Archive

Impressed by Trump administration

  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1839265 wrote:I did not say we should eliminate welfare, or the safety net, completely. Obviously there are some truly in need and they can get temporary assistance.

    DOE budget is indeed in excess of $70 billion.

    I said cut the IRS budget in half, then possibly eliminate it in the future if we dismantle the tax code. If it were sales tax collections that needed to be monitored it could be done for less than $200 million. Save $12 billion.


    We have massive redundancy regarding EPA; every state has one ............if we wish to spend $500 million coordinating oversight among states etc... we will save $8 billion, not counting the economic impact of getting these marxists off the ass of business.

    Fixing SS is actually easy to do, except when you are a ***** politician.

    And as for the last sentence, I have no respect for those in DC who have raped, plundered and pillaged the vast heartland of the nation and its people, nor do I, or anyone, have an obligation to continue to fund such horrific policy and actions.
    Cite your $70B number.

    The FY17 Request was $32.5B
    https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/02/f29/FY2017BudgetinBrief_0.pdf

    Everything you are talking about has been around since Reagan and before. Great ideas in theory, but in this political environmental, is simply impossible.
    Ideas are like assholes, we all have them.

    I guess the main point is really how to do you persuade members of Congress to make these changes to these programs?
    I have yet to see anything that is different or that would radically change things.

    Also, good to know how much he much you despise people in the DC area. I do hope you understand, not everyone here is like that.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1839223 wrote:When you say "missions aren't properly funded", you're speaking in terms of what was REQUESTED, right? Why does everyone associate spending increases with military strength when we are already spending 3X as much as anyone else?
    I mean, we do have the strongest military, and seemingly by a wide margin.

    But yeah, any correlation between funding and military strength will probably follow a pattern of diminishing return, even if everything is being spent responsibly.

    Beyond that, when you factor in waste, it limits the effectiveness of the current budget AND any new funding.

    It's like a person who walks into a grocery store with $200 for groceries, spends $60 on unneeded items, and then complains that they don't have enough to get the $180-worth of groceries they went in for.
    Heretic;1839237 wrote:Ah, the old Obama approach. Promise the world at the beginning and then step back and play the blame game when reality interjects and your promises aren't made. Looking forward to many years of Twitter-bitching as his plans fail due to not being remotely economically feasible.
    That's how you win elections, though. If you're Bush, you blame terrorists for all your country's ills in your first term. If you're Obama, you blame Bush for all the ills in your first term.

    If you're Trump, I'd wager you'd blame a combination of Obama and the media for everything.

    The blame game in federal politics is like baseball or apple pie. It's an American institution.
    gut;1839256 wrote:This is such a ridiculous pipe dream. Fine - eliminate the IRS. Then you'll have to create the "Sales Tax Revenue Service" to collect and ensure businesses are paying what they are supposed to. So long as you have a federal budget, you're going to need someone to collect the money and make sure people aren't cheating.

    It's like saying a company doesn't need a collections or accounts receivable department. Just naively foolish.
    Yeah, the IRS itself is going to be necessary as long as anything needs paid for at the federal level. I'm all for auditing the IRS and paring back its reach, but you can't really end the IRS unless you're an AnCap.
  • gut
    QuakerOats;1839266 wrote:"we can't do it" ........................... cry me a God damn river. We can do whatever we want to do; we just need to have the balls to do it. And frankly, this would be a piece of cake once the code is dismantled.
    If it were just sales tax, then with the aid of technology there are far fewer businesses to monitor. Except the most efficient tax system (from a revenue perspective), is actually NOT a single large tax - which greatly increases the incentive for evasion and cheating - but many smaller taxes where it's not worth it to cheat for the vast majority.

    You also have the issue of fairness and progressive taxation. That's why a single tax, whether income or sales, isn't optimal. Eliminating the IRS is neither feasible or practical, and emanates mostly from the loons that want to go back to the gold standard or eliminate the federal government.

    The IRS is basically the enforcement and and compliance arm of Treasury. You realize all tax payments - income, sales, capital gains even real estate - go to the Treasury? As long as you collect any taxes, you're going to have an "IRS" regardless of what you want to call it.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1839273 wrote:You also have the issue of fairness and progressive taxation. That's why a single tax, whether income or sales, isn't optimal. Eliminating the IRS is neither feasible or practical, and emanates mostly from the loons that want to go back to the gold standard or eliminate the federal government.
    Easy. There are reasons to like a backed currency while still acknowledging that the IRS is necessary as long as there is a federal government that isn't 100% donation/volunteer-based.
  • Apple
    It was refreshing to hear the President be so positive and not complain like he has been known to do. He sounded like a leader, presidential, and laid out an optimistic agenda that was very encouraging. Will it all come to fruition? It would be something that I would welcome. Lots of haters on both sides to contend with unfortunately.
  • Heretic
    QuakerOats;1839266 wrote:"we can't do it" ........................... cry me a God damn river. We can do whatever we want to do; we just need to have the balls to do it. And frankly, this would be a piece of cake once the code is dismantled.
    Sitting here and appreciating the irony of a dude who's done very little beside cry rivers over the duration of this site's existence telling someone else to "cry me a god damn river" because they disagree with his unfeasible ideas.
  • QuakerOats
    P-town, I am talking about the Dept of Education budget, which is indeed over $70 billion, perhaps you thought I was talking about the Dept of Energy ?? Of course, that is another bureaucracy that could be whacked, by at least half.


    And no, I don't "despise" the people of DC and northern VA, I am simply fed up with their feeding at the federal trough while ravaging the heartland of the nation. Some people think Wall Streeters should be in jail, I think a shitload of politicians, lobbyists and bureaucrats should be in jail.
  • QuakerOats
    Heretic;1839276 wrote:Sitting here and appreciating the irony of a dude who's done very little beside cry rivers over the duration of this site's existence telling someone else to "cry me a god damn river" because they disagree with his unfeasible ideas.
    If you think impoverishing future generations with trillions in debt makes sense, so be it. I think it is criminal. And when people say we can't change something, drastically, its because they are either lazy, stupid, or profiting from the status quo.
  • ptown_trojans_1
    QuakerOats;1839278 wrote:P-town, I am talking about the Dept of Education budget, which is indeed over $70 billion, perhaps you thought I was talking about the Dept of Energy ?? Of course, that is another bureaucracy that could be whacked, by at least half.


    And no, I don't "despise" the people of DC and northern VA, I am simply fed up with their feeding at the federal trough while ravaging the heartland of the nation. Some people think Wall Streeters should be in jail, I think a shitload of politicians, lobbyists and bureaucrats should be in jail.
    If you meant Education, it is DoED. DOE is Energy. You can't whack that by half as I mentioned...
    Yes, the Ed budget is around $70B.
    I had a post about keeping some Education stuff around, some pages back, but it probably could be scaled back.

    I get your last sentiment. It is what propelled Trump, but just don't cast us all in the DC area in the same lot.
  • gut
    O-Trap;1839274 wrote:Easy. There are reasons to like a backed currency while still acknowledging that the IRS is necessary as long as there is a federal government that isn't 100% donation/volunteer-based.
    The gold standard holds a place, rightfully so, alongside the horse and buggy. It's a dinosaur not suited to an efficient and well-functioning modern economy. The role of physical paper money in transactions and determining the "money supply" is smaller and smaller every year with electronic transactions and the many credit instruments out there.
  • gut
    QuakerOats;1839279 wrote:If you think impoverishing future generations with trillions in debt makes sense, so be it. I think it is criminal.
    And, yet, you are an ardent supporter of Trump. What he's proposing will, if implemented, significantly add to the deficit. No if's and or but's about it. His tax cuts are going to add to the deficit, and then he has trillions in new spending he's proposing and there's nowhere to get that money without carving up entitlements.
  • QuakerOats
    gut;1839273 wrote:If it were just sales tax, then with the aid of technology there are far fewer businesses to monitor. Except the most efficient tax system (from a revenue perspective), is actually NOT a single large tax - which greatly increases the incentive for evasion and cheating - but many smaller taxes where it's not worth it to cheat for the vast majority.

    You also have the issue of fairness and progressive taxation. That's why a single tax, whether income or sales, isn't optimal. Eliminating the IRS is neither feasible or practical, and emanates mostly from the loons that want to go back to the gold standard or eliminate the federal government.

    The IRS is basically the enforcement and and compliance arm of Treasury. You realize all tax payments - income, sales, capital gains even real estate - go to the Treasury? As long as you collect any taxes, you're going to have an "IRS" regardless of what you want to call it.

    I did not say eliminate it completely, unless the code was dismantled. But it could be cut in half now, with nary an issue. And no, real estate taxes are not sent to the US Treasury, maybe you meant estate (death) taxes. I also did not insinuate we should go to the gold standard. But to say that we cannot make radical changes to our tax system, that would also encompass major reductions in tax collection/enforcement is simply giving in to the status quo. We can, and should, do sooooooooooooooooooooooooo much better.
  • QuakerOats
    gut;1839283 wrote:And, yet, you are an ardent supporter of Trump. What he's proposing will, if implemented, significantly add to the deficit. No if's and or but's about it. His tax cuts are going to add to the deficit, and then he has trillions in new spending he's proposing and there's nowhere to get that money without carving up entitlements.

    Bull, but addressing entitlements will certainly be a positive.
  • gut
    QuakerOats;1839284 wrote:And no, real estate taxes are not sent to the US Treasury, maybe you meant estate (death) taxes.
    Property taxes go to the state and local municipalities. You do realize they also have revenue agents, it's just not called the IRS?

    What's your basis for claiming the IRS could be cut in half? They currently audit less than 1% of individual returns. And the IRS claims every $1 it spends on enforcement brings in $4 in revenue.
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1839279 wrote:If you think impoverishing future generations with trillions in debt makes sense, so be it. I think it is criminal. And when people say we can't change something, drastically, its because they are either lazy, stupid, or profiting from the status quo.
    Sweet. So I assume you oppose the current workers paying into Social Security, then.
    gut;1839282 wrote:The gold standard holds a place, rightfully so, alongside the horse and buggy. It's a dinosaur not suited to an efficient and well-functioning modern economy. The role of physical paper money in transactions and determining the "money supply" is smaller and smaller every year with electronic transactions and the many credit instruments out there.
    The point of a backed currency is to provide a stable standard of value for the currency, whether or not it's physical legal tender. Otherwise, the monetary system doesn't really have value beyond perception.

    For the record, I'm okay with a non-commodity-backed currency as long as it exists within a market of competing currencies, but I still cannot get behind the notion that it's okay to be told that we can only use USD for commerce, and that the USD is worth what it is because we say people think that's what it's worth.
    gut;1839287 wrote:Property taxes go to the state and local municipalities. You do realize they also have revenue agents, it's just not called the IRS?

    gut;1839287 wrote:What's your basis for claiming the IRS could be cut in half? They currently audit less than 1% of individual returns. And the IRS claims every $1 it spends on enforcement brings in $4 in revenue.
    Hey, look. It's "run like a business." Isn't that what so many people WANT government agencies to do? ;)
  • gut
    O-Trap;1839292 wrote: The point of a backed currency is to provide a stable standard of value for the currency, whether or not it's physical legal tender. Otherwise, the monetary system doesn't really have value beyond perception.
    Actually Bernanke made a simple and great point: You can fix the price of currency, or the price of goods. Going to the gold standard would mean the price of goods taking on the volatility of gold (and this is true if you look at history). Stable prices of goods is far, far superior. And there are many other problems with the gold standard.

    Returning to the gold standard is one of the worst economic ideas I've heard in the past couple of decades. Competing currencies isn't bad, and lot of top economists support that.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1839352 wrote:Actually Bernanke made a simple and great point: You can fix the price of currency, or the price of goods. Going to the gold standard would mean the price of goods taking on the volatility of gold (and this is true if you look at history). Stable prices of goods is far, far superior. And there are many other problems with the gold standard.

    Returning to the gold standard is one of the worst economic ideas I've heard in the past couple of decades. Competing currencies isn't bad, and lot of top economists support that.
    Bernanke's notion assumes that the commodity value is as arbitrary as currency value, but when you're dealing with a commodity with a rather static quantity, it's intrinsically less arbitrary than something the quantity of which is able to be increased at the push of a button, because rarity comes into play. As such, the potential for inflation is limited, making the backed currency relatively stable in value, as well as a good standard for other currencies.

    Now, granted, we're currently the standard anyway, but again, that's contingent on a belief that our currency is stable. There's nothing of substance to point to in order to validate the stability of our currency other than the fact that we are currently the biggest fish in the economic pond. That is certainly subject to change, though, and more easily so when there is nothing tangible to solidify the value.

    And I know you already get this, but whether or not it's "gold" is irrelevant. The advantage of precious metals is that their quantities are relatively fixed (with, as I understand it, a small potential for growth), which gives them an advantage over commodities like corn or wheat, the yearly yield of which can be dependent on environmental factors, but things like copper, silver, nickel, or even crude would work just as well (provided they are retained for the purpose of backing the currency).
  • QuakerOats
    http://ijr.com/2017/02/810965-trump-ditched-the-press-to-have-dinner-heres-how-the-president-acts-when-no-one-is-watching/


    Pretty cool ..... I had heard about this the other day .....and of course the lame-stream press goes ballistic
  • QuakerOats
    "Sweet. So I assume you oppose the current workers paying into Social Security, then."



    Thanks for the recognizing the ponzi scheme for what it is.
  • gut
    O-Trap;1839364 wrote: And I know you already get this, but whether or not it's "gold" is irrelevant. The advantage of precious metals is that their quantities are relatively fixed (with, as I understand it, a small potential for growth), which gives them an advantage over commodities like corn or wheat, the yearly yield of which can be dependent on environmental factors, but things like copper, silver, nickel, or even crude would work just as well (provided they are retained for the purpose of backing the currency).
    It's also a disadvantage. You don't understand that such rigidity is not good for a fluid and fast economy. The problem with a commodity based currency is your money supply growth, to quote Bernanke again, is based on "how much metal you dig out of one hole to put in another".

    Go read some actual economists to see how stupid an idea the gold standard is. Not to mention there's a misconception about what the gold standard would actually fix and how. You change leverage and reserve requirements and your money supply is no longer fixed, anyway. The entire concept is just selective nostalgia at best.

    It's not just the dominance of USD, either. Price stability is pretty consistent in almost every developed economy with a disciplined central bank. That's what Bernanke was referring to.
  • gut
    QuakerOats;1839447 wrote:http://ijr.com/2017/02/810965-trump-ditched-the-press-to-have-dinner-heres-how-the-president-acts-when-no-one-is-watching/

    Pretty cool ..... I had heard about this the other day .....and of course the lame-stream press goes ballistic

    “The President ordered a well-done steak. An aged New York strip. He ate it with catsup as he always does."

    jesus he really is a cretin.
  • Heretic
    gut;1839472 wrote:
    “The President ordered a well-done steak. An aged New York strip. He ate it with catsup as he always does."

    jesus he really is a cretin.
    Lol, yeah, if there's one thing that really worries me, it's that there's no way you can expect a person with that disgusting lack of taste concerning steak to be remotely competent unless his handlers keep him under lock and key.
  • Azubuike24
    It's mind-boggling how strict they are with security and the detail around Trump. For all the faults, it's actually pretty crazy how few times we hear of threats against major figures in this country.
  • fish82
    gut;1839472 wrote:
    “The President ordered a well-done steak. An aged New York strip. He ate it with catsup as he always does."

    jesus he really is a cretin.
    Yeah, that's more than a little troubling.
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1839448 wrote:"Sweet. So I assume you oppose the current workers paying into Social Security, then."



    Thanks for the recognizing the ponzi scheme for what it is.
    Certainly.
    gut;1839469 wrote:It's also a disadvantage. You don't understand that such rigidity is not good for a fluid and fast economy.
    Rest assured, I'm not suggesting that it's a perfect system. Complete rigidity (which a backed currency wouldn't actually produce) certainly does have its drawbacks. But what you lose in flexibility, you gain in stability.

    And while you can fire up the proverbial printer (or keyboard, for the current era) to suit your needs, doing so undermines the retention of value within any savings.

    A lower ceiling with a higher floor.

    Beyond this, there's obviously the question of which commodity to use, as commodity values are independent of one another. Even still, the fixed amount of it makes it less volatile than the arbitrariness of the current system.

    And then, of course, you have the ease with which counterfeiting takes place. Counterfeiting a Kruggerand is easier than a dollar bill, of course. But you still have to find the gold (assuming we're going with gold, though I'd prefer a metal with a lower unit value ... copper, maybe), and because the quantity of unaccounted-for gold is fixed ... and relatively small ... the potential for counterfeit is limited as well.
    gut;1839469 wrote:The problem with a commodity based currency is your money supply growth, to quote Bernanke again, is based on "how much metal you dig out of one hole to put in another".
    The problem with the alternative is that the parameters for manipulation to react to the inflation game become entirely subjective. An increase in the number of dollars isn't categorically good if their value isn't retained, at least in part.

    Beyond this, while Bernanke may have had a distaste for a commodity-backed currency, Greenspan suggested more recently that it would force more responsibility in an otherwise unchecked ability to adjust interest rates to fit short-sighted initiatives at the federal level.

    The notion that the gold comes out of a hole and goes into one is nothing more than a play on words, because he ignores the distinction in possession. The former is an absence of possession. The latter is a presence of it.
    gut;1839469 wrote:Go read some actual economists to see how stupid an idea the gold standard is.
    Would you consider Greenspan an economist? I would submit he has a very similar pedigree to Bernanke.

    I know George Mason has two faculty members in the Economics department who have won the Nobel Prize (both in Econ Sciences, I believe), both of whom I believe espouse a commodity-backed currency. Do they count?

    That isn't to say that there aren't of course brilliant economists who object to it as well. But certainly, it seems silly to write of either theory as "stupid," unless we put ourselves on a level to argue with the best minds to espouse the views.
    gut;1839469 wrote:Not to mention there's a misconception about what the gold standard would actually fix and how. You change leverage and reserve requirements and your money supply is no longer fixed, anyway. The entire concept is just selective nostalgia at best.
    Given how few people have experienced the full gold standard in today's era (not just the pre-Nixon variety), particularly people who were born after its effects were gone, it seems unlikely that it's just nostalgia.

    When it comes to a return to a commodity-backed standard, I think it's a moot discussion. The toothpaste is out of the tube, and I think trying to amass a singular commodity in reserve would be difficult to impossible. Beyond this, it doesn't fix the deficit problem as it exists today. Returning to it with the current views on spending at the federal level could leave us looking like pre-2000 Russia ... which did have a fixed currency, as I recall reading.
    gut;1839469 wrote:It's not just the dominance of USD, either. Price stability is pretty consistent in almost every developed economy with a disciplined central bank. That's what Bernanke was referring to.
    The notion of a "disciplined" central bank, though, is even subjective. Moreover, you solidify an institution in hopes that the banks will always be so disciplined, but that's certainly not the sort of thing we can predict with any level of assurance.

    Also, "ethical" would have to come into play. Discipline does little good without scruples.

    It's not without its comparison to branches of government. Many Democrats were creaming themselves at the idea that Obama had the right to sign the executive orders he did, and now, they're horrified that Trump has the same ability. Regardless of whether or not either of them were/are actually responsible with their use of that right, if we view it through the Democrats' perception, they laid the groundwork for misuse by assuming that the office would always be "disciplined" or responsible with such use.

    And back to a prior point, Bernanke's notion still fails to address the devaluation of money in holdings. Sure, adding dollars to the market doesn't necessarily harm the market as a whole (provided we can assume that the perception of the dollar remains fairly constant ... which IS still a requirement for this system to work), but they do diminish the value of portions of money within the market, because the portions represent a diminishing portion of the whole.

    I make no bones about the fact that there are advantages to a fiat system. Moreover, I concede that there are drawbacks to a backed currency system. I simply think that, based on the attitude toward spending at the federal level, the safety and stability of forced restrain is preferable to the spending power of a flexible currency.

    As a side note, I find Bernanke's (or was it Quince's?) points about "discipline" a little funny, given his connections to the whole AIG thing.