U.S. Government Shutdowns

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment...because on the flipside of the coin you could argue that the people with money are the business owners. By taxing the business owners, that's less money they have to pay workers, which could lead to more layoffs, meaning that less money is getting into the economy. Now that may not happen, but all possibilities must be considered when debating these things.

I consider the government to be a load of shit anyways, but I agree that excess spending must be stopped. I think that, for once, we should just shut things down, focus on what we need and what we don't, figure out ways to get the flow of money moving, and THEN work out a budget.

Yarnchu said:

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a moment...

Click to expand...

This is not an acceptable argument. It's just incredibly annoying.

Yarnchu said:

on the flipside of the coin you could argue that the people with money are the business owners. By taxing the business owners, that's less money they have to pay workers, which could lead to more layoffs, meaning that less money is getting into the economy. Now that may not happen, but all possibilities must be considered when debating these things.

Click to expand...

Theoretically, it could, but when you think about it, CEOs are getting paid a hell of a lot more than everyone else in a hpothetical company, so they could probably just cut their salaries since they can afford it...

Should I change this to include taxation issues?

Legos said:

The main problem with eliminating the debt is that the only way to do that is to raise taxes pretty high, which would not make people happy whatsoever - even if it was passed.

Click to expand...

If the government spending was minimized, taxes would decrease significantly. From there, they would adjust taxes as necessary to gradually reduce the debt. The point now is that we're seeing an increase in the debt, and we need to do whatever is possible to start decreasing it.

I think the government's financial crisis stems from its incessant need to solve every problem. Yes, welfare is fine (to a degree), yes, social security is fine (also to a degree). The Constitution lists a specific number of things the Congress can tax and spend on, but they've (dems and repubs) stepped way out of their legal bounds over the years. For example, education should be a matter left to the states; the federal government has no business at all in it. Yet the Department of Education gets $70 billion a year.

I dunno about you guys, but I quite like the idea of not having to worry too much about how my schooling in one area compares to another. Just because someone moved states shouldn't mean they have to worry too much about the curriculum.

Tailsy said:

I dunno about you guys, but I quite like the idea of not having to worry too much about how my schooling in one area compares to another. Just because someone moved states shouldn't mean they have to worry too much about the curriculum.

Click to expand...

And this should cost $70 billion. All the state departments could synch up their curriculum without a Department of Education.

But they wouldn't. Every state has it's own agenda and let's face it, America is a country made of tiny little countries held together by a common hatred of taxes and a federal government.

And without said federal government and well... Decent taxes, you get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

Or as I like to call it: No One Pays Attention in History Anymore.

surskitty said:

This is not an acceptable argument. It's just incredibly annoying.

Click to expand...

Or perhaps instead of posting this you can post a legitimate reply to it? It's simply for the sake of discussion. So what if you find it "unacceptable." Things need to be pointed out in a debate that could potentially affect the topic, no matter how minuscule, so that the best answer can be found.

Really, that's just rude of you. I could just go on and ignore an argument that I don't agree with just because of the manner it's presented in, but that's not healthy for the debate. If you would actually put in an opinion instead of labeling me as incredibly annoying, then that would be nice. And please don't bother with responding to these first couple of paragraphs, because I'm not really in a mood to deal with any rude comments.

....anyways. I've got to agree with you, Aobaru. Government spending has to be minimized almost immediately. This debt we're in is absolutely ridiculous. The government shouldn't feel the need to control everything last thing, it should instead stick to the important things and/or what power the Constitution has given it.

Unfortunately, I don't think this is a trend we will see stop anytime soon. It's been building up ever since FDR's administration. The government has taken up too large of a role in our daily lives and relies too much on deficit spending. They just need to take a step back and focus on the important things.

The debt we're in is because of two wars with lower taxes instead of higher ones. You can't make something out of nothing.

Also, when Bush got into office, we had a surplus. Said surplus was then mailed back to every taxpayer in America.

Hmm...

Yarnchu said:

Or perhaps instead of posting this you can post a legitimate reply to it? It's simply for the sake of discussion. So what if you find it "unacceptable." Things need to be pointed out in a debate that could potentially affect the topic, no matter how minuscule, so that the best answer can be found.

Really, that's just rude of you. I could just go on and ignore an argument that I don't agree with just because of the manner it's presented in, but that's not healthy for the debate. If you would actually put in an opinion instead of labeling me as incredibly annoying, then that would be nice. And please don't bother with responding to these first couple of paragraphs, because I'm not really in a mood to deal with any rude comments.

Click to expand...

Or you could actually post your thoughts on the subject and not hide behind ~devil's advocate~. It is annoying. Please don't.

Yarnchu said:

I could just go on and ignore an argument that I don't agree with just because of the manner it's presented in, but that's not healthy for the debate. If you would actually put in an opinion instead of labeling me as incredibly annoying, then that would be nice.

Click to expand...

I can't help but agree with this. Sorry Tailskitty...

hopeandjoy said:

The debt we're in is because of two wars with lower taxes instead of higher ones. You can't make something out of nothing.

Click to expand...

Not getting an argument from me here...

And without said federal government and well... Decent taxes, you get this

Click to expand...

The Constitution is actually only a series of amendments to the Articles of Confederation; several parts of the Articles remained unchanged (most powers of the Congress, for example).

There was a federal government under the Articles: the Continental Congress. The main problem of Congress under the Articles was its inability to tax and spend, and thus, they added the Taxing and Spending Clause as part of the Constitution. However, the power is limited to specific things (e.g., military, general welfare, interstate commerce).

So to say that America minus the federal government and decent taxes equals America under the Articles is kind of ridiculous. America under the Articles was an non-union of states and an impotent federal government.

America minus the federal government would be individual states (which, admittedly, is an interesting idea); America minus the federal government and decent taxes (decent meaning "minimum amount of") would be pointless with no federal government.

My opinion on taxes is that the federal government (after cutting through all its shit and minimizing its spending severely) should divide its required annual funds among the citizens equally, and that would be the "tax". Sort of like how you pay for a yearly subscription to a magazine, except the magazine is the federal government. The point is to get the tax to a manageable size, so, rich or poor, you can pay it; the only way to do that is to reduce federal spending.

Aobaru said:

And this should cost $70 billion. All the state departments could synch up their curriculum without a Department of Education.

Click to expand...

Please do remember that, without a relatively* liberal government to control education, you're leaving the future of quite a lot of innocent people in states where like this and this happen.

And let's not forget how much fail the state of American education is when compared to the rest of the world.

What I don't understand is why you're suggesting we cut education, of all things, rather than, say, defense, seeing that the US spends an ungodly amount of money on defense.

*Relative as in "compared to the rest of America", which isn't saying much, but still...

EDIT:

Aobaru said:

My opinion on taxes is that the federal government (after cutting through all its shit and minimizing its spending severely) should divide its required annual funds among the citizens equally, and that would be the "tax". Sort of like how you pay for a yearly subscription to a magazine, except the magazine is the federal government. The point is to get the tax to a manageable size, so, rich or poor, you can pay it; the only way to do that is to reduce federal spending.

Click to expand...

This still doesn't get rid of the problem of people with low/no income not being able to afford taxes. Having the tax being a fixed number will basically starve anyone who doesn't earn enough to pay that and feed themselves, or don't have an income so they can't even feed themselves. Even if the tax is a ridiculously low number like $1 per person, someone who is bankrupt, really poor, and have a family to feed will have a hard time paying it after their savings run out.

I saw an interesting thing on Glenn Beck a while ago *entire argument gets ignored because the phrase glenn beck turns you all off to actual substance like spinning a faucet counterclockwise* that said if the government's budget was reduced 50% (Which is slightly higher than it was ten years ago,) then a flat income tax of just above 20% and a flat sales tax of around 11% could pay for its entire operations. So everyone countering Aobaru by saying "it would never work" is dead wrong.

Pwnemon said:

if the government's budget was reduced 50% (Which is slightly higher than it was ten years ago,)

Click to expand...

Neat idea. How? Where can that 50% come out of?

then a flat income tax of just above 20% and a flat sales tax of around 11% could pay for its entire operations.

Click to expand...

Poor people can't afford to pay a fifth of their income nearly as easily as rich people can.

So everyone countering Aobaru by saying "it would never work" is dead wrong.

Click to expand...

All you told us is what Glenn Beck said. You never told us why he's right.

I feel there are two core issues with the US. The first of which is that the country is entirely too large and diverse for Washington to handle. Relationships between the north and the south are terrible, and they always have been. Compromise between the Democrats and Republicans almost never turns out good. It's hard to get anything actually accomplished in this country because nobody can agree on anything and there are too many corrupted elected officials. Splitting the states into separate countries would aid in fixing internal issues over time -- and if the south/midwest still want to regress, at least they won't take down the others with them. The other big problem is the Constitution. The US is trying to run a country in the 21st century on a document written in the 18th. The second amendment is a fantastic example as to why this is a problem.

Also, Glenn Beck is a racist, misogynistic idiot. I can't fathom as to why anybody would believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

Glenn Beck was cancelled, so I don't think he matters that much anymore.

And while this is the largest budget cut in the history of the US (why, Democrats, can you never stand your ground?), it's not nearly a large as 50%. It's more like 34%, if I remember correctly.

At least they didn't get rid of Planed Parenthood's funding.

hopeandjoy said:

Glenn Beck was cancelled, so I don't think he matters that much anymore.

Click to expand...

What

What

Why did nobody tell me this this is the best news I've heard in weeks

<3

hopeandjoy said:

Glenn Beck was cancelled,

Click to expand...

whoa sorry about that this usually never happens, i swear

I have a genuine question about American politics, because for some reason I've sort of stopped paying close attention so I've missed out on some key stuff, but from my understanding, the Tea Party want to stop paying taxes altogether or severely limit them or something?

If yes, then my question is how do they propose to do anything? I've been told that the theory is that rich people would donate to make things happen (pay the army etc) but that sounds like such a retarded concept so I'm sure I'm misinformed.

I'm genuinely curious and I'd like to fill in the gaps in my knowledge since it's a bit embarassing to be so out of it but I've been paying more attention to European politics since they're somehow more complicated but less infuriating.