You’re absolutely right! The Koch Brothers, Monsanto (and all farm), and the oil company subsidies should all be cut to zero (and all special tax exemptions eliminated). Plus, the VA should be eliminated. After all, those guys are through with their service and we paid their health care then. Why should they get to suck off the federal teat now? Finally, states should only get back the amount they’ve paid in.* **
*Hint: This last thing would hurt traditionally red states a LOT more than traditionally blue states.
**Double hint: Doing all of these things at once would probably crash the economy of the US - whereas targeted spending cuts and targeted revenue increases would probably stabilize things.
Sounds good, except for current Veterans who already served and had a deal with the government that it would be provided! No new VA benefits ! Great idea, not much to Intice new soldiers but I sure a healthy raise in pay wouldn’t hurt.
The government should stop subsidizing everyone and everything , finish out the benefit packages they currently are responcilble for and concentrate on roads , bridges and defense of the nation!
By the way, your not going to hurt the Koch brothers or Monsanto with any of those proposed ideas. Illiminating all tax exemptions would solve campaign finance, the IRS could disappear with a flat tax or even a progressive tax fixed exclusively on income amounts over a certain threshold, say 10% for everyone under $45000 and 15% for all those over with a slight variant for the transitional numbers .
Super plan!
In that case why should State populations give nearly so much money to the Federal Government in the first place? All you are doing is creating an extra level of bureaucracy. Taxes would be given to the Federal Government with one hand only for the other hand to return the exact same dollar amount back to States. All for what purpose?
Because AMERICA! And DEFENSE! And CONSTITUTION! And FREEDOM!
For the sarcasm impaired, I’m not advocating any such system. It’s more an attempt to point out that nearly everyone who wants to radically reduce spending at the Fed level is generally careful to ensure that it’s the other guy’s spending that gets cut - not their own.
“Double hint: Doing all of these things at once would probably crash the economy of the US - **whereas targeted spending cuts and targeted revenue increases would probably stabilize things.” **
These targeted spening cuts and tax increases will end up in the very political battle that you warn of. I can imagine a huge pissing contest to see who and what is targeted. All of which will come down to self interest. Im always wary of targeted actions such as these. What about an across the board spending cut/tax increase instead? That way no-one drastically loses out in a newly created battle of self interest.
But in actuality the myth of global warming has no more validity than your savior coming back in the clouds next month. They have been telling us since the 70s that the sea level would rise by 3 meters before the end of the century. Century came to an end, and now they tell us that the sea level went up 7 millimeters. But in reality could anyone really measure the world wide sea level within 7 millimeters? No matter how many people believe in the fantasy doesn’t make it real. The temperature has been going down for the last 16 years, not up as the deniers of reality pretend.
Sorry, that has no support at all, to demonstrate how derailed your idea there is can you point at the scientists that claimed that?
You will find that none has said that. Your sources are misleading you and are blind.
Actually since 1950 the rise has been almost 150 millimeters. So you are wrong on that one too.
Yeah, yeah, the old denier move of claiming that the scientists are the deniers, as effective as “I am rubber and you are glue” To begin with you will not find a scientific group involved on this that supports you, there is no downward trend, most you can do is a “pause” of the surface temperatures, most of the warmth has gone in the oceans, and then next the deniers claimed that that it was done to “save the theory” :rolleyes: problem is that it was mentioned before and it is one of the main reasons why the ice loss is accelerating in the shores of Greenland and Antarctica.
It’s a hijack (and has been done here several times already), so we should probably drop it.
Suffice it to say that 1)I wouldn’t be afraid of the fight (but then again both parties are beholden to the Golden Geese) and 2)not all cuts/increases are the same - even if the dollar amounts equal out.
There will never be across-the-board cuts. Either they’ll bury the details in the fine print (“These are across the board spending cuts! (Except for this multi-billion dollar weapons program that the Pentagon truly needs. And which happens to be made in my district.)”). Or one side will push for across-the-board cuts because they think it favors them politically to do so (which is just another form of self-interest).
If Congress ever has enough cooperation to compromise on across-the-board cuts, they could put that same spirit of cooperation into figuring out targeted cuts that would impact both sides.
So you’re fixed-income on one side and dependent on government spending on the other. And you want the government to cut spending. See my post about cuts always being targeted to the other guy. Problem is that every program impacts some other guy and he wants to keep his and cut yours. Who wins?
Let’s see, I want to end the VA, so my wife loses her job, and I’m fixed income?, I’m not sure that I get what your saying?her income is not relevant by the way, she is however retired Air Force tho, so it would be shitty of me to want to deny her of money she already earned I guess, not that I need it, but it is hers!
If “we” refers to the Republican party, that’s bullshit and you know it. Republicans won’t be listening to any ideas that work; they deny there’s even a problem.