blackduckdog2 wrote: I want as much government as we need to protect us from the sorts of gaming Wall Street typically marshalls against the average American.
The government takes around $20,000 from every man, woman, and child living legally and illegally in the U.S. and you are arguing for them to be bigger because you are worried about the gaming of Wall Street.
Nose, you got to go, because I'm pissed at my face.
If you made a good living over your lifetime, the government has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from you and thrown it away in the form of social security and medicare. Bernie Madoff investors didn't lose ALL of it, so they should focus on what they got back and not what they should have gotten back, right?
The government waste dwarfs the Wall Street corruption, but the politicians need a good boogeyman and the most effective lie is a true statement. It can't be refuted will it totally misleads you.
blackduckdog2 wrote:Oh, I know, they'll all play nice and there'll be nothing like collusion if we just drown the government in a bathtub.
Well there would be know collusion with crooked politicians in that case. However, I have never said that, so nice try at the irrelevant statement.
How big is too big and how small is too small? Have you never seriously contemplated this? Are you embarrassed by what you believe? Do you simply have no desire for a debate on the subject?
I thinks $10,000 from every man, woman, and child living legally and illegally in the U.S. is probably still widely more than the government can manage efficiently. If half of that goes to Washington, that is about $2,900,000,000 per Congressman. Do you think each Congressman can oversee a bureaucracy that has a revenue of almost $3 billion annually? It is absurd to think they can do this. So that means that how our money is being spent will have inadequate oversight by our representatives. They cannot do it. Which is why I would like to see the Senate double in size and return to representing the interests of the state and the House to increase by at least a factor of 5. And even then there is probably inadequate numbers of representatives in Congress for the size and scope of the government.
First step is we create a national retirement system that is completely and totally out of the hands of the politicians and bureaucrats. A necessary condition for success is one in which people voluntarily put in more than legally required. Those under a certain age (maybe 30 are put in this and they cease paying into social security and medicare). Those over a certain age get 100% of what was promised (maybe 60) and keep paying 100% of the SS & medicare taxes). And then we have a prorated system in between. The shortfall comes out of regular income tax. Or something along those lines so that within a couple decades we have a fully solvent system that rewards savings and investment and you can give what is left when you pass away to your gay lovers, disabled child, cat, or whomever you want without the politicians interference. That alone would almost cut the federal budget in half.
Second is that I would like to see a constitutional amendment that gives every American 1/4th of the 4 person household poverty rate in 12 monthly payments, treat it as taxable income (obviously, this would be below the standard deduction and not taxed if the only source of income) and bans ALL welfare at the federal, state, and local level. This would literally end stastical poverty in America. The Obama's get 4x this value since there are four of them and it doesn't matter that they make multiple millions. They do however have to give back a fraction of it in taxes. While this would have no impact on the spending, and may raise it some, it would remove all the disincentives to earning more money created by means tested welfare benefits. And it would eliminate all the government power associated with dependency on welfare. It would free up a tremendous amount of time for the politicians to do what they should be doing because it would simultaneously end statistical poverty, it would also ban so much of the foolish and destructive things they do.
These two combined would greatly reduce the power of government while achieving the goals that politicians claim they seek. They are lying for the most part, which is why they would never give up the power and never endorse something that would work.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.