Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: geode00 who wrote (144258)	10/30/2008 3:34:14 PM
From: TimF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

If you do not pay them you will suffer the consequences. So according you the draft is voluntary, and if a mugger holds a gun on you and says "your money or your life", handing over the cash is voluntary? Simply make too little to be taxed Yes impoverish yourself and the IRS will refrain from doing it for you. "The portion of government spending needed to maintain those things is fairly small, certainly much less than a half, likely less than a tenth, possibly even a lot less." Where are your numbers? No one would have numbers, the terms aren't even fully defined much less the details of them. Trying to come up with specific numbers, reasons for them, and support of then numbers and the reasons would not be the work of an SI post but of a large book. If you pay me to write the book I'll do it, but I'm going to need an advance large enough to make it worth my time even if it doesn't sell. But while the specifics aren't something that can reasonably be made available in this format, the broad picture is obvious. Look at the federal budget. Subtract everything that isn't necessary for basic maintenance of order, and minimal infrastructure. Most of the budget is gone. Anything that isn't part of Defense, Intelligence, Homeland Security, Transportation, Energy, law enforcement or Interior would be gone, and much of the spending in those areas would be gone as well. Defense? Well it could be trimmed without the security of the country being in danger, whether or not it would be wise to do so could be argued, but it wouldn't be a disaster. Homeland Security - Its probably even less efficient than defense, and also at least some of its areas of spending aren't well connected to security and maintaining order. Law Enforcement - Look at the "war on drugs", or organizations like BATF. They aren't really necessary, and if the trend to federalization of crime was reduced you could also cut the FBI and other organizations. Energy and Transportation - A lot of pork in these departments even if you are going by the relatively strict definition of pork (which requires that the spending be earmarks put in by congress), and esp. if your talking about special interest budget money whether or not its part of a congressional earmark. "Payments to individuals, governments, or businesses that, under law, must be made to all those eligible and for which funds do not have to be appropriated in advance." What specifically is your problem with these? So, the government has obligations every year. So what? You dislike entitlements because they are constant obligations but you are ok with the WS bailout because they are not? What? I wasn't really talking about a problem with them, I just said that there are spending that isn't necessary in order to maintain security and order. But since you want to know my problem with them I'll tell you. They grow out of control, not being subject to even the minimal budget discipline that comes from a program having to be reauthorized each year. On reasonable projections entitlements, or perhaps even Social Security and Medicare each by themselves, could grow to be a larger portion of the economy than the whole federal government is today. So you are saying that it isn't ok to fund Medicare in the future Please quote and link to where I said that. You can't because I didn't. but it is perfectly ok to give $125 billion to AIG Please quote and link to where I said that. You can't because I didn't.