Thread: I got an idea...

So when are you gonna get around to solving the puzzle of faster than light travel, harnessing the power of black holes and discovering the secrets of cold fusion and time travel? So many problems, so few Billyjeffs...

Originally Posted by someone on this board

I wonder: Why is it that whenever someone agrees with me on this board, they say something like:"Wow! I actually agree with billyjeff2!!", as if this is such an aberration? Each and every post I've ever made has been extremely well thought-out, and unassailably correct. Agreeing with what I have to say should be a given around here....

I disagree: agreement is never a given. That should be a given

Originally Posted by Brother Jeeter

...so few Billyjeffs...

Well we know there are at least two of them right?

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

So I'll throw it back to you: if we are seriously going to attempt to reduce spending, aside from going after the military, how would you propose we reduce entitlement spending? Means-testing for social security? Cuts in Medicaid/Medicare? Roll back of the prescription benefit program to the poor and elderly? Elimination of the S-CHIP health program for needy children? Do away with the recent tax reductions for the middle class? Increase taxes on wealthy Americans?
I'm open to your suggestions...

That's a fairly common argument against the very idea of cutting government spending, but I think it's quite flawed.

Everyone always pulls out these "we obviously can't cut this" sorts of examples.

Let me give you an example on a much smaller scale, just because it's simpler to look at.

When I was in college, I spent 3 years working at a nearby elementary school for an after-school program. Roughly 20% of our budget came out of the school's general fund. The rest came out of grants and voluntary fees from the parents of our students.

Just about the same time I started there, a new reading program was started at that school. This was completely separate from my after-school program. Bare in mind that this was a relatively small school. Maybe 800 total students.

This programs started with the hiring of two administrators both making over $100k/year, and the purchasing of $200k worth of materials.

These materials sat in an unused hallway for 2 years, while the administrators did basically nothing.

My third and final year there, they finally rolled out the program. This program, to put it nicely, was the most idiotic reading program I have ever encountered. The students would sound out words as with phonics programs, but with a twist. They were supposed to "bounce" each letter. To sound out the word "sandwich" they would say, out loud, "s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s, a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a, n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n-n, d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d, w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w-w, i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i, c-c-c-c-c-c-c-c, h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h-h" and from this they were supposed to gather that the word was, in fact, "sandwich."

Needless to say, it was utterly useless. In a reading period one day at the after school program, while dutifully assisting a 3rd grader with her reading, following the prescribed program, she looked up at me and said, "This seems really dumb. People don't talk like that. How come we're supposed to read like that?"

After 3 years, at a total expense to the tax payers of over $800k, even a 3rd grade child could see how useless and stupid the program was.

Because of the increased school budget due largely to this idiotic program, the 20% of our budget that came from the general fund was discontinued, and the program was forced to close. That's why I only worked there for 3 years.

Our entire government works the same way. It is a massive and incalculable bureaucracy which consumes a great deal to accomplish very little by comparison.

Simplifying our tax structure is one of the easiest things we could do. By going to a flat tax, with a standard deduction of somewhere between 30 and 60 thousand, you could greatly alleviate the burden on the poor and middle classes, and keep the structure progressive, because let's face it, nobody over a certain level of income pays and meaningful percentage of taxes at all. Frankly, if all write-offs were done away with, I suspect that 12% would be an enormous tax rate, far and above anything that was needed.

Meanwhile, by doing this, you could all but eliminate the entire IRS.

Then look at the military, don't cut the spending on troop salaries, or equipment, or maintenance, but reduce administrative personnel by 80%. Our military would probably function BETTER, and at a fraction of the cost.

Set a VERY low ratio of school administrators to students, with an equally low administrator per school cap, and you could reduce the budget for public education by half without cutting a single program.


And, my favorite idea of all, which should be applied universally, is this:

The holding of a government office, or any form of employment by the government, including everything from the President down to people who simply live off the dole, should immediately void a person's right of suffrage until such time as they are no longer financially dependent on the state.

This does NOT discriminate against the poor, because the homeless could still vote. People working at McDonald's for minimum wage could still vote. People who are out of work and living day to day searching for work could vote, BUT people who live on the dole could not. Public school teachers could not vote. Public works employees, and IRS auditors, and anyone else could not vote.

The only exceptions I would put to that would be people who put their lives on the line for public safety and freedom, to whit, Police officers, Firefighters, and active duty soldiers. However, ONLY those people should be an exception. Being a secretary at the police station shouldn't count, etc.

And, if we're going all "Ceasar's Column" anyway, I say make all forms of finacial lobbying a form of treason, as well as any other attempt, successful or not, to buy or sell votes of any kind, or to defraud voters in any way. And I mean treason, as in, enemy of the state, punishable by death for the harm it does to democracy.

Although I could do it, it would take me so long to reply to all the points made in the above-post I won't even bother. Suffice it to say that the suggestion of denying most government workers the ability to vote, which is a constitutionally granted right, is absurd. Or more precisely-unconstitutional. You can't require people to forfeit a constitutional right as a condition of employment.

As to the flat tax concept: If no one who earns up to $60K per year has to pay taxes, and if the tax rate of the wealthy is dropped down to 12%, the reduction in overall tax revenue compared to what is received under the current system would be astounding.

And to suggest that we execute lobbyists---rather than respond to that kind of nonsensical idea, I shall instead devote my considerable intellectual talents to solving some of the world's more pressing problems, like uncovering what exactly Toostie rolls are made of...

They are obviously rolls of "Tootsie."
BTW, have you ever wondered if one of the dollar bills in your wallet were ever in a stripper's butt crack?

If not, you're wondering now.

Have a nice day .

Originally Posted by billyjeff2

Although I could do it, it would take me so long to reply to all the points made in the above-post I won't even bother.....

Well, since you made considerably fewer points, I will happily address them all.

1. Stating that something is presently unconstitutional is quite irrelevant. At one point in American history, the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol was unconstitutional, as was letting women and blacks vote. Of course, the original constitution had no objection to the ownership of slaves either.

The constitution was designed as a living document that could change as the needs of the country changed. (we're up to 27 amendments now aren't we?) If as a people, we were to finally figure out that people who live off the governmetn shouldn't be directing the government, there is nothing to stop the constitution being changed again.

2. A 12% tax rate would probably NOT be a tax cut for the super rich. The super rich in this country rarely pay more than 1 or 2% in taxes. Many multi-billion dollar corporations pay virtually nothing in taxes at all because of our insane tax write-offs.

Even if it was an enourmos loss of revenue, following my other ideas about reducing government overhead could easily make up the cost. Our government is uselessly bloated and needs to go on a diet like a fat guy headed to his high school reunion.

If it turned out that 12% was too low, then make it 20% With a standard deduction of $60k, a person making 100k would pay a total of 8% of his income in taxes. The progressive scale is built right in. The tax wouldn't flatten out until you looked at people which such high incomes that a $60k standard deduction was irrelevant. In many respects this would be far MORE progressive than our current structure.

3. As for your assertion that treating financial lobbying (please note that I have now twice specified financial lobbying) as form of treason is "nonsense," we must simply agree to disagree. I think history has shown us that financial lobbying is the bane of democracy.

We live in a country where congressional votes are bought and sold by special interest groups, who promis to help with the next election. To attempt to buy a person's vote (private or congressional) or to sell your own vote (private or congressional) is an affront to all that this country once stood for. It is an insult to our constitution, to our founding fathers, and to the men and women who have fought and died to ensure we continue to have that freedom.

Originally Posted by VeeDubb65

Well, since you made considerably fewer points, I will happily address them all.

1. Stating that something is presently unconstitutional is quite irrelevant. At one point in American history, the manufacture, sale and distribution of alcohol was unconstitutional, as was letting women and blacks vote. Of course, the original constitution had no objection to the ownership of slaves either.


The constitution was designed as a living document that could change as the needs of the country changed. (we're up to 27 amendments now aren't we?) If as a people, we were to finally figure out that people who live off the governmetn shouldn't be directing the government, there is nothing to stop the constitution being changed again.

In the 200+plus year history of this country less than 30 constitutional amendments have been passed/enacted. The chances of garnering the level of support needed to amend the constitution in connection with your idea to deprive a certain segment of American workers the right to vote are, umm, not too good. The constitution has never been amended in order to take away the right to vote.

2. A 12% tax rate would probably NOT be a tax cut for the super rich. The super rich in this country rarely pay more than 1 or 2% in taxes. Many multi-billion dollar corporations pay virtually nothing in taxes at all because of our insane tax write-offs.

Even if it was an enourmos loss of revenue, following my other ideas about reducing government overhead could easily make up the cost. Our government is uselessly bloated and needs to go on a diet like a fat guy headed to his high school reunion.

If it turned out that 12% was too low, then make it 20% With a standard deduction of $60k, a person making 100k would pay a total of 8% of his income in taxes. The progressive scale is built right in. The tax wouldn't flatten out until you looked at people which such high incomes that a $60k standard deduction was irrelevant. In many respects this would be far MORE progressive than our current structure.

I'm with you on this. Only thing I'd add is that it'll take a Herculean effort in terms of cutting overall government spending to get to the point where you can then reduce the rate to a flat 12% or so. Which gets me back to my earlier point that you'll never obtain any meaningful reductions unless you address entitlement spending (I've said this so often I getting tired of hearing myself say it).

3. As for your assertion that treating financial lobbying (please note that I have now twice specified financial lobbying) as form of treason is "nonsense," we must simply agree to disagree. I think history has shown us that financial lobbying is the bane of democracy.

We live in a country where congressional votes are bought and sold by special interest groups, who promis to help with the next election. To attempt to buy a person's vote (private or congressional) or to sell your own vote (private or congressional) is an affront to all that this country once stood for. It is an insult to our constitution, to our founding fathers, and to the men and women who have fought and died to ensure we continue to have that freedom.

I have no substantive disagreement with you over the concept of attempting to eliminate or curtail the type of lobbying you speak of. But I still say your idea of imposing capital punishment is, well, not a very good idea. Stick to the concept of stopping/limiting lobbying and drop the death penalty part and you'll have a much better chance of attracting some support....