Suggestions for Better Government

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Dragoon68, Aug 11, 2005.

  1. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here's a posting from another thread which several of you asked that I use to start a new discussion on these and related items. Let the friendly dialouge begin!

     
  2. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Great post Dragoon68. As I noted before the only thing I would change is that [#5] voting is a duty and a priviledge. Only those who are qualified and properly registered should be allowed to vote upon verification of identity.
     
  3. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's a very good point, OldRegular!

    We've just about done away with all the qualifications and now we're working on tearing down the registration as well.
     
  4. SeekingTruth

    SeekingTruth
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    514
    Likes Received:
    1
    Amen and amen, Dragoon and OldRegular. [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  5. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Detail #2 Dragoon68 interesting...explain what stays and what goes is this the "pain part".
    Does Social Security go or does it stay.

    Thankyou in advance
     
  6. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is basically immoral for the government to take money by force from one person and to give it to another person. I know that a certain amount of this will go on because of the fallen nature of man and the desire of some folks for a supposedly "free" lunch. But we need to keep this to a minimum and as under wraps as possible.</font>[/QUOTE]
    I disagree. To allow a person or a corporation to keep more of his or its money is not a free lunch. That is liberal/socialistic thinking that all money belongs to the government and that it is a "cost" to the government if our taxes are lowered.</font>[/QUOTE]I agree with you KenH!

    If a person comes to your home with a weapon in hand and forces you to give them your money we call it armed robbery. If a person used other less direct, but dishonest, means of taking your money we call it theft, fraud, misappropriation, etc. In any case, it doesn't matter whether the person needs the money more than you or not. So long as you attained it legally - whether by hard work, smart decision, good luck, or just a gift - it was yours to decide what should be done with it.

    However, if we can get the government to take your money and give it to someone else then we can call it a government benefit or an entitlement. The government simply decides you don't need the money you earned as much as someone else does. Those who benefit essentially sell their votes to politicians who generate the programs. This is a powerful tool that neither benefactor wants to give up. It is, in fact, the same as armed robbery.

    Corporations pass along all the taxes they pay to the consumers of their goods and services along with the cost it takes to administer the complex tax rules they must follow. A lot of business decisions are made because of their tax advantages or disadvantages rather than solely on the merits of the expenditure or investment otherwise. It's a big drain on productivity that is ultimately paid by individual tax payers. It hides taxes by passing them off onto some "invisible" entity that can "afford" to pay it.
     
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Consider these two elements:

    9. Citizens have to demand an end to games with taxes that hide the cost of government. They must pay the bill and have direct control over how much the bill should be and what's it for.
    10. Citizens have to demand an end to redistribution of wealth - personal and state - by all forms of government. The government does not exist to make poor men rich or rich men poor but only to provide a system of justice between them.


    They are redundant; they are one and the same :eek:
     
  8. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    They could be considered as part of the same issue. The reason I listed them separately is that point 9 deals more with the source of taxes being hidden while point 10 deals more with the misuse of taxes as redistribution of wealth.

    Citizens need to understand that they pay all the taxes - one way or another - and thus hidden taxes on corporations, for example, don't reduce their real tax burden. If they don't get the total bill they're mislead into thinking things the government does cost less than they really do. Likewise taxes collected by the federal government and redistributed to states, with strings attached, make it seem like the citizens are getting something for nothing from a generous federal government.

    Citizens need to understand that when the government takes one persons earnings and gives it to another it sells favors and buys votes at the expense of their hard work, smart decisions, or just plain good luck. It moves decisions about how to spend your money into the hands of people who didn't earn it. It creates a system of entitlements. Those benefiting from them feel no accountability, much less appreciation, to those who actually fund it. They do, of course, support those who provide it through law at the expense of others. They get downright mad if you don't want to continue paying some of their bills through your friendly generous government.
     
  9. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dragoon you don't think Exxon/Mobil are recipients
    of Corporate Welfare....they are getting a major
    free lunch and they don't need mine or your money.

    and you still have not answered the question about
    Social Security under your plan are you going
    to do away with it?

    and to seque into the full context of mine and KenH conversation on Corporate Welfare and its
    free lunch.

    KenH said
    "It is basically immoral for the government to take money by force from one person and to give it to another person. I know that a certain amount of this will go on because of the fallen nature of man and the desire of some folks for a supposedly "free" lunch. But we need to keep this to a minimum and as under wraps as possible."

    Where is this rampant KenH are you talking about
    taxes on the rich or taxbreaks for the rich..and how do we pay our fair share..you are being very
    general give some specifics...but basically you
    know and I know it is the middle class that is
    the engine of this country and my goal would
    be to protect them and take stress off them...we
    should always give a hand up and not a hand out
    and we have reformed welfare...and even though at times it looks like special interests snd lobbyist rule the day it is still "We The People" that is our government. The free lunch these
    days is to Exxon/Mobile.imho

    KenH said this
    I disagree. To allow a person or a corporation to keep more of his or its money is not a free lunch. That is liberal/socialistic thinking that all money belongs to the government and that it is a "cost" to the government if our taxes are lowered.


    KenH you know as well as I do I am referring to
    corporate welfare ..just look at the new energy
    bill it is a giveaway to people like exxon/mobil
    stick with the isssue...I never said what you
    said...CORPORATE WELFAFE KENH COME ON SPELL IT
    AFTER ME ...C O R P O R A T E W E L F A R E

    Exxon should use its own money and not tax payers
    money to drill and not bilk the taxpayer.


    President Bush on Monday signed into law $14.5 billion in tax breaks for U.S. energy companies and incentives to develop alternative fuel sources that he said would lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil in the future.

    now why does exxon/mobil need a tax break when
    they are hauling in 3 bllion profit every 3 months
    that is every 3 months and pure profit..and they
    are sitting on cash or around 18 billion ..it may
    be higher now..so why do they need a tax break
    when they canpay for it themselves. That KenH
    is pure corporate welfare and you know it.

    PERIOD ENDING 31-Dec-04 31-Dec-03 31-Dec-02
    Net Income 25,330,000 21,510,000 11,460,000

    Operating Activities, Cash Flows Provided By or Used In
    Depreciation 9,767,000 9,047,000 8,310,000
    Adjustments To Net Income (309,000) 344,000 1,053,000
    Changes In Accounts Receivables (472,000) (1,286,000) (305,000)
    Changes In Liabilities 6,333,000 1,130,000 365,000
    Changes In Inventories (223,000) (100,000) 353,000
    Changes In Other Operating Activities 125,000 (2,147,000) 32,000

    Total Cash Flow From Operating Activities 40,551,000 28,498,000 21,268,000

    Investing Activities, Cash Flows Provided By or Used In
    Capital Expenditures (11,986,000) (12,859,000) (11,437,000)
    Investments (1,074,000) (273,000) (1,114,000)
    Other Cashflows from Investing Activities (1,850,000) 2,290,000 2,793,000

    Total Cash Flows From Investing Activities (14,910,000) (10,842,000) (9,758,000)

    Financing Activities, Cash Flows Provided By or Used In
    Dividends Paid (7,111,000) (6,945,000) (6,386,000)
    Sale Purchase of Stock (9,206,000) (5,694,000) (4,660,000)
    Net Borrowings (1,951,000) (2,124,000) (307,000)
    Other Cash Flows from Financing Activities - - -

    Total Cash Flows From Financing Activities (18,268,000) (14,763,000) (11,353,000)
    Effect Of Exchange Rate Changes 532,000 504,000 525,000

    Change In Cash and Cash Equivalents $7,905,000 $3,397,000 $682,000

    KenH no way in blue blazes you can justifie
    corporate welfare for Exxon/Mobil they have
    their own money they don't need mine in the
    form of tax breaks...you know someone will
    have to make up that revenue and it will be
    the middle class and by the way did you see
    Lou Dobbs tonight "Assault on the Middle Class"

    basic question KenH why does Exxon/Mobil need
    my money when it has plenty of pure profits of
    its own to invest and drill?

    The people who benifit with Exxon/Mobil welfare
    is of course them and stockholders Exxon instead
    of drilling can buy back 20 percent of its stock
    so it is welfare and the common American is again
    left footing the bill. Has nothing to do with
    socialism or whatever fearmongering you want to
    use KenH Corporate Welfare it is just plain wrong and unjust.

    Address Corporate Welfare and whether Exxon/Mobil
    deserve tax breaks when in fact the are flush with
    cash 18.5 billion and making hyper profits at
    3 billion every 3 months ..why do they need my
    money and lets not pretend someone will have to
    make up those tax breaks to big oil...lets talk
    examples and current events as well.. the armed
    robbery scenarios are so general.

    Look forward to your post on Social Security
    and Corporate Welfare.

    sincerely Aslanspal
     
  10. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regarding point 2 and Social Security:

    Social security has created a dependency upon the federal government for retirement income by nearly every American. We've become wards of the state in our old age. Citizens should fund their own retirement and have control over how much and in what manner their investments are made. Citizens should not expect their government to care for them when they retire. It is not the business of government to make poor men rich or rich men poor nor to care for our daily needs.

    We may expect our families to care for us but we have no right to expect our neighbors to be required to do so. We may have to depend upon the charity of others - a role the Church should consider more seriously - but we have no right to demand it. Some will retire wealthy and some will retire poor. Christians should step forward to help and care for those in dire need of their own free will and with complete control of what and how they do it.

    Ending this huge monstrous government control over our lives is not something that can be accomplished without a period of transition. It should be ended as soon as possible but it would be very unfair to people already dependent upon the program to have the benefits pulled at a time in their life during which they are unable to do anything else to prepare.

    Therefore, my idea is to (1) continue full benefits for those persons already retired and receiving social security payments, (2) discontinue all taxes and future benefits for persons just starting to work, (3) offer those in-between an option to (a) receive a full refund with interest on whatever they've actually contributed to date including the employer's contribution and give them no benefits or (b) continue paying the tax until retirement and collect the benefits, and (4) end all programs using social security funds that have nothing to do with providing retirement income.

    Citizens already retired wouldn't have to worry about loosing their income. People close to the end of their working careers who have to make a choice not unlike that of taking a cash balance verses an annuity. People just started out would need to plan for their futures and would have time to make it or break it. In this manner, the program would be ended when all those who participate pass on from this life.

    We need to take this money out of the hands of government handlers - they always deduct handling fees and controls to everything they take in - and put it back into the hands of citizens to do with as they please - right or wrong. You never get back from the government as much as you put in to it. The government does not generate wealth.

    This will light some fires for sure!
     
  11. elijah_lives

    elijah_lives
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    0
    We would not have a social security problem if we, as a nation, had not aborted 33 million people. SS is a ponzi scheme that depends upon a growing work force that can support the retirement of each preceding generation. We have crippled that scheme by shorting ourselves of 33 million potential workers, each paying FICA taxes.

    Tim
     
  12. StefanM

    StefanM
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    6,427
    Likes Received:
    72
    Although I'm not in favor of ending Social Security right now, I would like to be able to avoid paying my SECA tax on my ministerial income . . .
     
  13. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,503
    Likes Received:
    40
    If you want to see true tax reform, just do away with witholding, and make every worker write ONE check April 14 for his entire tax burden for the year!

    The resulting earthquake would send California at least halfway to Hawaii.

    I don't think most people have any idea just how much they do pay in taxes, including federal, state, city/county, exise, mandated fees, sales etc., etc.! [​IMG]
     
  14. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, that's part of the problem. A lot of taxes are "hidden" taxes so most people don't really understand that they're paying them whether directly or indirectly. Corporate taxes are a big example of these. We pay for it in the cost of goods and services.

    Someone is always coming up with another new "good" program to take care of some problem. What's a few more dollars for a "good" cause? Isn't that why we have government - to take care of our problems and help people that need it?

    Some citizens - and non-citizens including some here illegally - believe the answers to these questions are "not much" and "yes" because they don't get a big bill for it or, worse, some other citizens will pay for it.

    The question that doesn't get asked is: "Is this a function of government as we defined it in the Constitution?" and: "Exactly how much will each citizen have to pay to fund this?"
     
  15. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't forget the
    seven each 7% federal taxes:

    1. Social Security
    2. Retirement witholding (because SS won't pay enough for you to retire)
    3. IRA /independent retirement account/ (because
    SS + your retirement isn't enough to retire
    either :(
    4. Medicare - medical insurance for retirement
    5. Medicade - medical insurance for welfare
    6. (do you know what 'hidden' means?)
    7. Inflation hidden tax
     
  16. ASLANSPAL

    ASLANSPAL
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    2,318
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dragoon68 said

    "Some will retire wealthy and some will retire poor. Christians should step forward to help and care for those in dire need of their own free will and with complete control of what and how they do it."

    This has merit, but actually disagree
    1.some will retire hyper rich
    2.some rich
    3.some middle class
    4.some lower middle class(survivable imho)
    5.poor need assistance
    6.impoverished(streets) need assistance

    perhaps upward to multi-millions of people could need help from the resources of the church.imho

    The Christians now! should be thinking of a monumental culture change and be extremely organized and in mass(you get a better deal that
    way).As for conditions?...perhaps, but to show
    true unconditional love and meet needs of poor
    and street people those conditions should be kept
    at a minimum...the attributes of mercy and how
    I see it means in the bible is to actually do your
    best to place yourself in the shoes of the person suffering.

    The church must prove on a massive organized scale
    it can help the poor ..and it must be unconditional to a large extent(reveals Jesus that way).

    but then again if "we the people" get back to
    fiscal responsibility and into the black again
    like we did in the 90's I believe we have a
    chance...the present course of the new corporate
    welfare system is not working and the treasury
    is being raided by special interests.

    Still my question remains why does Exxon/Mobil
    need my money when it has 18.5 billion in cash
    and making hyper profits of 3 billion every
    3 months ..by all means they can keep those
    profits..I don't want it ,they earned it or
    had a run of good luck($67bbloil)?

    Just a smidgen of the $85 billion dollar subsides
    is $2 billion for deep water drilling...again why
    does Exxon Mobil need my money when it has its own
    to finance drilling?

    --------------------------------------------------
    I agree with Ed Social Security is not even part
    of the whole pie it just contributes to the whole
    it is the safety net from catastrophic poverty. People should be acting now!to supplement their whole because Social Security is not going to meet the need...so who steps in ..who runs the
    new program ...who is organized...the small
    investor will allows get burned by the ones in
    the know and the wealthy will always have its
    bevy of people looking out for them from tax accountants to lawyers. It is the people who
    play by the rules, mow their lawn, go to work
    each day, fix up their house, buy an economy
    car,pay their tithe faithfully who do not worry about markets on a day to day basis , I am concerned with.An example is Enron employees...educated but still deceived
    by higher ups or people in the know, how was that
    their fault?...they trusted, they were educated, but still their money was gone...locked in to a
    death spiral.

    I agree the church stepping in has merit but it
    must be on a massive scale ..equal to our governments scale. imho

    Sincerely
    Aslanspal
     
  17. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    As an oil company accountant, I agree. I see no reason for subsidies for any company. I see that as a type of welfare. Tax breaks I can go along with as I like to see people and companies keep more of their own money, but I don't approve of any form of welfare.
     
  18. Dragoon68

    Dragoon68
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Messages:
    4,511
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, indeed, such will be the case. Again, it is not the role of government to make rich men poor or poor men rich. It is the role of government to provide a system of justice such that all citizens may seek and receive justice.

    Therefore, if a rich man steals from a poor man, or a poor man steals for a rich man, both should be able to seek and receive justice through the framework provided by government. However, whether the rich man's wealth was acquired by hard work, smart decisions, or just plain good luck, the government has no right to take any of it and give it to a poor man in a scheme to redistribute wealth among individuals.

    Excessive wealth is something those with lessor wealth always resent. Equalizing wealth is a dangerous power when given to government and one that harms many others far below those few who actually have great wealth.

    This does not mean that the peril of the poor, or impoverished, should not be addressed. It merely means that it is not the role of government. Defining a need among our citizens does not, in itself, define a proper role for government. This is, properly, the realm of local churches or chartiable organizations who have close contact with those in need.

    Government, rarely does a very good job of addressing these matters. Their programs are administered by people far from the reality and unable to apply good judgment to either the need or the usage of that given. They extract a huge cost in handling fees. They make the recipients wards of the state who are unappreciative of those who actually fund the help they receive.
     

Share This Page

Loading...