The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: MikeBjerum on November 22, 2011, 02:25:44 PM
-
I have C-SPAN on again today as I work on calls. Right now Bruce Katz (Brookings Institute) is on talking about the failings of the Joint Deficit Reduction Committee and what can be done. He referred to a book written by another speaker, Alice Rivlin, who is also from the Brookings Institute. Her book was written about 20 years ago if I understood.
He says her book is more on track today than it was two decades ago in its advice that the local and state governments are better for dealing with projects and economic enhancement.
Less by feds and more closer to home? Is this really a new idea? I thought this is what this once great nation was originally founded on. United States of America! States united! Not United America or as so many call us, America. We are fifty individual states forming one nation.
-
I have C-SPAN on again today as I work on calls. Right now Bruce Katz (Brookings Institute) is on talking about the failings of the Joint Deficit Reduction Committee and what can be done. He referred to a book written by another speaker, Alice Rivlin, who is also from the Brookings Institute. Her book was written about 20 years ago if I understood.
He says her book is more on track today than it was two decades ago in its advice that the local and state governments are better for dealing with projects and economic enhancement.
Less by feds and more closer to home? Is this really a new idea? I thought this is what this once great nation was originally founded on. United States of America! States united! Not United America or as so many call us, America. We are fifty individual states forming one nation.
You are exactly right. Problem is neither of the two major parties are likely to ever head back that way. Their reasoning is simple: If everything is better if it is done locally and the less we do the better the country runs, how will we ever become the rulers of this country? Everyone will look at us as public servants rather than as their masters.
-
I remember reading something (I believe it was in Patriots) about a shift in the way we see ourselves as a republic. As long as I have been alive, we have been referred to as THE United States. In Rawles book, he talks about a shift, small by significant, referring to us as THESE United States. Inferring that while we have banded together as a nation, each state still holds it's own sovereignty as equally if not more important.
-
Remember though guys, this hasn't been a one way power grab. A lot of state pols are happy to see the feds take charge. Why? Its about money and taxes. If most of the soveriegnty lay with the states, so would the responsibilty of raising revenue to support these programs. How many Florida or New Hampshire pols want to say "We need a state income tax"? Even if the federal tax rate were correspondingly reduced, local and state officials couldn't promise all that "free" stuff and it Tallahasse sending you the bill, not DC. Then there is the little matter of the majority of states getting more federal tax money then they pay. That would stop, and states would have to live within their own means. Good for Vermont or New York, but it would suck to be Alaska as the welfare train would stop. I'm not saying any of this is a bad idea, just pointing out that the state officials only complain about this stuff when it suits their interests.
FQ13
-
FQ,
This isn't a popularity contest. This is about doing the right thing and acting like grown ups. This is the stuff the Courts are supposed to catch and send back when the Legislative and Executive branches screw up. Problem is that we have filled all three branches with spoiled brats looking out for their own best interests instead of the could of the Republic >:(
-
FQ,
This isn't a popularity contest. This is about doing the right thing and acting like grown ups. This is the stuff the Courts are supposed to catch and send back when the Legislative and Executive branches screw up. Problem is that we have filled all three branches with spoiled brats looking out for their own best interests instead of the could of the Republic >:(
True, but elections (and for that matter revolutions) are a popularity contest. Don't ever expect a politician to do something that they don't benefit from. Madison got that. We just need, if you prefer a state centric approach, to sell the idea to the voters. Until there is a popular demand for it, including understanding its cost,s its dead. Its one reason I rolled my eyes at Palin. She was Miss state's rights and federalism. If Alaskans thought they would have seen a drastic reduction in tax revenue from the lower 48 I'm not sure she would have been elected dog catcher. The same is true in places like WV, Indiana, Mississsippi and other bastions of federalism. Well, at least until folks there get the bill. Its not the politicians here, but rather the voters you have to convince.
FQ13
-
Remember though guys, this hasn't been a one way power grab. A lot of state pols are happy to see the feds take charge. Why? Its about money and taxes. If most of the soveriegnty lay with the states, so would the responsibilty of raising revenue to support these programs. How many Florida or New Hampshire pols want to say "We need a state income tax"? Even if the federal tax rate were correspondingly reduced, local and state officials couldn't promise all that "free" stuff and it Tallahasse sending you the bill, not DC. Then there is the little matter of the majority of states getting more federal tax money then they pay. That would stop, and states would have to live within their own means. Good for Vermont or New York, but it would suck to be Alaska as the welfare train would stop. I'm not saying any of this is a bad idea, just pointing out that the state officials only complain about this stuff when it suits their interests.
FQ13
You will notice it's always the states that are drowning in their own liberal utopias. Read RED INK They can't manage their own state budgets because they have buried themselves with too many freebies to the public. California is a perfect example.
-
There was recent research of liberal/republican cities, counties, states,...etc,......in regards to standard of living, overall prosperity, and jobs.
What political party would be associated with the worst data, based on criteria above?
Hint:
There has NEVER, and I mean NEVER been a Rep. Mayor of which Michigan Major City?....
Which Western State, has had a Democratic Majority at the State Legislative level for decades?....(Associated with a small County of officials that made more in annual salary, than the POTUS)....
Which of the Countries smallest New England States indebtedness to State employee's retirement benefits and pensions, far surpasses one of the Countries largest States, (and no it's not Alaska.)
I'll have to find the report, in my stack of bookmarks, but it's too obvious to deny...
OBTW FQ, NY wouldn't make it 6 months without Federal Funding. Look at the states with a majority of "D"'s......
-
FQ,
You keep confusing what should be done with what is done!
This is one of the areas that makes me want term limits. Once in office, many officials keep their jobs by bringing home all the dollars they can get their dirty hands on. That is not what government or elected office is about! These people are elected to office to do a job. Their focus is to be on that job and not the next election. This is why I hate it when a candidate or elected official supports their position or actions on the polls.
I have always compared a Republic to a family: Our elected officials are in place to act like parents. It is their job to do what is best for us in the long term whether we like it or not. As adult children, we do not need our parents in our day to day life, but we still treasure their wisdom, and it is the same with government: They are not there to take care of our day to day needs, but they are there to make sure our government has our backsides covered for generations to come.
Just as many parents want to be friends with their children, our elected officials want to be our best drinking buddies. They want us sitting beside them, and they assure that will happen by keeping an open tab with the bartender. We need parents that act like parents and we need leaders that lead!
FQ, you may not vote for people that will act in the best interest of our nation, but I try to!
-
You will notice it's always the states that are drowning in their own liberal utopias. Read RED INK They can't manage their own state budgets because they have buried themselves with too many freebies to the public. California is a perfect example.
You mean states like Wyoming? ;D Sorry JC, you get $1.11 back for every dollar you pay. Here's a ranking amomg the states.
FQ13 who will note that Florida is subsidizing you at $.03 on the dollar. GET A JOB WYOMING! ;)
PS TW, New York only got back $.79 on every dollar paid out.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.swf
-
You mean states like Wyoming? ;D Sorry JC, you get $1.11 back for every dollar you pay. Here's a ranking amomg the states.
FQ13 who will note that Florida is subsidizing you at $.03 on the dollar. GET A JOB WYOMING! ;)
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html
Quit your braggin' teacher boy!
Only four states getting less back than Minnesota. We get back $0.72 for every dollar we pay in.
It would be interesting to see what all goes into those numbers. I'm guessing that things like military bases, miles of interstate highway vs. population density, and national parks and monuments are a part of what could make up for some of the disparity.
-
Quit your braggin' teacher boy!
Only four states getting less back than Minnesota. We get back $0.72 for every dollar we pay in.
It would be interesting to see what all goes into those numbers. I'm guessing that things like military bases, miles of interstate highway vs. population density, and national parks and monuments are a part of what could make up for some of the disparity.
Indian reservations probably factor in too. All the schools, local police, roads welfare, etc. is federal. I'm still going to ride JC though. ;D
FQ13
-
Remember though guys, this hasn't been a one way power grab. A lot of state pols are happy to see the feds take charge. Why? Its about money and taxes. If most of the soveriegnty lay with the states, so would the responsibilty of raising revenue to support these programs. How many Florida or New Hampshire pols want to say "We need a state income tax"? Even if the federal tax rate were correspondingly reduced, local and state officials couldn't promise all that "free" stuff and it Tallahasse sending you the bill, not DC. Then there is the little matter of the majority of states getting more federal tax money then they pay. That would stop, and states would have to live within their own means. Good for Vermont or New York, but it would suck to be Alaska as the welfare train would stop. I'm not saying any of this is a bad idea, just pointing out that the state officials only complain about this stuff when it suits their interests.
FQ13
Only the Democrats, they have been saying it since the early 60's . We don't have one yet and the only time we go into the red is when the Dems are running the state.
-
And NH gets by with not only no state income tax, but they do it while only taking back $0.71 of each dollar they send to the feds.
Once again teacher boy screws up in his attacks by not thinking through the facts ... even when he is the one that provides them.
-
No sales tax either.
-
So where do you get you cash? Membership fees?
-
And NH gets by with not only no state income tax, but they do it while only taking back $0.71 of each dollar they send to the feds.
Once again teacher boy screws up in his attacks by not thinking through the facts ... even when he is the one that provides them.
Trouble with these numbers, though they are fun M58, is they ignore two huge areas. defense, which will remain federal, but also payroll taxes and SS/medicare. That's why Fl. and NH, even though we would save by refusing every federal INCOME tax dollar and going our own way, would still have to raise revenue on the rest. Its a nice little graph, and worth talking about and debating, because there are things to be learned, but like always, SS is the 800 pound gorilla we all want to ignore.
FQ13
-
yeah...the SS problem. But here is how SS has been done.
Suppose your employer withholds 7.65% of your salary for your retirement and future medical expenses. You have no choice in this withholding; it is a condition of your employment.
“Instead of investing your withholdings in an interest-bearing account for your use in your golden years, the employer spends those funds in any way he sees fit -- buying new equipment, paying current salaries, whatever.
“He does put an IOU in the account for the amount he has misspent. The employer does not list himself as the guarantor of the note, however. The employee is held responsible for the debt.
“This is exactly what Congress has done with the FICA withholdings -- multiplied by two. The 7.65% withheld from salaries and wages of U.S. workers as a condition of their employment is matched by their employer -- 15.3% of profits or salaries of the self-employed -- and placed in an ‘account’ for the benefit of the worker.
“Those funds are promptly spent by the government in any way Congress chooses. An IOU is issued to the Social Security Trust Fund with the worker and any future workers in the U.S. responsible for the repayment of the note.
“They take your money at the point of a gun, spend our money and then make it your obligation to repay it!
“And this in a ‘free market,’ a ‘free country’? NOT!”
-
So where do you get you cash? Membership fees?
Property taxes and (when the democrats aren't in office ) careful spending.
You need to remember, we are, unlike any one out side New England, Real Yankees.
A Real Yankee can by from a Jew and sell to a Scotsman and still make a profit. ;D
-
Trouble with these numbers, though they are fun M58, is they ignore two huge areas. defense, which will remain federal, but also payroll taxes and SS/medicare. That's why Fl. and NH, even though we would save by refusing every federal INCOME tax dollar and going our own way, would still have to raise revenue on the rest. Its a nice little graph, and worth talking about and debating, because there are things to be learned, but like always, SS is the 800 pound gorilla we all want to ignore.
FQ13
SS is not a problem if we pay back our national debt. We are into retired generations at this point that fully funded their Social Security and Medicare. The problem is that the spenders could not manage to keep their fingers out of the cookie jar. The average 65 year old Baby Boomer retiring today worked for 45 years and averaged $20k per year - $900k paid in. Let's say the feds paid no interest on that money and took 25% for management and SSI for those not paying in - $675k in their account when they retire today. $675k times 3% = $20,250 per year to split between Social Security and Medicare.
Now that I have that rant out of the way:
Outside of paying for Washington DC and all of our federally elected officials and their staff, what should the feds pay for?
1. National Defense
2. Interstate Highway System
3. National Parks and Monuments
4. Aid to foreign countries, or should I say protection money to foreign mafias
5. Immigration
-
SS is not a problem if we pay back our national debt. We are into retired generations at this point that fully funded their Social Security and Medicare. The problem is that the spenders could not manage to keep their fingers out of the cookie jar. The average 65 year old Baby Boomer retiring today worked for 45 years and averaged $20k per year - $900k paid in. Let's say the feds paid no interest on that money and took 25% for management and SSI for those not paying in - $675k in their account when they retire today. $675k times 3% = $20,250 per year to split between Social Security and Medicare.
Now that I have that rant out of the way:
Outside of paying for Washington DC and all of our federally elected officials and their staff, what should the feds pay for?
1. National Defense
2. Interstate Highway System
3. National Parks and Monuments
4. Aid to foreign countries, or should I say protection money to foreign mafias
5. Immigration
You are wrong about 2 of those,
The highway system was supposed to be jointly funded from DOD who wanted an Autobahn type system to move troops and equipment, the civilian portion is why you pay that .9 cents on every gallon of gas.
Supplemental funding, when needed was supposed to be collected in tolls.
Immigration is supposed to pay for itself
-
Immigration is supposed to pay for itself
If we legalized and taxed the drugs they mule, and fined and RICOed the ones who knowingly hire them, it still might. :-\
FQ13
-
The people we allow to legally come here are to aid our industrial growth. Those who come illegally need to be rounded up, registered, decimated, and the remainder sent across the nearest border under sentence of death if they ever return.
-
You are wrong about 2 of those,
The highway system was supposed to be jointly funded from DOD who wanted an Autobahn type system to move troops and equipment, the civilian portion is why you pay that .9 cents on every gallon of gas.
Supplemental funding, when needed was supposed to be collected in tolls.
Immigration is supposed to pay for itself
Both of those fall under federal management so not wrong.
-
Both of those fall under federal management so not wrong.
My disagreement is based on the fact that Immigration should be at the expense of the immigrant, not us.
and the highway system should be counted as part of the defense spending you had already listed.
-
My disagreement is based on the fact that Immigration should be at the expense of the immigrant, not us.
and the highway system should be counted as part of the defense spending you had already listed.
I agree, but just like the fuel tax for the highways it is money that goes from someone, to the feds, and into the system. It is money that should count as a state expense or benefit. We don't disagree, we just don't read and type clearly enough ;)
-
SS is not a problem if we pay back our national debt. We are into retired generations at this point that fully funded their Social Security and Medicare. The problem is that the spenders could not manage to keep their fingers out of the cookie jar. The average 65 year old Baby Boomer retiring today worked for 45 years and averaged $20k per year - $900k paid in. Let's say the feds paid no interest on that money and took 25% for management and SSI for those not paying in - $675k in their account when they retire today. $675k times 3% = $20,250 per year to split between Social Security and Medicare.
In order to pay 20K into SS every year, one would have to earn an average of $135,000.00 annually. Remember you only pay in 15% combined from your AGI up to $106,500.00. This math is way off Mike unless I've misunderstood your reasoning.
I've worked for forty years and earned a little over $1,250,000.00 in my lifetime. My account currently has about 185K waiting for me to retire. That won't last long which is why they're raising the minimum full retirement age. I'm currently at 66 and 6 months.
This system has been stolen from for decades but we're only supposed to live for about 6 or 7 years after retirement for the system to stay solvent. The system wants us dead before we bleed it too much!
-
In order to pay 20K into SS every year, one would have to earn an average of $135,000.00 annually. Remember you only pay in 15% combined from your AGI up to $106,500.00. This math is way off Mike unless I've misunderstood your reasoning.
I've worked for forty years and earned a little over $1,250,000.00 in my lifetime. My account currently has about 185K waiting for me to retire. That won't last long which is why they're raising the minimum full retirement age. I'm currently at 66 and 6 months.
This system has been stolen from for decades but we're only supposed to live for about 6 or 7 years after retirement for the system to stay solvent. The system wants us dead before we bleed it too much!
Tim, do you happen to know how much you paid in each mo/year and what it would be worth if compounded monthly (or yearly) at 2%?
And they haven't neglected us not living too long. If Obamacare remains, it will cover that concern.
-
Tim, do you happen to know how much you paid in each mo/year and what it would be worth if compounded monthly (or yearly) at 2%?
And they haven't neglected us not living too long. If Obamacare remains, it will cover that concern.
It would amount to a boat load more in my account. I was all for privatizing the SS system when it was considered by W and fully support Gingrich in his attempts to make young peoples accounts more private and manageable by the individual.
The Feds can't manage a liquor store or a whorehouse and make a profit. How in the world can we expect any different with SS or anything else for that matter?
-
It would amount to a boat load more in my account. I was all for privatizing the SS system when it was considered by W and fully support Gingrich in his attempts to make young peoples accounts more private and manageable by the individual.
The Feds can't manage a liquor store or a whorehouse and make a profit. How in the world can we expect any different with SS or anything else for that matter?
Agree on all counts.
I was just looking for a number so I could bitch and moan and whine and complain about it. Those seem to be my new hobbies.
-
Agree on all counts.
I was just looking for a number so I could bitch and moan and whine and complain about it. Those seem to be my new hobbies.
If I had a finance calculator I could run the numbers from my annual SS report but I think I'd probably faint at what the total would be!
I've stressed upon my daughter that she needs to max out her 401K for the rest of her life unless the Feds decide they want to steal that too! Then she can stuff money in her mattress if she has to. She's well aware that in forty years, when she's nearing retirement age, she and her man will be on their own!
-
That's an oops on my part :-[
Feds pay 3% on the investment (I typed no interest). Financial planners were using 7.5% in projecting retirement returns while selling during the 70's. I haven't researched what the feds are paying China these days, but I know that in the 70's and 80's they were paying far more than this on bonds.
-
If I had a finance calculator I could run the numbers from my annual SS report but I think I'd probably faint at what the total would be!
I've stressed upon my daughter that she needs to max out her 401K for the rest of her life unless the Feds decide they want to steal that too! Then she can stuff money in her mattress if she has to. She's well aware that in forty years, when she's nearing retirement age, she and her man will be on their own!
Be sure to point her at a Roth IRA if she can swing that.
Deposits are not tax deductible, but ALL earnings and withdrawals are.....under current law at least.
-
That's an oops on my part :-[
Feds pay 5% on the investment (I typed no interest). Financial planners were using 7.5% in projecting retirement returns while selling during the 70's. I haven't researched what the feds are paying China these days, but I know that in the 70's and 80's they were paying far more than this on bonds.
You know that is another very good item to put on my "Whine List".
The country is paying China interest on the money China gave them, but paid me no interest on the money I put into SS...and they stole the principal too.
-
Be sure to point her at a Roth IRA if she can swing that.
Deposits are not tax deductible, but ALL earnings and withdrawals are.....under current law at least.
I have and will continue to keep her current on what's available. Her mother and I have nothing put aside for reasons I won't get into here and she sees the result of poor planning/health related issues etc...
-
You mean states like Wyoming? ;D Sorry JC, you get $1.11 back for every dollar you pay. Here's a ranking amomg the states.
FQ13 who will note that Florida is subsidizing you at $.03 on the dollar. GET A JOB WYOMING! ;)
PS TW, New York only got back $.79 on every dollar paid out.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/fedspend_per_taxesbystate-20071009.swf
First of all you are neglecting that we get federal money to maintain 3 Interstate highways. Including 2 of the longest, and most traveled in the US. I-80 and I-90. Secondly we are one the top wind power producers in the nation. We have 1 Army base, (Camp Gurnsey) and one of the premier Air Force Bases in the nation. (F.E. Warren AFB). We also have more nukes stashed in the ground than we that live here even know about. This is why we get so much federal money. However, I would be curious to see if your study took into account population density when they figured those numbers. Beings how Washington D.C. has more people living there than in all of Wyoming. http://exploredia.com/population-of-us-states-2011/
You must also think about the fact that we have a 1.2 billion surplus in our state budget for this fiscal year and have maintained similar surpluses in past years. Consistently. We pay no state income tax, our education hasn't needed to be funded by a lottery, and our property taxes are some of the lowest in the nation. (The exception being Jackson Hole) Most of our taxes are paid by the Oil, gas and coal industries. But it has been the careful management of these royalties that has enabled us to maintain a healthy budget.
-
JC, one error I will point out, Camp Guernsey does not belong to "the Army". It is a National guard facility, as such, at least part, if not all, of the cost is passed on to the State. When we went there for annual training NHARNG had to pay for it, our trips to Fort Drum, which is Regular Army, however were free.
-
Good point, I overlooked the funding difference.