then you cut every single expense category by 10%. Done. No politics, no favoring one constituency over another. Everybody shares equally. If there is a surplus, you refund everyone the exact same way.

Arguments for funding programs should be considered on a percentage basis. Program X is allocated K percent of revenues. If you need more money, you argue and lobby for a higher K value.

We can make it a little more complicated if we want, we can put in ceilings and floors, etc. But in general, I don't see the point of all the arguments. You have a program, like defense, that costs 900 billion per year or whatever it is. The federal government has a bad year? Ok, defense spending has to be a little lower that year. Just make do, deal with it.

[pumaAttack]

1 minute ago, Lihu said:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions

I have less money to spend on things I care about because I pay so many taxes.

 

That link doesn't tell me what you personally would cut. 

So you don't like that taxes goes towards the benefit of the nation?  You would rather just keep all of your money and not provide help to others in need?  Or to build roads, bridges, and other infrastructures.  To educate the nations children. To build a national defense and to repay those veterans.  To keep our sick and disadvantaged healthy so they can re-enter the work force?

 

3 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

I've always felt that these decisions should be easy. Cut everything. If revenue is 900 drachmas, and you have budgeted 990 drachmas in expenditures, then you cut every single expense category by 10%. Done. No politics, no favoring one constituency over another. Everybody shares equally. If there is a surplus, you refund everyone the exact same way.

Arguments for funding programs should be considered on a percentage basis. Program X is allocated K percent of revenues. If you need more money, you argue and lobby for a higher K value.

We can make it a little more complicated if we want, we can put in ceilings and floors, etc. But in general, I don't see the point of all the arguments. You have a program, like defense, that costs 900 billion per year or whatever it is. The federal government has a bad year? Ok, defense spending has to be a little lower that year. Just make do, deal with it.

 

Thats a pretty idealistic way of looking at things...

 

You can't just cut off $1B in defense spending or $1B in education or health care.  You need to raise more money to take care of those programs.  That responsibility lies on the shoulders of the citizens that benefit from those programs.  Oh no, you don't get to buy an extra car or house or whatever.... but who cares if the country, the one you supposedly love, is better off as a whole.  The Individual is not bigger than the whole.

 

[Big Lex]

34 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

You can't just cut off $1B in defense spending or $1B in education or health care.  You need to raise more money to take care of those programs.  That responsibility lies on the shoulders of the citizens that benefit from those programs.  Oh no, you don't get to buy an extra car or house or whatever.... but who cares if the country, the one you supposedly love, is better off as a whole.  The Individual is not bigger than the whole.

 

Says who? Why can't you? Because it's never been done? Are there "absolute" amounts that we need to spend on something? Who decides that? When is enough enough? Don't we ask the taxpayers to do just that? We raise taxes, whether it's on individuals or organizations, because we need more money. Implicit in that is the statement "you'll have to figure out how to get along with just a bit less." Why isn't it ok for government agencies to do the same thing?

[pumaAttack]

7 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

Says who? Why can't you? Because it's never been done? Are there "absolute" amounts that we need to spend on something? Who decides that? When is enough enough? Don't we ask the taxpayers to do just that? We raise taxes, whether it's on individuals or organizations, because we need more money. Implicit in that is the statement "you'll have to figure out how to get along with just a bit less." Why isn't it ok for government agencies to do the same thing?

 

Because those programs exist for a reason.  Sure some may be poorly ran and that could be improved.  But you can't just cut defense, as that brings up national security issues.  You can't cut healthcare, and leave people sick and without hope.  You can't cut education and leave children with no future...

[14ledo81]

3 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

 

Because those programs exist for a reason.  Sure some may be poorly ran and that could be improved.  But you can't just cut defense, as that brings up national security issues.  You can't cut healthcare, and leave people sick and without hope.  You can't cut education and leave children with no future...

But you can raise taxes and make people do without food?

[pumaAttack]

4 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

But you can raise taxes and make people do without food?

How does raising taxes on the wealthier americans leave them without food?

 

As my salary has increased over the years, so has my marginal tax rate.  I don't get as big of a percentage of my check but my take home pay is far greater.  I am fine with that and I have never had concerns over food because my tax rate is higher...  

People who earn more should be taxed higher to help out lower income families with government programs and benefits.  Just because you are privileged does not mean you don't have a burden to pay back to other citizens. 

 

Edited March 9, 2016 by pumaAttack

[14ledo81]

6 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

How does raising taxes on the wealthier americans leave them without food?

Aaah...  you only want to raise taxes on the wealthy.

[jamo]

57 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

I've always felt that these decisions should be easy. Cut everything. If revenue is 900 drachmas, and you have budgeted 990 drachmas in expenditures, then you cut every single expense category by 10%. Done. No politics, no favoring one constituency over another. Everybody shares equally. If there is a surplus, you refund everyone the exact same way.

Arguments for funding programs should be considered on a percentage basis. Program X is allocated K percent of revenues. If you need more money, you argue and lobby for a higher K value.

We can make it a little more complicated if we want, we can put in ceilings and floors, etc. But in general, I don't see the point of all the arguments. You have a program, like defense, that costs 900 billion per year or whatever it is. The federal government has a bad year? Ok, defense spending has to be a little lower that year. Just make do, deal with it.

You're basically describing the sequester. 

[pumaAttack]

1 minute ago, 14ledo81 said:

Aaah...  you only want to raise taxes on the wealthy.

How does raising taxes on ANYBODY leave people without food?!  If anything higher taxes would mean more food.  More money to government programs for those in need of such items like food and health care.  

[14ledo81]

3 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

How does raising taxes on ANYBODY leave people without food?!  If anything higher taxes would mean more food.  More money to government programs for those in need of such items like food and health care.  

It wasn't just food.  It was in reference to Big Lex's post about governments getting by with less.  Taxpayers have to do the same when taxes are raised.

[Big Lex]

4 minutes ago, pumaAttack said:

 

Because those programs exist for a reason.  Sure some may be poorly ran and that could be improved.  But you can't just cut defense, as that brings up national security issues.  You can't cut healthcare, and leave people sick and without hope.  You can't cut education and leave children with no future...

I agree that there are imperatives. You are correct. National defense is not "discretionary."

But our overall track record in the USA is to simply keep increasing everything, and we do it by borrowing heavily. This is fine if you are the world's lender of last resort. If you are not, you are in trouble.

[pumaAttack]

Just now, 14ledo81 said:

It wasn't just food.  It was in reference to Big Lex's post about governments getting by with less.  Taxpayers have to do the same when taxes are raised.

First off, it's a tiny fraction of your take home pay.  It's not like a tax increase would force you to sell your house and car to make ends meet...

Second off, it's a burden you have as a citizen of this country.  Take a little off mine to make sure other less privileged are better off.  Not everybody is given the same opportunities in this country and fellow citizens have a duty to help each other.

Third off, those government programs improve our quality of life and provide innovations for the future.  Wanna lose NASA and all their technological advancements?

 

6 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

I agree that there are imperatives. You are correct. National defense is not "discretionary."

But our overall track record in the USA is to simply keep increasing everything, and we do it by borrowing heavily. This is fine if you are the world's lender of last resort. If you are not, you are in trouble.

 

If there programs we could do that too, don't you think we would?  It's not one persons agenda but that of the nations.  We have a congress for a reason. 

Those programs may cost a lot, bring in more tax dollars to pay for them..., but they would COST so much more if we cut them.

[rehmwa]

1 hour ago, Big Lex said:

I've always felt that these decisions should be easy. Cut everything. If revenue is 900 drachmas, and you have budgeted 990 drachmas in expenditures, then you cut every single expense category by 10%. Done. No politics, no favoring one constituency over another. Everybody shares equally. If there is a surplus, you refund everyone the exact same way.

I like it.

Though I prefer something similar in intent, but more direct - Force rank every single program top to bottom.  NO EXCEPTIONS, no special funding for this program or that program - everything in one bucket.

Pay for them starting at rank #1 and go until the money is spent - everything that didn't make the cut gets cancelled.  If that's unfair, then the programs that will get cut have to be important enough to force the higher ranked programs to cut their own costs to cover it.

If you have 1000 programs and only 800 can be funded, and program 805 wants to exist, then the 800 programs need to get lean enough to have enough money to fund 801, 802, 803, 804, and finally 805.

 

[pumaAttack]

4 minutes ago, rehmwa said:

I like it.

Though I prefer something similar in intent, but more direct - Force rank every single program top to bottom.  NO EXCEPTIONS, no special funding for this program or that program - everything in one bucket.

Pay for them starting at rank #1 and go until the money is spent - everything that didn't make the cut gets cancelled.  If that's unfair, then the programs that will get cut have to be important enough to force the higher ranked programs to cut their own costs to cover it.

If you have 1000 programs and only 800 can be funded, and program 805 wants to exist, then the 800 programs need to get lean enough to have enough money to fund 801, 802, 803, 804, and finally 805.

 

 

And who decides that ranking...

 

You and your interest group?  Or me and my interest group...

 

Or how about this?  We all pitch in to help each other out.  For a group that LOVES AMERICA, the GOP sure loves to hate her citizens.