No, that's creating money. Money is not wealth, money is just a
Yes, food, water, and ammunition would be "wealth". And it could be
bought in exchange for some other good or service. But since the
person with the food, water, or ammunition might not need that good or
service right now, he takes an IOU instead (from someone he trusts).
Then one day he needs something from someone else who needs whatever
good or service that IOU is for, so he gives them the IOU. And after
a while people are trading IOUs back and forth and by golly there's
Even if it's backed by gold it doesn't have any intrinsic value beyond
the industrial value of the gold. The Spanish learned that they hard
way--they kept bringing mountains of gold from the New World but they
were never any wealthier for it--they just glutted the market. The
sad thing is that they melted down works of art that might have had
very significant value so as to make the gold they contained more
No, a business can't "create" money. But business in the collective
can devalue it by reducing the quantity of goods and services
available so that a given unit of money can buy less, which is the
other end of the government devaluing it by increasing the amount in
circulation to a degree disproportionate to the increase in goods and
So, what is your problem with the Eeevil middle class? And where do
you hear this stuff. I know no one who expects a disproportionate
amount of money from the "very rich" to pay for anything, and they've
certainly never offered or been forced to pay anything to anyone I
know. Maybe it's a northern, failing industrial city thing.
What I do hear is the parroting of Rush Limbough and Neil Bortz.
Don't you think that those who are enabled by this society to reap
such benefits should fairly contribute towards the well being of that
society, or is it purely dog eat dog?
Out of $2.568 trillion spent in 2006:
460 billion went to the Treasury and 406 billion of this was for
payment of Interest to bankers on loans.
520 billion went to the DOD/Military Industrial.
610 billion went towards Heath and Human services.
Education ate a whopping 61 billion.
The DOT received 56 billion.
NASA blew up 15 billion.
The EPA wasted 12 billion.
National Science Foundation collected 6 billion.
Currently, there is more being paid into the Social Security Trust
Fund than is being paid out to beneficiaries. What's left is routinely
"borrowed" and used as if it were general budget revenue. Government
agencies using that money promise to pay it back, yet all of the money
in the Social Security Trust Fund has been spent. That is now part of
the $9.1 trillion National Debt. Social Security is currently
operating as a very large tax collection tool.
As you can see, the bulk of expenditures are wasted on bankers,
military industrialists, and medical/subsidies. As far as I'm
concerned, the bulk of it could be eliminated. These are some of the
most concentrated groups of corrupt players on the dole.
Not around here they're not. Unless your definition of middle class
includes those who make $46 million a year - plus bonuses.
I've worked in electronics since childhood. And haven't worked for
anyone but myself in over 25 years. I've also never seen one thin dime
from the government in handouts, loans, or entitlements; and neither
have my family or friends. So wherever the money is going, it sure
isn't benefiting THIS "middle class moocher" one iota. I can't even
get these 'tards to do their freaking jobs equitably.
I have seen plenty of crooked mortgage companies, war profiteers,
developers, sports franchise owners, lawyers, hospital owners,
ambulance services, and politicians who game the system to their
advantage and against the public interest.
Still, it's a fraction of the money the Feds waste. But as bad as the
government is, privatization has typically faired far worse; with the
one glaring exception being the postal service.
Is there some law that says the government can't run a given program
as efficiently or more so than private industry? No? Then try
electing people who will demand performance and clean house of the
slackers who drag it down. The problem isn't the system per se, it's
the imbedded idiots who mismanage it for personal or political gain,
or through sheer incompetence.
I don't disagree with all of your contentions, but when the media
talking points appear I tune out.
Neither of whom I listen to on any serious level. The simple fact is
that middle class wants schools, healthcare, libraries, and so on
that it cannot itself afford. It wants laws passed that make the
wealthy pick up the tab for middle-class demands. This is ordinarily
called "theft", but you and yours have turned this into a
form of moral "obligation".
And who gets to decide what is "fair"? The mere fact that you want
something does not morally entitle you to theft. "Fair" means being
able to keep what you earn, not pick up the tab for everyone around
you who cannot earn what they want in their own right.
Now add social security and medicare and you will see that well over half of
that 2.5 trillion is social entitlement. NONE of which have Constitutional
authority for the Feds to play in.
Not quite true. Or at least that's not the whole story. Given the
expanding lifespans of the beneficiaries, a disproportionate number
of social sec recipients will live long enough to well extract more
than thye ever paid.
That is true. But this is the fault of social activists who see
government as the instrument for remediating any social ill and thus
wish to spend money like drunk sailors on leave on any and all of
their pet do-gooder programs.
So ... you fix this by getting the Feds out of the equation entirely.
Watch healthcare costs plummet the moment the industry cannot count
on government payouts, for example.
So when you retire, do the rest of us owe you healthcare and retirement
income beyond what you ever paid in? Are you entitled to lifetime
drug benefits? Just how far do you get to reach into my wallet
to pickup the costs of your life?
This is really simple. When government runs something, it has no
feedback from a market. When the private sector runs something it
either: a) Get's feedback from the marketplace or b) Acts dishonestly.
If a) then business either responds or goes away. If b) the
perps should go to jail. But government will always spend all it
can tax and borrow with *no* economic feedback whatsoever. What I
find astonishing in all these conversations is that government is
somehow better/more noble/more honest than those of us who actually
work for a living. Are you kidding? Poltiticians and their hack
appointees? Please. I'll take a dozen Enron execs over the putrid
pieces of garabage that inhabit D.C. any day. Enron went under
because it could neith succeed in the marketplace as a matter of reality
AND because the principals were caught with their hands in the cookie
jar. When was the last time a government appointee got booted out
for incompetence, fraud, or waste?
The "routine borrowing" is the law since the inception of SS. the trust
funds (and there are approx 150 of them) portion of the national debt is
about 4 trillion of the 9 trillion.
Folks that want the national debt eliminated should realize that it
would require 100% privatization of the SS and other trust funds as if
that debt were paid off, the trust funds would have to invest in non
government notes and equities, stuff it in matresses or bury it in
coffee cans somewhere.
Over 60% of the federal budget is for social programs. How SS and
medicare were justified under the commerce clause must have been an
interesting exercise in logic and law.
Monthly, in the form of a stipend check to each and every taxpayer.
Of course they would work better. Do you spend *any* significant
amount of time/money/effort to pay your state or local sales taxes?
This is no different. It abolishes the IRS and places the burden
of collection on the *seller* of goods/services who already has
the capacity to do this because of said local/state taxation
systems. Moreover, it taxes the underground economy - even drug
dealers buy Ferraris, for example. It is indeed fairer, simpler,
cheaper to administer, and has all kinds of other indicidental
benefits (like making markets more efficient by eliminating
capital gains taxation).
Tim Daneliuk firstname.lastname@example.org
As of 2006, some 1,000,000+ accountants earned a mean $61,000 a year;
the 100,000 or so employed by IRS didn't do as well, I guess, but that
makes another pretty solid block who won't want the current tax system
too seriously messed with. That does not include local tax collectors,
of course, who outnumber federal collectors pretty heavily.
That is just one group. You should be able to think of others,
including the host of politicians who can no longer take credit, and
collect bribes, for pushing through legislation to favor one small,
wealthy group or another.
It won't change much in my lifetime, and quite possibly not in yours.
Merchants do. And the costs of that time and effort are
passed onto the consumer (in essence, a hidden operating
tax) by way of higher prices for the merchandise.
I'm not clear on how forcing (at the point of a gun,
no doubt) every merchant to be a pro bono tax
collector for the Federal government is any more
moral or even efficient than requiring the taxpayer
pay the government directly.
If more efficient, it is only because some state and
local governments already force (again, at the point
of a gun no doubt) to collect THEIR taxes for them
How naive. The underground economy relies heavily on
unreported cash transactions. No sales tax is collected.
One time a person selling me a used car offered to falsify
the sale price on the paperwork to save me taxes. There
was nothing in it for him--he thought he was doing me
It comes with it's own host of problems and the only
reason why sales tax is not currently as big a mess
as income taxes is because the rates are still small
enough to not inspire the same degree of evasion
as does the income tax.
So it's OK for the Chinese to charge a 30 percent tariff on American
goods imported into China but we have to let them bring theirs into
the US without the same disadvantage? Sorry, but there's a difference
between "managing economics" and "levelling the playing field".
I see. Sounds simple, but now it's yet another "soak the rich"
So you are saying then that any piece of legislation must be carefully
evaluated for its effect on the economy and any that is found to be
beneficial must not be enacted? Would that not mean then that they
would be obligated to err on the side of caution and only pass
legislation that they were sure was _damaging_ to the economy?
Or are you so naive as to believe that passing a budget for the
Federal government will have _no_ effect on the economy?
I am saying that it is illegal for the Federal government to act
without having *specific* permission to do so in the matter at hand
in the Constitution. Examples of things where no such permission
is granted: Economic regulation, Education, Research, Healthcare,
Welfare, etc. Example of things specifically permitted: Defense
of the borders, running the courts, interstate commerce, running
the post office, etc.
Tim Daneliuk email@example.com
SCOTUS is not the law of the land. The Constitution is. The fact that activist
judges (on both sides of the political divide) have granted themselves power
to make law in their own image does not make it right.
So let's see, we've on the one hand got the opinions of a group of
experienced jurists, whose Constitutionally mandated job it is to
intrpret the Constitution and apply it as required to existing
statutes and case law, and on the other hand we've got the opinion of
some guy nobody ever heard of posting on USENET.
So who ya gonna believe?
Now you're talking "does not make it right". If you had taken that
tack you might have gotten more support, but you didn't, instead you
A bit Odd....isn't the Supreme Court charged or empowered to determine legal
or illegal, the limits of federal power or what is or is not constitutional?
Did I miss a ruling that demonstrates your position? Are you not confusing
your own personal preference for the actual law of the land? Rod
If the Supremes limited themselves to doing that, life would be grand.
When you have a Supreme court justice who has publicly declared that he
also consults the laws and judicial decisions of other countries in helping
arrive at his decisions, we have a real problem.
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.