The Federal Pie Chart

[Ali G. 37]

You're overexpanding on what I said.

"Spending" is the problem refers to overall spending....

The only pro-military argument at all, is atleast that is something our government can 'legally' spend money on....

You're not going down the Constitutional path now are you? Spending is a problem depending on what you spend it on.

Wars = waste. Education / Infrastructure = future

Most of the wealthy borrow or loan to create wealth. Most other governments, including China, seem to grasp this well. They borrow to invest in their country's future, as well as lending to us to bring in revenue. When you think about it, they have beaten us at our own capitalistic game. Guess how they have achieved this? Certainly not by beating on about a document and definitely not by using any tea-party libertarian less government approach; quite the opposite actually.

Take out SS and Medicare and it would do the same.

Why take it out? Medicare payments should be increased and this should fund universal health care.

SS in my opinion should be privatized. It should basically be converted into a Roth IRA equivalent, with various guarantees for its security, and not be accessible until you are 55 minimum. SS should actually be paid by the employer, as it is in AUS, where Nine per cent on top of your salary goes into a private retirement account of your choice. At present, Australians currently have the largest retirement accounts per capita.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Booyah

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You're not going down the Constitutional path now are you? Spending is a problem depending on what you spend it on. Wars = waste. Education / Infrastructure = future

In this country with everyone's revisionist history complex (everyone is guilty) Education does not = future and hasn't really for awhile.... Our pubilc education system is a joke in many areas....

I didn't say wars weren't waste either, but defense spending is constitutional, whereas on a federal level other things are not.

Why take it out? Medicare payments should be increased and this should fund universal health care.

NO. They've already proven this to be a failure, we don't need to expand it even further

SS in my opinion should be privatized. It should basically be converted into a Roth IRA equivalent, with various guarantees for its security. SS should actually be paid by the employer, as it is in AUS, where Nine per cent on top of your salary goes into a private retirement account of your choice. At present, Australians currently have the largest retirement accounts per capita.

Employers don't need to pay for it, but it should be somewhat privatized. I have no problems with government running it, I just have a problem with government pouring that money into general coffers. I also think it should be the amount you choose over time and that money is YOUR money and not a general pool of money...

[Ali G. 37]

In this country with everyone's revisionist history complex (everyone is guilty) Education does not = future and hasn't really for awhile.... Our pubilc education system is a joke in many areas....

Maybe in Texas it's not but definitely the case in a lot other places - in particular blue states. I am keen on knowing what you actually do.

I didn't say wars weren't waste either, but defense spending is constitutional, whereas on a federal level other things are not.

So in your opinion you are not interested in discussing what is the best method (approach), you just want to discuss whether and how something in 2010 relates to a document written 223 years ago. Don't tell me more Americans have this line of reasoning on everything. Definitely a foreign concept to me, as I grew up in a country where we critically analyzed and discussed the best method or approach, rather than whether it aligned with Australia's own Constitution. If it did not, our government tend to enact something known as an amendment. E.G. requiring one parent be an Australian citizen for a baby to quality for citizenship.

NO. They've already proven this to be a failure, we don't need to expand it even further

Seems to be working well in other countries that have actually implemented it correctly. As with most things non military, Medicare here was a half baked attempt at doing something. One would think it was deliberately setup to fail. Why is medicare a failure? One guess what a large component of it is - the private sector.

Employers don't need to pay for it, but it should be somewhat privatized. I have no problems with government running it, I just have a problem with government pouring that money into general coffers. I also think it should be the amount you choose over time and that money is YOUR money and not a general pool of money...

Employers don't want a lot of things but that is not how (nor how) a system should work. You seem to forget the 'We the People' aspect of America. It's in the document your swear by, you can't miss it as it's the first three words and a good three times the size of the rest of the text. Hence its importance.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Booyah

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So in your opinion you are not interested in discussing what is the best method (approach), you just want to discuss whether and how something in 2010 relates to a document written 223 years ago. Don't tell me more Americans have this line of reasoning on everything. Definitely a foreign concept to me, as I grew up in a country where we critically analyzed and discussed the best method or approach, rather than whether it aligned with Australia's own Constitution. If it did not, our government tend to enact something known as an amendment. E.G. requiring one parent be an Australian citizen for a baby to quality for citizenship.

Yes, that 'document' you hate so much applies very much today as it did when it was first signed into law. It's quite thorough if you're willing to pay attention and written with the intention of keeping the Federal government small, and then leaving everything else to the individual states as they saw fit, with a few regulatory exceptions.

Seems to be working well in other countries that have actually implemented it correctly. As with most things non military, Medicare here was a half baked attempt at doing something. One would think it was deliberately setup to fail. Why is medicare a failure? One guess what a large component of it is - the private sector.

Define: 'working well' in other areas.

The private sector is not the problem. Over-regulation from the FDA and other governmental factors that attribute to higher costs are. You want to fix the problem? Fix the costs. As has been pointed out before the private sector does better for doctors than the government does. Doctors can actually make money from private-insurance, but generally lose money from public-insurance...

Employers don't want a lot of things but that is not how (nor how) a system should work. You seem to forget the 'We the People' aspect of America. It's in the document your swear by, you can't miss it as it's the first three words and a good three times the size of the rest of the text. Hence its importance.

Employers are part of "we the people." Most seem to forget that and also forget that some small businesses can't afford the taxation/burdens put on them by the government.

If you want to talk large corporations that do nothing exciting with their profits, that's valid... but not the case when it comes to small businesses.

The constitution is about forming a small government and then protecting the 'people' from said government at the same time.

[SMR 368]

SS should actually be paid by the employer, as it is in AUS, where Nine per cent on top of your salary goes into a private retirement account of your choice.

This is another example of simple cost deferment. Sort of like taxing a business instead of consumers. The consumers pay the tax in the end, whether you like it or not.

Similarly, you can force employers to pay more for SS (they already pay for half of it) but in most cases it would just mean salary cuts.

[Ali G. 37]

Yes, that 'document' you hate so much applies very much today as it did when it was first signed into law. It's quite thorough if you're willing to pay attention and written with the intention of keeping the Federal government small, and then leaving everything else to the individual states as they saw fit, with a few regulatory exceptions.

Paul, find me one other first world country that beats on about their Constitution daily. You also deny the huge success of countries that have a strong central government. Actually when I think about it, from personal experience, the federal government in AUS runs services much better than state or local (county) governments. Furthermore, it's why the federal government is about to take over the operation and funding of public hospitals from the states. Unlike Canada, Australia is a states rights type of country too, however we base our decisions on criticall analysis rather than what some James Madison and Alexander Hamiltom equivalent thought in 1787.

It is funny to me to realize that both groups with extreme views in America, Libertarians and liberals, beat to the same drum - the Constitution. As soon as one uses it as a crutch to any argument, logic goes out the window and there is basically no reasoning. It's your trump card when you really have nothing legitimate to say or add.

Define: 'working well' in other areas.

The private sector is not the problem. Over-regulation from the FDA and other governmental factors that attribute to higher costs are. You want to fix the problem? Fix the costs. As has been pointed out before the private sector does better for doctors than the government does. Doctors can actually make money from private-insurance, but generally lose money from public-insurance...

Nice try but totally wrong. It's almost like you pick something randomly and use it to support your beliefs. The other day it was the Reserve and gold, now it's the FDA and public insurance.

Employers are part of "we the people." Most seem to forget that and also forget that some small businesses can't afford the taxation/burdens put on them by the government.

If you want to talk large corporations that do nothing exciting with their profits, that's valid... but not the case when it comes to small businesses.

The constitution is about forming a small government and then protecting the 'people' from said government at the same time.

Dictionary tends to disagree. I hear this a lot about small business here, in particular providing more holidays and so on. Strange how small businesses are doing extremely well in other countries operating under the same conditions many here claim will bankrupt them.

Large corporations funnel their profits into their boards, executives or shareholders. Many of the large manufacturing corporations sold this country short in the name of a profit. How else is the system of government we loathe the most now building the majority of our products and selling it back to us? Thanks US corporations. A job in screwing over America well done.

Well you don't actually have smaller governments, you have lots of smaller inefficient governments. Texas has 254 counties. Can you imagine the repetition of work that is occurring in county after county. 254 * 200 admin staff (minimum) is 50,800 workers. Yet had all of this been consolidated to the state level, as we now do in AUS, 20,000 could do the same work. Now you tell me, who has the smaller government? Not to mention more efficient government.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Booyah

[Ali G. 37]

This is another example of simple cost deferment. Sort of like taxing a business instead of consumers. The consumers pay the tax in the end, whether you like it or not.

Similarly, you can force employers to pay more for SS (they already pay for half of it) but in most cases it would just mean salary cuts.

You have to ask which approach works better. I have not worked in Australia in over four years but probably still have more saved up there in my private SS account than most people have here that have worked for 30 years. SS is also capped here.

The private SS is also not indefinite there. Much like a 401K, you can only withdraw what you have in there. You certainly don't get a fixed payment for life. Once it runs out and you have under x assets, you apply for the age pension - which is a fixed rate. Their federal budget debt currently stands at $16 billion.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Booyah

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, find me one other first world country that beats on about their Constitution daily. You also deny the huge success of countries that have a strong central government. Actually when I think about it, from personal experience, the federal government in AUS runs services much better than state or local (county) governments. Furthermore, it's why the federal government is about to take over the operation and funding of public hospitals from the states. Unlike Canada, Australia is a states rights type of country too, however we base our decisions on criticall analysis rather than what some James Madison and Alexander Hamiltom equivalent thought in 1787.

We aren't everyone else in the world. So stop trying to make us out to be that. If you like Australia so much GO BACK. Damn. We do things the way we choose to do things and Australia does things the way they choose to. If you feel it's better, then leave!

It is funny to me to realize that both groups with extreme views in America, Libertarians and liberals, beat to the same drum - the Constitution. As soon as one uses it as a crutch to any argument, logic goes out the window and there is basically no reasoning. It's your trump card when you really have nothing legitimate to say or add.

It was written and is supposed to be the ultimate trump card. The constitution is the most legitimate and rational document ever created by man and if we'd live up to it, we'd be just fine. Unfortunately, everyone likes to twist and turn it/bend it to their will, rather than taking it for what it is.

Nice try but totally wrong. It's almost like you pick something randomly and use it to support your beliefs. The other day it was the Reserve and gold, now it's the FDA and public insurance.

Totally wrong? Are you kidding me?

I would suggest you learn more about the health care system. The federal reserve system does effect costs in itself too with devaluation of currency. That's a simple fact. --- The FDA and other governmental regulatory factors do indeed effect cost as well by mandating procedures, drugs, etc and blocking ones they don't like. That's just plain common sense right there. Granted we can blame a lot of that on the Pharmaceutical lobby too, as there are cheaper ways to buy drugs atleast from abroad. It's also a fact that Medicare and Medicaid don't pay as well as private-insurane companies do to doctors. So yeah, I would call the 'public-insurance' factor a problem as well.

Dictionary tends to disagree. I hear this a lot about small business here, in particular providing more holidays and so on. Strange how small businesses are doing extremely well in other countries operating under the same conditions many here claim will bankrupt them.

same conditions? We have one of the highest, if not the highest corporate tax rate in the world, which is paid on corporate income.

The UK for instance only pays taxes on corporate profits and only at a maximum rate of 28%

There are quite a bit of differences in our tax models compared to other nations when it comes to business...

Well you don't actually have smaller governments, you have lots of smaller inefficient governments. Texas has 254 counties. Can you imagine the repetition of work that is occurring in county after county. 254 * 200 admin staff (minimum) is 50,800 workers. Yet had all of this been consolidated to the state level, as we now do in AUS, 20,000 could do the same work. Now you tell me, who has the smaller government? Not to mention more efficient government.

I'm quite happy with my city/state government overall with how they work and each county varies depending on their size. It's not how you try and make it out to be. Dallas County (which seats Dallas, Grandprarie, and other suburbs) for instance will have many more employees than Grayson county will for instance.

Texas doesn't have a state-income tax either, which is quite wonderful in the grand scheme of things.

Also the cost of living here is much lower than the rest of the nation..

Using us as an example of failure will always make you the failure. Please choose another state (see: California and then you'll see inefficiency)

[Ali G. 37]

I am still waiting to know what you actually do. What your area of expertise is in.. Until then, discussions on such matters are pointless, as you clearly don't know what you are talking about and confuse opinion for facts.

Dude Texas is hardly the beacon of humanity. Quite honestly the majority there are quite poor actually.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Booyah

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I am still waiting to know what you actually do. What your area of expertise is in..

Accounting & History

Dude Texas is hardly the beacon of humanity. Quite honestly the majority there are quite poor actually.

It's good to be poor in Texas compared to other areas. As I said, cost of living here is quite low and the tax rates are low as well.

I'll take it over being poor in a 'blue' state (I lived in Minnesota for 3 1/2 years). There's a damn big difference in cost of living, etc. there versus here and in other states.

You can actually live off minimum wage here.... in other states, it's not quite possible without other assistance.

[Ali G. 37]

Not to mention that a 20% deposit on a house in Sydney can purchase a house outright in Fort worth.

Clearly when it comes to private wealth, something libertarians eat, sleep and breathe, we have a better idea over there.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Not to mention that a 20% deposit on a house in Sydney can purchase a house outright in Fort worth.

Clearly when it comes to private wealth, something libertarians eat, sleep and breathe, we have a better idea over there.

Wait, so the fact a house costs you more in Sydney than Fort Worth is a good thing? What the hell are you smoking?

[Ali G. 37]

It's good to be poor in Texas compared to other areas. As I said, cost of living here is quite low and the tax rates are low as well.

I'll take it over being poor in a 'blue' state (I lived in Minnesota for 3 1/2 years). There's a damn big difference in cost of living, etc. there versus here and in other states.

You can actually live off minimum wage here.... in other states, it's not quite possible without other assistance.

Third world countries also have a low cost of living. Naturally their standard of living and quality of life is adjusted accordingly.

It's funny how people from Texas talk it up because no one I have spoken to in the NE would move to Texas. Ironically we constantly have Texans moving into the area, they're easy to spot out too.

Wait, so the fact a house costs you more in Sydney than Fort Worth is a good thing? What the hell are you smoking?

Considering you are in the accounting field, you might want to look at a supply and demand chart again.

The average household income in Fort Worth is $43,271, The average individual income in Sydney is well over $55K.

[SMR 368]

You have to ask which approach works better. I have not worked in Australia in over four years but probably still have more saved up there in my private SS account than most people have here that have worked for 30 years. SS is also capped here.

The private SS is also not indefinite there. Much like a 401K, you can only withdraw what you have in there. You certainly don't get a fixed payment for life. Once it runs out and you have under x assets, you apply for the age pension - which is a fixed rate. Their federal budget debt currently stands at $16 billion.

I don't doubt the Australian system is good. But I think it has everything to do with the fact that the accounts are private and actually accounts. I have stated before that we need something more like that in the US.

I was just pointing out that I don't think it matters who actually cuts the check, since it comes out of your pay, one way or another. In reality, Americans who aren't self-employed have SS deducted from their paychecks and never see it. So you might say the employer is already paying for it.

[Ali G. 37]

I don't doubt the Australian system is good. But I think it has everything to do with the fact that the accounts are private and actually accounts. I have stated before that we need something more like that in the US.

I was just pointing out that I don't think it matters who actually cuts the check, since it comes out of your pay, one way or another. In reality, Americans who aren't self-employed have SS deducted from their paychecks and never see it. So you might say the employer is already paying for it.

You have a good line of reasoning when you post and are one of few who actually thinks about things.

Paul on the other hand, like other libertarian, seems to have his head in the clouds and run solely on cliches or ideals.

Edited March 10, 2010 by Booyah